A question for the ladies: Friend Zone

[KomradeGabriel]

Maybe your socks were embarrassing.
Or you brought dark chocolate instead of milk chocolate.

We’re talking feminine logic here

ducks and runs for cover…

This is a pretty good example of trolling LOL. Anyways, there is no such thing as “feminine logic.” Although there ARE illogical females out there so do keep your eyes open for them (as well as illogical males).

Certainly, you offering her the wrong type of chocolate is not going to get you rejected by neither a female or male who finds you interesting enough. Unfortunately (and I hope my honesty doesn’t cause you any hurt), attractiveness has a lot to do with it.

The one vital difference between a romantic relationship/marriage and a friendship is the absence of physical intimacy in the latter.

If someone enjoys your company and has no problem sharing their innermost thoughts and being intimate on an intellectual and emotional level BUT draws the line at the possibility of of a relationship/marriage, what does that tell you? That the part they found you “lacking” in was the physical aspect.

The good news is that beauty and attractiveness are (to a very large extent) in the eye of the beholder. I have friends who are extremely attracted to thinness to the point of desiring someone who looks emaciated. I personally have trouble thinking of a physical relation with such a person because it’s a look that I don’t enjoy at all. I would also not mind a “chubby” partner whereas the friends I just mentioned would never even consider it.

So… if you’re “friend-zoned” by someone who otherwise seems to enjoy spending time with you, keep them as a friend and continue to look for a partner who will not only appreciate your intellectual/emotional aspects but will also be attracted to you.

Good luck in finding someone soon!

 

[chevalier]

This is a pretty good example of trolling LOL. Anyways, there is no such thing as “feminine logic.” Although there ARE illogical females out there so do keep your eyes open for them (as well as illogical males).

Lol, I disagree on so many accounts with that paragraph. But then, it’s probably just a matter of perspective. “Feminine logic” does exist and it’s different from “masculine logic”. I’m not actually saying it’s illogical, if you dissect it properly, then the inferences tend to look surprisingly correct. It’s just that women pay attention to a whole lot of things men don’t care about or don’t notice and vice versa; priorities may be different, too. This is actually how it’s supposed to be and it’s a great thing because if you get a male brain and a female brain to work in tandem or you get a couple of male and female brains to work in a team, then you get some cool perspectives and cover much more ground.

As for what the poster you quoted had said, you can indeed get “friend-zoned” (or rejected, if we adopt Ack’s way of looking at things ) for the wrong kind of socks or chocolate or whatever. Except that such superficial factors aren’t really unsurmountable barriers. And if they actually are, then they possibly reflect some deep-seated preferences. For example, I weep for the murder of grammar and punctuation committed on a massive scale by folks with MA and other degrees. A native speaker with an MA degree in the study of her own language, teaching it somewhere or working as a writer (let alone proofreader), and still failing to get her tenses or commas mostly right, would have a difficult time appealing to me, barring a real case of dyslexia. Sort of like a certain famous ex-professor of constitutional law would be unable to appeal to me if I were female and he were single. But I’m digressing. This doesn’t mean I’d cross out a wonderful person for a single misplaced comma, it only kills the atmosphere for a longer while. I guess it might be the same with women when it comes to what’s important to them. Examples of “shallow” things include good manners, hygiene, certain signs of the old-fashioned “proper upbringing”, ability and willingness to be considerate, show some empathy, on the other hand think rationally, act responsibly. Some women are also crazy about initiative and an active style in a man, so show some passivity or inaction and you’re going to have a lot to deal with. But all in all, I’d generally expect women to be much more “fair” in this regard. Between a man and a woman, I’d probably expect the woman to engage in a more rational, wholesome evaluation while a man to be more likely to go by emotion or hang up. But this is just guessing and I’m not saying by a large margin, either.

Certainly, you offering her the wrong type of chocolate is not going to get you rejected by neither a female or male who finds you interesting enough. Unfortunately (and I hope my honesty doesn’t cause you any hurt), attractiveness has a lot to do with it.

Yeah, if you’re attractive to somebody, then you get extra leniency, when you’re not so immediately attractive to somebody, then you may get a chance but it’s going to be harder, missteps will seem to cost you more etc. But that’s because that person didn’t really consider you attractive, not because you did something particularly wrong (well, unless you really did).

 

[Journey322]

I think it depends on the two people involved. There are any number of reasons a woman might decide she would rather be friends with a guy than date him. Personality, age, maturity, interests, values, beliefs, timing, chemistry/attraction, etc. come into play. I can be friends with most any friendly person. However, I have higher standards for someone I would date because almost everyone who gets married marries someone they once dated .

 

[SgtSchultz]

Thank you. Well, incidentally, I think your first example illustrates one thing which is wrong with dating. People just don’t know each other while even the word “date” has the implications of a matchmaking, romantic, mating, whatever-related meeting. Which is awkward.

What word should be used instead? What would constitute a date? How should one evaluate another person?

I read an article on the CA website, or possibly the CCCB/USCCB or some other Catholic-affiliated website that defined dating as any event where a single man and a single woman do something together without anyone else. So if I were to go for coffee with a girl, and it was not to discuss work, it would be a date. It may lead to nothing more, but it’s still a date.

It seems to me that “date” now has the assumption that pre-marital sex will be expected, which is a shame. Dating should be used to get to know people and to have fun socialising with others.

 

[chevalier]

What word should be used instead? What would constitute a date? How should one evaluate another person?

Just meeting and talking, taking it naturally. The word “date” implies “dinner and movie and some kissing if things don’t go too bad”. My primary beef with dating. It disrespects women by having them accept overt boy-and-girl proposals from strangers, with implied hopes of favours.

I read an article on the CA website, or possibly the CCCB/USCCB or some other Catholic-affiliated website that defined dating as any event where a single man and a single woman do something together without anyone else.

Did they at least care to explicitly exclude blood relations from that kind of loose definition? Because I sometimes talk to my sister with nobody else in the room. What about the unmarried guy who has a single mother?

So if I were to go for coffee with a girl, and it was not to discuss work, it would be a date. It may lead to nothing more, but it’s still a date.

Except that means a redefined date. Different definition. If we adopt a wide definition of dating, then we can’t treat things which fall under that broadened definition of dating the same as if they fulfilled a narrower one. For example, if we redefine murder to include manslaughter, we can’t any more act like every murder is a premeditated, thoroughly unmitigated affair.

It seems to me that “date” now has the assumption that pre-marital sex will be expected, which is a shame.

Not to me, but kissing yeah. And it already suggest a romantic or quasi-sexual (sexual in the broad, “mating” sense, not in the fornication sense) interaction. Which is why it’s awkward, especially between strangers.

Dating should be used to get to know people and to have fun socialising with others.

And not for recreational kissing, I guess? I agree if so.

At any rate, I’d oppose the idea that man-to-woman kissing on the lips, cuddling etc. is a form of socialising with the opposite gender. Kinda sexist too. But also thoroughly inappropriate (with strangers at least). Whether modern mores or old one, it should appear infringing.

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

I’m surprised this thread is still going. I stopped checking it out awhile ago…