quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I didn't intend to, she forced me to, I did something stupid and asked her if she wanted to hang out in a couple days, and she asked why and I said I wanted to talk to her and then she started freaking out. So I ended up telling her there, at that point it was almost to spite her for being so hasty in wanting to know what was up. And in reference to old logs I was reading logs with someone else. We were bored and skype sharing desktops and decided to read logs from way back in the day, and I had mentioned to the person I was reading logs of/with in the logs that I had apparently txt'd her again, but if I remember that right she was baiting me to say it... Man that girl was sorta messed up now that I think about it... There was a thread on the first one but it got deleted in Neos great purge of the Nou. I asked the cor for advice.

Wow, you sound exactly like me. When I was 15.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

You can justify that as over 10 years ago, Cliff.

But so can I.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira What I mean is: the whole concept of friendzoning someone because "you somehow placed yourself in the wrong ladder because you were slow" is utter bollocks - personality traits can (and do) make someone more or less attractive, but these are usually borderline cases in which you did already think the person was somehow attractive but not special enough to pursue a relationship with... and vice-versa.

I just reread the entire ladder theory to answer this, so cheers for that. And basically, you're getting it wrong. The ladder theory doesn't mention speed at all, it just says women put some men on a friends ladder and some on the "real ladder", based on fairly initial judgements. But then, I think the ladder theory is basically bollocks.

If we're not going on that theory, where does this "too slow" idea come from? You speak of it like it's a given, when it's not part of the "official" theory. Until we've established some rigorous idea of what exactly we mean by the "friends zone" and how we think it works, there's no point in arguing whether it's true or not. Which leads me to this:

quote:

You've ditched someone attractive because it took them too long to make up their mind?

Well no, because that's not what I mean when I talk about a friends zone. I mean the case of having a friend who you'd originally be interested in a relationship with, but when they make an advance on you, you reach the decision that you'd "just like to be friends", even though physical attraction is there. Some people have this idea that friend-zoning has to motivated by a fear of destroying the close bond of a friendship with a problematic relationship, but I think that's merely a specific reason to friend-zone someone. And yeah, I think that's bollocks. If you're attracted to someone and you're that close to them, I don't see how you're not already practically in love with them.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

lol "old logs" lol

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I just reread the entire ladder theory to answer this, so cheers for that. And basically, you're getting it wrong. The ladder theory doesn't mention speed at all, it just says women put some men on a friends ladder and some on the "real ladder", based on fairly initial judgements. But then, I think the ladder theory is basically bollocks.

So do I. I apologise for using the analogy without making my references or, for that matter, my definitions clear. If you want a "literature review", this is what I've got: loads of inconsistent definitions surrounding a recurring theme.

I guess this leads us to the following bit:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If we're not going on that theory, where does this "too slow" idea come from? You speak of it like it's a given, when it's not part of the "official" theory. Until we've established some rigorous idea of what exactly we mean by the "friends zone" and how we think it works, there's no point in arguing whether it's true or not.

I agree with you. I was hasty to start the debate without making everything clear because I thought there would be no point in start a new thread and start everything from scratch, but I was obviously mistaken, as there's the chance we're arguing past one another. Naturally, I can't vouch for the accuracy of my definitions, but I'll start with the following working hypotheses to see if it's a good starting point. If we're good to go, then we carry on debating:

• Minger morality: It's more of a parody of Nietzsche's slave morality, but works perfectly well in this case. The way I see it, the Friend Zone myth exists only because, according to minger morality, it is possible not to get what you want because you're too good for that.
  
• The Friend Zone Myth: A relationship limbo, in which you want to get it to the next level, yet you're relegated to the status of friend (or, worse yet, romantic partner without benefits) because of something you do ("You're too nice") rather than because of what you are (that is, unattractive to the person in question). In this sense, the rejection is turned upside down by the minger morality, and it leads to a distorted "win-win" situation - if you're rejected, it's because you're nice; if you're a jerk, you get what you want. Hence the xkcd comic.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Has anyone here found that you're better at making friends with the opposite sex than with your own? For the past five years or so that's been the case for me. Not sure why... Of course I've seen a number of guys here say that men either can't really or shouldn't be friends with women outside the context of looking for sex. But I say that's a load of crap. What about you?

i thought about counting the few friends i have on FB to see how many boys/girls there were... , then i realized they aren't my friends..

i can't remember who is actually my friends or not. i would say i make friends with both genders pretty much the same. i am terrible with names, and am a bit of a character, so all my friends seem to "use me as an example", bite me, hate me, or miscontextualize me. bottom line is nobody ever takes me seriously.

with my male friends, i have some good, or, more easy to get along with friends, but due to circumstances, life, and fate, we never are allowed enough time to be friends and hang out.

for the female friends i have, i try to be nice, but i think girls just cannot run as fast, and do things as strongly, so i just use them for girl knowledge. they usually do not respect me...

ones that have serious bf's or husbands or whatever, usually do not talk or tell me about them. the ones that do, always talk about them inappropriatly...at the wrong times, in the wrong context, etc. looking for sex is something that i do, but a lot of girls i know do not know how to flirt, in any way, or flirt terribly, forgetting to at least be kinda nice. it would be nice to make a friend that is a girl, but, at least with me, they are extreme users. sometimes they are nice and cool and share, but in those cases they almost always do that to steal moments and memories.

i've never had a friend that is female, close enough to call a sister. i get used frequently by everyone, male and female. it's tough for me to even understand when there is family moments going on, my family uses me a lot too. people are fucking terrible. i really miss a lot of people i know all the time though...nothing can be done except hope i get to see any of them, again i guess.

Last edited by st3nc on Dec-10-2011 at 07:44

quote:

Originally posted by st3nc for the female friends i have, i try to be nice, but i think girls just cannot run as fast, and do things as strongly, so i just use them for girl knowledge. they usually do not respect me...

Shocking

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lira So do I. I apologise for using the analogy without making my references or, for that matter, my definitions clear. If you want a "literature review", this is what I've got: loads of inconsistent definitions surrounding a recurring theme. I agree with you. I was hasty to start the debate without making everything clear because I thought there would be no point in start a new thread and start everything from scratch, but I was obviously mistaken, as there's the chance we're arguing past one another. Naturally, I can't vouch for the accuracy of my definitions, but I'll start with the following working hypotheses to see if it's a good starting point. If we're good to go, then we carry on debating: Minger morality: It's more of a parody of Nietzsche's slave morality, but works perfectly well in this case. The way I see it, the Friend Zone myth exists only because, according to minger morality, it is possible not to get what you want because you're too good for that. The Friend Zone Myth: A relationship limbo, in which you want to get it to the next level, yet you're relegated to the status of friend (or, worse yet, romantic partner without benefits) because of something you do ("You're too nice") rather than because of what you are (that is, unattractive to the person in question). In this sense, the rejection is turned upside down by the minger morality, and it leads to a distorted "win-win" situation - if you're rejected, it's because you're nice; if you're a jerk, you get what you want. Hence the xkcd comic. Would you agree this myth exists and that it is no more than a myth made to protect mingers from acknowledging that they just don't stand a chance?

I don't agree with you. It's certainly the case that some men use the idea of the "friend zone" (not a term I'm fond of) to rationalize rejection based on a mere absence of physical attraction on the part of the woman. However, it's not correct to dismiss the concept entirely because of the fact that some people mistakenly identify it as the root cause of their romantic ills.

To begin with, it seems like you're treating female-to-male attraction as if it were the same as male-to-female attraction. That's a mistake. In my experience, while a man's attraction to a woman is usually based largely (if not overwhelmingly) on her physical appearance, I would say that women's attraction to men is, in general more about what I would describe as how the man "carries himself." That is, primarily, his behavior.

So I want to do away with the rigid dichotomy suggested in your definition of "The Friend Zone Myth" between "something you do" and "what you are." How you behave or "carry yourself" is very much a part of what makes you attractive or unattractive to a woman. It's not the only part--looking like Nou and/or Quasimodo is going to make things a lot more difficult--but it's a major part. For precisely that reason, exhibiting certain behavior (e.g., being "too nice") can make you "unattractive" to a woman when exhibiting different behavior might have made you attractive to her.

Now, the idea of being "too nice" goes back to some of what you were saying about guys rationalizing their rejections. The word "nice" has a positive connotation. Some of the time, though, the rationalization is just in the connotation. A different way of characterizing their behavior is not as "nice" but rather "obsequious." A lot of guys don't seem to grasp the difference between being nice and being obsequious. That's where they get into trouble.

By behaving in an obsequious manner towards a woman, how is a man carrying himself? Does does his behavior reflect confidence and self-respect, or desperation and insecurity? The answer is the latter, and it should take no great insight to realize that a man who behaves in a desperate, insecure way is thereby making himself less attractive to women.

So, now that the woman finds this man unattractive, is she going to tell him to get lost? Likely not. After all, he's basically made himself her servant and is getting nothing in return, so where's her incentive to terminate the arrangement? So she tells him she just wants to be "friends," i.e., that she's fine with him continuing to be her servant, but that she doesn't intend to give him anything in return. So he fancies himself as having been "friend zoned" for being "too nice." But really, he's no "friend" and being merely "nice" was never the issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter looking like Nou and/or Quasimodo is going to make things a lot more difficult

I rarely have unattractive female friends.

Wall of

quote:

Originally posted by Lira But what triggers this contradiction? So, wait, hold on there for a second: I say my definition of friend-zone is bollocks, you say the same about your definition. Don't we arrive at the conclusion that, no matter how you put it, this whole concept is nothing but utter bollocks?

I think you've split my post at the wrong point there. When I said "that's bollocks" I was referring to this: "a fear of destroying the close bond of a friendship with a problematic relationship". In other words, the idea that two people are "too good as friends" to risk ruining it. I'm sure some people have made this decision, and I don't know the specifics of their lives, but I think it's mostly a myth.

As for what triggers the contradiction... the fact that you can be friends with someone and attracted to them, but know that they aren't right for you? Perhaps they have very different requirements from a relationship. Perhaps they are okay from the distance of normal friendship, but if you were to spend more time in their company you know you'd get sick of them. Perhaps it would be just too socially awkward, for various reasons.

I think the basic truth that the ladder theory inadvertently hints at is that it's easier for women to get sex than men, and so they are much more likely to say no to someone they are attracted to, because they are likely to have many more options. I don't think it's particularly true that physical attraction is less important to women - the most frequent place I pull by far is on a dancefloor, where there is no verbal communication at all and almost no indications whatsoever of job, wealth or social standing, just physical judgement. There would hardly be any heterosexual one-night stands based on dancing in clubs if physical attraction wasn't very important to women. Physical attraction is still very important to women, but because they have more options they are more picky about who they can say yes to, and thus are more likely to turn down perfectly viable partners and keep them as friends because there's probably someone better in the frame. All of which is why women more frequently decide "He's not right for me" and "Let's just be friends", much to the frustration of men everywhere.

As for this issue of speed, I don't know if that's part of the myth or there's some truth in it. Certainly that one is up for debate. Based on what I've said so far, I should think it's plain bullshit. And yet I do worry about it. I don't know if going too long before pulling the trigger increases the chances of someone changing their perception of you, or whether they're merely more likely to describe you as a friend the better you know them.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I don't think it's particularly true that physical attraction is less important to women - the most frequent place I pull by far is on a dancefloor, where there is no verbal communication at all and almost no indications whatsoever of job, wealth or social standing, just physical judgement. There would hardly be any heterosexual one-night stands based on dancing in clubs if physical attraction wasn't very important to women.

I doubt anyone would argue that physical appearance is unimportant to women in the context of one-night stands. Rather, I think the idea is that appearance is unimportant to their forming a long-term relationship (compared to the typical male value hierarchy, anyway).

Not sure if I agree with that.