"The Science of the Friend Zone"

Post Reply New Topic

When I had watched this video, this forum was the first thing that came to mind. It may be worth a watch for some. Enjoy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGK2KprU-To[/youtube]

Quite a good video... worth watching!

I actually don't really like the term "Friend Zone," but this video looks at it from a new perspective.

it's interesting, if a little disjointed. not quite sure what his point is. he started off strong, then went off in a few different directions.

for one main point that he made fairly early on, if playing "aloof" was that easy of a fix, it would be a cinch for some aspies that tend to seem colder or more emotionally distant. alas, it doesn't seem to be the case. perhaps the point is to run hot and cold like a faucet, but that's just plain old gameplaying.

Very interesting clip. The main issue with the friend zone is not that you become someone's friend, but that you become someone's emotional tampon for a few days now and then when everyone else is fed up with her BS. Friends are people you exchange exercise tips with, go to concerts with, play video games with and so on—not someone you give all the bad parts of a relationship, but none of the good.

The guy in the video mentions Bateman's Principle as a possible explanation for the "friendzone" phenomenon. That's the biological principle that says that females of a species are choosier and less promiscuous than males because they have to spend more energy in reproduction and there are no benefits for females being promiscuous, unlike males. Meaning also that males end up having to compete. Trouble is, this principle is actually not true of most animals, not even mammals despite the fact that he says so in the video. I certainly don't think it's true in humans. Females can be promiscuous and in some species males can be choosy, directly contradicting Bateman's Principle.

Actually, in most mammals (even our cousins: The chimpanzees), the female initiates the mating in 80% of all cases. Men having the much harder role in dating is a modern phenomenon—but neither democracy nor feminism cared to battle this double standard.

If Bateman's peinciple was the only reason, then women would not have sex drive while they weren't ovulating.

Yep, in the animal world the male has to build the nest, dance the dance, sing the song and impress the female into choosing him.

I don't think we humans all that different in that regard.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIQqCDbgiAM&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

I really, really hope you didn't think I meant anything about female promiscuity. Not only did I not even allude to it, I don't know how what I wrote could even be construed as such unless you think I'm a totally different person than I actually am...

There's no classifying or predicting humans.... we're too dang random. Anything from mating for life to boinking anything that moves, from aggressive to nurturing, etc. I just thought the whole "mating dance" first-meeting thing was somewhat appropriate at the time.