a theory about jerks and the friendzone

Post Reply New Topic

Men mostly are in denial about their emotions, and women mostly are in denial about their sexuality. Studies show this to be the case.

http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/psychology_articles/men-women-emotions.html
(search for "more sensitive")

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34688685/ns/health-sexual_health/

...

Here's a little theory. Maybe men and women approach relationships differently. Lets say, as a general rule, that:

Women can never have too many friends, but only men who she finds attractive can ever hope to have a real relationship with her. The rest get friend-zoned.

Men can never have too many lovers, but only women he likes spending time with can ever hope to have a real relationship with him. The rest get screwed.

...

Am I on to something? Comments?

Men and women in general, are just plain wired different, and neither sex really understands the other. They also expect the other gender to be just like them, in which they aren't. That's why they have all of the problems they do.

Women are insecure and emotionally needy. They will be friends with anybody (including guys) that supply them those needs. They base attraction on how the guy makes them feel about themselves. The so called "nice guy" supplies them with some of their emotional needs, but he doesn't exactly stimulate and challenge them.


Guys on the other hand, are visual creatures, hard-wired to have to have sex and reproduce. Sure, they will sleep with a girl, if she stimulates them visually, and they might even spend a short time with them, but after awhile, the sexual attraction alone isn't enough, and they start searching for someone they are attracted to, and like spending time with.

When it comes down to it, both sexes are looking for the perfect mate that is most like themselves, but each takes a different road to get there.

I think that your theory seems as if it could be pretty much true. For a girl to want to date a guy, she first wants to get to know them and then she must find him attractive because otherwise he will just remain a friend. Girls and guys are just different in general and always want to know what the other is thinking. Guys seem to care more about the good looks first and then getting to know the person they are attracted to.

What I was trying to say is that, while we all want the same thing, each gender is careful with who they share their greatest vulnerability. That women are sexually vulnerable, and (contrary to popular belief) men are emotionally vulnerable.

My conclusion then, strategy-wise, is that... the higher standard is the bottleneck for a relationship.

Women should try to be friends with guys they're romantically interested in. If a guy gets to know you, he's likely to want a relationship with you if he trusts you and cares about you... even if you're not all that attractive.

For guys it's the reverse, if a woman wants to jump you, she'd probably go for a relationship even if you don't have a great personality... as evidenced by all the "jerks" that far too many women date, break up with, and date again.

Which I think is the reverse of what most bitter single people try to do, isn't it?

I'll disagree here. Some men are, but many men do acknowledge their emotions, they may simply have problems dealing/understanding with the extremely deep ones as those are infrequent and they've never been educated as to how to cope.

But they don't deny those emotions.



Seems kind of obvious.

In an ideal world, men would prefer to mate with as many women as possible. Not only is it fun, but there is a foundation in evolutionary biology. Again with an ideal world, a man would not want to form a long term relationship or even hang out with women he doesn't like.

If you don't have many lovers, then you don't have options and you pick the best of what limited options you do have. If you have many lovers, therefore many relationships, you'll pick the best.

I think I was saying the reverse. That girls are more selective on looks, and guys are more selective on personality.

, whereas for a guy to want a relationship with a girl, he wants to get to know her first.




Not what I meant. I meant that men are less aware of their emotions, just like women are less aware of their sexuality. It's there, they just don't notice or identify it as clearly. That said, men's fight-or-flight instinct runs stronger, but it makes them more vulnerable to emotional stress (with real health deterioration), which is why they are so keen to avoid "drama". This might also explain why men are so careful about who they share their heart with.



Except in harsh environments, where survival of the offspring is greatly affected by the presence of a second adult. Even in modern society children are noticeably more successful with two caretakers/providers (of any gender - study finds no difference in gay/lesbian couples).

Contraception and child support might be changing the rules of the game, too. Women can now "mate" with many men without getting pregnant, whereas men have to be very careful about pregnancy given that they're now liable for a minimum of 30% of their income for 18 years...



Or don't pick at all, which seems to happen a lot for both genders while they still have a lot of options. Then when they're old and ugly (men and women alike) and see the benefits of settling down, many discover that all their carefree dating experience doesn't convert to relationship skills.

Not necessarily....
women are attracted to guys that make them feel special. Sure looks might be the first thing they notice, but once you get to know someone its how they treat you and how they make u feel. I would rather be with someone who makes me feel like a princess but might not be the hottest guy in the world then someone who is very attractive but is a total jerk. And i think its the same way for guys. But thats just my opinion.

But at the same time, i've heard time and time again that women don't want to be put on a pedestal, and to be honest that makes sense.

I read somewhere that whatever a woman says she wants, she really wants the opposite.

Not true. When a woman says what she wants, it breaks down that 1/3 of the time she is telling the truth, 1/3 of the time she wants the opposite, and 1/3 of the time it's the null set (she is talking about one thing but hoping you will read her mind on an entirely different issue).
There is no way to tell the difference between the three states. Women engage in quantum conversation.

Goodness, whatever you read sure was wrong, wasn't it?


M.

I'm wondering if there are other guys like me out there...100% straight guys that have no desire, even in another life, to jump as many women as possible. I know my body wants to...it's obvious...but I'm in control of my body and am at a point where I just flat-out ignore whatever sex drive I have.

What I want is a woman that drives me crazy looks-wise, and from there, just someone who is good at conversation and I don't disagree with on too many things. If she even likes 20 to 30 percent of what I like, that's more than enough. She just can't be for example, hardcore into politics on either side, extremely religious, and stuff like that. Basically I'm looking for one woman I can't sleep without, not 100 women that I can have one night stands or friends with benefits relationships with.

Usually the women that say this are the same ones dating the good looking jerk. Maybe not in the poster's case, but women are much like myself (only they're women obviously) and want looks first...just like the OP said. The guy's who don't fit her idea of attractiveness are friend zoned.

I think you could be onto something - as a very broad generalization.

I think that among more open-minded people, there is an increase in women being in touch with their sexuality, and men being in touch with their emotions (something I have observed over the years).

That said, I have to wonder if I fit the pattern (for the sake of offering one example). I'm female. I'm as aware of my sexuality as I can be. Maybe more so than my emotions (could be an AS thing). I tend to be attracted to guys who are more in touch with their emotions than the average guy seems to be.

But, yes, I befriend any guy whose company I enjoy, regardless of whether or not I'm attracted to him. I would only consider a relationship with a guy who I really like as a friend. When I really like a guy, I try to go about things carefully, and try to take rejection well, so that we can be friends whether or not there is a mutual interest in a relationship.

Some guys don't seem to get this. Some act as if they think, "I told her I didn't want to be her bf so why is she still hanging around like we're supposed to be friends?" or "She rejected me, so why does she keep hanging around, acting like we're friends?" For some, it's just an emotional thing that they / we get over and adjust to and go on to be friends. As for the others, I tend to assume that I was wrong about the potential for friendship or anything. (I look for certain kinds of maturity people I want to be friends with, and that includes being able to overcome awkward phases in the friendship.) Yeah, I put friendship ahead of everything else. I wouldn't even want a casual lover who I didn't primarily like as a friend.

And, yes, there have been guys in my life who I thought of as friends until they got what they wanted and threw away the friendship. That really sucks, but, hey, they were showing their "true colors", and I don't want to offer my friendship-type loyalty to a guy who would treat someone like that.

I'm not sure if there are any cultural differences involved in this or if it's a basic human thing - a difference between the sexes if you choose to generalize.

I guess I'm a good example of a girl who confirms the pattern in some ways and defies it in others, just like most people probably do.

Yeah, I agree. It's all neurotic. I'm over it.

I'd guess that angle is more common than you may think. I want the same thing you do, although my standards are truly outrageous and 20-30% common interest would probably be a no-go (that is partially practical though because I suspect I'd run out of things to talk about pretty quick if that's all we had in common)... That said, common interest is not always immediately obvious, and I'd be inclined to give it a chance in that event just in case. I have a pretty refined, rock-solid wall of defense mechanisms in place in the event that things don't work out as planned.


On another note, in reference to the "friend zone" or whatever, if a girl were to put me up against your average sharp studly dude, he is likely to be better looking, more social, and easier to gauge/handle. I am likely to be smarter, deeper, funnier, and more complicated. If she values what that studly dude brings to the table more than what I bring (being that I am not horrendous looking and not entirely anti-social myself), then it is immediately clear that she is not the sort for me. It's that simple. No offense taken; to each her own. I'll put her ass in the friend zone