Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I sincerely doubt the conversation went along the lines of. "Hi there John (Doe), you suck and a loser and you disgust me and I reject you, scumbag!"

I imagine it would have been more like: "Hey there John, what's up *polite chat*. I was just wanting to check something with you, to make sure we're both on the same page. We're just mates right? You know that, right? It's not gonna be anything else..."

 friendlycommissar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I had a talk with one of may gal pals about this. We both wanted to make sure neither of us was 'on the hook' for each other and not expecting anything and clear on our friendship. She did feel she has another friend (who I call Beartrap, because he always asks her out on ambiguous non-dates and tries to trap her into a date like a bear trap) and he doesn't get the hint. After this event, she called him and was straight forward and made clear he knew what their relationship was. He was upset and lashed out. They are no longer friends. He felt entitled to her and thought if he kept putting tokens in, eventually she would be his. He is probably not dangerous, but his attitude can become dangerous if left to fester long enough.

Wait. So this gal pal of yours has another male friend, and she called him up out of the blue to make it clear to him that he was only a friend to her and that he had no chance with her?

And he got upset? He got angry?

How exactly was he supposed to feel? He's sitting there, minding his own business, and one of his friends calls him up out of the blue to make it clear she rejects him, and...seriously, how is he supposed to feel other than upset and hurt? That was really mean (and arrogant!) thing to do!

What the hell is wrong with people?

He was supposed to say, "Oh, We are just friends... I take you out to lunch one a week because we are friends, not because I am secretly in love with you and feel like ambiguous friend dates would wear you down."

See, if you are legitimately friends with someone and doing things for/with someone because they are your friend and you are not entitled to 'other stuff' then it isn't offensive. Real friends would welcome the discussion and not take it personally.

If he has been legitimately lying to her about his intentions, putting 'nice guy tokens' in the machine and tricking her into 'dates' under the guise of friendship, then he is on the same path as this crazy person. She never promised him more but yet he feels entitled to more. If he is 'upset' then the issue is his. Clarifying your relationship is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, especially if someone might have the wrong idea, and we have a shining example of what 'wrong ideas' can lead to. The only people who could possibly take offense are people who are liars and not real friends...

Why should a female be blamed and insulted for making sure she is not 'leading on' an unfortunate soul. If people like you want to 'blame women' for leading on nice guys and say they are the problem, you can't then blame them for confronting 'nice guys' to make sure she is not leading him on. If he is really just a friend, and has no expectations or entitlement to sex/relationship, then there would be no problem with clarifying friendships and going out for lunch Wednesday.

 daedalus wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.

The former is something I've seen depressingly often. I know a female friend who dated a guy who pressured her into a threesome she really didn't want to happen. She'll probably be in that relationship until he leaves her. There was a woman I called the cops for who's boyfriend was abusive and bite her on the face because she was out too late. I was up until about 3 am dealing with that with the cops. She never actually followed through with pressing charges and went to the cops. A girl I dated told me once that women would probably cheat on their boyfriends/husbands with a coworker if they were hassled enough by that person to do so. My sister is not allowed to see the rest of her family more than a couple days out of the year by her boyfriend who we think is abusive, but don't have proof. I'm lucky to get a half drunk email once a month, usually at 3 am, with vague details about how everything sucks but lacking specifics.

It appears to be a trend, at least, in the anecdotes I've been given. I think people are just broken and flawed in a broken and flawed world where such things are allowed to continue, but I'm not sure how to make things better.

Well, I think the foremost way is to have good relationships ourselves, then talk to people we know when it's appropriate and help them have good relationships too. Those are probably the surest ways to do it. And then we can talk to other people we don't know so well about it if it's appropriate, too.

You should probably look into your sister's situation if you can. Cutting the target off from their support network is a classic abuse technique. It could be something totally innocent but you should make sure.

 friendlycommissar wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.

Seriously? Do a web search for the phrase "male tears." It's one of their catchphrases, which they use to dismiss any discussion of issues like male suicide or facts like men are twice as likely as women to be victims of violence, and nearly as likely to be victims of sexual violence. These same feminists proudly call themselves misandrist, claiming it's "satirical."

Furthermore, a lot of feminist theory is based on what are essentially misandrist principles. It's based on the idea that male sexuality is fundamentally aggressive and damaging of women, and that men are essentially incapable of love, only domination and power over women. It sees all male action through a lens of domination and oppression, while completely dismissing women's complicity in the creation of femininity, which makes all men suspect and all fears justified. Basically the fundamental assumptions of feminism only make sense to people who fundamentally dislike men.

Okay, I hadn't known about this male tears thing but I googled it and the top result was a tumblr page full of images that are quite funny. Thanks!

Feminism is about equality between women and men. I don't think you should read too much into that and suspect you're operating under some flawed assumptions about what feminism is, possibly supported by out of context quotes from second wave feminism in particular. Don't do that! Feminism is nice and you should be a feminist too.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


Feminism is about equality between women and men. I don't think you should read too much into that and suspect you're operating under some flawed assumptions about what feminism is, possibly supported by out of context quotes from second wave feminism in particular. Don't do that! Feminism is nice and you should be a feminist too.

Yeah, A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. I would consider myself a feminist and I am male. One of the best ways men can support women is realizing and checking their 'male privilege'. To deny life is generally easier for men and we get advantages in every day situations, perpetuates that advantage. It isn't about tearing down men, simply not artificially elevating them (which is what happens in society today).

Everyone should be a humanist, not a feminist. Wider scope.

nkelsch wrote:
See, if you are legitimately friends with someone and doing things for/with someone because they are your friend and you are not entitled to 'other stuff' then it isn't offensive. Real friends would welcome the discussion and not take it personally.

No! Who told you this? This is nonsense. If you call someone up out of the blue and explain to them that you don't want to date them ever, they're going to be hurt and offended -- even if they didn't want to date you! It's mean and it's hurtful. Nobody wants to hear "You're not good enough for me." Even if they know its true, it still hurts to hear it. And it's really arrogant to preemptively tell someone who hasn't asked you out that you reject them.

Blindsiding people with hurtful things in an arrogant way is a really effective way to anger most people. Anger is a perfectly normal reaction to that. That your friend got an angry reaction when she called up this other guy only proves that she's a self-absorbed jerk.

 friendlycommissar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I had a talk with one of may gal pals about this. We both wanted to make sure neither of us was 'on the hook' for each other and not expecting anything and clear on our friendship. She did feel she has another friend (who I call Beartrap, because he always asks her out on ambiguous non-dates and tries to trap her into a date like a bear trap) and he doesn't get the hint. After this event, she called him and was straight forward and made clear he knew what their relationship was. He was upset and lashed out. They are no longer friends. He felt entitled to her and thought if he kept putting tokens in, eventually she would be his. He is probably not dangerous, but his attitude can become dangerous if left to fester long enough.

Wait. So this gal pal of yours has another male friend, and she called him up out of the blue to make it clear to him that he was only a friend to her and that he had no chance with her?

And he got upset? He got angry?

How exactly was he supposed to feel? He's sitting there, minding his own business, and one of his friends calls him up out of the blue to make it clear she rejects him, and...seriously, how is he supposed to feel other than upset and hurt? That was really mean (and arrogant!) thing to do!

you arent exactly endearing yourself here y'knnow

 Sigvatr wrote:
Everyone should be a humanist, not a feminist. Wider scope.

Humanism has nothing to do with civil rights and is making zero efforts to make changes for it. It does not encompass feminism and is not about civil rights equality. While you could 'imply' that humanism which is about living ethical lives with non-thiest beliefs would include 'civil rights' it is not a core tenant of humanism. Ideally it would be... if the belief system of humanism was followed to the letter... but with all human belief systems it is abused and neglected for personal advantage and becomes diluted in scope and impact.

So yeah, I would rather be a feminist.

Do you believe it wrong to continue being friends after you have asked a girl out and she has given a neutral response(being friends before you asked her out)?
Also, in the whole spirit of double standards, I believe we have yet to discuss the equivalent of the friend zone through the other gender's perspective.

 friendlycommissar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
See, if you are legitimately friends with someone and doing things for/with someone because they are your friend and you are not entitled to 'other stuff' then it isn't offensive. Real friends would welcome the discussion and not take it personally.

No! Who told you this? This is nonsense. If you call someone up out of the blue and explain to them that you don't want to date them ever, they're going to be hurt and offended -- even if they didn't want to date you! It's mean and it's hurtful. Nobody wants to hear "You're not good enough for me." Even if they know its true, it still hurts to hear it. And it's really arrogant to preemptively tell someone who hasn't asked you out that you reject them.

Blindsiding people with hurtful things in an arrogant way is a really effective way to anger most people. Anger is a perfectly normal reaction to that. That your friend got an angry reaction when she called up this other guy only proves that she's a self-absorbed jerk.

You are disturbing... You seem to think that relationships are a single 2 dimensional scale. Just because someone doesn't want to date you isn't about 'being good enough'. It is not arrogant or pre-preemptive when he is frequently continuing with ambiguous non-dates and there is an awkward hint of 'wanting more'.

If someone is 'hurt' due to honesty, then the person being hurt has the problem, not the person being honest. Why is it ok for this guy to be a filthy liar and attempt to defraud his friend with hidden intentions but yet SHE is at fault for being honest, clearing the air and protecting herself. And a mass shooting from a 'nice guy' is a perfect time to clean up loose ends like this.

Making sure that a dude which has been taking you on non-dates for weeks understand that they are just friends and that she doesn't want to continue unless they are on the same page is being HONEST and the furthest thing from being a jerk. Know who the jerk is? the liar hides his intentions and who objectifies women by pumping nice guy tokens into a woman hoping that he can pull a George Costanza and end up with a girlfriend or sex.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.

You aren't looking very hard then. It may have died down to be a little more subtle, but sexism against men is still horrifically common(as in the kind that believes men need to get torn down to uplift women's status)

While I agree that there is likely plenty of sexism against men, I think it is usually not done by, or on behalf of, feminists.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Well, I think the foremost way is to have good relationships ourselves, then talk to people we know when it's appropriate and help them have good relationships too. Those are probably the surest ways to do it. And then we can talk to other people we don't know so well about it if it's appropriate, too.

You should probably look into your sister's situation if you can. Cutting the target off from their support network is a classic abuse technique. It could be something totally innocent but you should make sure.

Yeah, I'm more than familiar. That's what throws up the warning signs. We're all going to be together next weekend. I intend on there being a long talk about what the deal is. My sister and I never really got along, but fethed if things are going to turn out like that. Hurting people is wrong.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Feminism is about equality between women and men. I don't think you should read too much into that and suspect you're operating under some flawed assumptions about what feminism is, possibly supported by out of context quotes from second wave feminism in particular. Don't do that! Feminism is nice and you should be a feminist too.

No, that's a simplistic and ridiculous definition of feminism that attempt to make feminism into something which cannot be criticized. I minored in women's studies in college. I was involved in feminist activism for decades. I'm willing to bet I have read far more feminist literature than you have, and that your understanding of feminism comes from web blogs and forum conversations. You have no idea how truly insane feminist theory is at its core. Feminism is not about equality. It's about justifying a sense of outrage and victimization, and demanding special, privileged treatment from imagined slights. Its about demonizing men and justifying some women's insecurities and fears, and blaming men for the rest.

The third wave of feminism is lie, its no different than second wave. They cite the same authors, the same studies, the same bad statistics. The only difference is the influence of Michel Foucault and his theories about the nature of truth. Foucault believed that was is true is not based on fact, but on the ideological goals of the ruling elite. Feminists took this as permission to distort facts and falsify their agenda in the name of achieving a vaguely defined notion of equality, but it quickly became a set of rationales and justifications for a host of neurotic fears and barely suppressed anger.

Feminism is not an answer, it's an ideology. It serves no purpose but to justify its own existence and increase its influence.

I'm just trying to think of what my reaction to this situation would be. Back in my uni days, there was a girl in my group of friends I had a crush on - as did the rest of my male uni friends - and although I never actually *did* anything about it, it works for the scenario.


To be honest, if she had said come up to me and said something.. My reaction would probably be, well, embarrassed, probably find it very odd (these talks aren't common after all), I imagine sad as well. The phrase, "oh, okay then." Comes to mind.

But actual anger? Heck no. Truth be told, it probably would have been a good thing for all concerned. For one thing, I'm still friends with her and my uni group now, 10 years later and I could still have been comfortable friends with her 10 years ago, except I'd have still been at uni where there were plenty of girls looking for dating, that weren't in my circle of friends.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Do you believe it wrong to continue being friends after you have asked a girl out and she has given a neutral response(being friends before you asked her out)?
Also, in the whole spirit of double standards, I believe we have yet to discuss the equivalent of the friend zone through the other gender's perspective.

'Friend Zone' implies one of the two friends is only friends because they can't get more. On the other end, it is called 'keeping someone on the hook' when you intentionally keep someone in the friend zone and accept their 'friendship favors' because you feel like maybe eventually dating them once you have done what you needed. Both are relationships founded on lies on both sides which have a 'friendship' which is based on secret agendas and cause more hurt later.

I am not in 'the friend zone' with my actual friends... I call those people 'friends'. If you are in 'the friend zone' it basically means you harbor feelings, but are so obsessed with a person you would rather a friendship based on a lie than be honest and end the friendship and move on or respect them enough to not expect 'payment' for your friendship.

nkelsch wrote:
You are disturbing... You seem to think that relationships are a single 2 dimensional scale. Just because someone doesn't want to date you isn't about 'being good enough'. It is not arrogant or pre-preemptive when he is frequently continuing with ambiguous non-dates and there is an awkward hint of 'wanting more'.

Please don't call me "disturbing," that's really unfair. You are constructing a straw man. I have made my position very clear: Calling people up out of the blue and provoking a conversation with them as an excuse to tell them that you don't consider them good enough to date you is mean. Rejection hurts. it's painful. If I called up any of the women I know who has a crush on me just to let them know that I don't consider them to have any potential beyond being friends, they would be hurt and angry and call me an donkey-cave. And they'd be right!

You can demonize this guy all you want, but it's all just speculation and justification for her actions. You're white knighting her, and she's already told you that she's not going to sleep with you.

 friendlycommissar wrote:


Feminism is not an answer, it's an ideology. It serves no purpose but to justify its own existence and increase its influence.

Civil rights are just a fad...?

No... your posts disturbs me.

 Compel wrote:
To be honest, if she had said come up to me and said something.. My reaction would probably be, well, embarrassed, probably find it very odd (these talks aren't common after all), I imagine sad as well. The phrase, "oh, okay then." Comes to mind.

That is definitely a in-person conversation to have. A phone call is very impersonal and dismissive, especially out of the blue. It can be much more jarring.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
I was involved in feminist activism for decades.

Who would have guessed?
So, then you can give us hindsight of the terrible feminist conspiracy .

 friendlycommissar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
You are disturbing... You seem to think that relationships are a single 2 dimensional scale. Just because someone doesn't want to date you isn't about 'being good enough'. It is not arrogant or pre-preemptive when he is frequently continuing with ambiguous non-dates and there is an awkward hint of 'wanting more'.

Please don't call me "disturbing," that's really unfair. You are constructing a straw man. I have made my position very clear: Calling people up out of the blue and provoking a conversation with them as an excuse to tell them that you don't consider them good enough to date you is mean. Rejection hurts. it's painful. If I called up any of the women I know who has a crush on me just to let them know that I don't consider them to have any potential beyond being friends, they would be hurt and angry and call me an donkey-cave. And they'd be right!

You can demonize this guy all you want, but it's all just speculation and justification for her actions. You're white knighting her, and she's already told you that she's not going to sleep with you.

You would be an A-hole because you keep those women 'on the hook' by knowing they have intentions in their friendships with you, you clearly know it and continue to take their attention. That is called leading them on. Being honest with someone you know has a 'crush' on you is not being an donkey-cave. Sometimes honesty, even in the form of a rejection is the best thing for people.

I do like how you can't even accept I have a friend who is a female who I don't want to sleep with... You try to imply I am still trying to pump her full of nice guy tokens and not have a genuine friendship by agreeing with her attitude and actions 'even though she doesn't want to sleep with me'.

Your posts seem very misogynistic.

So this guy can't get laid, so instead of changing up his game, he blames everyone else?
If sex were so important to him, he would get it from anywhere. however, he mentions going to the sorority that has the most attractive women. It sounds to me like he thought he was out of his own league and started asking out women that were 9's and up. young women at college age want to have fun, and this little prick is so pompous and creepy that even if he was an Adonis, they would still steer clear of him.

nkelsch wrote:

 friendlycommissar wrote:


Feminism is not an answer, it's an ideology. It serves no purpose but to justify its own existence and increase its influence.

Civil rights are just a fad...?

What a complete and total non-sequitor you have discovered. Feminism has nothing to do with civil rights -- it might have at one point, but women have the exact same rights men do.

No... your posts disturbs me.

Straight out of the catalog of Feminist Shaming Tactics:

Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) – The Elevated Threat Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target. Examples:

“You guys are scary.”
“You make me feel afraid.”
Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man’s legitimate freedom of expression.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
You're white knighting her, and she's already told you that she's not going to sleep with you.

What? What the bloody hell are you saying? I mean, you could have accused him of being partial to his friend's side of the story, but why did you felt the need to pretend he was doing this for sex? I mean, he explicitly said that he was not looking for that either. Can you not imagine friendly relation between a man and a woman that are not based on wanting to have sex with each other? Really?

 friendlycommissar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 friendlycommissar wrote:


Feminism is not an answer, it's an ideology. It serves no purpose but to justify its own existence and increase its influence.

Civil rights are just a fad...?

What a complete and total non-sequitor you have discovered. Feminism has nothing to do with civil rights -- it might have at one point, but women have the exact same rights men do.

Right... and African Americans also have the same rights as whites so discrimination doesn't exist anymore since a law was passed.

Simply having laws which declared equality and everyone equal means that there are no issues in our social fabric in regards to discrimination which still need to be addressed.

Your posts seem to state that there is no discrimination against women, so no need for civil rights for women? Problem solved? What a bigoted stance to pretend active inequity doesn't still exist every day in our society.

nkelsch wrote:
You would be an A-hole because you keep those women 'on the hook' by knowing they have intentions in their friendships with you, you clearly know it and continue to take their attention. That is called leading them on. Being honest with someone you know has a 'crush' on you is not being an donkey-cave. Sometimes honesty, even in the form of a rejection is the best thing for people.

Holy gak, so if I friendzone a woman and they get pissed, I'm an donkey-cave? But if a woman friendzone's a man and they get pissed, he's the donkey-cave? You are a real piece of work.

Your posts seem very misogynistic.

Ooooh, code black!

Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)

Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples:

“You misogynist creep!”
“Why do you hate women?”
“Do you love your mother?”
“You are insensitive to the plight of women.”
“You are mean-spirited.”
“You view women as doormats.”
“You want to roll back the rights of women!!”
“You are going to make me cry.”
Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are “not a zero-sum game”). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target’s viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of “argumentum ad misericordiam” (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or “argumentum in terrorem” (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).

I should get out my Bingo card, you're going to hit every spot.

A friend of mine in Uni dated her cannabis dealer for the better part of two years...

It ended in Court after he'd assaulted her and trashed her room.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 friendlycommissar wrote:
You're white knighting her, and she's already told you that she's not going to sleep with you.

What? What the bloody hell are you saying? I mean, you could have accused him of being partial to his friend's side of the story, but why did you felt the need to pretend he was doing this for sex? I mean, he explicitly said that he was not looking for that either. Can you not imagine friendly relation between a man and a woman that are not based on wanting to have sex with each other? Really?

Typically the assumption is that a man white knights for a woman because he thinks it will make her sleep with him. I was just making a joke. My point was that he is white knighting and already knows its pointless.

Of course I can imagine a friendly relationship between a man and a woman that are not based on wanting to have sex with each other. Don't be a jackass.

 friendlycommissar wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
You would be an A-hole because you keep those women 'on the hook' by knowing they have intentions in their friendships with you, you clearly know it and continue to take their attention. That is called leading them on. Being honest with someone you know has a 'crush' on you is not being an donkey-cave. Sometimes honesty, even in the form of a rejection is the best thing for people.

Holy gak, so if I friendzone a woman and they get pissed, I'm an donkey-cave? But if a woman friendzone's a man and they get pissed, he's the donkey-cave? You are a real piece of work.

Yes... socially well-adjusted people call those people 'friends'.

People who put others or keep themselves in 'friend zones' are often liars, selfish and have issues they need to work out. They are actively lying to their so-called friend in order to try to manipulate them and avoid an honest relationship. (either declaring your intentions and accepting the outcome, or knowing someone has feelings and exploiting that by taking their attention to lead them on)

The rest of us simply are honest, and call them friends. No zone involved. People who can't handle that are purged from our lives because they are not mature enough to have legitimate friendships with people of the opposite gender.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
Typically the assumption is that a man white knights for a woman because he thinks it will make her sleep with him.

Yeah, I know, that is why I made my comment.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
I was just making a joke.

It hardly seemed out of tone with the rest of your posts, so that is why I did not understand it was actually a joke.

I think the difference is, the fact of being aware.

Generally speaking, the person doing it may know they're 'putting the tokens in' while the... machine... may be completely clueless. (For example, I'm pretty sure the girl in my example genuinely had no idea).

In which case, it's the active persons responsibility to say, 'hold up, this isn't cool, I'm not being honest with this person. I should either stop or say something, and then if it's not what I want to hear, stop.'

Alternatively, if someone is doing the, I'm gonna call it 'pining' because I don't know a better word... and the recipient is actually aware of this pining and that it isn't just 'hanging out with a mate,' then, as a good person, they should try to clear the air.