Word Weld

The ultimate truth of this concept is a little underwhelming and quite sad. Many people today are concerned with the topic of the dreaded “friend zone.” This is a made-up word originating from the TV show Friends. The term “friend zone” originating from a show named “Friends” seems very logical, except that there doesn’t seem to be much actual friendship on the show, though admittedly I have never watched it, only seen previews and such, and heard about it. But this isn’t about the show. This article is about the concept. Even Christian people I know talk about the “friend zone” and I know people in each “camp.” In order to be as incisive as possible, I’ll break this article down like this: I will first give the definition of “friend zone” as it is known, followed by a brief explanation. Then I will break the “friend zone” down into its two ideological camps (I use the term “ideological” satirically in this case). Finally, I will get to the truth of the matter and underwhelm you all with what is really going on here.

The “Friend Zone” as defined by Google is “a situation in which a friendship exists between two people, one of whom has an unreciprocated romantic or sexual interest in the other.”

Practically, this means that the “friend zone” is an awkward situation in which a person, usually a girl or woman, is content with the intimacy of her relationship with a given man, while the man is not, instead desiring more.

Now, let’s get into the nitty-gritty, so to speak. The two camps or positions on this topic are pretty easy to guess. You have those defending the woman’s position (usually women), and you have those defending the man’s position (usually men). To be brief, they are like this: the woman’s side of the argument makes the claim that a woman should have the right to a friendship, including acts of kindness and affection, with a man in whom she has no romantic interest. That is, if she meets a man, and they regularly chat, go have coffee, talk about their likes and interests, laugh and joke together, that such interaction is an acceptable limit. In other words, she has placed personal limits on his status with her. She likes him, and wants to feel comfortable with him. That person, to her, is a “friend.” He is harmless (a word that comes up a lot in these discussions, and in reality has nothing to do with this concept), and unassuming, wanting nothing more from her than a companionship which is on her terms. At some point, however, he attempts to move beyond her boundaries and she explains in some way or another that he may not do so, thus “friendzoning” him. At this point it becomes clear to her that he was completely unaware of her boundaries and believed he could attain something more, something romantic, specifically. The woman’s argument at this point usually descends into a long tirade about how a woman is more than a sexual object or prize.

On the other hand, the man is on a mission. He is not getting to know this woman solely for the purpose of having a friend of the opposite gender. No, all of his gestures, advice, kindness, etc. are purposeful. They have an end in sight, and that end is some form of intimacy that is beyond acquaintanceship or friendship as she would define it. So, to him, being told that he is a “friend” and nothing more, perpetually under a set of rules she has decided, basically amounts to a rejection, yet a cruel one because rather than simply telling him she isn’t interested in a romantic relationship, she has led him on by spending time with him, accepting gifts, etc. The man’s argument usually ends in an angry rant about how women lead men on and don’t truly appreciate the “nice guy” acts they’ve determined should lead them beyond “friend” status.

With all that said, I’m going to spill the beans right now and let you in on the truth of the situation: they’re both wrong. And when I say they are wrong I an implying complete wrongness. Not only are both positions ultimately wrong in their conclusion, they are also wrong in their assumptions. They are fundamentally wrong. Let’s break it down succinctly. The woman is wrong because she assumes that men and women think similarly or the same. She believes that she can have relationships with unmarried men where the men do not desire her sexually. This is an error in judgment, and to be kind, demonstrates a troubling level of ignorance on her part. Unmarried men, even Christians, become sexually active during puberty and thereafter cannot view women objectively. When my wife and I were in college, we were good friends, but the longer our innocent friendly relationship went on, the clearer it became that it could not continue growing any further without taking on a new dynamic. She wisely recognized this, and thus determined that if we did not mutually believe God was bringing us together for more than friendship, we would literally have to step back from one another, and think of one another differently, within a certain context. I knew this also, and asked her to court me, at which point she said yes, believing God wanted her to. There was something under the surface here that I’ll get to later.

Thus, unmarried men cannot truly hold friendship-level relationships with most women. There are exceptions, of course, but I am speaking generally. Please appreciate that fact. This could be defined as a weakness and shallow, but it is important to note that a man who is married and fulfilled in his marriage can have female friends, as long as he is morally centered (I’ll get back to that). God made men with the physiology they have, and while sin has corrupted it and men should learn to control it, women would be foolhardy to ignore it. That would be like seeing a train coming down the tracks and walking across them anyway, correctly concluding that the train driver shouldn’t run you over, and so foolishly behaving as if he will stop the train. Again, quite foolish.

The man, on the other hand, is indeed many times seeking only personal gratification, largely sexual gratification. Thus, while he thinks that his acts of kindness, affection, etc. are acts worthy of a level of intimacy he has defined for her, they are actually deceptive and empty. They are basically a means to an end, not his true self.

What this boils down to is selfish usury. The woman is using the man as a confidant, as someone to talk to, someone she can always call on and get sympathy from, and potentially gifts and words of affirmation and affection, but she chooses what she will give back to the relationship. Maybe she does just want a friend, but her definition of “friend” becomes very important. If she just wants to use him to make her feel comfortable or tell her nice things about herself, then she is ultimately using him.

The man’s selfishness and usury is apparent: he wants sexual relations. But even if he wants a real relationship, he is trying to earn it incorrectly. He is feeding her what he thinks she wants, which she does indeed want, hoping that it will earn him what he wants. Do you see the pattern emerging? Here are two people who want different things from each other and are getting angry when the other person isn’t meeting their expectations. In marriage this kind of thing gets ugly. But these problems aren’t really surprising. People use other people all the time, and in the world at large it is commonplace. Worldly people are selfish by definition. Why wouldn’t they be? Without God it becomes difficult to find a universal moral center. Secular people have a personal moral center, which they define as what’s “right for me.” That means I’m going to act like you shouldn’t do wrong to me but I will not apply any kind of moral center to your life. So, the truth is the “friend zone” is actually another tired, pitiful example of people trying to live without God and define how they want their relationships to be without regard to other people. God has a different answer for us as believers in Christ:

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

– Philippians 2:3-4

We ought not be looking for the right person to fulfill our desires. We should be wisely and carefully considering what people need from us, and realizing that in relationships, there is no such thing as a “harmless” relationship. Once we begin to form a relationship with someone, our treatment of them will have lasting effects upon them. A pastor at the college I went to used to say that we shouldn’t look for the right person, we should be the right person. In other words, if you’re a man, don’t be a phony, but be genuine in your kindness. Use your moral center (or find one, preferably in the Bible) and understand that pleasure is fleeting. Sexual adventures don’t satisfy. Only a lasting, committed marriage to someone you truly love enough to put before your own interests will fulfill you. Control your urges and think of the woman you’re pursuing as a person and not a mark to be made or an urge to be fulfilled. You will have a lasting effect upon her. Make it a good one. And if you’re a woman, don’t be a phony either. Don’t go looking for male friends that you can control with your rules and expect to meet whatever needs and desires you feel you have. Respect that men are men, and are therefore fundamentally un-like other women. They are attracted to you, and that has a profound effect on the nature of your relationships. Decide that you won’t string men along, intentionally or otherwise, but that you will help them to find their moral center. Statistically, women are said to be more morally grounded than men. Prove it. Stop thinking about what you want and do what a real friend would do: break it off if that person wants something you can’t give them, and do it as early as possible, so that you don’t hurt them.

Christians shouldn’t be floundering around in the “friend zone,” nor should they be dumping other people into it. Let the world have that zone, but our zone should be one of true friendship, love, and respect. Let’s not play at relationships, but realize that each of our relationships tremendously meaningful, and can have a lasting– and potentially harmful–effect on those around us.