Why I'm Not In the Friend's Zone

Sorry folks, this is intended to offend.

Many guys bemoan being put into this mysterious designation of the friend zone. While it isn't a place per se, but much like Hell itself is now understood, it is a state of being, but one that men have complete control over going to.

Usually the scenario is thus: guy thinks he wants to be or is in love with (or at least wants to get laid by) a woman. But, he lacks both confidence and cajones to come striaght out the gate with a date offer. Now, most oftentimes women just know when a guy wants them, even without any stated proposal or invitation.

Nonetheless, they proceed, but not as a pair exploring coupledom. Usually, she'll invite him out with her friends -- often they are mostly female. They'll have lots of fun together, talking about her favorite pasta textures, avacado recipes, places to shop, past boyfriends, cute guys, etc. All the while, he's getting closer, ever-harboring those high hopes. They text and talk constantly...

And then, all of a sudden, she announces she's met the guy she's really pining for romantically. Or even that she's now in a relationship. "But what about me?" the dumb bastard exclaims. Then, the predictable speech about "being like a brother to me" and "not wanting to spoil our beautiful friendship" comes. How beautiful indeed.

Several things are really happening:

1. She's irredeemably self-absorbed. On a practical basis, this friended dude is like another young lady comrade to her, for his presence is truly androgynous in her mind. Now that's largely his fault (as we'll get to), but on a practical level, what type of "love" is truly exchanged herein?

Well, oftentimes listening to her confide in him such tragedies as what exactly happened between she and some dude -- perhaps an ex -- when "he got me drunk." Mind you, platono-boy (someday) hopes to have relations with her, or just can't get her out of his mind, for her to instead torment him with all sordid details of her "mistakes" to be unconditionally assured of her lovability. The only problem is, it's his lovability she's blinded to in the process. And, sucking up his time and efforts away from what could be more fruitful pursuits for him means nothing to her.

2. He's like a brother. When she says that, believe it. Most women aren't interested in dating their brothers -- that's called incest.

3. He's a nice guy This in itself doesn't require much description, as it's culturally agreed-upon as to what constitutes such niceness. But all of his seemingly selfless gestures (which still have a distinct purpose, always) speak a much deeper, more subtle language to people in general, women in particular. He's a wimp. When push comes to shove on the elemental levels, when it comes to providing that essential security in life, his abundant social graces speak to his being a doormat in major conflicts, and an inability to "stake out territory." On the deepest levels, this is hugely unappealing to females.

4. Guys allowing themselves routine friend zoning are a scourge on all menkind. Private behavior does have a public impact, here too I'm afraid. Instead of directly pursuing the goal of dating and marriage directly, too many pussyfoot around it in their young adulthood. Women too often freely take the liberty to play on the perceived affections of a single and looking guy (they are NOT completely interested in), and think nothing of swallowing up his time and efforts under the "getting to know you" pretext. As a matter of routine course, young adult women in this society seek out guys not for loving, but to fill their respective gaggles.

For the past two decades, a national campaign has been in full swing to improve and insure the high self-esteem of girls and young women. Take a look at the results yourself. The pathologic social dynamic of "just friends" is no help whatsoever to this or even to the institution of marriage.

Now this is NOT a diatribe against all forms of platonic relations and affections. They surely have an integral time and place in life. But nature has it where it is impossible to fully conflate "agape" with "eros."

Aunt Seraphic and her Millstones

Many months ago I was first introduced to a blog called Seraphic Singles, written by a Catholic woman based in the U.K. Her blog is devoted to marrying-age single women who are burdened by the travails of modern dating and prolonged singlehood. Her perspective is, of course, quite spiritual and tends toward the more orthodox posture. I first came upon this when Aunt Seraphic's (the name she goes by) posted about the social decline of men, and the scourge of misandry we live under in Western societies today. For the most part, it was well said.

Occasionally, I returned to her blog, as she does have somewhat of a following of men, likely those looking for insight into dating more tradition-oriented females.
But a sampling of her oft-rambling and frequent posts, often set up in a question-answer format, reveals something else. Just consider this:

"Seventh, I am very angry with Catholic men who pressure women to sleep with them."

No doubt, this is a resurgent theme on her blog.

Of course, real Catholic men don't pressure women they are dating to sleep with them, ever. And I'd add that men who have to have women plastered -- Aunt Sepaphic refers to them in this context -- in order to facilitate sex are true eunuchs: They simply cannot get it on without a chemical interference. In short, boozers really are losers.

Yet it's hard to get around how Seraphic often comes off sounding like Caitlin Flanagan, a noted Atlantic contributor, in her many sarcastic screeds about piggish men who spend much of their waking time plotting to manipulate young damsels into sex acts they're otherwise too inately moral and pure, with "natural modesty" to engage in. And whatever they do by choice (or have done), it's shame on those swine and vermin who made them do it -- alcohol or none, no matter.

Of course, certain Catholic women who represent the "traditional" viewpoint, in particular, love to excoriate feminism: this is especially when it comes to its adverse impact on the proper ways for men and women to relate. Yet, read a bit deeper, and you'll realize how much they sound like their opposition at times. If women are not victims of "patriarchy," then they are the victims of the revolutions against it, especially the sexual revolution. And if women are at the receiving end, they reason, then men must be both the arbiters and the beneficiaries. Either way, women are qualified as victims, deprived of their true will in either case, by y-chromosome beings.

Still:

I am not angry with Catholic men who merely suggest it in the context of loving relationships. If you make out enough, such suggestions are likely because making out is Nature's way of preparing human beings to have sex. I cannot think of a better way to break down even the most devout Catholic's resistance to the desires of his body than prolonged making out with him

Aside from whether this may be a tacit nod to having some committed but pre-marital sex coming from this Catholic maven, there's no getting around how so many single women are ever-aggrieved in this more committed scenario as well. So often, it just doesn't work out in the end, and she's left holding the bag, with the likes of Seraphic there to cheerlead her away from such "users." Still:

Eighth, there are lots of good men. Many, many, many. I think most men are good men, and it is sad that bad men just make more of an impact...

A survey of the Seraphic blog reveals much careful coaching of young women in dating protocol. While there are just too many posts of length to wade through now, she advises her audience to more or less adhere to The Rules and the teachings of Wendy Shalit, who leads a so-called "modesty revolution." The former is a timeworn guide, popular in the mid-90s, that advises women to be as high-maintenance as possible (e.g. the famous not going with him Saturday night if he calls after Wednesday nonsense) while being pursued. On this thread, Seraphic is wont to tell her ladies to always let him do the asking out, dropping coy hints along the way, otherwise expecting him to divine her thoughts and wishes. Figures that both Rules authors are now long-divorced since their popularity.

Wendy Shalit, who authored A Return to Modesty in 1999, essentially posits the following, as summed up by Cathy Young:

Victim feminism and victim antifeminism converge in Wendy Shalit's A Return to Modesty, a strange mix of Victorian pieties about womanhood and feminist hyperbole (ours, says Shalit, is a "truly misogynist culture" that accepts " the rapist's view of womanhood" because it won't let women be women). It is, no doubt, the first book ever to boast blurbs from both neoconservative doyenne Gertrude Himmelfarb and lunatic-fringe feminist Andrea Dworkin. Shalit, the 23-year-old darling of the right, embraces not only conservative myths of female victimhood but the feminist ones as well. She agrees that women and girls face constant abuse, violence, and degradation at the hands of men, as well as the ravages of low self-esteem and eating disorders--only she thinks the culprit is not patriarchy but the loss of respect for female modesty. Echoing the feelings-over-facts attitude for which conservatives have rightly derided the cultural left, she even suggests that flawed studies and false charges matter less than the underlying truth: "A lot of young women are trying to tell us that they are very unhappy."

To say this hasn't had an impact on Aunt Seraphic is an understatement. As such, women on her site are advised to hang all sort of hoops that the seemingly vast majority of good men must fly through just to prove that they're not really one of the bad ones. Seraphic erects such a high barrier between single men and women, it's a surprise that they'd want to be with each other. Practically speaking, she proceeds as though ALL men are potentially "rat bastards" until proven innocent.

In fact, while Aunt Seraphic may lead her poppets to the gates of heaven, it is difficult to see how very many are being led to the altar. Not because they practice modesty and chastity in a sexualized culture(unless using the blame-the-bastard card), but because of this sort of attitude. If she loves men as she says, why does she so often rail about tales of woe at the hands of the few, while promoting such a defensive, ultimately divisive posture toward dating that serves to drive away many potential suitors? It sounds like she may be a bit personally bitter, actually. You might think at least a little after reading this:

But Catholic men who pressure women to sleep with them or ply them with alcohol in the hopes of changing their minds are Judas.

"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, then it is better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." --Matthew 18.6

How she defines "pressure" or even "ply with alcohol" isn't quite so clear. In the end, Seraphic depicts a commonplace scenario among young adults as "seduction," that is, ethically a form of rape.

But merely offering a woman drinks, hoping thereby to change her mind, is not yet attempted rape. It is a form of seduction, and although it is a very stupid one, I can see why a rat-bastard would attempt it.

Not YET, folks. She boozes, then she changes her mind days, weeks, MONTHS after...but not YET. This is commonplace in that women often engage in sex acts after at least some alcohol consumption -- mostly consumed, in itself, freely by her, NOT by way of forced tube-feeding by him.

Given this, and its clear origins with Andrea Dworkin, one must conculde that most extra-marital sex is "seduction," and that most men are seducers. Given the invocation of MT 18:6, adult women must be innocent as babies, regardless, and at this rate, men are potantial molesters. Why else invoke this verse if not to drive home that point? Don't most sweet, good guys just pine to be with a young woman starting out with this subtle impression of them? Having to burn through much cash to wine and dine them, just for the privilege to prove he isn't a rapist? Tell us again, Auntie: Why is it that so many men never call again?

Oh yes, all of this Seraphic wisdom in response to a reader's note about a guy who, ultimately, "...was never the tiniest bit threatening or aggressive." Sure, he's a caddish scumbag, but worthy of millstones?

In all fairness, Seraphic is one of a cadre of emerging pseudo-traditional, more-or-less anti-male conservative Catholic warrior princesses. The other notables include EWTN's Johnette "Botox" Benkovic; Ave Maria Radio's Teresa "Tomboy" Tomeo (kind of converse to the former); this other site, and certainly, as of late, the previously sensible Mary Eberstadt. Once they're through ranting and screeding about un-chivalrous men-kind and the damsels (that they infantilize), the message becomes clear: Whenever it involves men, female sins are not sins.

A holistic reading of Seraphic (Perpetual) Singles reveals too much misandry to be ignored.

The U.S. Economy and the Anti-Idleness Ideologues

The U.S. economic news since late spring has been dour to say the least. Growth in the latest quarter hovered just over 1 percent, when historic post-recession recoveries could be as high as nine percent in a given quarter. Add to this the drawn-out nature of this recovery: it's been humming along (barely) for the last three years since the official close of the Great Recession.

This doubtless has a dire impact on jobs hiring. The White House itself now projects an 8-plus percent unemployment rate through the close of 2012 (H.W. Bush losing with a 7 percent rate in 1992), a White House that should be readying to change occupants in short order. Yet, most polling as of today yeilds no clear-pathed victory for GOP challenger Mitt Romney.

As social service spending has increased monumentally in these three years, with combined state and federal social services now placing the U.S.'s welfare expenditures well within the range of many so-called European "welfare states," has emerged some notable impatience with those utilizing this system in some way.

Thus has emerged the so-called Anti-Idleness Ideologues. These are oft well-meaning folks who maintain that, simply, "there are still plenty of jobs out there." This is surely true, and there is broad understanding that many of such jobs only hire those with a precise skill-set (usually quite technical in some way), that exclude from consideration most of those now out-of-work.

But the ideologues here tend to speak more to low-skilled, somewhat unsteady, often seasonal "jobs that no one else wants": these are heavily concentrated in food service, often restaurant-based and service fields. These are low-wage (and often really no-wage, tip-based pay) that offer largely fluctuating schedules that are seasonally adapted and over-sensitive to consumer use and demand. A popular bistro may be hopping through Labor Day -- hirees offered copious earning opportunities -- to find themselves effectively laid off thereafter.

Sarah Palin and former Senate candidate Sharon Angle of Nevada have made such notable commentaries, though one man is leading this charge: John Stossel of Fox Business and News channels.

Stossel, a former ABC News consumer reporter and noted libertarian, recently interviewed several largely minority social service beneficiaries in a line outside of the Manhattan welfare office. Make no mistake, there were dozens lined up, though Stossel interviewed a handful about their social condition: all noted a lack of gainful job opportunities.

Stossel then interviewed a good number of cafe and restaurant managers within a decent radius of the welfare office. No fewer than a couple of dozen said they were presently hiring in some capacity. Stossel then took this as an opportunity not only to rightly bash the welfare state, but also the individuals at the receiving end for their presumed sloth. But even the several openings he discovered still do not provide enough individual opportunities for the many more lined up, out the door, on welfare in North America's wealthiest city.

Whether Stossel and this cadre (and they can be of any ideology, really) care to admit it, those who take these sorts of jobs are STILL eligible for a host of nanny-state benefits, even under past administrations, due to the low wages: Medicaid for certain; also subsidized housing and perhaps even cash subsidies. These people may be more or less "justifying" their benefits through their labor efforts, but does this scenario raise anyone out of the hole?

To Stossel, it does. Within the segment, he asked many Fox News personalities what their first jobs in life were: They included cleaning parking lots of Dairy Queens, lifeguarding, dishwashing, landscaping, waitressing, and on and on. But why should this be of any real surprise? They were ALL KIDS when they took these positions. These sorts of jobs absolutely induce an essential work ethic in life, no doubt about it. But a dignified long-term livlihood?

The Anti-Idleness Ideologues rightly demean the socialist welfare policies of Obama, but often wrongly demean those individuals at the receiving end. Make no mistake, emotion governs their thoughts in this matter, raw anger over the "free rides" so many are getting at the expense of the perpetually motivated throught their tax dollars. But by identifying and promoting these "plenty of jobs" and opportunities line, these anti-welfare philosophizers are also giving tacit promotion to Obama's re-election. Why elect someone else as president, upsetting the apple cart, with so many available jobs and ample, ultimate opportunities for meteoric rises in life?

Stossel presents the obvious as the obvious for sure, but so often with such wallops of profundity in tone.