Question about the 'friendzone'

Post Reply New Topic

That isn't being "friend zoned", it's being manipulated and letting someone do it. You are allowed to say "piss off"

We can call it "They're just not attracted to me", we can call it "they never think of me as a dating material", we can call it "I am sexually invisible to them"..... Or we can also call it "friend zoned by them".

But since you so insist that it doesn't exist then let's call it the unicorn zone.

Isn't it funny boo, how most the people who have problem with the friend zone are female?

Even some women will say it exists and they themselves got friend zoned. It's usually attractive women who say it doesn't exist and they'll the ones most likely to do it.

For your information, being manipulated like that is nowadays one of the meanings of the word friendzone. Another definition (words can have multiple definitions) is when a girl is not interested in romance and just wants to keep being friends, and in that case it's nothing bad and the rejected just has to accept it.
People nowadays use that word mostly to indicate these two things, you can say that it doesn't exist but the word is actually used.

Edit: oh another instace is when he/she tells you nonsense like "we can't date because we are friends" etc, when they are simply not attracted to you.

You should read the entire text. It's a great book, both diabolical and entertaining. The purpose of 48 Laws is to shed light on historical styles of leadership as demonstrated by prominent historical figures. It illustrates and explains each law, transgressions of the laws, and any reversals of the laws. The basis for those laws is human nature, and the book serves as a rich commentary on that nature.

It's not even my favorite book on leadership and power. My favorite (besides the Old Testament wisdom writings and the New Testament gospels) is still 7 Habits while my second fav is Dale Carnegie's book. I like 48 Laws for it's irreverence and bluntness. There's a good reason why it's favored by prison inmates.

But the idea that doesn't apply to everyone, or I'm somehow projecting something? Everyone is selfish. And if you claim you're not selfish, then you're self-righteous. There's no shame in owning that, and it opens a wide window into understanding others once you accept that about yourself.

One other issue is dealing with insecurity. Everyone is insecure about something, and I can't think of anyplace else this is more prominent than in serious relationships. Read the wiki article on Fouquet. King Louis XIV had just gotten out from under the shadow of a very powerful minister and had no intention of being ruled by another one. Meanwhile, Fouquet just assumes the king will appoint him as his replacement. Meanwhile, Fouquet's crib rivals Versaise. Fouquet "honors" the king by throwing a massive party at his estate. For that, the king had him thrown in prison for life. What lesson did we learn from this? Playing on someone's insecurities only breeds fear and resentment. Hence law #1: Never outshine the master.

Everyone without exception is insecure and selfish.


See what I mean? You're selfish. It has nothing to do with the other person. It's all about you. Ecclesiastes 7:20. It was true thousands of years ago, and it's still true today.

And like it or not, gifts play into the insecurities of others. If you don't balance the debt by returning favors, you're a mooch. I struggle with this because I don't have the financial means to give back. What I usually do is pay it forward, investing in the emotional capital of and building trust/security with people who are less fortunate than I am. I owe at least that much to those who have helped me.

And the more I practice reciprocity, the more I find myself thrown into positions of power, trust, and authority and, hence, the higher the stakes for failure. I enjoy seeing others succeed. I've read that would happen, I've listened to motivational speakers and mentors who said it would happen, repeated it to others, and then was shocked when stuff started happening to me because, well, nothing good EVER happens to me. The Golden Rule just works.

To summarize: people are fundamentally selfish and evil. Reciprocity shifts selfish desires outwardly to work for the good of all. Investing emotionally in others, while not carrying the immediate expectation of any return, does carry the hope that people will come through for you when it counts.

The free lunch, on the other hand, along with outshining the master, plays on the insecurities of the target. It creates emotional debt that one may not have the means to repay. In either case, such emotional debt can lead to resentment and the loss of a relationship or friendship. If the relationship is that important to you, it is best not to accept inappropriate gifts, especially if those gifts are intended as an insult and attack on your SO.

That's always been my definition of it, though I'm aware some people use the term fairly indiscriminately to refer to opposite sex platonic friendships. I've certainly seen advantage taken of unreciprocated romantic feelings, usually in the form of requests for "favors" that would fall far outside the bounds of things one would normally ask of a friend.

If someone doesn't want to date you, they don't want to date you. I've been put into the "only useful for sex" zone, and it's quite upsetting. Wipe your bum of these people because they aren't worth knowing.

It's not about seeing someone as "ugly" it's not about looks, especially with women. You can "grow" to like someone's wonky teeth, or their shortness, and it's usually when you have a fab personality. A guy I worked with at my previous job was like that.

"friend zone" is more a term used when you're pissed off that they only want to be friends. Friends is not a bad thing it all, it's a hell of a lot more respect than you'd get being someone's cum dumpster, they don't even talk to you unless they want to get laid.

But still. I got over those guys and blocked their ugly arses. You should do the same.

What a bunch of stupid and inaccurate assumptions.

I disagree with just about everything you said, as I believe that not EVERYTHING that people do is selfishly motivated in the way you describe, and I don't think everyone is fundamentally evil. Agree to disagree and be done with it.

Aaaaaand human insecurity rears its ugly head. You can't afford to be wrong. Hey, been there, done that.

I'll share a couple of mine: I'm afraid that all I do for my family isn't good enough and that I could lose them at any time. Which makes dealing with this fake friend difficult because I'm never quite sure I'm perceiving the situation objectively. Another one of my issues is letting go of a past abusive relationship. Everyone has a button to push, some issue they have to work through that they'd rather people didn't know about. It helps to own it. If you don't, it's easier for someone to manipulate you and make you lose your $h!t over things that don't really matter. I'm an abysmally horrible teacher and well aware of it, yet I show up every day to teach music to nearly 20 middle school kids. At the end of the day, the school is better than it was before I came in because I'm initiating an arts program that wasn't there before. And when I build it strong enough to sustain itself to make it attractive enough for a "real" teacher to run it, I'll probably step aside and let someone else take it over.

Own your insecurity, and you will make it hard for your enemies to use it against you.

Sorry you disagree with EVERYTHING I say, but reciprocity is actually a thing. Jesus' formulation of it is my favorite, but Jesus quoted the Old Testament when He taught it. I'm sure there are wisdom writings and other religions that pre-date the Bible that teach some form of reciprocity. I'm a big fan of Dale Carnegie, who in turn was a huge fan of Abe Lincoln. These guys were masters of the Golden Rule.

This is true - but at the same time, no-one is automatically entitled to another person's friendship either. It's the right of every individual to choose who they do and don't want to be friends with, for whatever reason.

Sounds like the female equivalent of "only useful for whatever I euphemistically call 'friendship', whose one clear defining property is that it excludes sex". Men have as much of a right to be upset by it as you do to be upset for being considered "only useful for sex", and to decide women who put them in that category aren't worth their time, either. Especially considering you have to spend a lot more time when you need to approach potential partners than when you can just filter among those who approach you.



Neither is sex, or is it? Anything can be a bad thing if you don't want it, no matter how much those starved of it envy you and may feel insulted by how little you value it.



If you feel like his "cum dumpster", why are you having sex with him in the first place? I think it's supposed to be enjoyed by both parties.

Anyway, unless you're raped, which is a different story, I don't think being a tear dumpster is much more respectful than being a cum dumpster.



They don't even talk to you unless there's something preventing them from enjoying the company of a guy they actually find attractive. Then they have better things to do than spend time with you; for example, having sex with said guy.



I suspect there's something more to your story than you've shared here, but the simple fact that a guy is only interested in sex with you doesn't make him evil. At most, it means you have no mutual interest in doing anything with him, so you should both move on. No need to hate each other.

Yes, it does make him evil if he she makes it clear from the beginning that she wants more than just sex.

Last edited by Peacesells on 25 Sep 2016, 12:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

That's an extra assumption. I wasn't talking about the case when someone deceives the other person. And, even in that case, the evil lies in the deceit, not in wanting just sex.

What's the story of the fluid dumpsters? What else dumpster is there?

Solid dumpsters. Very fitting, since I have more or less given up on relationships because of all the mierda del toro involved.

Last edited by Tim_Tex on 25 Sep 2016, 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.