The Friendzone Fracas
So there's about a million people sounding off these days about the term "friendzone". I figured that if there's anywhere to add my voice to the throng it's here, tucked safely away in the anonymity of a never-visited blog. I've had what many might consider a contrary opinion to the majority voice (depending on which set screams the loudest according to you) for a long time, but what drags me out of this well-advised silence is the following comic strip that a friend of mine shared on Facebook. Got a moment? Check it out:
http://imgur.com/a/RmAjE
Ok so we start off with two persons at an outdoor cafe, a boy and a girl. The boy asks the girl out, and she responds (either being snarky or unbelievably thick) that they already out, to which he responds, no OUT out. In response she calls him a friend, and he utters that most controversial term.
Ok first off, they don't seem to have any food or drinks in front of them, so there's no evidence whether they have or intend to consume anything at this cafe. And if they have or will, there's no indication of whether the boy is paying. However, I would just like to point this out first: None of us were raised on an alien planet. With very few exceptions, every single terrestrial culture (and none of those that could potentially be represented by two whitebread kids at an outdoor cafe) has a courtship tradition centuries old. So except in the very rarest of cases, everyone you meet in the English speaking world understands that when a boy likes a girl he will try to go out on dates with her. Since there are very few people (though they do exist) who do not believe that a man should pay on a date, it is in good taste to assume that if a fellow offers to buy your dinner, or movie ticket, he either thinks, or wants it to be a date. On the flipside, if you are a female, and you accept this offer, be aware that you are ALSO indicating that this encounter is a date.
You can argue all you want that all of your platonic friends are just so kind and generous that they wish to buy all of your meals out of friendship and never expect anything in return, but doing so is not convincing. You know better. So, if a fellow consistently pays for everything when you go "friend hang" with him, then he thinks you're dating. Now, there are two remedies to this, one that is respectful and kind, and one that is woefully inadequate and not a little manipulative. The latter is to add as a caveat every fourth date or so, "Sure I'll go to dinner/that concert/a movie with you, but only as friends, right?" while still happily accepting as many free meals and tickets as you can wring out of your "friend". This is atrociously self-serving. The entire tradition of courtship is based upon changing a potential love interest's mind. The roots of a man paying for a date is founded in the idea that a man must be the breadwinner and support his female partner. You may think to yourself "He's only my friend and will only ever be my friend." Your actions are saying "We're friends now, but every time I let you pay for me, I'm giving you a chance to change my mind.
This is patently misleading, manipulative and greedy. If you know for a fact that you will never be interested in a fellow who is broadcasting his feelings by engaging in centuries-old courtship ceremonies with you, then put a stop to the freebies. Again, in our comic here there is no indication of this sort of past relationship, so we will not indict her behavior here, except to say that if she has, by any chance, been bleeding this fellow dry of "friend" dates, then she is a mooch, not a friend.
Moving on, after the transformation into a superhero (who apparently beats up exclusively on straw men) we reach the point where the villainous, erstwhile "friend" begins to list, in his gormless, disgusting way, the things that he has done for her. The author of the strip seems to take the tack that this behavior is epitome of grotesque sexual overtures, but once again I would point to the all-encompassing courtship model that has yet to be replaced by any meaningful modern tradition. While obviously not a good way to tug on a girl's heartstrings, the fellow listing the ways that he feels he has shown his devotion is hardly the sort of thing that say, a famous poet might balk at. Let us not forget the timeless sonnets of Bill the Bard, or, hell, any sonnet at all. Sonnets are usually about wasting away in unrequited love. It's kind of a theme. But oh no, this behavior must NOT be tolerated!
Right about now is when the violence starts, but I'd like to take a brief second to highlight one of the first (but definitely not last) really ghastly examples of a straw man argument here. The spurned beau reminds the Defender of the Friendzone that one time she got drunk and vulnerable at a party, and he drove her home to help her keep safe. The girl then responds, "You don't get ****ing brownie for not raping me."
Ok, hold up. The story being told here is not "hey you were drunk, and I didn't rape you." The story here was "we were both at a party, and you were in danger, so I stopped enjoying myself to take your drunk ass home so no one could possibly hurt you while you weren't capable of protecting yourself." Funny he doesn't point this out himself. Oh that's right. Uppercut. Well clearly she's capable of defending herself now, so she obviously must do so on the fellow that has demonstrated his intentions and willingness to help keep her safe whenever it might be needed.
This of course leads into the next tuft of straw in this one-sided argument. And one that I think is even more telling. The very next righteous verbal smackdown laid upon our laid out male is the oft-repeated bit that "what assholes like you mean when you say you've been friendzoned is 'this bitch won't let me put my **** in her, even though I treated her like a human being." Once again our brutalized male character offers no meaningful or rational response, so we are forced to provide our own. But which germane argument should proffer first?
Perhaps we could point out that keeping an eye out for your female friend who might suddenly find herself in a dangerous situation, and remaining sober enough to quit partying drive her home if and when she needs it is not how you treat someone "like a human being". Perhaps that is how you treat someone whom the entire Universe revolves around, or someone you are romantically interested in. But assuming that anyone with any shred of decency is just always going to be there, keeping an eye out for you so you can cut lose and go crazy while they play the responsible protector is, again, either insanely self-obsessed or unbelievably thick. But, whatever, maybe he was the designated driver for that particular outing, so let's consider the flipside. Who has brought up anything about sex between the two of the main characters? Only the super"heroine" the Friendzoner. A brief search of the preceding panels reveals no explicit or implicit request for sexual activity of any sort. What the boy specifically requests is a "date", not as friends.
This is one of those facets of the "friendzone" controversy that continually mystifies me. This rarely questioned assumption that anyone who EVER mentions the "friendzone" in a serious manner is just angry that they didn't get sex. Never mind the fact that they never have gotten sex and they're still around you, the mere fact of getting irritated that their obvious courtship is being ignored automatically insists base, lewd intentions upon them all along. Where this thought comes from I have no clear idea. Assuredly, many guys really so just want sex from their crushes. But how on earth this idea that every single guy friend who wants to be more is just in it for the sex became so widespread and undisputed is a true mystery. I know that I have personally felt severely disrespected by girls who told me that they only considered me a friend after allowing me to take them on date after date, and I respected each of them too much to just want to jump into bed with them. The very idea that someone who you've built up enough of a relationship with to even be considered a "friend" to be put in the friendzone, and all the time only be interested in sex seems actively illogical.
If the fellow was only interested in sex, then what has been keeping him around for so long? I think a valuable exercise would be to break down what is and is not a "nice guy". From my experience, the common traits of a nice guy are listening to a girl/being a shoulder for her to cry on, helping her when you can, and offering to provide for her. Whereas the "women date jerks" stereotype seems to posit that the jerk archetype is one who does not engage in this behavior. From this rather simple guideline, we might state that those labelled "nice guys" under these terms are those who engage in courtship behavior. Those who are "jerks" do not. It seems reasonable to assume that when a person says the girl he likes is dating a jerk that it MIGHT be because he feels that he has exhibited more courtship attitudes that his opponent.
Here is where I think the break down of the courtship tradition comes in. As I stated before, there is no real tradition that has sprung up in place of the courtship model. While nobody is particularly uproarious about retiring the "men provide" aspect, there seem to be few other guidelines beyond mutual attraction. While no one is beholden to any model when it comes to selecting a mate for themselves, in this day and age (particularly in the English speaking world) it is willfully ignorant to ignore the courtship model when it is at work. Namely, if you don't want to be with a guy who wants to court you, don't accept his courtship.
But then the question still arises, why does the author of this strip (and many others besides) assume that all "nice guys" who complain about the friendzone just want to get in a girl's pants? Is it because "friendship" isn't enough for them? Firstly, as I've already stated, if someone is courting you, and you accept their courtship with no intention of letting it sway you, then you're being a terrible friend anyway, but secondly why should "more than friends" only mean the one thing? My experience has been that if a guy is willing to court a gal for any length of time in a modern society where casual sex and one night stands are normal then he seems to have already demonstrated an interest beyond a quick lay. The hurt feelings seem to come in when a fellow feels that his courtship has been accepted but disrespected, and a lady feels that her friendship is being treated as worthless. Obviously every situation is different. For instance, we have no evidence that this particular boy (in the strip) has been courting her for very long, and it's not as though we should expect her to refuse his offer of a ride when she was incapacitated. However it must also be patently obvious that a blanket accusation that all men like him are only interested in one thing is specious.
These issues must be taken on their own individual merits. A woman who wants to stay friends with a man is not always being a bitch, and a man who is upset that a woman doesn't return his affections is not always a creep out for quick sex. The levels of courtship offered versus advantage taken must be considered. The easiest choice: Be a grown up (man or woman) never let anyone who you aren't interested court you. Don't pretend that you don't know when it is happening, virtually all of the television, literature and film n the English language explores this concept in some way. You have everything you need to recognize it. If you take advantage of someone's feelings, they aren't the selfish prick. You are.
http://imgur.com/a/RmAjE
Ok so we start off with two persons at an outdoor cafe, a boy and a girl. The boy asks the girl out, and she responds (either being snarky or unbelievably thick) that they already out, to which he responds, no OUT out. In response she calls him a friend, and he utters that most controversial term.
Ok first off, they don't seem to have any food or drinks in front of them, so there's no evidence whether they have or intend to consume anything at this cafe. And if they have or will, there's no indication of whether the boy is paying. However, I would just like to point this out first: None of us were raised on an alien planet. With very few exceptions, every single terrestrial culture (and none of those that could potentially be represented by two whitebread kids at an outdoor cafe) has a courtship tradition centuries old. So except in the very rarest of cases, everyone you meet in the English speaking world understands that when a boy likes a girl he will try to go out on dates with her. Since there are very few people (though they do exist) who do not believe that a man should pay on a date, it is in good taste to assume that if a fellow offers to buy your dinner, or movie ticket, he either thinks, or wants it to be a date. On the flipside, if you are a female, and you accept this offer, be aware that you are ALSO indicating that this encounter is a date.
You can argue all you want that all of your platonic friends are just so kind and generous that they wish to buy all of your meals out of friendship and never expect anything in return, but doing so is not convincing. You know better. So, if a fellow consistently pays for everything when you go "friend hang" with him, then he thinks you're dating. Now, there are two remedies to this, one that is respectful and kind, and one that is woefully inadequate and not a little manipulative. The latter is to add as a caveat every fourth date or so, "Sure I'll go to dinner/that concert/a movie with you, but only as friends, right?" while still happily accepting as many free meals and tickets as you can wring out of your "friend". This is atrociously self-serving. The entire tradition of courtship is based upon changing a potential love interest's mind. The roots of a man paying for a date is founded in the idea that a man must be the breadwinner and support his female partner. You may think to yourself "He's only my friend and will only ever be my friend." Your actions are saying "We're friends now, but every time I let you pay for me, I'm giving you a chance to change my mind.
This is patently misleading, manipulative and greedy. If you know for a fact that you will never be interested in a fellow who is broadcasting his feelings by engaging in centuries-old courtship ceremonies with you, then put a stop to the freebies. Again, in our comic here there is no indication of this sort of past relationship, so we will not indict her behavior here, except to say that if she has, by any chance, been bleeding this fellow dry of "friend" dates, then she is a mooch, not a friend.
Moving on, after the transformation into a superhero (who apparently beats up exclusively on straw men) we reach the point where the villainous, erstwhile "friend" begins to list, in his gormless, disgusting way, the things that he has done for her. The author of the strip seems to take the tack that this behavior is epitome of grotesque sexual overtures, but once again I would point to the all-encompassing courtship model that has yet to be replaced by any meaningful modern tradition. While obviously not a good way to tug on a girl's heartstrings, the fellow listing the ways that he feels he has shown his devotion is hardly the sort of thing that say, a famous poet might balk at. Let us not forget the timeless sonnets of Bill the Bard, or, hell, any sonnet at all. Sonnets are usually about wasting away in unrequited love. It's kind of a theme. But oh no, this behavior must NOT be tolerated!
Right about now is when the violence starts, but I'd like to take a brief second to highlight one of the first (but definitely not last) really ghastly examples of a straw man argument here. The spurned beau reminds the Defender of the Friendzone that one time she got drunk and vulnerable at a party, and he drove her home to help her keep safe. The girl then responds, "You don't get ****ing brownie for not raping me."
Ok, hold up. The story being told here is not "hey you were drunk, and I didn't rape you." The story here was "we were both at a party, and you were in danger, so I stopped enjoying myself to take your drunk ass home so no one could possibly hurt you while you weren't capable of protecting yourself." Funny he doesn't point this out himself. Oh that's right. Uppercut. Well clearly she's capable of defending herself now, so she obviously must do so on the fellow that has demonstrated his intentions and willingness to help keep her safe whenever it might be needed.
This of course leads into the next tuft of straw in this one-sided argument. And one that I think is even more telling. The very next righteous verbal smackdown laid upon our laid out male is the oft-repeated bit that "what assholes like you mean when you say you've been friendzoned is 'this bitch won't let me put my **** in her, even though I treated her like a human being." Once again our brutalized male character offers no meaningful or rational response, so we are forced to provide our own. But which germane argument should proffer first?
Perhaps we could point out that keeping an eye out for your female friend who might suddenly find herself in a dangerous situation, and remaining sober enough to quit partying drive her home if and when she needs it is not how you treat someone "like a human being". Perhaps that is how you treat someone whom the entire Universe revolves around, or someone you are romantically interested in. But assuming that anyone with any shred of decency is just always going to be there, keeping an eye out for you so you can cut lose and go crazy while they play the responsible protector is, again, either insanely self-obsessed or unbelievably thick. But, whatever, maybe he was the designated driver for that particular outing, so let's consider the flipside. Who has brought up anything about sex between the two of the main characters? Only the super"heroine" the Friendzoner. A brief search of the preceding panels reveals no explicit or implicit request for sexual activity of any sort. What the boy specifically requests is a "date", not as friends.
This is one of those facets of the "friendzone" controversy that continually mystifies me. This rarely questioned assumption that anyone who EVER mentions the "friendzone" in a serious manner is just angry that they didn't get sex. Never mind the fact that they never have gotten sex and they're still around you, the mere fact of getting irritated that their obvious courtship is being ignored automatically insists base, lewd intentions upon them all along. Where this thought comes from I have no clear idea. Assuredly, many guys really so just want sex from their crushes. But how on earth this idea that every single guy friend who wants to be more is just in it for the sex became so widespread and undisputed is a true mystery. I know that I have personally felt severely disrespected by girls who told me that they only considered me a friend after allowing me to take them on date after date, and I respected each of them too much to just want to jump into bed with them. The very idea that someone who you've built up enough of a relationship with to even be considered a "friend" to be put in the friendzone, and all the time only be interested in sex seems actively illogical.
If the fellow was only interested in sex, then what has been keeping him around for so long? I think a valuable exercise would be to break down what is and is not a "nice guy". From my experience, the common traits of a nice guy are listening to a girl/being a shoulder for her to cry on, helping her when you can, and offering to provide for her. Whereas the "women date jerks" stereotype seems to posit that the jerk archetype is one who does not engage in this behavior. From this rather simple guideline, we might state that those labelled "nice guys" under these terms are those who engage in courtship behavior. Those who are "jerks" do not. It seems reasonable to assume that when a person says the girl he likes is dating a jerk that it MIGHT be because he feels that he has exhibited more courtship attitudes that his opponent.
Here is where I think the break down of the courtship tradition comes in. As I stated before, there is no real tradition that has sprung up in place of the courtship model. While nobody is particularly uproarious about retiring the "men provide" aspect, there seem to be few other guidelines beyond mutual attraction. While no one is beholden to any model when it comes to selecting a mate for themselves, in this day and age (particularly in the English speaking world) it is willfully ignorant to ignore the courtship model when it is at work. Namely, if you don't want to be with a guy who wants to court you, don't accept his courtship.
But then the question still arises, why does the author of this strip (and many others besides) assume that all "nice guys" who complain about the friendzone just want to get in a girl's pants? Is it because "friendship" isn't enough for them? Firstly, as I've already stated, if someone is courting you, and you accept their courtship with no intention of letting it sway you, then you're being a terrible friend anyway, but secondly why should "more than friends" only mean the one thing? My experience has been that if a guy is willing to court a gal for any length of time in a modern society where casual sex and one night stands are normal then he seems to have already demonstrated an interest beyond a quick lay. The hurt feelings seem to come in when a fellow feels that his courtship has been accepted but disrespected, and a lady feels that her friendship is being treated as worthless. Obviously every situation is different. For instance, we have no evidence that this particular boy (in the strip) has been courting her for very long, and it's not as though we should expect her to refuse his offer of a ride when she was incapacitated. However it must also be patently obvious that a blanket accusation that all men like him are only interested in one thing is specious.
These issues must be taken on their own individual merits. A woman who wants to stay friends with a man is not always being a bitch, and a man who is upset that a woman doesn't return his affections is not always a creep out for quick sex. The levels of courtship offered versus advantage taken must be considered. The easiest choice: Be a grown up (man or woman) never let anyone who you aren't interested court you. Don't pretend that you don't know when it is happening, virtually all of the television, literature and film n the English language explores this concept in some way. You have everything you need to recognize it. If you take advantage of someone's feelings, they aren't the selfish prick. You are.
posted by Zack at 3:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home