In that regard it's about attitude.... Seeing women only as sexual objects or seeing them as a person worthy of expending the time to get to know.

As opposed to *your* backwards mentality that you have been spewing on here?
That stuff sounded pretty 19th century to several of us...

Chivalry never goes out of style my good man.


If they're beyond our assessment in 2018 (it has nothing to do with capabilities)


Then I guess we won't be "friendzoned" afterall

That some women are actually capable of being independent of needing someone to emotionally support them. That they are happy, confident people in their own self and not needing someone (man or woman) to make them feel good about themselves. You are your own rock or anchor in this world and can fearlessly move forward in life without someone giving you a hand to lead you along. You are just as capable and willing to lead as you are to follow.

This not just about the female gender for many men are incapable of it also!!

Not quite.

There is a secondary area of confusion here. People keep saying "player" and "sex", which is leading to an over-generalization.

There are men who get stuck in the friend zone not because of viewing women as objects, but simply because the woman feels the man isn't what she is looking for.

And players are only **one of many scenarios** in that case.

This is why some guys complain about women always saying they want a "nice guy" when in reality they keep chasing after "bad boys". These men are frustrated because they feel they never receive an opportunity to actually prove themselves. They are dismissed based on shallow ideals.

To be honest, it's neither the player's definition nor Cranky's definition of "friend zone" that matters. It's how each individual woman defines it that truly matters.

That's why we can't generalize the topic. We're not mindreaders.

Unfortunately, many guys are left feeling like the are **expected** to be mindreaders. It's a simple matter of miscommunication. Easily resolved if people are truly strong and independent.

This I can agree with although the later is a waste of any consideration. My comments are directed at forming an actual friendship with someone especially female although my expectations of a close friend are generally the same for men and women.

And what would you prefer us to think or believe?
That some women are actually capable of being independent of needing someone to emotionally support them. That they are happy, confident people in their own self and not needing someone (man or woman) to make them feel good about themselves. You are your own rock or anchor in this world and can fearlessly move forward in life without someone giving you a hand to lead you along. You are just as capable and willing to lead as you are to follow.

This not just about the female gender for many men are incapable of it also!!


I don’t believe that is what they are saying. I think they are both saying we deserve to be treated well. That we deserve to be treated equally and not just as sexual objects there to satisfy any man’s sexual needs.

Women have sexual needs too. But many of us have realized that the sexual revolution did us few favours. Before wonenguarded their sexuality. Then the revolution came along and we were supposed to be equals. What really happened though was that we were expected to say yes even when it wasn’t in our best interest. The revolution of free love and sexual openness actually victimized us because if we did say no we were being closed, difficult, backwards, prudes and many other derogatory words. We were now supposed to embrace sexuality openly. It was expected that after 1 or 2 dates we should be under the sheets and if we weren’t then it was our fault. After all if the man was willing we should be too.

Many of us found out, however, that this just gave men an unrealistic expectation that we would be putting out. As many of the women posters here have said that doesn’t work for them. We have the right to say no or not yet or we want to get to know a man as a friend first. If he can’t become a good friend first then he will be alone under the sheets.

We aren’t opposed to sex though. We do embrace it, enjoy and love it (provided the man knows what he is doing) but we aren’t a car that men test drive to find out if you are compatible. Emotional and psychological compatibility are very different than sexual compatibilit. It seems to many women that men are more interested in sexual compatibility than the rest. Meanwhile women want the rest FIRST and only then are they willing to climb under the sheets.

This may sound like control over the man. In reality it is control over our body, and who and when someone gets access to it.

One of the reasons why I don’t do long distance is because the men I have talked to long enough for them to travel even 2 hours think sex is a part of the visit. When you clearly state that it is not, they cancel. It sort of says “Have sex will travel”

I'm familiar with 19th century thinking since I taught U.S. and Global history for several years. The only thing I've repeatedly said here is that I love, respect, and admire women. That is why I love being friends without any agenda other than to enjoy their company. 19th century thinking in the U.S.A. was that the WASP male was superior to everyone else, especially women. I adore women unconditionally. I believe they are superior to men in many ways. Soooo, you're assertion is actually kind of funny. I'd laugh if I didn't find you a little bit sad. You've unsuccessfully tried to turn this into a pissing contest several times.

Just do what ever you do. I hope you find whatever it is you seek. I question your way of interacting, but that's your lookout not mine.

That some women are actually capable of being independent of needing someone to emotionally support them. That they are happy, confident people in their own self and not needing someone (man or woman) to make them feel good about themselves. You are your own rock or anchor in this world and can fearlessly move forward in life without someone giving you a hand to lead you along. You are just as capable and willing to lead as you are to follow.

This not just about the female gender for many men are incapable of it also!!


I don’t believe that is what they are saying. I think they are both saying we deserve to be treated well. That we deserve to be treated equally and not just as sexual objects there to satisfy any man’s sexual needs.

Women have sexual needs too. But many of us have realized that the sexual revolution did us few favours. Before wonenguarded their sexuality. Then the revolution came along and we were supposed to be equals. What really happened though was that we were expected to say yes even when it wasn’t in our best interest. The revolution of free love and sexual openness actually victimized us because if we did say no we were being closed, difficult, backwards, prudes and many other derogatory words. We were now supposed to embrace sexuality openly. It was expected that after 1 or 2 dates we should be under the sheets and if we weren’t then it was our fault. After all if the man was willing we should be too.

Many of us found out, however, that this just gave men an unrealistic expectation that we would be putting out. As many of the women posters here have said that doesn’t work for them. We have the right to say no or not yet or we want to get to know a man as a friend first. If he can’t become a good friend first then he will be alone under the sheets.

We aren’t opposed to sex though. We do embrace it, enjoy and love it (provided the man knows what he is doing) but we aren’t a car that men test drive to find out if you are compatible. Emotional and psychological compatibility are very different than sexual compatibilit. It seems to many women that men are more interested in sexual compatibility than the rest. Meanwhile women want the rest FIRST and only then are they willing to climb under the sheets.

This may sound like control over the man. In reality it is control over our body, and who and when someone gets access to it.

One of the reasons why I don’t do long distance is because the men I have talked to long enough for them to travel even 2 hours think sex is a part of the visit. When you clearly state that it is not, they cancel. It sort of says “Have sex will travel”


You deserve to be treated as any other person in a similar circumstance should. in general, women seem to equate sex to an emotional connection; men equate an emotional connection to sex. Something like which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Also, many older men have had their sex life in their relationships destroyed by the woman's lack of desire. They are very suspicious that a new relationship will result in the same situation, thus they want to establish that sexual connection early in any possible relationship. Ask the older women you know, say 60+, who are in a relationship how often they have or initiate sex with their partner. If or when these men become single, they see older woman in the same light as the one they were with. May or may not be a correct assumption.

A) A woman's lack of desire might not be her fault entirely or at all... I'm not going into an explanation, but that's a fact.
B) Letting your past relationships affect the present one is a 100% guaranteed fail.

wow. If he hasn't dealt with the past he is sure to make the same mistakes and doom the possible relationship.

One common problem I see is that once a man and woman have sex the man assumes that she is available to him whenever he feels like it. He believes he now has ownership of her body and sexuality. This is why a lot of women get turned off sex with him. Half the time they don;t even bother with foreplay. I have had more than one man come in the door and walk straight to the bedroom expecting me to follow. Excuse me! How about "Hello and nice to see you"?

I am not saying that spontaneity is bad. I am all for it when I am in the mood. But if I haven't seen you for a week it might take me a little longer to get warmed up. I'm not a sex doll that you can grab as soon as you walk in the door.

Then there are the men who really are into sex for them and forget their partner has needs and very often they are very different than a man's. Some men are just selfish. As Cellie says in The Color Purple, "He just climb on top of me and do his business." I don't want anything to do with the selfish man.

Some don't know - do some research already. The ones who don't know can learn. IF they want to. Just because I said YES once doesn't mean you now own me.

And wives. After 20 years of picking up after a man, doing his laundry, cleaning his house, cooking his meals, birthing his babies and raising them, I think she deserves a bit of down time. Granted it is her house and her food and her babies too but she still works more hours in a day than he does. Too often they both work but when she comes home she is still working while he does whatever he feels like.

And wives. After 20 years of picking up after a man, doing his laundry, cleaning his house, cooking his meals, birthing his babies and raising them, I think she deserves a bit of down time. Granted it is her house and her food and her babies too but she still works more hours in a day than he does. Too often they both work but when she comes home she is still working while he does whatever he feels like.

I can only assume this described your life; the reality today is much different. My one step-son is a house husband, the other one does part of the cooking and other housework. My son-in-law does almost all the cooking in their home along with the yard work, vehicles, and household maintenance. He also is an active parent with their child. I guess life is just a little different in my world. The time of a man coming home from work and having someone wait on him is long past and history is a good place for it!

I totally agree that times are changing. Younger men are doing more at least some of them are. My son-in-law always seems to be doing something. I see plenty of men out walking the baby or taking the ids to the park. But I don’t see that as much with men my age.

So True !!

I realize my beliefs do not agree with the majority of you on here. My idea of a relationship and what I would expect from one are not what most of you would ever consider. My view on Marriage is much more sour thanks to the government and women who have not been honest. These are not new beliefs or the result of any recent experiences but the culmination of many years of living and the results of those years. I am honest about my opinions and will defend them as they represent who I am. For those who don't agree, that is fine for those are your opinions and worth just as much as mine. I do try to understand the opinions of others and am always willing to consider new ways of thinking. Just because you say it is so, that does not make it true, only that you believe it.

This !!

Afraid? No.
I just avoid it because there is nothing positive about it.

What's worked for me is a restaurant analogy.
In my experience the "friend zone" is analogous to living in a world where there's nothing but fast food restaurants. I've tried wendy's, mcd's, bk, arby's, etc. just crappy food. Day in, day out, new fast food place I get excited, but just the same as all the others.

Then one day a beautiful high class fancy steakhouse appears.
So I get a haircut, I shave, I put on a suit, I don't eat, I cleanse my palate, I rent a car, I save up my money so I can afford anything and everything. I want to be a good customer. I don't want to be the guy that just stops at a drive through after work. I want to enjoy something better. To be better. To know better. It's still me, I've just gone from not caring, to actually caring. Motivated. Happy. Gregarious. Excited for the possibilities.

I make a reservation, I show up clean and tip the valet, I form a bond with the hostess, the maitre'd, the sommelier, all the facets of the restaurant, so they all respond to me positively, so they try, so they care, all to get to meet the chef in the kitchen that's preparing something that smells absolutely wonderful and fulfilling. I appreciate the space, the location, the atmosphere, the ambiance, the color of the walls, the music.

I order some of everything.

Then the manager comes out and says "sorry. You won't be served or ever meet the chef. But you can clean the bathrooms, sweep the floors, show up before opening, and stay after closing, do the dishes, clean the glasses, chop the salads, help prepare for all the other customers that are going to be fed, listen to complaints about bad customers and my debt problems."
"Huh? What do they have that I don't? I did everything in order to prepare myself to be a customer and fulfill the process of ordering, eating, paying, and continuing to patronize and appreciate your establishment, I am excited to do so."
"Sorry, I only see you as an employee. You can work for me, but you can never taste anything I prepare. I will never pay you, because hard work is its own reward and you should want to do the dishes, clean the floors and bathrooms, and give my sommelier, and maitre'd, and hostess a ride to the airport or move and talk about all their mistakes with the wrong boys whenever they want. Plus I want you to always be just as motivated, caring, prepared, etc. as you were when you first made your reservation."

IME it then falls into 1 of 3 types of women.
1. "If you try to meet the chef or eat anything, or even talk about how good it smells, or how hungry you are, then you aren't a good employee, and you'll be fired and go to jail, forever branded a bad person."

2. "If you stick around and be my unpaid employee, I will make sure you get the best meal of your life....for your hard work, I stopped and got you a McDonald's hamburger, I was drunk and just didn't feel like cooking. It's probably a mistake so it will never happen again. So, see you at work tomorrow?"

3. "You will never be fed here. Work for me, you'll get exercise and a feeling of accomplishment...oh, after all this time, I see you in a new light! Here's a steak I had made just for you!...was it good? Yeah, about that, really, I just took it off the plate of a customer that didn't eat all of theirs and warmed it in the microwave. But they're coming back next week and they're hungry. So, see you at work tomorrow?"

And if I/you "quit" it's "you just wanted me for steak!"


Hopefully through learned experience.
Men and women can't be "friends."
They can have platonic relationships.
But there is too much about human biology that will prevent an actual "friendship" for any length of time, there will always be a clock on it, unless there are serious emotional and/or mental problems going on.
A lot of people enjoy telling themselves their relationships are more than they are in order to make themselves seem more meaningful, also.

But, to be fair, anymore the term "friend" and "friendship" are extremely vague and are like "love" and is ultimately meaningless (primarily due to a lack of vocabulary so they load up a word with as much subjective meaning as possible and then use it as though their understanding is universal).
It can describe anything from someone you've never met but like their forum posts, to someone that you've known since kindergarten and have absolutely no secrets from and knows you better than you know yourself in almost all things but there are accepted roles and rules of behavior known to and accepted by both.

IME the "friend zone" most people refer to is the definition of "friend" where one person has defined the relationship according to their own selfish needs/desires/tolerances, and then expects the other person to conform to those boundaries and expectations, and if they don't, then they're the a-hole who can't be a "friend."

Also, social bonds and social connectedness are pretty much dying in a globalizing world, so people are white knuckling whatever relationships they can find with whomever will talk to and/or agree with them, and believing those relationships have more value than they actually do, using labels to define them that really don't fit. But that might be a different thread entirely.


To what degree?
How much of a sacrifice to your life will you accept?
Do you "support" their decision to pursue a new career by paying their bills or letting them sleep at your place, take over your room, for 2+ years while they go to school to start that career? Or just offer "yeah! You can do it!" kind of "support" and "encouragement?"
Would you offer heavy sacrifice to one "friend" but not the other? Why?

If what will make them "happy" is romantic love, and the person they seem to be looking for is an exact match to you...do you go out and try to find your doppelganger? Or try to get them to see you that way?



You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel

I know song lyrics too.
You think there are more songs about love and sex? Love and friends? Sex and friends? Just sex? Or just friends?

Or maybe hidden pedophilia?
Russians love their children too.
"Friend" or "love," all vague labels.

When I was in high school, I tended to get "friend zoned" a lot. Or so I thought. Turns out that many of the girls that I thought had friend zoned me did in fact like me. They just were waiting for me to make a move.

To this day I have the biggest crush on this woman and I know she has "friend zoned" me. I don't mind it....as an adult I see it that she has gone her way and I have gone mine.

You write volumes. You're clearly intelligent. Good for you. Let me keep it brief. I will only reply to two things you've written in your tome, because the only novel I've ever written still lies in a drawer.

First, I've already given an example of a woman friend I've had since we were 15. Find it if you have a care or not. Doesn't matter to me.

Second, I support and encourage my friends to the best of my ability. It's all I can do and all anyone should reasonably expect.

Go ahead now and show off your analytical skills. They're world class. I hope they have worked as well in your search for friends, lovers, and a relationship.

Friends are best way to start But friends don't necessarily date. Not romanic anyway .

One-sided chemistry puts one in that Friend's Zone.