The Friend Zone

The friendzone is one of those difficult social things that are caused when society changes and human psychology has caught up yet. The real problem is the male psychology and social strata that caused this. The psychology goes as follows: Men have a limited chance to find a potential mate. Therefore, the attitude is that every women has to be fostered and quickly evaluated for mating potential otherwise the male might not mate and be invalidated both as a man and as a being. The troubling part is that the urge to mate is very primal and takes place at a very lower brain level. Our higher mind and executive portion of the brain is the last to hear about all this.

The Friend Zone is predicated on the male idea that all women must be interested in a man just because he is there and doing things that women should find nice. However, this is very male logic. Man logic goes like this, “the girl I’ve always wanted can be anywhere so I have to seek out as many women as possible to find someone optimal.” This idea that “she never gave me a chance” has nothing to do with her attractiveness or his attractiveness but has more to do with the male idea that if he doesn’t seek out women for mating purposes that he won’t ever find a mate and therefore will end up alone and a loser. For men, women simply need to show up, for women, the formula is much more complicated. This may seem simplistic but there is truth within my broad brush simplicity.

Women have more options for mating: this is replete in nature. Among Lions, Bees, Elephants, even certain species of primates the females have the choice and have precedent in mating, live longer, and overall are included in the pack/tribe/sleuth/congress/parliament longer than males. Take elephants for example, when a male elephant grows up, the female elephants send him away so he doesn’t compete with the local bull. Among bees, males are simple drones that fertilize the larvae and quickly die off. When a lion gets too old, the lionesses abandon him for someone younger and he is forced to forage on his own and his own hunting abilities determine how long he lives. Where does that leave you, my reader?

This natural principle means that as a man, in our dating society, your chances for mating are far more curtailed than those of women. Any reasonably attractive woman can usually find a man (whether she can keep him is an entirely other story) and for men, unless you tick certain boxes on the scale of attractive (which includes resources) women will pass you right on by. I think it is this social phenomena that the “friendzone” is based on. In our dating system, as we have culturally constructed it, a man’s options are limited a woman’s options are far wider. The logic (however flawed) goes like this, “As a man I can’t afford to be caught up chasing after women who don’t want me or aren’t interested because I have limited mating options.” Meanwhile, women have lists (I’ve seen them) standards, ideas, and goals for what kind of man they are going to marry. For heterosexual women, it is a matter of value. Women have something that is “valuable” and many women are selling to the highest bidder based upon their own ideas of currency which can be any combination of confidence, resources, physical appearance, or sexual prowess.

The novels of manners were anchored by who was marrying who and why in aristocratic English society. Who had the money, who had the title, who was a good match, where would they live, who had the grand country house, who could afford a city house….it all went on. A good match was a good looking couple preferably with money and title either through the man entirely or through the matching of the pair. In upper English society of the 1840s, a woman only had as much value as the man she married. This street went two ways: it meant that not only did ladies have to comport themselves in a manner befitting wife material but that men had to demonstrate their ability to keep and maintain a household with sufficient income and good management as well as quality character. Even in an environment where women were little more than property; a man with no income or ruinous behavior would not attract the kind of woman that would add to his life. Women still had the ultimate choice in an oppressive environment (by modern standards). This is still true today and women hold even more cards because the pressure to marry is far less thanks to easy no fault divorce, women’s ability to earn their own resources and societies’ changing attitudes towards validation through relationship (although we still place a good deal of personal worth on a relationship).

Where does that leave men? With fewer and fewer options in an ever crowded field. I think that is where the seeming whine of the “friend zone” problem really begins. In the past, what it took to get a decent woman was fairly well set out. There was a script. Now there is no script, no standards, and generally speaking no straightforward path to dating and marriage mating success. Women can marry a starter husband, get money and then move on to someone else (or not) and generally speaking leave a trail of broken hearts and wallets thanks to favorable family court laws written in an environment when women had far fewer economic options. This has left both sides feeling hurt, unloved, failing, and miserable. We won’t speak of what it has done to children.

Ultimately, in my opinion, women are looking for their perfect guy, in whatever conception she has of him; like bags, shoes and other consumer goods she is keeping her retail options open. As I used to say on my dating show in college: if women could buy men like they buy bags and shoes. . .they would.

That being said, men should not whine about being the friend zone or just trying to get into a girl’s pants by being nice. To some degree our modern hookup culture makes this phenomena even worse. Trying to be a decent human being just to get laid is the worst thing you can do. In the same breath, I also want to acknowledge that the times have changed  when it comes to sex and dating, which for men is a central part of their lives (for obvious biological reasons) and that means that it is not as easy as it used to be to get a woman interested because she simply has far larger options than she used to have in the past. In my mind, the best way to escape the friendzone is take the time actually develop oneself as a man. Read books (like the official booklist), learn conversation, take up interesting hobbies, join groups of things that interest you, get fit. Do more than go to work, go home and watch TV or play Xbox/PS4. Even Mr. Dandy in Pride and Prejudice had to work for a woman’s affections and he had both wealth and an attractive title and manorhouse. Sitting at home, trying to text women you’ve met while waiting to respawn on Call of Duty is not going to get you anywhere.

The Friend Zone exists and yet it does not. I blame modern dating, changes socially in society and the failed psychology of men. However, that is no reason to give up. Your helpful talk show host has been single for 5 long years with not much dating or romantic activity of any kind. If I can survive, so can you. Here is what I don’t do: I don’t criticize women/men who will or won’t talk to me and blame the friendzone on my own problems. If finding a partner were such a big priority I would be taking actions that would increase my level of attractiveness or simply spending the time and money to put myself out there more. Again, I’m not saying that the friendzone isn’t a thing, but sometimes the friendzone can be fun and exciting. The sooner we as men and women learn how to relate on more than a sexual level the better off our whole society will become.