'Not too much' meaning that she ends it abruptly? I'd say generally, being flirty with another person at least keeps the door open to the possibility two people aren't "just friends". If she reciprocates, then it probably shows she wants to keep her options open too. If she's cutting you off, then she's likely not interested and just wants to be friends.

 

Where are you going for this meal, then? Somewhere fancy or somewhere more casual?

Casual. She can't afford anything fancy and the notion of a boy buying something is something that she does not want to hear of.

And that flirting, rather I end it abruptly, even though most of the time I start it as well. I don't know why, it comes maybe from my limited experience and social anxiety...

Anxiety can only be conquered by valium (don't even think about it, that's powerful stuff) and exposure to whatever's causing you the anxiety. It'll get easier.

 

One last piece of advice then: Pay for it on the night anyway, unless she really really objects, then you can at least go halves. I'm not trying to suggest your buying her affection, it's just a nice gesture that shows you've had a nice evening and wouldn't mind doing it again.

Your anxiety's stemming from wanting to get something from her, rather than give something to her. And you're afraid of the implications of not getting anything from her. You can't get anxiety for wanting to give to people.

 

While I'm not going to jump to conclusions and state that you're friendzoned, I will however state that you're acting like a guy who women generally friendzone, rather than a guy who women generally fantasize about. Think about it-- does a guy who has girls lining up to be with him spend 3-4 hours talking every day to just one girl that he hasn't even done anything with? No. If you're going to insist on doing stuff like that, do it after you two are getting romantic. You're just giving her free attention right now with nothing in return. Which is fine if you're not interested in her, but I don't think that's the case. The more you talk to her without "making any moves," the deeper you cement yourself into the friendzone.

 

 

In other news, my dad emailed me this. Food for thought:

[hide=Capacity for Intimacy]

David Brooks: Studies show that the heart of men grows smarter

 

By David Brooks

 

Syndicated columnist

 

Posted: 11/06/2012 01:48:03 PM PST

 

If you go back and read a bunch of biographies of people born 100 to 150 years ago, you

notice a few things that were more common then than now.

 

First, many more families suffered the loss of a child, which had a devastating and historically

underappreciated impact on their overall worldviews.

 

Second, and maybe related, many more children grew up in cold and emotionally distant homes,

where fathers, in particular, barely knew their children and found it impossible to express their

love for them.

 

It wasn't only parents who were emotionally diffident; it was the people who studied them. In

1938, a group of researchers began an intensive study of 268 students at Harvard University. The

plan was to track them through their entire lives, measuring, testing and interviewing them every

few years to see how lives develop.

 

In the 1930s and 1940s, the researchers didn't pay much attention to the men's relationships.

Instead, following the intellectual fashions of the day, they paid a lot of attention to the men's

physiognomy. Did they have a "masculine" body type? Did they show signs of vigorous genetic

endowments?

 

But as this study -- the Grant Study -- progressed, the power of relationships became clear.

The men who grew up in homes with warm parents were much more likely to become first

lieutenants and majors in World War II. The men who grew up in cold, barren homes were much

more likely to finish the war as privates.

 

Body type was useless as a predictor of how the men would fare in life. So was birth order or

political affiliation. Even social class had a limited effect. But having a warm childhood was

powerful. As George Vaillant, the study director, sums it up in "Triumphs of Experience,"

his most recent summary of the research, "It was the capacity for intimate relationships that

predicted flourishing in all aspects of these men's lives."

 

Of the 31 men in the study incapable of establishing intimate bonds, only four are still alive. Of

those who were better at forming relationships, more than a third are living.

 

It's not that the men who flourished had perfect childhoods. Rather, as Vaillant puts it, "What

goes right is more important than what goes wrong."

 

In case after case, the magic formula is capacity for intimacy combined with persistence,

discipline, order and dependability. The men who could be affectionate about people and

organized about things had very enjoyable lives.

 

But a childhood does not totally determine a life. The beauty of the Grant Study is that, as

Vaillant emphasizes, it has followed its subjects for nine decades. The big finding is that you can

 

teach an old dog new tricks. The men kept changing all the way through, even in their 80s and

90s.

 

The men of the Grant Study frequently became more emotionally attuned as they aged, more

adept at recognizing and expressing emotion. Part of the explanation is biological. People,

especially men, become more aware of their emotions as they get older.

 

Part of this is probably historical. Over the past half-century or so, American culture has become

more attuned to the power of relationships.

 

The so-called Flynn Effect describes the rise in measured IQ scores over the decades. Perhaps

we could invent something called the Grant Effect, on the improvement of mass emotional

intelligence over the decades. This gradual change might be one of the greatest contributors to

progress and well-being that we've experienced in our lifetimes.

[/hide]

Yep you're headed straight to being friendzoned. You need to spend time with her irl, doesnt matter if it's 5 minutes a day. You need to show her her that you dont want to be her texting buddy. You need to show her that you want to spend time with her. Im not saying you need to get romantic with her, but at least just spend some time with her. Get flirty with her when you talk. Dont be too dirty, but see where she takes it. Try not to end it unless you feel her getting uncomfortable. That will give you a good indication (although some people are just flirty in general). But still, it should give you a bit of an idea.

 

Also, when you guys go out to dinner or whatever, make her pay. But tell her the next one is on you. This kind of tells her you want to do it again. That is, of course, if you enjoyed it.

 

 

Think about it-- does a guy who has girls lining up to be with him spend 3-4 hours talking every day to just one girl that he hasn't even done anything with? No. If you're going to insist on doing stuff like that, do it after you two are getting romantic.

 

I feel this is the male version of what women go through when trying to find a boyfriend by putting out. 'Why commit if the sex is free?' equates to 'Why date him if I can talk to him and be entertained now?'

Don't buy milk if you own a cow...or however that goes.

 

Also, when you guys go out to dinner or whatever, make her pay. But tell her the next one is on you. This kind of tells her you want to do it again. That is, of course, if you enjoyed it.

 

I'm a fan of this move

 

@Muggiw:

Relationship dynamics are constantly changing, and of course expectations will change dependent on the upbringing of the expecter. To say men have become more emotional over time would be accurate. I'd even go as far as to say we could attribute this to modern breeding practices. Women on the pill have a biological (re)disposition to find a more grounded mate, and not a nomadic manly-man. This gives the more emotional, less threatening guy a better chance of breeding, who will than pass his experiences to the next generation. I'm sure there's more hormonal influences that can be sited, but that one's my favorite.

They don't prefer one type of man over the other-- they want (and need) both.

UPDATE:

Been talking with that girl quite constantly on messenger every single evening for like 2-3 weeks now. Like 3-4 hours at a time, up until one of us goes to sleep (note before 1 AM usually), once we went over 8 hours on a Sunday. I've managed to make it seem like she owes me a meal together sometime somewhere. Expecting that to happen next week, we're both super busy this week.

Thoughts, comments? Am I friendzoned or not? Talk has been quite generic so far, but we both have loads of laughs. And we haven't really chatted IRL, since I simply don't see her more than like once a day, and then she is always with a friend or something or I have to rush somewhere.

 

There is no such thing as a friendzone

While I'm not going to jump to conclusions and state that you're friendzoned, I will however state that you're acting like a guy who women generally friendzone, rather than a guy who women generally fantasize about.

What if you want women to generally "friendzone" you? I have plenty of female friends who are quite attractive but I genuinely wouldn't want anything more than what we have, and I'm pretty sure they feel the same way. That doesn't stop me flirting with other women, though, and my communication skills are developed enough to know when other women don't want me to "friendzone" them.

While I'm not going to jump to conclusions and state that you're friendzoned, I will however state that you're acting like a guy who women generally friendzone, rather than a guy who women generally fantasize about.

What if you want women to generally "friendzone" you? I have plenty of female friends who are quite attractive but I genuinely wouldn't want anything more than what we have, and I'm pretty sure they feel the same way. That doesn't stop me flirting with other women, though, and my communication skills are developed enough to know when other women don't want me to "friendzone" them.

 

If you don't want to have sex and/or a relationship with them, then you're not friendzoned.

And if the other person was never going to be interested in sex/relationship either, it would make it pretty hard for them to "friendzone" me, or vice versa, since there was never an alternative on the cards.

 

I'm not getting at you. I think we agree. It's just I've seen some guys use the term "friendzone" as a negative connotation, as if sex is the holy grail of all relationships, and all guys should be looking for it, and all guys would be getting it because they should be God's gift to women, if only they weren't acting in socially inept ways which lead them to being "friendzoned". Then you get all the crap about 'Once you're in the friendzone you should move on to the next target and not bother', which at best is a sweeping generalisation and therefore has limited usefulness, and at worst is completely inappropriate advice to the person it's being given to as well as being slightly derogatory towards women.

 

The term may have had a very valid meaning when it was first coined, but its use has actually become quite jockish and only relevant to males wanting to outdo each other in a sex count contest, or else males wanting to give other males a hard time and make them feel bad about themselves.

Yeah, some guys define the friendzone simply as a girl not being interested in a relationship or sex with you, and leave it at that. I define it as a girl not being interested in a relationship/sex with you, while you want to have a relationship/sex with her... In other words, unrequited feelings.

 

In your case, it's just a platonic friendship since there's no feelings on either side. Even though you're technically "just her friend."

 

It's a misleading term... that's probably why nobody in the PUA community uses it. They just call guys "orbiters" if they're trying to get with an uninterested girl. But I don't really like using PUA lingo. It's nerdy >_>

 

 

And I think most guys in this thread value relationships and female companionship over sex. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think they're both equally important. But we've already discussed that here :P

Agreed on the usage. The way most people use the word, it seems to rely on the premise that any girl will sleep with you if you follow some set of steps, and ignores that fact that you might never have had any potential to be a valid candidate with this person. The way I see it, to be considered friend zoned, you had to have had a shot to begin with, and then done something to remove yourself from the pool. I would not consider it to be the same thing as unrequited feelings, it is a bit more than that.

 

I'll concede that there are game either gender can play that can increase your chances with certain types of people (everyone has buttons, but we don't all have the same ones), but you can't get everyone.

I've never really had a girlfriend, and I'm one of those guys that are too nice because I hate to be a douche. However, I had this new friend who we went and spent a day together. I asked her for a movie a few times but she said she couldn't or had an excuse afterwards. I wanted to see if something would change if I became assertive, figuring I had nothing to lose. This is the dialogue:

 

me: I'm going to see a flick tomorrow and you should come

her: a flick? which one?

me:Alex Cross or Taken 2

her: who is going?

me:you me and whoever else I feel like

her: kay I'll see what I'm doing

me:text me later today and tell me

her: will do

 

I thought it was rather unusual that she obeyed me that easily... I doubt anything will end up happening if we even go though.

Well. She still hasn't said yes or no yet, but being assertive is always a good thing. I have always had problems with being assertive with women, and it has gotten me into trouble more times than I care to say.

Yeah [bleep] my over analysis. It's that text you later but not really things. I [bleep]ing hate texting.

Yeah [bleep] my over analysis. It's that text you later but not really things. I [bleep]ing hate texting.

 

Then call her. At least you can ask for an immediate answer over the phone.

I might just say [bleep] it and wait until next year when I get into college and try to reinvent myself.

I've never really had a girlfriend, and I'm one of those guys that are too nice because I hate to be a douche. However, I had this new friend who we went and spent a day together. I asked her for a movie a few times but she said she couldn't or had an excuse afterwards. I wanted to see if something would change if I became assertive, figuring I had nothing to lose. This is the dialogue:

 

me: I'm going to see a flick tomorrow and you should come

her: a flick? which one?

me:Alex Cross or Taken 2

her: who is going?

me:you me and whoever else I feel like

her: kay I'll see what I'm doing

me:text me later today and tell me

her: will do

 

I thought it was rather unusual that she obeyed me that easily... I doubt anything will end up happening if we even go though.

 

Okay, maybe at the point of saying "me:you me and whoever else I feel like", you could have thrown her a bone as well... either by saying "just you and me, what do you think?" or "you me and whoever else I feel like or someone you'd like to invite".

 

Just an idea. Being assertive =/= telling people what to do or calling all the shots.

 

In other news, my ex died in a traffic accident. We broke up some years ago and didn't have much contact, but it was an intense relationship with a lengthy fall-out. He was a smart and good guy, even though he pushed my buttons, and he'll be sorely missed by many. Ugh. I've been wondering if I should go to the funeral and decided that while I really really don't want to go, I'll feel terribly guilty if I don't. So I'll have to toughen up and find a way to get through it without turning into a puddle of tears.

I've never really had a girlfriend, and I'm one of those guys that are too nice because I hate to be a douche. However, I had this new friend who we went and spent a day together. I asked her for a movie a few times but she said she couldn't or had an excuse afterwards. I wanted to see if something would change if I became assertive, figuring I had nothing to lose. This is the dialogue:

 

me: I'm going to see a flick tomorrow and you should come

her: a flick? which one?

me:Alex Cross or Taken 2

her: who is going?

me:you me and whoever else I feel like

her: kay I'll see what I'm doing

me:text me later today and tell me

her: will do

 

I thought it was rather unusual that she obeyed me that easily... I doubt anything will end up happening if we even go though.

 

Okay, maybe at the point of saying "me:you me and whoever else I feel like", you could have thrown her a bone as well... either by saying "just you and me, what do you think?" or "you me and whoever else I feel like or someone you'd like to invite".

 

Just an idea. Being assertive =/= telling people what to do or calling all the shots.

 

 

You don't want her to think about going or not. You want her to think she has little or no option.

You don't want her to think you're inviting the whole town/city, it takes away from the "romance". I mean, if you're going to invite all your friend and all her friends it's not really a date, you're not going to make much progress with her, and you could just as well have stayed home and had a conversation with her via text or msn.

As a point about waiting for college, yes it's a great opportunity to start over, but be aware that there is essentially a rush in the first week or two (about a week before and after classes start) where the initial social groups form up, and this is the best time to try and meet a large group of people to increase your chances of having a nice group of friends. The more comfortable you are meeting and talking to people when this time comes, the more you are going to get out of it.

 

Relationship experience is good, but I would say that just being able to talk to strangers and being comfortable at a party is more important. The rest will follow. My point being if you can do anything to get some practice in for that now (if you need it that is) would be good.

As a point about waiting for college, yes it's a great opportunity to start over, but be aware that there is essentially a rush in the first week or two (about a week before and after classes start) where the initial social groups form up, and this is the best time to try and meet a large group of people to increase your chances of having a nice group of friends. The more comfortable you are meeting and talking to people when this time comes, the more you are going to get out of it.

 

Relationship experience is good, but I would say that just being able to talk to strangers and being comfortable at a party is more important. The rest will follow. My point being if you can do anything to get some practice in for that now (if you need it that is) would be good.

Agreed. People who go to college with the explicit aim of transforming themselves so they'll be more attractive to sexual partners usually come unstuck when college/university starts. I think that's because students have typically been dropped into a completely new world where they don't know anybody, or very few people at most, and many of their main anxieties are focused around more basic needs like finding friends and learning their way around the place. That's why so many activities and events are thrown during the first couple of weeks simply to get people together and talking to each other. It's not so they have sex necessarily, although many do, it's so they make friends.

 

Learning how to be confident about yourself and your interests to people you've never spoken to is far more important than going on a mission to "reinvent" yourself to girls.

 

In other news, my ex died in a traffic accident. We broke up some years ago and didn't have much contact, but it was an intense relationship with a lengthy fall-out. He was a smart and good guy, even though he pushed my buttons, and he'll be sorely missed by many. Ugh. I've been wondering if I should go to the funeral and decided that while I really really don't want to go, I'll feel terribly guilty if I don't. So I'll have to toughen up and find a way to get through it without turning into a puddle of tears.

If you don't want to go in person, you can pay your respects in other ways, like a phone call to the family or a handwritten letter. I wouldn't feel guilty about not going; it's a very personal choice and I think it would be wrong of people to say that you don't care simply because you didn't go.

 

What I would say though is if the issue makes you feel emotional, perhaps going would be a good way of obtaining closure.

 

I've never really had a girlfriend, and I'm one of those guys that are too nice because I hate to be a douche. However, I had this new friend who we went and spent a day together. I asked her for a movie a few times but she said she couldn't or had an excuse afterwards. I wanted to see if something would change if I became assertive, figuring I had nothing to lose. This is the dialogue:

 

me: I'm going to see a flick tomorrow and you should come

her: a flick? which one?

me:Alex Cross or Taken 2

her: who is going?

me:you me and whoever else I feel like

her: kay I'll see what I'm doing

me:text me later today and tell me

her: will do

 

I thought it was rather unusual that she obeyed me that easily... I doubt anything will end up happening if we even go though.

 

Okay, maybe at the point of saying "me:you me and whoever else I feel like", you could have thrown her a bone as well... either by saying "just you and me, what do you think?" or "you me and whoever else I feel like or someone you'd like to invite".

I have to admit, although I completely agree about what you said on assertiveness and at least leaving the question on her side of the court, there's nothing in that exchange which makes me think she's interested at the moment anyway. When she asked, "Who is going?" it's implicated that she expects other people to be there.

Food for thought: some people argue that most people define themselves by their past thoughts/words/actions. Similarly, they argue that you don't really have any obligation to keep acting "coherently" with your past. You can change at any time.

 

With that said, college is a good example of how that kind of thinking transforms people. But you don't need to go to college to achieve that kind of transformation.

Rewriting history doesn't change the fact that stuff happened, though, does it? Also, unless you're highly delusional, it's not possible to make yourself simply 'forget' stuff. So what you're actually doing is hiding even more of yourself away from the people you're trying to form relationships with, which is exactly the opposite of what you should be doing. I understand what you're saying, and we all keep stuff hidden from other people for very valid reasons, but I believe 'transforming' yourself involves a very loathing perspective on your history, and I don't believe that's helpful in building self-esteem, and hence, self-confidence.

 

BTW, can you stop getting with girls so you can update that Jad guide? IDK what armour to wear, whether to prioritise mage defence (Gano) or ranged offence (d'hides). My Strength bonus would love you long time.

BTW, can you stop getting with girls so you can update that Jad guide? IDK what armour to wear, whether to prioritise mage defence (Gano) or ranged offence (d'hides). My Strength bonus would love you long time.

 

ROFL