What Happens Next: A Gallimaufry

melancholic romantic comic cynic. bi & genderqueer. fantasy writer. sysrae on ao3.

Anonymous asked: To the extent that some guys think 'if you're nice enough long enough you get sex' your friendzoning piece makes perfect sense. I think we both agree there are many misguided lonely guys out there. I feel that in some cases there is more to this idea though. I think some women & men use friendly/flirty behavior to control wannabe lovers. Not wanting sex is perfectly understandable and a right. What about showing just enough interest to keep someone around and get what you want from them though?

Undeniably, there are people in the world who emotionally manipulate others for their own gain, whether actively or subconsciously (in the sense that they’ve either assumed or been taught that such behaviour is normal, acceptable, proper). This is a genderless trait, in that people of all genders do it across a broad spectrum of severity and frequency and for various different reasons; however, in terms of our social tolerance or intolerance for such behaviour - and particularly in the context of friendzoning - I think it’s important to recognise how poorly women are viewed in comparison to men. 

For instance: not only do we consider it culturally normative to see attractive young women paired with wealthy older men, but we also expect to a certain extent that such men will cheat on their partners, or at the very least be regularly exposed to flattery and attention from other, similarly young and attractive women. I don’t say this because I believe all men are inherently like this: I say it because it’s a cultural stereotype, and one we tend to view with an unhelpful, if not outright toxic amount of boys-will-be-boys indulgence. However statistically uncommon it might actually be, such behaviour is highly visible and frequently taken for granted. The opposite scenarios, however - wealthy women with younger men, and successful women who cheat on their partners - are not only far less visible in terms of cultural acceptance, but are also viewed with a combination of derision, mockery and disgust. A powerful man who cheats is only doing what’s normal; a powerful woman who cheats is a morally suspect harlot. There is no slang term for a confident, successful older man who actively seeks out younger women; or at least, there are terms that apply in instances where the behaviour is deemed to be creepy or predatory, but it’s important that the language itself actively distinguishes such negative instances as separate phenomena rather than lumping everything together, regardless of context. The only possible exception is the term sugar daddy, but even this is affectionate: sugar daddies are idolised as powerful, but any woman who has one opens herself up for scorn.

By contrast, confident older women who prefer younger men are all labelled identically: they are cougars, a term which manages both to be mocking in usage while simultaneously conveying a deliberate sense of predation. Yet women also loose out when it comes to their pairings with older men. They’re trophy wives or girlfriends - terms which flatter their partners while demeaning them - or gold-diggers, or arm candy. Regardless of whether women are the ones choosing or being chosen, our language - and, as a consequence, our culture - paints them badly. Older women are pitiable and predatory; young women are whores and users. We cannot win.

How, then, does this matter to friendzoning? Because culturally, men are being sent two very strong, very negative messages as regards their interactions with women: that providing for the woman you want - regardless of how she might actually feel about you - is a means of denoting possession (the sugar daddy approach); and that, because the primary means of female repayment for such benevolence is to be seen with the provider (the arm candy reward), then any woman who accepts what the man provides for her, simply by virtue of remaining in his presence, must be agreeing to this contract.

It doesn’t matter that most men probably never stop and think about their actions in this context, because the relationship balance is one they’ve learned subconsciously. But what it boils down to is this: that lavishing time and attention on a woman somehow fundamentally entitles a man to lay greater claim to her, and that any refusal on her part is tantamount to breaking a social contract. And this very quickly becomes problematic, because despite the stereotype of women as arm-candy, the vast majority of women don’t approach men with this logic in mind. In all probability, a mistaken belief in the tacit universality of this contract is probably why so many men never openly declare their affections for the girl they subsequently accuse of having friendzoned them: in their minds, the contract was sealed the minute she first accepted, however unwittingly, whatever extra service they extended her as means of indicating their interest. But of course, to someone who isn’t thinking along such sexist, contractual lines - who assumes that an offer to drive them somewhere or spot them lunch (for instance) is simply a display of genuine friendship - then accepting it carries no sexual or romantic connotations at all; and because it’s viewed essentially as a gift, it carries no implication of reciprosity, either.

Men who actively string women along are called players, womanisers, ladies’ men; their behaviour is lionised at least as often as it’s censured, and frequently more so. Women who actively string men along are called sluts, whores, bitches, users, and any other purely negative or gendered slur you’d care to name. Men are taught that playing the field, cheating or dallying with multiple female partners will bring them social acclaim; they might cop some consequences for it, but ultimately their behaviour will be normalised as a natural consequence of male rambunctiousness, virility and passion. Women are taught that the same behaviour makes them dirty, worthless and cheap; that it fundamentally undermines both their femininity and their womanhood; that saying no to men who want them is improper and rude; and that choosing younger men, or multiple men, will see them utterly mocked and ridiculed - but that actively using their charms on men, while still an action to see them vilified, is just stereotypical enough to pass as normative, with the added bonus that they might actually get something out of it. And while I’m not defending that behaviour or passing judgement on how often it might actually happen, the social assumption that it does occur is usually enough to see women accused of doing it simply because they’re women, regardless of whether or not they actually were.

And this is why friendzoning is so toxic: it endeavours to justify the actions of men while vilifying the reactions of women. Culturally, we don’t like it when women say no, and our first thought about women who do is often that they’re being either irrational or deliberately exploitative. When men string women along - or are perceived to string women along - we blame the women for having been taken in: you trusted him, you asked for it, you shouldn’t have expected anything different. But when women string men along - or are perceived to string men along - they're still the ones who get blamed: you should’ve been clearer, you should’ve known, you should’ve taken more care not to hurt him. It’s a vicious double standard, and one that friendzoning as a terminology ultimately serves to enforce - which is why, to answer your question, just using people sans sex is not only still a problem, but one which also reflects the same cultural gender bias in question.

  1. fozmeadows posted this