~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
Dmva100
[removed]
[–]Endorsed ContributorRunawayGrain20 points21 points22 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
The friendzone really doesn't exist, though. When a guy gets 'friendzoned' he's hanging around in the hopes that she will toss him sex. She's realizes what he wants, and she strings him along, keeping him around for his utility, i.e. doing stuff for her or straight up money. It's kind of like a prostitute without the sex, and to be honest a lot of girls get off on stringing a guy along like this.
She doesn't really want to be his friend, and he doesn't really want to be her friend. Nobody there want's to be 'friends.' If this shit starts up with a girl, just ghost her.
[–]2Dmva1006 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
For a low SMV guy who doesn't know shit about intersexual dynamics or understanding female interest cues, hearing someone say to him 'youre in the friendzone' will more than likely prompt him to change his behavior or discontinue his efforts altogether. If this overt declaration of the friendzone 'label' weren't conveyed to him, he would more than likely double down and increase his pursuit of the girl to no avail, thus still remaining in this beta territory. The idea presented in that shit article wants the latter to occur, so that's why the imperative wants the label tossed out.
[–]Endorsed ContributorRunawayGrain5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The idea presented in that shit article wants the latter to occur, so that's why the imperative wants the label tossed out.
Maybe even rename it the handy man zone, because she views him like a handy man to take care of stuff she can't or won't do, and he's only getting it from his hand.
If this overt declaration of the friendzone 'label' weren't conveyed to him, he would more than likely double down and increase his pursuit of the girl to no avail, thus still remaining in this beta territory.
Fucking with the name isn't realistically going to change how a guy winds up in this situation, or how long he stays in it. Honestly telling a bloop anything is less than useful, because they will get pissed when you challenge their belief system.
There's an old saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Which is sort of correct, and sort of bullshit. You can tie the horse up just out of range of the water until he gets thirty, then he will drink, though. I mean it is Pavlovian, but the best way to get one of these guy figure it out is by letting them repeatedly get fucked over until they start looking for the truth for themselves.
So, in short, for the bloops names don't matter, for a woke dude the rule 'If she isn't putting out, don't waste your time' should cover it.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You think a beta chump being "friendzoned" and then forced to acknowledge the fucked up behavior women have will suddenly change this guys whole perspective? Beta dudes are here all the time. They get a fire hose of truth and fail to accept it almost every time.
[–]thetotalpackage70 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Furthermore there is social capital to be had for her when other women, her competition, see her with orbiters doting on her. "Look how desireable I am, I have a coterie of slobs at my disposal. More grapes please, peasant."
[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
How are they going to get "rid of" a label that men ascribe to themselves? No woman goes "you're in the friend zone."
She says "I love you like a brother."
What is happening here though is that men have to start playing on their level. So the usual thing to do here is "I think we want different things, good luck" etc. What they aren't doing is erasing the LJBF event, or "label."
Instead what is happening here is beta shaming. But taking it a little further than usual.
What isn't really being shown here is there is an expectation for orbiters to stay orbiters. And the way they're trying to accomplish that is to say "hey, we're friends, this debate can now only take place within the bounds of friendship."
And for a lot of guys, I think this is going to be extremely effective. The same guy that can not voice his deepest wants and needs, is certainly not going to rock the boat.
This is what I've been saying. You gotta start playing on their level.
So the counter strategy here is that you start lining up things for her to do to make her worth your while, you up your price to the moon. Ask her who her "sex positive friends" are, and when she rebuffs, shame her for being possessive and sex negative.
That's chess to the end. Frame neutral and she'll let you walk or immolate herself. You just have to legitimately demonstrate you're unwilling to satisfy that role for her, but communicate it in the way she understands. To say "I don't want to be friends" is to still sub communicate that you're an orbiter\BB.
[–]2Dmva1001 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah most guys don't ever think to make themselves the point of value by making the girl work for him. They've all been conditioned to think being selfish is horrible and incorrect.
I agree that the woman the man is interested in won't say 'you're in the friendzone' but his buddies may tell him that, or hell, even a different girl who is actually interested in him and is subcommunicating that he should give up on her and shift his attention onto her. That's what getting rid of the term would accomplish by instilling further obscurity for betas.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
If for some far fetched reason feminists achieve the goal of eliminating the term "friendzone" the act of being in the friendzone won't go away. This is absurd thinking.
[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
They're not at all trying to abolish it. Why would they? They're trying to combat threats to it.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You're asking me why feminists do what they do? I don't know, because of they're entitled, self righteous, idealistic, victimhood loving, power hungry, man hating rhetoric and ideology.
Or maybe you're asking the question because you read the article and I didn't waste my time with it. But the jist I gleaned from the OP is that the
"feminine imperative to kill the idea of the friendzone".
Your idea is contradictory to what the post is claiming.
[–]2Dmva100-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
See the word 'label' on the post title, not the idea.
The label or declaration of the friendzone to a beta who is stuck there might make him question and change his behavior, thus causing him to next the girl, hurts the 'idea' of the friendzone.
The fem wants to make anything that qualifies as the friendzone even more broad and difficult for clueless betas to pickup on.
They don't want anything to interfere with the beta knowing he's in the friendzone, just like wifey doesn't want BB having any idea she is still seeing Chad exbf
[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well making it broad would make it ineffective, they want to make it hyper specific. So that the label wouldn't stick.
Because the whole thing with orbiters, is they have to believe there is a shot or some utility to the arrangement. And being "in the friend zone" is derogatory.
I mean this is brilliant. They're shaming the next. Get back in your cage billy!
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think you're mixed up or have a problem with reading comprehension.
© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Endorsed ContributorRunawayGrain20 points21 points22 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]2Dmva1006 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorRunawayGrain5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thetotalpackage70 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]2Dmva1001 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]2Dmva100-1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed Contributorsadomasochrist1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link