Emerald

I'd say that it's pretty safe to say that most psychologically healthy people don't enjoy being punished and physically smacked by their significant other in any kind of real way. Psychologically healthy people don't like to be physically dominated or controlled by their partner in the context of non-sexual life. They may enjoy it in the context of sex because you're playing around with the lower nature, which works very differently than the higher nature. This is what BDSM is. It's people who are indulging in and playing with the power dynamics of the lower nature in a safe and consensual context. But to take those power dynamics outside of the bedroom is just really unappealing in reality... especially from the female perspective. So, spanking a woman when she disobeys your whims in real life is just violent, regressive, and completely un-sexy. It's a quick way to lose a woman with any shred of self-esteem. Have you ever had a serious significant other and then try to spank them in a real way? I suspect not. I suspect that the idea of punishing a woman who gets mean with you is probably a fantasy of yours. Many men feel like women are aggressors because they are of the thought that women are holders of their sexual value... and by extension their actual value. So, it makes sense that sex, dominance, and punishment would play out in the context of some male fantasies. Because it is both sex and revenge bundled together in one package, that's topped off by an affirmation of your own dominance and desirability. Then if she eventually enjoys it, it hits even more psycho-sexual buttons because that means that she's come to learn to enjoy her subservience to you. So, I recommend keeping the lower nature in the bedroom, and to play these fantasies out with a woman who shares the reciprocal fantasy. But when you bring the lower nature out of the bedroom, it will wreak havoc on your life. Think of the lower nature like a lion, and the higher nature like a lion tamer. Everyone's lion is very animalistic and primal, and has appetites that are less than socially acceptable. The lion represents all of our baser instincts like sex. The lion tamer is the higher nature, which in healthy people has strong principles and ideals and is skilled at taming and controlling the lion. The mistake that I see people make is to believe that the lion itself is sexy. So, they want to let the lion lead. But the untamed lion is not sexy. The lion by itself is just scary and destructive. But with a skilled lion tamer, the two of them become very appealing. This is why women generally enjoy being with man with a dominant and aggressive vibe in the bedroom, but prefer a warmhearted gentleman in almost all other contexts. They are attracted to the lion tamer and his ability to control the lion. So, a man who is aggressive and sexual all the time is just not sexy. Because it seems like the lion tamer is just unskilled at taming his lion.

Is this a tongue in cheek kind of play like "You deserve this!" Or is it a serious thing where you want to spank a woman when she does something that you don't like as a legitimate form of punishment? If it's the former, then it's probably a fun and playful sexual experience that enhances whatever other erotic thing that the two partners are engaging in. So, she probably enjoys it if she chooses to engage in it. Small amounts of pain can feel good in that context. Also, spanking tends to mimic the sensation of a man's hips banging up against her in doggy-style sex and it makes blood flow to that area. So, if she likes it then it probably makes her feel turned on, naughty, and submissive. Some women may dislike it though. In this case, she will let her partner know. But if it's the latter then it's just a shitty thing to do to her. And she's probably going to hate it and hate whoever is doing it to her. It will be the opposite of a turn on and something that will legitimately make her upset.

You talk about spanking women a lot. Is it a fetish kind of thing for you?

I will always offer to split the bill because that's just common courtesy. It speaks to a woman's character if she doesn't offer to pay. But if a man invites me out on a date with him and doesn't insist to pay for the bill, even after I've offered, then it does register as a little red flag that I watch out for. First off, because he invited me out. If you invite someone out, then you should offer to pay. It's a bit rude to invite someone to something at their own expense. But that unawareness I could let go of. But below are the deal-breakers that COULD relate back to him being unwilling to pay for the date that he invited me on. So, this decision to split the bill will put me on high alert for these things... and will give me uneasy feelings about the future of the budding relationship. 1. He's really resistant to any and all traditional gender roles to the point where he's willing to sacrifice romantic polarity and having a good time. 2. He's petty and stingy with his money and lacks generosity of spirit. He's afraid of the woman getting one over on him so he pays really close attention to not paying for anything beyond his portion of the date. 3. He's unemployed or has money problems. 4. He's socially unaware and doesn't know that it's still an expectation that he pays on the first date. (This is true in America, at least) 5. He's not willing to go through the effort to court me and is more concerned about money. (Note: I put a lot of time and effort into courting a man that I'm interested in. So, this is an incongruence of effort and values.) All these things have very little to do with the money, itself. It has much more to do with the man's level of maturity relative to dating and finances. And if the above concerns don't show themselves in his personality, then the concern about him not paying goes away. I don't care about the money. I care about having a good time on the date and the person being a mature potential partner that doesn't get hung up on small things. So, I would never say that a man SHOULD pay on the first date. Do whatever feels right. Equality is important to a functioning society. But it's just kind of a turn off. The traditional mating dance works really well for me. So, if a man isn't willing to step into the traditional masculine role for even one date, then it's just kind of a buzzkill. It's an anti-aphrodisiac.

My husband used to hold this belief about his past too until he started looking into it. He thought that he had completely "fixed" himself when he came to America and learned how to be high functioning and productive. And he still thinks that he has no anger toward his parents. They're not alive anymore. But I've noticed that in his interactions with his sister who "messes up" a lot because of her anxiety and alcohol addiction... there is never an ounce of anger or criticism that he shows toward her... even when it is at Richard's expense. I can look at him the wrong way and get verbally torn up and half the dishes will be broken. But his sister can take his money that he gives her for food and spend it on booze and all he feels is a deep sense of guilt and responsibility. It's clear that he feels powerless in the situation. The same can be seen in how he speaks of his parents. But I suspect that he is very angry at them deep down, but that he doesn't want to admit it because it would be painful.

My husband has the same problem. He's a good person, and he's a really loving and dependable father and husband. He would give his right arm for his family. And he works so hard. But he is very critical of me and blows up in fits of rage multiple times a day at me and everything else. And it doesn't take much to make him blow up. He's wired to perceive anything as an attack. I can ask him an innocent question like, "What did you buy at the store?" And his mind will automatically interpret it as, "I bet you didn't get the right things at the store you idiot loser asshole. Go die in a ditch!" So, he's always on the defensive because he feels attacked by me and everything else. And this is not because I actually attack him. I do my best to walk on eggshells as to not set off that reaction... which is really not good for me. I shouldn't have to do that. But that's just a side note. It's just that the world is full of imaginary boogie men for him that he just can't handle. And I'm boogie man number one because I'm his significant other. So he has a lot of anxiety and low self esteem that results in a really bad anger problem. It used to be much worse three years ago to the point where I thought of leaving him. Which is really serious since we have children together and it is my number one priority to give them a loving and stable home with both parents. So, I'm glad that since that time he has been really trying to work on himself and figure why he is the way he is and to work this issue out. So, it got a lot better, even though it's still really bad. Some of the revelations that he's had in the past few years, is that he is constantly anxious. This is because his childhood was very rough. He grew up poor in Hungary. And he and his sister were raised by his mother who had a terrible issue with anxiety herself. This resulted in her abusing alcohol to the point where she would pass out every day. So, he had to take care of his mother as a child instead of the opposite. His father was mostly absent except for when he came around to take money from his mother which created even greater darkness and instability. His sister also had issues with alcoholism and anxiety and would go missing for days. His mother was diagnosed with Schizophrenia when he was 14, and she was suicidal because of her delusions. He just lived a very dismal life that was in constant threat of upheaval. So, when he came to America at age 23, he completely left his old broken down self behind and he adopted a very strong work ethic and rigid standards for himself to abide by. And if he fails to meet these high standards this also causes him to go into fits of panic and rage. He also suspects that he incurred some serious early childhood trauma that he doesn't remember. His fits of rage are essentially like a two year old's temper tantrums... except in a 40 year old. He feels anxious and out of control, so he unconsciously attempts to get control of reality through aggression and anger and nit-picking every detail of me... since I'm the person that he most associates with himself. So, it's like part of himself got repressed away when he was a toddler and never grew up. And now it gets triggered any time it perceives that he needs to protect himself against any perceptions of threat... which to a two year old, everything adult looks threatening. It's too much for him to handle emotionally even the most basic of adult activities without being completely overwhelmed by frustration and anger. He pushes himself into things anyway and it really grinds him down every day. He looks very high functioning from the outside. But part of him is really just a toddler doing his best to pretend like it's an adult. I don't know if this describes you in any way. But my husband is definitely dealing with the same issue. So, I figured that I should share. Does this ring true to you?

@username Since I had my experiences of ego transcendence without any expectation, knowledge, or interest in spirituality, this has been a huge difficulty for me over the course of the past eight years. I just wanted to try a psychedelic for fun and to add that experience to my identity. But I ended up temporarily transcending the ego and shattering my entire paradigm and falling down a rabbit hole. And since this happened when I was 20, it really fucked up my sense of direction in life. Prior to this time, I thought I knew exactly what I wanted and I had 100% trust in myself. So, life was very challenging back then but it was also very simple. I knew what I wanted and what I had to do to get there. Life was just a single-pointed success game about achieving goals. Then, I saw that I had no clue about what I actually wanted in life and constantly lied to myself simply to cope with the suffering that had always been there. So, it left me in a really bad way after the ego took hold again because I was now pulling myself in two different directions while my worldview lay in piles of rubbish on the floor. I had no access to wisdom. And my demons that were kept at bay because of my worldview escaped from their prison and also began to reek havoc on me. And life sort of fell apart. So, this has been my biggest challenge with really high stakes. It may COMPLETELY ruin my entire life, when all is said and done if I can't see my way through it and actually get some perspective on what I want and not just what I think I want. But it may lead to something so indescribably beautiful. I'm just so grateful to even have been able to live a handful of hours of my life truly free from the ego. Most people never get that. And it's given me a lot of perspective on all sorts of topics. But the problem now is that I know that I'm suffering and unconscious, and that there's a heaven here that I don't have access to. So, it's torture... like "Water water everywhere... but not a drop to drink." I can function now and life is improved... but I'm still really not living. And I'm definitely not thriving on the worldly front, despite the fact that I know that I could be very successful very easily. Because my work ethic took the biggest tumble after those experiences, my willpower is still so repressed in me that I feel unable to make a strong commitment to what I think I want... because I know that I don't really know what I want. So, definitely don't make an enemy of your will-power and work ethic like I did. It was one of my biggest mistakes... if not my biggest mistake. You still need it. Just don't identify with it. Will-power is the best medicine when taken in moderate doses, but a poison when taken in large doses.

Well, that's not exactly true. There is a friend-zone, and there are definitely assholes. It's just that people don't understand how either of these things work. So, there are a lot of confusion around these topics.

You're welcome.

That's unfortunate that you think that most men will lie simply because the woman would be willing to have sex on the first date if she believes his lie that he's interested in a relationship. That's not what I've experienced in my circle of male friends/acquaintances/family members/lovers. There's a sizable minority of men who have poor character and will deceive people to get what they want. I've certainly met some. But luckily, most men that I've met and associate with have strong principles and good character. But I guess this just comes down to who a person decides to associate with. Maybe you hang out with a lot of men with weak principles and character to the point where you've come to see it as the norm. But if you see it clearly from the outside, it's just a really immature and petty kind of behavior to deceive others.

Yeah. I don't see anything here that I disagree with.

I didn't make any spiritual claims or claims that don't jibe with social functioning when I said that seeing sex as a commodity is a distortion that's very unhealthy. And seeing friendship as a commodity is even less healthy. Both sex and friendship at their core are simply experiences. And at their most exalted forms they can be be expressions of love and oneness. So, there is no need to view the world through this limited lens as it's a very reductive mindset about something that is so much deeper and beautiful than this mindset allows you to see. Basically, from your assumptions and beliefs about these topics, sex and friendship simply become a means for gaining social status or receiving something of objective value. And if you're around someone who's effected by that mindset when you're not effected by it, you can feel it weighing very heavily upon them. This is because what should be joyful experiences, become very painful when you think that no one will think that you're worthy. It will cause you a lot of suffering in relationships (platonic and sexual) if you continue to view these things in that manner. You'll be able to find no love and joy in either, simply because you view it in a manner that's very closed off from its essence and instead functions as just a means to feel more valuable to compensate for a sense of lack. This is probably because there is a perceived lack of self worth that underlies this thought. I understand that this can be a difficult distortion to let go of if you've been un-successful with women, as this puts you in scarcity mindset about the topic of sex and relationships. So, it feels like these "everything has a price" understandings of the world are necessary to believe in in order to find ways to be accepted and valued and to protect yourself from pain and rejection. Mostly because it gives you an objective marker to determine your own worth relative to the sex/dating/relationship game. And it gives you the illusion of being emotionless and objective about these topics, and therefore completely un-phased by them. But this is just a self-deception game to avoid negative emotions that bubble beneath the surface. And it feels like a survival need because connection with others is an actual human need. So, there is a rigidity and stinginess to anyone who senses a lack relative to this topic. And this stinginess is an expression of the shadow feminine, which comes up in lieu of the ability to express generosity of spirit which is part of the healthy masculine. I see this pattern in men who have become bitter and begin to see sex and relationship in a very cynical way. And who struggle with feelings of lack and worthlessness, then project these feelings upon women as a group who are then seen as aggressors who hold men's worth in their hands that need to be taken down a few notches. That's not as to say that women who mirror this issue don't exist. In fact, you'll probably be attracted to women who meet the description who also see sex/friendship as a commodity and a marker of social value. Holding these types of mindsets creates an attraction point for other like-minded people and prospective mates. This is another reason why you want to drop any and all distorted mindsets, that keep your life small. But if you spend time around people who are more emotionally mature and have a more subtle form of awareness relative to life and themselves, you'll realize that they see sex and friendship in a totally different way. And these are such better quality relationships, that any person who has this awareness would never want to go back to the shallowness and superficiality of the value labeling game. It's just a lot of unnecessary suffering and distortion.

Here's the thing though. I cuddle with my female friends. I have gone swimming late at night with my female friends... a few times naked :D. I have gone for walks in the woods alone with my female friends. And women text eachother all the time. Really intimate female friendships are just intimate like this. So, if she sees you as a real friend, she will want to do these things with you naturally. It's not a manipulative tactic at all. It's just how women relate to their friends. Perhaps it shows a blindspot to the male interpretation of those actions. But it's not a nefarious thing at all. She just cares about you and likes your company.

By "asexual marriage-like relationship" do you mean "friendship"? If so, nobody lures or manipulates anyone into friendship. Friendship is just something that happens between two people that enjoy eachother's company. It's a spontaneous thing. So, a man is mistaken if he thinks that he was lured or manipulated into a friendship. Friendship is always mutual. He may have had other intentions for trying to be friends... but this is his personal agenda. And if he doesn't tell her up-front about this agenda at the onset of the friendship, then she's not doing anything manipulative at all by keeping him as a friend. It's just what you do with people you enjoy being around. To answer your question, the man would be upset if she has no interest, because he has feelings for her. So, he feels a sense of unrequited attraction and rejection. But for her, it was only ever just friendship. So, feeling rejected and bummed out is totally normal. But feeling cheated and lied to because a woman didn't see you as a romantic interest when you were just friends, is just a really distorted mindset about the situation that smacks of entitlement. And it serves the purpose of making the guy feel better because then those negative feelings of being rejected can be projected onto the woman, as she can be seen as manipulative and as the aggressor of the situation. But in reality, she entered into the friendship with the man as a mutual partner, just like she does with her other friends. So, when the man wants things to be romantic and she doesn't, it isn't her that did any manipulation or misleading. She just doesn't have feelings for him. It's as simple as that. Now, there are women out there that lead men on. This is manipulative and misleading. But that's not what the friend zone is. The friend zone is just where a man is attracted to a female friend of his but she doesn't reciprocate the feelings.

What you're talking about is called 'being lead on.' This isn't actually what's referred to as being in the friend zone. It's mixing terms and makes the friend-zone sound more nefarious than it is. Friend zone is just when a woman doesn't have romantic feelings for a guy that is attracted to her. And it's just the normal state of relating to people for women. Like I said before, it's just default.

Women may want to have sex with a man that she likes if he says that he's interested in a relationship. But she wouldn't be interested in having a one night stand with that guy. So, if a man lies to a woman about this, she will feel very used. It's actually an incredibly fucked up thing to do. So, it isn't some lie like, "I have a mansion and ten cars" or something like that. That's what I think you were imagining. Some silly lie that shouldn't convince anyone to sleep with anyone. But using deception to have sex with a woman is really awful.

I made a similar point to this earlier on in the thread. Really, these types of rationalizations are just designed to be soothing sentiments to give more of a sense of control over the situation. And to be able to rationalize of a painful situation in a way that paints themselves as the righteous one. But it just adds more confusion to the situation because men and women just don't work in those ways.

There's nothing wrong with learning some game. I would learn the hell out of it, if I were a man seeking a relationship or seeking to have some adventures with women. There is nothing inherently bad about that. It sounds like fun adventure to embark upon if taken with a mindset grounded in reality and done with an inner awareness of one's emotions and motivation. And with honesty too, of course. And from a woman's perspective, I like it when a guy knows what he's doing. But it's the outlook on women and men that is very stifling for a man that adopts the ideology because it takes the world and boils it down to a sexual value game. It keeps us focused toward the lower nature realities as being of prime importance and ignores the higher nature within us and sees it as less natural and forced. So, it's very reductive and "black and white values"-based. So, it is akin to Social Darwinism in many ways. And as such, it makes meeting certain standards of masculinity akin to a survival need for the men that subscribe deeply to those notions. So, at this point, it is an authenticity killer even if there were some benefits from the confidence boost that it gives. The stakes are just too high to show anything less that the utmost masculine parts of oneself. I see so many men who've adopted this ideology in an extreme way and living a half-life because they decided that most of themselves is unacceptable. And you can tell because there's a stiffness to them. And there's generally a stingy kind of way about them, which is ironically part of the Shadow Feminine. And men who have it really bad, pretend to themselves not to care what women think of them when in reality, it's their number one concern in life. And like I said before, if you live by the sword then you die by the sword. And I think the relief that guys feel who get into the red-pill thing, becomes an emotional holding-point that keeps them stuck in a place that's difficult to transcend... simply because it feels empowering to embrace those ideologies. It's easier in that sense for women to slough off this mindset because the narrative is very dis-empowering because it's about submission and there isn't really much women can do in that narrative to make their lives better from it. It's just not very appetizing. The flip-side here is that there's a resistance to any of the actual threads of truth that run through it, because they fear going back to the dis-empowerments of yesteryear. And there may especially be a resistance to certain romantic/sexual preferences that may be interpreted as dis-empowering. For example, a woman may resist being a submissive lover even if it is actually authentic for her because she fears seeing herself as inferior or fears her lover thinking that of her. So, my advice would be to learn the techniques, but don't swallow the ideology. Just stay rooted in reality, and do what ever helps bring you closer to what you want. Don't put yourself in a box, and know your motivations well. Many that I see are not doing it for the joy of new experiences. Most I've seen do it to compensate for a perceived lack in themselves and to try to fill the void of self-love with female attention.

Sure. You can PM me on here.

This sounds a bit like De Clerambault's syndrome. If you don't know her, then you don't actually love her even if the emotions are very intense. You're infatuated with her. If she doesn't reply to your messages, then she's probably just not interested. She probably looks at you because she knows that you're obsessed with her. I've had De Clerambault's Syndrome before too at two points in my life, once at age 12 and once at age 20. And there was always deep psychological turmoil underneath it all because of various situations that were happening in my life at those times. My life was falling apart completely and I had no control of it. The infatuation provided me my only outlets to feel good, like an instant drug. But in order to really feel good, I had to make up in my mind that the object of my obsession secretly loved me back. I recommend this video that I made about obsession as someone who has experienced obsession before.

If that's what you need to do at this point, then that's okay. It totally get it. If I could ignore it, I would be tempted to as well as it's a really convoluted topic that's difficult to wrap the mind around. It's just too painful for me to ignore. So, diving into this topic feels like a relief compared to ignoring it. For you, it seems, ignoring it feels better now than facing it. So, go with that until it becomes unbearable. It's uncomfortable stuff to examine, and it'll definitely rustle your jimmies, stir up your demons, and challenge your current worldview. So, you have to be ready for it. But if you're really serious about personal development, you'll have to look into this topic eventually. You can't grow with chains on.

I don't believe that most women work that way. I'm sure that there is a sizable minority of women who are like this. But most women I've talked to are really interested in the guy as a partner if they like him. But something that would be a good idea to address is that you're seeing sex (and friendship) as a exchangeable currency, and not as an experience and an expression between two (or dare-I-say more ) people. A woman wanting ONLY friendship with a man is not equivalent to a man wanting ONLY sex from a woman. Using sex as currency is unhealthy to begin with. But friendship definitely isn't a commodity or service that someone provides to someone, that they should expect sex (or anything else) in return to make it worth their time. People are friends because they genuinely care about one another. It actually makes me really sad for you that you can't experience genuine feelings of friendship toward a woman to the degree that you see friendship as merely transactional. So, if you're really into developing yourself as a person and becoming more highly conscious (which I assume you are because you're on this forum) then you have to understand that this is "Orange" level thinking regarding the topic of sex. To quote Leo... "It's chimp stuff."

If you type in "definition friend zone" in Google, this the the definition that comes up. friend zone noun informal noun: friend zone; plural noun: friend zones a situation in which a friendship exists between two people, one of whom has an unreciprocated romantic or sexual interest in the other. "I always wind up in the friend zone, watching them pursue other guys" So, you did actually use the term wrong according to the dictionary definition. And you are instead using the term "friend zone" to describe gold digging, manipulation, and energetic vampirism. But I'm not saying that "friend zone" isn't real. I'm saying that it's simply the default mode for women and doesn't work the way people think it does. And because of this misconception, it makes things more difficult for men who are trying to meet women as it plays too well into narratives that already cause low self-esteem in men. So, I figured that more clarity could alleviate some of this problem for men on the forum, as I know that approaching women is not easy. Take it from me, I'm a bi-sexual woman and I've never had the gumption to approach a woman because of fear of rejection or seeming creepy. So, I've never had a girlfriend or been with a woman... but I tried in my head many times. I'm also not saying that women can't be abusive. Gold digging, manipulation, and energetic vampirism IS abuse. It should never happen. And people are so utterly convinced of women's weakness and inferiority and men's strength and superiority that abuses from women to men get interpreted as harmless or are completely overlooked. You can find videos of women in public berating their male partners and people will just walk by and laugh at the guy. Then, the same scenario gets reversed and everyone sweeps in to save the damsel in distress and shame the man. It's an incredibly harmful and ubiquitous mindset that some Feminists have called the "predator/prey mindset," whereby men are always seen as predators and women are always seen as prey. And this plays constantly and unconsciously across the stage of the collective consciousness. It's one of the most pernicious and unconscious mindsets that plagues us as a human species and limits our potential for peace and expansion. It's harmful to men because their feelings get overlooked and shat upon all the time. And people always tell them, "Suck it up! Be a man!" And if you can't "suck it up" then you're a (insert inferior/feminine insult here). Men are also seen by the public as inherently aggressive and are often stereotyped as creepy or bad by default. On the other hand, it's harmful to women in the sense that people are conditioned to see them as weak and ineffective. So, you'll find a lot of self esteem issues in women relative to self-trust and self-efficacy. There's always a feeling like people won't take you seriously, and it's hard to get people to listen to you. You'll also find a prone-ness to victim's mentality in women who are not aware that this rhetoric is working on them. That's why there's a lot a reactionary "Yass! Queen!" kind of talk to compensate for the damage done by the "prey" narrative. But if you look close enough, you'll see that the mindsets for this reaction are built from that narrative as well. And even though the "red-pill" community seems like a solution to this issue because you get to vent about it with other men dealing with the situation that society sets up. It's not a real solution at all. It's just the male version of the "Yass! Queen!" talk. This is because it's still built on the very same foundation and assumptions from which men seek to liberate themselves. It just teaches a man different ways to think about the shitty mindsets that society holds about men, women, and power in a way that makes them feel empowered and vindicated. It's not different than what most mainstream Feminists are doing when they engage in man-shaming or try to fit the victim narrative. The rhetoric is also designed to make you feel like "the good guy" of the situation, to cope with always being stereotyped as the aggressor. But a word of warning... If you live by the sword, you'll also die by the sword. And you can't fight fire with fire. And mainstream Feminists can't "crush" patriarchy because the idea of "crushing the patriarchy" is also a patriarchal thing. It's all a big Catch 22 without the ability to dive into what's uncomfortable and explore the roots of this issue, and to become aware of the real demons that actually plague us. So, a man can never truly liberate himself in this way because he believes that his chains are the thing that gives him freedom. So a man in "red-pill" just agitates himself over and over to be able to project his frustrations with the social structure onto something. But it doesn't address them in any kind of productive way. It's just a coping mechanism. Coping mechanisms are fine for a time, but they don't heal you. But I wasn't doubting that the scenario that you mentioned doesn't happen to some men. I just said that I can't relate to it personally. And the rhetorical nature and bitterness of your post sounded like you were just kind of regurgitating some "red-pill" speech instead of sharing your own experiences. That's why I asked you to clarify if it has been your first-hand experience or if it's just you buying into an idea and then getting pissed off at that idea.

It's not the term itself that's the issue. It's more the interpretation of the term that the term itself lends to. This is because it gives a sense that it's an allotted place that a man is moved to when he doesn't meet this or that standard of attraction. So, the zone part is misleading, because "zone" means "a special delineated place that has a boundary." So, it subtly suggests that someone can be placed there as a secondary action instead of that place being primary. So, it would be more accurate to say "She wasn't attracted to me." or "She has platonic feelings for me." as this is the actual reality of the "friend-zone" situation. It demystifies the scenario surrounding the idea of the friend-zone because that's just what the friend zone is. That is, unless the situation started out romantic and became platonic. Then it could be said, "She put me back in the friend zone." and this would give an accurate explanation of what went on.

Since the initial scenario is a romantic scenario, I would say that there was an intent to see if he would spark that attraction. So, he was not exaclty in default mode but more of a "maybe" mode. But then, the attraction didn't happen. So, he remained in the default zone, but she maybe wanted to like him still. But she didn't and didn't communicate that to him clearly because she continued to let him take her out on dates and things. Or maybe she's immature and just wanted attention or to take advantage of him. I don't know how to put it in four words though. I would suppose that I could consider this scenario friend-zoning because she was first considering him and then decided not to, as the situation started romantically. But this isn't the type of scenario that I was referring to in my post earlier. Edit: But my issue is not to say "there is no friend zone." It's simply that the friend zone idea gives a false idea of the psychology and reality behind the phenomenon. I think it's more helpful to think of it as default mode because this is the way it is from the female perspective. The idea of the friend zone just creates a lot of misconceptions that cause more strain than necessary on men who are trying to meet women.