The Girlfriend Zone [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Coidzor

2013-05-21, 10:48 PM

You sir, are not wrong.

As to the piece itself - as someone who is currently being very careful to avoid romantic entanglements of all kinds, I will say only that the "friendzone" is a very mysterious concept to me - only Slytherins go into a friendship with an agenda.

That's not necessarily how one ends up there. Indeed, my understanding of the general definition is that such situations as friendship as a purposeful evaluative period of a potential SO is very much in the minority.

I really liked the post, it was well-thought out and more true than it should be. As someone who generally wavers between ambivalence and just avoiding romance, I have several platonic female friends who I hope don't see me this way. I like being just friends...

It actually went against my experiences of the subject matter, I must admit.

In my experience usually it's feelings that developed after the friendship formed and the person doing the rejection is more likely to be the one to initiate a communications blackout.

On another note, though... The comments section is absolutely terrifying. :smalleek:

I think they have helicopters that are used for putting out flames like that though. Eep.

Given everything I've heard about Tumblr, I was surprised I had to look for as long as I did to find anything truly bad in there when I first saw it.

warty goblin

2013-05-21, 11:56 PM

Given everything I've heard about Tumblr, I was surprised I had to look for as long as I did to find anything truly bad in there when I first saw it.

I think I made it to maybe the third comment before spotting the first Mansplaining Niceguy. I've found the only good cure for Niceguy Mansplaining is to soak my brain in poetry, and some times I just don't want to spend the time.

TaiLiu

2013-05-22, 12:01 AM

Hm. What makes a person a Mansplaining Niceguy?

Forrestfire

2013-05-22, 12:06 AM

Given everything I've heard about Tumblr, I was surprised I had to look for as long as I did to find anything truly bad in there when I first saw it.

Eh, maybe I'm just too used to GitP and other nice forums.

Blue Ghost

2013-05-22, 12:10 AM

Most of the Internet is a horrible, horrible place. I try not to rely on my faith in humanity too much, but it would be kinda nice to retain some...
It would help if I could just resist the temptation to look at comments on the Internet. Everywhere. (Except the Playground, of course.)

Coidzor

2013-05-22, 12:12 AM

Hm. What makes a person a Mansplaining Niceguy?

Well, Mansplaining is essentially talking down to others because they're not men or they're not proper men like the speaker. And Niceguys(tm) are... well, the usual view is that they're people who feel entitled to sexual access to women because they're friends with them and then whine about it online.

You're better off googling it, really.

Eh, maybe I'm just too used to GitP and other nice forums.

I suppose. Mostly though the true horror of tumblr is people endlessly telling others they don't have any right to their own emotions or perspective because other people in the world have it worse.

thubby

2013-05-22, 12:28 AM

This reminds me of part of a conversation i had with my grandfather once
me (like 9):"grandpa, who's your best friend?"
him: "I married her" :smallwink:
me::smallconfused::smalleek::smallamused:

warty goblin

2013-05-22, 12:45 AM

Hm. What makes a person a Mansplaining Niceguy?

Mansplaining is generally defined as replying to any female commentary on an unfortunate aspect of gender roles with a (condescending) explanation of how she is completely wrong and the male gender has it infinitely worse. Bonus points if it doubles as an excuse for acting like a snot; e.g. in this case explaining how getting turned down is just so painful the poor sensitive man has no choice to avoid all contact or else wound his delicate fee-fees.

Tip: If you can't handle rejection with the grace God gave a one-legged goose, don't ask out people in your social orbit. If you can't stand to speak to somebody who turned you down ever again, this is why they invented online dating.

Nice Guy is a bit tenuous in this specific case, since I usually associate it with a suite of obnoxious thought processes and personality traits. To wit*:

The world is divided into Nice Guys (usually the speaker) and Jerks. Also women, who are a completely homogeneous group, and whose opinions, tastes, preferences etc don't really count for anything (see below).

The difference between Nice Guys and Jerks is that Nice Guys respect women, and Jerks don't. You can tell this, because a Jerk will actually express sexual or romantic interest in a woman to whom he is attracted.

This is bad because women don't actually enjoy sex, and it's something they do for a worthy man. Worthiness can only be proved of course by never ever asking for sex or romance, but letting the relationship grow out of friendship. This of course entitles the Nice Guy to sex and romance, via some unclear cosmic calculus.

For unspecified reasons however, women continue to go out with Jerks, and not the Nice Guys who would of course be so much better for them. Unspecified reasons here of course means that women, both collectively and individually, have no freaking clue what's good for them. Only nice guys who respect them can know that sort of thing.

The classic presentation is something like "There's this girl right? She's funny, smart and beautiful, and I know we'd be perfect together. Problem is she keeps going out with total jerks who don't respect her at all. When they dump her, I'm always there to pick up the pieces, and help her through. I'm a nice guy, and I stick up for my friends. But I guess I'm stuck in the Friend Zone, because she doesn't see me as anything more than that, and it's killing me. Guess I should just get used to being alone forever."

However the friend zone which the linked article is parodying/inverting is absolutely a nice guy concept to its rotten core, and few mansplain like a nice guy. See, they respect women, so they have to patiently explain how things actually work to them. So I feel very few doubts in labeling the mansplainers in the comments as nice guys more likely than not.

*The following is my explanation of behaviors generally associated with a particular term, and in no way represents my actual views on people, sex, romance or anything else a sane person would find offensive in said description. I'm not even doing that obnoxious thing people do where they pretend to play devil's advocate as a shield from having their own views criticized; I'm not going to argue for their validity in any way. Just an explanation, and yes I'm aware of the irony of explaining what's wrong with some kinds of explanation.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go read the Shield of Achilles a few times before bed.

OverdrivePrime

2013-05-22, 08:54 AM

All the knowledges.

Absolutely spot on.

I know I've been guilty of being the woebegone Nice Guy when I was a kid, and I'm sure I've done my share of kvetching to my guy friends about the difficulty of being a Nice Guy, but much like comparing farts, it really isn't something you do in front of the general public.

Finlam

2013-05-22, 11:10 AM

Awesome summation.
Bravo, sir. You summed it up nicely.

Reverent-One

2013-05-22, 11:51 AM

warty goblin

2013-05-22, 01:32 PM

On the one hand, I get that it's a satire piece about a particular interpertation of the friendzone that I agree is ridiculous. On the other, it does so by using the same arguments, just reversed, which means it still sets off my "Someone is wrong on the internet (http://xkcd.com/386/)" senses and makes me want to argue with it.

I'll just accept I'm not the target audience and leave it be.

It's using the same sort of language for comedic effect yes, but the actual complaints are quite different.

The friend zone usually is a complaint that a woman isn't willing to spontaneously see a man as a romantic partner, despite the relationship having been established and conducted as non-romantic. Under this (perverse) logic, the fault is on the woman for failing to recognize that the non-romantic relationship should become romantic. This complaint seems unreasonable to me, because why should somebody treat you as a romantic partner when you've only ever signaled friendship?

The linked piece is complaining about people entering into a relationship under what amounts to a false emotional flag, then getting all butt-hurt when the other person has actually taken your advances of friendship as advances of friendship. The fault here lies (correctly) with the man for putting the author in one mental category (people I'm romantically interested in) but treating her like a member of another, then acting like a jerk when the author doesn't reciprocate.

The root cause is of course that the male bit of the equation has has acted and presented himself as a friend while thinking the - but not acting - like the relationship is romantic. This is generally considered trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Remember people: if you present yourself as one thing, you have no legitimate complaint if people treat you like that thing. People shouldn't have to be goddamn psychic to be your friend. You can complain when your ostensible friends act like jerks because you failed to be goddamn psychic.

Aedilred

2013-05-22, 01:49 PM

It's using the same sort of language for comedic effect yes, but the actual complaints are quite different.

...

The root cause is of course that the male bit of the equation has has acted and presented himself as a friend while thinking the - but not acting - like the relationship is romantic. This is generally considered trying to have your cake and eat it too. Well, this is the point at which I disagree, and this is what sets off my alarms, much as with Reverent-One earlier. Part of the problem with the Friend Zone as a concept is the idea that friendship and romantic relationships are completely discrete entities, whereas many/most of the most successful relationships I'm aware of grew out of existing friendships, and there's a strong case to be made that a relationship where the two parties aren't actually friends is probably a bad idea.

Obviously, the article is done with satirical intent, so that's fine, but as soon as you start ascribing validity to the idea of the Girlfriend Zone it starts falling apart, because it's fundamentally based on the same principle as the Friend Zone itself: that being friends and romantic partners is an either/or deal, and that it's impossible for men and women to be friends if there's any chance of romantic feeling developing between them.

Now, there's the issue of "false flags", which comes back to the whole Nice Guy phenomenon, and that's perfectly valid as a complaint, but saying as a rule that men who are friends with a woman and then ask her out are all automatically "zoning" her and (by extension) jerks is throwing the baby out with the bathwater a bit.

To draw from my own experience, there's at least one female friend I have who I'd totally ask out if I could guarantee that, in the event she said no, we could stay friends. I'm not unhappy with our current situation, and if she's not interested in the same way then I'd be perfectly happy to continue with it, but I'd also like to see if there's the potential for a different kind of relationship. We'd been friends for a year or so before I started to think that maybe I should ask her out, and it's largely the process of getting to know her better that pointed me in that direction. The main reason I haven't is that I don't want our existing friendship to get all weird (or end) if she says no. Does that make me a Nice Guy/Jerk/etc.? Because if you take the article at face value, isn't that a case of me apparently putting her in the Girlfriend Zone?

Avilan the Grey

2013-05-22, 01:56 PM

Woah, a girl mammoth hunter? Where do I date her!
Sorry, but that just makes her hotter girlfriend zone material.

Especially since all female mammoth-hunters I know of look like young Daryl Hannah's...

Chen

2013-05-22, 02:10 PM

The only flaw in that reasoning is that presenting yourself as possible romantic partner and friend is not such a huge differences in many ways, particularly around more shy people. Some people can be quite good at picking up subtle cues while others can be largely oblivious. Combined with a more generalized aversion to rejection, you end up in situations where it may not be obvious from EITHER side that the relationship is purely platonic or romantic or a combination thereof.

Its a pretty big beef I have with some of the comments with regards to friendzone and the like. Assumptions and generalizations are made all over the place from both sides of the issue. Assuming a guy is simply pretending to be a friend so they can get sex is a huge incorrect stereotype in a lot of cases. Of course it is true in some cases, but painting every man with the same brush is just as unfair as painting all women who like sex as sluts or all women who just want to be friends with you as prudes and teases.

warty goblin

2013-05-22, 02:22 PM

To draw from my own experience, there's at least one female friend I have who I'd totally ask out if I could guarantee that, in the event she said no, we could stay friends. I'm not unhappy with our current situation, and if she's not interested in the same way then I'd be perfectly happy to continue with it, but I'd also like to see if there's the potential for a different kind of relationship. We'd been friends for a year or so before I started to think that maybe I should ask her out, and it's largely the process of getting to know her better that pointed me in that direction. The main reason I haven't is that I don't want our existing friendship to get all weird (or end) if she says no. Does that make me a Nice Guy/Jerk/etc.? Because if you take the article at face value, isn't that a case of me apparently putting her in the Girlfriend Zone?

I think you're expanding the article's complaint way outside its original intent. I never got the impression the author was complaining about any case of a friend ever wanting to turn a non-romantic relationship into a romantic one, or that the two concepts are completely separate or anything like that. I got the impression she was complaining about a class of guys who start a friendship as a step towards romance with somebody they're already romantically interested in, think it's turning into a romance, and then can't handle being told that no, it isn't. Asking somebody you're friends with if they're interesting anything more isn't a jerk move. Dumping a friend because they said no really kinda is though.

Reverent-One

2013-05-22, 02:25 PM

It's using the same sort of language for comedic effect yes, but the actual complaints are quite different.

The friend zone usually is a complaint that a woman isn't willing to spontaneously see a man as a romantic partner, despite the relationship having been established and conducted as non-romantic. Under this (perverse) logic, the fault is on the woman for failing to recognize that the non-romantic relationship should become romantic. This complaint seems unreasonable to me, because why should somebody treat you as a romantic partner when you've only ever signaled friendship?

The linked piece is complaining about people entering into a relationship under what amounts to a false emotional flag, then getting all butt-hurt when the other person has actually taken your advances of friendship as advances of friendship. The fault here lies (correctly) with the man for putting the author in one mental category (people I'm romantically interested in) but treating her like a member of another, then acting like a jerk when the author doesn't reciprocate.

The root cause is of course that the male bit of the equation has has acted and presented himself as a friend while thinking the - but not acting - like the relationship is romantic. This is generally considered trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Remember people: if you present yourself as one thing, you have no legitimate complaint if people treat you like that thing. People shouldn't have to be goddamn psychic to be your friend. You can complain when your ostensible friends act like jerks because you failed to be goddamn psychic.

I read it more criticizing the people who'd use "friendzoning" as shorthand for saying the female intentionally maniuplates the guy who has obviously has feelings for her and does so simply whenever they're turned down and/or those who put forward the idea that women are only capable of seeing you as a friend or relationship partner and that that categorization can't change. Which is reflected in how the writer makes the same assumptions about various men, when in reality, she can't know whether or not the guy came in under a false flag, since as you correctly point out, people aren't psychic (unless the guy in question said so, which isn't mentioned happening).

Flickerdart

2013-05-22, 09:49 PM

"A relationship without friendship as a foundation is like a castle built on sand."
When I started here, there was nothing but a swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em! ...it sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up!

Zahhak

2013-05-22, 10:41 PM

Interestingly, none of the posters who have replied ticked the "female" button in their profile.

Also, show of hands, who heard of this because of reddit?

Kjata

2013-05-22, 10:50 PM

So, obviously it's a parody, and a well constructed one...

But I have one major issue with it.

For me, there's been a few times when i've developed an attraction towards a female friend. It is really god damn hard to be "just friends" with somebody when that attraction gets really strong. You really have two options. Take it further or backpedal HARD. Because when every time you talk to somebody, you want nothing more than... (well, you get the picture) if you can't, it's horrible.

And, up a few years ago, when such a thing happened, i stuck around. And it was miserable. So now, when I hear "let's just be friends," I think "I feel bad this is how it ends, but not as bad as I would if it continued," and gtfo.

EDIT: Wow I look like an ass with this signature, I swear to god it's quoting something.

I just don't remember what.

SaintRidley

2013-05-22, 10:56 PM

Interestingly, none of the posters who have replied ticked the "female" button in their profile.

Also, show of hands, who heard of this because of reddit?

Some of us choose not to broadcast their gender identities online.

No hand here. I refuse to wander over into reddit for any reasons.

Zahhak

2013-05-22, 10:58 PM

Ktaja, the intention of the post was about men who meet a girl, know her for a few weeks, and then try to have sex with her, and get mad when she doesn't feel comfortable because she doesn't really know him. Being friends for a while and developing genuine affection is another thing entirely.

Some of us choose not to broadcast their gender identities online.

No hand here. I refuse to wander over into reddit for any reasons.

I don't doubt that a lot of people here are women who don't want to admit it, I just thought it was interesting that there are no broadcasting women commenting on this thread.

As for reddit, I don't blame you in the slightest. I saw this originally when it circulated through some of the feminist subreddits. And I'm in ****redditsays, so I know very well about the crap that gets said on there.

TaiLiu

2013-05-22, 10:59 PM

No hand here. I refuse to wander over into reddit for any reasons.
I've never touched reddit either, but what's so bad about it?

Zahhak

2013-05-22, 11:08 PM

The site has an issue with barely enforcing any common sense rules. Typical post from Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1euj7i/man_tries_to_justify_himself_to_people_filming/ca40c7y?context=1). A pretty good breakdown of the site can be found here (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reddit). ****redditsays, TwoXChromosomes, and creepypms are also pretty good places to hangout, and anything feminist. Some of the ones about movies/TV shows are good too, like the Doctor Who, Walking Dead, and How I Met Your Mother subreddits.

TaiLiu

2013-05-22, 11:14 PM

Zahhak

2013-05-22, 11:19 PM

GiTP is a great website because crap like that isn't tolerated, but most websites are not this tightly administered, so Reddit (as it is) is not all that bad, sadly. Reddit is basically what happens when you create a website that allows for discussion, image, and video hosting and have no site administration.

However, if you completely ignore the replies and just read the articles, it's a pretty decent news and blog aggregator.

Coidzor

2013-05-23, 02:51 AM

Ktaja, the intention of the post was about men who meet a girl, know her for a few weeks, and then try to have sex with her, and get mad when she doesn't feel comfortable because she doesn't really know him. Being friends for a while and developing genuine affection is another thing entirely.

It often seems that both get lumped together and interpreted in the same way as the first case, possibly for cultural reasons.

But that's anecdote for you.

I don't doubt that a lot of people here are women who don't want to admit it, I just thought it was interesting that there are no broadcasting women commenting on this thread.

Kind of odd, aye.

Frozen_Feet

2013-05-23, 05:06 AM

GnomeFighter

2013-05-23, 05:37 AM

From what I've gathered, "friendzone" is just a modern euphenism for "rejection", and almost never includes any sort of friendliness from either party. :smalltongue:

While at surface, this satire does pose a legitimate complaint - rejected men ceasing to be friendly - but it falls apart when you consider the word "friends" in "let's just be friends" rarely means what the word is supposed to mean. As Coidzor pointed out, just as often it's the women who cut off all contact, because apparently they're allergic to men with a crush.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see the whole concept of "friendzone" burn in hellfire, and all related crap with it.

Ye, I'm pretty much in agreement. The whole "friendzone" thing is stupid. It puts a barrier down that says "Friend"..."Partner" never the twain shall cross! Makes you wonder how those of us who are not just attracted to the opposite sex manage to ever have any friends at all.

"Friendzone" is such a stupid concept. It needs to go in the bin with "soul mate" and "instant attraction". All of them are Rom Com concepts that have nothing to do with real life 99% of the time.

There is no magical point at which someone says "I am now that persons friend. I shall not date them" which is what "friendzone" implies. If someone is attracted to you, and you are to them, brilliant, otherwise get over it.

Chen

2013-05-23, 08:30 AM

There is no magical point at which someone says "I am now that persons friend. I shall not date them" which is what "friendzone" implies. If someone is attracted to you, and you are to them, brilliant, otherwise get over it.

Friendzone I thought just implied a "Just friends zone". Meaning the person isn't interested romantically but wants to be a friend. Its not implying you cannot be friends with someone you want to date or vice versa. It's talking about the cases where the person doesn't want to date them because they just want the friendship. That's how I always interpreted it anyways.

Frozen_Feet

2013-05-23, 08:36 AM

That's the theory. In practice, it just means "person isn't interested romantically".

Aedilred

2013-05-23, 10:49 AM

Friendzone I thought just implied a "Just friends zone". Meaning the person isn't interested romantically but wants to be a friend. Its not implying you cannot be friends with someone you want to date or vice versa. It's talking about the cases where the person doesn't want to date them because they just want the friendship. That's how I always interpreted it anyways.The thing is that "friend zone" as a term is usually (in almost all cases) deployed by the rejectee rather than the rejector. The rejector might say "I'd rather just stay friends" or "I don't want to spoil our friendship" or "I don't think of you in that way" in a (possibly misguided) attempt to soften the blow, but rarely-if-ever will they say "sorry, you're in the friend zone" or refer to their <appropriately-gendered> friends as being in said "friend zone". Rather, they're just friends; there's no zoning.

Rather, the idea of a "friend zone" is one developed by those who've been given one of the above excuses, or think they have, and have extrapolated various things from and associated various things with it that have been gone into in excruciating detail in the past, to the point where the concept is pretty much completely bunk and tends to be representative of some pretty unhealthy ideas about relationships and - since the dynamic in these situations is usually a male rejectee and a female rejector - the female sex in general. See also: Nice Guys, as referenced above.

Scowling Dragon

2013-05-23, 11:12 AM

A good video about: "Nice guys" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH79IeSe0I0)

Contains bad language.

Serpentine

2013-05-23, 11:25 AM

Related. (http://linkshund.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/its-zone-not-verb-my-friend.html)

(also: no, I first saw the OP thing linked on facebook)

ufo

2013-05-23, 11:56 AM

As I see it, this whole matter isn't strictly related to sexuality and love. I think that this is a symptom fundamentally related to our civilisation, in which we are taught that rejection equals losing.

In psychology, it wouldn't be controversial to suggest that most modern humans are primarily guided by the (natural or artificial, not important) desire to accumulate, simply because it is necessary for survival in modern society. Especially (not necessarily) if someone is well-off materially, it seems likely (to me) that hu will reflect hus desire for allocation unto something less tangible, like love or libido.

I guess that my point is, that this kind of relationship problems stem from a society-wide anxiety towards discussing our feelings, especially with those they are targetted at, which fundamentally seems to be caused by the way we manage our collective resources. I have no doubts that most people who consider themselves in the girl/friendzone could reach a more emotionally satisfying result by analysing the way they feel, and not considering what makes me feel like this? but rather why does this make me feel this way?

Eldonauran

2013-05-23, 12:21 PM

:smallconfused:

I don't get this friendzone stuff. The only people I consider worth dating (and thus such a serious expenditure of my time and effort) are in my friendzone.

I simply can not develop legitimate affection for people on a physical level unless I know them very well.

OverdrivePrime

2013-05-23, 12:45 PM

I simply can not develop legitimate affection for people on a physical level unless I know them very well.

Really?

:smallconfused:

Really?

I mean, that's cool, and I'm all for love, and friendship, and emotional bonding... but you really can't feel physical attraction unless it stems from a long-running personal relationship? That seems like some sort of mutant superpower.

Eldonauran

2013-05-23, 12:49 PM

Really?

:smallconfused:

Really?

I mean, that's cool, and I'm all for love, and friendship, and emotional bonding... but you really can't feel physical attraction unless it stems from a long-running personal relationship? That seems like some sort of mutant superpower.

No, I can feel physical attraction for someone I've just met. It simply doesn't mean much of anything to me. I don't feel compelled to persue the relationship based on what my body is telling me. The person revealing a less that favorable personality immediate kills any, and all, physical attraction I might have for them.

I used the word legitimate to describe the attraction I can not develop without personal relationships. I don't have a blurry line between lust and love.

OverdrivePrime

2013-05-23, 12:57 PM

I used the word legitimate to describe the attraction I can not develop without personal relationships. I don't have a blurry line between lust and love.

Ah. That boggles my mind far less now. Thanks for the clarification! :smallsmile:

Zahhak

2013-05-23, 01:40 PM

There is now 1 broadcasting female poster, 14 broadcasting male posters, and 10 non-broadcasting posters in this thread.

From what I've gathered, "friendzone" is just a modern euphenism for "rejection", and almost never includes any sort of friendliness from either party.

I spend far too much time in the dark places of the internet, so I can tell you that the majority of the time when a guy says he's been "put in the friendzone" it's because he met some girl, was nice to her for a few days, and now thinks she owes him sex.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see the whole concept of "friendzone" burn in hellfire, and all related crap with it.

Agreed.

Zorg

2013-05-23, 02:25 PM

Eldonauran

2013-05-23, 02:30 PM

There is now 1 broadcasting female poster, 14 broadcasting male posters, and 10 non-broadcasting posters in this thread.
Eh? Oh, I'm male if that matters. You are most likely to get a lot of male readers for this thread as the term 'Friendzone' is widely known in male circles and, in my experience, females roll their eyes and tune out when the word is mentioned.

Zahhak

2013-05-23, 03:07 PM

We're now at two broadcasting females (OOoohhh!)

PlusSixPelican

2013-05-23, 03:15 PM

On the friend zone as a concept:

It's...honestly, lying, to try to be friends with someone just to try and get to be all up in their stuff romantically. Yep, tha's right. Lying. 'Dishonest' and 'false advertising' are beating around the bush. It's also disrespectful to assume that ladies are beholden to male kindness like sexual vending machines. It's not even kindness in the friend-zone scenario, it's foppish manipulation and debateable sociopathy.

Related, if you gotta turn someone down, DESTROY THE VERY NOTION. Explicit clarity that no feels exist; destroying any and all ambiguity, blurriness, or doubt, is necessary to avoid this nonsense. Reason upon reason upon reason for complete and utter repugnance. Otherwise they still think it can happen, and will then cry-wank about it. It's kind to be cruel, in a sense.

On the rest of it:

People need to stop expecting things for being nice. That defeats the purpose of being nice. Basic, abstract right-and-wrong stuff, essentially. If that concept somehow feels like a raw deal, you might be a mite more evil than you thought you were.

Personally, as someone who's not attracted to men ANYWAY, this is bothersome since I don't set off gaydar until I open my mouth. This inevitably leads to false hope scenarios in which, apparently, I'm either a butt for being mean about it or a liar for having long hair. It gets old, fast.

Lastly, all the pseudoscientific stuff that tries to justify behavior of this or any sort...well, pushes a button for me. If you have to explain or justify why you're in the right, maybe you're not.

Zahhak

2013-05-23, 03:31 PM

Now at three broadcasting females, one of whom is hilariously mean. My favorites are:

sexual vending machines
foppish manipulation and debateable sociopathy.
Explicit clarity that no feels exist
cry-wank
It's kind to be cruel
If that concept somehow feels like a raw deal, you might be a mite more evil than you thought you were
I don't set off gaydar until I open my mouth
I'm... a liar for having long hair.

In short, thank you for the giggles.

Aedilred

2013-05-23, 03:38 PM

If you have to explain or justify why you're in the right, maybe you're not.
But then again, maybe you are. I'm not saying you're not right on this particular issue, but I don't think that's a very helpful philosophy generally. Not everything wears its veracity/rectitude on its sleeve.

Themrys

2013-05-23, 04:01 PM

While I actually do understand why one would not want to continue a friendship when there is one-sided romantic attraction (unrequited love can get bad enough so that the only remaining cure is distance), I despise the whole "friend zone" theory, since many men claim that "being nice" gets them sorted into the "friend zone" and there is no way out of that terrible, terrible hell.
Which is, of course, utter nonsense.

SaintRidley

2013-05-23, 04:08 PM

If you have to explain or justify why you're in the right, maybe you're not.

Jeez, Copernicus just got served.

The rest of your post was good stuff. That last line, though, doesn't quite jive.

Gullintanni

2013-05-23, 04:15 PM

It's...honestly, lying, to try to be friends with someone just to try and get to be all up in their stuff romantically. Yep, tha's right. Lying. 'Dishonest' and 'false advertising' are beating around the bush. It's also disrespectful to assume that ladies are beholden to male kindness like sexual vending machines. It's not even kindness in the friend-zone scenario, it's foppish manipulation and debateable sociopathy.

I understand this point of view, and there is legitimacy to it when a person's intent in initiating a friendship was specifically to achieve a sexual relationship. The problem with this point of view is that it fails to ask a simple question:

Was the objective of becoming friends intended as a stepping stone on the path to sex, or was a desire for an intimate relationship the consequence of the progression of said friendship?

In the former case, then yes, a friendship is being initiated under false pretenses, and that's absolutely deceitful behavior; however, in the latter case nobody can be blamed for emotional development. How things should be handled from here, IMHO, varies on a case-by-case basis. Relationships are extremely complex, and major steps like confessing a love interest should be considered carefully.

In the event that one party does confess a romantic interest; however, and is subsequently rejected, then I fail to see how anyone can blame the rejectee for abandoning the friendship.

Imagine, as the rejected party, watching someone for whom you have legitimate romantic feelings seek out and develop other romantic interests. In some cases, the emotional pain that comes from abandoning that friendship equates to less emotional pain than the pain that comes from watching someone else experience the relationship you desire.

I can't speak for the male gender as a whole, but personally, I would never cultivate a long term friendship exclusively for the purpose of winning sex. If my aim is exclusively to have sex, there are ways to achieve said aim that require significantly less dedication (and are respectful toward all mutually consenting parties :smallwink:) on my part than developing and cultivating a long term friendship under false pretenses.

That said, if I was rejected by someone I had developed feelings for, long term friend before or not, I would have a very difficult time maintaining a friendship with that person until I'd managed to quell my feelings. Which, in some cases, can be an unfortunately long time...

TSGames

2013-05-23, 04:27 PM

I agree with most everything that has been said in the thread so far. However, I did want to say one thing about the 'friend zone'.

I think it is a matter of maturity or at least experience. What I mean by that, hrm...how to put it..... For an anti-social guy, pursuing his first one or two relationships, I can very much understand this 'friend zone' viewpoint. After all, some of us grow up with an overly romanticized view of how dating works and we hope to either "just find someone" as if by magical chance, or we have to work up the confidence to do it. For a young buck that might not have the most social confidence to start with, it is quite nerve racking and difficult to work up enough courage to ask someone out. Often, just asking someone out who is almost a complete stranger feels right out of the question, some of us would keel over from a heart attack! So you make your first attempt or two at dating and being friends first may seem like a good idea.

That said, after a couple times, and hopefully sooner, the young guy will have had some awkward experiences and ruined potential friendships. It is a thing of maturity, or at least experience, to realize that being friends first just to try to ask a girl out later, is a bad idea for almost every reason 99% of the time. The smarter or more confident of the young bucks learn this lesson, they realize they need to be a man and work up the courage to take chances and ask out someone that they think might be cool as a potential SO, but they don't really know. The guys that don't know or figure it out, don't really have an excuse, they're doing the same thing over and over again with no regard to the feelings of the people they interact with, and that is not acceptable.

I guess, all I was really trying to say is that for some guys, befriending a girl first is all they can manage at the time, they should grow out of it, but if they don't its a sad exception rather than the norm.

bluewind95

2013-05-23, 04:29 PM

OverdrivePrime

2013-05-23, 04:38 PM

Yeah, what Zorg said! Then there's also those of us who feel no physical attraction!

No, not mutants. (http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Demisexual)

Thanks to your help, I now know a little more about my fellow humans. Thanks!
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w219/mwellenstein/Win/the_more_you_know.jpg (http://s177.photobucket.com/user/mwellenstein/media/Win/the_more_you_know.jpg.html)

Ashtagon

2013-05-23, 04:44 PM

I see lots of mansplaining in this thread.

The Succubus

2013-05-23, 04:47 PM

Reverent-One

2013-05-23, 04:52 PM

I see lots of mansplaining in this thread.

If by "mansplaining", you mean discussion on the topic, sure, otherwise you'll need to be more specific.

Ashtagon

2013-05-23, 05:01 PM

If by "mansplaining", you mean discussion on the topic, sure, otherwise you'll need to be more specific.

Men explaining how women are wrong in a situation where womens' experiences is more relevant to answering the question at hand.

Reverent-One

2013-05-23, 05:04 PM

Men explaining how women are wrong in a situation where womens' experiences is more relevant to answering the question at hand.

Sorry, I meant specific examples, as I disagree that there's been much of that going on.

Eldonauran

2013-05-23, 05:42 PM

That said, if I was rejected by someone I had developed feelings for, long term friend before or not, I would have a very difficult time maintaining a friendship with that person until I'd managed to quell my feelings. Which, in some cases, can be an unfortunately long time...
:smallfrown: I can understand the difficultly in remaining near someone that you cared for, that ended up rejecting your romantic interests. Been there, done that. For me, abandoning the relationship simply didn't present itself as an option.

The reason I cultivate friendships before I even think about dating is because I know there will be a friendship there even if the other party isn't interested. If I express interest in pursuing a more intimate relationship (note, this is long before I bring up physical intimacy) and they do not seem interested, I simply do not push further.

Any other kind of relationship that does not start with friendship, simply does not appeal to me. I get no lasting satisfaction from the experience and deem it as a sub-optimal use of my time.

Emmerask

2013-05-23, 06:10 PM

Keld Denar

2013-05-23, 06:42 PM

Relevant XKCD is relevant.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/friends.png

Eldonauran

2013-05-23, 06:59 PM

Relevant XKCD is relevant.

Typical example of entering the 'friendzone' for all the wrong reasons.

:smallannoyed: He got what he deserved.

Traab

2013-05-23, 07:36 PM

I don´t quite see the reasoning behind this.

I mean is it so hard to understand that if he wants more then friendship but she doesn´t, that afterwards having a constant reminder of the rejection is just not a very pleasant feeling?
And a friendship where most of the time is just uncomfortable is really not worth having.

That does of course not go for everyone some have no problem with it but for those who have I see no wrong action on their part really.

In the end I can understand any man or woman who "terminates"/reduces the friendship if he/she is just not comfortable with it afterwards and frankly anything else would be just selfish.

This, this is basically my view. Yes, there are guys (and probably girls) who might go the friends route hoping for some benefits to follow shortly, but thats not always the case. I also love how it seems like anyone daring to counter the "girlfriend zone" post is automatically "mansplaining" That basically says, "The subject is closed, we have decided, there is nothing relevant you could possibly say to dispute this so i will dismiss you if you so much as try."

Misery Esquire

2013-05-23, 08:56 PM

EDIT: I really dislike the term "mansplaining". It makes condescending speech sound like an exclusively male trait, which isn't cool. :smallfrown:

I wouldn't worry too much about it. People seem to prefer dehumanizing whomever they disagree with.

Also great to hear that I'm only worried about the various female-friends relationships because I think I'm entitled to sex with them, I thought it was basic empathy, or concern, or something. Always good to be set straight on the matter.

Coidzor

2013-05-23, 08:58 PM

I see lots of mansplaining in this thread.

Honestly I was expecting more female posters to have shown up from what I've been able to glean of the audience for the piece.

I spend far too much time in the dark places of the internet, so I can tell you that the majority of the time when a guy says he's been "put in the friendzone" it's because he met some girl, was nice to her for a few days, and now thinks she owes him sex.

I need to spend more time in these dark places, I must admit. My experience is that there seems to be a second set of people who use it unironically, mostly out of ignorance of the unfortunate implications and usually with at least some confusion as to the definition due to some bleed over into the vernacular of the internet.

Now at three broadcasting females, one of whom is hilariously mean. My favorites are: -snip-

Sexual vending machines is a good one, aye. I'll have to keep that one in mind.

No, I can feel physical attraction for someone I've just met. It simply doesn't mean much of anything to me. I don't feel compelled to persue the relationship based on what my body is telling me. The person revealing a less that favorable personality immediate kills any, and all, physical attraction I might have for them.

I used the word legitimate to describe the attraction I can not develop without personal relationships. I don't have a blurry line between lust and love.

I believe the disconnect here is between "attraction" and "compulsion," as well as how they're interpreted/understood.

It sounds similar to demisexuality, except the term generally implies a lack of any sexual interest or physical attraction prior to the establishment of the emotional bond. Thank you for sharing.

I don´t quite see the reasoning behind this.

I mean is it so hard to understand that if he wants more then friendship but she doesn´t, that afterwards having a constant reminder of the rejection is just not a very pleasant feeling?
And a friendship where most of the time is just uncomfortable is really not worth having.

That does of course not go for everyone some have no problem with it but for those who have I see no wrong action on their part really.

In the end I can understand any man or woman who "terminates"/reduces the friendship if he/she is just not comfortable with it afterwards and frankly anything else would be just selfish.

It's re-framing what is seen as the typical example(?) of a "friendzone" scenario from a female perspective that is tired of dealing with people like that. As far as I can tell the intent of the piece is first as a take-that to men who actually think it's a good, viable strategy; then as an expression of some sort of camaraderie with other women who are sick of such treatment or at least of people discussing the friendzone online. One of the problems with it has been repreatedly pointed out in that it requires some kind of supernatural power on the part of the rejecting party or the admission of the rejected party that the sham friendship was established solely as a means to sexual access. Really though, it just ends up assuming and we all know what happens when you assume.

Usually you're supposed to say something though, rather than simply vanishing. I suppose simply vanishing could be taken as tacit admission to the sham nature of the friendship and holding reprehensible views about women. It still feels like it conflates all scenarios where a man admits to unrequited desire and/or feelings for a woman within the context of an ostensible friendship, and while I'd like to say it was just necessity from how the piece was constructed and to mirror the one-sided, myopic narratives of Nice Guys(tm), I've run into too many situations where such conflation is an accurate representation of someone's views, so lacking greater context I simply don't know which way to go on it.

My impression is that expressing any need for distance or having to regain equilibrium would just get interpreted in an unfavorable and unflattering light. Indeed, it seems like all responses of either party suffer from that.

Zahhak

2013-05-23, 09:36 PM

I need to spend more time in these dark places, I must admit. My experience is that there seems to be a second set of people who use it unironically, mostly out of ignorance of the unfortunate implications and usually with at least some confusion as to the definition due to some bleed over into the vernacular of the internet.

No, you really don't. Did you see what I posted from Reddit on the last page? That isn't even all that bad compared the crap that is said in the dark places. Seriously, don't do it.

Look, look at me Coidzor, because this is super cereal: Don't do it! At this point rape apology doesn't phase me and Holocaust denial barely registers. Seriously, don't do the things I've done.

Just stick to watching to watching Laci Green have an aneurism over Steubenville, and call it a day.

Although as for the "how much of this is Mansplaining?" it looks mostly like men arguing over what is "the friendzone" with each other. Sadly a more productive discussion than anything you'll find on an MRA website.

Coidzor

2013-05-23, 09:47 PM

No, you really don't. Did you see what I posted from Reddit on the last page? That isn't even all that bad compared the crap that is said in the dark places. Seriously, don't do it.

Look, look at me Coidzor, because this is super cereal: Don't do it! At this point rape apology doesn't phase me and Holocaust denial barely registers. Seriously, don't do the things I've done.

Just stick to watching to watching Laci Green have an aneurism over Steubenville, and call it a day.

Although as for the "how much of this is Mansplaining?" it looks mostly like men arguing over what is "the friendzone" with each other. Sadly a more productive discussion than anything you'll find on an MRA website.

It's mostly that it's really jarring to be a pessimist but then have it turn out that my pessimism is actually rose-colored enough that it's basically optimism due to lack of knowledge of our darkest natures.

I have to admit, that lack of consensus/competing set of definitions and connotations does seem to be an important component of the way people think about and discuss the concept of friendzone. I've less experience with Nice Guys(tm), but it seems even with them there are competing definitions.

Men explaining how women are wrong in a situation where womens' experiences is more relevant to answering the question at hand.

I must admit, I'm curious what they would say. More's the pity.

Zahhak

2013-05-23, 10:12 PM

This is considered the best article on Mansplaining (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/13/opinion/op-solnit13?pg=1)

It's mostly that it's really jarring to be a pessimist but then have it turn out that my pessimism is actually rose-colored enough that it's basically optimism due to lack of knowledge of our darkest natures.

Let's leave it that way.

warty goblin

2013-05-23, 10:36 PM

No, you really don't. Did you see what I posted from Reddit on the last page? That isn't even all that bad compared the crap that is said in the dark places. Seriously, don't do it.

Look, look at me Coidzor, because this is super cereal: Don't do it! At this point rape apology doesn't phase me and Holocaust denial barely registers. Seriously, don't do the things I've done.

You can also wander past where the sidewalk ends in the other direction as well. There's been quite a few times where I started off reading a reasonable, well argued bit of feminist critique or commentary, and made the mistake of reading the comments. These inevitably contain links to something just a bit farther out there, and so on and so forth in an ever increasing spiral of weirdness.

It's like being a frog in a slowly boiling pot, except instead of burning to death I end up trawling the archives of a sex-negative anti-porn blog about how any sex where all participants didn't verbally agree to every single activity is rape, or they just round all heterosexual sex up to rape and all men are sub-human until proven otherwise. The sort of blog where mild and polite disagreement or even asking a question in the comments is a horrible patriarchal act.

Just stick to watching to watching Laci Green have an aneurism over Steubenville, and call it a day.

I love watching Laci Green. She's like a low calorie Dan Savage, without the really high octane scary fetishes.

Zahhak

2013-05-23, 10:50 PM

You can also wander past where the sidewalk ends in the other direction as well. There's been quite a few times where I started off reading a reasonable, well argued bit of feminist critique or commentary, and made the mistake of reading the comments. These inevitably contain links to something just a bit farther out there, and so on and so forth in an ever increasing spiral of weirdness.

I personally wouldn't go that far. I'm happy to stick to SRS and CreepyPMs on Reddit at this point. I'm nursing my humanity, but, like with a missing limb, it pretty much wont come back.

It's like being a frog in a slowly boiling pot, except instead of burning to death I end up trawling the archives of a sex-negative anti-porn blog about how any sex where all participants didn't verbally agree to every single activity is rape, or they just round all heterosexual sex up to rape and all men are sub-human until proven otherwise. The sort of blog where mild and polite disagreement or even asking a question in the comments is a horrible patriarchal act.

Interestingly, I was recently banned from commenting in SRS for saying that the RadFems like Andrea Dworkin need to be kicked out of the feminist movement.

I love watching Laci Green. She's like a low calorie Dan Savage, without the really high octane scary fetishes.

Man after my own heart.

warty goblin

2013-05-24, 12:08 AM

I personally wouldn't go that far. I'm happy to stick to SRS and CreepyPMs on Reddit at this point. I'm nursing my humanity, but, like with a missing limb, it pretty much wont come back.

Not going that far is absolutely the better part of wisdom. I suffer from an inability to detect the genuinely out there in feminism until I've already gone over the cliff, so to speak. Then I realize it's 3:00 AM and I've ground a solid sixteenth of an inch of enamel off my molars and my head may explode if I read one more comment saying 'check your privilege, go take Gender Studies 101.'

Interestingly, I was recently banned from commenting in SRS for saying that the RadFems like Andrea Dworkin need to be kicked out of the feminist movement.
My difficulty with Dworkin is that logically I can see her point visa vie the whole no consensual heterosexual sex argument. It's also so broad as to be essentially meaningless though, while still being really quite offensive to pretty much everybody. So I don't like it, but I have to admit it sits on a relatively sound logical foundation.

Man after my own heart.
Amen. Now if anybody ever tells me they want me to [CENSORED] their [CENSORED] with this big, rubbery [CENSORED] while [CENSORING] their best friend in the [CENSORED] until [CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED] and then eat it, I'll be prepared.

TuggyNE

2013-05-24, 12:22 AM

EDIT: I really dislike the term "mansplaining". It makes condescending speech sound like an exclusively male trait, which isn't cool. :smallfrown:

Thanks for that, Succ. There's a little too much "ha, I know what you really mean, even if you sincerely deny it after proper introspection, and what you really mean is terrible for reasons X Y and Z" going on in this sort of discussion. On both sides.

Please, people, nobody is psychic; you do not know for sure what someone else is thinking, but neither do they know for sure about you. So tarring every guy who's been disappointed by the rejection (or ignoring) of a friend with the same brush is unfair, just as it's unfair for those guys to assume their crushes should have known what they were after.

Ashtagon

2013-05-24, 12:22 AM

Amen. Now if anybody ever tells me they want me to [CENSORED] their [CENSORED] with this big, rubbery [CENSORED] while [CENSORING] their best friend in the [CENSORED] until [CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED] and then eat it, I'll be prepared.

You had me at [CENSORED].

Themrys

2013-05-24, 01:00 AM

Zahhak: You, a man, said that you think some women need to be kicked out of the feminist movement ... and now wonder why that got you banned?
:smallconfused:

It's like being a frog in a slowly boiling pot, except instead of burning to death I end up trawling the archives of a sex-negative anti-porn blog about how any sex where all participants didn't verbally agree to every single activity is rape, or they just round all heterosexual sex up to rape and all men are sub-human until proven otherwise. The sort of blog where mild and polite disagreement or even asking a question in the comments is a horrible patriarchal act.

I read that kind of blog. The bloggers are usually not happy with men asking to have to them explained the basics of feminist theory, as those blogs are for feminists who already know all that.

The "men are sub-human" idea wasn't invented by feminists.
In fact, anti-feminists do like that idea very, very much. Just think of how they view men as sub-human apes who cannot behave like decent human beings and, therefore, should not be required to.

And what's your problem with consent culture? It will make the world a better place, and I am quite sure no one says there needs to be verbal agreement. Just, you know, unmistakeable agreement. Which, say, a mini-skirt, is not. Neither is being drunk. Neither is sharing a bed.
That's the idea behind consent culture.
If rape is defined, legally, as "any sex where all participants didn't verbally agree to every single activity" it does not mean that there is any problem for people who, as a couple, think they don't need verbal agreement, as no one will accuse them of rape.
Think of it as a way to get all rapists prosecuted, regardless of how strongly "implied" the consent of the victim was.

Eldan

2013-05-24, 03:01 AM

I agree with some of the People here.

I don't Approach a female with the intent to have sex with her. I approach people in general because they seem interesting. Friendships develop first, sexual relationships, if any, come much later.

It's not dishonest. I'm not faking a friendship to get into anyone's pants. I'm not being friends because I expect sex. I'm being friends because I like someone. I just wouldn't want to be intimate with anyone I haven't known well for a long time.

GnomeFighter

2013-05-24, 03:41 AM

EDIT: I really dislike the term "mansplaining". It makes condescending speech sound like an exclusively male trait, which isn't cool. :smallfrown:

It is also a term used in an attempt to shut down male participants in a discussion by saying "your view is not valid. You should not be part of this discussion" especially when used in this case. This is a discussion about the use of a male term and the feeling that it is inappropriate.

I HATE the term. It is a sexist term used by some people to shut out men who may have a valid view point. Using it is, half of the time, the equivalent of saying "Not now dear, men are talking".

The other half of the time it is used to imply that being condescending is somehow a male trait. And that a man is being condescending because they are talking to a woman. This seems to happen most in academic areas. Academics assuming that people than them may not understand something.

Unfortunately any attempt to counter accusations of "mansplaining" is met with an accusation of "mansplaining". Some people are condescending, especially when they are experts in a field.

In this case it is not even being used correctly.

Back on topic, the "friend zone" is something that seems to go hand in hand with the idea that you are either looking for a partner or not. I have seen discussion in some places about people "going looking for a partner". This seems to be a function of modern society, where by we no longer know everyone locally. Not that long ago you would probably have known your partner since childhood. Now friends and partners are often separated. This is not just men, women do the same.

It also seems that "friend zone" is a very childish way of thinking. I can understand the "I just want to be friends" thing, but the "friend zone" is a poor reaction to that, a childish drive to have everything I want and have it now. The idea that a relationship is the goal. It also reduces the world to a black and white view. Whilst "friend zone" is a term almost exclusively used by men it is not a concept exclusive to men. I have known women do the same thing in cases where someone is not interested in them.

Part of it also seems to be societal pressure to find a partner. Part of it seems to be a disconnection and a tendency for men and women to separate in to groups in some "cultures". The "friend zone" concept seems to often come up in these "cultures". Awkward geeks (the type who stare at women), your classic "frat boy". etc. This could just be my interpretation.

Socratov

2013-05-24, 04:13 AM

I used to worry about friendzones and then I realised that I was too old and annoyed for crap like that. Dating is tough enough as it is without putting up boundaries for yourself. If she (or he - this friend zone thing slices two ways, you know) isn't interested and you feel uncomfortable around them, then stop seeing them until you do feel comfortable around them. Sure, it's not particularly pleasant for either of you but sitting there torturing yourself isn't a barrel of laughs either.

Just ask for some space. It'll be better in the long run and when you do speak with them again...it will genuinely be as friends. Trust me on this.
Rejection is never nice. It's best compared to a bandaid: you can either take it off slowly and hope for the least amount of pain (prolonging hte torture), or you can rip it off quick hoping the pain will pass quickly. Me? I liek the second option: no wriggle room, no bullfeces, plain, simple, fast.

Regarding the friendzone: people (predominantly men, but I've heard women whining about it as well) need to face rejection and simply learn to deal with it. like you said: datin gis hard enough as it is before adding even more complications, which is why I'm actually a bot of a fan of Barney Stinson's Lemon Law: spare the time, just tell the one you're dating/hanging out with what you are and are not interested in. Learn to communicate (seriously, it's not that hard). You were born with a mouth (or lat least he majority of this floating rock in space's population of homo sapiens is), use it!

EDIT: I really dislike the term "mansplaining". It makes condescending speech sound like an exclusively male trait, which isn't cool. :smallfrown:
well put.

Zahhak: You, a man, said that you think some women need to be kicked out of the feminist movement ... and now wonder why that got you banned?
:smallconfused:

Let's say I agree with both of you: Zahhak probably meant to say something along the lines of "these people are hurting your message and it would probably serve in your interests to kick them out allowing for more reasonability[etc.]". You are right in the common sense department becuase it can't be considered tactful now, can it?

I read that kind of blog. The bloggers are usually not happy with men asking to have to them explained the basics of feminist theory, as those blogs are for feminists who already know all that.

The "men are sub-human" idea wasn't invented by feminists.
In fact, anti-feminists do like that idea very, very much. Just think of how they view men as sub-human apes who cannot behave like decent human beings and, therefore, should not be required to.

I guess this was started by someone and by now has entered the chicken and (chicken)egg cycle. make of it what you want but the argument is non-sensical anyway in the fact that it is a prime example of circular reasoning

And what's your problem with consent culture? It will make the world a better place, and I am quite sure no one says there needs to be verbal agreement. Just, you know, unmistakeable agreement. Which, say, a mini-skirt, is not. Neither is being drunk. Neither is sharing a bed.
That's the idea behind consent culture.
If rape is defined, legally, as "any sex where all participants didn't verbally agree to every single activity" it does not mean that there is any problem for people who, as a couple, think they don't need verbal agreement, as no one will accuse them of rape.
Think of it as a way to get all rapists prosecuted, regardless of how strongly "implied" the consent of the victim was.

I think ( as I have read these kinds of blogs in a lost moment of boredon [time I will never get back anyway]) that it's to do with the almost hyperbolic signing of contracts where you both officially agree with every musclemovement made during the act isntead of: "Wanna do it?" "Oh [insert deity of choice] yes!" *cue shmooching and stuff* but this I think I allready covered above when I talked about communication being not that hard. Speaking of which, the whole dating 'game' has this problem since girls expect to be able to say "I'm not psychic, just say so if you think so", but they also expect to give off subtle hints one couldn't decipher if the target in question had the freaking rosetta stone of dating hints. (No really, I once asked a girlfriend of mine what the differenc ewas between an i-want-you-to-date-me hair touch and an I-hate-how-my-hair-hangs-in-front-of-my-face hair touch. Needless to say the girl was stunned for at least 15 minutes before finally conceding the point. I mean, what's wrong with telling each otherthings along the lines of "hey! I like you. let's grab a drink"but noo, we have to make it hard for each other to minimalize the chances of being happy for some time.

Sorry it ended up as a rant, long time frustration and all that...

My main point is: [insert area appropriate language here] [CENSORED]! You speak it!?

Ashtagon

2013-05-24, 04:29 AM

EDIT: I really dislike the term "mansplaining". It makes condescending speech sound like an exclusively male trait, which isn't cool. :smallfrown:

You're right - it's not an exclusively male trait. But http://mansplained.tumblr.com/ exists, while http://womansplained.tumblr.com/ doesn't. I don't know why. I'm sure there must be lots of examples of womensplaining things to men.

Traab

2013-05-24, 05:23 AM

You're right - it's not an exclusively male trait. But http://mansplained.tumblr.com/ exists, while http://womansplained.tumblr.com/ doesn't. I don't know why. I'm sure there must be lots of examples of womensplaining things to men.

Thats because womansplaining already has a term, its, Civil Discourse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_discourse) ( I tried looking up a definition for reasonable discourse as I liked that term better but kept finding odd tangents instead. ) :smallbiggrin:

Eldan

2013-05-24, 05:25 AM

That seems even more condescending. When women do it, it's civil, when men do it, it's mansplaining?

The Succubus

2013-05-24, 05:30 AM

In the interests of gender equality, I propose a new term: "condescendingtwitsplaining".

Granted, it's not as catchy but just think how many points it'd be worth in Scrabble! :smallsmile:

Socratov

2013-05-24, 05:32 AM

Ashtagon

2013-05-24, 05:33 AM

In the interests of gender equality, I propose a new term: "condescendingtwitsplaining".

Granted, it's not as catchy but just think how many points it'd be worth in Scrabble! :smallsmile:

Succubus wins the thread.

And no, civil discourse is not the distaff equivalent. The key point in this kind of 'splaining is that the 'splainer should have realised that their target already knows what is being 'splained.

Eldan

2013-05-24, 05:41 AM

Shorten it a bit? Condesplaining? Twitsplaining?

Brother Oni

2013-05-24, 06:14 AM

In reply to the non-broadcasting lurker comment, this thread is well over my head, thus why I'm not really getting involved.

Maybe I'm just not as socially sophisticated as you all are? :smallconfused:

Aedilred

2013-05-24, 07:14 AM

And no, civil discourse is not the distaff equivalent. The key point in this kind of 'splaining is that the 'splainer should have realised that their target already knows what is being 'splained.
That sounds a bit like the traditional "no, I'm not going to tell you what you've done wrong, because you should already know" business familiar from every terrible domestic sitcom ever. Except with explaining rather than aggressive silence.

Ashtagon

2013-05-24, 07:19 AM

That sounds a bit like the traditional "no, I'm not going to tell you what you've done wrong, because you should already know" business familiar from every terrible domestic sitcom ever. Except with explaining rather than aggressive silence.

*trying hard not to explain this*:smallwink:

Gligarman2

2013-05-24, 07:36 AM

I'm now terrified that I am a "nice guy". How can I be a nice person to women without being a "nice guy". What should I do?

Mono Vertigo

2013-05-24, 07:50 AM

I'm now terrified that I am a "nice guy". How can I be a nice person to women without being a "nice guy". What should I do?
Enjoy the friendship with people (remember: women are people just like guys, sounds obvious, but still too many idiots insist men can't possibly be friends with women). Don't be nice just in the hope you'll get rewarded with sex and/or love, because there's no on/off switch to such feelings.
If you have romantic feelings, tell that person. If they're not willing to start a romantic relationship, decide whether it's better for you two to stay friends or not see each other again. That is valid whether these feelings are there from the start or develop over time.
Don't start a friendship in the hopes it'll turn into love. As said above, you can't decide to love someone or not, so the best that can be said of that behaviour is that you're gambling, and the odds don't look good.
It's okay to feel a friend is ungrateful to you, but if you feel gratefulness would be expressed in the form of sex and/or a romantic relationship, you may want to reexamine yourself.

That block looks intimidating, but honestly, it's not much. It can basically be summed up by "don't expect people to reward you with things they have no real control over".

For the record, I was so far lurking in this thread.

Coidzor

2013-05-24, 08:07 AM

The "men are sub-human" idea wasn't invented by feminists.
In fact, anti-feminists do like that idea very, very much. Just think of how they view men as sub-human apes who cannot behave like decent human beings and, therefore, should not be required to.

I don't really see how it could matter who invented it for the purpose of criticizing those who hold with it, it's still a moral failing to believe and embrace it. :smallconfused: The fact that it means they have more in common with anti-feminists seems like it should provoke more individuals to stop and reconsider embracing and internalizing such a view.

If rape is defined, legally, as "any sex where all participants didn't verbally agree to every single activity" it does not mean that there is any problem for people who, as a couple, think they don't need verbal agreement, as no one will accuse them of rape.

I can see why it still wouldn't sit right with some people for boring routine couple sex to even be mentally lumped together with partner rape.

I'm now terrified that I am a "nice guy". How can I be a nice person to women without being a "nice guy". What should I do?

Don't be nice, and understand that there's no reward for acting correctly or fawning over women. Be excellent to one another. Be clear about your intentions. Take rejection in stride or even with aplomb. Don't put women onto a pedestal. What Musashi said.

In reply to the non-broadcasting lurker comment, this thread is well over my head, thus why I'm not really getting involved.

Maybe I'm just not as socially sophisticated as you all are? :smallconfused:

Over your head? :smallconfused: What do you mean by that?

Ashtagon

2013-05-24, 08:29 AM

Speaking from my personal perspective...

First, be nice. That macho laddish behaviour is a turn-off. Related, don't use PUA tricks. Girls are smart, and many of us subscribe to those same emails to see what pick-up artists do. If you use the tricks of a pua, we can see it, and you'll be tarred with that brush whether you are one or not.

Having established that you're "nice", see what happens next. If I'm interested and you're not totally oblivious, I'll probably drop hints, and with luck you're catch them. If I'm really interested and you're really oblivious, I might hit you with a clue-by-four. Otherwise, hey, you got a new friend. Having friends is cool.

Eldan

2013-05-24, 08:33 AM

What's a Pua?

Coidzor

2013-05-24, 08:34 AM

What's a Pua?

Pick-Up Artist turned into an acronym, I believe.

Kish

2013-05-24, 08:50 AM

I'm now terrified that I am a "nice guy". How can I be a nice person to women without being a "nice guy". What should I do?
Is this serious or sarcastic?

On the assumption that it's serious:
Treat women like people. If you find yourself tempted to be "nice" to someone because then she'll want to have sex with you and for no other reason, just avoid her. If you wouldn't want to spend time with her unless you expected sex later, don't spend time with her.

Chen

2013-05-24, 09:47 AM

If you wouldn't want to spend time with her unless you expected sex later, don't spend time with her.

Unless of course the person in question also simply wants to spend time with you for sex later. Its perfectly reasonable to only spend time with someone in hopes of getting something afterwards, as long as your intentions are clear. More generally, don't spend time with someone under the pretense of one thing (friendship) with hopes of getting something else (sex) out of it.

Nightraiderx

2013-05-24, 09:48 AM

Was lurking as well, wanted to catch up on all of this.

I'd like to point out that first of all the "friend zone" does not exist.
It is either a cop-out or making an excuse as to the thing of "OH I'M SUCH
A NICE GUY I SHOULD GET SOME."

As a former "nice guy," you have to realize a few things:
1. Women are no better or worse than men.
2. There are women who will use the "nice guy" for either free things or for an emotional back-up.
3. There are men who think they are playing nice guy and are entitled, yet they themselves never told the other person that they became interested in them that way.
4. Rejection sucks, I believe that women should try to do what men do and actually see it from their point of view.

The difference I see between men and women are the way they socially interact, a lot men are direct and a lot of women I see are indirect. Men will use words more often than women because I see a lot of the time if a women is using words then it is too late and you missed the body language (or the trick question) that most men don't notice. The one way street that the women already "knows" she is perfect and that the man has to prove to her that he is worth her time. In the "interest of not hurting the others feelings" department, people end up doing worse things TO each other. I would RATHER get rejected than strung along. I was more pissed that these women went through stupid and idiot lengths of getting my hopes up and trying to sneak away rather than just saying no. And people often misunderstand my personality(looking threatening or looking too sensitive). If people were more honest with what they meant and tried to understand others situation then they would just be happier people. Rejection is needed, you have to know what is wrong in order to fix it, and if you aren't willing to at least talk to that person about it you are not doing them a service you are just continuing them to go about their way.

There's one thing both sexes seem to forget, and that is chemistry. I am pretty close friends with a girl I had a crush on because at that point I appreciated the friendship that I had at least. And yes, she knows at one point I did have a crush and we had talked it out already.

If you want to have a healthy relationship like that you have to be willing to put yourself on the table. (imperfections and all) don't be nice just because of their gender, be nice because that is genuinely how you are, you have to know where to draw your limits and let people know that you aren't a doormat to be walked on. Sadly, coming from a hypocrite like me and I don't share with many my.... eccentricities and so forth, but I don't fake my emotions. It takes time to get acclimated to the good and the bad of a person and if the good outweighs the bad then you can have a good relationship. You don't indulge the bad in a way that will lead that person into it farther you focus on the good and help them overcome the bad.

/end rant thingy

Astrella

2013-05-24, 10:51 AM

@NightRaiderX; Note that there is the genuine fear of an aggressive reaction to turning someone down, not to mention that you can't be sure that someone is interested in you until they express that.

Zahhak

2013-05-24, 11:05 AM

Not going that far is absolutely the better part of wisdom. I suffer from an inability to detect the genuinely out there in feminism until I've already gone over the cliff, so to speak. Then I realize it's 3:00 AM and I've ground a solid sixteenth of an inch of enamel off my molars and my head may explode if I read one more comment saying 'check your privilege, go take Gender Studies 101.'

I tend to end up on the opposite end of the spectrum. Like the already mentioned rape apology and Holocaust denial.

My difficulty with Dworkin is that logically I can see her point visa vie the whole no consensual heterosexual sex argument. It's also so broad as to be essentially meaningless though, while still being really quite offensive to pretty much everybody. So I don't like it, but I have to admit it sits on a relatively sound logical foundation.

My difficulty with the RadFems is that to me, Feminism is about seeking out equal treatment for all genders, sexes, and sexual orientations, while RadFems like Dworkin seem only interested in helping out cisgender women while ignoring everyone else, a lot want to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy, or simply remove women from society completely, and then you have Lesbian Separatists. When people (MRAs) complain about Feminism, they're complaining about RadFems about 100% of the time. So RadFems have goals that directly conflict with the broader goals of Feminism, and make it more difficult for the broader movement to get anything accomplished, because Feminists will be getting pissed off about Steubenville, RadFems will say something about how all sex is rape, then some MRA jerkoff will post comments about what the RadFem said, and use it to make the Steubenville rape look like just some feminazi bullcrap.

Amen. Now if anybody ever tells me they want me to [CENSORED] their [CENSORED] with this big, rubbery [CENSORED] while [CENSORING] their best friend in the [CENSORED] until [CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED] and then eat it, I'll be prepared.

I'll bring the funnel.

Zahhak: You, a man, said that you think some women need to be kicked out of the feminist movement ... and now wonder why that got you banned?

I don't think they know I'm a dude, or really care. And what I expressed was more sorrow. But really, people like Dworkin are probably the major reason why feminism has an image problem. I'm not talking about consent culture, but the whole "all heterosexual sex is inherently rape, all porn is misogynist and dehumanizing, porn is sexual assault, marriage is rape" and some of the things she said about birth and Cesarean sections, and the many many many Transphobic, heterophobic, misandric, and anti-BDSM comments of various other members of the RadFem family of ideologies does not help. And that some big name folks like Nadine Strossen and Cathy Young also thinks Dworkin and the RadFems are nuts means I'm not exactly in the minority when I say the RadFems are nuts.

And let me make this perfectly clear: I am not some MRA ****head. I'm the user Hamilton on RationalWiki, the guy who has been trying to get a Gender Studies Project going, I'm A-Hamilton on Reddit, in the SRS, SRS Feminism, CreepyPMs, and Two X Chromosomes subreddits, I'm a fan of Lacy Green and Anita Sarkeesian, and others I cannot think of because I'm getting irritated. And I was on Atheism Plus for awhile.

Maybe I'm just not as socially sophisticated as you all are?

At this point we're basically discussing the dark side of feminism, what constitutes rape, and 'splaining, three subjects you will hopefully never have to deal with. So, maybe its best that you remain unsophisticated.

I'm now terrified that I am a "nice guy". How can I be a nice person to women without being a "nice guy". What should I do?

There's a difference between a "nice guy" and a "Nice Guy(TM)". Everyone likes a "nice guy" because he helps other people out because that's just how he rolls. A "Nice Guy(TM)" helps other people out because he thinks that being nice to people, he can get some sex. So, as long as you're nice to people just to be nice to people, and not because you expect something from them, you're a "nice guy" not a "Nice Guy(TM)".

What's a Pua?

Often not much different than a rapist. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pick-up_artist)

Brother Oni

2013-05-24, 11:14 AM

At this point we're basically discussing the dark side of feminism, what constitutes rape, and 'splaining, three subjects you will hopefully never have to deal with. So, maybe its best that you remain unsophisticated.

Put into that terminology, I can understand what's going on (well, maybe not 'splaining) and I think you're right in that I should keep my head down.

Zahhak

2013-05-24, 11:32 AM

'Spaining is when someone with no qualifications to talk about something explains that thing to someone who is highly qualified. Like if a man were to say to a woman "no, that's discrimination women, discrimination against women is...". This can happen with any kind of privilege (race, class, sex, sexuality identity, etc).

OverdrivePrime

2013-05-24, 12:01 PM

I'm now terrified that I am a "nice guy". How can I be a nice person to women without being a "nice guy". What should I do?

Be excellent to one another.
Pretty much this.^

If you're a nice guy to everyone because that's just how you roll and you view your inherent kindness as its own reward, then you're probably just a good guy. True altruists like this fall into the exalted category of Good Guy Greg (http://good-guy-greg.tumblr.com/), something which we should all aspire to.

If you're selectively nice because you see a social reward in it... then you're probably a politician, or worse. Sorry, bro.

And if you're only nice to this one amazing girl who will some day see that you're right for her, but you'd never want to push it forward because you value your friendship too much... you're probably creepin' her out, and you should go make more friends of both genders and spend less time obsessing over one idealized person.

warty goblin

2013-05-24, 12:01 PM

I read that kind of blog. The bloggers are usually not happy with men asking to have to them explained the basics of feminist theory, as those blogs are for feminists who already know all that.

I'm aware of the reasoning behind it, but it really doesn't excuse the level of rudeness and hostility one occasionally sees. Maybe this is an artifact of my mathematical training, but I find dismissing people for questioning an argument instead of accepting it at face value to be very bad intellectual form. When somebody questions an argument, or presents a counter-argument, it means that either your original claim was wrong, or they do not understand it completely. In either case ignoring them is wrong-headed, since you lose the opportunity to correct an error, or else explain your case better.

Now it's fair to say that the objection is addressed in some other body of work, and you don't want to go into it here. However the proper method of doing so isn't to dismiss the questioner as ignorant and wrong-headed for asking, but point them to a source where they can learn the reason their objection fails. Telling them to shut up and go away benefits neither them nor your argument, because an argument isn't worth the pixels displaying it if it can't convince people.

The "men are sub-human" idea wasn't invented by feminists.
In fact, anti-feminists do like that idea very, very much. Just think of how they view men as sub-human apes who cannot behave like decent human beings and, therefore, should not be required to.
My language was wrong and excessive, for which I'm sorry. Suffice to say however I don't find anything particularly charming about accusations of being a de-facto rapist or benefiting from rape simply because of what I have between my legs. I find it pretty offensive in point of fact, and I suspect a lot of men do for the simple reason that they don't like rapists, may know somebody who was hurt by a rapist, and neither they nor their romantic and sexual partners would classify them as rapists.

And what's your problem with consent culture? It will make the world a better place, and I am quite sure no one says there needs to be verbal agreement. Just, you know, unmistakeable agreement. Which, say, a mini-skirt, is not. Neither is being drunk. Neither is sharing a bed.
That's the idea behind consent culture.
Consent is great. I'm less a fan of the way certain of its proponents like to round everything up to full blown sexual assault though.

If rape is defined, legally, as "any sex where all participants didn't verbally agree to every single activity" it does not mean that there is any problem for people who, as a couple, think they don't need verbal agreement, as no one will accuse them of rape.
Think of it as a way to get all rapists prosecuted, regardless of how strongly "implied" the consent of the victim was.
By that standard, I could argue I was sexually assaulted when my ex-girlfriend kissed me the first time without asking permission. It wasn't, and I frankly don't like having it put in remotely the same category as stuff that is. People can reasonably object to having every single sexual act in which they participate gone over with a scanning electron microscope searching for non-consent particles. When taken to the extreme levels this occasionally is, it feels like being assumed guilty until proven innocent.

I'm now terrified that I am a "nice guy". How can I be a nice person to women without being a "nice guy". What should I do?
Don't feel entitled to anything from people beyond general politeness just because you're nice to them. General politeness being 'thank you for shoveling the sidewalk' or 'I appreciate you sticking up for me during that rough patch I went through a while back.' Not 'You helped me move apartments, allow me to express my gratitude by removing all my clothes.'

Unless moving fantasies are a thing you and your partner have, in which case go for it. Just don't forget the back brace.

Nightraiderx

2013-05-24, 12:02 PM

@NightRaiderX; Note that there is the genuine fear of an aggressive reaction to turning someone down, not to mention that you can't be sure that someone is interested in you until they express that.

Not saying there isn't genuine fear but here's the thing about fear: It will drive people to either a. not listen. b. not think. If people truly took the time to understand the other, they would have an easier time understanding what not to do with that person. At first sight people either get afraid or they just see I'm some sort of push over. Well, I guess they do have something to be afraid of, but they don't understand I have quite some control over myself.

Like I said body language, females use that a lot of the time to "express" their emotion toward the other and the guy simply doesn't get it. I was surprised when I heard someone I had always regarded as a friend was attracted to me that way. I didn't pursue it but if that person did come up to me and say it, I wouldn't be completely harsh about it. I'm oblivious in that way ha ha.

In the same token some females may not understand that just because he is not happy cheery while doing something for you does NOT mean he doesn't care. If a man is grumbling and is annoyed but is doing what you ASKED anyways that to me is showing more than a guy just being happy-go-lucky about it.

In short, people are so short-sighted that they don't look into the feelings or clues people leave behind that show who they really are. But then again, being insightful makes it difficult for me to understand the not knowing I guess =/

@Zahhak there are two changes that if people did the world would be a much better place:
1. To at least listen to a person and respect them, even if they may know less about a subject and to not be condescending and write off their opinion. Instead , just explain why you think that isn't a good idea and go through the steps to see that both of you are on the same page.

2. Ask questions. Do not think just because you aren't an expert in the field doesn't mean you can't ask and learn more about it. Just because you are told no does not mean you didn't learn about it. You can learn from just about any interaction.

@Brother Oni: Just because you will never experience things directly, does not mean you cannot try to learn about them, the awareness may help you NOT do some things that you thought were ok but ended up being uncomfortable to someone else. Just don't "speak on someone's behalf." That's where the line is painted. (as Zahhak has put quite nicely).

Starbuck_II

2013-05-24, 12:03 PM

I'm now terrified that I am a "nice guy". How can I be a nice person to women without being a "nice guy". What should I do?

Don't be nice. Just be. That was the problem.

No one ever says she doesn't like because I'm a person/guy. They say because I'm a nice person/guy.

Phexar

2013-05-24, 12:41 PM

Interestingly enough I was flicking through posts on Tumblr the other day and came across this one:

http://share.biyuti.com/post/49632535051/feminism-has-fought-no-wars-it-has-killed-no

- from trans persons mentioning the rather problematic The Transsexual Empire amongst other things. Sad indeed... :smallfrown:

My difficulty with the RadFems is that to me, Feminism is about seeking out equal treatment for all genders, sexes, and sexual orientations, while RadFems like Dworkin seem only interested in helping out cisgender women while ignoring everyone else

This. I'm... not exactly fond of how RadFems tend to ignore trans persons and people of other races, or worse, act outright hostile about them. There's no equality in that.

Zahhak

2013-05-24, 01:04 PM

RadFems kind of have to be hostile to the Trans* community, because the very existence of the Trans* community directly conflicts with the very underpinnings of the RadFem ideology.

warty goblin

2013-05-24, 01:09 PM

Interestingly enough I was flicking through posts on Tumblr the other day and came across this one:

http://share.biyuti.com/post/49632535051/feminism-has-fought-no-wars-it-has-killed-no

- from trans persons mentioning the rather problematic The Transsexual Empire amongst other things. Sad indeed... :smallfrown:

I learn something new every day. Why is it so often so goddamn depressing?

This. I'm... not exactly fond of how RadFems tend to ignore trans persons and people of other races, or worse, act outright hostile about them. There's no equality in that.
Radical anythings have a strong tendency to really only about one thing in excessive, rabid detail, and either miss the larger picture or are downright hostile to the bits of it that don't line up perfectly with their pet interest. Particularly when they're involved in academia; which is where reasoned compromise goes to die.

Eldariel

2013-05-24, 01:09 PM

Is this serious or sarcastic?

I'm guessing it's confusion derived from how he might feel the accusations here are aimed at every "nice guy"; if you just read through the thread, I could see one getting the impression that the message here is basically "Every male who is nice to a female does so in hopes of sex, which leads to X, Y and Z."; in other words, it's easy to interpret as a false premise. His question is then the logical follow-up: "How should I behave with women for it to be acceptable if being a nice person automatically means I'm only looking for sexual favors in response to my niceness?"

The confusion could be avoided if it were made clear that this does not apply to every male or to more precisely name the scenario being discussed here, but I presume because of quick communication, sweeping terms are used frequently in this discussion. Or perhaps somebody actually believes that every male somehow thinks sex is some manner of a trade goods, but I'd wager it's just a matter of careless, poorly defined terminology.

Astrella

2013-05-24, 01:19 PM

RadFems kind of have to be hostile to the Trans* community, because the very existence of the Trans* community directly conflicts with the very underpinnings of the RadFem ideology.

Well, the inaccurate ideology from their end. Gender being social doesn't have to conflict with trans* people's existence, though a lot can be discussed about that off course. The main problem is that they assume a universal experience of womanhood / manhood just by socialization, which is a grossly oversimplified view, and people, and especially trans* people don't fit into this simple mold, with a huge variety of experiences. (e.g. encountering female beauty standards as a closeted trans* girl has a different effect than it will have on the average cis guy, etc...)

And they definitely don't have to hostile to trans* people, considering there's even a branch of radical transfeminism, it's a bit sad because radical just means getting down to the root, which isn't a bad idea in itself.

Belial_the_Leveler

2013-05-24, 01:28 PM

PlusSixPelican

2013-05-24, 01:29 PM

A lot of people don't notice how fractured third-wave feminism gets. It's a mosaic of opinions ranging pretty much all over the place. Getting two feminists to agree to things can be darn next to impossible. Personally I'm inclined towards inclusion and sex-positivity, but my opinions aren't all the opinions.

On mansplaining, the definition I've understood is that ish explaining things to women (or anyone, really) and acting as though belonging to a certain class, usually but not exclusively privileged men (hence the term), becomes a substitute for expertise, knowledge, or being able to substantiate the opinion in any way. It's almost never a term thrown around as a silencing tactic, despite claims to such.

To illustrate, here's a meme:
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/084/119/tumblr_lbwd5on0td1qdxqhuo1_500.jpg
On the RadFems, "Feminazis", and other forms of complaining about feminism; while feminism can get a bit out there sometimes, there's a whole other nasty side of the coin that I feel gets a pass. Simply put, the copious, obvious vitriol and nastiness lobbed at feminism, feminists, and girls with opinions on the internet. For every beef with actual-factual radical feminism; I see a metric fudge-ton of tantrums when the word feminism is used in a sentence, feminism is mentioned, or when a licit issue is raised. There's a line between disagreeing with someone and calling her a prostitute for advocating women's health issues on your nationally syndicated radio program.

one of whom is hilariously mean.
I try my hardest, ya know. ^.^

In short, thank you for the giggles.
You're welcome~ Giggles are fun.

Zahhak, you were probably banned for perceived and hopefully unintentional concern trolling. Without more information that's my best guess guess. It's not so bad, I've been banned from 4Chan before, although that's an unrelated story.

In closing,

Just don't forget the back brace.
This brings back some fond memories.

Brother Oni

2013-05-24, 01:40 PM

@Brother Oni: Just because you will never experience things directly, does not mean you cannot try to learn about them, the awareness may help you NOT do some things that you thought were ok but ended up being uncomfortable to someone else. Just don't "speak on someone's behalf." That's where the line is painted. (as Zahhak has put quite nicely).

Sorry, I meant 'keep my head down' as in 'keep a low profile' rather than 'put my head in the sand'.

I'm all for learning about new stuff (it's pretty much my job) and I definitely try not to do 'splaining - that sort of behaviour makes me reach for the clue bat to smack the speaker around the head with.

warty goblin

2013-05-24, 01:41 PM

A lot of people don't notice how fractured third-wave feminism gets. It's a mosaic of opinions ranging pretty much all over the place. Getting two feminists to agree to things can be darn next to impossible. Personally I'm inclined towards inclusion and sex-positivity, but my opinions aren't all the opinions.

There is also this. I remember when I took feminism/gender studies senior seminar back in college, the teacher handed out a two page summary of modern schools of feminism. Some of which were really quite baroque, and of course many of them can be combined for even more fun...

Personally my only hard and fast rule is to ignore anybody who considers Marxism a relevant political philosophy.

On the RadFems, "Feminazis", and other forms of complaining about feminism; while feminism can get a bit out there sometimes, there's a whole other nasty side of the coin that I feel gets a pass. Simply put, the copious, obvious vitriol and nastiness lobbed at feminism, feminists, and girls with opinions on the internet. For every beef with actual-factual radical feminism; I see a metric fudge-ton of tantrums when the word feminism is used in a sentence, feminism is mentioned, or when a licit issue is raised. There's a line between disagreeing with someone and calling her a prostitute for advocating women's health issues on your nationally syndicated radio program.
The truth, you are speaking it.

In closing,

This brings back some fond memories.
Always happy to, ah, help.

The Succubus

2013-05-24, 01:42 PM

Remind me how we got from a discussion about relationships again? :smallconfused:

Eldariel

2013-05-24, 01:46 PM

Zahhak

2013-05-24, 02:04 PM

Well, the inaccurate ideology from their end. Gender being social doesn't have to conflict with trans* people's existence, though a lot can be discussed about that off course. The main problem is that they assume a universal experience of womanhood / manhood just by socialization, which is a grossly oversimplified view, and people, and especially trans* people don't fit into this simple mold, with a huge variety of experiences. (e.g. encountering female beauty standards as a closeted trans* girl has a different effect than it will have on the average cis guy, etc...)

I agree, and gender really is a social construct (which you can tell pretty obviously since boy/girls colors have changed in the last hundred years), but the implications that RadFems draw from this (gender is a device used to subjugate women) is lunacy and is where RadFems start to run into issues with the Trans* community.

On the RadFems, "Feminazis", and other forms of complaining about feminism; while feminism can get a bit out there sometimes, there's a whole other nasty side of the coin that I feel gets a pass. Simply put, the copious, obvious vitriol and nastiness lobbed at feminism, feminists, and girls with opinions on the internet. For every beef with actual-factual radical feminism; I see a metric fudge-ton of tantrums when the word feminism is used in a sentence, feminism is mentioned, or when a licit issue is raised. There's a line between disagreeing with someone and calling her a prostitute for advocating women's health issues on your nationally syndicated radio program.

Oh god definitely. There's a reason I know so much about the Others, its because I tend to end up surrounded by them. But I don't feel it really needs to be said in polite conversation that rape apology is bad and that calling Mrs. Fluke a whore on national radio is mean because everyone knows that, or at least I hope everyone knows that. But there is generally little discussion about the genuine failings of the Feminist movement (the RadFems like Dworkin being predominantly 2nd wave, not 3rd) and I don't think mentioning that yes, I have some concerns about feminism that I think are legitimate should be a horrible crime.

Zahhak, you were probably banned for perceived and hopefully unintentional concern trolling. Without more information that's my best guess guess. It's not so bad, I've been banned from 4Chan before, although that's an unrelated story.

How in the hell does anyone get banned from 4Chan?

Also, Original post/comments (http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSFeminism/comments/1ex3k8/calling_yourself_a_man_after_thousands_of_years/).

Personally my only hard and fast rule is to ignore anybody who considers Marxism a relevant political philosophy.

Thank you!

Remind me how we got from a discussion about relationships again?

I think its all my fault.

Astrella

2013-05-24, 02:19 PM

On the RadFems, "Feminazis", and other forms of complaining about feminism; while feminism can get a bit out there sometimes, there's a whole other nasty side of the coin that I feel gets a pass. Simply put, the copious, obvious vitriol and nastiness lobbed at feminism, feminists, and girls with opinions on the internet. For every beef with actual-factual radical feminism; I see a metric fudge-ton of tantrums when the word feminism is used in a sentence, feminism is mentioned, or when a licit issue is raised. There's a line between disagreeing with someone and calling her a prostitute for advocating women's health issues on your nationally syndicated radio program.

Oh yeah, definitely, and some people do misuse this criticism to just dismiss feminism on itself, but I do think it's important to be constantly vigilant about these things because they have and still do a lot of harm. (And for example transphobia always hurts a bit harder for me personally when it comes from feminism or the LGBT+ community.)

Also, Original post/comments (http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSFeminism/comments/1ex3k8/calling_yourself_a_man_after_thousands_of_years/).

Oh, huh. I even read your comments earlier today. Maybe you phrased it a bit unfortunately but there's plenty of valid reasons why someone wouldn't want to call themselves a feminist. (Though I guess it could be seen as being derailing?)

Aedilred

2013-05-24, 02:28 PM

T-shirt #1 legend: "I am NOT looking for a boyfriend/girlfriend."
T-shirt #2 legend: "I am fishing for a new boyfriend/girlfriend."
T-shirt #3 legend: "I already have a boyfriend/girlfriend, thanks."
T-shirt #4 legend: "I am happily married/engaged/whatever."

I think those would solve quite a few problems...
Eh, not so much. For starters, they're no use if you don't wear T-shirts. :smalltongue:

But they also have the potential to lead to misunderstandings and false assumptions. A guy approaching a girl while wearing a #2 t-shirt might be assumed to want a relationship, and therefore, when he doesn't follow the approved pattern for such things, be even more likely to be written off as a Nice Guy than currently, whether he actually wants to have sex with her or not.

(It also falls into the rather annoying, but common, trap, of defining people too much by their relationship status, rather than by, well, anything else).

Astrella

2013-05-24, 02:37 PM

Also ignores the fact that relationships sometimes just happen. Not looking for someone doesn't mean you wouldn't be open to the prospect of a relationship if the right person came along, etc... Just like being on the lookout for someone still doesn't say what they feel about you. :smalltongue:

Aedilred

2013-05-24, 02:38 PM

Nightraiderx

2013-05-24, 03:19 PM

Simply put: Read each person as new, listen and learn their mannerisms, only then can you take them in conquest I mean love/companionship/w/e. Or something along that line.

http://share.biyuti.com/post/49632535051/feminism-has-fought-no-wars-it-has-killed-no

THIS HAS SELF-RIGHTEOUS BULL**** WRITTEN ALL OVER IT.

Because of the mistreatings of women of the past does not mean you
have the right to do the opposite to men. And if all you are going to do is shame others and bolster yourself on a pedestal, well, you will be alone on a pedestal. And one day someone will kick that thing under you and you'll fall hard, I would know I was on that kind of pedestal, idk how you get there but you get wound up in it.

Actually reading it again... I get what she is saying but at the same time she isn't addressing the fact that people who also believe in feminism are doing just that.... it's not made up, there are alot of pictures and examples of why people end up shying away from feminism. but you know what's better? humanism. I find that's better it's a broad group, but hell you can have all the sub groups form together and tackle things in greater force.

Edit: It still has self-righteous bull**** all over it but hey I'm just calling it as it is.

Angel Bob

2013-05-24, 03:25 PM

I've been subject to this "friend zone" situation, but have remained friends with the girl in question. Indeed, in retrospect I have come to realize she is not at all compatible with me and my interests. I learned a good deal from the experience. So there you go: it's not all bad. :smallsmile:

Astrella

2013-05-24, 03:27 PM

Edit: It still has self-righteous bull**** all over it but hey I'm just calling it as it is.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

Zorg

2013-05-24, 03:36 PM

I think he just read the first part and not the responses to it..? Only way it makes any sense to me.

warty goblin

2013-05-24, 03:36 PM

I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

I think the poster is upset that the linked comment points out that at least some parts of feminism have done some legitimately harmful things over the years. Maybe?

PlusSixPelican

2013-05-24, 04:20 PM

Oh yeah, definitely, and some people do misuse this criticism to just dismiss feminism on itself, but I do think it's important to be constantly vigilant about these things because they have and still do a lot of harm. (And for example transphobia always hurts a bit harder for me personally when it comes from feminism or the LGBT+ community.)

Transphobia is a bit more unscrupulous coming from feminists, as we should know better. We need more scruples!

Oh god definitely. There's a reason I know so much about the Others, its because I tend to end up surrounded by them. But I don't feel it really needs to be said in polite conversation that rape apology is bad and that calling Mrs. Fluke a whore on national radio is mean because everyone knows that, or at least I hope everyone knows that. But there is generally little discussion about the genuine failings of the Feminist movement (the RadFems like Dworkin being predominantly 2nd wave, not 3rd) and I don't think mentioning that yes, I have some concerns about feminism that I think are legitimate should be a horrible crime.

The second wave, from my understanding, has a lot of stuff I don't agree with, such as negative attitudes towards ALL sexuality. If we start repressing ourselves, the patriarchy/kyriarchy/establishment wins the shame game.

There's an issue of perception when men point out flaws in the reasoning, since it comes across as concern trolling or derailing when y'all do it, since for every time it's genuine opinion, there's at least two times it was insincere.

How in the hell does anyone get banned from 4Chan?

I'm too spicy for 4Chan. It's not that hard to do, actually.

THIS HAS SELF-RIGHTEOUS BULL**** WRITTEN ALL OVER IT.

That article is a bit incoherent, and after reading the article...there's some errors. I do agree with the premise that early feminism was rather trickle-down by design (freeing the freest women with, at best, little concern for the rest of the female population), but a lot of the assertions felt a little paranoid and accusatory.

Coidzor

2013-05-24, 04:29 PM

My difficulty with the RadFems is that to me, Feminism is about seeking out equal treatment for all genders, sexes, and sexual orientations, while RadFems like Dworkin seem only interested in helping out cisgender women while ignoring everyone else, a lot want to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy, or simply remove women from society completely, and then you have Lesbian Separatists. When people (MRAs) complain about Feminism, they're complaining about RadFems about 100% of the time. So RadFems have goals that directly conflict with the broader goals of Feminism, and make it more difficult for the broader movement to get anything accomplished, because Feminists will be getting pissed off about Steubenville, RadFems will say something about how all sex is rape, then some MRA jerkoff will post comments about what the RadFem said, and use it to make the Steubenville rape look like just some feminazi bullcrap.

I seem to recall that there was some evidence to support an argument that part of the reason we're muddling around now with a culture where Feminism is fairly weak and the resurgence of Feminism stopped making headway was because of a split based upon whether the "big crusade" should be making pornography illegal by any means necessary, including some means which were considered questionable.

Zahhak

2013-05-24, 04:49 PM

The second wave, from my understanding, has a lot of stuff I don't agree with, such as negative attitudes towards ALL sexuality. If we start repressing ourselves, the patriarchy/kyriarchy/establishment wins the shame game.

Yeah, the RadFems just wouldn't shut up and kept trying to make it a pressing issue, then the Feminist Sex Wars, and now there are some RadFems, but they're mostly just left overs. I'll be glad when they're gone.

There's an issue of perception when men point out flaws in the reasoning, since it comes across as concern trolling or derailing when y'all do it, since for every time it's genuine opinion, there's at least two times it was insincere.

But I don't think they know I'm a guy. That post I made was literally the only time I'd said anything in the SRS network.

I'm too spicy for 4Chan. It's not that hard to do, actually.

They allow open racism, sexism, Holocaust denial, and child porn postings. What did you do?

I seem to recall that there was some evidence to support an argument that part of the reason we're muddling around now with a culture where Feminism is fairly weak and the resurgence of Feminism stopped making headway was because of a split based upon whether the "big crusade" should be making pornography illegal by any means necessary, including some means which were considered questionable.

A lot of the mainstream 2nd wave was against porn, but it was mostly the RadFems like Dworkin that actually tried to ban it. The reaction to that (because women like porn too) led to the sex wars, and now to modern feminism, where there are serious attempts at taking back the words "whore" and "slut"

Traab

2013-05-24, 05:52 PM

They allow open racism, sexism, Holocaust denial, and child porn postings. What did you do?

He professed to like pepsi over coke.

Nightraiderx

2013-05-24, 06:21 PM

I think he just read the first part and not the responses to it..? Only way it makes any sense to me.

I read the first part at first, then I noticed there was stuff underneath it. Trying to disseminate the tone of it all. And since I rarely read tumbler now I know that they posts are from different people. I was confused at first, read it like 5 times.

But yea the first part got me riled up too, at least the people below it brought stronger points than w/e rant I just had a few posts ago.
Sorry about that folks. Injustice to others makes me rage hard.

Edit: as to why self-rightous BS refer to the first and last sentences by the first poster. the "feminism has not done x, x, and x." It's moral equivalency, just because you didn't do one thing doesn't make that one a saint. and the last one. "oh your not a feminist? what's your problem?" Another self-righteous move and where those who are not part of "the cause" have something automatically wrong with them.

Mx.Silver

2013-05-24, 06:31 PM

Remind me how we got from a discussion about relationships again? :smallconfused:

The magic of the internet, Succubus. The magic of the internet.

Astrella

2013-05-24, 07:04 PM

I read the first part at first, then I noticed there was stuff underneath it. Trying to disseminate the tone of it all. And since I rarely read tumbler now I know that they posts are from different people. I was confused at first, read it like 5 times.

But yea the first part got me riled up too, at least the people below it brought stronger points than w/e rant I just had a few posts ago.
Sorry about that folks. Injustice to others makes me rage hard.

Edit: as to why self-rightous BS refer to the first and last sentences by the first poster. the "feminism has not done x, x, and x." It's moral equivalency, just because you didn't do one thing doesn't make that one a saint. and the last one. "oh your not a feminist? what's your problem?" Another self-righteous move and where those who are not part of "the cause" have something automatically wrong with them.

Well, yes, that's what the link was criticizing, they were replies to that quote.

PlusSixPelican

2013-05-24, 07:45 PM

They allow open racism, sexism, Holocaust denial, and child porn postings. What did you do?

I challenged that, and was also 16 at the time and didn't lie about it.

Nightraiderx

2013-05-24, 08:12 PM

I challenged that, and was also 16 at the time and didn't lie about it.

And that is the first step of reforming the feminist movement for the better. Indeed.

Zahhak

2013-05-24, 08:32 PM

Challenging 4Chan is not the first step to reforming the feminist movement, its the first step to needing a new bank account.

PlusSixPelican

2013-05-24, 08:53 PM

Challenging 4Chan is not the first step to reforming the feminist movement, its the first step to needing a new bank account.

What're they gonna do? Steal my debit card with $40 on it? Woop-de-doo.

Zahhak

2013-05-24, 08:57 PM

Use it to purchase child pornography? It is 4Chan we're talking about after all.

Emmerask

2013-05-24, 11:39 PM

He professed to like pepsi over coke.

but pepsi is much better then coke :smallmad:

Forrestfire

2013-05-24, 11:39 PM

From what I've heard about 4chan, isn't that one of the few things they don't allow on the site? To the point of finding addresses of people who post it and calling the police on them?

warty goblin

2013-05-24, 11:49 PM

Challenging 4Chan is not the first step to reforming the feminist movement, its the first step to needing a new bank account.

From what I know of 4chan, mostly it just seems an exercise in self-flagellation. Which hey, if that's your thing, fine with me.

Zahhak

2013-05-24, 11:51 PM

4Chan was basically a hub for trading child porn for years. A friend of mine tried to sell me on 4Chan with the selling point of "it's gotten much better since the mods started cracking down on the kiddie porn". As long as you don't claim to be the person who made the child porn, they pretty don't care. Then they report you to the police.

Forrestfire

2013-05-24, 11:51 PM

In any case, I avoid it like the plague. Went there once when I turned 18 just to see and ran like hell. :smalleek:

Eldariel

2013-05-25, 05:19 AM

but pepsi is much better then coke :smallmad:

This is easy to settle: Both taste terrible and are poisonous. :smalltongue:

Traab

2013-05-25, 05:29 AM

but pepsi is much better then coke :smallmad:

Very true. Thats why I dont post on that site either. Its such a shame when people's prejudices are allowed to be used to censor the masses, but I have a dream that one day a pepsi can can be put next to a coke can without a deathmatch breaking out.

Eldan

2013-05-25, 08:00 AM

I don't see much of a difference in taste, but Pepsi max is about 20% cheaper than Coke Zero.

The Succubus

2013-05-25, 05:06 PM

Very true. Thats why I dont post on that site either. Its such a shame when people's prejudices are allowed to be used to censor the masses, but I have a dream that one day a pepsi can can be put next to a coke can without a deathmatch breaking out.

I prefer the cola I get from Marks and Spencers. It has a wonderfully rich flavour to it. Organic colas are pretty nice too.

warty goblin

2013-05-25, 06:06 PM

I prefer the cola I get from Marks and Spencers. It has a wonderfully rich flavour to it. Organic colas are pretty nice too.

Personally I just spike all my water with lemon juice. Pretty cheap, adds essentially zero calories, and means I never, ever have to worry about scurvy. That's about all I drink. Well, that and various fruits and grains in which yeast has been encouraged to get frisky.

Forrestfire

2013-05-25, 07:14 PM

I don't like either, to be honest.

I stick to sprite and root beer.

PlusSixPelican

2013-05-25, 07:57 PM

Y'all are all silly. I like hot chocolate, any time of year. ^.^

Eldariel

2013-05-25, 07:59 PM

30% (mineral or tap) water, 30% milk, 30% teas, 9% various alcoholic beverages (mostly wines and beers) 1% coffee/hot chocolate/variations. What are these sodas you speak of?

Eldan

2013-05-25, 08:22 PM

Cola is the most easily available source of caffeine. I don't like it much, but I can't stand coffee, and good tea is rarely available anywhere. So I settle for that. A few years ago, a local company sold a fruit juice with coffee berry juice in it. Delicious and strong, but then they stopped selling it.

I don't drink cola because I like it, I drink it because it keeps me awake.

Coidzor

2013-05-25, 09:06 PM

30% (mineral or tap) water, 30% milk, 30% teas, 9% various alcoholic beverages (mostly wines and beers) 1% coffee/hot chocolate/variations. What are these sodas you speak of?

What do you call this concoction and how on earth do you manage to measure out 1% in a beverage recipe?

warty goblin

2013-05-25, 10:01 PM

What do you call this concoction and how on earth do you manage to measure out 1% in a beverage recipe?

I suspect it's total consumption proportions, not the recipe for any particular beverage. For one thing mixing tea and hot chocolate seems unlikely to be good.

TuggyNE

2013-05-26, 03:39 AM

From a few pages back, I think condesplaining is the best.

30% (mineral or tap) water, 30% milk, 30% teas, 9% various alcoholic beverages (mostly wines and beers) 1% coffee/hot chocolate/variations. What are these sodas you speak of?

Pretty much the same for me, except I don't drink alcohol or coffee. Maybe a bit more hot chocolate. :smalltongue:

Mauve Shirt

2013-05-26, 09:18 AM

Hard drinks > soft drinks
Soft drinks > sexism

Morph Bark

2013-05-26, 12:43 PM

I find the devolvement of a thread on a gender matter into a discussion on beverages hilarious, intriguing and ironic, the latter of which due thanks to the fact that I bonded with a member of the opposite sex over such a discussion.

I never entirely understood the feelings of the people who think they're "friendzoned". Being friends requires effort from two people. If you're friends, it's because you both deem each other friends. Essentially, people friendzone themselves.

Hard drinks > soft drinks
Soft drinks > sexism

Hmmm... meeeaaad...

Coidzor

2013-05-26, 12:57 PM

I find the devolvement of a thread on a gender matter into a discussion on beverages hilarious, intriguing and ironic, the latter of which due thanks to the fact that I bonded with a member of the opposite sex over such a discussion.

It's more entertaining than discussing the failures of others as romantic creatures and/or moral creatures.

I never entirely understood the feelings of the people who think they're "friendzoned". Being friends requires effort from two people. If you're friends, it's because you both deem each other friends. Essentially, people friendzone themselves.

Well, it depends upon which friendzone we're talking. Serpentine's Link is relevant to that aspect, I think.

Related. (http://linkshund.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/its-zone-not-verb-my-friend.html)

(also: no, I first saw the OP thing linked on facebook)

Morph Bark

2013-05-26, 02:54 PM

Well, it depends upon which friendzone we're talking. Serpentine's Link is relevant to that aspect, I think.

Right. In the sense I was talking about it, I meant to refer it more in the sense of people using it as a verb, something which people give a meaning to as detailed in the article Serp linked to, which is a bad thing that I don't agree with (the verb, not the article, which is a good one). :smallsmile:

Nightraiderx

2013-05-26, 03:29 PM

And I wonder how many of those "friend zoned" people actually came out with their true feelings towards that other person? Come now if you are truly at a good friend standpoint then you should know better than that, hell my closest friend will call me horrible things when I do deserve it because that's how true friendship goes. The level of understanding each other's strengths and weaknesses and trying to bolster both of them and not taking advantage of their weakness. Love is a damned risk and if you aren't willing to risk anything for it then you better not come on here and complain about it.

Serpetine's article was interesting but it applies to all humans, people will tend to put sub-conscience labels of familiarity upon everything,
just because you are "labeled" as one thing does not mean that label is permanent it all depends on the pace and the honesty of your emotions.

" If she's genuinely your friend, you've probably got quite fond of her, which not only makes it sting that little bit more, but turns your friendship from something fun into something painful. "

If a relationship is painful and unhealthy, then you should actually do something to fix it, being in "limbo" is the worst feeling, if you aren't being completely honest to her about something then the friendship isn't worth it. I have two examples that varied in different results. One girl I did ask just used the "friends" excuse to "let me down easy." I smelled this crock of bs a long time ago and the friendship isn't worth it. If the excuse is "oh but I don't want to ruin the friendship." then that is a straight up lie. A relationship starts out as a friendship first of all, so "ruining" something that could be built upon is that they just don't find you attractive. And if they are your friend they will say just THAT, that they aren't attracted to you that way because that's the honest reason.

"It also feels unfair on a gut level, because you didn't get what you wanted and she did, and all she had to do was not want as many things. "

Now this seems a bit selfish, I've been on the raw end of the stick a lot of times, but if you are friends with that person and you do go out on the line and you get rejected, well suck it up. There are A LOT of people out in the world many you have yet to meet and to think that your crush in the world is going to just be that one person, that's just limiting yourself. I may not have gotten "exactly" what I wanted but that doesn't mean that you throw away the entire thing if you actually value the friendship. I have a good friendship with a girl I had a crush on a few years ago, sure give yourself time to get the frustration and hurt out but that's life and that's how secretly humanity likes it. You either embrace the challenge or give up. But if they are truly good friends then being honest shouldn't be the thing that breaks it up and frankly, if it is then the "friendship" wasn't that strong to begin with.

Have the courage to put the heart on the line, for each time it falls and when you rise from it you become stronger or you know, just state it from the beginning, you can't be as frustrated if you ask the other half to see where it goes.

TuggyNE

2013-05-27, 01:10 AM

Now this seems a bit selfish, I've been on the raw end of the stick a lot of times, but if you are friends with that person and you do go out on the line and you get rejected, well suck it up.

It is, in fact, rather selfish. That doesn't mean it's an invalid feeling; emotions tend to be selfish quite a lot. Life is hard, and sometimes a little comfort and sympathy can be really nice, even if you know what you "should" be doing already.

Have the courage to put the heart on the line, for each time it falls and when you rise from it you become stronger or you know, just state it from the beginning, you can't be as frustrated if you ask the other half to see where it goes.

I'm always amused at the sorts of things people believe to be encouraging and motivating; they usually boil down to "be encouraged and motivated, already!"

Background, in case anyone cares:I'm a nice guy, but not a Nice Guy, in the sense of the term; I don't consider myself entitled to anyone's heart, much less body. But I have had substantial trouble being assertive enough early enough to get anything more than drawn-out and polite refusals on the two occasions I've realized I actually wanted to turn a friendship into dating. The subsequent awkwardness in both cases was too much to maintain even the friendship.