The Friendzone: Exchange or Communal relationship confusion

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pop-psych/201501/quid-pro-quo

I speak in generalities, as always…

Friendzoned men don’t understand the value of sex differs between the sexes. The perception, experience and behaviour of women regarding sex is completely different.

A woman’s sex is valuable, usually her ultimate value and human expression (sadly). A woman who would give that away casually (FWB), for a mere friend on a regular basis (easy to gain and lose), either isn’t very smart or has no self-awareness/esteem. Essentially they want the woman in question to be as blind (if deception is involved as to their ‘nice’ intentions) and desperate as they are (horny but with no genuine lasting affection for the intended target) and blame her for ignoring the situation (to save the man embarassment and hope he figures it out by himself) or despise her for explaining the truth (especially so if she gave no indication of romantic interest or outright told him such). That last group are, indeed, entitled creeps. You can’t even pay a prostitute in kind deeds and they knowingly enter exchange relations, because women no longer value those kindnesses on a sexual level (provider types flourished in times of hardship and war, long gone). There is also an argument to human decency but it varies depending on nobility of upbringing and expected manners. Friends don’t call in debts of kindness, it is supposed to be natural, and pity sex is no sex at all.

You can’t turn a hoe into a housewife, but you also can’t turn a good girl (who would take pity) bad. It works both ways.

Whereas if a woman assumes she is highly desirable, it reflects badly on her, however true. The ‘friendzoned’ boy assumes the same, the flipside yet same ugly arrogance and entitlement [how could they ever say no?] that if he is nice enough to ANY woman, she will find him desirable [even seasoned players get rejected, it’s a fact of life]. Cases of ignorance are more sympathetic if one party is young but women in particular underestimate just how many of their male ‘friends’ have hung around in part because they want sex too. As before, sexual perception varies and men desire more from more casual relationships, which women in turn have a hard time wrapping their head around, assuming deception from this when there may have been none, just a hopeful ‘let’s see what happens’. It’s all very muddled by PC egalitarian BS and lack of formal rules for expressing interest.

In this life, it is a hard lesson to learn that nobody owes you anything.

You cannot reason another into an emotion. [Look at all I did for you... betraying what should be a communal relationship for a petty exchange one from the beginning, from his perspective alone, as if every woman’s sex can be bought. And the boys wonder why average women are insulted by this, and for making the game of what could be love in some rare cases so base, calculated and overt.] Subtle as a brick.

Where the friendzoned is a woman, she uses an offer of sex as a lure, the bait to something more. When this is rejected, it reinforces the fact that nothing she offers will be good enough. As she must already have low SE (to give up her primary value) this causes a spiral. The lowest barrier of something universally appealing (non-sexual affection) is not only insufficient to build a history for more than that but repulsive to the target on principle because it is used as a tool for manipulation. Relationships should be honest and founded on communication and trust, these are flouted. The frustration is similar to the male case but not the same.

And then there’s the signal function of desperation, including claims of unending loyalty with conditions (oxymoron), which is a turn-off in EVERYTHING [emphasis for people who found this by Google and need help.]

The reason such exchanges cannot be made explicit, I think, has to do with the signal value of the exchange. Consider two possible friends: one of those friends tells you they will be your friend and support you so long as you don’t need too much help; the other tells you they will support you no matter what. Assuming both are telling the truth, the latter individual would make the better friend for you because they have a greater vested interest in your well-being: they will be less likely to abandon you in times of need, less likely to take better social deals elsewhere, less likely to betray you, and the like. In turn, that fact should incline you to help the latter more than the former individual. After all, it’s better for you to have your very-valuable allies alive and well-provisioned if you want them to be able to continue to help you to their fullest when you need it. The mere fact that you are valuable to them makes them valuable to you. [assortative, matching hypothesis]

Fairweather friend v. Real friend.

Here’s a secret: you always learn who your true friends are eventually, and by then it’s too late to repair bridges and reconnect on the same level. Let the fairweather ones fall away, don’t be scared to cast them out yourself, and it will be one of the best things you have ever done. The stakes are higher for any relation above a common friend. The highest is spouse. This is why friendzones create such high tensions and emotions. It’s an almost autistic response on part of the ‘friendzoned’ to fail to see why their approach doesn’t just fail, but damages whatever was there. [no trust, no love]

In turn, this would create the need for people to distinguish between what we might call “true friends”—those who have your interests in mind—and “fair-weather friends”—those who will only behave as your friend so long as it’s convenient for them. In that last example we assumed both parties were telling the truth about how much they value you; in reality we can’t ever be so sure.

It’s easy. Like if you were dating someone and were unsure of their commitment level, freeze them out. Don’t call. Let the loved one go and see if they come back. If they never do, they were looking for an excuse and deceiving you the entire time. This is the origin of the Ice Queen approach and relies on men being the pursuer.

Without such credible signaling, I’d be left taking you at your word that you really have my interests at heart, and that system is way too open to manipulation.

Ya think? Everything in life is a risk. Be yourself (omitting gross personal problems, get those fixed) and the people who like the real you, quirks included, instead of what you expect them to like? Those are the keepers.

Such considerations could help explain, in part, why people are opposed to exchanging things like selling organs or sex for money but have little problem with such things being given for free.

It puts a price on the highest spiritual human expression [materialist/spiritualist division in people] and damages the social fabric.

 

 

“Never tell a woman you love her”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201106/never-tell-woman-you-love-her-unless

It’s like a big red speed button to the relationship. For most women and commitment-minded men this is good. For those who wanted short-term (r-type?) – very bad. Player v. stayer.

As Josh Ackerman puts it: “Saying: ‘I love you’ is a negotiation process; essentially, you’re making an offer. And from an evolutionary-economics perspective, the decision to make that offer is different for men than it is for women. In the romantic marketplace, women want to minimize the risk of selling too low, whereas men want to minimize the risk of not bidding high enough. For men, the biggest mistake would be to not communicate commitment and lose the relationship. For women, the biggest mistake would be to impulsively trust her partner’s declaration of ‘I love you’ and gamble on a sexual relationship without the man’s investment.”

Back to the handsome mounted New York City cop who advised me never to say “I love you” to a woman. Living in New York City in the 1960s, with a giant population of single available women, and a new spirit of sexual freedom, this leading man on a tall horse was able to play an unrestricted strategy more easily than most men. Indeed, other research by Steve Gangestad and Jeff Simpson indicates that handsome men are more likely to adopt an unrestricted strategy, and other research suggests that such strategies are more successful for such men when there is a high ratio of available women. 

It doesn’t take much to be handsome nowadays. 1. Don’t be fat. Already ahead of the curve.

For most regular-looking guys living in places where the desirable women have men quite willing to commit to them, withholding love and commitment might be a formula for celibacy. So better advice to all you regular guys, when you start falling head over heels for a woman, is to go ahead and say “I love you” (but only if you mean it, of course).

 

Video: The smugness of delusional liberals

There is a game I learnt from a small village in the middle of nowhere. Here’s a description:

Collaborator:Partisan

In the event of an invasion, would X be enthusiastically co-operating (“Well, they are a bit harsh, admittedly, with their summary justice an’ all, but <sigh> we’ve got to have rules.” [BANG]) or out there sabotaging? It seems clear which side the ‘grasses’ would be on.”

Which one Guardian true-believers are on would be clear.
Let them lie in their own bed. They wanted XYZ, leave them be, even if they’re screaming for help. Remind them they had a choice …and they chose wrong.