|
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
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. |
There's some truth to it, but I find it hard to accept that a wimpy Brad Pitt would get no girls and an awesome Quasimodo would be a womaniser. I mean, Sartre had the lazy eye and all, but I can't believe his lovers were numerous.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
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. |
Fair enough, I may have gone overboard in my rejection of the influence of behaviour but colour me sceptical: if your overall attitude is attractive (i.e. you have goals in life, you're independent and relaxed) you therefore look more attractive; so it'd be inaccurate to sharply make a distinction there, you're right.
However, it's still more of an attitude to life than something you do(n't do) to a girl.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
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. |
That's precisely one of the points I want to make, as it's the #1 excuse to get locked in the "friend zone", it seems.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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. |
I'd most definitely agree.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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 see. Well, you do have a point there, though I can't imagine how you can be friends with someone and still think they're romantically inapt for you.
The best I could come up with is a friend I have who's very funny, but judging by her rants, if I weren't committed and tried to pursue a relationship with her, we'd probably fail as a couple. But then I'd probably think... if I were attracted to her, and believed it might not work, I'd rather take a chance and hope I was wrong.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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. |
Agreed.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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. |
Oops, I knew I forgot to say something. Damn multitasking 
Here's why I reckon speed is crucial: If you're both single, and you take too long to do anything, it's probably a sign that (1) you're not interested and therefore make her get over you; (2) you don't have what it takes to go after the things you want, which is a behaviour about as attractive as collecting old socks; or (3) you're not sure she fancies you so you hold back because you know it'll probably lead to an unpleasant situation.
Both (1) and (2) are avoidable. (3) is just delaying the inevitable if you find it hard to get over a person you hang out with.
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
|
