A Female Persective On The Friendzone

[Emerald]

19 hours ago, d0ornokey said:

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

I suppose that's true from one perspective. For me, my attractions have always come about like food-poisoning. I meet a guy and talk to him for a while and nothing. Then, a few days later, I realize that I'm thinking about him a lot and that it feels good to think about him. Then, I realize that I've been infected. And it comes out of nowhere for no rhyme or reason, and it's the best feeling ever to where I want to talk people's ears off about it.  That's why women are always talking to one another about their crushes in a giddy way to one another.

[Guest username]

A lot of Redpill/manosphere can be very seductive to frustrated men. When you're not doing well romantically, it can be hard to deal with women telling you to "check your privilege" or "she doesn't owe you anything" when you are just trying to improve and have your feelings hurt. The manosphere can, on the surface, seem like a place that actually cares about men in a hostile, feminist environment. But I think this is really a farce. 

While I agree that sometimes women can be insensitive to romantically unsuccessful men due to issues like male entitlement, it's actually pretty understandable after setting aside your man problems and empathizing with what they have to deal with. The manosphere tends to play on the naivety and insecurity of young men and radicalizing them with the promise of personal empowerment and freedom.

It should be clear to people who've done plenty on consciousness work and other self-actualization work (especially all the things from actualized.org) that Redpill is a fundamentally unconscious, egocentric paradigm.

I had trouble accepting PUA and the manosphere as egocentric because it was catering to my ego and personal wounds. When I became more honest, had healed with lots of inner work, and was naturally more attuned to the needs of others, I began to see this. It's riddled with male insecurity and selfishness. 

[Emerald]

12 hours ago, SFRL said:

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

I feel like the friend-zone idea was thought of by men in order to try to understand and cope with rejection from a woman that they really like. And the idea got popular and gained traction from there. It's kind of like the flip-side of tv trope of the unattractive woman saying, "But I have a great personality..." to cope with rejection and to reframe the issue as "If I found a great guy... he wouldn't be interested in looks..." But this is not how attraction works. It's just trying to find soothing or actionable answers and mindsets to cope with rejection from an object of attraction. So, I feel like friend-zone is an idea that exists to be able to say, "If only I did 'x, y, z', then I wouldn't have been put in the friend-zone." So, that there is an illusion of a fail-safe way to avoid rejection in the future. And it works to a degree but doesn't really get the psychology of the woman correct.

[Forestluv]

I suppose one coukd redefine friendzone as “a guy being told to stay in the default zone” or “the rejection zone”. At least that would acknowledge a male attempt and female choice took place.

I think guys have fragile egos when it comes to sex. Friend zone is a lot softer than rejection zone.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[Emerald]

11 hours ago, Gabriel Antonio said:

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!!!

You're welcome!

[Guest username]

8 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I suppose one coukd redefine friendzone as “a guy being told to stay in the default zone” or “the rejection zone”. At least that would acknowledge a male attempt and female choice took place.

I think guys have fragile egos when it comes to sex. Friend zone is a lot softer than rejection zone.

3

 

It's true. I think that's also why consciousness work is so critical to our collective development on these matters. While having conversations like this and bringing attention to social issues is critical in dispelling ignorance, there's a more insidious and serious ignorance that is the ego. Existential insight is the only real way to hit the true root cause of the various evils in our world.

[Emerald]

10 hours 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. Eventually, they end up taking the red pill, and awaken from a world of illusion where they've been told that women are pure, innocent creatures that can do no wrong.

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.

Whoa! That's an intense interpretation of the friend-zone. From my understanding of the friend-zone and every interpretation that I've ever heard, this isn't it. This is called being a manipulative gold-digger and an energy vampire. The friend-zone is simply when a woman you're interested in, sees you as just a friend. So, I'd be careful not to mix definitions too much, otherwise you can get the idea that the world is a very bleak place rife with women always trying to suck you dry. Because the friend-zone is an inevitable situation that every single man will experience at some point in time... probably more often than he experiences the "romance-zone". But being manipulated by a vampire woman is not.

I have to ask. Have you ever experienced any of this firsthand? I ask you this because I'm not a woman who does this type of thing... nor am I a wealthy man with tons of women trying to leach off of me. To me, it's completely disconnected from my reality because I don't even have any friends who would do this type of thing... at least seemingly not. If you have experienced this, then I recommend staying away from energy vampires. If you haven't, then I would be careful not to fall prey to unconsciously making up issues that aren't really there for you just because it gives you an outlet to vent your bitterness/anger/cynicism/etc. With all the propaganda floating around the echo chambers of the internet, it's easy to cling to an ideology and worldview that allows you to express your rage toward it. It's really just a coping mechanism to attempt to scratch deep emotional itches. It's the same thing that the Feminazi-types are doing.

But with regard to the sizable amount of romantic prospects women have, there are definitely pluses and minuses to it. The thing to understand about this is that women tend to be very pointed in their attractions. So, there is no guarantee that "that one guy" will be interested in a relationship. So, there is a 'platonic-zone' for women. Or what's worse is being really attracted to a guy and getting romantic with him, only to find out that he's not interested in you as more that a sexual partner. So, even if women have more quantity to pick from. If quantity isn't what's valued, then there is not as extreme an advantage there. So, don't feel like you're in a position of extreme disadvantage. You are not. There is no reason to get jaded. We all have our advantages and disadvantages in the field of dating. The media tends to always show men as the underdog in the situation because we like that narrative. But trust me, it isn't so even if people pretend it to be so. Women have their own issues and insecurities relative to the dating game.

[Forestluv]

@username I think they’re all just stories our ego/self creates. I wonder if realizing that “I” doesn’t exist would resolve a lot of problems.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[Emerald]

52 minutes ago, username said:

A lot of Redpill/manosphere can be very seductive to frustrated men. When you're not doing well romantically, it can be hard to deal with women telling you to "check your privilege" or "she doesn't owe you anything" when you are just trying to improve and have your feelings hurt. The manosphere can, on the surface, seem like a place that actually cares about men in a hostile, feminist environment. But I think this is really a farce. 

While I agree that sometimes women can be insensitive to romantically unsuccessful men due to issues like male entitlement, it's actually pretty understandable after setting aside your man problems and empathizing with what they have to deal with. The manosphere tends to play on the naivety and insecurity of young men and radicalizing them with the promise of personal empowerment and freedom.

It should be clear to people who've done plenty on consciousness work and other self-actualization work (especially all the things from actualized.org) that Redpill is a fundamentally unconscious, egocentric paradigm.

I had trouble accepting PUA and the manosphere as egocentric because it was catering to my ego and personal wounds. When I became more honest, had healed with lots of inner work, and was naturally more attuned to the needs of others, I began to see this. It's riddled with male insecurity and selfishness. 

This was always my interpretation of the phenomena too. Though it's difficult for me because I have a lot of wounds relative to being a woman  and my own self-loathing, and it salts those wounds to see men thinking in this way about women. I already feel that I am at a disadvantage in many facets of life that extend beyond sexuality simply for being a woman and the experiences that I've had relative to my gender. And on the surface it just looks like guys trying to tip the power scales even more in their favor. But my goal is always ideally to understand and not to judge... though I fail sometimes. So, when I look at it, I can recognize that men simply feel like women are in more of a position of power... mostly because of the extreme emphasis that they put on sexuality and the power that they feel women have over their lives and self-worth. And there's an attempt to bring women down a few notches through these ideologies because there is a perception of women having too much power.

So, there's a lot of bitterness in a number of men who get into the "red-pill" thing. I get why it's attractive. But if you feel the energy about it, it's really stifling and unpleasant... and that's not just because I'm a woman that I feel that way. It's just that you can feel the frustration, rage, cynicism, and bitterness of many of the men who become involved in those ideologies. There's a stiffness there and a self-hatred. And it's like it allows them to scratch an itch... but it never really allows them true healing unless they can overcome the ideology and face what actually motivates them toward it in the first place. It's very much an energetic holding place down in anger and resentment that's really just a protective cover for powerlessness and low self-esteem. It allows them to stoke the flames of anger and channel it toward "manosphere-oriented" forms of personal development to try to fill the voids of self-love. But it just walls them off further from the real issues of powerlessness and low self-esteem. So, the whole thing relates back to the Yin/Yang imbalance that I was talking about in one of our messages.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

@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.

But you see, my post isn't just about semantics. There is a definite difference in psychology than is otherwise conveyed in the term "friend-zone." Sure, a man might fail his own goal. But he has lost anything. He just hasn't gained anything.

[Guest username]

@Emerald I think you're right in that a lot of the perceived advantage of women is due to hypersexual culture and what feminists would call toxic masculinity. Manospherian thought dismisses notions of toxic masculinity as rationalizing beta behavior and women's tools for screening real men. The thought goes that the true alpha men are the ones who are man enough to stick to traditional gender roles and embody hypermasculine ideology. Since the whole system of thought is also largely intertwined with men's self-image, neediness for sex, and personal success, the opportunity cost of ignoring that seems too high. Why would anyone want to risk being beta, after all? 

The fact that men are so ridiculously obsessed with sex, which is yet another symptom of ego, is how we get a lot of the fragility and paranoia toward women. Due to absence of higher consciousness, it can be extraordinarily challenging to put this in perspective. When I was really engrossed in that stuff, I felt like, okay maybe it's not 100% true, but I see no reason risk my happiness and prospects of a good future. It was fundamentally selfish. I was too paranoid to be too critical of the stuff in there and just sorted accepted it as a safety measure, despite the fact that it was actually screwing me over harder-- the sexual insecurities around being a "cuck", "beta" or undesirable were much more sensitive than the possibility that I was a "misogynistic asshole."  In retrospect, it's kind of frightening that I was more afraid of being low-status or unattractive than I was of systematically oppressing women and spreading emotionally abusive ideas. When you're that desperate and needy, the need to feel sexuality validated feels like a survival issue. Prior to doing consciousness work, I felt like if I didn't get to bang hot girls, I was literally going to die because my entire life was otherwise completely worthless and I could never know true happiness.

Without consciousness work, I don't think I could have healed enough to break out of that. No amount of reason would have really convinced me otherwise. The emotional stakes of the game were way too high for me to think other than I did.  I believe this problem of the ego applies more generally, which is how we also get women who actually do pervert feminism, social justice warriors who give legitimate movements bad names, toxicity in self-improvement communities, and even more generally, the ills of humanity as a whole.

[Forestluv]

39 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But you see, my post isn't just about semantics. There is a definite difference in psychology than is otherwise conveyed in the term "friend-zone." Sure, a man might fail his own goal. But he has lost anything. He just hasn't gained anything.

Ok, how would you term this event:

A guy asks out a gal he sees on Tinder. He is primarily motivated to spread his seed. During their dates he is on his best behavior and tries to impress her in hope of spreading his seed through sex. By the third date he starts to get worried that things might not turn physical soon, since they haven’t even kissed yet. His buddies at the gym tell him he better make a move soon.  She, on the other hand, starts off seeing him in the default zone, as a potential friend. Yet, she is also open to the possibility of things developing to romance for a guy with certain characteristics: a good sense of humor, caring, affectionate, long term prospects etc.

During dinner on the fourth date, he makes his move. He tells her she is attractive, how well they go together and asks her to come to his apartment for a few drinks and fun. She is a bit startled as she realizes there is a clear intent for sex. She tells him that she enjoys spending time with him, yet doesn’t see him as a lover. She says she wants to just be friends.

I acknowledge that there is different psychology between them. Yet, there was an event that took place at that dinner table. We create words and short phrases to communicate events to each other.  Here, he made a move for sex after a few dates and she replied lets be friends. This is a common event and it’s handy to have a word or short phrase to communicate it. If we had to create a term between one to four words to describe it, what could we call that event? 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[Guest username]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Ok, how would you term this event:

A guy asks out a gal he sees on Tinder. He is primarily motivated to spread his seed. During their dates he is on his best behavior and tries to impress her in hope of spreading his seed through sex. By the third date he starts to get worried that things might not turn physical soon, since they haven’t even kissed yet. His buddies at the gym tell him he better make a move soon.  She, on the other hand, starts off seeing him in the default zone, as a potential friend. Yet, she is also open to the possibility of things developing to romance for a guy with certain characteristics: a good sense of humor, caring, affectionate, long term prospects etc.

During dinner on the fourth date, he makes his move. He tells her she is attractive, how well they go together and asks her to come to his apartment for a few drinks and fun. She is a bit startled as she realizes there is a clear intent for sex. She tells him that she enjoys spending time with him, yet doesn’t see him as a lover. She says she wants to just be friends.

In one to four words, what would you call that final event? He asked for sex and she said lets be friends. 

Out of curiosity, how would you interpret that situation in your semantics?

[Emerald]

32 minutes ago, username said:

@Emerald I think you're right in that a lot of the perceived advantage of women is due to hypersexual culture and what feminists would call toxic masculinity. Manospherian thought dismisses notions of toxic masculinity as rationalizing beta behavior and women's tools for screening real men. The thought goes that the true alpha men are the ones who are man enough to stick to traditional gender roles and embody hypermasculine ideology. Since the whole system of thought is also largely intertwined with men's self-image, neediness for sex, and personal success, the opportunity cost of ignoring that seems too high. Why would anyone want to risk being beta, after all? 

The fact that men are so ridiculously obsessed with sex, which is yet another symptom of ego, is how we get a lot of the fragility and paranoia toward women. Due to absence of higher consciousness, it can be extraordinarily challenging to put this in perspective. When I was really engrossed in that stuff, I felt like, okay maybe it's not 100% true, but I see no reason risk my happiness and prospects of a good future. It was fundamentally selfish. I was too paranoid to be too critical of the stuff in there and just sorted accepted it as a safety measure, despite the fact that it was actually screwing me over harder-- the sexual insecurities around being a "cuck", "beta" or undesirable were much more sensitive than the possibility that I was a "misogynistic asshole."  In retrospect, it's kind of frightening that I was more afraid of being low-status or unattractive than I was of systematically oppressing women and spreading emotionally abusive ideas. When you're that desperate and needy, the need to feel sexuality validated feels like a survival issue. Prior to doing consciousness work, I felt like if I didn't get to bang hot girls, I was literally going to die because my entire life was otherwise completely worthless and I could never know true happiness.

Without consciousness work, I don't think I could have healed enough to break out of that. No amount of reason would have really convinced me otherwise. The emotional stakes of the game were way too high for me to think other than I did.  I believe this problem of the ego applies more generally, which is how we also get women who actually do pervert feminism, social justice warriors who give legitimate movements bad names, toxicity in self-improvement communities, and even more generally, the ills of humanity as a whole.

Thank you for sharing this. I'm impressed at your insights relative to this issue. It takes a lot of emotional discomfort and perseverance to try to untangle the masculine/feminine related shadows. I'm still slowly chipping away at mine. They're just so personal and they do feel like threats to survival simply because they do cross over the biological impetus to reproduce as well as the self-image. Your mindset here makes a lot of sense, and gives me a much more solid perspective on the potential emotional motivations for men who seek out 'manosphere' culture and why it's such a large number of men that are drawn to it. And I think your perceptions are spot on. If only there were a way to provide healing and insight to the masses relative to this issue, so they didn't have to get caught up in tribalistic ideologies to cope with these feelings. Because so many men and women are struggling with authenticity and self-love and are really feeling put-out. They can't see that everyone's struggling with different facets of the exact same issue.

[Forestluv]

@username I don’t understand your question.

My point is there is an event here that guys call the friend zone. Saying the friend zone doesn’t exist does not mean that the event didn’t happen. 

Fine, let’s not call that event the friend zone. What should we call it?

”Striking out” is more for attempts in bars for one-night stands - not after 4 dates of getting to know someone.

How about:

“stayin’ in the default zone” “rejection zone” , “no seed zone”

I prefer ”stayin in the friend zone” since it acknowledges the failed attempt and that friends is the default 

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[Emerald]

34 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Ok, how would you term this event:

A guy asks out a gal he sees on Tinder. He is primarily motivated to spread his seed. During their dates he is on his best behavior and tries to impress her in hope of spreading his seed through sex. By the third date he starts to get worried that things might not turn physical soon, since they haven’t even kissed yet. His buddies at the gym tell him he better make a move soon.  She, on the other hand, starts off seeing him in the default zone, as a potential friend. Yet, she is also open to the possibility of things developing to romance for a guy with certain characteristics: a good sense of humor, caring, affectionate, long term prospects etc.

During dinner on the fourth date, he makes his move. He tells her she is attractive, how well they go together and asks her to come to his apartment for a few drinks and fun. She is a bit startled as she realizes there is a clear intent for sex. She tells him that she enjoys spending time with him, yet doesn’t see him as a lover. She says she wants to just be friends.

In one to four words, what would you call that final event? He asked for sex and she said lets be friends. 

Since the initial scenario is a romantic scenario, I would say that there was an intent to see if he would spark that attraction. So, he was not exaclty in default mode but more of a "maybe" mode. But then, the attraction didn't happen. So, he remained in the default zone, but she maybe wanted to like him still. But she didn't and didn't communicate that to him clearly because she continued to let him take her out on dates and things. Or maybe she's immature and just wanted attention or to take advantage of him. I don't know how to put it in four words though. I would suppose that I could consider this scenario friend-zoning because she was first considering him and then decided not to, as the situation started romantically. But this isn't the type of scenario that I was referring to in my post earlier.

Edit: But my issue is not to say "there is no friend zone." It's simply that the friend zone idea gives a false idea of the psychology and reality behind the phenomenon. I think it's more helpful to think of it as default mode because this is the way it is from the female perspective. The idea of the friend zone just creates a lot of misconceptions that cause more strain than necessary on men who are trying to meet women.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Emerald

[Forestluv]

I think I see your point that “zone” is unnecessary. One could simply say “I better make a move soon, I don’t want to be just friends” or “I was hoping for more and made an advance, yet we are staying just friends”

btw, I don’t mean to be a PIA. I really like detailed conceptualizing, yet it can annoy people at times

Edited September 27, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[Guest username]

@Emerald

24 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Thank you for sharing this. I'm impressed at your insights relative to this issue. It takes a lot of emotional discomfort and perseverance to try to untangle the masculine/feminine related shadows. I'm still slowly chipping away at mine. They're just so personal and they do feel like threats to survival simply because they do cross over the biological impetus to reproduce as well as the self-image. Your mindset here makes a lot of sense, and gives me a much more solid perspective on the potential emotional motivations for men who seek out 'manosphere' culture and why it's such a large number of men that are drawn to it. And I think your perceptions are spot on. If only there were a way to provide healing and insight to the masses relative to this issue, so they didn't have to get caught up in tribalistic ideologies to cope with these feelings. Because so many men and women are struggling with authenticity and self-love and are really feeling put-out. They can't see that everyone's struggling with different facets of the exact same issue.

1

I think that's where higher consciousness and pursuing Truth come in, which of course, extends far, far beyond that particular issue.

In a more political fashion, I think feminism is doing some good things but the reaction against male dominance of social structures also blinds a lot of feminists to reverse discrimination that comes in the form of dogma, stereotyping, and assumptions. Strictly in terms of dating, one example of something I think would be helpful would be some hard data on how attraction works, though that may be difficult. Social science is a very ambitious endeavor as a whole, so the ambiguity that's consequent of how infantile our understanding of human nature and social dynamics is as whole leaves a wide open space for narrative battles.

"Politically correct" people often try to sell attraction as something that's almost entirely subjective and the result of social conditioning (beauty standards, media), which I think is largely a reaction against the collective wounds many of us (esp. women) have around not being good looking, while manosphere types think that's dishonest and a bunch of BS, and that while looks may be to some extent subjective, it's mostly the universal, conventional appeal that's more powerful. The manosphere peddles a lot of its ideas on the grounds of being the cold, hard truth. In some ways, I think they actually are being more honest since there are fewer qualms about hurting others feelings and filtering oneself.

It's tricky, since I think in the long run, progressivism would be more credible if we didn't have to filter ourselves for the sake of being sensitive, but on the other hand, I think that tact is also very necessary since speech can, is, and has been used as a weapon to hurt and marginalize others.  Ultimately, that goes back to consciousness work. We need to shed our egos to a point where radical honesty can become normative.

Side-note: Radical honesty isn't necessarily the same thing as brutal honesty, which is often more motivated by hurting others than the Truth. Though, I see refraining from brutality and communicating with honest intentions to be the speaker's duty to hone. As they listen, I see myself as being someone who should be able to listen to any message without my ego being hurt, which is not the same thing as enabling hate-speech, which is a socially irresponsible thing to do. It requires a lot of judgment, because on the level of the individual, sometimes people need someone to be present with them while they are letting out all their nasty, hateful inner worlds, but making it a social responsibility for someone to listen to that enables abusive power structures. I think the collective raising of humanity's consciousness will require some sacrificial lambs, some Christ-like figures who are willing to risk harm if it means they can help others become more conscious. Though, I don't think it should be a social imperative for anyone to take upon themselves the sins of the world.

Edited September 27, 2017 by username

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Do you think it would be accurate for a guy to say “I made my move, yet I’m staying in the friend zone”? This would put friends as the default and indicate nothing was lost.

Or, could there be so many shades if grey in dating that it just isn’t possible to have a simple catch phrase?

It's not the term itself that's the issue. It's more the interpretation of the term that the term itself lends to. This is because it gives a sense that it's an allotted place that a man is moved to when he doesn't meet this or that standard of attraction. So, the zone part is misleading, because "zone" means "a special delineated place that has a boundary." So, it subtly suggests that someone can be placed there as a secondary action instead of that place being primary. So, it would be more accurate to say "She wasn't attracted to me." or "She has platonic feelings for me." as this is the actual reality of the "friend-zone" situation. It demystifies the scenario surrounding the idea of the friend-zone because that's just what the friend zone is. That is, unless the situation started out romantic and became platonic. Then it could be said, "She put me back in the friend zone." and this would give an accurate explanation of what went on.

[Guest username]

21 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@username I don’t understand your question.

My point is there is an event here that guys call the friend zone. Saying the friend zone doesn’t exist does not mean that the event didn’t happen. 

Fine, let’s not call that event the friend zone. What should we call it?

”Striking out” is more for attempts in bars for one-night stands - not after 4 dates of getting to know someone.

How about:

“stayin’ in the default zone” “rejection zone” , “no seed zone”

I prefer ”stayin in the friend zone” since it acknowledges the failed attempt and that friends is the default 

 

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at. I think the issue with guys saying they're in the friends zone isn't that there's a denial of the fact that the guy wanted something more. It's that since a lot of guys complain about it, it's been seen by a lot of women as a symbol of male entitlement. 

Honestly, I don't know how I feel about this. I remember being sad about being in the friends zone and being pretty upset at women telling me that I was an entitled loser that wasn't owed anything, despite the fact that I never thought I was owed anything-- I was merely upset at my romantic failure, which is something many women just wouldn't acknowledge. Guys can feel hurt and depressed about rejection without necessarily thinking women owe them sex. It's a messy issue because a lot of guys think they are owed sex and the nature of these complaints often involve rhetoric which reinforces notions of a poor guy deserving sex but being denied by the mean, insensitive woman, which is most definitely sexist and oppressive.

The problem is the effort to squash those sexist, oppressive notions of male entitlement also result in depressed, unsuccessful men not receiving emotional support in their tough times, except from sexist guys with similar problems but with different attitudes. When those vulnerable men are at their lowest points and have nobody else to turn to for support, they are more susceptible to radicalization and actually becoming sexist, which just reinforces the notion that anyone who expresses frustration over being "friend-zoned" is just a sexist, misogynist who fails to recognize his male privilege.