quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or maybe just stop whining and do something productive with their lives. Maybe stop childishly thinking only of themselves.
Yes, shame on those poor incels for aggrieving women with their selfish believe that they are human beings deserving of sex/relationships.
Posts: 39 | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are human beings deserving of the opportunity for sex/relationships. Again, it is not guaranteed, it is not a right, and they are not victims if it doesn't happen. They're in a sad position, yes. Frustrated, certainly. So are women who can't get the dates they want.
However, if this logic really does work than I want to complain. As an inpo (involuntary poor) I deserve money. People who refuse to give me money are clearly victimizing me, so I am perfectly justified in using tricks to get their money or in just taking it if I see the chance. Besides, that guy I stole from gives money to friends and charities all the time, so he can't accuse me of theft.
And the guy I got drunk with, the one I convinced to sign his car over? How come he can just change his mind the next morning when he sobers up and demands his keys back? Like I'm the bad guy there.
Yeah, I hear capitalist yadda-yadda about "earning" money, but study after study shows that employers only like people with skills and that's discriminatory against us inpos. Aren't we human beings deserving of large bank accounts?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: It's a claim about human nature that assumes an entire gender has the exact same motivations, levels of desire and interests in procreation.
A generalization isn't necessarily a claim that the class being generalized about is uniform.
quote: They are human beings deserving of the opportunity for sex/relationships. Again, it is not guaranteed and they are not victims if it doesn't happen. They're in a sad position, yes. Frustrated, certainly. So are women who can't get the dates they want.
If Baumeister and Vohs are correct then those women can't really be compared to male incels because female sexuality is always a scarcer resource.
Western society has had some strict monogomous norms for millineia, at least as far as most of the population was concerned, which has had the effect of evenly dividing female sexuality among the male population. This required suppressing female sexuality and that of would be cads, otherwise human nature would assert itself and top males would monopolize the prime years of multiple women. Anyway all of this worked to keep societies stable/functioning and gave a strong incentive for your average man to work for his society rather than against it in the pursuit of a mate. It could happen a new order, where female sexuality is entirely unrestrained and society doesn't care about the consequences of some men dominating multiple women's prime years, could work out. But it seems like an experiment.
quote: However, if this logic really does work than I want to complain. As an inpo (involuntary poor) I deserve money. People who refuse to give me money are clearly victimizing me, so I am perfectly justified in using tricks to get their money or in just taking it if I see the chance. And then when the guy I got drunk with and convinced to sign over his car got all pissy when he changed his mind the next morning and took his keys back, he blames me! Do you believe that?
We have welfare, obamacare, medicaid, homeless shelters, housing assistance, private charity, etc, for poor people.
Posts: 39 | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Yes, and the good Lord gave you two hands and an imagination. It's not like you're suffering.
This brings to mind a thought: the thing that will really end the PUA movement and its offshoots is good virtual-reality sex simulation. Could do wonders to help with the rape culture problem, too, although I'm less sure of that.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
So. To recap, vagina is a finite resource that must be regulated. This was easier back in the good old days when vagina-owners had strictly defined roles to play and were kept to them by social pressure and legal restrictions. They could not own property, work outside the home or decide if they wanted to have a child or not, and in some periods and places they had no choice in whom they would marry. Sex outside marriage was forbidden, birth control and abortion were forbidden, spinsters were shunned and divorce was a scandal. Even men who were unattractive, socially inept or abusive could get a wife and keep her, because she had nowhere to go.
Now everything's gone horribly wrong. Vagina-owners have control of the disposition and usage of their vaginas and IT'S NOT FAIR. We can't force them to date us and we can't force them to have sex with us and they can leave us just because we get a little pushy and when we act like men they start a Twitter campaign against us. We deserve access to vaginas, like a public utility, and vagina-owners keep changing the rules so we can't keep track of what steps to take to get them.
I'm paraphrasing, of course.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt virtual reality will improve anything. If hard-core snuff porn has any effects on people's expectations, imagine what being able to virtually rape will do to people's real life sexual behaviour. Having gone as far as they can in VR, wanting to see if it's really like that, if it's better... ugh, no.
Sure, most men and women will probably use it like Star Trek characters sometimes did, replacing the object of their affection with a loving relationship with some pixels, but there'd also be people who'd be disappointed that the real world wasn't like their VR universe, and set about trying to correct that.
Funny how if you're friends with a girl who doesn't want to sleep with you, she's a cruel whore who was leading you on, but if your male friend wants to sleep with you, you're fine to turn him down because you just don't feel like that about him, and that is perfectly ok. Hypocrisy is so adorable.
I think a lot of this is being stuck in that two-year-old 'I am the Centre of the Universe!' stage of development. No. Other people are real people too, and they owe you exactly nothing.
If you wouldn't have sex with someone you didn't want (there's always someone you don't want, however sexually open you might be), why should anyone else?
Also, I find it hilarious that everyone here knows this Sinclair sock puppet is Clive. Because he's the only one who leaps in with the red-pill manosphere caca de toro.
posted
Everybody had it rough in the olden days, everybody. Who has it rougher -- the woman married against her will who can't own property or the disposable male who does back-breaking labor his entire life? Your gynocentrism only makes you see the former.
Posts: 39 | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, no. Women did back breaking labor their entire lives too. They breathed in cotton dust in the mills. They died in the fields giving birth or being whipped to death by their owners. They toiled on farms til they dropped from exhaustion. They died of infections butchering meat and cleaning fish. They caught diseases nursing the sick. Being a poor woman sucked.
And they couldn't hold property or choose who to marry.
Who were your female ancestors? Because none of mine sat on their backside ordering servants around.
Also, the servants? Many of them? On their knees scrubbing floors, building fires, cleaning chamber pots? Also women.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That diagram is funny, Clive. If you're a 1, which, let's face it, many of these guys are - their hideous personalities make them so - do you want a 1? Do you want a conventionally physically unattractive, boring, unintelligent woman who is full of annoying habits and has nothing in common with you, who maybe finds you utterly disgusting since she didn't get to pick you, and lies back like a plank to think of England when you touch her, or maybe even winces a bit every time she thinks you might?
Or do you want something 'better'? Even a little bit 'better'.
If it's the latter, something is wrong with your diagram.
Maybe there was a guy she would have loved, a guy who would have adored her and found her beautiful, her habits funny and her personality fascinating. Maybe he was what you lot would consider a 7. Because people don't come numbered, and your 10 is someone else's 1. That's how the real world works, when you're not too bitter and hateful to get out in it.
And that other 1, the man? If he didn't hate women so much, if he spoke to them, treated them as humans, didn't prejudge them, was the best version of himself and tried to be a truly kind person, kept his mind open to what might be beautiful, even if it's not on the surface (because beautiful is not just conventional features, thin, young, blonde... whatever you think other men would envy seeing on your arm), if he actually engaged with women as a sexual being on an equal, respectful level... a guy like that eventually would be seen by some woman as far more than a 1. And the sex he'd have with her would be way better.
Of course, there might not be a whole string of women who'd have sex with him, and he'd have to put some effort in. Women have to do that too, and they don't always get the first, or thirty-third man they want, either.
posted
I am not dismissing the real issues of societal pressures against men to meet unrealistic, stereotypical standards of masculinity, or how child support defaults are still based on a time when the male was assumed to be the breadwinner, or how some divorce settlements are heavily weighted toward the wife when a case-by-case examination might be more equitable. Those are worthwhile fights to take on, when warranted.
I am not stating that women are perfect, or that they don't have their share of manipulators. That's the thing about treating people equally; you have to realize that women can be sociopaths too, and many women have been raised in the same mind-warping men-want-sex-women-want-security society that you were.
And I absolutely do not wish to downplay the real pain and frustration and feelings of worthlessness that come from the one you love liking you only as a friend, if that. Or the feelings of envy or injustice that come from seeing a jerk effortlessly date as many women as he likes. Been there.
But the second you talk about sexuality as a resource that must be regulated, the second you claim that sex is an entitlement that you are being robbed of, the second you try to excuse sexism or pine for the good old days of institutionalized oppression, I know that no, you don't deserve to have sex. Not while you still believe any of that to be true.
My recap above? That's what the PUA community and the "manosphere" looks like to women or to men who like women. Like whiners. Or, in the case of the experts of the manosphere, whiners with PowerPoint.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I doubt virtual reality will improve anything. If hard-core snuff porn has any effects on people's expectations, imagine what being able to virtually rape will do to people's real life sexual behaviour.
Does it have that effect? I don't know.
I wasn't talking about giving people the opportunity to commit rape virtually, I was talking about giving them the opportunity to virtually simulate consensual sex when they're feeling horny and frustrated.
My sense is that a decently large fraction of date rape, especially, happens not because the perpetrators prefer rape to consensual sex but because they rationalize what they do as "consensual" because there's no other way to get what they want.
So if there were another way...
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole friendzone thing drives me nuts, too. How do some men really think this doesn't happen to women? It's just part of the human condition. Helping him buy birthday presents for his lovely girlfriend and listening to his troubles, and wishing he'd notice...
It's a truth that should be universally acknowledged. You can't always get what you want.
Not a dude thing. Human thing. And not anyone's fault.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, I doubt that it would help them see that women are real people instead of herd animals or that sex is a joy to be given rather than a commodity to be hoarded. It wouldn't teach respect.
It is, perhaps, relieving a symptom without addressing the disease.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't think VR would be enough. Yes, you'd get off, but there's no real world benefit. No notch in your bedpost, no high five, no power trip. You didn't have sex with a women. You masturbated.
If you just wanted an orgasm, you could do that with a sex doll, or a latex lubricated porn star vagina and a video.
VR sex would be great for some normal people. But it's not going to devirginate you or boost you in the eyes of society, or convince you that you're attractive. And it's going to be a long time before all the sensations of sex can be full on holodeck style provided.
And as has been said, it'll do nothing for the way some guys see women. It may just give them false hopes about what may be acceptable with real humans, as I said before.
Also, I'm not sure about the date rape, just want sex with someone thing. There's also the fact that you're getting something you want from someone who doesn't really want to give it, or sometimes even know they're giving it. It is a power thing, and I think that's a motivation for many.
Otherwise, if you're into illegal stuff anyway, you could pay a sex worker. But there's no power trip in that.
The college men were asked if they'd had or attempted to have sex with someone to intoxicated to consent and if they'd ever used force or the threat of force to have sex with someone who didn't want to. 6% of the participants answered yes to at least one question - which indicates that they knew it was non-consensual sex and they weren't trying to convince themselves it was consensual.
Addtiionally,
quote:of the 865 total attempted or completed rapes these men admitted to, a staggering 95% were committed by 96 men, or just 8.4% of the sample.
In other words most rapes are committed by repeat offenders.
So yeah, I'm another who doesn't think VR will help.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have thought your first data point indicates that they were trying to think of it as "not rape," which is to say, as consensual sex?
Moreover, reading MRA crap like ReturnofKings.com, when they talk about rape culture issues they always push the line that drunk sex is consensual, for example. I'm not certain that these internet tough guys are a representative sample of date rapists, but it might be that their attitudes are not that far out of the ordinary for rapist types.
I'm not sure about the import of the repeat offenders statistic (which I was aware of). If the repeat offenders don't think of what they're doing as rape, it might be that part of the solution is to convince them that it is rape. And this might be easier if it were not so beneficial to them to pretend that what they're doing isn't rape--in particular, if they could have the same sexual experience without needing to get an unwilling person involved.
I don't think it's a magic bullet, but I suspect it would help at least somewhat and might help make other solutions easier for the potential offenders to accept.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: The whole friendzone thing drives me nuts, too. How do some men really think this doesn't happen to women? It's just part of the human condition. Helping him buy birthday presents for his lovely girlfriend and listening to his troubles, and wishing he'd notice...
It's a truth that should be universally acknowledged. You can't always get what you want.
Not a dude thing. Human thing. And not anyone's fault.
I wasn't aware that some people didn't view the friend zone as multi gender.
I also don't see what's offensive about the term.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, there's nothing offensive or misogynist about the friend zone concept. It's just a way of talking about the fact that everyone divides their acquaintances into the dateable/do-able and those who don't clear that bar.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Clear that bar"? What a charming friend you must be! Relationships and attraction are complicated. Just because two people aren't a romantic match doesn't mean that either of them is somehow lower on an objective "do-able" scale.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the generous interpretation of what I said, Kate "don't clear that bar" = "are not suitable for sex or dating (by the relevant person's lights)."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "friend zone," as a concept, is not necessarily misogynistic, it simply means a relationship wherein one person wants notably more than the other one does, either romantically or sexually or both, and it can go either direction as far as genders are concerned.
However, using "friend zone" as a pejorative by men to mock or shame other men because they couldn't make sex happen and are therefore less of a man, or a man using "friend zone" accusations to passive-aggressively pressure women into responding to romantic or sexual overtures they simply don't want is misogynistic. To the PUA community the friend zone isn't a description of a universal condition, it's a personal purgatory where heartless women condemn helpless men into a life of servitude without sex.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it seems like that kind of guy is not at all interested in even having Platonic friendships with women, which is pretty messed up.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have mostly heard 'friend zone' in the male in a would-be hetero context, but I've also heard it from one woman in a lesbian would-be relationship (that is to say, personally) and read of it in just about every other array of human sexuality I can think of. Reading Destineer's remarks as some sort of demeaning shot at those who don't measure up as sex partners, and as denigrating platonic friendships seems an almost willfully hostile a reading.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't get that from Destineer at all. Since the friend zone, by definition, describes a relationship where one person wants to date the other but the feeling is not reciprocated, "platonic friendship" by itself is not fully accurate. "Platonic friendship with one dissatisfied member" might be closer, which is more or less what "friend zone" is.
Quite often the longing member of the friend zone begins questioning his or her own worth, often harboring wistful or resentful opinions about why he or she is not worth dating (which generally fail to accept the idea that attraction is not always voluntary or that the object of desire may have other reasons not to return the affection), the notion of "measuring up as sex partners" is usually part of the perceived hellishness of the "friend zone." Especially when the object of desire is him- or herself attracted to people the friend-zoned person considers unworthy, or at least less worthy than he or she.
Also, in the post before yours Destineer pretty clearly approves of platonic relationships, or at least feels sorry for those who don't.
Many people in a "friend zone" situation accept the situation as part of the human condition and either walk away or choose to keep the relationship going for its own value. These would be people secure in their self-worth. People who get bitter and resentful about being in the friend zone tend to become PUAs...
[ June 01, 2014, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Also, in the post before yours Destineer pretty clearly approves of platonic relationships, or at least feels sorry for those who don't.
I am sure that is true, but the phrasing was unfortunate. It made it sound like when there wasn't attraction that it was because the friend lacked some objective standard of attractiveness. That they failed to "clear the bar" onto the "do-able" list. (Is there a little "do-able" "not-doable" box that gets ticked? Can a friend's status change is he gets a nose job or his skin clears up?) It hearkened back to the obnoxious 1-10 list that "Sinclive" linked. What people find attractive spans a wide and complicated group of attributes that are different for everyone and even change for specific people. What may not be attractive to a person may be really hot for them at another time or in a different person.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And whether or not someone is interested in dating a particular person at a particular time might not have anything to do with whether they consider the person attractive.
The not interested person might have just gone through a bad breakup or have other personal stuff going on that makes them not interested in dating at all right then. Or they're too busy or tired that day/week/month. Or they might be in a relationship or already interested in someone else and monogamous. There may, in other words, be no "bar" that's available for the other party to clear or not clear.
I also find the idea that everyone sorts their acquaintances into "dateable/doable" and "not dateable/doable" categories really weird. Maybe everyone who is actively looking for a relationship (whether long-term or one-night) does, but not everyone is actively pursuing relationships or encounters, even when they're single.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Also, in the post before yours Destineer pretty clearly approves of platonic relationships, or at least feels sorry for those who don't.
I am sure that is true, but the phrasing was unfortunate. It made it sound like when there wasn't attraction that it was because the friend lacked some objective standard of attractiveness. That they failed to "clear the bar" onto the "do-able" list. (Is there a little "do-able" "not-doable" box that gets ticked? Can a friend's status change is he gets a nose job or his skin clears up?) It hearkened back to the obnoxious 1-10 list that "Sinclive" linked. What people find attractive spans a wide and complicated group of attributes that are different for everyone and even change for specific people. What may not be attractive to a person may be really hot for them at another time or in a different person.
It was unfortunate phrasing when you start off with the assumption that Destineer was viewing all relationships as sexual or non-sexual in terms of whether or not they have value. It was clear, or could have been with a simple question to clarify, that he was speaking to the perspective of someone who felt 'friend-zoned'-that is, in a relationship they wished to be sexual, but was not.
Instead of jumping to the most offensive possible interpretation of his remarks, you could have for example asked Destineer if he thought that everyone did in fact rate people they encountered as 'dateable/do-able' and 'not'. I suspect many people do, but am not at all persuaded that everyone does and now I'm actually curious about the question.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also find the idea that everyone sorts their acquaintances into "dateable/doable" and "not dateable/doable" categories really weird. Maybe everyone who is actively looking for a relationship (whether long-term or one-night) does, but not everyone is actively pursuing relationships or encounters, even when they're single.
I suspect this statement was further than Destineer intended to go, but I might be mistaken.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. Destineer, when you wrote, "It's just a way of talking about the fact that everyone divides their acquaintances into the dateable/do-able and those who don't clear that bar", did you mean that you think it is a fact that, "everyone divides their acquaintances into the dateable/do-able and those who don't clear that bar"?
Or was it just unfortunate phrasing? Would you like to clarify?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even then, the more I think about it, it's not quite precise enough.
For example, it might be wrong without being offensive to say 'everyone classifies'. I suspect it's wrong, but even if Destineer believes that, it is hardly an offensive or somehow sexist belief if he claims everyone does that. The potential for sexism, I think, or for twisted relationships, might be in if for example:
Jane rates Joe as date-able. Joe rates Jane as non-date-able. Jane is friends with Joe, and is unable to accept Joe's rating, and their friendship is tainted.
The question then is, if everyone or even just a given person or persons, does rate someone as dateable or not, what does that mean if someone doesn't measure up and wishes to? Can they adapt to not having what they want, and still be a good friend? I certainly believe that's possible. Even if Destineer does believe that everyone classifies, is there really anything objectionable about it aside from perhaps being mistaken if he also believes people can and should deal with it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm all out of popcorn, but this show is fascinating. Anyone have something else I can snack on?
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I am not saying that it is particularly sexist. I am saying that it seems a rather shallow, oddly-focused way of thinking about your friends. Also a good way to end up with hurt feelings and broken friendships. Joe could not want to date Jane for any number of reasons that don't involve putting her on some "do-able" scale and finding her lacking. Any of those reasons could be entirely true. Perpetuating the idea that people are ranked according to do-ableness (in addition to being superficial) will lead people to believe that those true reasons are just excuses and can lead to more hurt feelings or false hope. (Maybe if Jane gets a makeover...?)
I just don't think that it is a good way to deal with friends of either sex.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The state of a being in love with someone who doesn't love you the same way but wishes to remain friends is a common one.
When the term "friend zone" is used to describe it, it is much more likely that either the person using it the term feels that he or she somehow isn't measuring up, or someone else is using the term in a derogatory manner to insinuate the same thing, in the PUA world, that's the only thing it can mean. The feeling of inferiority is generally what prompts the description of "friend zone" in the first place.
You can be in an uneven relationship without being in the "friend zone." It is a subjective definition.
I don't see where Destineer is claiming that all unequal relationships are friend zones, or that anyone is reducible to a quantifiable level of sexual attractiveness. Only that there are those who do think that way, and they have Destineer's pity.
In short, I think Destineer described a sad sort of person and you're accusing the messenger of believing the message.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: The state of a being in love with someone who doesn't love you the same way but wishes to remain friends is a common one.
When the term "friend zone" is used to describe it, it is much more likely that either the person using it the term feels that he or she somehow isn't measuring up, or someone else is using the term in a derogatory manner to insinuate the same thing, in the PUA world, that's the only thing it can mean. The feeling of inferiority is generally what prompts the description of "friend zone" in the first place.
You can be in an uneven relationship without being in the "friend zone." It is a subjective definition.
I don't see where Destineer is claiming that all unequal relationships are friend zones, or that anyone is reducible to a quantifiable level of sexual attractiveness. Only that there are those who do think that way, and they have Destineer's pity.
In short, I think Destineer described a sad sort of person and you're accusing the messenger of believing the message.
posted
Perhaps it was the word "everyone" that threw me. Or maybe "fact". If Destineer had written, "It's just a way of talking about the idea that everyone divides their acquaintances into the dateable/do-able and those who don't clear that bar," your clarification would make more sense. Or even have been unnecessary.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adding: I could be wrong, of course. I just got the vibe that Destineer was explaining a term and how some people use it, not justifying or defending it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
First: I think that anyone who has romantic/sexual interests does a sort of passive categorization of people into "interesting/attractive" or "not interesting/not attractive". However, there are some pretty crucial caveats when you're describing normal/healthy people.
1. There is no bar in the sense of a defined standard. 2. No active act of categorization. 3. And in fact, it's not actually binary.
It's just a range of attractiveness, and I think the normal/healthy behavior is to seek out people who are on the higher end of that range - but first filtered by those who are mutually interested.*
There would be a pretty significant mistake in not filtering to people who are reciprocally attracted.
If you also literally define your own "bar" of attractiveness below which you will not engage, you're in somewhat pathological territory which I believe correlates to this whole misogynistic PUA mindset.
I don't think Destineer was promoting the concept of a literal binary categorization of people according to some defined standard that could amount to a bar to clear, but the words used could mean that. So I think Kate was right to point that out.
I think the intent was to point out that we are not always attracted to or interested in all of our acquaintances. In turn, we are not attractive to all of them. The point, I think, was actually to counter the entitlement that might be displayed by a PUA or a "why am I always friendzoned" type, by pointing out the need for a reciprocal attraction and the fact that it often doesn't exist in friend relationships.
*There are other filters necessary to stay within social norms and avoid hurting people, of course.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Adding: I could be wrong, of course. I just got the vibe that Destineer was explaining a term and how some people use it, not justifying or defending it.
I wasn't suggesting that he was defending the term "friendzone". It was the assumptions that seem to be in his definition that rubbed me the wrong way. If he would like to clarify, that would be great. It may just have been unfortunate phrasing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also find the idea that everyone sorts their acquaintances into "dateable/doable" and "not dateable/doable" categories really weird. Maybe everyone who is actively looking for a relationship (whether long-term or one-night) does, but not everyone is actively pursuing relationships or encounters, even when they're single.
I suspect this statement was further than Destineer intended to go, but I might be mistaken.
Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean literally everyone. There are asexual people out there, and also people who aren't looking for a relationship/sex, either because that's not what they want or because they're already happy on that front. It's a fair point.
Although maybe another way to put that point is that some people put everyone they know into the "friend zone."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do defend the term, in the sense that I think it can be used to express something perfectly legitimate and unproblematic. But a lot of things that PUAs and Nice Guys want to say using the term are problematic.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
"don't clear that bar" = "are not suitable for sex or dating (by the relevant person's lights)."
