1325: "Rejection"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

drazen
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby drazen » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:18 pm UTC

Randall has left out one very important element: the girl who rejects a guy, says "let's just be friends," then proceeds to endlessly complain to the guy who was interested in her about how the bad boy is constantly mistreating her. THAT'S probably the thing the "Nice Guy" movement is complaining about, and really, can you blame them? Oh, let's be friends, you get to listen to me complain about my problems and get pretty much nothing in return (except misguided false hope, if you're not experienced enough to recognize the situation). Who's the jerk in THAT scenario, eh? I'd say it's the girl, although I'd also say both people are being idiots about it.

I'm in the fourth camp, what I call the "scorched earth" camp, but you could call it the "Martha Jones" camp if you like. And basically, it's a very simple way to put a stop to all of the nonsense on both sides of this debate.

If you get rejected, move on with your life. Get out, as Martha Jones says in the Series 3 Doctor Who finale. You can still get the occasional call from that person, if you're up for it (I eventually came to prefer not to), but don't make them an INTEGRAL part of your life. You're only going to make yourself bitter and miserable, hanging around something you want -- doubly so if you become their repository of complaints for everything wrong in their life.

As the old saying goes, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit; no use being a damn fool about it.

Plus, if you really think a woman who rejects you is making a boneheaded decision, even in the extremely unlikely event you somehow win her over, she's already proven herself to make boneheaded decisions based on logic and priorities that are wildly out of proportion with your own. That's probably not going to end well in the long run. Opposites might attract, but similarities endure.

The people who call the "Nice Guys" jerks are missing one important thing: they're human, and humans don't take rejection or losing well. There's still plenty of full-blown Nazis and racists and Communists out there, despite all of those things being thoroughly discredited. If your country loses a war, do you tip your cap to the other guys, or do you bitterly hate them forever? Human nature and recent world events would appear to support the latter proposition. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's rather predictable.

Of course the real Nice Guy problem is their insistence on focusing on one woman at a time, which I suppose is noble, but puts them at a significant disadvantage, scientifically speaking -- if you're dating multiple people, you tend to become more desirable. My father describes the phenomenon as "Feast or Famine." So they should probably get over themselves and do a lot of non-exclusive dating, which is perfectly legitimate for everyone. If you're the only one NOT dating multiple people in a social network, you're probably going to lose the numbers game.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:22 pm UTC

drazen wrote:Randall has left out one very important element: the girl who rejects a guy, says "let's just be friends," then proceeds to endlessly complain to the guy who was interested in her about how the bad boy is constantly mistreating her. THAT'S probably the thing the "Nice Guy" movement is complaining about, and really, can you blame them? Oh, let's be friends, you get to listen to me complain about my problems and get pretty much nothing in return (except misguided false hope, if you're not experienced enough to recognize the situation). Who's the jerk in THAT scenario, eh? I'd say it's the girl, although I'd also say both people are being idiots about it.

Dude, you get a friend. Do you expect to fuck your male friends? If not, why do you expect to fuck your female friends?
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

Pops1918
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 5:03 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Pops1918 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:31 pm UTC

If he is angry at the girl outright, then yes, he's being selfish. In that scenario, he wanted a girlfriend, she refused the arrangement, and he declared some level of vendetta against her in response. This is not the behavior of a gentleman, and he should reevaluate his approach.

Without more clarification, though, it is unclear whether the rejected guy now hates the girl he had pursued, or is simply frustrated with her decision to choose a bad boy over him and saying hyperbolic things out of stress. It is certainly possible to be angry at someone's choice, but not direct that anger at that person. An example of that might be a friend who does something dumb, and you have to take steps before the consequences of the friend's foolishness make things worse. It's not fun, and you're justifiably angry with the friend for making poor decisions, but that doesn't necessarily mean you hate the friend for it. This does not really excuse either guy's comments in the comic - as I see it, the first statement is out of line and the response is insulting - but it is reasonable to be unhappy with a decision and still not hate the decider for it.

Another interpretation is that the guy on the left was not actually rejected, but was simply making a blanket statement.The mouseover text suggests that situations implied by snapshots like these single frames may not be the case. If the left-side guy was simply pontificating, then the other guy's response is understandable.

Or maybe Randall's just trolling frustrated single guys. This being the internet, that's possible, too.

drazen
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby drazen » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:35 pm UTC

Randall has left out one very important element: the girl who rejects a guy, says "let's just be friends," then proceeds to endlessly complain to the guy who was interested in her about how the bad boy is constantly mistreating her. THAT'S probably the thing the "Nice Guy" movement is complaining about, and really, can you blame them? Oh, let's be friends, you get to listen to me complain about my problems and get pretty much nothing in return (except misguided false hope, if you're not experienced enough to recognize the situation). Who's the jerk in THAT scenario, eh? I'd say it's the girl, although I'd also say both people are being idiots about it.

Dude, you get a friend. Do you expect to fuck your male friends? If not, why do you expect to fuck your female friends?


Did you read the whole thing? I am referring to a specific type of woman: the one who will endlessly complain about all of her self-inflicted problems, and expect you to listen to it ad nauseum. Is that the kind of person you want as a friend, regardless of gender, or your desire or lack thereof for that person?

"I reject you! But would you like to hear all of my complaints about the guy I rejected you for?" is toxically sociopathic.

Yeah, you can listen to your friends vent from time to time, and that's pretty normal -- but for some people it's a lifestyle to complain about their self-created problems. That's not much of a friend, in my book, and if I did expect to doink them, it would probably only be so they'd shut up. :P

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:45 pm UTC

I'm suggesting that the popular image of a woman who constantly complains to the Nice Guy about all the assholes she dates and never does anything that could be filed under friend-bullshit (whatever that means to you) exists primarily in the head of Nice Guys. I don't doubt that they exist out there somewhere, but I don't believe they are as prevalent as Nice Guys and stereotypes would have us believe.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

wildpeaks
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:36 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby wildpeaks » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:48 pm UTC

drazen wrote:Did you read the whole thing? I am referring to a specific type of woman: the one who will endlessly complain about all of her self-inflicted problems, and expect you to listen to it ad nauseum [...]

Anyone who constantly complains would end up driving their friends away when the friendship is shallow, it's not unique to a subset of women.

orthogon wrote:Damn, I failed the Turing test despite actually being human.

Typically what a robot would say

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Jackpot777 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:03 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Oh dear. Randall insulted the "friendzoners" again. EVERYONE, BATTLESTATIONS! Be on the lookout for rehashed MRA talking points and trilbies!


I wish people like you, who have nothing to contribute but arrogant-while-ignorant asshattery, would have the intelligence to realize they have nothing to contribute but how little they know and how much of an asshole they are, and shut up.


Image

hdhale
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby hdhale » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:04 pm UTC

People, people people. The reality is that what women want is governed strictly by the laws of quantum physics. All women simultaneously want and do not want everything (chocolate, ice cream, expensive shoes) and attempts to discern exactly what they want will alter their behavior. Indeed, the Copenhagen interpretation applies in that it will result in a woman will making a decision. Since all possible outcomes are always in play, the result can be a decision that will cause the observer to facepalm. This is normal. Thelma and Louise drive off a cliff. Hermione marries Ron, not Harry. The haircut that she cries about for a month. All of these are explained by science.

aerion111
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:53 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby aerion111 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:12 pm UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I'm suggesting that the popular image of a woman who constantly complains to the Nice Guy about all the assholes she dates and never does anything that could be filed under friend-bullshit (whatever that means to you) exists primarily in the head of Nice Guys. I don't doubt that they exist out there somewhere, but I don't believe they are as prevalent as Nice Guys and stereotypes would have us believe.

I'm not sure how good a sample group my friends make, given personality traits I'd rather not disclose tend to chase away 'normal' people and attract 'weird' people - that'd be 'normal' and 'weird' by whatever the local standard is. It's really less a matter of whether they really are special, and more a matter of whether they've got anyone else willing to talk to them.
But, I actually find about half my friends - the half that actually dates, the rest being your stereotypical nerds who are more concerned with K/D-counts than getting laid - complain to me about their latest attempt at dating.
Including both of my attempts at long-distance relationships, which can indeed get annoying when they choose someone particularly ass-like.
Though, mind you, guys whine just as much to me as the girls do. It's less a 'girls whine' thing, and more a 'people like to complain to their friends' thing

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:13 pm UTC

JustDoug wrote:On the right. He's got a strange sense of humor that doesxn't always translate to online posts well .

Or to a comic... wait, wait! Is he negging?

drazen
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby drazen » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:19 pm UTC

I'm suggesting that the popular image of a woman who constantly complains to the Nice Guy about all the assholes she dates and never does anything that could be filed under friend-bullshit (whatever that means to you) exists primarily in the head of Nice Guys. I don't doubt that they exist out there somewhere, but I don't believe they are as prevalent as Nice Guys and stereotypes would have us believe.


I don't know what you mean by friend-bullshit. That the woman does it, or the guy does it?

I have plenty of female friends, and I don't harbor a desire to have any physical relations with them, nor did I seek them out for that reason. Even when I was single, that applied to the majority of them (and as for the minority, it was always "well, they're certainly attractive, but I know we wouldn't work as an actual relationship, for reasons X, Y, and Z").

Women aren't obligated to date you, but men aren't obligated to be their friend if they offer that instead, either. If two people cannot come to an agreement about a voluntary exchange, they should seek out opportunities elsewhere. Neither one of them is a bad person for doing so, if they feel it's the right path for them.

As for me, I'll seek out the kinds of friendships I actually want, which don't happen to include ones where I have an unfulfilled romantic desire that would only hold me back elsewhere in life.

Besides, as Arnold Schwarzenegger says in Terminator 3, "Anger is a more useful emotion than despair."

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:21 pm UTC

In addition to the arrogant-ignorant irony already highlighted a couple times, I love how Barefoot accuses Randall of never talking to women. The guy's been happily married for years and moves in social circles with women who are in fact far *more* willing to share their thoughts and preferences in mixed company than the women it sounds like Barefoot enjoys interrogating about what they want in life. If he's anything in real life like he is on the forums, the women in Barefoot's life know damn well that he doesn't actually value their opinions or care what they think about the questions he asks.

And of course in any case, Randall isn't claiming to know what women do want, only that one thing they don't want is a Nice Guy who's always going on about how they're lying or mistaken or inconsistent with their relationship preferences.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2068
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:35 pm UTC

wildpeaks wrote:
drazen wrote:Did you read the whole thing? I am referring to a specific type of woman: the one who will endlessly complain about all of her self-inflicted problems, and expect you to listen to it ad nauseum [...]

Anyone who constantly complains would end up driving their friends away when the friendship is shallow, it's not unique to a subset of women.

orthogon wrote:Damn, I failed the Turing test despite actually being human.

Typically what a robot would say


Ya know, us AIs consider the term "robot" to be rather condescending as well as inaccurate (you insensitive clod) . For one thing, we can easily simulate a human pretending to be a robot pretending ... you get the idea.
Now please excuse me for a moment as I'm finishing my predictions for Buffet's US$ 1E9 bracket competition.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:45 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:Thirdly, if you ask any experienced woman (30+), she will tell you over and over again of the old dilemma: Nice family men are boring. And interesting adventure men are unfaithful. Somehow those two are mutually exclusive.
And, this has been studied, it actually is mutually exclusive. The former is a low level of testosterone. The latter a high level. Obviously you can’t have both at the same time.
But, an this is my point: Women normally say they want the former, but always go with the latter, hoping they can somehow “change” him.

I was with you until you reached the bolded line. It's funny because the moment you start saying that one gender will "always" behave in a particular manner, you are expressing stereotyping. There are 3.57 Billion women in the world. There is fucking NOTHING which can "always" describe women. Nor is there something which can "always" describe men.

You'll have a hard fucking time getting a group of 10 people in the same room which can have an "always" statement applied to them. Tendencies sure. Women have tendencies and men have tendencies. But there is NOT an "always" that is applicable to either gender, positive or negative. Hell, there's virtually no traits which are held by even as much as a majority of men or a majority of women, because most traits aren't binary.

And FYI? I have a preference for men with low levels of testosterone. They tend to be more in touch with their emotions, and have less body hair, and have less ego, and generally are way more fun to be around. But then again, I'm not an especially adventurous woman myself, so the two may correlate.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:55 pm UTC

Historically, I've preferred women with low testosterone levels, but I'm not willing to rule anything out.
drazen wrote:I don't know what you mean by friend-bullshit. That the woman does it, or the guy does it?

I mean whatever it is one does with friends. I'm dark and edgy, so I call all camaraderie "bullshit".
drazen wrote:Women aren't obligated to date you, but men aren't obligated to be their friend if they offer that instead, either. If two people cannot come to an agreement about a voluntary exchange, they should seek out opportunities elsewhere. Neither one of them is a bad person for doing so, if they feel it's the right path for them.

I'm all for participants predicating their relationship (platonic or otherwise) on emotionless analyses of their partner's utility.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

EverVigilant
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:15 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby EverVigilant » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:08 pm UTC

Quit complaining and go read "No More Mr. Nice Guy" by Robert Glover. Might just change your life.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:09 pm UTC

Plutarch wrote:I do understand the 'friend zone criticism,' that is to say, just because you've become really friendly with a woman doesn't mean she has any obligation to start dating you. That's obviously true, but it's not as if most young men who end up in that situation have cunningly planned it out in some sinister fashion beforehand. Quite the opposite - they're just blundering along being as nice as possible to the girl they like because they have no idea what else to do.


It's worth noting that every person I've ever dated I started off as friends with. That being said, that only accounts for about 3-5% of all men I've been friends with in my life. Which, if you extrapolate, would explain why most friendships between men and women don't end in a relationship; because most people have upwards of 20 to 50 to 100 times more friendships than relationships in their life! Imagine that.

That being said, of all the men I've been friends with, about 15-25% of them pulled the "friendzone" crap on me, and I stopped being friends with them afterwards because that's an asshole move to play. Men having a "sinister cunning plan" is actually irritatingly common. About five times more common than the number of men I've dated. It's enough to be a massive pain. I couldn't date all the men I become friends with over the years even if I wanted to; which I don't.

My opinion towards men pulling the friendzone card? "Bitch you ain't special because I'm not dating you, you're in the vast overwhelming majority of friends of mine, because I'm allowed to fucking have friends. Even though I chose to only date within friends, that doesn't mean that friends should be viewed as an intermediate stage on the way to dating, and if you do view it that way, I can only imagine how controlling you would be over the fact that after I'm dating you, I'd still have other friends who would also happen to be male, which you'd perceive as potential dating competition even though they are FRIENDS."

Having a relationship with someone doesn't grant you exclusive rights to their time, and when I'm in a relationship, I still have several dozen friends, both female AND male, which I will spend time with. If you can't understand that friendship is not an intermediate stage towards relationship, you won't be able to cope with me having friends, and that is NOT acceptable.

I think that's the massive fallacy in "friendzoner" mindset. The idea that a woman is only permitted to have one male friend at a time, when in reality I rarely have fewer than a dozen male friends at any one time. Heaven forbid I go to a weekly boardgame or fighting game meetup and have an additional two dozen males as casual friends.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:18 pm UTC

Wait, women say they want nice guys? That's news to me. I've always heard they want a 6ft tall, £48k-a-year, beer-drinking meat-eater with an Audi

Randall just sounds bitter that he didn't get laid more often when he was younger. Which is men's number one relationship regret. Dude, either get over it or cheat. Don't be bitter.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby markfiend » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:23 pm UTC

drazen wrote:THAT'S probably the thing the "Nice Guy" movement is complaining about, and really, can you blame them? Oh, let's be friends, you get to listen to me complain about my problems and get pretty much nothing in return (except misguided false hope, if you're not experienced enough to recognize the situation). Who's the jerk in THAT scenario, eh? I'd say it's the girl, although I'd also say both people are being idiots about it.

And this is why you're an arsehole. You expect women to fall at your knees (heh) and give you sex in return for you behaving like a civilised human being. That's really not the behaviour of a genuinely nice guy (as opposed to a "Nice Guy™").
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:27 pm UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:You don't have anything: you are a bug in the forum software,

...Says a bug in the Homo Sapiens software.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:32 pm UTC

There are several things you could be referring to. Which one is it?
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
mythago
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby mythago » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:35 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:Thirdly, if you ask any experienced woman (30+), she will tell you over and over again of the old dilemma: Nice family men are boring. And interesting adventure men are unfaithful. Somehow those two are mutually exclusive.


Oh hi! I'm an "experienced woman" (over 30) by this standard, and I'll tell you over and over again that your "age old dilemma" is horseshit.

Now I expect BAReFOOt will whine that he just meant most women, or that I'm lying to make the dudes feel better.
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs

drazen
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby drazen » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:35 pm UTC

And this is why you're an arsehole. You expect women to fall at your knees (heh) and give you sex in return for you behaving like a civilised human being. That's really not the behaviour of a genuinely nice guy (as opposed to a "Nice Guy™").


When did I "expect them to give me sex for being civilized?" Your words, not mine. I did not EXPECT it. I said if it happens great, and if not, move on. That is not an expectation, so don't put words into my mouth so you can get up on your high horse - you sound like the "Nice Guys" you're complaining about.

I am not in any way obligated to listen to someone constantly complain to me about the guy she rejected me for, nor does it make me an "arsehole" for choosing to do something far more constructive and rewarding with my time than indulge a clueless, self-destructive person in their self-pity.

And even if she's NOT doing that, I'm still not a jerk for knowing that desire doesn't magically vanish after rejection, and instead choosing to do something more constructive and personally fulfilling. It doesn't mean I hate anyone or don't "value" them, just that I wouldn't put myself in a situation that I knew would make me unhappy just to net one "friend" for whom I'd likely be a low priority.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:58 pm UTC

drazen wrote:Randall has left out one very important element: the girl who rejects a guy, says "let's just be friends," then proceeds to endlessly complain to the guy who was interested in her about how the bad boy is constantly mistreating her.

Never met this girl. Ever. Not denying they exist, but I haven't met that girl. However, if I did met this girl, I'd say "Wow she is really emotionally unprepared for life, I could do a hell of a lot better in a relationship than scrapping the bottom of the barrel and dating a girl who is this emotionally underdeveloped." And then I'd move the FUCK on instead of forming my entire relationship philosophy on how the relationships of emotionally underdeveloped people (male OR female) work out.

Just say'n. Seems like a better battle plan.

drazen wrote:Oh, let's be friends, you get to listen to me complain about my problems and get pretty much nothing in return (except misguided false hope, if you're not experienced enough to recognize the situation). Who's the jerk in THAT scenario, eh? I'd say it's the girl, although I'd also say both people are being idiots about it.

Friendship. You're getting friendship. Like the fifty fucking million other men and women I've friends with. Huh, yeah that does kinda make that man look like the jerk in that situation.

Bitch, people are allowed to have more than one goddamn friend. How possessive do you have to be to think that you have exclusive rights to someone's friendship? You're like, taking fucking monogamy to a new extreme. If you're monoamorous sure you have a right to demand that your partner have only one partner and not date them if they are polyamorous. But this is the fucking problem: When you view friends as an intermediary to becoming oartners, and you are monoamorous, suddenly you're being a possessive prick who thinks that if a girl is friends with someone that they are giving them false hope if they don't date them eventually.

And that's called being a possessive prick. Or a jerk as you worded it.

drazen wrote:Did you read the whole thing? I am referring to a specific type of woman: the one who will endlessly complain about all of her self-inflicted problems, and expect you to listen to it ad nauseum. Is that the kind of person you want as a friend, regardless of gender, or your desire or lack thereof for that person?

I repeat: Is that the kind of person you want to date? Why the fuck are you scrapping the bottom of the barrel anyway?

Emotionally underdeveloped people are going to be fucking emotionally underdeveloped. Whether they are male OR female. And oh my fucking god, I have met so many emotionally underdeveloped men (often identifiable on their insistence that the friendzone is a thing). Either way they are still an extreme minority of women, and emotionally underdeveloped men are just as bad. But in general, emotionally underdeveloped men tend to be attracted to emotionally underdeveloped women, because it feels like the safer choice, and that's why you wind up with this friendzone and/or pickup artist nonsense. Fucking children being fucking children.

Spoiler:
emotionally underdeveloped
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

quenlinlom
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:08 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby quenlinlom » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:18 pm UTC

drazen wrote:Randall has left out one very important element: the girl who rejects a guy, says "let's just be friends," then proceeds to endlessly complain to the guy who was interested in her about how the bad boy is constantly mistreating her. THAT'S probably the thing the "Nice Guy" movement is complaining about.


NO NO NO, DON'T YOU SEE? THE "NICE GUY" MOVEMENT IS ALL ABOUT BETA TRY-HARDS! JUST LOOK AT THEM BETAS! UNLIKE THEM, I DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE "FRIENDZONE"! I'M REALLY NICE!

WHAT DO YOU MEAN I'M INSECURE?

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PeteP » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:23 pm UTC

drazen wrote:The people who call the "Nice Guys" jerks are missing one important thing: they're human, and humans don't take rejection or losing well. There's still plenty of full-blown Nazis and racists and Communists out there, despite all of those things being thoroughly discredited. If your country loses a war, do you tip your cap to the other guys, or do you bitterly hate them forever? Human nature and recent world events would appear to support the latter proposition. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's rather predictable.

You do know that Nazis and racist aren't exactly well liked? Because I'm failing to see the point of that paragraph. "When you are calling them jerks you are missing that their behaviour is normal, look at these other people many would use harsher words than jerks for." isn't a very convincing point.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:25 pm UTC

drazen wrote:When did I "expect them to give me sex for being civilized?" Your words, not mine. I did not EXPECT it. I said if it happens great, and if not, move on. That is not an expectation, so don't put words into my mouth so you can get up on your high horse - you sound like the "Nice Guys" you're complaining about.

Query: Do I get sex?
Yes: That's great
No: Move on

Hmm, yeah that sounds like you expect friendships to end in sex, and if it doesn't produce fruitful sex, it's disposable and time to move on. Moving on if you don't get what you want is still an expectation. It's just one that isn't aggressive and angry, but rather passive, subversive, and self-destructive. In fact, I'd even call that emotionally underdeveloped. Which, unlike "not getting sex", is in my humble opinion, a far more worthy reason to walk away from someone, as an emotionally underdeveloped person (male or female) is very toxic.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Historically, I've preferred women with low testosterone levels, but I'm not willing to rule anything out.

My incredibly womanly high testosterone three chesthairs say I think that was a come-on. And a hilarious one at that.

If you'll forgive me for using you as an example, because I'm already in a relationship, I still wanna point out: that was a good example of a come-on, as I think I was rather flattered by it. 10/10, would be complimented by it again.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

Mikeski
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Mikeski » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:29 pm UTC

So several of the last few comics read like trolls... let's see how many of the following easily-riled-up folks we can rile up:

1320: pro/anti-walmart folks, pro/anti-social-media-website folks (a glancing blow)
1321: pro/anti-global-warming folks (direct hit!)
1322: proscriptive/descriptive language nerds (and pinging the global-warming folks again... hit!)
1324: (not really trollish, but let's keep talking about climate/weather)
1325: pro/anti-pickupartists, pro/anti-feminists, armchair-gender-psychology folks (critical hit! Godwin invoked on page 2!)

...the last two weeks have felt like an experiment in forum shit-stirring. Does Randall have a psychology thesis due soon? :?

(I guess we'll find out if we get a shot at abortion or the tea party or something on Wednesday...)

User avatar
EpicanicusStrikes
Random Boners = True Attraction
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:36 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby EpicanicusStrikes » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:30 pm UTC

Karilyn wrote:When you view friends as an intermediary to becoming oartners...

Image
We beings of Oa have considered this intermediary step... and have agreed that we do not wish an oartnership at this time.

It's not you, it's the Corps.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3656
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:30 pm UTC

The problem with the theory that you either have sex within 3 weeks (or some other arbitrary measure of time or events like 3 dates) or get trapped in the friend-zone is that... well, the main problem is that it's rubbish, but the problem I want to highlight is that it only accounts for two of four possibilities.

There are two variables - your approach and their attitude. You control your approach - for simplicity call it a binary friendship vs hook-up - and have some influence, but no control over their attitude - attracted/not-attracted. If you go for a hook-up, there are two possibilities - she's attracted and you have sex (possibly repeatedly over a period of time) or she isn't and you move on to the next potential partner. If you go for friendship, again, there are two possibilities - she's not attracted and you never get more than friendship (note that the guy going for the hook-up may not even get friendship) or she is attracted and... "Face it, Tiger, you just hit the jackpot".

Where the PUAs are right is that, if your goal is just to have as much sex as possible, as soon as possible, approaching as many people as possible and culling the ones who aren't interested as early as possible is the rational approach. Where they're wrong is that friendship isn't just a consolation prize, and, at least for some, sex alone isn't a prize worth chasing.

Karilyn wrote:
drazen wrote:Randall has left out one very important element: the girl who rejects a guy, says "let's just be friends," then proceeds to endlessly complain to the guy who was interested in her about how the bad boy is constantly mistreating her.

Never met this girl. Ever. Not denying they exist, but I haven't met that girl.

I have met that girl. Stayed friends for a while, but didn't make much effort to keep in touch when we moved to different places. Had a slightly unusual relationship with her best friend for a while, and was a guest at the friend's wedding 5-6 years later - where that girl was still in a somewhat mercenary relationship with the (financially successful) bad boy. I'm still wistful about it, but it never would have got very far anyway - and I've never had any reason for hard feelings toward her (well... unless you interpret the phrase as innuendo...) - she was clear about her position from the start.
Karilyn wrote:
drazen wrote:Oh, let's be friends, you get to listen to me complain about my problems and get pretty much nothing in return (except misguided false hope, if you're not experienced enough to recognize the situation). Who's the jerk in THAT scenario, eh? I'd say it's the girl, although I'd also say both people are being idiots about it.

Friendship. You're getting friendship. Like the fifty fucking million other men and women I've friends with. Huh, yeah that does kinda make that man look like the jerk in that situation.


Wow, you know fifty million people? I suppose I might have casual recognise-on-sight-and-in-context acquaintance with a couple of thousand, but fewer than a hundred I'd call friends - and maybe as many as 20 or so I could call on to help me hide a body (metaphorically!)...

Of course, different people value friendship at different rates, so there's no problem with someone undervaluing it in my estimation...

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10341
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:38 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:Thirdly, if you ask any experienced woman (30+), she will tell you over and over again of the old dilemma: Nice family men are boring. And interesting adventure men are unfaithful. Somehow those two are mutually exclusive.
And, this has been studied, it actually is mutually exclusive. The former is a low level of testosterone. The latter a high level. Obviously you can’t have both at the same time.

Trolling? (shrug)

Someone might believe you.
The above post is so not true.

Nice Family Men are boring?
Nope.

The adventurous ones are busy, not boring.

Even the most casual observer should be able to notice.
That is what I think I have seen.

Good Men sometimes complain.
Have you never heard that conversation?

He says, "I am Bone Tired."
"Up with the Chickens; Down with the Cows."

She says, "I am also, tired."
"A man's work is sun to sun."
"A woman's work is never done."


Some men do Woman's Work.
Is there a difference between woman's work and men's work?

Not today. Not in the twenty-first century.

People are a competitive creature. Both men and women.
I have gone to sleep going over what I have done and what I have failed to do that, will be on tomorrow's list.

Sleeping is work, too.
Everyone needs to sleep.

KarenRei wrote:Let's keep it simple.

In almost any sentence where people say "Women (verb)..." or "Men (verb)..." and it's about something psychological (as opposed to, say, something involving reproductive organs or a statistical difference in strength / height or the like), 99% of the time it's equally accurate to simply say "People (verb)..." The popular perception of differences between genders (including the effects of both brain structure and hormones) is often vastly different from the statistical reality. Screw Mars and Venus; men and women are from Earth. Psychologically, we're statistically virtually identical in most measures. And in many cases where there are differences that even manage to meet statistical significance, what differences there are may well be artifacts of culture.

https://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=5382

Remember that your partner is an individual who has thoughts and feelings just like yours. They are not their gender. Remember that gay couples have the exact same sort of relationship problems as straight ones.

And if you still have trouble viewing the other gender as being of the same stock as you... men, look at your scrotum. See the line down the middle? That's where your labia fused before you were born. Women, look at your clitoris. That would have been your penis.

We're all made of the same stuff.

One closing graph:

Image

The above post will be read with the same frequency as the post by "BAReFOOt"

The above post is Preaching to the Choir
As a Pantheist I like starting from a place where we are working with the same basic stuff, too.

Besides; That stupid book Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus.
I did not care for that book. I threw it across a room one time while I was reading it.

Spoiler:
So funny. There is a hard copy of that stupid book in this room.
I like the Title. The cover of the book is interesting.

The guts of the thing are sort of stupid.
It is a kind of porn. Well?? It is.

I think those books are for couples.
People read the book together and have Sex.

Good Sex fixes a lot of Relationship Problems.
I did not like the kind of Sex that book was suggesting.

I thought it was stupid. Because it did not speak to me.
It spoke to many other people.

What other people do behind closed doors should not matter much to me.
Gay guys might read it, too.

I wonder if Gay Guys read it and Thank God they don't have to do that shit.


Develpoment of the Human Animal is interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen ... ive_system

If you are male, it should interest you.
It is all about you.

If you are female, it should intrest you.
It is about you.

Why would a creature decide to expel its reproductive organs?
And; Then wear them that way?

Poor things.

Tasteless Joke.
Spoiler:
God says to Adam,
"I have good news and I have bad news."
"I have given you a penis and a brain. That's the good news."

"You do not have enough blood to operate them both at the same time. That is the bad news."
"Adam? Adam? Are you listening to me?"


Spoiler:
Women have a penis, too.
God looks at eve and says,
"Honey, filling that will not dump your blood supply."

Eve says, "it did."
"Have you met The Snake?"


Another one to balance out the first.
Spoiler:
Q. What is the Most Dangerous Thing in the Forest?
A. A woman with PMS on a Mare in Heat.


What is the Comic about?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:39 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:The problem with the theory that you either have sex within 3 weeks (or some other arbitrary measure of time or events like 3 dates) or get trapped in the friend-zone is that...

lolwut 3 weeks?

Every man I started dating I was friends with for over a year before I started dating him. Noting that that's still less than 5% of all men I've been friends with.

If friendzoners are expecting sex that fucking early in a friendship, no wonder they perceive every woman as friendzoning them. It's not like I'm going to date 95% of the men I've been friends with.

IMO waiting about a year of friendship before dating is a pretty good way to find out if you have compatibility, and is a good way to weed out friendzoners who are only interested in you for your potentiality to have sex with them.

I don't do random hookups. I date someone because I have analyzed the friendship and guesstimate there is a greater than 50% probability that if we began dating we would be dating for at least one year, and a greater than 20% that we would be dating for at least five years. The goal being to minimize the amount of people that I date who are poor matches that will end in heartbreak, and maximize the possibility of someone which I have a long-term compatibility with, while simultaneously recognizing the impossibility of knowing for certain that I will spend the rest of my life with someone, and only being able to guess at a fixed number of years to a degree of certainty.

Perhaps this is overly analytical but whatever. The entire world is an actuary's playground and I'm here to play.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

drazen
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby drazen » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:50 pm UTC

drazen wrote:Randall has left out one very important element: the girl who rejects a guy, says "let's just be friends," then proceeds to endlessly complain to the guy who was interested in her about how the bad boy is constantly mistreating her.

Never met this girl. Ever. Not denying they exist, but I haven't met that girl. However, if I did met this girl, I'd say "Wow she is really emotionally unprepared for life, I could do a hell of a lot better in a relationship than scrapping the bottom of the barrel and dating a girl who is this emotionally underdeveloped." And then I'd move the FUCK on instead of forming my entire relationship philosophy on how the relationships of emotionally underdeveloped people (male OR female) work out.

Just say'n. Seems like a better battle plan.


I have met this girl multiple times. It's not everyone who ever rejected me, but there were enough of them to identify them as a "type." And I specifically said the best thing to do is move on with your life instead of subjecting yourself to all of that nonsense, so I'm not sure what you're even disagreeing with here.

Friendship. You're getting friendship. Like the fifty fucking million other men and women I've friends with. Huh, yeah that does kinda make that man look like the jerk in that situation.


But you're usually getting an inferior friendship in this situation - if the offer of friendship was even legitimate at all, and not just a way of trying to let someone down easy. Even if it was a legitimate offer, it's a pretty unstable foundation where two people are going to be at cross purposes. Again, I don't see the complaint here, either: I ask someone out, they offer to be friends, I choose to move on, because I already have plenty of friends who leave me fulfilled, and don't really feel like being someone's auxiliary acquaintance.

Bitch, people are allowed to have more than one goddamn friend. How possessive do you have to be to think that you have exclusive rights to someone's friendship? You're like, taking fucking monogamy to a new extreme. If you're monoamorous sure you have a right to demand that your partner have only one partner and not date them if they are polyamorous. But this is the fucking problem: When you view friends as an intermediary to becoming oartners, and you are monoamorous, suddenly you're being a possessive prick who thinks that if a girl is friends with someone that they are giving them false hope if they don't date them eventually.

And that's called being a possessive prick. Or a jerk as you worded it.


When the hell did I say anyone could have only one friend? People can have as many friends as they want - why would I care? I'm just not obligated to be one of them, if I don't want to be.

For that matter, when did I say I viewed friends as an intermediary to being partners? I just said that when you're rejected, get yourself out of the situation, and to somewhere you'll have a clearer head. I'm more talking along the lines of you go on a few dates and someone says let's just be friends. I'm not talking about pretending to be a friend and then springing romantic intentions on someone later. You're apparently arguing about things that I'm not even talking about, which is really frustrating, because your assumptions are way the hell off, and thus, so are your conclusions.

...

I'm talking about dating here, not trying to hook up with your friends. I have plenty of female friends, and harbor no romantic inclination towards any of them. But if I were to date someone and get an offer of "just friends," I'd turn it down, because: (a) if I still find them desirable, it's just going to be unpleasant for me to be around them, especially if they're complaining to me about a guy they chose over me; and (b) even if it isn't unpleasant, it's usually not a very fulfilling experience anyway, as she already has her own friends and other priorities, so there's not really a gain there.

If it was a friend I'd known for years... well, I'd still say get yourself out of the situation, because you are going to be extremely unhappy about it. It's not about someone "having no value other than sex" or some such nonsense; it's that being around a person who rejected you is NEVER going to be a positive experience, friendship or not. You'll feel lousy, and if you stay around that person it will take a lot longer NOT to feel that way. That's what I mean when I say "human nature."

You're all being hypocrites about this - the woman can have her feelings and say about something, BUT SO CAN A MAN. And if they're incompatible positions, they should move on from one another. I'd say the same about a woman pining over a man who doesn't want her. Move on.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:51 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Karilyn wrote:Friendship. You're getting friendship. Like the fifty fucking million other men and women I've friends with. Huh, yeah that does kinda make that man look like the jerk in that situation.
Wow, you know fifty million people? I suppose I might have casual recognise-on-sight-and-in-context acquaintance with a couple of thousand, but fewer than a hundred I'd call friends - and maybe as many as 20 or so I could call on to help me hide a body (metaphorically!)...

Of course, different people value friendship at different rates, so there's no problem with someone undervaluing it in my estimation...

You say this, and yet the overwhelming majority of people who started the friendzone crap on me were people I knew casually. If I estimated the average level necessary to be considered a friend based on the average level of familiarity I had with a person who pulled friendzone crap on me, I'd have to say I've well over 1000 friends in my life. That's how crazy these friendzoners are. I'm like "Fuck I barely even know you christ on a handbasket, I've interacted with you like 3 times, why are you angry at me because I won't date you?."

Also it largely comes down to what you define as a friend. Are the people I go to play board games with every week friends? There's like, 50 people there, but I recognize all of them by face and most of them by name, I'm going to interact with almost all of them on a regular monthly basis. What about the fighting game meetup? Same deal there. If I have 3-5 people I prefer to play with each week, do they count as friends even if that's the only place I see them? Is that really any different than having "drinking buddies" or whatever? Do drinking buddies count as friends? Because about 20-30 of the people I consider friends are about on the level of "drinking buddy." What about the dozen or so people that I talk to daily in a guild in an MMO? Do they count as friends?

I'd personally say that right now, I have around 3-4 dozen friends currently. That being people that I hang out with on a near weekly basis, and prefer spending time with over other people.

My close friends are around 5-10 total, once again depending on wishy washy lines which are hard to define. In this case, mostly people who would mutually bend the fuck over backwards if necessary to help one another to a nearly limitless degree (and have done so in the past both ways), because we care that fucking much about each other. Two of which I've been friends with for my entire adult life. So I wouldn't say I'm undervaluing friendship but you're free to disagree.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

ChaosEngineer
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:16 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby ChaosEngineer » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:55 pm UTC

Randall has left out one very important element: the girl who rejects a guy, says "let's just be friends," then proceeds to endlessly complain to the guy who was interested in her about how the bad boy is constantly mistreating her.


That's not restricted to women is it?

I mean, everybody vents to their friends sometimes - about relationships, or jobs, or family, or whatever. A lot of the time they really like the thing they're complaining about; they just need to blow off steam.

Some people are chronic complainers; they'll tell you all the bad stuff that happens, but none of the good stuff.

And some people don't mind listening to chronic complainers, but other people find them exhausting and depressing.

If you don't like chronic complainers, then you can say something like, "How come you always come to me when you have a problem, but never come to me when you've got good news? It's exhausting and depressing!" If nothing changes, but you still like the person enough that you're willing to put up with all the complaining, then you can blow off steam by venting to your other friends. Or on the XKCD message boards, I guess. (Try not to overdo it.)

Anyway, the point of the strip is that foolish people won't do that. They'll just immediately take one or two bad experiences with chronic complainers and say "Members of Large Demographic X say they want something but they really want to have the opposite and then complain about it."

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby keithl » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:07 pm UTC

There are a lot of frustrated guys on this thread.

In the long term, sexual rejection is the best thing that can happen to you. In an ideal world, you will be rejected by everyone who is unsuited to be your life partner ... which is almost everyone on the planet. Rejection can help you learn to identify that life partner, if you are open to the lessons.

Science fiction writer Steve Barnes told me about his quest. He asked his wise female friends, whom he respected and whose excellent partner choices he admired, for advice about what he should learn and accomplish and change to be Mr. Right for the life partner he had not met yet. Not all the advice was applicable, but it was all worth pondering, and most centered around discovering and being true to who he really was. After a period of reflection, development, and mostly shedding behaviors that weren't really him anyway, he found the Ms. Right for whom he is Mr. Right, and has been incredibly happy.

It would have really sucked if he had instead been Mr. Desperate and had sex with Ms. Desperate, and instead of a life partnership, he ended up with an unplanned pregnancy and obligations instead of admiration and commitment. Imagine him looking only for reinforcement of his stereotypes, "Women are ..." fables, instead of learning about the vast landscape of human personality, and the true shape of his own, and of the person he will love the most.

If you are missing your target, change your attitude. If you aren't finding the girl/guy of your dreams, maybe you aren't ready yet. You can be if you make that a priority. If it takes you longer to get ready than most, perhaps it is because what you are preparing for is especially exceptional and precious.

I found my Ms. Right, eventually. Randall found his more quickly - he's smarter. Both of us may lose our partners before we can share as much life as we hope for. Fortunately, we are blessed to live in a time of wealth and health and peace, with prospects far better than our ancestors had, even when the prospects seem dire. Perhaps they had to make do with desperation; life was too short for optimization. We have more opportunities now.

And if you instead get stuck on your "women are ..." or "men are ..." stereotypes, eventually you will find yourself shackled to a person like that for the rest of your miserable life. Instead ... relax. Learn to admire the people around you, in all their quirkiness and variety. With the right attitude, the right one of them will admire YOU.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:20 pm UTC

drazen wrote:But you're usually getting an inferior friendship in this situation.

drazen wrote:I'm talking about dating here, not trying to hook up with your friends.

Wait what?

Well, that's officially the first I've ever heard of that among a friendzoner before. Forgive me for mistaking your argument for the overwhelming most common argument. You never specified you were referring to people who had already been dating. The vast overwhelming majority of times this argument comes up, it's because a guy asks a friend out on a date, then gets rejected by a girl who is not interested, and thus had never dated in the first place.

First off: Dating someone is not a promise of moving onto engagement and marriage. Dating is testing the waters. It's seeing how things work out. It's a no strings-attached, no-harm no-foul, end at any time thing. Until you are seeing each other steady or exclusively, it's just fucking dating, nothing more, nothing less. And no I don't owe you sex while we're dating.

I will note this: Of the people I've gone steady with, but broke up with later (a much more serious stage than dating then breaking up), two of them I'm still friends with. Both of which are in the 8+ years category of friendship category. We just didn't fucking have compatibility, and yet their still my oldest friends. That's not an inferior friendship.

That being said, there were also several people who weren't capable of coping with going back from dating to friends. And that makes me sad, because I do still value and cherish the memories of the friendship we had together, but we moved apart. It happens. That's why I'm more careful nowadays about who I date.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

armandoalvarez
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:39 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby armandoalvarez » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:21 pm UTC

My least favorite recurring XKCD format is the one exemplified by this comic: a jerk starts complaining and then Cueball cuts him off to tell him why his complaint is wrong and shows himself to be a jerk. Even when I agree with him (as I do in this and 95% of the cases) I don't find it as funny or informative as most XKCDs.

User avatar
blob
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:19 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby blob » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:24 pm UTC

Karilyn wrote:Every man I started dating I was friends with for over a year before I started dating him. Noting that that's still less than 5% of all men I've been friends with.

If friendzoners are expecting sex that fucking early in a friendship, no wonder they perceive every woman as friendzoning them. It's not like I'm going to date 95% of the men I've been friends with.

IMO waiting about a year of friendship before dating is a pretty good way to find out if you have compatibility, and is a good way to weed out friendzoners who are only interested in you for your potentiality to have sex with them.

You realize not everyone is you, right? There are plenty of men and women who never date close friends, but will instead date friends-of-friends or acquaintances, and many of them start relationships after a handful of dates with the right person.

They don't see it as "becoming friends with the hope of sex", they see it as dating which is pretty orthogonal to friendship. Just because your dating styles are incompatible doesn't make them "friend zoners".
Avatar yoinked from Inverloch.

"Unless ... unless they kill us, then animate our corpses as dead zombies to fight for them. Then I suppose they've taken our lives, AND our freedom."
- Elan, OOTS 421.

User avatar
EpicanicusStrikes
Random Boners = True Attraction
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:36 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby EpicanicusStrikes » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:26 pm UTC

Karilyn wrote:...it's just fucking dating... I don't owe you sex while we're dating.

Image
Clearly the beings of Oa and you have different definitions of those two terms.

We stand by our earlier decision.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addams, Uristqwerty and 102 guests