Need some serious female advice

[Wakeup]

We will never agree on this Sea and I will never believe that you never had attraction of some sort to the man you are with now that started out being just a friend. There is a friend zone and if you had actually put your bf into that category, you'd never have gotten with him the way you have now.

So.. that's it I guess. See you in the next thread.

[searock]

It's ok if you don't believe me, I just wanted to point out that it's quite irrational to hang on to a theory even when it would be so much easier to let it go, when presented with contrary evidence or anyway with evidence that forces you to use convoluted and improbable explanations (such as "you were subconsciously attracted to him, you just don't know it! And the same thing goes for the several other guys you mentioned") in order to make everything "fit"... anyway, it's ok .

[Wakeup]

It would be just as easy for you to accept that there is a friend zone and that you did not put your bf on it when you became his friend. You have friends that you've put in the friend zone and you've had friends that you have not which turned into a romance. It's quite simple, really.

I haven't been presented with any "evidence" that it doesn't exist... only evidence that it does.

So I shall go on telling men that they've been friend zoned and introducing them to the Ladder Theory so that they can untangle themselves from women that they want romantically but will never have because.... wait for it... they've been placed on the friends ladder never to be re-assigned to the "potential ladder."

[searock]

See, the thing is, I don't need to invent or use any convoluted theory of attraction when I can see first-hand what happens, and it's pretty straightforward in its lack of rules. I know that attraction can develop over time, rather than having to be there from the start or not ever being there at all. I know that when I meet a new guy, I don't immediately categorize them as "just friends, never anything more" or "potential sexual partner". I know that a guy that I find attractive now, I may not find attractive later on, and vice versa I know that a guy I do not find attractive now, I may find attractive later on. Why would I need to accept a theory that does not resonate with facts?

[michelle23]

Uh god! If any man is friends with a girl (unless she looks like his overweight brother) then he either wants to sleep with her or is secretly in love with her.. I dono y people keep having this argument. Its basic common sense

Girls friend zone guys who are gay, too nice, geeky or ugly.. but the dude wants her

Just copy and paste this in future to save us all a bunch if time.

Thanks

[searock]

[KingZ]

This is how I feel talking to you about objective morality.

[searock]

LOL fair enough, but in that case it's just a matter of personal opinion .

[KingZ]

objective morality

it's just a matter of personal opinion

[Wakeup]

See, the thing is, I don't need to invent or use any convoluted theory of attraction when I can see first-hand what happens, and it's pretty straightforward in its lack of rules. I know that attraction can develop over time, rather than having to be there from the start or not ever being there at all.

Yes, attraction can develop over time if you haven't "friendzoned" him.

I know that when I meet a new guy, I don't immediately categorize them as "just friends, never anything more" or "potential sexual partner".

We've discussed this. What you do is you catagorize him subconsciously and, as you get to know him he may or may not be permanently friend zoned.

I know that a guy that I find attractive now, I may not find attractive later on, and vice

Yes, that's the nub of dating ~ as you discover one another even though you were attracted on some level, you've found that other non-attractive traits break the deal.. That's common and we totally agree there.

I know that a guy I do not find attractive now, I may find attractive later on.

Yes, the one's you haven't friend zoned.

]Why would I need to accept a theory that does not resonate with facts

You are a living fact that it exists.

You say tomAto and I say Tomato.

[searock]

Oh come on, you know what I meant: it's a matter of personal opinion whether to believe in the existence of objective morality or not. Both choices work without having to take giant leaps of faith or denying evidence and so on.

Wakeup, we aren't saying the same thing. I DID put him (and others) in the "friendzone" (according to your terminology), and then with time I actually started to find them attractive. It's frustrating that you'd rather not trust my word and first-hand recollections than to admit that the theory is, at best, flawed.

- - - Updated - - -

What you do is you catagorize him subconsciously and, as you get to know him he may or may not be permanently friend zoned.

Ah, here we go. You admit that "friendzoning" isn't a permanent thing. Ok.

[Wakeup]

your still not getting it. As ive said a few times now. Once you have friendzoned someone, then they are permanently friendzoned.

[searock]

That isn't what happens though. I know you don't believe me so let's just stop .

[KingZ]

Oh come on, you know what I meant: it's a matter of personal opinion whether to believe in the existence of objective morality or not. Both choices work without having to take giant leaps of faith or denying evidence and so on.

That's not an opinion, that's a choice. The existence is there whether you accept it or not.

I shouldn't over-encumber your poor little esprit with more arguments per thread than you can handle, so—

your still not getting it. As ive said a few times now. Once you have friendzoned someone, then they are permanently friendzoned.

OK, fine. Let's say a permanent "friend zone" exists. In that case, I have a few questions:

1) A man has a big boob fetish. He meets a woman at work, but she's always wearing baggy clothes, no make-up, and a sports bra. He has no interest. She is "friend zoned". Then, one day, she shows up to work wearing make-up, with a push-up bra, and has breast implants. He feels some excitement in his pants. Was she in the permanent friend zone?

2) A woman has a male friend. She decides she doesn't like him on account of some personality flaws. Then, one day, he has a mild car accident and suffers a severe concussion which results in him having some personality changes that do, inherently, fix the flaws. She becomes attracted to him. Was he in the permanent friend zone?

3) Person A only has the hots for musicians. Person B is not a musician. Person B is in Person A's friend zone. Person B learns to play an instrument. Person A is now attracted. Was Person B in the permanent friend zone?

This is between you and me now.

[searock]

That's not an opinion, that's a choice. The existence is there whether you accept it or not.

Ok, it's a personal choice then... They both exist as theories and it's a matter of personal preference whether to "believe" in one or the other. Within themselves, they both make sense.