Getting Carded, Part 5

There’s no place worse to be than The Friend Zone, amirite, guys?

We all know what The Friend Zone is, I hope.  It’s that terrible purgatory wherein you get to spend a whole bunch of time with that one member of the female gender who is, like, completely perfect for you in a making out and boobie-touching sort of way, but she just won’t let you touch her boobies and totally won’t make out with you.  It’s an awful thing to behold, truly.

And we all know how one gets put into The Friend Zone.  It’s when you, as the guy, say something like, “We should go on a date,” or, “You know we’re perfect for each other, right?” or you keep “accidentally” touching her boobies when you’re hanging out, and then suggest that maybe she should let you actually touch them in a non-accidental sort of way.  But no matter what you do she just plain doesn’t let you touch her boobies or make out with her because she just doesn’t want to ruin your friendship.

Of course that whole thing is bullshit.  She’s just trying to use you.  Or keep you as a backup.[1]  Or string you along out of some sort of crazy-ass sadism because women are evil, controlling bitches like that.

You know, when I put it in those terms, The Friend Zone doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense.  I literally cannot figure out why anyone would want to stay involved in a relationship wherein one person has been put in The Friend Zone.  Obviously the woman doing the putting into The Friend Zone is some sort of using, controlling bitch, so why would her poor victim even want to touch her boobies?[2]  She’s obviously controlling him with her feminine wiles and the poor sap has been brainwashed by boobies.[3]  Boy, howdy, does it ever suck to be that guy.

Wait, no.  That still makes no goddamn sense.

Okay, let me try to figure this out in some way that does make sense.  Okay, what about this: let’s take a hypothetical approach wherein the female in question really does want to be friends and the male in question is a whiny little dipshit.  Then let’s see where this whole thing goes.  Conceptually, of course.  Theoretically, even.  Because we all know that this scenario is, like, totally impossible in reality.

Let’s say that the woman in question genuinely doesn’t want to date right now.  This could be a general thing and she’s totally off the dating scene.  It could also be a specific thing and she doesn’t want to date the guy in question but, like, if Orlando Bloom showed up and said, “Ya wanna go for coffee?” she’d be all, “Yes, Legolas, oh, god, yes.”  It’s not likely, but, hey, it could happen.

Let’s ask the question, “What could possibly going through a woman’s head when she puts some poor guy into The Friend Zone?”  This, of course, depends on any number of factors.  We must consider them.

There are the general environmental factors.  Has she recently experienced a big life changed, including a career change, a death in the family, a cross-country move, or something similar?  Is she currently engaged in some sort of long-term self-improvement project, including going back to school, trying to write the great American novel, putting more of her time into charitable giving, or finally learning how to make those awesome pastries she’s always wanted to learn to make?  Is something taking up a shitload of her time, such as finishing her Masters while working full-time, a huge project at work, an ailing family member, or a recently purchased house that needs a lot of work?   Has she recently gotten out of a long-term relationship?  Has she recently gotten out of a short but intense relationship?  Has she experienced a string of bad relationships with guys who suck?  Is she, for that matter, currently in a relationship?

Once we get through the general environmental factors we need to ask specific factors.  Does she tend to date dumb jock types while you happen to be a pointy-headed intellectual type?  Are you pretty much her only friend and confidant?  Does she happen to be best friends with your sister?

These are all valid, nay, important questions to consider.  This list is also far, far from exhaustive.  Chances are that these or similar questions are all part of the mental calculus a woman puts into a potential relationship.

Guys, on the other hand, pretty much only ask two questions:

1.  “Is she hot?”

2.  “Is she single?”[4]

If the answers are, “Yes,” and, “Yes,” respectively, then there shouldn’t be any roadblocks in the way.  Any woman who does put up a road block, then, is being some sort of scheming bitch who is trying to destroy the guy in question.  Because, really, what else does a relationship need?

The problem with this difference in approach is pretty simple: the guy signals that he doesn’t actually give a shit about the supposed object of his affection.  If it’s only worthwhile to be friends with someone if she’ll make out with you and let you touch her boobies, then that person has been reduced to tongue, lips, and boobies.  It’s really that simple.

As such, the guy who sits around and bitches about being relegated to The Friend Zone sends the message that he is not and never will be boyfriend material.  Because, really, why would anyone want to date someone who doesn’t actually give a shit about them?  I suppose that there are women out there who are like that, though.  So maybe Captain Friend Zone needs to go find one of them.  Chances are he’ll be doing the object of his attention a great service if he does.

For the record, I’m not saying any of these things as someone who hasn’t fucked this up.  I totally have.  I’ve simply made it a point to learn from my mistakes.

Amy and I dated for about three months, then spent the next year and a half or so in this kinda-sorta pseudo relationship thingy that was bad for everyone involved.  For whatever reason she decided it wasn’t going to work and then tried to Friend Zone me, with a certain level of success, most of which had to be qualified by me pointing out that I did the passive-aggressive douchebag thing for most of that time.  After we stopped talking I realized from time to time that I actually missed her.  It wasn’t that I missed sitting around thinking about how great it would be if she let me touch her boobies.  It was that I missed having her around as someone to talk to and as someone who I knew would know Thing X about Subject Y that I, personally, knew fuck all about or would want to talk about Subject Z that I knew most other people I know couldn't be arsed to discuss.  Ergo, I hadn’t broken up with someone, I’d lost a friend.  I missed that particular friend and there was no getting her back.

Meanwhile, at a later, non-disclosed point in time I met a woman I came to value as a friend.  She was in a relationship when I met her.  I eventually figured out that she was actually someone I would date in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself.

Eventually she broke up with the guy, which I considered a good move on her part.  It wasn’t because I knew I could then make my move, but because she wasn’t happy and I wanted her to be happy because she totally deserved to be happy.  The fact is that by the time that happened our friendship had progressed to the point where I didn’t want to potentially fuck it up by making a pass and finding out she totally wasn’t interested.

The fact of the matter is that I know the standard guy response to that situation is, “Ask her out.  Who cares about the consequences?”

I do, that’s who.  And I care because in the final analysis I ended up being more unhappy that I didn’t let Amy Friend Zone me than that she didn’t let me play with her boobies and make out with her and shit.

Turns out the dreaded Friend Zone isn’t necessarily such a bad place to be.

---------------------------

[1]I originally wrote this as “Or keep you as a backpack,” which would be really, really weird.

[2]I mean, other than the obvious reason.  Boobies are fun to touch, after all.

[3]Brainwashed By Boobies is also the name of The Curb Tacos’ debut album.  Out June 12th.

[4]This question is, sadly, optional for some guys.

Comments

[Jarred]

I'll also note that some guys (and this includes me at times) often get pushed into the Friend Zone because they appear to offer no qualities to the woman (or man, in my case) in question other than "really liking her," "wanting to take care of her," and "being a Nice Guy." They present no interests, opinions, or thoughts of their own. They're constantly around the woman (or man) they want to be with because they have nothing else going on for them. I've learned from deep personal experience that this is a formula that really does make the idea of seeing the guy as anything more than a friend seem unappealing. And that's putting it nicely.

[Geds]

Yup, pretty much. I've got one, maybe two more of these-here post thingies in my head that track the line you're following from my post here. It's good to see that there's at least one person who gets where I'm going. That means I'm making a certain amount of sense. Or we're nuts in exactly the same way.

[The Everlasting Dave]

Nope, makes sense to me too. There comes a point where "I'm always here for you" turns into "I seriously have nothing better to do with my time than wait and see if you'll start to draw a different conclusion from the same set of information." Pretty sure that's a definition of insanity.

[Janet]

This post is so completely delightful. I love you Geds, (as a friend).

[The Everlasting Dave]

Since the girl I'm currently BFF's with refuses to read this blog, I think I could learn some things from this thread. For example: what happens if you're a dude, hetero (as far as you know), and your best friend is a girl who has zero sexual interest in you? Also, said girl is not in the mythological "Girl who is friends with lots of models and porn stars". Cause seriously, I am down with a partner. And that shit ain't happening. And since I've been putting work in to mental health areas, I can't just say "I want to get laid." But, for the sake of argument, what if I said that?

[Jarred]

hetero (as far as you know),

O_o

and your best friend is a girl woman who has zero sexual interest in you?

If she isn't sexually interested in you, she isn't sexually interested in you. Full stop.

Also, said girl woman is not in the mythological "Girl Womanwho is friends with lots of models and porn stars".

Irrelevant.

Cause seriously, I am down with a partner.

Okay. This woman isn't interested in being partners with you. Keep looking.

But, for the sake of argument, what if I said that?

She might say, "Good luck with that."

She might say, "We've been over this before. I'm not interested."

She might quit talking to you.

She might slap you.

It's hard to say what she'd do.

But I'd say it's highly unlikely she'd have sex with you.

Also, telling someone "I want to get laid" -- particularly someone you're hoping will help you meet that desire -- generally is not charming, flattering, nor endearing. It tends to be a subtle form of objectification in that comes across as sounding like you're looking to get yours more than you're looking for mutual satisfaction.

[emilyperson]

Yeah, Dave, you're better off asking someone else out. You're probably safe asking, offhand, of she has any cute friends she'd be willing to introduce you to, but only if you immediately drop the subject afterward. Otherwise you'll be that guy who never thinks about anything but getting laid, and no one wants to hang out with that guy.

The thing I'd like to make people who complain about the friend zone get the most is that it doesn't matter if you can come up with a million reasons why you want to date them if they have no reason to want to date you. Oh, and that you can't expect your object of affection to be interesting enough for both of you, so you should probably start contributing something to the conversation besides endless compliments.

[Geds]

Janet: So...no boobies for me? Sadface.

Dave: Not to be glib, but treat her like you would a guy friend. It's really that simple. There will obviously have to be some tweaks, as there are probably subjects that shouldn't be discussed. But, again, you might have one guy friend you discuss politics with and one you don't, so it's still the same thing (which fits nicely with my theory that women are people, too). If you can't treat her as you would a guy friend, then you probably don't really want to be friends with her and don't value her as a friend.

This, I suppose, goes to my almost absurd levels of intentional self-control and my multiple layers of walls. It's fairly easy for me to execute on the idea, since I am fully capable of friend zoning a woman who wants to date me, since my main objective is often to keep her at arms' length no matter what. But while the execution might be second-nature to me, I think the underlying logic is sound and fairly universal.

Jarred: You pretty much managed to say everything that I would have said from a mechanical perspective. And I think you did it better. So, second, I guess?

emilyperson: Your second paragraph hits on a key issue that I think I skirted in the post but never really directly stated and I'm not sure if any of my follow-up thoughts really push it either. I want to highlight the thought, though:

"The thing I'd like to make people who complain about the friend zone get the most is that it doesn't matter if you can come up with a million reasons why you want to date them if they have no reason to want to date you."

This, a thousand times this. I like to say "women are people, too" as my succinct summation of why it doesn't make sense not to be a feminist. As such, women have their own autonomy, requirements for life, their own hopes, their own dreams, and their own goals. So simply saying, "You should date me because I think we'd be awesome together," is to completely ignore the person-ness of the woman in question.

Moreover, the one making that assessment is not exactly acting from a position disinterested concern only for her well-being. He wants something out of the equation.

That's where it hits an interesting line, though, because there are the things one can do as a friend that one cannot do as a person trying to escape the friend zone. For instance, if I know someone who is in a relationship but not happy I think it's safe to say that I can offer advice about what to do or even say, "Look, you ain't happy and you've tried everything, perhaps it's time to think about ending things." What I absolutely cannot do and never should do is say, "Dump his ass and date me," or say, "Dump his ass," then ask her if she's dumped his ass yet every time we talk, then show up outside her window with a boombox and some Peter Gabriel twenty minutes after I find out she has.

But, again, that requires coming from a starting position where you are that person's friend and care about their happiness and well-being first. It's an extremely difficult needle to thread.

[The Everlasting Dave]

Right. I know all that, I should really have a blood alcohol meter on my keyboard to lock me out at times like last night. And Geds, that's actually exactly how I do handle it unless I drink/smoke my face off and lose a few filters. I think I just hear so much "Guys are only friends with females if they're waiting for the females to settle for them", that I'm starting to take it to heart. In my situation, I'm a million times happier having a friend than I would be with her as my partner, but... that doesn't compute sometimes.

Oh, but I will defend to the death our right to say "I just want to get laid." Honesty is central to my philosophy, for better or for worse.

[Jarred]

Dave: You will notice that I never said you don't have the right to say "I just want to get laid." I'm simply pointing out how the person hearing you say it may perceive that statement and you as a result.

You have a right to say whatever you want. You don't have the right to avoid the consequences of saying what you want. Even if what you say is honest.

[The Everlasting Dave]

That's fair. I'm just saying if it has to be one or the other, I prefer a lack of tact to a lack of truthfulness, and since I've been that way my entire life I'm pretty clear on what the consequences are. It works in my favor more often than not. And I don't go around telling every woman I find attractive that I'd really like to sleep with them. It's just that if any personal subject-- not just sex, anything-- comes up, I'm inclined to be clear and not self-conscious.

[Geds]

Dave: Tact and truthfulness don't have to be mutually exclusive, y'know. And, "I just wanna get laid," might be truthful, but it's also reductive and rather hurtful. It goes back to that idea that in the end all you value the person for is boobies and not for who she is as a person.

Jarred: You're doing an awful job of proving your mettle as a Fox News talking head. Best shape up if you ever want to get anywhere...

[The Everlasting Dave]

No, it's possible to be honest and tactful. But in the situations I put myself in- I've been doing more work in the mental health field and it's actually going somewhere- I always have to take into account the effect my words have. If, say, someone has an addiction that is threatening their well-being, I could just say "Maybe you should look into getting more treatment." Which is what EVERYBODY says to them, which they ignore, which has them in the situation they're in. I don't like the thought of words becoming background noise for people who really need to hear the truth. If instead I say, "OK, you get to make the choice. If you choose to keep using, here's what I found to be the consequences when I made the same choice." And then I tell them some horror stories in graphic detail. They listen. And I found that it applies to more situations than just groups. People in general are more inclined to listen when you're saying something they've never heard before. Politeness and tact are invitations to be ignored.

As for sex, well, I'm not that superficial. In fact, there should be an asterisk and a gigantic footnote that goes along with that. Something like, I'd like to get laid (Women get laid too. It's not a pejorative.) BUT sex is spiritually impossible without a deep personal connection, sex is physically impossible without open and honest communication that will lead to mutual satisfaction, and sex is morally reprehensible if either party stops caring about the other once the physical act is complete, doubly so if there was never any caring to begin with. Since I'm a human being and not entirely psychotic, I'd like to think all of this is implied. But in case it isn't, I'm willing and able to state it clearly in the same conversation where I say something shocking and forward.

[Jarred]

Trigger Warning: Misogyny, Rape

Dave: I'd like to think all of this is implied.

We lie in a society where women are frequently objectified. We have a rape culture where a number of men assume that a woman's choice to wear "revealing clothing," not remain a virgin, flirting, or even saying hello to a guy is an invitation to rape ("but it's not really rape because she obviously wanted it"). The women you're talking to may not feel they can assume that all that is implied, because for some guys, none of that is implied. So yeah, you'd probably be doing yourself a great service by clearly and explicitly stating all that.

[Geds]

Dave: One of the things about tact is that it's a situational thing. There are things you can say to your mother that you can't say to your friends. There are things you can say to one friend that you can't say to another. Tact, as such, is not simply pulling punches or lying, it's an act of empathy.

If you know someone who is engaging in a harmful behavior and won't listen to anything else, then forthright honest is probably the only option. Sometimes, too, taking the cruel option is actually the kindest thing you can do -- say, for instance, you're dating someone and you want out of it because you've totally lost interest but the other person is absolutely in it for the long haul, so you keep saying, "Well, I don't want to break up before her birthday..." then, "Well, no one should get dumped over the holidays..." then, "It would really be violating the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to break up on April 4th..." you're not actually helping anybody. These are both places where honesty is the best policy, but the honesty needs to be delivered in different times and different places.

The difference that I see, and to which I object, in your query is the nuance. It's a perfectly valid thing to say, "I want to get laid." Everybody does at some point (unless they're asexual, a eunuch, or this one girl I dated right after high school). The difference is in saying to someone, "I want to get laid," and, "I only see you as someone to sleep with." If you're at a club and everyone's looking for a drunken one-night stand then that's okay. If you're talking to someone who is your friend and thinks of you as her friend, saying that to her would be, I'd assume, extremely hurtful and reduce what she is as a person to nothing more than boobies and a penis insertion receptacle. As such, you absolutely have to consider the deleterious effects of what you say, not because it might increase your likelihood of getting smacked, but because it increases the likelihood that you'd be treating someone else like shit.

[The Everlasting Dave]

Jarred- That's why, in the rare situations where I talk about sex with someone I might be interested in, I make damn sure that they know who I am as a person before the subject even comes up. When it eventually does, they know it's coming from a real place and they know I take into account the totality of the person.

Geds- See above. Even before I was medicated, I was incapable of seeing anyone as just their physical traits. There is nothing sexier than a good brain, and it's kind of hard to find out if she's got one or not if you're just staring at her boobs with the word "motorboat" running through your head.

Still, I'd just like to point out that I find the whole "All men are rapists until proven otherwise" and "Men don't need a human connection, they just need a warm hole." attitude to be just as demeaning. I think it's very much what that Wong character was saying, and it doesn't do anyone any good.

[Will Wildman]

I'd just like to point out that I find the whole "All men are rapists until proven otherwise" [...] attitude to be just as demeaning.

I've seen people endlessly and, uh, vigourously debating the exact meaning of this statement lately, so I would encourage anyone mentioning it to be extremely clear about what they want to express. "Some men are rapists, therefore people meeting unfamiliar men can benefit from being cautious until they have a clear idea of the risk this specific man does or does not represent" is perfectly reasonable. "Every man is a potential rapist" is untrue and misandrist. The two are pretty far removed from each other in meaning, but they tend to be phrased in very similar ways.