White-Washed Books

Apparently, this is a thing now: "Clean Reader prevents swear words in books from being displayed on your screen."

It's exactly what it sounds like.

Once upon a time, there was a couple whose daughter came home upset from school. After they asked what was wrong, she informed them that she was reading a book that she really enjoyed but was bothered by the profanity in it. The parents then began scouring the world to find something that would help their daughter. Something that would allow her to read the book without reading all those filthy words. To their shock, no such apparatus for automated censorship could be found. So they created Clean Reader.

Clean Reader is an app that scans through eBooks searching for naughty words and replaces them with a large highlight and an alternative, much less "offensive" word.

Ahem.

ACHOO.

I know many people on both sides of the whole "bad words" debacle. I know some people who refuse to use any form of profanity except under the most extreme conditions and I know some people who drop the f-bomb every other word. As in most things, I do my best to fall somewhere in the middle.

My view on profanity is pretty simple: it's language. The reason that it is considered "bad" is because someone arbitrarily made that decision, so there really is nothing wrong with using such language. The only real reason not to use it is interpersonal relationships. I personally am enough of a peacemaker that I try to censor my language around certain people so as not to make them uncomfortable. It's the same reason I don't tell people what color my poop was this morning. You will notice, however, that my self-imposed censorship on this blog presents the same idea and is in tone with my style of writing. (See ACHOO.)

There is certainly something to be said about censoring one's own language in order to make your own life easier by not alienating yourself from others. There is certainly nothing at all wrong with that. There is, however, something wrong about trying to pretend that profanity is not a part of our language.

Let's bring an author into this debate, shall we?

Fuck You, Clean Reader: Authorial Consent Matters

Mr. Wendig, who wrote the above article, is very inclined to using the language in question, so if simply reading the title of that article makes you uncomfortable, consider yourself warned about the language inside. There's nothing vulgar, just naughty words.

Here's the gist and the reason authors are upset about Clean Reader: It's putting words in other people's mouths. When an author writes a book, they are not simply trying to describe settings or characters or even relate a series of events. They are trying their hardest to perform magic. They are trying to drag you out of your body and place you in the mind-set of their protagonist. They are trying to make you feel and experience something. This is not an easy task. Profanity is a part of language and so is often used to aid in the impossible task of transporting you out of your body and into a fictional words.

Certain people in your life would never ever say "fiddle-sticks" or "gosh-darned" just like certain people in your life would never say "fuck" or "god-damned". Characters have to be treated in the same way. Certain characters have to cuss in order for the character to work.

Unfortunately, characters are merely a small part of the issue. If it simply came down to having characters saying something different, that would be nothing. The bigger problem lies in creating an atmosphere. Authors agonize over every single word they put down on paper. They debate whether they should use "the" or "a". They can't sleep at night because they're not sure if someone skipped through a field or frolicked across a meadow. Words have the power to build worlds and when you start pulling away pieces of that world, things start to unravel. Specifically, the reader's experience unravels.

In the book Wicked (not the musical. the book.), there is a scene that takes place in what I can only describe as a kinky sex club. It was weird. It was uncomfortable. It made me reevaluate everything I believe about the reproductive habits of lions and dwarfs. But that was the point. It wasn't supposed to be a part of the story that you breezed through and felt great about afterward. It came to define the lives of some of the characters because it was so disturbing. At the time, I would have just as soon preferred that the author not include the scene. Now when I look back, I realize that what Gregory Maguire (the author) did in that scene was nothing short of magic. I was in that club with those characters. I experienced something that could never happen in the real world.

He did that. Using his words.

When you start taking those words away, you strip the author of their power and hinder them. Imagine that you were offended by a particular shade of blue. Would it be right to create something that filtered out that color whenever you looked at a painting and replaced it with neon green? No. You would think that the painter was insane for using such strange colors to paint a sky. It's the same thing.

The deepest issue with this app is that it takes away the author's only power to defend themselves. It edits their work, then presents it to the masses for judgement. After you have changed the author's words, you are no longer presenting their work. You are presenting something different with their name stamped on the front.

You want to read books that don't have "bad words" in them? Fine. Go find them.

You want your kids reading books that are appropriate for their maturity? Great. Go find them.

You want to start changing books without the author's permission so that your kids don't have to deal with uncomfortable feelings? ACHOO. There is a difference between giving your kids books that are appropriate for them and altering inappropriate ones so that everyone's comfortable with them.

Beyond that, however, remember that it is OK to feel uncomfortable. That's how you grow. Shielding your children from profanity forever will not help them in the long run. It will simply leave them feeling offended and anxious when they go to their first R-rated comedy with their friends. Or set foot in New York. Rather than hiding those words, have a conversation with your children. Talk to them about when they might be appropriate. Talk to them about why those words make them uncomfortable. Give them tools to deal with it. Instead of teaching them not to go anywhere near matches, show them where the fire extinguisher is. Because one day, they just might run into an arsonist like me.

And on that day, you'll be glad they know what the fuck to do.

183 Questions

"Rehumanizing", "Writers Not-So-Anonymous", "Explosions of Nothing", "Salem Door", "Get Me In Jail", "The VeeBJamN Network". These are the names of just a few of my many projects that I began with great intentions for the future but left stranded on the side of the road.

I'm not the most reliable person, if you haven't noticed. I'm notoriously late for things. I start projects and never finish them. I forget to respond to people's texts.

There are some things that I have done a magnificent job of completing. Almost all of my school work was done by the day it was due. I may have left it until the night before to finish it, but it was turned in on time. For months, I posted almost every day on this very blog. For years I watched every episode of LOST when it came on TV. I've been questioning lately what the difference is between the things that are safe to leave in my hands and the things that aren't, and there is one major difference: consequences.

I am a very poor self-motivator. If the only consequences are that I didn't achieve my own goal, who cares? If the penalty for being late to work is that I missed ten minutes of sitting and doing nothing in a building by myself, why should I show up on time? If no one is reading my blog when I post it, who will notice if I don't post it?

I need consequences. In school, if your assignment wasn't in on time, at the very least you lost a chunk of points on it. When I first started this blog, I knew of several people who read every time I posted. If I missed an episode of LOST (back when it was first coming on), I wouldn't get to watch it until a week later after the next episode came on.

I think this is part of why so many of my projects have been left unfinished. If I don't finish them, who will notice? Who will care? I certainly won't. Most of the time, once I'm halfway through a project, my brain has already finished it and moved on to the next. There's no reason for me to finish it on my end. The only reason to finish it would be if someone else cared. This is unfortunate, because when I look back, all I can see is the long trail of half-finished ideas I've used to mark my path.

I don't like this about myself. My unreliability is at the top of the list of things I don't like about me, and I want desperately to cross it off. One of my biggest problems at this point is that I remain unconvinced that it's even possible for me to finish something without someone looking over my shoulder. With that in mind, I am going to try to prove myself wrong.

For one year, come Hell or high water, I will post one story (or piece of a story) every two days (one to write, one to edit) with a minimum length of 500 words.

A second issue: I've always had a hard time taking credit for my writing. I think this is part of why I created my pseudonym. Two reasons:

1. Stories have always come to me so readily and so naturally that I don't feel like a wrote them so much as they presented themselves to me.
2. I'm terrified of rejection.

For a longer explanation of the first reason, please see the page About B.C. Friday. I don't disagree with this reasoning behind the use of a pseudonym, but I'm afraid that reason #2 is a more accurate depiction of my continued use of "B.C. Friday". I need, if only for a time, to take ownership of my work. I need to put my name on it, put it out there, and accept what comes of that.

With that in mind, these 183 stories that I will write over the course of a year will all be written under my name. The name "Benjamin Freitag" will be prominently displayed on the site. I need to prove to myself that I really do have something to do with it and am not just a vessel.

This is going to be an incredibly difficult project for me. It is going to test my commitment, my resolve, and my ability to self-motivate. I don't want to rely on someone else to push me into doing this. This is for me.

There is something that I could use from you, however. I am going to be looking for prompts. What I want from you is questions. They can be personal questions about me, factual questions about the world, or anything else you can think of. It just doesn't matter. (BTW I love "What if" questions!) Hopefully, I will be able to pull together 183 questions and answer them in the form of a story. You can send them to me in many forms. You can message me on Facebook, email them to veebjamn@live.com with the subject line "183 Questions", tweet me on Twitter (I'm bad with this site's jargon) @VeeBJamN using #183questions, or you can tell me in person. Hopefully, once I get the site up and running, you will be able to send in questions there as well.

Due to the nature of this endeavor and the fact that it doesn't really jive with the tone of this blog (or any of the other half-dozen I've set up and abandoned), I will be starting it somewhere new. I don't know where yet. I'm going to be doing some research on that, and I will get back to you. As soon as I've made a decision, I will put an update on this post as well as a link at the top of this blog so you can start watching for the stories to come.

Look for the stories to start coming March 1st, but you can ask questions anytime from now until I'm done with the project in March 2016. (That sounds like such a long way away.)

So here's my question for you today: What are the things you would like to change about yourself and how can you start working to change those things?



Update (2/26/15): The project has a home! Head on over to 183questions.wordpress.com and start asking questions! First story will be up March 1st. 

A Mathematical Approach to Faith

The most fundamental element of mathematics is not 1. Many would argue this, but these people are ignoring the underlying ideas of math. In my opinion, the fundamental element of mathematics is "if-then". If 1+1=2 and 2+1=3 then 1+1+1=3.

Math started out with counting things and from there expanded. Every advancement in mathematics has come out of the simple idea that if one thing happens, then something else happens. If Tommy has 2 apples and Mary has 3 apples, then together they have 5 apples. If a right triangle is half of a rectangle, then the formula for the area of that triangle must be half the formula for the area of a rectangle with the same dimensions.

A lot of people don't realize this, but when you get into the "higher realms" of mathematics (for lack of a better term), it is much more like philosophy than science. In fact, some would argue that math is the purest and most internally consistent branch of philosophy that exists. Other than me (who is far too lazy to actually argue this point), I don't know who those people are, but they exist. I'm positive. Like 83%. Because that is where my background lies, math is the frame-of-reference for me when analyzing most things. So here you go:

If math is my frame-of-reference when analyzing most things and if I believe that the fundamental element of mathematics is "if-then", then I use "if-then" logic when analyzing most things.

When considering any line of thinking, I believe that one should accept a fundamental truth. I honestly don't care what that truth is, but you need to accept one.

Looking at arithmetic, you could accept "1+1=2" as your fundamental truth. (The mathematician in me is insisting that I point out that I have already assumed other things such as the definitions of "1", "+", and "=", and thus they would be more fundamentally true, but that doesn't make my point as easily for the casual reader.) If you accept "1+1=2" as your fundamental truth, you have to accept whatever follows. Thus, you have to accept that 1+1+1=2+1 and 1+1+1=1+2.

You then need to decide if these are contradictory statements. In this case, you need to know if 2+1=1+2. If for some reason they are not equal, your fundamental truth is flawed and needs to be reevaluated. In our case, the statement "2+1=1+2" is, in fact, true and so it can be accepted.

Now here's where things get interesting. Our fundamental truth (1+1=2) doesn't say anything about 2+1, so we get to get creative. We can decide, for example, that 2+1=3. We then have to accept whatever follows from that. If 2+1=3 and 1+1=2, then 1+1+1+1=2+1+1=3+1 but also 1+1+1+1=2+2. These are only true if 3+1=2+2. Thus 4 comes along, then you can get 5 and so on and so forth.

This is, in a sense, how math came to be what it is today. What if, however, we take this same idea and apply it to other areas? What if you accept a different fundamental truth and follow it to its natural conclusion? This is what I would call a mathematical approach, and what it can really teach you (beyond how to understand calculus) is empathy.

empathy: (n) the ability to understand and share the feelings of others

That's right. Math can teach you to be more compassionate.

But how?

I take you back a couple of years to when I was a much more consistent blogger and a much more impassioned human being in general; back when I got fired up about EVERYTHING.

The topic that day: Westboro Baptist Church.
The gist of the Facebook post: What they do, they do out of love.
The reaction: You are a **** for posting this and you should be ashamed of yourself.
My reaction: Shameful removal of the Facebook post.

Among most people in my social circle whenever you bring up WBC, the knee-jerk reaction is anger, mockery, and disdain. Most people feel the same about them as I once felt about the man with the Jesus scepter. (Since identified as Brother Jed.) WBC and Brother Jed are both well known for being confrontational, insulting, and, from the perspective of many, mean and offensive. The natural reaction to such qualities is anger and hate.

I think we can all agree that hate is not compassionate.

Let's look at things from their perspective.

If you believe that a person's actions can condemn them to an eternity of suffering, what follows? We'll consider two reactions: justice and mercy.

• Justice: Let them suffer! They deserve it!
• Mercy: I need to do everything in my power to help them.

If you truly believe that a person's actions correlate with their eternal destiny (e.g. whether they go to Heaven or Hell), the merciful response is to try and save them from themselves by whatever means necessary. If that means being a jerk to get their attention, fine. If that means telling them straight up that what they're doing is wrong, fine. Thing is, in such dire situations, mercy doesn't always look "nice".

That's what I was trying to say when I posted on Facebook about WBC doing what they do out of a place of love. If you actually listen to people from the Westboro Baptist Church talk about their beliefs, they are speaking from a place of love. Tough love, but love nonetheless. You would only let someone you hate continue to live their lives in such a way that would allow them to go to a place of ETERNAL suffering. Honestly, their faith has just as much of a Biblical foundation as most other people. As they say repeatedly in an interview with Russell Brand, "We're not making this stuff up."

It brings up an interesting idea. If you believe that Hell exists, then how far are you willing to go to save someone from that fate? Would you be willing to go to Hell yourself if it meant saving someone else? Would you be willing to compromise everything about yourself to keep someone from suffering for all of eternity?

Most branches of Christianity currently teach that if you believe that Jesus Christ is your savior, then you go to Heaven. Otherwise, you go to Hell. They also teach that this is the ultimate goal of life on Earth. This is the most important thing. So what follows?

The compassionate, merciful, and loving response would be to fight tooth and nail to make sure that every person believes Jesus is their savior. If you already believe that he is yours, and belief is the only thing that gets you into Heaven, your actions that follow are rather moot as far as your own eternal destination. That means that you can lie, cheat, and steal whatever you want as long as you believe Jesus is your savior, and you will still go to Heaven. Isn't the most loving thing, then, to lie, cheat, and steal whatever you have to to convince as many people as possible that Jesus is their savior? Wouldn't the most loving thing be to con people into believing that, regardless of truth, and then have them assassinated as soon as they believe? That way, they believe, they die believing, and they go to Heaven before they change their mind.

Here's the thing: people have made other assumptions along the way. They added in ideas. Much like how earlier we added in the idea that "2+1=3", people have added in the idea that there is a "right" way to save people. The real question is, does that contradict the fundamental truth (i.e. if you die without believing Jesus is your savior, you're going to Hell)? I'll leave that one for you to think about.

Here's the more interesting question to me: If there is a single narrow path that leads to Heaven and everything else leads to Hell, what is more loving? Staying on the path that brings you to Heaven and letting others wander off or going off the path yourself to keep someone else from walking into Hell? Would you be willing to go to Hell if it meant someone else could go to Heaven?

I don't have the answer to that question, nor is that question really my point here. My point is that you may not be doing the most loving thing possible within your belief system while others may be in theirs. Who is being truly more loving: the person who believes that someone's actions condemn them to Hell and fights tooth and nail to convince people that what they are doing is wrong regardless of what society tells them or the person who believes that only belief gets people into Heaven but doesn't lie, cheat, and steal to save others?

(On a side note: I think the smartest evangelist for any religion would put all their money into ad agencies. Quit wasting time trying to figure stuff out by yourself and use those people who have devoted their lives to convincing people to do things they may not want to do.)

This is what mathematical thinking is all about. It's about coming at things from a new perspective. Throw off everything you believe, temporarily accept what someone else believes, and follow it to its conclusion. Only then can you truly understand someone else's feelings and actions.

You can try this with your own faith, too. Figure out what your fundamental truth is, then see if your other beliefs contradict with that. Do you believe that the Bible is the unadulterated word of God and that we must obey every line of it to the letter but also believe that it's alright to wear polyester or pearl earrings? Do you believe that faith must be viewed through the lens of science but also believe that all humans descended from Adam and Eve? Do you believe that Jesus is God and also believe that Jesus is the son of God? Do you believe that your faith's contradictions are acceptable but get angry when other people's faiths have contradictions in them?

More importantly, do your actions line up with the most loving implementation of your core beliefs?

You Can't Stop It

I'm thinky and procrastinatory today, so you get to read now my desperate attempt to stall as long as possible before having to call someone over something that should have already been taken care of by someone other than me.

Someone (You remain unnamed intentionally. If you want credit, claim it in the comments.) just posted this on Facebook:

Valentine's day is stupid and does not exist . . . It's called "St. Valenstine's day" [sic] and is about blood and death. Where did our culture decide to make it a day of mushy-crap?

A few things here:

1. Please tell me "Valenstine" is a typo.
2. When was it ever about blood and death?
3. Why is "mushy-crap" hyphenated?
4. The 18th Century. It was decided then. So sayeth Wikipedia. (All hail.)
5. Which horse is more important: the one that leaves the gate first or the one that finishes first?

Very little is actually known about the person(s) after whom Valentine's Day is named. In fact, the Catholic church removed Saint Valentine's Day from the list of official feasts, because all they knew about him was where and when he was buried. Not even when he died.

With that in mind, Valentine's Day has had several different associations over the centuries. One of the first associations it has was with the start of spring. In fact, in some cultures St. Valentine has been considered a patron saint of spring. (We'll just ignore all those years that it's snowed on February 14th.) In the 14th century, Geoffrey Chaucer wrote a poem that talked about birds finding their mate on St. Valentine's Day. That's still clearly an association with spring, but is considered by many to be the first association of the day with romantic love. From there, things started to spiral toward where they are now.

In the 15th century, love letters started becoming more an more common around February 14th, and there may have been an annually convened Court of Love in France that may also have been a hallucination brought on by plague. True story.

The aforementioned "mushy-crap" likely didn't fully arise until the 18th century when a publisher printed a book of verses for guys who couldn't come up with their own. Thanks to some other historicalistic things, romance and eroticism became more prominent around the same time. All that fed back into Valentine's day and by the start of the 19th century Valentines were being put together in factories.

So there you have it. Spring started around February 14th (in the pre-Gregorian calendar), birds mate in spring, thinking about mating makes people want to mate, people try to find people with whom to mate, Valentine's day. Boom.

I'm really not sure where my well-meaning friend got the idea that Valentine's Day was associated with blood and death. I mean, yes. The legends do claim that St. Valentine was martyred, but if that's the only thing he was remembered for, he'd never have such a major holiday. Heck, there's practically a feast every day of the year for someone who was martyred. It's an almost disconcertingly common trait among saints.

Now, it is entirely within the realm of possibilities that there was once a great conqueror name Valenstine. He could have slaughtered millions of people and ordered their families to dance in the blood of the fallen on February 14th. Then, somewhere around 1893, the world's governments could have united to change the day from being a solemn remembrance of the atrocities committed by Valenstine to a celebration of love in the name of the much less terrifying Valentine. They then could have relegated every use of the name Valenstine to nothing more than a typo and paid off every person on Earth to never mention Valenstine again and celebrate Valentine's day instead. If that's true, this blog will most likely get me killed. If that happens, writing pointless rants for you to read over the last few years has been a privilege and an honor. Valenstine was a monster! Never forget and never forgive!

Let's suppose for a moment that either of these two theories on the origin of Valentine's Day is true. Or, for that matter, whatever origin you want to believe about Valentine's Day. Suppose that it has somehow changed from its original purpose.

There's nothing you can do about it. Nothing. If there were, no one would ever have to spend thousands of dollars on an engagement ring. Seriously. Watch this: Why Engagement Rings Are a Scam.

But sadly, as the video says at the end, you can't get away with getting engaged without a ring, because the idea has become too deeply wedged into our culture. You can't get away with pretending Valentine's Day isn't about love, because now it is! It doesn't matter which horse gets out of the gate first. The only thing that matters is which horse crossed the finish line first.

Knowing where Valentine's day comes from doesn't change what it is now. It is about "mushy-crap" now. Accept it.

Or don't.

Either way, you're just going to annoy someone.

And speaking of annoying, didn't you like that video ruining everything you ever believed about engagement rings? Here are some more you might like:

• Purebred Dogs Aren't Better
• Tipping Is A Bad Thing
• Einstein Didn't Fail Math (And Other Misconceptions)
• America Isn't As Great As You Think

And the best part about all of these? Thanks to society, there's virtually NOTHING you can do about any of it! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

But here's something you can do something about!

Seriously. We can all agree on this.

(I promise this wasn't a propaganda piece when I started writing it.)

I'm Not Ignoring You

There is a distinction I think I need to make.

I love you. I care about you deeply. I think you are a fantastic person and want to talk to you and spend time with you.

But it hurts.

Being with you is great. I love it. It's infinitely better than spending time alone. If I thought that us spending time together would happen regularly, I would commit to that. Unfortunately, life sucks and you're far away. Once we're done hanging out for whatever period of time, I get to go right back to my little world all by myself. That's what's so painful.

Every time I get put back in the toy box, it hurts a little more than the last.

I've been alone for quite a while now, and experience during that time has taught me that we will be together for a short time, then go right back to not acknowledging each other's existence except with the occasional like on Facebook.

It hurts a little less to just stay in the box.

What's worse? A prison you're convinced you won't escape from that has no view of the outside world or a prison you're convinced you won't escape from with a single tiny window just out of view.

You're not unique here. Everyone's getting the same reaction from me right now.

I'm not ignoring you.

I'm ignoring everyone.

I'm sorry.





Please don't give up on me yet.

A Beginner's Guide to the Friendzone

I read an article a while back that at the time I thought I agreed with. Unfortunately, because my stupid brain holds everything deep down inside only to allow them to resurface at inconvenient time, I have spent the entire morning thinking about this article that I read nearly two months ago. I now cannot believe how much I disagree with the article and by extension myself at the time. It just goes to show that if something is well-written enough, anyone will buy it. (But that, dear reader, is a discussion for another time.)

The article was about the friendzone.

Let's start with one of the biggest myths there is: The friendzone doesn't exist. ACHOO! If you can claim that the friendzone doesn't exist, you fall into one of the following three categories:

1. You have never been there.
2. You managed to "get out" of it.
3. It has been so long since you were there and you were there so few times that you no longer remember it.

If you fall into any one of those three categories, good for you! Seriously, good for you. For once, I'm being genuine. If you are in a place in your life where you are comfortable saying that the friendzone doesn't exist, I envy you. I really do. I truly wish that I could believe that.

The biggest problem is in defining the friendzone. Some will say that it is when you do all the work of being a significant other without getting any of the benefits. Honestly, not a terrible definition, but there is some problematic language when people start trying to work out exactly what you mean by "work" and "benefits". An urban dictionary definition simply said that it was the worst thing a girl can do to a guy. This, however, ignores the fact that girls can end up in the friendzone too. You don't hear about it as often, but we'll get to that in a bit. The more important issue here is that it puts the blame on someone. The friendzone is not anyone's fault. It just . . . is.

Here's a healthier definition of the friendzone:

Friendzone: (n) a symbolic place representing an imbalance in a relationship wherein one person, the one in the friendzone, has romantic feelings while the other considers the relationship platonic.

That exists. And it hurts.

Now let's look back at the definitions I mentioned earlier and consider them in light of this new definition.

The worst thing a girl can do to a guy.

As I have already said, this is sexist. While the friendzone is stereotypically inhabited by guys (I promise I will get to that.), girls can be there too. If the girl in a relationship has romantic feelings for a guy and he simply doesn't feel the same way, she's in the friendzone. Let's get to the bigger issue with this definition: the friendzone is not something anyone does to anyone else. It's not someone's fault that they don't feel the same toward someone else anymore than it's someone's fault that they like ketchup. You may never want to speak to that person again, but you don't have a right to blame them.

The next one brings us back around to the article that I read a couple of months ago.

Doing all of the work of being a significant other without any of the benefits.

Let me start this by saying that I absolutely agree with this definition, just not with most people's interpretation of it.

The article that I read used a similar definition to this and was talking about how sexist and misogynistic the friendzone is. It basically pointed out how wrong it is to look at women as vending machines: you put good deeds in, you get sex out. At the time, I seriously reevaluated the idea of the friendzone and really truly thought I agreed with this man. Until this morning.

First off, the analysis of the friendzone as being sexist is, in itself sexist. It implies that women cannot have that feeling of imbalance. Having talked directly to at least one girl who did and having heard stories of girls who have been there, I feel confident in saying that the friendzone can apply just as much to girls as to guys. (I promise you're very close to the reason why you hear about it more often with guys.)

Secondly, the analysis of the friendzone suggesting a vending machine system for sex in turn suggests a naive understanding of relationships. If you think that the only "benefits" someone in the friendzone wants from the other person are sex, you are severely mistaken. I talked with a couple guys recently who both independently shared there friendzone experiences with me. Neither of them ever mentioned sex. Or kissing. Or holding hands. Or anything physical at all. The "benefits" that these guys, and myself when I have been locked in the friendzone, really want are emotional. They want to be close to someone in a way that only a romantic relationship allows. They want to have an exclusive connection with that person that only they get to have. They want to feel special.

Let's face it, that's the really painful thing about the friendzone. What your presence there suggests is that for whatever reason, you weren't special enough for that person to single out.

You are just like every other friend they have.

That's what hurts. It's not being told, "You don't get to have sex with this person!" It's being told that someone you adore and think is special enough to spend your nights thinking about, to spend your days trying to make happy, to spend your precious emotional energy on doesn't think you are any more valuable than anyone else in there life. It's not that person's fault, but it doesn't make it suck any less. It doesn't make you feel any less lonely.

Going to the friendzone can be a defense mechanism. It's an easily defensible location against the onslaught of self-doubt that follows rejection. Which finally brings us to why the friendzone is more common in guys than girls.

Society is sexist, and within that sexism lies the idea that the guy is supposed to make the first move. Despite all the progress that the feminism movement has made, guys are still generally expected to be the one to approach the girl, to ask for her number, to make the date. Guys are the ones who are expected to put themselves out there.

Whenever a guy puts himself out there, his ego is on the line. His confidence, his reputation, and everything he believes about himself is being presented to another person for evaluation. Being told that the other person is not interested in that is embarrassing. As I mentioned, the friendzone is really a defensive idea. It's a place where you can put up walls of explanation the save yourself from all the terrible explanations thinkers come up with for themselves.

Here's a thought process that is more true than I care to admit:

• I like her. A lot.
• Maybe she likes me.
• She's treating me really nice, that's a good sign.
• Alright, I'm gonna go for it.
• I told her. Now for the most agonizing few seconds of waiting ever.
• ...
• She doesn't like me.
• Ok, she likes me, but not like that.
• Why doesn't she like me like that?
• What's wrong with me?
• It's because I'm ugly, isn't it?
• That's not true. Ugly guys get pretty girls all the time.
• I should just try harder.
• That's it! I'll try harder!
• ...
• Maybe she likes me now.
• She's treating me really nice, that's a good sign.
• Alright, I'm gonna go for it.
• I told her. Now for the most agonizing few seconds of waiting ever.
• ...
• She doesn't like me.
• Ok, she likes me, but not like that.
• Why doesn't she like me like that?
• What's wrong with me?
• It's because I'm ugly, isn't it?
• That's not true. Ugly guys get pretty girls all the time.
• It must be because she doesn't want to risk losing our friendship.
• At least it's not my fault.

Please note that "It's because I'm ugly" can be substituted for just about anything that the friendzone-inhabitant-to-be is self-conscious about and that the cycle can be repeated as many times as necessary before one decides that they are in the friendzone.

I can't speak for girls on this front, but guys are told by society through movies, TV, and word of mouth that they can end up with anyone they want. If they try hard enough, if they're sweet enough, if they're charming enough, if they're romantic enough, if they're funny enough, they can "get" any girl they want. The only reason you can't get the girl you want is because you aren't trying hard enough. So they keep trying. They keep getting rejected. They keep getting embarrassed. They keep failing.

At some point, acceptance of the friendzone becomes the only way out.

I have given you several definitions of the friendzone that are all valid in their own ways. None of them, however, reflect what I feel the true essence of the friendzone to be. You see, the friendzone isn't what makes you feel lonely. The friendzone isn't what makes you feel embarrassed. Rejection is.

Rejection leaves you feeling worthless and alone. You offered yourself, mind, body and soul, to a person and they said that they weren't interested. You allowed yourself to hope that you were about to become closer to this incredible person and now you're further from them than ever. It's lonely. It's embarrassing, and it hurts. Who you gonna call?

Friendzone: (n) an imagined fortress built of explanations to protect yourself from the onslaught of doubt and feelings of worthlessness that result from finding out that you are not as special to someone else as they are to you.

Saying that Washington D.C. doesn't exist isn't going to fix the American government. Saying that the friendzone doesn't exist isn't going to make people in it feel any better. On the contrary, you are stripping them of their defenses and leaving them subject to the terrors of their own mind.

It's not about sex. It's about self-esteem.