Is the "friend zone" concept a bit sexist?

Speisekarte

Wibbs wrote: »

When you used the word 'beta' you lost the argument. Well... unless you're on a PUA site. You do realise I hope that the 'Alpha' stuff is pretty much disproved in the animal kingdom? Or is way more complex than what you thing? In Wolves it's utterly bogus. Closer to home? Gorillas? Over a third of offspring raised by silverbacks ain't their kids. oops. Must be all those 'betas' getting previous.

I think you're missing the general gist though. There are men who are dominant enough which puts them on women's radar and their are men who are submissive in such a way which turns women off and encourages women to manipulate them.

astonaidan

My take on the aul friendzone comes from a personal experience.

There was this German girl who well from the first day I met her wanted her, second night we met she spent hours trying to get me out drinking with her, third night spent the night lying on me watching tv, same on forth, fifth and sixth. seventh night she wanted to come up to my room ,we stayed outside my room talking for hours this after I told her I had work in the morning so she couldnt come in I know, I know.
After about two weeks my friend asked me could he try get with her and he got her the first night.
After this she got with 4 or 5 guys in our group and while we remained friends I lost interest in her that way all because I was too slow to make the moves.

Now my theory on this is that when I see a girl as a potential GF I lose confidence incase I get turned down, no matter how much positive signals I get.
Now when its a girl I just find hot doesnt matter if they are a 10 I can get them in 10 mins.
This proves to me its all because Im reacting slowly losing the initial spark the reason I get put in the friendzone

Pug160

I don't really like the term as it has a certain negative ring to it. It doesn't always have to be negative though. If you're in a mixed sex social circle you can do quite well for yourself (so I've heard). A male with female friends will look better to women than a guy who's just out with a bunch of lads.

Wibbs

random1337 wrote: »

umm human behaviour is very closely linked to that of apes and chimps.

Actually it's not. The more they've looked at our cousins the more differences in behaviour, particularly sexual behavior, come out than similarities.

Chimps/Apes like humans actually enjoy sex and have as much of it as they can, whether it be with alphas or betas.

Other than Bonobos where it's used as a social glue, other great apes don't go for sex as nearly as much as humans. They restrict it to when females are in season. Human reproductive strategies and sexuality is far more fluid, more wide ranging and more complex than the great ape model. Hell, men can't even tell when women are "in season"(consciously anyway) as women hide their fertility. Take women's breasts. They look full all the time and this is seen as attractive, whereas to any of the apes this would have the complete opposite effect as the other great apes breasts are only full when they're nursing infants and far less fertile. That's just two of the many ways we diverge so trying to simplify down to this alpha stuff is well simplistic and mostly wrong.

Speisekarte wrote: »

I think you're missing the general gist though. There are men who are dominant enough which puts them on women's radar and their are men who are submissive in such a way which turns women off and encourages women to manipulate them.

Yes and no. Dominant and submissive are the problematic terms. I've known very quiet introverted men who were anything but easy to manipulate and I've known extroverted "dominant" men who were near constantly "under the thumb".

As for women's radar? So long as your not sitting in the corner, looking at your shoes and seething and not engaging with people you'll be on the social radar.

OnTheCouch

Even though there are aspects of the PUA ideology which are insightful and correct, I feel it is a very dangerous mindset to get into - and that is even before you start getting into the predominance of all the rip-off merchants out there.

I think too much of it is based on the premise that all women are similar beings, who react, behave and are attracted to exactly the same things. In other words, attraction is almost defined as an equation, where doing X + Y x Z = insatiable female interest.

Along the same lines, people can get very fixated on the need to be an alpha, a desire to be always in control and dominant, or they have not got a chance with any female. I have witnessed a couple of people try to be dominant when it is clearly not in their personality to do so, risible and wooden immediately come to mind.

So this need for dominance is blatantly not true and while clearly someone who possesses many of these alpha characteristics is probably likely to do well, to say that beta individuals cannot get women is just wrong.

I know several examples where quiet, shy, typical 'beta' individuals if you like, have ended up going out with quite attractive women.

Now obviously I am not privy to just how these people got together, but using PUA logic to decide when people end up in the friend zone may be true intermittently, but is by no means a blanket solution or explanation to this particular issue.

PingO_O

Thanks for those points guys because Ive read so much alpha and beta crap on the Internet I nearly started to believe it at certain points.

I think if you started a thread asking what an alpha male is you'd get all kinds of opinions on it, this alpha and beta thing just sounds like "broscience" to me.

As onthecouch says there are guys who do get on well with women but does that make them alpha males? I'm not so sure. I can think of a few examples where the guys are players but are still mammy's boys, or do a complete 180 once they get into a serious relationship.

Pug160

The PUA terminology is childish and even dangerous in a way. The general message that most of them are trying to get across is logical enough but some of the more innocent dating and self help advice has been debased by egotistical charlatans who are trying to make money from desperate men.

There's a saying that ''a closed mouth never gets fed''. That's why assertive guys are usually fairly successful. Not every woman in the world wants a domineering man but men with certain character traits will give themselves a better chance.

astonaidan

Pug160 wrote: »

The PUA terminology is childish and even dangerous in a way. The general message that most of them are trying to get across is logical enough but some of the more innocent dating and self help advice has been debased by egotistical charlatans who are trying to make money from desperate men.

There's a saying that ''a closed mouth never gets fed''. That's why assertive guys are usually fairly successful. Not every woman in the world wants a domineering man but men with certain character traits will give themselves a better chance.

I think you may be painting PUA in a far to negative light, most of it is about improving yourself as a person and stop being so slow reacting to girls, something I myself was guilty at. Very little is actually relating to the girl themself, more your state of mind you should have about thinking your not worthy of a certain girl

Pug160

astonaidan wrote: »

I think you may be painting PUA in a far to negative light, most of it is about improving yourself as a person and stop being so slow reacting to girls, something I myself was guilty at. Very little is actually relating to the girl themself, more your state of mind you should have about thinking your not worthy of a certain girl

It depends. Some people are genuinely trying to help out of the goodness of their hearts and others are exploiting vulnerable men and instilling in them a very strange outlook on women. In some cases the blind are leading the blind. In some other cases it's just a catalyst and encourages men to get out there and at least talk to women. But there are some really unhealthy attitudes out there. And the whole bootcamp thing just seems like a ridiculous way for some of these men to make money. Some guys are apparently paying quite a lot of money to attend seminars and then go out and talk to women in bars and clubs with these top ''pick up artists''. And that's supposed to some revolutionary process? It's utterly laughable.

astonaidan

Pug160 wrote: »

It depends. Some people are genuinely trying to help out of the goodness of their hearts and others are exploiting vulnerable men and instilling in them a very strange outlook on women. In some cases the blind are leading the blind. In some other cases it's just a catalyst and encourages men to get out there and at least talk to women. But there are some really unhealthy attitudes out there. And the whole bootcamp thing just seems like a ridiculous way for some of these men to make money. Some guys are apparently paying quite a lot of money to attend seminars and then go out and talk to women in bars and clubs with these top ''pick up artists''. And that's supposed to some revolutionary process? It's utterly laughable.

This I 100% agree with you, this is well idiotic and well the sign of a complete tool.
But I do think the forums are more than helpful, like I wont deny it, I love being a wingman for my friends, like I dont think Im a PUA in anyway, Im madly in love with one girl and outside her Im possibly the pickiest guy you meet, these are traits that some PUA site hugely frown upon.
But if you skip over the rubbish you can pick up some helpful tips for yourself, but as I said before most relate to yourself rather than the girls.

Boofle

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually it's not. The more they've looked at our cousins the more differences in behaviour, particularly sexual behavior, come out than similarities.

Other than Bonobos where it's used as a social glue, other great apes don't go for sex as nearly as much as humans. They restrict it to when females are in season. Human reproductive strategies and sexuality is far more fluid, more wide ranging and more complex than the great ape model. Hell, men can't even tell when women are "in season"(consciously anyway) as women hide their fertility. Take women's breasts. They look full all the time and this is seen as attractive, whereas to any of the apes this would have the complete opposite effect as the other great apes breasts are only full when they're nursing infants and far less fertile. That's just two of the many ways we diverge so trying to simplify down to this alpha stuff is well simplistic and mostly wrong.

Yes and no. Dominant and submissive are the problematic terms. I've known very quiet introverted men who were anything but easy to manipulate and I've known extroverted "dominant" men who were near constantly "under the thumb".

As for women's radar? So long as your not sitting in the corner, looking at your shoes and seething and not engaging with people you'll be on the social radar.

Yes, indeed most men can't tell when women are "in season"/most fertile but there has been many studies done on this and subconsciously they actually find ovulating women more attractive. . . . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/fertility-women-attractiveness-study_n_2286537.html

Apparently hormones actually alter the pitch of our voice and our faces change slightly also to make us more attractive!

Wibbs

Another study showed women wear more revealing clothes the more fertile they are too. The pheromone thang is interesting in other ways, particularly as women are now using hormonal contraception. This changes the hormone/pheromone environment in ways that may subtly influence our choices. One classic was found in strip clubs of all places. Women on the pill got fewer tips from the customers. Even odder is the effect of such meds on women's choices of mate. Many studies have shown that women have slightly different attraction triggers through their cycle. They prefer more masculine/testosterone male faces at their most fertile and more feminine/less testosterone male faces when at their least fertile and pregnant. So a woman on the pill might be picking a man she might otherwise not pick if she wasn't. I read one survey that seemed to find something in this. It found statistically significant numbers that showed women were more likely to leave/divorce a man if they met him while on the pill, but then stopped taking it.

Boofle

Wibbs wrote: »

Another study showed women wear more revealing clothes the more fertile they are too. The pheromone thang is interesting in other ways, particularly as women are now using hormonal contraception. This changes the hormone/pheromone environment in ways that may subtly influence our choices. One classic was found in strip clubs of all places. Women on the pill got fewer tips from the customers. Even odder is the effect of such meds on women's choices of mate. Many studies have shown that women have slightly different attraction triggers through their cycle. They prefer more masculine/testosterone male faces at their most fertile and more feminine/less testosterone male faces when at their least fertile and pregnant. So a woman on the pill might be picking a man she might otherwise not pick if she wasn't. I read one survey that seemed to find something in this. It found statistically significant numbers that showed women were more likely to leave/divorce a man if they met him while on the pill, but then stopped taking it.

Interesting...I have also read that somewhere about women finding different types of men attractive at different stages of the month. I have been on the pill for years so maybe that explains my rather dubious choices of men in the past

OldNotWIse

Dont know. I fancied one of my friends when we first met. A mutual friend had to stop me calling one night drunk from Spain to confess all! Now we've been friends for ten years. It's not that I dont think he's attractive anymore, but I do see him differently because he is a friend. I think it would be weird if anything happened now!

OldNotWIse

Boofle wrote: »

Interesting...I have also read that somewhere about women finding different types of men attractive at different stages of the month. I have been on the pill for years so maybe that explains my rather dubious choices of men in the past

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I always wanted to do a study on this!! I'm actually straight on days 13-16, and gay the rest It baffles and upsets me lol

shopaholic01

Boofle wrote: »

Interesting...I have also read that somewhere about women finding different types of men attractive at different stages of the month. I have been on the pill for years so maybe that explains my rather dubious choices of men in the past

Women are attracted to men with obvious masculine traits when ovulating - strong, square jaw etc., in an attempt to ensure the child inherits these genes. We are more likely to be attracted to 'players' too, the men your mother would warn you to avoid. Otherwise we are attracted to more sensitive men who are more likely to stick around and help rear a child.

We usually do look better when ovulation - less fluid retention and spiking levels of oestrogen which is responsible for female sexual characteristics. So our boobs will be perkier, stomachs will be flatter, our faces will not have puffiness caused by fluid retention and our skin is usually clearer. (I can actually notice a difference in my face and body in the latter half of my menstrual cycle - clothes will be tighter, my face will look fuller etc. I pee a lot on the first day or two of my period as retained fluid is lost).

Added to that, our pheromones advertise our fertility to men so we smell (on a subconscious level) better to men. Women are often advised not to wear perfume deodorant or any perfume when looking for a man. Our pheromones also give clues as to our immune system, we are attracted to people whose immune system is different to ours. The logic is that if two parents have a better natural immunity to different diseases the child will inherit a much broader immunity.

Our libido increases dramatically too, so we will more likely to seek out a mate. Moral of the story lads? You want an ovulating woman, but be careful if you don't want a baby.

Apparently, we become less attrative if we have children and hair tends to become darker. It's as if nature is saying 'you've fulfilled your evolutionary function, give someone else a chance''. I suppose that's important in terms of widening the gene pool. Relationships also have a three year golden period, that was important in our cave dwelling days, the mother could feed and rear the child to an age where if had a much better chance of survival, while the father went hunting and gathering.

Pug160

Wibbs wrote: »

Another study showed women wear more revealing clothes the more fertile they are too. The pheromone thang is interesting in other ways, particularly as women are now using hormonal contraception. This changes the hormone/pheromone environment in ways that may subtly influence our choices. One classic was found in strip clubs of all places. Women on the pill got fewer tips from the customers. Even odder is the effect of such meds on women's choices of mate. Many studies have shown that women have slightly different attraction triggers through their cycle. They prefer more masculine/testosterone male faces at their most fertile and more feminine/less testosterone male faces when at their least fertile and pregnant. So a woman on the pill might be picking a man she might otherwise not pick if she wasn't. I read one survey that seemed to find something in this. It found statistically significant numbers that showed women were more likely to leave/divorce a man if they met him while on the pill, but then stopped taking it.

Maybe they are more fertile, but from what I gather, the less a woman wears the less likely you are to bed her or have any success at all. I asked a few friends of mine a while ago to think back and think about all the girls they've ever had one night stands with or got numbers from etc, and they all agreed that most of the time, the girls they had the most success with were the ones who were actually covered up the most. That doesn't seem logical on the surface, but from the small number of people I've asked it seems to be true. I'd be interested to hear other people's experiences to see if it is similar.

iptba

Boofle wrote: »

Yes, indeed most men can't tell when women are "in season"/most fertile but there has been many studies done on this and subconsciously they actually find ovulating women more attractive. . . . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/fertility-women-attractiveness-study_n_2286537.html

Apparently hormones actually alter the pitch of our voice and our faces change slightly also to make us more attractive!

I (vaguely) recall reading something about make-up masking a woman's cycle i.e. without the make-up, men rated women differently based on the stage of the cycle* but with make-up, this disappeared.

* not that many if any men would consciously be able to tell the difference.

MOC88

My thoughts on it are simple, when you meet a girl and shes 50/50 or even 60/40 in one way if you can suggest more than just friends she'll start looking at you in a different light because she'll be thinking about you more and looking for cues form you to see if you still think shes attractive - girls get done up to feel good about themselves so you're giving them that boost. This of course increases her interest you. Now if shes 80/20 one way or the other she'll probably go that way anyway and always be either attracted to you or not unless there are some drastic changes ie. weight loss/bulking up/change of style etc. Of the ones that don't you can still be their friends or whatever if they're worth having around. They'll probably think oh he's so cute and try and set you up with one of their friends for some strange reason but all in all remember to keep some pride Manny style http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4610964/Manny+gets+out+of+the+friendzone/

The Corinthian

I think that both genders will put people in the 'friend zone' upon occasion. I certainly have, with women I didn't really fancy or appreciated the company of but knew they would be a nightmare to be in a relationship with. The only reason perhaps it's seen as sexist (something women do) is because women have more 'power' where it comes to crossing the threshold of a platonic to intimate relationship than men, while men will more often take sex where they find it. But ultimately both practice this.

Anyhow, here's a tongue-in-cheek spin on the subject:

http://www.laddertheory.com/ladderconstruction.htm

astonaidan

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think that both genders will put people in the 'friend zone' upon occasion. I certainly have, with women I didn't really fancy or appreciated the company of but knew they would be a nightmare to be in a relationship with. The only reason perhaps it's seen as sexist (something women do) is because women have more 'power' where it comes to crossing the threshold of a platonic to intimate relationship than men, while men will more often take sex where they find it. But ultimately both practice this.

Anyhow, here's a tongue-in-cheek spin on the subject:

http://www.laddertheory.com/ladderconstruction.htm

Totally agree, Ive seen girls being put in the friendzone plenty of times by guys Ive done it myself, if you dont fancy a girl why sleep with her, that doesnt mean she cant be a good friend.
I really think some guys let themselfs down by sleeping with anyone, its a frame of mind I could never get myself