Firstly I’d like to thank /u/Archwinger for his topic on Reddit here and /u/Human_v2’s follow up post here which serve as the basis of inspiration for this post. We hear a lot of talk about the friend zone and a lot of women bleating indignantly in response about how “what she does with her body is up to her” and all that other irrational defensive hyperbolic nonsense which does not even address why the existence of the friend zone is even an issue of contention to begin with. Then there are the worthless assertions thrown around such as “real men accept what a woman is comfortable with in a quote unquote friendship“ or some other bullshit true Scotsman statement based in fallacy from someone who has no clue neither authority to possibly know or dictate exactly what it constitutes to be a man. This article and it’s follow ups aim to hopefully get down to the “nitty-gritty” of things and really iron out just what the fuck is actually going on with the friend zone.
Briefly for your understanding this article will discuss: why does the friend zone exist? (to serve the needs of one party, typically the females, without fulfilling the needs of the other party) what’s the problem with the friend zone? (it’s an issue of value transaction, the friend zone is an inequitable exchange of value which only fulfills one of the party’s desires, typically the feminine imperative) and finally how the friend zone that is often viewed as an obstacle on the path to attaining sex from a woman can retroactively be implemented after the fact [sex has been had] in the form of no future sexual favours being on the table once emotional commitment has been unilaterally secured, typically although not exclusively resulting as a product of marriage. Future articles in this series will look at identifying the different types of friend zone and how to make an escape should you find yourself already trapped by the grip of some feminine iron will.
This article is aimed mainly at guys who for lack of better language have not got a fucking clue about women and find themselves a slave to the whims of any attractive female in their lives who throws them some attention, be she the hot girl at work or even your own wife, these guys are the same guys who generate the problem which is the female ego quantum singularity by not being on top of their shit, putting the pussy on a pedestal and letting women take them for a ride. There are many pretty girls in the world, abundance mentality is a cornerstone in avoiding the friend zone, however it is also paramount in having respect for one’s self and maintaining a healthy sex life (as the late and great Patrice O’Neal would say it: “showing a bitch you’ve got options“) this still applies once you have reached the mating stage that is a relationship or dare I say it, marriage – you can never stop gaming.
As a man you have to realise what your leverage is and how to apply it to get what you want out of a woman (which if you are completely honest with yourself and your desires includes a pronounced and fierce monopoly of her body as a sexual resource), essentially by not realising what your capital is within the context of a relationship with a woman you have nothing to barter that has value to her of which she doesn’t already receive from you, suffice to say that if you’re in the friend zone then you’re essentially giving away what she values for free without even realising it (or you wouldn’t even be “a friend” to begin with.)
Friend zone friendships are strictly one-sided as they allow her to derive more benefit from the arrangement than you do. By not making a woman work for what she wants [from you] she will never grow to appreciate what it is you bring to the table, in fact she will come to expect it and she will even go so far as to punish you for any perceived slight or insubordination should she have grown accustomed to your emotional commitment. If you were to suddenly out of frustration at being a friend zoned chump get annoyed with the situation and pull the plug (because you’ve finally woken the fuck up) by ceasing to provide her with the emotional nourishment she was deriving from you and may perhaps have become dependent on from you then her wish to reprimand you for pulling away will be pronounced most indignantly. In such a situation, one wants to slowly fade out of her life rather than having an over the top and dramatic altercation where she will attempt to re-ensnare you, however that line of discourse is content which is par for the course in a follow-up article.
Beige Phillip Rule #3 – repeated favours become obligations. Your emotional commitment [to a woman] is worth its weight in gold in terms of how much value and desire a woman places upon it, a woman desires a man’s emotional loyalty (and essentially her monopoly of that) above all else, whilst as a man, your desires firmly place sexual loyalty (and your monopoly of her body above all else) this is the exchange of value taking place in a successful “romantic” transaction, your emotional commitment and resources for the use of her body. This is why men are always asking “why is she so clingy, why does she nag so much, why does she become so dramatic and overbearing at times?“ whilst women are asking “why is it that all men think about is sex, why can’t they look past that and see women [as people] and not mere sex objects?“
The difference in male to female perspective is simple, women don’t need to use men for their bodies to fulfill their gender imperative and thus it is not their psychological inclination to do so, they are wired to use men for their resources and commitment and a one-sided friendship where a woman has a man in the draconian friend zone fulfills her imperative whilst simultaneously the male imperative to pass on his DNA and satiate his raging testosterone fulfilled libido is not fulfilled by said arrangement, it is a biased arrangement which fulfills the needs of the woman to some or all ends (depending on the severity of the arrangement) whilst not being mutually beneficial for the man in any similarly equitable capacity.
In blue pill (every day) society men are made to feel bad for their sexuality, they are scorned for not wanting to be used by a woman in the manner which the friend zone in place sets out and often shamed into compliance, they’re scorned for their sexuality and lustful desire when in reality as a point of justice the ones who should be scorned are the women. The same women who ruthlessly use men so callously and pragmatically as “surrogate providers” for their desires and lifestyle choices whilst not providing any return on the services he provides, or doing so begrudgingly or sparingly merely as a manipulative effort to keep him content enough to stick around. Cue the notorious “duty sex” or “pity sex” women throw beta men, the sexual scraps that essentially only the best of the best beta providers can acquire after having provided an inordinate amount of value. Yet again this results in a biased and unfair transaction between man and women even though sex does take place rather than the typical mono directional level of emotional and material needs being fulfilled on behalf of the man whilst comparatively the woman provides no fulfillment of needs in return for such provision, the predominant masculine need being the monopoly of her sexual favour.
Women are aware of why men do things for them, they play dumb but on a machiavellian level they are quite smart, they have high machiavellian intelligence. They play stupid for the sake of appearances so that they can squirm and escape accountability by keeping their hands clean via the employment of plausible deniability, but ultimately a woman with many beta orbiters despite any well-placed display of ignorance she feigns knows full well what she is doing and why she is doing it, the reality of the matter is she just doesn’t care about the needs of the man so long as one or a number of her needs are being met by that man and so as long as he “fulfills his purpose in her life.” She is entirely happy to carry on exploiting his sexual desire of her whilst not reciprocating or giving in to these demands, only implicating the promise of sex to keep him around should he look likes he’s about to leave and throwing him duty sex should she really value his contributions to her life, in fact there was a documentary made in the UK of such women who engage in this behaviour albeit in a more ostentatious and predatory manner, you can see the sole episode aptly titled “Sex, Lies and Rinsing Guys” by clicking here.
Using a mans sexual proclivity for a woman and turning him into a provider for said woman without said woman giving said man any sexual access is exploitative of the mans nature and completely immoral on the behalf of the woman yet this happens all the time and society is perfectly happy to ignore, reinforce and even encourage said behaviour. Men and women are ultimately never equal in part due to the differences in our sexual imperatives let us not forget and the difference in agenda and how it is pursued by each gender is merely one significant indication of these sexually dimorphic differences in mating psychology.
The friend zone however is not just a hurdle on the path to getting sex from a woman which magically disappears once sex has been attained, a woman can friend zone you even after having had sex with you and a more cunning woman may use sex as a way to secure your commitment before withdrawing it later on and simultaneously seeing if they can extract emotional commitment and resources from you without having to keep up their end of the bargain. If you let her imperative win here within the context of a relationship or even marriage, you’re allowing her to power drill nails into the coffin of your romantic arrangement as once you allow such behaviour to become commonplace she has you pegged for a chump. Allowing her to derive benefit from you without requiring sex from her causes her to lose attraction to you as there’s no value exchange, the ability for her to benefit from you without being required to service your needs causes her to lose respect, the dying attraction is often communicated in feminine candy-floss ethereal mumbo jumbo bullshit-speak as: “the spark’s just not there anymore“ and thus she’ll reconnoiter off to start the cycle all over again with another man, shit testing him to see how easily he’ll give up his commitment to her and then offering her sex to him when he maintains attraction without freely and disposably giving away said commitment to her.
As a man, emotional investment in a woman should only be given to her as positive reinforcement for behaviour that is conducive to your desires and/or the betterment of the relationship, suffice to say that if she’s fucking you and engaging in desirable feminine behaviours then keep giving her love and emotional nourishment, however if she’s going to callously cut off sex and withhold it in an attempt to test the boundaries of the relationship and get you to do what she wants you in turn need the ability to callously cut off your commitment to her or otherwise you set a precedent that every time she withdraws sex you fold all your cards without her losing anything she values, despite her atrocious behaviour. This is the only leverage you have (also known as dread game) and is ultimately why marriage can turn into the Guantanamo bay of friend zones.
Now onto the idea of marriage being a glorified friend zone, beta males in sexless marriages are in effect existing in a form of legally sanctioned friend zone, a husband who isn’t getting any from his wife has been essentially “soft nexted” friend zoned for his utility but no longer deemed sexually attractive and thus not respected by his wife, furthermore she’s probably fucking another guy behind his back unless her birth control has turned her into something of an asexual automaton (which is not as rare as you’d perhaps think.) A woman who respects her man, fucks her man – if she’s withholding sex for any reason other than the most extreme of medical reasons then her withholdment of sex is considered a transgression which violates the nature of your manly desires and thus can be considered an unspoken disrespect of your position within the relationship.
Quintessentially in essence although in something of a more extreme and heightened state a sexless marriage engages in the same social dynamics as an 18-year-old beta orbiter who picks up the girl of his affections in his car and then drives her around acting on her whims as a glorified taxi, buying her gifts to demonstrate his affection because in all its beautiful blue pill bullshit “she’s just such a good friend.” These behaviours are typically engaged in as some completely vain attempt to try to impress his way into her pants, by giving her everything she wants up-front without asking for anything in return.
The difference as a married man and not an 18-year-old beta orbiter are that you’re actually legally obliged to ensure her feminine imperative is fulfilled, and fuck, perhaps there are even a few children thrown into the chaos for good measure which effectively ensures you remain firmly placed in the friend zone. This dynamic does nothing but culminate in the successful attainment of the female imperative, her [your wife] receiving the ultimate commitment her biology desires from a man [you] backed up in all it’s strength by the full force and recognition of law. Should you so choose to violate this legally mandated commitment you will be taken for everything you’ve got whilst quite perversely remaining in the marriage leads to an incredible sense of frustrated entrapment, leaving you with little a desirable exit strategy to remedy your quandary.
Allowing her to ruthlessly trap you by enforcing an unhappy sexless marriage is tantamount and equivalent in value exchange to that of the friend zone where the man in question is “just a friend” providing benefits to the arrangement whilst not receiving any [from her] himself.
If she cuckolds you, what can you do as a married man? Nothing. Whatever you do results in immense loss for yourself, you cannot come out unscathed, it is the ultimate form of modern-day socially accepted slavery which allows women to systematically and legally pillage a man for everything he has without remorse and not be punished for such behaviour either socially or legally. Marriage is no longer a religious institution that holds people accountable for their behaviours as marriage oaths have become nothing but ceremonial pleasantries rather than promises which are hold both parties accountable, oaths being so easily and nonchalantly broken as they are, marriage has been hijacked by the feminist agenda and perverted into an engine of exploitation by women of men which has ultimately resulted in what is known as today’s growing marriage strike across the anglosphere.