Recently I've been on a bit of a manosphere binge.In addition to my daily Alpha Game Plan, and occasional Cail Corishev, both of which I've mainly come by through Vox Populi, I've also been going through my backlog of unread posts at Return of Kings. Additionally, after far too long, I've finally started reading Dalrock.
It didn't take me too long to notice the post on beta orbiters that is today's jumping off point. Having done a few too many turns around some womens' magnetospheres myself (far far far too many) I make it a point to read every beta orbiter related posting I can. It certainly hurts,bringing back awful memories, but forcing myself to reflect on it is the best way to cauterize these behaviors; hopefully, one day, escaping them into a new wonderful world of game.
In this particular article, I saw that discussion quickly jumped to the closely related friend zone.This made me wonder,why is the idea of the friend zone so abhorrent to us men? What's wrong with having another friend, who just happens to be female?
Put that way, it doesn't seem so bad, and yet every part of me instinctually rebels against it, as though it were a radioactive rodent with rabies.
Anyone of low enough status on the socio-sexual hierarchy knows the pain of the friend zone. Some of us (gammas such as myself) know it better than others. The unrequited longing, the burning hatred for every other guy your pedastal-ee so much as speaks to, the desperate search for something, ANYTHING, that you can construe as interest. Commentor Elspeth describes this as the male hamster, and I agree wholeheartedly.
However, if you put the hamster aside and accept that you have no chance with this girl, the resulting status shouldn't be so bad, right? Right? Maybe not. Often times, speaking from personal experience, killing the hamster just reveals a cycle of exploitation. These "friendships" certainly play their part in creating bitterness, but I don't think that's all. Even in situations where explicit exploitation is absent, something still just feels off.
One suggestion presented by Opus is that science has shown that our capacity for deep friendships is (very) limited. If one can only have 4-6 true friends, one wants to make sure that they are the best possible.Divergent interests and different conceptions of "friendship" between the sexes mean that another man is almost always going to be a better choice for one of these slots than a female.
I think there's more to it than that though, an economic explanation. Lets look at our basic needs. First, of course, is an environment that doesn't instantly destroy the human body. Pressure and heat cannot be too high, nor too low, nor can the body be subject to extreme acid or alkalinity. We can call this bodily integrity for short. Second, of course, is air, without which one will die in a matter of minutes. Then comes water, which we can only survive without for a matter of days, and food which can be foregone for weeks.
However, even given all of these things, the human body can only last for so long. Age and decay will take their toll on everything that lives.What is needed next is a way to transcend the individual body. Certainly many, myself included put their hopes in the Deity for the survival of their individual consciousness. To an extent which is debated by scientists to this day, this might even be hardwired into our genes.
What we can be certain is hardwired into us, however, is the desire for sex (with someone who meets the gender-specific criteria for being a valuable mate, of course). While our conscious mind desires immortality, the much more powerful animal part desires to pass on its genes. I shouldn't need to tell anyone the strength and urgency which this desire can impute upon us.
This brings me to my point: regardless of anything else someone of the opposite sex may bring to the table; humor, loyalty, strength, beauty; their comparative advantage is in sex. A comparative advantage, for those who took better majors than Economics, is the trait of an entity which it is most beneficial to that entity to exploit. While an entity might have an absolute advantage over other entities in multiple fields, there can only be one comparative advantage, one optimal strategy that produces the ideal value.
Sexuality is the one thing that a heterosexual cannot find in someone of their same sex, the one major value that the opposite sex brings to the table. I think anyone other than alphas and higher betas (neither of which are likely to encounter the friend zone anyway) can agree that this is far more valuable than someone being "nice", or having mutual interests. So, no, feminists, while you might have many other wonderful attributes other than your sexuality, sexuality will overshadow them 999,999 times out of 1,000,000.
Because sexuality is your comparative advantage when dealing with the opposite sex, those of that sex denied this instinctively know that they are getting an inferior product. They can tell that they are of lower importance to you no matter how much you may protest that you "don't know what you'd do without [your friend]." While most people value themselves, and thus their friendship, highly, the market, as well as their inmost heart, says differently.
It must certainly be said that the friend zone is thus also a delegation to an inferior status. For a social animal such as man, status is very important. However, as an economic animal, the principle of scarcity is also important. Given limited resources: time, money, emotional energy, man will seek to find their maximum output. This will never be found in the friend zone.