Do you feel bad friendzoning people?

[Gamdwelf]

To someone who doesn't automatically assume romance is on the table, they are being straightforward. To them, if you want a relationship with someone, the impetus is on you to say so. If you don't say anything, then they will assume it isn't.

Yeah, but you aren't friendzoned until you have made your feelings clear and you are requited with an unmeaningful response.

[rayden54]

Yeah, but you aren't friendzoned until you have made your feelings clear and you are requited with an unmeaningful response.

Again, the point is that they don't realize such a response is necessary and think their feelings (or lack thereof) are perfectly clear.

You think it's manipulative to "lead someone on" by not telling them you aren't interested. They wouldn't see themselves as leading you on at all. As far as they're concerned they've already made their feelings perfectly clear from the start--they aren't interested unless they say otherwise.

[Hana Song]

Reject them and move along, don't string them along to get favors/money out of said person.

I don't string someone along

[May90]

If your first social outing is a one-on-one dinner and it isn't about business... saying that romantic advances are unexpected seems silly though. Context seems pretty important.

I think it is silly to expect romantic advances in any situation in which neither side has expressed an interest in them.

[Chirri]

No.

Friendzoning exists where there is miscommunication, typically from the person with unrequited feelings. One sided dating is unfair to both parties, but anyone bitching about being friendzoned is just upset that there was no genitalia play after they made vague romantic overtures without explicitly clarifying their interest - or they stuck around after being shot down, refusing to content themselves with actual friendship, and continuing to expect inserting "romance" would culminate in sexy times.

Typically I only hear about men being friendzoned (rumors of women being friendzoned are never as intense), and the anger it seems to conjure up in guys is creepily reminiscent of men from other parts of the world who are totally okay with throwing acid at the girls and women who've rejected them.

[Vynny]

to me, it feels like if you can't just be friends with me, you only want one thing from me and don't care about my interests and don't want to get along with me.

And that's usually how it goes when each person isn't getting what they want out of an interpersonal relationship like a friendship, but that wasn't the point of contention. On top of that, by not wanting a romantic relationship with them, you're saying that you don't care about their interests and don't wanna get along with them. Do you see how your stance on them being the one in the wrong is hypocritical?

And remember, you did say that the hypothetical person who wasn't okay with just being friends was probably a bad person.

no. if they aren't ok with just being friends, chances are they aren't a good person in the first place.

The problem I have with this logic is that you're saying they're not a good person because they're not okay with not getting what they want out of the relationship; however, you denying them a romantic relationship is you ensuring that you're getting what you want out of the relationship at the expense of what they want out of the relationship, so doesn't that make you a bad person as well under the same logic? The point is that your thinking is very hypocritical because you're saying that the person who isn't okay with staying friends is a bad person because they're acting on what they want, but you imply that you're not a bad person for acting on what you want when in my opinion neither are necessarily bad people, they're just people with conflicting interests.

[May90]

The problem I have with this logic is that you're saying they're not a good person because they're not okay with not getting what they want out of the relationship; however, you denying them a romantic relationship is you ensuring that you're getting what you want out of the relationship at the expense of what they want out of the relationship, so doesn't that make you a bad person as well under the same logic? The point is that your thinking is very hypocritical because you're saying that the person who isn't okay with staying friends is a bad person because they're acting on what they want, but you imply that you're not a bad person for acting on what you want when in my opinion neither are bad people, they're just people with conflicting interests.

This logic is flawed though, since the outcomes aren't symmetrical. If, instead of "friendzoning", you agree on a relationship, then you are doing a disservice to both parties: to yourself, since you aren't interested in it, and to your partner, since, instead of having a loving partner, they get someone who is with them out of pity or something. While if you "friendzone" them, then you got what you want, and they can find a partner that will suit their needs better.

[Gamdwelf]

This logic is flawed though, since the outcomes aren't symmetrical. If, instead of "friendzoning", you agree on a relationship, then you are doing a disservice to both parties: to yourself, since you aren't interested in it, and to your partner, since, instead of having a loving partner, they get someone who is with them out of pity or something. While if you "friendzone" them, then you got what you want, and they can find a partner that will suit their needs better.

Neither are getting what they want either way.

[May90]

Neither are getting what they want either way.

Long term, both are getting what they want in the latter case. Short term, yeah, conflict of interests can't be resolved leaving everyone happy right away.

[Blur4stuff]

I don't think everyone is on the same page for what this means.

I believe if you "friendzone" someone you know they want to have sex/relationship with you, you never intend to give them that, but you don't say so and use it to gain favors you wouldn't otherwise get. This could be anything from moving furniture to gifts and money.

[Volibear]

Sounds like OP has a person of fancy who doesn't reciprocate his feelings, and is upset about it.

It happens, move on.

[Gamdwelf]

Long term, both are getting what they want in the latter case. Short term, yeah, conflict of interests can't be resolved leaving everyone happy right away.

I mean not really in the long term. One person loses a friend who says they wanted to be friends and the other person never gets into a the relationship they desire.

[Vynny]

This logic is flawed though, since the outcomes aren't symmetrical. If, instead of "friendzoning", you agree on a relationship, then you are doing a disservice to both parties: to yourself, since you aren't interested in it, and to your partner, since, instead of having a loving partner, they get someone who is with them out of pity or something. While if you "friendzone" them, then you got what you want, and they can find a partner that will suit their needs better.

That's assuming that the initial judgement of whether or not you want a romantic relationship was correct though, so you're creating a false dichotomy between these things when many more scenarios are completely possible as well. And like I said, my main contention is with derpkitteh saying that someone is a bad person for acting on their own interest while she's acting on her own interests. It's the moral value judgement that's being assigned to the person whose acting in their own interests by not being alright with staying friends that I find hypocritical, not the action made in each hypothetical person's interests.

[May90]

I mean not really in the long term. One person loses a friend who says they wanted to be friends and the other person never gets into a the relationship they desire.

But that's the point of "friendzoning": no one loses a friend. That's why it's called friendzone. And the other person will get a better relationship later, with their partner actually devoted to them and not acting out of pity - even if they don't realize it at the moment.

That's assuming that the initial judgement of whether or not you want a romantic relationship was correct though, so you're creating a false dichotomy between these things when many more scenarios are completely possible as well. And like I said, my main contention is with derpkitteh saying that someone is a bad person for acting on their own interest while she's acting on her own interests. It's the moral value judgement that's being assigned to the person whose acting in their own interests by not being alright with staying friends that I find hypocritical, not the action made in each hypothetical person's interests.

Well, I suppose that's fair then. Acting on one's own interest can't be bad in itself, and more aspects need to be considered to make such judgment.

[belfpala]

I believe if you "friendzone" someone you know they want to have sex/relationship with you, you never intend to give them that, but you don't say so and use it to gain favors you wouldn't otherwise get. This could be anything from moving furniture to gifts and money.

This is called manipulation, pure and simple. It happens.

[Gamdwelf]

But that's the point of "friendzoning": no one loses a friend. That's why it's called friendzone. And the other person will get a better relationship later, with their partner actually devoted to them and not acting out of pity - even if they don't realize it at the moment.

Maybe in fantasy land and in that situation one person is forcing the other to be friends when them when that is not what they want out of the relationship.

- - - Updated - - -

This is called manipulation, pure and simple. It happens.

That specific type of manipulation is called the friendzone.

[Hana Song]

That specific type of manipulation is called the friendzone.

I am not seeing anything about manipulation on it when I read about it

[belfpala]

Maybe in fantasy land and in that situation one person is forcing the other to be friends when them when that is not what they want out of the relationship.

No one can force anybody to be a friend. If it's not a two-way street, then it's not friendship. It's manipulation at best, coercion at worst.

Point being, "friendzoning" happens all the time. I don't feel bad about it, unless I feel I'm being manipulative, which I think is the topic of this thread.

[May90]

Maybe in fantasy land and in that situation one person is forcing the other to be friends when them when that is not what they want out of the relationship.

I do not understand your logic, at all. If a person is interested in someone and the interest isn't mutual, then romantic relationship isn't going to work. If they don't care to be friends with someone who didn't respond to their romantic advances, they have only themselves to blame. You said "One person loses a friend", which is false: no one loses a friend as a result of "friendzoning" itself. Someone doesn't get what they wanted, but such is life: you don't get to have something just because you want it.

[Hana Song]

Maybe in fantasy land and in that situation one person is forcing the other to be friends when them when that is not what they want out of the relationship.

If you can't just be friends with someone then stop seeing them?