Need some serious female advice

[searock]

Wakeup, I already told you: I liked him as a person. Just as I like all of my friends. If you call that attraction, then I am attracted to all of my friends, male and female.

[KingZ]

I think Wakeup is the only person in the world who thinks the "friend zone" doesn't include friends. "Friend zone" implies a zone of friends, does it not?

Canadians...

[Wakeup]

Wakeup, I already told you: I liked him as a person. Just as I like all of my friends. If you call that attraction, then I am attracted to all of my friends, male and female.

Of course. But, whats that got to do with putting some of them in the friend zone and some of them not being put in the friend zone? Naturally, because you're not gay, you have put all your female friends in the friend zone, never to look at them with potential for anything other then "friend" (well there's always that college experimentation that so many young girls get into but I digress). Now, some of your male friends have been put in the friend zone, never to transition to the potential ladder, perhaps all of them have? All we know with 100% certainty is that you never put your current boyfriend in the friend zone because if you had. He wouldn't be your boyfriend now and he'd still be on the friends ladder.

[KingZ]

Simply put... being friends and being friend zoned are two completely different things.

you have put all your female friends in the friend zone

She's starting to make more sense.

[searock]

Of course. But, whats that got to do with putting some of them in the friend zone and some of them not being put in the friend zone? Naturally, because you're not gay, you have put all your female friends in the friend zone, never to look at them with potential for anything other then "friend" (well there's always that college experimentation that so many young girls get into but I digress). Now, some of your male friends have been put in the friend zone, never to transition to the potential ladder, perhaps all of them have? All we know with 100% certainty is that you never put your current boyfriend in the friend zone because if you had. He wouldn't be your boyfriend now and he'd still be on the friends ladder.

Wait, didn't you say that in order to become friends, there needs to be some level of attraction? If so, I was "attracted" to my current boyfriend in the same way that I was "attracted" to my female friends, when I first met them. Nothing more/different.

Anyway, leaving aside this^^ conundrum, let me get this straight: according to your theory, in order to put someone in the friendzone, one needs to:

a) not be attracted to them in the present moment;
b) never be attracted to them in the future, ever.

In order to avoid the contradiction that would be brought forth by the countless experiences of people becoming attracted to someone they weren't initially attracted to, you state that if they became attracted to them, it means that they were always attracted to them, albeit subconsciously.

If this model works for you, it's ok by me (even though it does leave space to other inconsistencies, such as the fact that according to it, at any given time there is no way of knowing whether someone is in your friendzone or not). Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to just accept that sometimes it happens that we become attracted to someone we weren't initially attracted to.

[smackie9]

Never happened to me. I know what I like and what I don't. I have 3 catagories, friend, f uckable, f uckable/relationship potiential.

[Wakeup]

Wait, didn't you say that in order to become friends, there needs to be some level of attraction? If so, I was "attracted" to my current boyfriend in the same way that I was "attracted" to my female friends, when I first met them. Nothing more/different.

no one is arguing with that. There was still some form of attraction.

Anyway, leaving aside this^^ conundrum, let me get this straight: according to your theory, in order to put someone in the friendzone, one needs to:

a) not be attracted to them in the present moment;
b) never be attracted to them in the future, ever.

B is correct. Those are the one's that have been friend zoned and will never get to the "****able" or "potential relationship (ladder)." (using smackies very clear and concise adjectives)

In order to avoid the contradiction that would be brought forth by the countless experiences of people becoming attracted to someone they weren't initially attracted to,

there you go again. You're saying they "were never initially attracted to" you are the one contradicting thus confusing yourself about the concept.

you state that if they became attracted to them, it means that they were always attracted to them, albeit subconsciously.

subconsciously in the romantic/sexual sense yes.

If this model works for you, it's ok by me (even though it does leave space to other inconsistencies, such as the fact that according to it, at any given time there is no way of knowing whether someone is in your friendzone or not).

YOu think this because you have a problem with understanding because you keep thinking that they were never attracted but they became attracted" when it's the opposite. They were attracted but the attraction never grew for any given reason and that is when they are friend zoned.

Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to just accept that sometimes it happens that we become attracted to someone we weren't initially attracted to.

..... and there you go again.

[michelle23]

Lol is this still going on?? Each to their own.. but sea if your bf had a new female "friend" who hes apparantly "not attracted to" and isnt interested in sexually-and is apparantly "platonic"-I am sure you would smell a red flag or two

[searock]

no one is arguing with that. There was still some form of attraction.

So, again, this means that I am attracted to all of my friends. Male, female, in the friendzone, out of the friendzone. All of them.

B is correct. Those are the one's that have been friend zoned and will never get to the "****able" or "potential relationship (ladder)." (using smackies very clear and concise adjectives)

Which means that at any given time, there is no way of knowing whether someone is in your friendzone or not. You simply cannot know - until you are about to die, I guess.

there you go again. You're saying they "were never initially attracted to" you are the one contradicting thus confusing yourself about the concept.
subconsciously in the romantic/sexual sense yes.

Yes, I know that you believe this (for some absurd reason - there would be absolutely no need to include this convoluted leap of faith if one simply accepted that sometimes people can become attracted *in the romantic sexual sense* to someone they were NOT initially attracted to *in the romantic sexual sense*). Where exactly am I contradicting myself?

YOu think this because you have a problem with understanding because you keep thinking that they were never attracted but they became attracted" when it's the opposite. They were attracted but the attraction never grew for any given reason and that is when they are friend zoned.

So now you're saying that everybody is attracted to every single one of their friends, when they first meet them. At least you are now conceding that it's not always an instantaneous categorization...

- - - Updated - - -

Lol is this still going on?? Each to their own.. but sea if your bf had a new female "friend" who hes apparantly "not attracted to" and isnt interested in sexually-and is apparantly "platonic"-I am sure you would smell a red flag or two

Actually it happened and I didn't smell a red flag, because I saw them together and I knew/know that there is nothing beyond a platonic friendship. Now if they spent lots of time together alone, texted/chatted all the time, went on dates alone with each other and so on, those would definitely be red flags and it would mean that there is more going on.

[Wakeup]

So, again, this means that I am attracted to all of my friends. Male, female, in the friendzone, out of the friendzone. All of them.

How many times we going to go over this? I'm kinda blue in the face so I'll bid you farewell on this subject... I'm not going over it again.

I'll leave with one thing left to say on the actual concept: Attraction means more then in the way you take it to mean. Actully two things: You're more fixated on friends becoming more then that then you are in friends never transitioning into anything more then friends which is the concept of being friend zoned and what I've been talking about.

[KingZ]

Yep, and there are all kinds of laws that govern attraction.

Now on sale:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Rhonda-Byrne/dp/1582701709

(Plot twist: Wakeup is Rhonda Byrne.)

[Wakeup]

I hate myself for laughing at that. On edit: Post #101 not that gawd awful intrusive ad. wtf?

[searock]

I don't know why but logic isn't working with you in this discussion... there are inconsistencies in your model which I am trying to show you, and up till now haven't received a satisfactory explanation. Namely:

a) if the only way to know for sure that someone is in your friendzone is to never in your life be attracted to them, then there is no way to know which one of your friends/acquaintances is in your friendzone at any given time of your life - until you are moments from death, at least.

b) When presented with the following evidence: "Person A was not initially attracted to person B, and later on became attracted to person B", it seems a bit out there to invent the whole "subconsciously, person A was always attracted sexually/romantically to person B, person A simply didn't know it on a conscious level" explanation, rather than to simply accept the situation as it happened.

c) First you say that in order for someone to not be in your friendzone, all that matters is that you are attracted to them - even non-sexually/romantically:

Well, subconsciously you likely found him attractive in some way (maybe it was his ability to be a good boyfriend, but you didn't necessarily immediately find him good looking. Attraction is more then just looks)

You do know that there is more to attraction then looks and sexual chemistry, right?

The fact you liked him means there was some form of attraction.
I totally think that you don't think there was any form of attraction but you're looking at attraction in a very limited way.

Your problem is you have a very limited understanding of the word "attraction." (as least in the argument) You've repeatedly used it in only a romantic sense when there is much more to attraction then looks and romance... afterall having attraction in something about someone is how all relationships of all dynamics are formed. Even business relationships.

Your then proceed to say that if someone isn't attracted to somebody else, then they won't even want them as a friend:

It doesn't matter how many times you contend that you were not attracted to him in any way, you were attracted to him in some way or you would never have even considered him as your "friend." People who don't like others in some capacity usually don't gravitate to one another, they don't hang together, there is no want to be in their company and therefore a "friendship" never even forms.

If you had zero attraction for him, then what drew you in to want him as a friend?

Then you say that this:

Of course. But, whats that got to do with putting some of them in the friend zone and some of them not being put in the friend zone? Naturally, because you're not gay, you have put all your female friends in the friend zone, never to look at them with potential for anything other then "friend" (well there's always that college experimentation that so many young girls get into but I digress). Now, some of your male friends have been put in the friend zone, never to transition to the potential ladder, perhaps all of them have? All we know with 100% certainty is that you never put your current boyfriend in the friend zone because if you had. He wouldn't be your boyfriend now and he'd still be on the friends ladder.

See the contradiction? First you say that if you are attracted to someone (attracted in any way, not just sexually/romantically), then that person cannot possibly be in your friendzone. Then you say that you must be attracted to all of your friends, otherwise they wouldn't even be your friends. However, only some of them are in your friendzone. So... which one is it? Is non-sexual/romantic attraction a sufficient condition for someone to not be in your friendzone, or isn't it?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm kinda blue in the face so I'll bid you farewell on this subject... I'm not going over it again.

Okay, I just read this^^.

I'll leave with one thing left to say on the actual concept: Attraction means more then in the way you take it to mean.

See above.

Actully two things: You're more fixated on friends becoming more then that then you are in friends never transitioning into anything more then friends which is the concept of being friend zoned and what I've been talking about.

My point is that there is no need to even introduce the "concept of being friend zoned" to describe the situation in which someone is not attracted to somebody else but does like them as a friend. The friendzone theory is not only useless but it is also inconsistent in many ways.

Anyway, I'm fine with ending the discussion. It's going nowhere. Peace :-)

[Wakeup]

See the contradiction? First you say that if you are attracted to someone (attracted in any way, not just sexually/romantically), then that person cannot possibly be in your friendzone.

I did not say that at all. What I said is that they won't be transitioned to the potential ladder if they have been friend zoned.
Its very hard to let this go when you keep misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Anyway, I'm fine with ending the discussion. It's going nowhere. Peace :-)

I bid you the same :-)

[BackUpOrGetStng]

Searock, friendzone is a nebulous concept, not a roped off sector of the world. Some people see it as a deliberate, attention seeking act, while others see it as people not knowing when to quit. People might mean different things specifically when talking about it, but in general we're all talking about the same thing...a person who wants a romantic relationship with someone, but the other person is only interested in friendship. Pretty simple. Regardless of each person's definition of friendzone(is it deliberate? are you stuck there for good?), denying that this situation exists(let alone the ubiquity of it) is just silly, and makes you look very naive, which you've proven to be the case many times over.

Wakeup, she always quotes just what is convenient for her, and usually misses the point entirely.