A Female Persective On The Friendzone

[Emerald]

This is geared more towards guys but could be helpful to women as well. I will be speaking using generalizations about gender and behavior... so just a little trigger warning . There are a billion exceptions to every rule, and I only know my own experience. But this is just what I've noticed as a women and from observing myself as well as other women and men in general.

I occasionally hear/see guys talk about the friend-zone, and I think the concept is misunderstood and causes a lot more stress around meeting women and dating. I think it's misunderstood because of a fundamental difference in the mating behaviors of men and women that is unconsciously taken for granted as being the same in both genders.

For men, the primary reproductive drive is to spread the seed as widely as possible to as many willing females as possible. So, men (generally speaking from what I've noticed) tend to have a constant radar going relative to women and mating. So, men (I'm just guessing) probably have a line in their mind that splits two large groups of women: "Women I'm attracted to" and "Women I'm not attracted to." There seems to be a sorting that happens where both groups cast a pretty wide net. Correct me if I'm wrong about this. It's just what I see from my outside perspective and from listening to male perspectives. So, women who make the "attractive group" met the guy's standards for attraction but women who don't make the group failed to meet the guy's standards. So, the unattractive women are in the friend-zone. This is all normal and makes sense relative to creating a heartier and more diverse species. And this is a fairly objective type of attraction sorting that happens on a conscious level.

For women, the primary reproductive drive is to find the best quality sperm possible attached to the best quality provider. So, for women, it's a quality game when looking for a mate. And it's highly subjective and intuitive. And mostly it happens unconsciously and without objective "sizing up", unless a woman is actively trying to find a partner through a dating service or something like that. Biologically, we only have so many eggs in the first place, and we have to incubate and grow a child for 9 months whereby we can't be impregnated by anyone else. There is also a biological time limit for women to be able to reproduce in their lifespan. So, a lot fewer men make the cut for attraction. For men, on the other hand, it's a quantity game that quality comes into play with here and there. Men can have thousands of babies a year if he's ambitious and not too picky. So, even if he wants to sleep with a 10, nothing much will be lost from bedding a willing 3. He can afford a few "duds" if he's having a thousand babies a year. This is all said in a very tongue in cheek way... I don't actually think babies are duds.  This is, of course, speaking only from the reproductive standpoint without regard to other pair-bonding drives. Luckily, we're more than just our reptilian brain. 

So, because of this, women don't really have a constant conscious and objective radar going like guys tend to where that binary sorting happens. Speaking from my experience, we don't actually create a friend-zone in the same way that men do. But the male assumption is that women do create a friend-zone in the same binary way, and have the same kind of sizing up mechanism going on. But that we're basing it on a litany of factors that stem beyond just looks and trickle down into the most personal aspects of self-hood. So, I think men assume that women also have a large pool of men that make the "attractive and would date them" group and a large pool of men that are the equivalent of the unattractive women group too.

But this isn't how the female friend-zone works. In truth, there's usually just one guy that a woman really likes (or maybe a few that she's somewhat attracted to) and all other guys (and the entirety of the rest of the world) are just in default mode. And this is what the female friend-zone is. It's just default mode. Everyone is in default mode to begin with, and only a guy who really sparks her interest or has chemistry with her gets magically and inexplicably bumped up to romantic-mode. So, there's a ton of videos and content about how to avoid being "put" in the friend-zone. But nobody really gets "put" in the friend-zone... it's just that they never left the friend-zone in the first place. They never moved past default. So, no conscious 'sizing-up' happened on her part relative to their worth as a partner. She didn't look at them and think "Hmmm... Well... Nah." She just never thought about them in a romantic context to even size them up in that way. She literally only ever saw them as an acquaintance or friend... mostly for no reason at all. And this will happen with most women, no matter how good at pick-up a man becomes. It will still happen that he will be in default mode for most women.

Now, when I said no one get "put" in the friend-zone. The exception to this is if she was first attracted to the guy and then put them back into default mode. But if she was never interested, they've just been in default mode since moment one. She didn't sort him there. The attraction just didn't happen.

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Emerald

[Guest username]

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

This is geared more towards guys but could be helpful to women as well. I will be speaking using generalizations about gender and behavior... so just a little trigger warning . There are a billion exceptions to every rule, and I only know my own experience. But this is just what I've noticed as a women and from observing myself as well as other women and men in general.

I occasionally hear/see guys talk about the friend-zone, and I think the concept is misunderstood and causes a lot more stress around meeting women and dating. I think it's misunderstood because of a fundamental difference in the mating behaviors of men and women that is unconsciously taken for granted as being the same in both genders.

For men, the primary reproductive drive is to spread the seed as widely as possible to as many willing females as possible. So, men (generally speaking from what I've noticed) tend to have a constant radar going relative to women and mating. So, men (I'm just guessing) probably have a line in their mind that splits two large groups of women: "Women I'm attracted to" and "Women I'm not attracted to." There seems to be a sorting that happens where both groups cast a pretty wide net. Correct me if I'm wrong about this. It's just what I see from my outside perspective and from listening to male perspectives. So, women who make the "attractive group" met the guy's standards for attraction but women who don't make the group failed to meet the guy's standards. So, the unattractive women are in the friend-zone. This is all normal and makes sense relative to creating a heartier and more diverse species. And this is a fairly objective type of attraction sorting that happens on a conscious level.

For women, the primary reproductive drive is to find the best quality sperm possible attached to the best quality provider. So, for women, it's a quality game when looking for a mate. And it's highly subjective and intuitive. And mostly it happens unconsciously and without objective "sizing up", unless a woman is actively trying to find a partner through a dating service or something like that. Biologically, we only have so many eggs in the first place, and we have to incubate and grow a child for 9 months whereby we can't be impregnated by anyone else. There is also a biological time limit for women to be able to reproduce in their lifespan. So, a lot fewer men make the cut for attraction. For men, on the other hand, it's a quantity game that quality comes into play with here and there. Men can have thousands of babies a year if he's ambitious and not too picky. So, even if he wants to sleep with a 10, nothing much will be lost from bedding a willing 3. He can afford a few "duds" if he's having a thousand babies a year. This is all said in a very tongue in cheek way... I don't actually think babies are duds.  This is, of course, speaking only from the reproductive standpoint without regard to other pair-bonding drives. Luckily, we're more than just our reptilian brain. 

So, because of this, women don't really have a constant conscious and objective radar going like guys tend to where that binary sorting happens. Speaking from my experience, we don't actually create a friend-zone in the same way that men do. But the male assumption is that women do create a friend-zone in the same binary way, and have the same kind of sizing up mechanism going on. But that we're basing it on a litany of factors that stem beyond just looks and trickle down into the most personal aspects of self-hood. So, I think men assume that women also have a large pool of men that make the "attractive and would date them" group and a large pool of men that are the equivalent of the unattractive women group too.

But this isn't how the female friend-zone works. In truth, there's usually just one guy that a woman really likes (or maybe a few that she's somewhat attracted to) and all other guys (and the entirety of the rest of the world) are just in default mode. And this is what the female friend-zone is. It's just default mode. Everyone is in default mode to begin with, and only a guy who really sparks her interest or has chemistry with her gets magically and inexplicably bumped up to romantic-mode. So, there's a ton of videos and content about how to avoid being "put" in the friend-zone. But nobody really gets "put" in the friend-zone... it's just that they never left the friend-zone in the first place. They never moved past default. So, no conscious 'sizing-up' happened on her part relative to their worth as a partner. She didn't look at them and think "Hmmm... Well... Nah." She just never thought about them in a romantic context to even size them up in that way. She literally only ever saw them as an acquaintance or friend... mostly for no reason at all. And this will happen with most women, no matter how good at pick-up a man becomes. It will still happen that he will be in default mode for most women.

Now, when I said no one get "put" in the friend-zone. The exception to this is if she was first attracted to the guy and then put them back into default mode. But if she was never interested, they've just been in default mode since moment one. She didn't sort him there. The attraction just didn't happen.

 

7

I see this a lot in other guys I talk to; I can't relate at all to the willingness to have sex for convenience though. The attraction factor is largely binary, but in terms of willingness, I'd say I fall much more into the women's category. I wonder if this somehow ties into the fluidity of gender-- I don't feel like a woman at all, but I've got a host of very feminine traits (dating preferences, preference for talking about feelings, conflict avoidance, hyper-analytical about social situations, "web" thinking, some more stuff that I can't think of).

[Emerald]

36 minutes ago, username said:

I see this a lot in other guys I talk to; I can't relate at all to the willingness to have sex for convenience though. The attraction factor is largely binary, but in terms of willingness, I'd say I fall much more into the women's category. I wonder if this somehow ties into the fluidity of gender-- I don't feel like a woman at all, but I've got a host of very feminine traits (dating preferences, preference for talking about feelings, conflict avoidance, hyper-analytical about social situations, "web" thinking, some more stuff that I can't think of).

I think about the pre-conditioned personality as having a mix of both masculine and feminine elements in varying degrees. So, imagine that there are a million different inherent traits that a person can have, and each of these traits will be either masculine or feminine. So, after all of those traits are accounted for, it will determine whether a person is inherently feminine or masculine or somewhere in the middle. And this ratio is very unique to the person. So, someone could be masculine in most ways but still orient in a feminine way relative to other aspects of themselves. Then, those aspects will be shaped in this or that way according to culture and social learning. So, this is how I see your tendency toward a more feminine presentation of attraction.  This is just part of your unique masculine/feminine signature. So, you'll find women who are very interested in being with lots of different men, and you'll find men who are very particularized with their attractions to women. So, above was just a generalization to convey the point.

Now, even if a person orients in a feminine way or masculine way relative to a particular aspect of themselves, it's still a good idea to be in touch with the other side of themselves as this is a big factor of personal development that is often avoided or over-looked.

So, someone who naturally orients in a masculine way relative to attraction would be wise to try to become attuned to the feminine part of that drive in themselves, so that they can experience the intuitive and deep nature of a feminine oriented attraction. The more mature a man gets, the more this tendency will brandish itself in small glimmers through his otherwise masculine oriented attraction preferences. This will enable him to be able to fall in love with a particular person and to understand her feelings much better. The same is true for women who orient in a masculine way with regard to this personality trait. Likewise, if someone orients in a very feminine way (male or female), then they would also be wise to get more in touch with the more primal aspects of their drive for pair bonding. So, a woman who orients in a feminine way relative to this trait, would mostly have the particularized attractions that are intuitive and deep. But she would also have developed a relationship to a spark of primal sex drive. She will have a much stronger sex drive and will have more self-knowledge and understanding of her partner's perspective too. And the same is true of a man that orients in a feminine way relative to this trait.

Carl Jung talked about this relative to the Anima and Animus. He said something about the Yin Yang symbol that rings true to me. A person who has developed themselves at a deep level will have a  Yin/Yang symbol with large dots. But a person who is immature will have dots that are just pin-pricks. So, it's very important to determine which traits are authentic to you as an individual, then get in touch with the inner opposite and develop those too. The inner opposite of each trait should act like the salt and seasoning to the main dish.

[d0ornokey]

tyler uses an analogy - men experience attraction like a light switch and women experience attraction like a volume knob 

[Toby]

Doesn't really explain the woman's motivation. I mean, being friendly and interested in people is one thing; wanting a really really emotional close relationship is another. I guess it takes two people who create some dysfunctional relating: mostly the woman is emotional needy in some way and wants to use the guy, while the guy is romantically / sexually needy and cannot see clearly that the other person or even himself is not interested in a deeper relationship. This creates a mess. Both are disappointed in the end. It's actually one way of dysfunction of both. Another very popular one is the "sex zone" where the man just wants sex and the woman a relationship. Of course, all could happen with genders reversed.

[SFRL]

The Friend zone is a result of bigger issues: Oneitis and a lack of options with women. 

It is very rare to see a guy who got options with several women, and who is good at creating options with new women, to be stuck in the Friend one. 

If the girl is not interested in him and/or puts up too many hoops for him to jump trough...NEXT. He will next her. He is not going to dwell around in an emotional mind fuck state. 

A guy with options who is faced with a Friend zone situation will either walk away from the situation (he will not invest in the girl anymore) or he will accept the situation and the girl will indeed just become a friend.

(But this is very rare, usually he will just walk away, unless the girl got something of value to offer and even then she probably will be no more then an acquaintance from there on.) 

*A very important thing to understand for any guy who thinks of himself in the Friend zone. YOU ARE JUST ENTERTAINING A FANTASY ABOUT HER. Once you would get to bang her she may actually not be that great.

So moral of the story is: Be/Become a guy who has and/or can easily create options with women. 

And the relevance of the Friend zone will just vaporize.

Edited September 26, 2017 by SFRL

[Gabriel Antonio]

Great topic!!

What I find that helps me the most in dating is: not focusing on being self-confident, but instead focusing on being natural. Hehe

Thanks for the work you put on this topic! Female vs Male psychology is fascinating! I am learning a lot about myself by understanding the world through the Female eyes

Almost all our behavior is chimp-stuff hahaha....

Anyway, thank you once again!!!

[SFRL]

38 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

Instead of taking apart the whole thing, I'll simply say this: what is meant by friendzone, is usually a type of relationship where a girl keeps a guy around for attention and resources, while the guy desperately sticks around in the hopes of getting in the girl's pants, because he's needy, and lacking romantic prospects outside of her.

He becomes what's called a beta orbiter; a potential provider, one night stand, or future romantic prospect for the girl in case her other relationships don't work out. In other words; it's a relationship where the girl manipulates the guy into sticking around to exploit a certain type of currency.

She does this by giving him hope every once in a while; sending a text, asking him out on dinners (he pays, of course), etc. Breadcrumbs to keep the guy hooked, and milk him dry.

And I've seen this happen over and over; girls will ride the cock carousel until they hit the wall at about age 30, look to their pool of beta providers, then pick one out to impregnate them (usually the one that's better off financially), and take care of them and their offspring.

In the meantime, they still fuck Chads on the side while contemplating a potential divorce-rape or a break-up from provider John to then live off of allowances from Daddy Government.

Basically, those guys are getting cucked into oblivion. Then eventually, they take the red pill, and awaken to a world of AWALT's. A world that's become hard to navigate for men, for the simple fact that most laws favor women, and that the media, the left, and other toxic ideologies like feminism, depict them as rapists, oppressors, and evil patriarchs (THE PATRIARCHY!).

Well, there you go.

On a last note, the term "friendzone" doesn't apply to women, because they usually have a sizeable amount of romantic prospects at any given time, whereas men don't.

That is that Red Pill forum boards perspective. I do think there is a lot of truth in their reasoning. And I think it is useful for any guy to read trough that material. As a reference angle.(And women as well to get that perspective.)

But also the Red Pill vibe I find to be a neurotic overreaction that went completely Haywire. In the end you are not doing yourself any favors by holding on to that ideology in an absolute sense. 

The Red Pill vs The Blue Pill is a useful model because it's rigidity gives structure to thinking, but because of it's rigidity is is also limited. (Like any model regarding any subject.) 

If you want to keep thinking within the paradigm of that model I think the best place is to be a Red Pill with a purple glow. Somewhere 75% leaning towards the Red Pill on the Blue Pill/Red Pill spectrum. 

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by SFRL

[SFRL]

13 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

I agree that holding on to your anger (red pill rage) becomes toxic after a while, but the principles never leave you. It offers perspectives on female nature that aren't taught anywhere else in our politically correct environment. Many people believe that the red pill is mysoginistic, which isn't true. It's just that we've been lied to for so long, that our frustrations (about women, but also the system, and the political establishments that gave birth to it) come to the surface, and make it look that way. I see it as a refuge. It's taught me valuable lessons over the past year. It's improved my dating life, as well as my ability to spot batshit crazy women, which there's a shit ton out there.

I agree there is a lot to be learned there. 

And trust me I know. 

But the moment you can't let go of that rage you didn't just lost the battle, you have lost the war. 

[WaveInTheOcean]

thanks for sharing your wisdom with us Emerald <3 

[Elisabeth]

14 hours ago, Emerald said:

So, there's a ton of videos and content about how to avoid being "put" in the friend-zone. But nobody really gets "put" in the friend-zone...

 

As a women I must agree. Actually I never even really understood the concept of a friend zone. It seem guys think they have to somehow avoid being sorted as "just" a friend ... well, all of my partners so far (three rather long relationships) were first my friends. I don't care about looks much, I care about behaviour, I need some time to observe that before feelings even start to develop. So with some girls if you're not willing to be friends first, you're not gonna have a relationship. 

WTF ... friend zone ... ????

[Forestluv]

Below is just my guy's perspective. I think it is only relevant for a large subset of guys "playing the game" and does not apply to all guys.

Overall for our species, the female has considerably more selection power than the male. The vast majority of females could “get laid” any night they wanted to. Males often go weeks or months trying to get laid. There are countless guides  for males to improve your “game”. And in this game, the female chooses “yes” or “no”. The “default zone” is the same as the “friendzone”. It’s the zone of the guy not get laid.

The "friendzone" is when a guy has an interest in dating/romance with a gal that he is courting. The guy is interpreting her behavior as "good" or "bad" regarding his chances for romance. . .  Is she responding to my texts? She didn't respond for five hours, what does that mean? Does the tone of the text seem like she is interested? Is that guy in her Facebook photo a date? . . . All questions trying to determine whether he is in the "friendzone". Getting put into the "friendzone" means you have essentially lost on romance. You blew it. . . Then questions arise such as: "What can I do differently the next time to improve my chances?".

Guys don't have a "friendzone" with women. How could a guy put himself into his own "friendzone"? It's the gal who has the "friendzone" we are worried about getting put into. If a guy is interested in dating a gal, a friendzone appears around her to be avoided. If a guy is not interested in dating a gal, there is no "friendzone". It's just irrelevant.

I've heard guys talk about getting put into the friendzone many times. I have never heard a guy talking about putting a gal into the friendzone. It just doesn't exist.

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[smd]

@Emerald A friend zone is just inexperience on the guy's part.  It's pretty easy to figure out when you're there.  They (or he) became emotionally invested before a relationship actually occurred.

The default mode, of which you speak, I see that more as like looking into a fish tank.  The women's (or anybody's) heads just swim around in public with that neutral fish-eye look as they pass by.  Like you're the invisible man. You don't exist at all.  The fish eye look is exactly the same, that dull, flat-line response, when you are having a general conversation with them.  Almost like talking to a robot.  If you got them to laugh once or twice, but then next time, they give you the fish-eye, you know without a doubt, they are not interested.  There is no friend zone here!

The ones who sparkle in their eyes & become flirty for awhile, but then go back to the fish-eye in the months ahead, that tells me they were interested to a point, but I didn't have the magic key to unlock that interest further.  So they went back to default mode.  It's done.  If you emotionally invested then you friend-zoned yourself.  Otherwise, there's nothing to sweat over.

And I disagree with you: I would not sleep with a 3.  And I wouldn't have a 3 as a friend, unless she is always around 5s, 6,s or higher.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, smd said:

@Emerald A friend zone is just inexperience on the guy's part.  It's pretty easy to figure out when you're there.  They (or he) became emotionally invested before a relationship actually occurred.

The default mode, of which you speak, I see that more as like looking into a fish tank.  The women's (or anybody's) heads just swim around in public with that neutral fish-eye look as they pass by.  Like you're the invisible man. You don't exist at all.  The fish eye look is exactly the same, that dull, flat-line response, when you are having a general conversation with them.  Almost like talking to a robot.  If you got them to laugh once or twice, but then next time, they give you the fish-eye, you know without a doubt, they are not interested.  There is no friend zone here!

The ones who sparkle in their eyes & become flirty for awhile, but then go back to the fish-eye in the months ahead, that tells me they were interested to a point, but I didn't have the magic key to unlock that interest further.  So they went back to default mode.  It's done.  If you emotionally invested then you friend-zoned yourself.  Otherwise, there's nothing to sweat over.

And I disagree with you: I would not sleep with a 3.  And I wouldn't have a 3 as a friend, unless she is always around 5s, 6,s or higher.

Well, I have tons of guys that I get really excited to talk to that I have no romantic interest in. So, it's not that I see them as invisible. I'm married now, anyway. But this is true, even if I weren't. I really enjoy my male friends. So this doesn't mean that they aren't fascinating people that I admire very much. It's just that, if the chemistry isn't there, then it just isn't. But the lack or romantic interest doesn't mean that I think less of them or that they're not cool guys.

But the "3" comment, was just tongue in cheek to illustrate a point about the nature of reproduction from the male standpoint. Even if most guys have standards... they're not really necessary for the biological impetus to pass on one's genes. You could pass on your own genes with a "10" a "5" or a "3". So, from the reptilian brain's perspective, all sex is a win. So, I'm not saying that men don't have standards. I'm just saying that biology doesn't require it, if we reduce it down to pure reproductive success. Which I also said is not something that I agree with. Human beings are more complex than their baser drives.

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Guys don't have a "friendzone" with women. How could a guy put himself into his own "friendzone"? It's the gal who has the "friendzone" we are worried about getting put into. If a guy is interested in dating a gal, a friendzone appears around her to be avoided. If a guy is not interested in dating a gal, there is no "friendzone". It's just irrelevant.

I've heard guys talk about getting put into the friendzone many times. I have never heard a guy talking about putting a gal into the friendzone. It just doesn't exist.

 

I'm not saying that guy puts himself in his own friend-zone or that he's worried about girls that he's not interested putting him in the friend-zone. I'm just saying that women don't think of the friend-zone at all. There's no zone there. It's just default. So, most guys never get bumped up to the "romance-zone." It's not that he's put in the friend-zone. He just never made it out of the friend-zone... or what I call default mode. It really is a totally different perspective to think from. Everyone starts in the friend-zone. Very few guys make it out.

But men don't talk about the friend-zone and putting women there because they understand that they just aren't interested in some women and that they never will be attracted to those women. So, these women are in the 'platonic-zone'. The reason why I am not calling it the friend-zone in this case is because men tend not to approach women in hopes of friendship from the get-go. Women usually start out with an intention for friendship in most situations because that's part of default-mode. So, the romance is never a factor to start with. It only comes in the form of a Cupid's Arrow or in the form of more shallow physical-based attractions to how a man looks.

But men who make this mistake when fathoming of the friend-zone, just don't tend to recognize that women just aren't romantically interested in most men and never will be and that this is default. So, they friend-zone (platonic-zone) women, but it happens unceremoniously because they are sober enough to see that they just aren't attracted to that person. That's what happens when a guy is in the friend-zone. The woman just isn't attracted. She didn't sort the man here. He just never sparked those feelings in her. Most men won't.

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Elisabeth said:

As a women I must agree. Actually I never even really understood the concept of a friend zone. It seem guys think they have to somehow avoid being sorted as "just" a friend ... well, all of my partners so far (three rather long relationships) were first my friends. I don't care about looks much, I care about behaviour, I need some time to observe that before feelings even start to develop. So with some girls if you're not willing to be friends first, you're not gonna have a relationship. 

WTF ... friend zone ... ????

I can relate. I always found the friend-zone idea very inaccurate and frustrating for that reason because it really gets the psychology about it wrong. There tend to be decent bits of advice on how to "avoid the friend-zone" that will work in a pinch in a percentage of cases. But it really gets the motivations and psychology all wrong. It's very "cart before the horse."

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

thanks for sharing your wisdom with us Emerald <3 

You're welcome!

[Forestluv]

@Emerald In terms of the evolution and “spreading the seed” framework. . . for guys driven by the evolutionary desire to score with women there are two outcomes - you spread your seed (successful attempt for sex) or didn’t spread your seed (unsuccessful attempt for sex). Females either accept the attempt or don’t accept the attempt. One could call an unsuccessful attempt whatever you want: default zone, friend zone, loser zone, no seed-spread zone. It’s just semantics. In the evolution and seed spread model, there is a zone of failed attempts. And it’s not just humans, in many species the males court females for reproductive sex. And attempts often fail.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[Guest username]

@Mad Max I think feminism has some legitimacy, and I would also say the Redpill definitely has misogynistic undertones. A lot of what they call "game" is straight up emotional abuse.

I used to strongly oppose feminism because I had only been exposed to awful caricatures of what feminism means and, of course, I experience life from a male perspective. 

I'm not completely on board with a lot of social justice movements since I think just sticking to consciousness work is more important and would easily resolve a lot of the problems in the world, but it wasn't until I just let go of my own biases and learned to listen to women without my preconceptions interfering that I realized that feminism and social justice actually covers a lot of important issues and isn't just fictitious minority groups vying for more power than they already have.

A lot of PUA stuff like the Redpill can cause "beta" men to be more successful because there are bits of effective advice in there (work out, be more confident, don't be a pushover, improve your social skills, etc.), but if you've spent a lot of time doing the work on actualized.org, you should see that a lot of Redpill principles are wildly egocentric and fundamentally unconscious in the way they relate to others.

The manosphere glorifies the ego, and with that as its foundation, it is very toxic. 

 

 

[Emerald]

16 hours ago, Toby said:

Doesn't really explain the woman's motivation. I mean, being friendly and interested in people is one thing; wanting a really really emotional close relationship is another. I guess it takes two people who create some dysfunctional relating: mostly the woman is emotional needy in some way and wants to use the guy, while the guy is romantically / sexually needy and cannot see clearly that the other person or even himself is not interested in a deeper relationship. This creates a mess. Both are disappointed in the end. It's actually one way of dysfunction of both. Another very popular one is the "sex zone" where the man just wants sex and the woman a relationship. Of course, all could happen with genders reversed.

The woman's motivation would be to make a human connection with a friend or acquaintance. Generally speaking, women who have male friends are just wanting friends. There's no motivation to seek a relationship. Now, a dysfunctional person might enjoy getting attention to fill some voids. But generally, the friend-zone is just the default mode for all people... including the vast majority of men.