Fun talk:Friendzone

I was about to ask Why the hell do we have an article on being friendzoned? Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a topic that falls under discussion of gender and sexuality, and is a borderline men's rights conspiracy theory with no evidence that has become extremely popular online. ShadowUltra (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, it's only become popular in male-dominated communities populated by disgruntled Nice Guys™. The bad news is that such communities are way too common and the meme is dangerously contagious. - LucidFox (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Linguistic pedantry

As far as I know, it's a single word only when used as a verb.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not suggesting I'd be capable of rewriting this, but...

...the language register and snarkasm overdose kind of make the current state of the page Funspace material in my mind. Because it's pretty much a bunk idea shouldn't we sort of approach it with a modicum of seriousness to dispel any more "out-there" notions about it? For example, and I'm probably wrong, I for one believe it exists; in the simple sense of "I don't want to have sex / a relationship with you, nothing more, nothing less." but doesn't exist in the sense that some people construct it. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 16:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that it might behoove us to make the article a little less snarky/sarcastic, you lost me with: "I for one believe it exists; in the simple sense of "I don't want to have sex / a relationship with you, nothing more, nothing less."" What does that even mean? Why do we need a category to describe "people I do not want to have sex with?" By reifying that as a "thing," don't you end up doing exactly what these MRA assholes who play the "friendzone" card do -- create a "reasonable expectation" of sex? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Terrible wording on my part then, could have probably made more sense if I put nothing more nothing less outside of quotation marks. What I mean is that nobody should either be surprised or annoyed at the prospect that someone might not want to get romantically or sexually involved with them - and that goes in all directions, not something a woman does to a man specifically (which is why the way it's talked about is a bunk idea). The way I put it there made it seem like I think "The friend zone" as it's commonly known is a thing - I just mean that, surprise surprise, not everyone wants to have sex with everyone. I don't mean it as an actual designation / category / "zone". Does that make more sense? BBL, starving. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 16:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

BBL? Big Beefy Lunch? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this page may actually merit an expansion because it's a really great example of male entitlement; friendship with a female is seen as a crappy consolation prize by people who unironically refer to being in 'the friendzone.' Yet, there's no equal concept for females; do they consider themselves to be in 'the fuckzone' where males only ever seem to want to fuck them, never be friends with them? No? Why is that? (rhetorical question, it's an example of how the wishes of the woman in the friendship are seen as subordinate to the wishes of the man, a product of mainstream western society but is an attitude present in misogynistic cultures the world round.) ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 18:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this page may actually merit an expansion because it's a really great example of male entitlement; friendship with a female is seen as a crappy consolation prize by people who unironically refer to being in 'the friendzone.' Yet, there's no equal concept for females;

The problem with this view is both males and females (and transgendered etc.) can refer to being "friendzoned" when someone that they want a relationship with wants only to be friends with them. Obviously, the author(s) took issue with a particular usage, but articles like this encourage false generalisations about words, gender, entitlement, and pretty much everything that it touches. WilderG (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, anyone can be friendzoned, but if you're going to argue it isn't predominantly used by heterosexual men you're going to lose all credibility. Blue (pester) 10:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

An ugly side effect

What about a very ugly side effect, when the friendzoned guy posts unfunny sexist memes on various sites, most notably 9gag? Or maybe it makes them friendzoned due their jerkassness? ZILtoid1991 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "friendzoned" guy. There are "friends," and there are "guys who are bitter and petty because some girl won't fuck them." The "friendzone" does not exist. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A Question

While the general users of the term friendzone are in the wrong, I don't see why the term itself is demonized. Let's say a man was in love with a woman, but she only saw him as her best friend. Even if the man's asexual (not likely, but it exists, and so, it's a possible situation), people would call him sexist for using the term "friendzone", although it is not based on a sexual desire, but romantic, and he may not agree with men's rights activists, just be unhappy that while he is in love, the woman only sees him as a good friend (been there, done that, not there currently, since I know people are gonna ask). --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's because the people who use the term are the ones who ultimately decide it's meaning and contexts. Unrequited love is tragic, but it's not the 'friendzone' as constantly used by entitled people who believe sex and romance (or any relationship!) is a transaction. It would also be bad if someone thought that by repeatedly dragging someone to the movies, that would entitle them to be that person's friend. But the sex part of it comes from where masculinity-based entitlement (sex as proof of straight male status, denied sex = denied masculinity) meets that kind of transaction-based idea. It doesn't really matter what kind of relationship it is; transactional relationships are not good. Friendzoning is just one kind of transactional relationship that applies to a denied sexual relationship. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The section title led me to expect a question, but your comment didn't contain one . . .

Anyway, to respond to your points, I think the term "friendzone" is mocked rather than demonised. It's a pretty cheesy sounding phrase to use anyway, plus in most contexts (including the one above) it smacks of self-pity & resentment, & finally it's associated with a subculture of entitled "Nice Guys" or "love shies" or whatever, collectively wallowing in butthurt & romanticising their frustrations. Much like with "creep shaming".

The asexuality thing seems like a red herring. Even if we accept the somewhat iffy premise that a man is in love with a woman & also is asexual, I don't see how that makes his situation as you describe it (unhappy that while he is in love, the woman only sees him as a good friend) any different from a heterosexual man in the same situation. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

To all of you, thanks, and yeah, forgot to state it as a question. I myself am not asexual (but have had unrequited love, although it did end up being requited), but I brought that up in case someone were to argue that it would still have a sexual aspect (side note: in my situation, she's afraid of physical contact, so it is purely romantic for the foreseeable future). The reason asexual situation differs is simply because it removes the "wanting sex" portion. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Uhuh. There's somewhat of a false dichotomy between 'they are just friends' and 'they are fucking'. Can't you have a serious relationship with your girlfriend/boyfriend without sex? (rhetorical question, of course you can, there's plenty of people who are not in the right age for sex, but are romantically interested, they happen to be a significant part of the human population, you know) Nullahnung (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between "she just wants to be friends" and "the friendzone." The former describes an individual person exercising agency and free will according to her own desires. The latter connotes some sort of strategizing that fails to meet the desired outcome of the self-entitled loser love-lorn nice guy. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 00:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have only heard this term used in shitty american sitcoms. Is this actually a real thing or just some shitty plot device for romcoms? I note the lack of cites. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "actually a real thing". It's not a real place you'll find on maps, but it has a Wikipedia article. It has been (*at least partly) perpetuated by shitty American sitcoms. & Yeah, we should have some citations. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that the term "friendzone" is legitimate, but that many people take the wrong attitude towards it.

Imagine a man or a woman is attracted to a member of the opposite or same sex and tries to flirt with them. But instead of attracting the other person, they come across as being friendly and the other person begins to view them as a friend. It is hard to attract someone who sees them as a friend and knows their weaknesses as well as their strengths, and thus the person is "friendzoned". It is a legitimate observation of how a relationship progressed.

The problem arises when people become self entitled or use it to justify being a jerk. Someone who says "I tried to attract him/her but I ended up being friendzoned" is making an accurate observation, but someone who says "I got friendzoned, which is entirely unfair because I was so nice to him/her unlike the other people in his/her life" is demonstrating a sense of self entitlement. Similarly someone who says "I'm going to be a jerk to him/her in order to avoid being friendzoned" is in the wrong. RyanC (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

this is my reading of the term. But as I said, no cites. Even the opening quote is unattributed. Also, why is this a thing only about straight males. This can happen to anyone male, female, straight or gay. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is one of ShadowUltra's uncited bloggy drive-bys. Barely missional - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Move to Funzone?

Okay, that wasn't very punny but the satirical nature of this article doesn't seem to fit mainspace that well. Perhaps it should be thrown to fun and we write a more straightforward article on this? I volunteer to write it, of course. I'm not huffing hoping somebody else will do it. Zero (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Move to Shitespace and leave it there, I think - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought mainspace was suitable for satirical articles? I recommend moving it back to mainspace. Landmartian (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It was that, essayspace or delete it. It's a terrible rant - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Dismaying, discouraging.

This "article" is disgusting. As a woman, I feel a lot of dismay and actual fear from the hate expressed here towards females. It pushes the unrealistic view that men and women cannot be just friends, and unfairly blames women for this. Some of the language is really hateful, and I quote: "Feminazi witches" , "entrap faithful male slaves and feed off their friendship energy and good deeds", "Men are lured in by women", "women should be forced to give up sex under various circumstances", "Never speaking to women out of fear they may trap you", "all women are harpies out to steal your emotions", "the only part of a woman with any value whatsoever is her gross sticky girly thing"...

To the author of this page, I'm sorry you feel that you have been hurt at some point by a woman, and judging by your writing, you probably are wholly unable to see any part of your fault in whatever happened, but an article with such hate towards females really has no place here. I would say "can't we just be friends" but sadly, judging by your writing, this could never happen. This page is not fun, funny or snarky, it's just bad. After reading this, my day just got a little darker... like before reading this there was a day with sunshine and flowers and a clear blue sky with a rainbow, but after, it's now dark and stormy with cold winds blowing, I can feel the chill in the air. I feel sad and desolate. Please just get rid of this ugly, gross page full of hate directed towards women. Refugee^{talk page} 20:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a winking smiley. Does that make it easier to handle? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(EC)Dear Refugee, you have been severely and utterly mislead by a shallow case of Poe (unless you were doing some kind of convoluted parody with your post, in which case I'm the real victim of a Poe). Nullahnung (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This article makes fun of the idea, that's why it is called a "fun page", so its a parody, they dont believe this. ^{— Unsigned, by: 104.0.97.154 / talk / contribs} 15:04, 3 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Yeah dude this is a parody page dont bleiv3e nay page labeled with the Fun namespace. Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness`} 15:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This section was started a long time ago, yo. No need to reply to the dead thread. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 15:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, neither of you two realized that this article wasn't in the funspace at the time. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 15:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

bubba41102 escapes the awkward situation by 30x homeopathic diluting his stealth gene Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness`} 15:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the archetypical friendzoned guy like?

It seems like the archetype feminists use, when they talk about the friendzoned guy, is that there's an Elliot Rodger type of guy who feels like he's entitled to sex for being such a nice guy. This guy, they say, is actually a jerk because he "expects" sex as a reward for being nice. If he were a true nice guy, he would have no objection to her using him as a source of emotional comfort while giving sex to guys she finds more attractive and exciting. But the fact that he points out, "You're having sex with guys who meet the exact description of what you say is the kind of jerk you don't like to be with, and rejecting guys who meet the description of what you say you want in a man" means that he is the one who is actually being a jerk. He is supposed to keep his mouth shut about that, and be content to go home and masturbate while she gets banged out by badboys, without pointing out any contradiction between her stated preferences and her behavior.

I think a better archetype would be the guy Sean Mendes is portraying, in "Treat You Better". The guy who hangs around trying to curry women's favor by befriending them has probably thoroughly bought into the feminist/blue pill narrative of how relations between the sexes work. He's not going to get mad at her if she rejects him; he'll just blame it on the guy she chooses over him, for being so manipulative that she keeps falling for him. In the song, he's noting that she has chosen the jerk over him, but he doesn't express any anger at her for her decision, or say that he has a superior claim to her body than this other guy does. He's just encouraging her to do what he thinks would be the better for the both of them.

The fact that he's familiar with her situation and talking to her about it suggests that he's the friendzoned guy whose shoulder she cries on, when she's not banging the other guy. Dr. Carson (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Has the crazy thought of leaving the friendzone ever crossed your mind? The primary reason for mockery of the "friendzoned" is that you choose to stay in the "friendzone" AND whine about it online, sharing your frustration with anyone, except for your fuckzoned object of interest, apparently. This is why you're both a jerk and and an idiot. You put yourself in the friendzone, period.

So why would someone stay in the relationship that doesn't fit their preferences? Indeed. You claim that the girl is being manipulated by her abusive partner, completely oblivious to the fact that it mirrors your own view of how you are being treated by her (being used as a cry pillow) and won't fucking leave?

No matter how often you will be told that women don't prefer jerks and you're not actually nice, you won't wrap your mind around it, because it doesn't match YOUR picture of the world where anything but your poor choices makes you a "martyr".

The kind of guy who is endlessly shaming women in the internet sure as hell seems nice. And you summed it up well with the idea that pretending to care ("nice guy") is better than actually care ("mangina"). Brilliant. Aliveslice (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid "just leaving" could be construed by many as butthurt, toxic and "mgtow-ish" as well. "What do you mean, you are ready to discard a genuine friendship simply because you are never going to get what you want out of it?" IMO it's the mature thing to do to simply walk away instead of tormenting yourself so yes - in this way it is indeed men who friendzone themselves. However, being overly sensitive to "friendzone symptoms" such as for example reacting with hostility when a female associate begins to tell you about how shitty her boyfriend is, is also widely frowned upon. Sometimes men are not the only entitled ones, apparently. 46.169.39.77 (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)