Forward

For levity: BORK BORK BORK

Alex Starkiller wrote:It can be. But the phenomenon kind of has to exist, given it's definition. It really depends on the way the rejected person reacts to it and deals with it. It might be a negative thing in someone's eyes, in which case they're in the wrong. If they view it as just "being", as it were, and they deal properly with the rejection, then it just is. No more, no less. And this is all assuming that the reject-er isn't oblivious or taking advantage of the rejected. Those happen too. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify. I don't expect you to suddenly change your mind and you have every right not to, as long as you don't act unsympathetically to people describing their relationship situation like this [unless they're the negative type, in which case they probably deserve it.]

That's more or less my point. It's just another kind of rejection. It's nothing that merits excessive discussion or needs to be seen as a problem to solve or obstacle to overcome.

I have sympathy for people who are rejected, yes, but not if they blame the rejecter and/or start fixating and obsessing on the rejecter in a creepy and unhealthy manner. I would offer my ear, shoulder and wisdom to anyone who wants to move on and get over a rejection, but I lose sympathy from the people who go "how can I make them change their mind?" when they're rejected.

Alex Starkiller wrote:I understand. Most view it as a sort of cherry on top. I won't discuss its merits or anything, since it doesn't belong in this thread outside of its well-developed characterizations.

I see. That's a good thing, I think.

Alex Starkiller wrote:Well that... and his phrasing made it seem like you were in support of it, not talking negatively of it. The clarification helps immensely.

No, no, I am most definitely not in support of it. I think it's a terrible thing that needs to change, but we have to acknowledge it exists. I apologise if it came off as the opposite intended meaning; I am used to dealing with people who refuse the idea that the patriarchy exists, or that women are under any sort of negative social influence, hence why I often go overboard listing examples for instances where society actively disempowers or otherwise screws over women.

crayzz wrote:It is. It's rejection + established friendship. At least, that's how I think it should be used.

Yes, and that is but one of the many different types of rejection. I have outlined the main 5 types in my original post (though an argument could be made that you could eliminate the "acquaintance" category and narrow it down to 4 main types of rejection).

It's nothing special, that's what I'm saying. It's just another type of rejection and must be dealt with like any other kind.

Ok, having read the thread so far, I'm going back to Carnie's orginal questions here for my own take. These are good questions. It is unfortunate that Alex Starkiller keeps getting offended by showdowknight12 , but there ya go.

Carnie wrote:-Do you believe that it becomes impossible, or at least very unlikely, for person A to have romantic feelings for person B once they already consider person B a friend, and that it would be easier if person B pursued a relationship before person A had classified them as a friend?
-Do you believe it matters which person is the guy and which one is the girl? We all know what the knee-jerk answer to this is, but seriously, do you really believe that's the case? Why?*
-Do you have any empirical evidence for your answer to either question?

Generally, romantic attraction is determined very early on when people meet. Quoth Wikipedia again:

Research has shown two bases for love at first sight. The first is that the attractiveness of a person can be very quickly determined, with the average time in one study being 0.13 seconds. The second is that the first few minutes of a relationship have shown to be predictive of the relationship's future success, more so than what two people have in common or whether they like each other [..]

I have actually read this before in books, but it's been a while and I don't remember where. So, if you feel romantically attracted to each other, there is a possibility to get into a romantic relationship if you both aren't to shy to communicate this somehow (asking to meet the other person again is usually a good first step, and will eventually lead to a relationship if the feeling is reciprocated), and both of you are romantically available (i.e. open to new relationships).

Relevant Webcomic intermission: Lament of a Nice Guy (Something Positive)

So, generally, if you feel attracted to someone, and you're both available, pursue that before the other person gets attracted to someone else. You may need to get them to actually notice you first.
If the other person has noticed you and shown no romantic interest, it is very unlikely of it ever happening. That is why it is impossible to leave the "friend zone": how would you enter a successful romantic relationship if the other person isn't attracted to you? This is not something you can manipulate them into.

I have had this happen to me twice in my life (i.e. reciprocated romantic interest), both times it was fairly obvious right away, and in each case it's lasted years. I have been in love with many people before that, and I know of some people who have been in love with me who I'd have considered good acquaintances that I wasn't attracted to, so based on this limited experience I'd say gender plays no role in this -- and why would it? Women are possibly more frustrated because they've stereotypically been brought up to be more shy, i.e. they're less likely to get the guy they're attracted to to notice them, hence they're probably more susceptible to marketing aimed at this (cosmetics, clothes, ... - with men it might be cars, alcohol, ...), though anyone's best bets regardless of gender are self-confidence and a smile.
Gender may play a role in who preceives a "friend zone" situation, because social roles make it more likely for men to demand of women to like them than vice versa. Joke's kinda on them, though, because with that perception they're basically committing themselves to a course of action that is destined to be unsuccessful in the long run.

The term "friend zone" is loaded. Instead of saying that "A is in B's friend zone" we could just as well saing that "B is in A's infatuation zone", and then linguistically it would be obvious that this is a problem that is caused by As emotions, and it is A's responsibility to direct his infatuation elsewhere if A is unhappy with it, instead of it being B's responsibility to somehow deal with people in "B's friend zone". By fixating on B, A makes him/herself unavailable for romantic relationships, and who knows how many Cs pass A by because A won't notice them even though they may be attracted to A?

The best course of action for A, if A has actually achieved "trusted friend" status, seems to me to admit the feelings, but make no demands ("you've probably noticed I have a crush on you; I know you don't reciprocate the feeling, and that's ok"), which will remove any lingering doubts that B reciprocates the feeling, because B would definitely admit them then and there, and then say "I want to stay friends with you, but let's see each other less until I've gotten over my crush and found someone else to be attracted to". Maybe even follow it up with "Maybe you could introduce me to some of your friends who'd be a good fit for me?"

So, "I'm a nice guy, how do I get out of the friend zone?" is ultimately the wrong question because it fixates on the wrong question. "I am a nice guy, how do I meet someone else who reciprocates my romantic feelings?" is a question that's going to be much more satisfying in the long run.


tl;dr:
If you're a "nice guy" who finds himself in the "friend zone", think about opening your own "infatuation zone" to other people instead of fixating on the person you're infatuated with.

---
Postscript:
Apart from these benign occurrences, which assume good intentions on both parts, there are of course psychopaths out there who will manipulate others into relationships for their own purposes (usually gain): these people may have one past romance kept somewhat alive to fall back onto, a current romance, and a future romance to move onto, with the pacing controlled by the psychopath. Fortunately, the same advice applies as above: if your romantic interest isn't reciprocated, move on! (Tip: you won't be able to "save" the psychopath. If you feel that you can, that's the result of clever manipulation.) [Find more on this topic at The Last Psychiatrist; do read the comment section, too!]

mendel wrote:It is unfortunate that Alex Starkiller keeps getting offended by showdowknight12 , but there ya go.

Because this was relevant to the rest of your post. Good thinking bringing it up.