On friendzoning

Nov 07, 2012 11:40

Friend-zoning has become rather condemned. I am torn, because while I see definite problems with many of the situations where people complain they've been friendzoned, I think they're using the term outside its original concept.

"I don't want to damage the friendship"
To me, friendzoning is about asking a girl (or guy) out and being met with this response. I have a friend who has been told by several of his female friends that they like him, but they won't date him, because they don't want to damage the friendship.* I find this deeply confusing. I can think of a variety of good (and bad) reasons not to date my friend, but the fact that he is a friend shouldn't be one of them.

After all, what is the goal of the dating process? I think it can be fairly abstracted as "find someone you feel deep and abiding affection for, who you are physically attracted to, and with whom you can spend a mutually agreeable amount of time."

Apparently, these women are more willing to try and do that with semi-random strangers than to risk their friendship with my friend (who has logically accomplished at least one of those). Which, I think, just makes it more clear that they should date him, since the thought of losing his friendship is evidently enough to drive them out into the cold and snowy romantic wilderness, to see what beasts may come.

There would seem to be two different conclusions here: either they're lying to him, or they're behaving in a way that's at least a little irrational. Either way, it's OK
to be upset. And considering the fact that it happens with some frequency, I think it's fair to come up with a sarcastic term for the phenomenon.

And thus, when I think of my friend, I think it's OK to shake my head and say, "Damn, he's been friendzoned."

* I am fairly sure they mean this, and it is not just shorthand for "I don't want to do him." I could be wrong.
Previous post Next post
Up