Life’s too short. I’ve heard those called relationshits. Rude but true.
Life’s too short. I’ve heard those called relationshits. Rude but true.
This is very common and often a hidden factor in women supposedly ‘leading men on’ with polite affection or ‘friendzoning’ that doesn’t seem to make sense. She’s seen how you behave in a romantic context and she doesn’t know that person. She doesn’t even like that person. One of the few times 2 ladders theory comes in. She ignores it when you’re just friends but when you try to herd her into that other pen, where, as she sees it, you’re mistreating women like animals or treating them as less than human, she’s smart to say no thanks. Probably one of the things you like about her is her self-respect.
We aren’t lemmings and we aren’t as stupid as (some of) you seem to think we are. At least on social matters. If a woman lets on though, or tries to explain, she gets accused of being manipulative, when it’s social intelligence. It’s the way most women are, it’s our thing, in fact we’re being honest and a deceptive person never would be. The guys who get defensive like that are digging their own social live’s graves. Since again, all the other women are watching him react and wonder why he doesn’t get it.
Men do not appreciate this fact (that women note down all the ways you’ve treated her sex in the past, like a man noting which of his female friends is the easiest lay or the most feminist) and can be quite shocked when it comes back to bite them later, when she based a decision based on this supposedly ‘unfair’ information. Women are social creatures. It’s like seeing if a man is good with children, animals or the waiter. Or whether he has nice shoes. All of these seemingly random things are trying to infer future treatment.
It’s easy to fake being decent now, but in a week? In a month? In a year? She’s sorting out the time wasters.
A good friend can be a bad boyfriend. The men themselves object to this as shallow (nothing to do with looks) when it’s simply an acknowledgement that they’re better in one social role than another. Better behaved. It can seem like, when the standards are higher (relationship) and the situation more intimate, they can regress and become brattish and even the parents of toddlers find them high-maintenance. The adult men do this because they figure they’re always in control and the woman can never leave (like their own mother) despite how it’s a tester for a marriage and they’re failing badly. It should be the other way around and the person should get better to know the more intimate you are, this is mature. A person should be the best at their core. If they never mature, you get middle-aged men who still think they should be able to get away with the same callous behavior of a 15-year old. When his relationships keep failing, he’ll always blame the women, especially the bitches who dared to leave him (when they gave him a chance, tried to correct him and realized he’s a hopeless case).
I think this is what women used to mean they spoke of ‘nice guys’ but the wires got crossed and came to mean indecisive pushover (it doesn’t) when used. If he isn’t nice (as a non-sexual person in any context) after he has no further use for you, he isn’t nice. He was never nice. He was probably the inverse, totally fake and manipulative. And I bet he hates children and animals and waiters and others who can see through him.
A lot of men seem to think they have a free pass on their single actions because future women or other female prospects will just discount it. Nope, that’s what men do (boys will be boys is spoken by patient men who matured out of that stage). If you treat other women badly, or have done enough to get a reputation or some stories out there, it will put off women who were otherwise on the fence, like at the initial impressions stage and they might only see you as a friend or badly behaved brother-type at best, where you feel like you have to keep explaining yourself to other women (why do you hang out with him?) and explaining away his bad behaviour like he’s a child (Little Timmy only broke the window because he’s bored). It’s quite disgusting to imagine you’d be treated that way in future once the novelty has worn off, and this goes most of all for cheats. Once a cheat, always a cheat. The only type of woman that is OK with it is also a cheat. It seriously messes up their long-term prospect in the same way as a slut becomes unlikely mother of your children material.
You can’t erect a red flag or few and wonder why people avoid you.
Naturally, we rarely discuss this with men who tend to take it too personally (you’re judging me when we’re just friends???) since it never happens in male friendships (because they’re all the same sex) and it’s alien territory (it’s just how women work, son) so we try to hint with the nice guy stuff or making it really obvious by asking how you treat your sister or mother (women you have nothing to gain from sexually). Even in jest.
You kiss your mother with that mouth?
Hope this made sense.
p.s. This is why women walk around in groups aside from physical safety. It’s like the crow’s nest in war films or when soldiers stand back-to-back to get a 360 degree view. To watch what, do you think?
I think they misuse the term nerd to mean loser.
At least nerds have something going for them. It’s like a caste system, and what they find attractive/repulsive is determined by their position. You have to be pathetic to get a SJW, but this isn’t a norm to all other groups. There isn’t a crossover. If you seek a prep wearing goth gear you’re going to get shot down. Context is key.
I think it’s about this expectation that, while being shallow themselves (after the pretty girl because she is pretty) they have a double standard that the girl in question should have no physical standards and like him for existing, pretty much. They’re fishing out of their league and wondering why they get shot down repeatedly, then bleat how they hate being single, but not enough to date within their league or go without sex (like a normal person) without complaint. It’s very immature.
In dating, you sell yourself. You can’t expect romantic attention for other things that are not romantic in nature (work things, personality, being a “nice person”) – those are a given. Practically everyone has those. Most women would rather be single than with a loser, because their overall value in the future is reduced by dumper-diving in the same way as a man sleeping with a fat woman. Dating isn’t charity work, you aren’t supposed to be a nice person. It’s a social exchange, and these entitled people, truly entitled, bring nothing to the table while expecting a supermodel. If they actually have character or a good personality, that would be one thing to boost their otherwise average looks with the halo effect, but the worst kind befriend you because they’re too chicken to ask upfront, trying to, in effect, blackmail you with friendship feelings into accepting the offer. Those are completely separate from romantic feelings, which are completely separate from sexual feelings, but younger men fail to understand this. When a woman says she likes you as a friend, she means it, in the same way a man says he has no long-term feelings for a fuckbuddy. The ruse uses a woman’s greatest gift, her emotional intimacy, against her. You ever wonder why so many women nowadays have trust issues? THIS sort of bullshit. They can’t even trust their “friends” to be their friends.
You want a free hooker and don’t care about her as a person, she’s just body parts to you, but you refuse to admit it, and furthermore, lie through your teeth to somebody you’re supposed to care about (as a friend or more), saying it’s about anything else than sex (abusing terms like “love”) and laughably, saying you’re doing her a favour. Is it any wonder they hate you? After you put them through that level of emotional anguish? And now you’ve ruined the friendship by making it awkward and weird because you exposed your own plan in throwing a tantrum like a toddler when she declined. “Friendzoned” boys act like passive-aggressive women, thinking if they make the friendship hard enough the woman will give in like a mother figure buying sweets at the supermarket. It’s hella creepy. We don’t even put up with that bitchiness from other women, you’re gone. Friendship finished. Friends don’t deceive one another and certainly don’t start a campaign of emotional abuse. It’s morally repugnant.
When someone asks you out on a date, they are basically saying that they think your standards are low enough to voluntarily go out with them.
It’s an insult. You’re assuming (arrogantly hoping) they’re in your league or think they’re in a comparable league while you know logically they are not, or you wouldn’t be attracted to them (their high SMV). Women can separate feelings of friendship from romantic attraction in the same way men separate sex and love. It isn’t our fault we don’t fancy you, it’s yours. You aren’t attractive enough. It’s like a fat girl asking out the King of the Jocks and blaming him for not finding her physically attractive. Except fat is easier to lose than whatever his appearance-based shortcomings are. Sometimes it’s completely out of your control, like height or race, in which case, get over it. You can’t expect to be compatible with everyone. You can’t negotiate/’shame’ around it and no relationship based on that would last long. Attention from a woman isn’t all the same thing on a sliding scale, like a game of Mario where you rack up points to move onto The Next Level and the final round is sex; in the same way a man wanting to fuck you might fairly balk at the prospect of marrying you. They are completely different considerations. That’s why women run as fast as they can in the opposite direction. It’s like you switched the game between you (relationship) from checkers to chess and demand they play without their consent. Women expect men to know these basic things about them, especially since being in friendships with them, and treat them like individual human beings. Blaming women will just make you more bitter, more of a turnoff in human form and you’ll never resolve the problem. Hint: The problem is you.
There is an issue in the manosphere and fake MGTOWs and a certain type of entitled boy, where, if you tell them the truth, the complete unvarnished truth, they shut down. They refuse to believe it or call you wrong because it hurts their feelings. Maybe they start with the personal attacks when it’s an impersonal topic. You wanted the truth, you don’t get to complain about the taste.
Losers want winners. Winners have a choice. Losers can stamp their feet however much they like, the winners will always be in demand amongst themselves. Life isn’t fair. Your presumptions are baseless. Self-improve and STFU.
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.
There’s a simple test to see what the men around you (really) want.
Tell them outright you’ll never sleep with them. Proceed to never flirt with them ever again. Do not acknowledge any overture.
NB. You may use a timer to watch how fast they disappear when they realize you’re serious.
If they see you as a guy, that is a problem if you develop feelings for one of them. You will be an unusual case of female friendzoning. If they don’t see you as a guy, they have thought about fucking you. At least once. Men don’t consider such things seriously. It’s prime daydreaming material. They have probably thought about positions and kinks and how much you’d do too. However, any straight male with a semi-attractive female friend will have thought about sleeping with her. They have. Ask them. Credit the honest ones. This isn’t a flaw with men, it is a feature of their sexual strategy. It makes it easy for we womenfolk to get their attention. As for holding it, you’re on your own. Get some good LTR game and learn to be a conversationalist. Have interesting hobbies that mark you out as better than other women. Read real books.
Few women would dare take this test. They know the result would be a net loss of attention and we can’t have that now, can we?