Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Incels?

[BigFatCoward]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

As i said earlier this all comes down to the reason why 'avoid the friendzone' exists. It's because a lot of guys were trying to fuck women by slyly pretending to only be interested in platonic relationships, and acting as non threatening as possible in order to hopefully one day convince that girl that your 'nice' behaviour should be rewarded by sex. It is unfortunately this mindset that leads to a lot of resentment when they come to realise that it doesn't work like that, and that just 'being nice' isn't enough to be the basis of a romantic relationship. Plus add in the fact that 'being nice' for duplicitous reasons, with expectations of sex,  isn't actually being nice. 



 

Whoa, who does that sound like? 

[mormont]

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

For the men contributing here: how would you feel if you heard one of your friends described you as "this guy that friend-zoned me".

Like, how would you feel about that friendship vs if they had never said that?

And yeah, cool, you'd be flattered in a really superficial way, but are there any feelings that you think you'd have beyond that?

There have been multiple occasions over my life when a male-attracted friend (female, gay male, bi male) showed romantic interest in me that I didn't reciprocate but I can't recall a single one where that was described as me 'friendzoning' them.

When it has happened, sure, there's a little bit of me that's flattered but my major reactions were being worried that I'd hurt their feelings and feeling vaguely guilty that I didn't share the attraction. And that's as a hetero cis white male, who largely doesn't have to worry about the consequences of turning people down other than maybe spoiling a friendship.

Re: earlier discussion of the alleged transatlantic difference in the use of the term, this is a bizarre claim to me. I've never noticed any difference. I think what happened there is that BFC made an assumption that his and Kal's understanding of the term differs because he's a Brit and Kal's an American, but Fury's an American and I'm a Brit and we clearly understand the term in the same way, so... 

[Knight Of Winter]

7 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

rarely have the entitled attitude that generally goes with it

This connection - between the term friendzone and entitled attitude - is purely arbitrary. Some people have it, others do not. And generally it speaks more of a person than of the term itself.

7 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

If you wouldn’t want to be friends with someone but you would like to date them, that’s a really gross way to view that person.

Why? Friendship by itself is truly a majestic thing, but as a substitute for unrequited romantic attraction it can be uncomfortable and downright painful. Moreover, much like how romantic attraction isn't owed (and I agree that it's mostly men who need to learn this), neither is friendship. To reverse the usual roles for a bit - if a woman tells me she likes me and if I reciprocate we'll date, and if not, she'll move on without pursuing friendship - that's perfectly fine. If her needs and desires aren't being met - she does not owe me to stick around and try to build friendship based on one-sided attraction. I find that to be an honest way of living and communicating.
 

7 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

For the men contributing here: how would you feel if you heard one of your friends described you as "this guy that friend-zoned me".

That depends on a number of factors. How good is our friendship and how long has it lasted? What are the circumstances in which the sentence was uttered? Have I ever thought of said friend as a potential romantic partner or not?

So to answer your question, there are a number of ways I would maybe feel and maybe not. I'd be surprised for certain. Very likely I'd be flattered. And sympathetic. Likely a bit disappointed that said friend never told me directly. Maybe I'd be happy and excited (if there was some attraction from my part, as well). Maybe I'd be sad. Etc. What I'm positive about is that I wouldn't feel entitled, bitter, resentful, frustrated or any other emotions usually associated with term "friendzone".

@karaddin - there are a number of points I'd like to make as a response to you, but first off - genuine thanks for being constructive, polite and sincerely engaging. Now, onto my response:
 

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

This does unfortunately mean that toxic individuals do have a lot of power to ruin words or phrases for everyone else if their usage of the word becomes a popular interpretation/association

 

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Alternatively you can attempt to reclaim the word/phrase and reassert your meaning, however this is going to require signalling that your usage is meant as that other usage and you're still going to have some people refuse to accept it.

Popular interpretation/association where? Is some circles yes, in others not so much or not at all. If you put Fury or Kal in my circle, they are the ones who would have to stumble at every corner and signal that their usage of the word is different than neutral/benevolent one my circle is used to. 

But okay, this is not my circle - as you say this is an online forum. However, I still notice that many of us come from different personal and cultural and societal background. Background of some leads them to view the term is neutral light, while other some decidedly negative connotations. I don't see either side being in overwhelming majority. So what we have here is linguistic plurality of sorts.

And I like plurality. It enriches the language. It opens way for lot of fun and enjoyable tricks - from puns to double-entenderes. It gives one additions level to our every-day semantics.  It showcases the diversity and variety of users of said language. So, in essence I'm perfectly okay with there being two (or more) simultaneous meanings for a particular term. In fact I feel a lot of understanding and sympathy for the other side - for they obviously had enough unwanted encounters with some toxic subcultures to rub off of their everyday language usage.

What I'm not okay about is being language policed, and what I'm even less okay about is being morally blackmailed about the term I and many others use in perfectly good faith. 
 

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

least a plurality of Americans and a majority of people who are "very online"

English language is a common playground for billions of people that use it. It's not a property of either Americans or online culture. Not claiming you're saying so, but more than once I've seen people (on and off this forum) behave with above statement being an implicit assumption. 
 

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Alternatively you can attempt to reclaim the word/phrase and reassert your meaning

 

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

This does unfortunately mean that toxic individuals do have a lot of power to ruin words or phrases for everyone else if their usage of the word becomes a popular interpretation/association

I don't know...it just strikes me as a little defeatistic. Take incels or any other toxic individuals - who are disliked at best or despised at worst. And despite them being despised, yet we're the ones implicitly giving them the power to form and shape our common language, while denying that same power from ourselves (what you call "reasserting"). I don't see why we should do so.
 

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

you're still going to have some people refuse to accept it.

 That's the unfortunate given, yes - but it should not stop me (or anyone else) from trying. A short tangent: I'm a fan of wittgensteinian approach to everyday language - that each of us has internal bubble with their very own personal definitions of a word. You can know and understand your own bubble, but not other people's. Like, your meaning and my meaning of a word river are maybe 99% the same, but not completely. Both of them are colored by our personalities and experiences, thoughts, emotions and associations we've had through our lives when thinking, seeing or swimming in rivers; all of which in turn influence our very own usage and meaning of the word river itself. What's true on individual level is also true on group level - be it friend group, community or entire society. Hence, there's always inherently bound to be some misunderstandings and troubles in language, even if both parties are using the same word.

So how to we solve this? Well, we communicate with each other. We listen to their side. We explain our side. We operate in good faith and assume that other side does so as well. Yeah, all of this might not be enough - but it's the best we have. We have to try at least.

What I feel happened here (this is directed at some posters, but not you) - is that communication, empathy and good-faith-assumption have been replaced by accusations, moral blackmail and shaming. And as a result - noone is better off.
 

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

In neither case is it logical to insist you can continue to use the word with an audience that you know will misunderstand it without any kind of identifier or disclaimer and expect people will understand what you're saying is distinct from the problematic usage. 

On one hand, I completely understand what what you're saying. On the other hand I kind  of have no choice to use the "friendzone" term because it's the only term of that kind we've got. Like all other words in all languages - it symbolizes a concept (concept being friendship with one-sided romantic attraction) which is important (i.e. common in everyday life) and needs to be manifested though a single word. Now, we can theoretically banish the "friendzone" word due to incels, yes, but that does not banish the concept and thus - the need for the word itself. It will just manifest through a new, freshly coined word - and there's no guarantee that this new word won't in time become tainted as well. That's why I think such measures are superficial at best.
 

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Not replying to Kal with this bit, just the thread generally - I know heterosexuals are the majority but it really narrows how a lot of you view this stuff. Navigating the overlap of friendships, romantic attraction and lust seems to be a greater part of existing as a queer person. Larry really hit the nail on the end with many of you needing to put yourself in the position of a same sex best friend describing you as friendzoning them, it completely devalues the friendship. 

Wait, larrytheimp said "friend", not "same sex friend" ? Unless I'm mistaken?

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

.

Re: earlier discussion of the alleged transatlantic difference in the use of the term, this is a bizarre claim to me. I've never noticed any difference. I think what happened there is that BFC made an assumption that his and Kal's understanding of the term differs because he's a Brit and Kal's an American, but Fury's an American and I'm a Brit and we clearly understand the term in the same way, so... 

This is so weird to me. I've been so confused by this I've been speaking to all my staff, siblings, friends etc and nobody has heard of it used in a different way than - a friend you are sexualy interested who doesn't feel the same way, and that's it. 

While I accept police are not representative, my siblings are as Liberal as fuck and they also have only ever heard it used that way.  Though clearly there are some people on here from the UK who do interpret it differently, enough to make it a consideration. 

[DaveSumm]

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

I assume that the purpose of the language someone chooses to use is to accurately convey meaning. If I learn that a word I'm using is going to be misinterpreted by a significant percentage of my "audience", then that's going to undercut whatever point I'm trying to make.

This does unfortunately mean that toxic individuals do have a lot of power to ruin words or phrases for everyone else if their usage of the word becomes a popular interpretation/association. At the point you become aware of the problem you can stop using that word when you know people will get the wrong message, for example something might be perfectly fine to use in a pub in the UK but not on an internet message board with at least a plurality of Americans and a majority of people who are "very online". Alternatively you can attempt to reclaim the word/phrase and reassert your meaning, however this is going to require signalling that your usage is meant as that other usage and you're still going to have some people refuse to accept it.

In neither case is it logical to insist you can continue to use the word with an audience that you know will misunderstand it without any kind of identifier or disclaimer and expect people will understand what you're saying is distinct from the problematic usage. 

To be clear, I would certainly take this into consideration in the very unlikely scenario that I was ever inclined to use the term on this forum again. But I’m not sure anyone here was demanding they be allowed to do that (not saying that’s what your point was), only that it’s not reasonable to immediately declare someone a bigot or misogynistic or ‘pro-Incel’ just because we have a different understanding of a word - and given the number of people agreeing that they’d never heard of it in a problematic sense, there is clearly a divide here. 

@mormont Yea I don’t see any evidence of it being a national divide, I like karaddin’s term ‘very online’ - that would seem to cover it.

Anyway, I’m still not sure this is ultimately about language. Some people seem to be implying that the very concept is inherently entitled and I still don’t see that connection. Ever been head over heels in love, and found out that they only want to be friends? It fucking sucks SO hard. It’s about as shitty a feeling as you’ll experience in your teenage years, and there’s no blame to lay at the feet of the other person. It just sucks. This one way attraction is known by an awful lot people as the ‘friend zone’, it’s a thing, and to say to someone in that position ‘oh my god I can’t believe you’re devaluing the friendship they’ve offered you’ is missing the point - you wanted more, they didn’t, and now you’re fucking miserable.

[john]

It seems like the so-called British/Friends interpretation of the term ‘friendzone’ is based on the idea of romantic frustration.

Whereas the incel version is based on sexual frustration.

The first one might be slightly more benign but they’re both still revealing an acceptance of a lack of social parity between people. If someone ‘missed their chance’ that suggests they somehow had the upper hand in the first place in initiating a relationship. So the problem Fury was talking about five pages ago still exists in both interpretations.

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

If you value the person enough to want to date them, surely you should value them enough to be their friend,

NO. That's a big, hard, fucking NO.
The qualities I look for in a friend and a romantic partner have never been exactly the same. Of course, there's some significant overlap, but there are key differences. Broadly speaking, I want my romantic partners to have similar values, while I want my friends to be able to partake in specific activities. And there is some degree of mutual exclusiveness, as there are some things I do with friends that I'd really rather not do with my partner (with her total and absolute blessing btw), and -needless to say- some things I'll do with my partner that I'll never do with a friend.
Of course, nothing is perfectly fixed (you never know who you'll fall for), and I've tried to be flexible over the years. Yet, over time, I always went back to my initial instincts, and that served me well - I think.
So I can be friendly with someone I wanted to date and who didn't reciprocate my feelings, but I will certainly not be their friend. I will, on the contrary, do everything I can to put some distance with them as soon as it is obvious they are not interested.

Funnily enough, pretty much every single woman I've ever dated had similar views on the differences between friendship and love (though this was not a topic that would necessarily come up early in the relationship). My ex even had stronger feelings than me on this topic.
OTOH, my best friend has completely opposite views, and she has remained friends with a number of her exes, something that I could never do. In fact, her ability to make this work has always bemused me. Btw her behavior is very rare in French people of my generation and tends to raise a few eyebrows.
It is widely understood that you should not try to be friends with someone you've dated or had romantic feelings for, and it is not uncommon for such behavior to turn others (potential partners that is) away. Some even go as far as seeing it as a "red flag."

6 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

provided you are not viewing them as a possession instead of a person.

I am tempted to use very strong language in answer to this.
I see now why I couldn't get through to Kal. Of course, if one views friendship and dating as rather similar, and friends and romantic partners to be close to interchangeable, then there can be no such thing as a "friend zone."

Well folks, you'll have to accept that people have views different to yours, and that you don't get to judge them for it.

[DaveSumm]

36 minutes ago, john said:

If someone ‘missed their chance’ that suggests they somehow had the upper hand in the first place in initiating a relationship. So the problem Fury was talking about five pages ago still exists in both interpretations.

Another swing and a miss for me, there’s no ‘upper hand’ implied there. Unless maybe against … probability? Believing you had a ‘best moment’ to tell someone how you feel still doesn’t say anything about the person - only that their feelings toward you don’t remain precisely static over time.

I’m entirely open to that being wrong; that there is no best moment, or it’s somewhere else, but that’s beside the point. Believing you had one isn’t inherently misogynistic.

[Soylent Brown]

Yes, let's start quoting from the incel wiki. Using that as some sort of gotcha when even the tiny snippet you use is utterly full of shit-

And generally women only form friendships with men they would be open to having sex with down the line.

Are you taking the whole section at face value, or cherry-picking 'truths' to suit your argument?

[Rippounet]

I was expecting this one from Kal tbh.

12 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said:

Yes, let's start quoting from the incel wiki. Using that as some sort of gotcha when even the tiny snippet you use is utterly full of shit-

Except the entire idea that the word "friendzone" is so bad and should never be used again rests in part on the argument that the incels have coopted it and that "their" definition is the one that is now common.
Hence why we have discussed this in this thread.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

If you are a trying to get into a romantic relationship with someone but they basically told you that they only see you as a friend, how would you describe it?



 

As a choice.

[Heartofice]

7 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

edit: ok, another answer: if I'm just looking for a romantic relationship, but they aren't interested in a romantic relationship, then it's a failed attempt at a romantic relationship only part.  but there's no point in talking about a 'friendzone' if I wasn't interested in being friends in the first place.  The whole term is reliant upon the idea that being friends isn't enough.  

Oh just noticed this added reply. But surely the 'friendzone' in this case still exists because it is all that can be offered by the person rejecting the romantic advance. Its simply a term to describe the situation that one person only views the other as a friend and nothing more. You haven't really managed to come up with a better alternative, and directly avoided doing so, so I think the term is pretty valid and as others have said, seems to be a widely used term outside of the incel community to mean just that.
 

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As a choice.

..erm, who says it isn't?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

.erm, who says it isn't?

The difficulty I see in this entire discussion is that the term “friendzone” implies a negative connotation to someone who is not interested in either a romantic or sexual relationship with someone who is interested in such.  The implied negative connotation to the person only interested in friendship is the entire problem.

No one is owed sex, ever.  If someone doesn’t find you romantically attractive that is not a character flaw on the part of the person to whom you are attracted.  “Friendzone” is suffused with the implication that there is something wrong with someone who only sees you as a friend.

We should all be respectful of other peoples choice.  

[Soylent Brown]

15 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I was expecting this one from Kal tbh.

Except the entire idea that the word "friendzone" is so bad and should never be used again rests in part on the argument that the incels have coopted it and that "their" definition is the one that is now common.
Hence why we have discussed this in this thread.

Sure, but you're quoting something written by someone who seems to believe that becoming friends with a woman is essentially being put in a holding pattern in the airspace above Sexwithalady Airport!

Which, okay, is a different definition of friendship, but equally unhealthy.

[BigFatCoward]

55 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The difficulty I see in this entire discussion is that the term “friendzone” implies a negative connotation to someone who is not interested in either a romantic or sexual relationship with someone who is interested in such.  The implied negative connotation to the person only interested in friendship is the entire problem.

No one is owed sex, ever.  If someone doesn’t find you romantically attractive that is not a character flaw on the part of the person to whom you are attracted.  “Friendzone” is suffused with the implication that there is something wrong with someone who only sees you as a friend.

We should all be respectful of other peoples choice.  

to a lot of people it doesn't. I've never heard it used like that. Nor have my colleagues or friends or family who I've discussed it with.

It blew mind when this came up to be honest. A rough straw poll of this thread would suggest it's pretty even as to how its interpreted. There certainly isn't an overwhelming majority either way. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

to a lot of people it doesn't. I've never heard it used like that. Nor have my colleagues or friends or family who I've discussed it with.

It blew mind when this came up to be honest. A rough straw poll of this thread would suggest it's pretty even as to how its interpreted. There certainly isn't an overwhelming majority either way. 

Why is there a separate word for being romantically interested in someone who is not romantically interested in you if there isn’t a negative connotation to it? “He or she want to be friends” seems to adequately convey the same meaning if there is no negative connotation to “friendzone”.  
 

Is being in the “friendzone” a good or a bad thing?  If bad how does using the term “friendzone” lack a negative connotation?

[BigFatCoward]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why is there a separate word for being romantically interested in someone who is not romantically interested in you if there isn’t a negative connotation to it?“He or she want to be friends” seems to adequately convey the same meaning if there is no negative connotation to “friendzone”.  
 

Is being in the “friendzone” a good or a bad thing?  If bad how does using the term “friendzone” lack a negative connotation?

I suppose its just quicker to say 'friendzone' than to explain the situation. 

I don't think something being 'bad' necessarily has to have a negative connotation.  As in many things, including this, there is nobody to blame for the bad situation, it just is.

Breaking your toe is bad, a £1000 plumbing bill is bad, getting stuck in awful traffic with a crying baby is bad (3 shit things in a shit week), shit happens, nobody is necessarily to blame. 

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why is there a separate word for being romantically interested in someone who is not romantically interested in you if there isn’t a negative connotation to it? “He or she want to be friends” seems to adequately convey the same meaning if there is no negative connotation to “friendzone”.  
 

Is being in the “friendzone” a good or a bad thing?  If bad how does using the term “friendzone” lack a negative connotation?

Of course being the in the friendzone is a negative thing. Its a negative for the person in it, because they would rather be viewed as a romantic / sexual partner than just a friend. Its also negative for the person who has to put someone in there because its an awkward interaction and has potentially spoiled what they thought was a good friendship. 

What you seem to be getting at is that there is a connotation that the person friendzoning someone is a bad person. I don't think that is an automatic connection there at all, that is just your reading of it. Thats not to say in some incel's head its also a slur because they are angry at the rejection, but I think that is far more about their own individual state of mind than anything else.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Of course being the in the friendzone is a negative thing. Its a negative for the person in it, because they would rather be viewed as a romantic / sexual partner than just a friend. Its also negative for the person who has to put someone in there because its an awkward interaction and has potentially spoiled what they thought was a good friendship. 

What you seem to be getting at is that there is a connotation that the person friendzoning someone is a bad person. I don't think that is an automatic connection there at all, that is just your reading of it. Thats not to say in some incel's head its also a slur because they are angry at the rejection, but I think that is far more about their own individual state of mind than anything else.

I will concede that as conceived it may not have orginally had a negative connotation toward the person who holds no romantic or sexual interest.  But, over the years, as it has been used the negative connotation has grown and it “throws shade” upon the person who holds no romantic interest.

I’m a fan of the show “Stargate: Universe” and while the show was running there was a geeky character named “Eli” who was romantically interested in a character named “Chloe” who was an attractive female.  Eli had romantic feelings for Chloe that were not reciprocated.  

I discussed the show on another forum dedicated to the Stargate franchise.  The level of invective and hate shown the character “Chloe” for “friendzoning” Eli was really eye opening.  Up to that point I hadn’t really thought hard about the term “friendzone”.  But people were angry that she didn’t hook up with Eli.  They denegrated and dismissed the character as shallow and stupid for not seeing Eli as a romantic match.  “Friendzone” was used as invective for woman who they saw as playing with a character they liked.

The idea is grounded in viewing women as property.  In believing men are somehow entitled to more than mere “friendship”.  That sex is owed. 

It was, and is, quite disturbing.

[Heartofice]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I will concede that as conceived it may not have orginally had a negative connotation toward the person who holds no romantic or sexual interest.  But, over the years, as it has been used the negative connotation has grown and it “throws shade” upon the person who holds no romantic interest.

I’m a fan of the show “Stargate: Universe” and while the show was running there was a geeky character named “Eli” who was romantically interested in a character named “Chloe” who was an attractive female.  Eli had romantic feelings for Chloe that were not reciprocated.  

I discussed the show on another forum dedicated to the Stargate franchise.  The level of invective and hate shown the character “Chloe” for “friendzoning” Eli was really eye opening.  Up to that point I hadn’t really thought hard about the term “friendzone”.  But people were angry that she didn’t hook up with Eli.  They denegrated and dismissed the character as shallow and stupid for not seeing Eli as a romantic match.  “Friendzone” was used as invective for woman who they saw as playing with a character they liked.

The idea is grounded in viewing women as property.  In believing men are somehow entitled to more than mere “friendship”.  That sex is owed. 

It was, and is, quite disturbing.

...you do understand how 'shipping' on tv shows works right?