This one is going to be a bit different from my usual posts. There was a discussion on my friend’s Facebook page concerning the “Friend Zone” and I had to weigh in. What I wound up writing is practically an essay:
Okay so my perspective on the “friend zone” has been modified in recent history. I first heard about the “nice guy,” I do things for you, you owe me version a couple of years ago and I find it to be quite disgusting and immature, a symptom of the entitlement culture present in our society. Prior to that, the phrase friend zone meant something much different to me, and I’m sure there are plenty of others out there that think of it this way too and are thus confused by this newer, more skeevy definition. The newer”nice guy” friend zone does have its roots in the older definition though.
Originally, at least in my knowledge of it, the friend zone was a colloquialism for unrequited affection, a small personal hell where that which you seek is unobtainable. There are a few ways to wind up there. The one most related to the “nice guy” version involves a breakdown in communication or social awkwardness in an unfamiliar situation. This is when party A(could be a guy or a girl) does not make their romantic intentions known to party B in a timely manner.
Party A may be new to the whole relationship game and doesn’t want to come on too strong for fear of being seen as desperate. Perhaps it’s fear of rejection. Maybe one or the other is just coming off of another relationship and doesn’t want to rush things. Resulting from this shy approach party B has come to perceive the relationship as very close but platonic.
When party A finally builds the courage to ask about escalating to romance there are a few ways party B may respond. The friend zone lies down the paths wherein party B values this close friendship but is not attracted to party A in a romantic sense or party B is unsure and potentially blindsided by the proposed escalation. In either case there is rejection of the advance. It is party A’s reaction to rejection that gets us into the “Nice Guy” territory.
If party A can accept the rejection and can set aside their romantic inclination for the sake of a good friendship, that’s a wonderfully mature situation. That is not the “friend zone,” that is friendship. Sometimes it can be a bit awkward being around someone you are attracted to when the feeling isn’t mutual. Sticking it out through that strangeness and holding onto the hope that someday things might change even though it likely wont, that is the traditional “friend zone.” Some people just like to wallow in misery. Sometimes, though very rarely, it pays off. If the awkwardness is too much to bear, one party or other may have to end the relationship. It’s sad, but it happens. Loss is a part of life.
The “Nice Guy” friend zone stems from party A not wanting to accept the rejection, be it due to immaturity, inexperience, a sense of entitlement, or some other skewed perspective. There are some situations, clearly not all, where this is sparked from party B feeling misled or betrayed by the advance and reacting as such. Party A is hurt by this reaction and gets super defensive, not wanting to believe that they could have done anything wrong. It is the fault of the other for not seeing party A’s intentions for what they were from the start. The deception or miscommunication on either side may have been intentional or unintentional but the result is fairly consistently the breakdown of a uneven relationship.
There is another situation to consider as a facet of the friend zone. Party A and party B are friends first, neither having romantic intent. Over time, the relationship gets stronger as the two get to know each other better. Party A realizes that they are attracted to party B as more than just friends. This can lead to the escalation cycle as described above and is actually how a lot of good relationships start. It can also lead to a self imposed “friend zone limbo” in which party A never asks party B, often for fear of losing a relationship that they hold quite dear. Maybe party B feels the same way. Never asking is never knowing.
It is the “friends first” situation that “nice guys” attempt to fabricate and manipulate but fail at because their intentions are impure, a deception from the start. They feel that their “good” actions and favors have earned them some reciprocation from the other party. Treating relationships as a game or a commercial exchange of goods is dehumanizing and wrong.
There is an idea out there that the traditional unrequited friend zone is a permanent relationship status. Once you are in the zone there is no way out. I believe that while the majority of cases wind up this way it is not an absolute. All relationships change over time, for the better or the worse. People grow, attractions change, we lie to ourselves as often as we lie to others.
We’ve seen this one played out hundreds if not thousands of times in literature and film. The will they, wont they of the romantic comedy or sitcom that draws us in. Those are of course idealized versions where right and wrong decisions paired up with dumb luck usually put the players together in the end. Sometimes it happens that way in the real world. Sometimes it’s cleaner and often it’s a lot messier.
Next time you hear someone mention the “friend zone” keep in mind that it’s an older and more varied phrase than you may have thought. At its core is the essence of relationships: communication. Words hold a lot of power and they can be misused and misinterpreted. The same goes for intentions. I hope at least one person out there gains some new perspective and insight from this.
TL;DR Language evolves. Words don’t mean what they used to. People are complicated. “Nice Guys” suck.
Chronicles of Brad 