Relationship Woes and Advice 25: Now with extra Valentine

[Oneris]

From my reading of women who complain of the girlfriend zone and of other posters who've discussed such things in the past, I would have to disagree with you there that there's no possible way to lose face by declining the counter-proposal.

Women who complain of the Girlfriend Zone often complain that as soon as a romantic proposal is declined, the guy takes off and is never seen again in a way that makes the girl wonder if the only thing he saw in her was the possibility of sex. "I want to be your boyfriend, but I don't want to be your friend," is the absolute worst way to go about attempting relationships with anyone.

[dehro]

I am confused as to the existence of the girlfriend zone.. it's also the first time I hear of it.
last time I checked the friendzone, nominating it even in a jocular fashion was something that would put you in the crosshairs of the nearest femminist movement and instantaneously branded with some of their choicyest (that's a word, right?) epithets, whether you believed in its existence and/or approved of the concept in general or not...
yet the girlfriend zone is a thing?
there must be some difference here I am not seeing.

[Serpentine]

The "girlfriend zone" is the tongue-in-cheek counterpoint to the friendzone, as seen here.

[Crow]

Women who complain of the Girlfriend Zone often complain that as soon as a romantic proposal is declined, the guy takes off and is never seen again in a way that makes the girl wonder if the only thing he saw in her was the possibility of sex. "I want to be your boyfriend, but I don't want to be your friend," is the absolute worst way to go about attempting relationships with anyone.

This is going to sound terrible, and I am a terrible person for thinking this; but I don't have need for more "friends" who I see more than semi-occasionally. Just because I take off when I find out a relationship is not a possibility doesn't mean I only wanted sex.

It means that I am treating you exactly like the dozens of other "friends" in my life who aren't in my inner circle. We're still friends. If there is a large get together, you'll be invited. If we see eachother out and about we'll chat, and maybe grab a quick snack or drink. We don't need to go to disneyland every week together though.

So I wanted a relationship, and was pursuing one. So what? If you expect every friend to act the same as someone who is trying to romance you, you're pretty demanding. I only have so much time in my day, and I'm still not in a romantic relationship. Excuse me if I would like to devote some of it to finding one.

*response directed at the concept, not the poster.

[Coidzor]

Women who complain of the Girlfriend Zone often complain that as soon as a romantic proposal is declined, the guy takes off and is never seen again in a way that makes the girl wonder if the only thing he saw in her was the possibility of sex. "I want to be your boyfriend, but I don't want to be your friend," is the absolute worst way to go about attempting relationships with anyone.

That's the Girlfriend Zone summed up in a nutshell, yes. I'd have thought it a known quantity not in need of explanation, though.

You see how not wanting to go on a date with someone if it's not actually a date can be construed in that manner, yeah?

I am confused as to the existence of the girlfriend zone.. it's also the first time I hear of it.
last time I checked the friendzone, nominating it even in a jocular fashion was something that would put you in the crosshairs of the nearest femminist movement and instantaneously branded with some of their choicyest (that's a word, right?) epithets, whether you believed in its existence and/or approved of the concept in general or not...
yet the girlfriend zone is a thing?
there must be some difference here I am not seeing.

It's a reaction against the concept of the friendzone.

[dehro]

You see how not wanting to go on a date with someone if it's not actually a date can be construed in that manner, yeah?

only if you start with the preconception that sex and relationship are interchangeable and that no matter what they say, guys really are looking for sex, and not a relationship.
which leads to a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation

[Lissou]

I'm glad you shared your opinion, Coidzor. I can't say I have been in the situation of being asked for a date by a friend who wanted to start a relationship, but I believe in that situation I would have acted exactly in the way described: by saying no to the date, but adding that we could still have a meal/go to the movies as friends, instead.
Not doing so - not offering that option - would have made me feel like a callous, insensitive, mean person. Like I said "I don't want to date you...and as a result I don't want to be friends anymore, either". Stating that going out as friends was still an option would have been my way of saying "just because you like me this way doesn't mean things have to become awkward or that I will avoid you, and I can prove it to you by hanging out anyways and showing you our relationship hasn't changed".

The idea that saying "I'm not interested in dating, but I'm available that day for non-romantic stuff" is harsher, not less harsh, than simply saying "no" is not something I would have considered before you comments. And usually I'm in the situation of the person getting rejected.

[Serpentine]

What Lissou said.

[Chen]

We might have lost context here. Let's look back at the quote:

This really isn't a woe, I'm just wondering if anyone can tell me what to look for if a girl is interested in me. A little background, I asked this girl to dinner, she said yes but that she was not ready for anything but still wanted to as friends.

"Not ready for anything but still wanted to as friends" is a particularly bad way of saying this. Not ready implies at some point in the future they might be ready. This is language usually meant to keep from hurting feelings but is perhaps the WORST way to phrase a rejection. Adding the "lets still go out to dinner as friends" part just makes it worse. It tends to imply that friendship has the potential to turn into the original romantic relationship, once the person is "ready".

The situation of saying "lets do this as friends instead" would also depend on the relationship prior to that. Did you usually just go to movies alone together? Or dinner? If so, then I suppose there's not much to it. Same old, same old. But in my experience (anecdotal of course), I've gone through the same situation once or twice and in those cases the one-on-one get togethers were fairly non-existent before, making the reply very awkward to say the least.

[Anarion]

This is going to sound terrible, and I am a terrible person for thinking this; but I don't have need for more "friends" who I see more than semi-occasionally. Just because I take off when I find out a relationship is not a possibility doesn't mean I only wanted sex.

It means that I am treating you exactly like the dozens of other "friends" in my life who aren't in my inner circle. We're still friends. If there is a large get together, you'll be invited. If we see eachother out and about we'll chat, and maybe grab a quick snack or drink. We don't need to go to disneyland every week together though.

So I wanted a relationship, and was pursuing one. So what? If you expect every friend to act the same as someone who is trying to romance you, you're pretty demanding. I only have so much time in my day, and I'm still not in a romantic relationship. Excuse me if I would like to devote some of it to finding one.

*response directed at the concept, not the poster.

I have a problem with the girlfriend zone idea, but for a totally different reason than this. Ignore the gender for a moment. If person A feels romantically interested in person B, A may decide to pursue B. A will dedicate time and attention to B and hope that B reciprocates. If B doesn't feel that way, A is going to hurt. It's plain old rejection, the painful feeling of "I like you, but you don't like me." After that, A is probably going to feel pretty bad. Saying "oh, but we're great friends" rings kind of hollow at that moment. I think it's pretty understandable at that point why person A wouldn't want to see much of B anymore. Constant reminders of rejection aren't very pleasant.

[Oneris]

I have a problem with the girlfriend zone idea, but for a totally different reason than this. Ignore the gender for a moment. If person A feels romantically interested in person B, A may decide to pursue B. A will dedicate time and attention to B and hope that B reciprocates. If B doesn't feel that way, A is going to hurt. It's plain old rejection, the painful feeling of "I like you, but you don't like me." After that, A is probably going to feel pretty bad. Saying "oh, but we're great friends" rings kind of hollow at that moment. I think it's pretty understandable at that point why person A wouldn't want to see much of B anymore. Constant reminders of rejection aren't very pleasant.

But if the answer is "Only pursue people you don't mind never seeing again after being rejected romantically," what does that say about the person whom you're pursuing?

[Aedilred]

But if the answer is "Only pursue people you don't mind never seeing again after being rejected romantically," what does that say about the person whom you're pursuing?

I don't think that's what anyone is saying. Rather, it's that you're probably not going to want to become close friends with someone you were seriously interested in romantically, because it's a constant reminder of that rejection, no matter how great you might think they are. It's probably not good for you, either.

"Don't want to see all the time" is not the same as "don't mind never seeing again". As Crow says, life's just too short to maintain that many close friendships, especially when you're actively searching for a relationship and maintaining <given friendship> is going to eat into the available time you've already allocated for pursuing that. (Although, having said that, to be honest, while there are many friends of mine I'd be disappointed if I never saw again, the number who I'd actually lose sleep over the thought of never seeing again, all other things being equal, is fairly small).

If you're already close friends with someone to the extent that you regularly go out for dinner or whatever together and then ask them out and are rejected but taken up on the offer for a "social date", that's rather different and more complicated, and that's why people are trying to establish whether that is in fact the case in this specific instance, or whether they're friends-but-not-close-friends.

[Knaight]

I don't think that's what anyone is saying. Rather, it's that you're probably not going to want to become close friends with someone you were seriously interested in romantically, because it's a constant reminder of that rejection, no matter how great you might think they are. It's probably not good for you, either.

I don't get this attitude. If I was going to ask someone out at all, it's because I already like them enough to want to be friends with them. That's not affected at all by their rejection - the rejection closes off one possibility which seemed like it would be worth investigating, it hardly needs to take a friendship with it. As for them being around being a "constant reminder of that rejection", I don't see it at all. An offer was made, an offer was rejected, and everyone can continue with their lives because it's really not a big deal. "Constant reminder" status is somewhat harder to earn for that. For instance, there's the guy who did his best to make elementary school miserable for five years - any interaction with him would be a constant reminder of five years of constant bullying, which is more than enough reason not to deal with him again even if he were a decent person now. Being turned down for something? Hardly.

[Icewraith]

But if the answer is "Only pursue people you don't mind never seeing again after being rejected romantically," what does that say about the person whom you're pursuing?

You're saving that person from the presence of a "friend" who has to constantly suppress their romantic urges and is likely to develop bitter feelings about or intentionally or unintentionally poison any romantic relationships the desired person does have. A passive aggressive person who hangs out around you in the hope that your current relationship implodes and you then find them an acceptable partner is not a "friend". It's a well-intentioned romance vulture.

Being one sucks, but having a person around who tends to bend over backwards for you if you're slightly inconvenienced and overspends on you during events where gifts are acceptable in hopes of currying favor has its upside.

[Coidzor]

I'm glad you shared your opinion, Coidzor. I can't say I have been in the situation of being asked for a date by a friend who wanted to start a relationship, but I believe in that situation I would have acted exactly in the way described: by saying no to the date, but adding that we could still have a meal/go to the movies as friends, instead.
Not doing so - not offering that option - would have made me feel like a callous, insensitive, mean person. Like I said "I don't want to date you...and as a result I don't want to be friends anymore, either". Stating that going out as friends was still an option would have been my way of saying "just because you like me this way doesn't mean things have to become awkward or that I will avoid you, and I can prove it to you by hanging out anyways and showing you our relationship hasn't changed".

The idea that saying "I'm not interested in dating, but I'm available that day for non-romantic stuff" is harsher, not less harsh, than simply saying "no" is not something I would have considered before you comments. And usually I'm in the situation of the person getting rejected.

Well, there's some complications, though that may be more from my anecdotal experience. I generally try to avoid terms like harsh when the reason for it could be ignorance instead of some level of deliberate antagonism, though.

Generally women who reject guys who are ostensibly friends or friendly acquaintances of some sort, they're under pressure to be more polite than they actually want to be out of a combination of factors, including, if my sources are to be believed, fear of violent male response to rejection that isn't properly modulated. So there's a lot of empty platitudes that can be thrown out there like chaff, and the only real way of knowing if a woman was sincere about continuing to view a man as a friend is how she acts towards him later on and whether she becomes suspicious of his every word or action now that he's revealed his interest.

So an offer of going on an outing, especially if it's the same outing that was proposed as a date, could just be another empty platitude or an intended-to-be-polite nothing or it could be sincere. It doesn't communicate anything useful to the rejected party about the rejector due to this lack of clarity, other than that they're not going to go ballistic and assault them or instantly and aggressively cut contact then and there, which is generally fairly unlikely anyway, especially when it's a woman turning down a man. Generally if contact is going to be cut, it's going to be relatively quietly after the woman removes herself from the presence of the man.

Personally I prefer a bit of time to process the rejection before I have to go be tested on my ability to turn a complete 180 and go from being flirty and displaying increasing levels of interest in the other person to acting like an asexual aromantic eunuch while out doing what I intended to be a romantic date. Especially because so often there's no real... grace or empathy, despite ostensibly there being some kind of friendship there, somewhere, and any sign of weakness in one's facade of disinterest is taken as damning.

Other guys won't have any issue on going straight out to get ice cream with someone after their advances are rejected, and while I'm aware of that, I generally don't understand their ability to do so outside of situations where the interest wasn't that strong to begin with.

Certainly if there was a way to actually take someone at their word and have them say that they were interested in remaining friends if possible, that'd be nice, but that seems to depend more on the interpersonal chemistry of the two people and how trusting a particular woman is, and too often both men and women say they want to remain friends when they do not, so the only way to know is to move forward and see how they respond and things develop, annoyingly enough.

I have a problem with the girlfriend zone idea, but for a totally different reason than this. Ignore the gender for a moment. If person A feels romantically interested in person B, A may decide to pursue B. A will dedicate time and attention to B and hope that B reciprocates. If B doesn't feel that way, A is going to hurt. It's plain old rejection, the painful feeling of "I like you, but you don't like me." After that, A is probably going to feel pretty bad. Saying "oh, but we're great friends" rings kind of hollow at that moment. I think it's pretty understandable at that point why person A wouldn't want to see much of B anymore. Constant reminders of rejection aren't very pleasant.

There's a decided lack of empathy, yes. There's also a decided lack of empathy in many constructions of the friendzone and there's the opposite of empathy in what those who came up with the girlfriend zone heard when others talked about the friendzone.

I don't get this attitude. If I was going to ask someone out at all, it's because I already like them enough to want to be friends with them. That's not affected at all by their rejection - the rejection closes off one possibility which seemed like it would be worth investigating, it hardly needs to take a friendship with it. As for them being around being a "constant reminder of that rejection", I don't see it at all. An offer was made, an offer was rejected, and everyone can continue with their lives because it's really not a big deal. "Constant reminder" status is somewhat harder to earn for that. For instance, there's the guy who did his best to make elementary school miserable for five years - any interaction with him would be a constant reminder of five years of constant bullying, which is more than enough reason not to deal with him again even if he were a decent person now. Being turned down for something? Hardly.

That entirely depends on the strength and depth of feeling and how long things had been going on before the rejection came.

It's all very well to say that people shouldn't have strong feelings unless they're already in a relationship with someone and they develop those strong feelings for their partner, but that's not going to be something that everyone can practicably live by.

Certainly if I had that much control over my feelings I wouldn't have had any issues with the girl I've been in here about not being able to completely get over and I wouldn't currently have any issues with this current demisexual girl I'm miserable over who I only really started falling for in the first place because she came to me and said she'd started falling for me.

[Aedilred]

I don't get this attitude. If I was going to ask someone out at all, it's because I already like them enough to want to be friends with them. That's not affected at all by their rejection - the rejection closes off one possibility which seemed like it would be worth investigating, it hardly needs to take a friendship with it. As for them being around being a "constant reminder of that rejection", I don't see it at all. An offer was made, an offer was rejected, and everyone can continue with their lives because it's really not a big deal. "Constant reminder" status is somewhat harder to earn for that. For instance, there's the guy who did his best to make elementary school miserable for five years - any interaction with him would be a constant reminder of five years of constant bullying, which is more than enough reason not to deal with him again even if he were a decent person now. Being turned down for something? Hardly.

Firstly, what Icewraith says (and, in a ninja move, Coidzor). But it depends how serious it is, hence why I said "seriously interested" in my previous post. If it's someone you've asked out because hey, why not, it's not likely to be a problem. If you actually care about whether or not they reject you, though, it's something you've agonised over for a while, and are likely to be put out by the reaction, then every time you see that person thereafter you're likely to be reminded of that, and the more you see them, the harder it will be to move past it.

How badly you take rejection personally will vary from person to person (and from rejection to rejection). But I think on the whole in failed romantic situations in which either party has any real emotional investment (no matter how developed any relationship is or indeed whether one has even really begun), distance for at least a while afterwards is preferable for both parties. If you're really interested in each other as a potential friend and not just as a potential partner (unilaterally or not), you can probably pick it up again afterwards, but you need to get all the emotional clutter out of your system first.

[Oneris]

Firstly, what Icewraith says (and, in a ninja move, Coidzor). But it depends how serious it is, hence why I said "seriously interested" in my previous post. If it's someone you've asked out because hey, why not, it's not likely to be a problem. If you actually care about whether or not they reject you, though, it's something you've agonised over for a while, and are likely to be put out by the reaction, then every time you see that person thereafter you're likely to be reminded of that, and the more you see them, the harder it will be to move past it.

How badly you take rejection personally will vary from person to person (and from rejection to rejection). But I think on the whole in failed romantic situations in which either party has any real emotional investment (no matter how developed any relationship is or indeed whether one has even really begun), distance for at least a while afterwards is preferable for both parties. If you're really interested in each other as a potential friend and not just as a potential partner (unilaterally or not), you can probably pick it up again afterwards, but you need to get all the emotional clutter out of your system first.

When you have that much emotional investment in a prospect with such a high potential of failure, you've already waited too long. Ask them early before the possibility that rejection will kill your heart, then make the decision of what sort of friendship you'll have.

[Aedilred]

When you have that much emotional investment in a prospect with such a high potential of failure, you've already waited too long. Ask them early before the possibility that rejection will kill your heart, then make the decision of what sort of friendship you'll have.

Unfortunately, this is where theory and reality diverge sharply from one another.

In any case, "don't ask someone out if you care about the answer" doesn't sound like a terribly sensible policy.

[Oneris]

In any case, "don't ask someone out if you care about the answer" doesn't sound like a terribly sensible policy.

Neither is "Don't ask someone out until you've decided on their answer and will feel horribly betrayed when it turns out you were wrong", but we still see people play by that rule all the time.

Edit: And it's "Ask someone out as soon as you have romantic interest to gauge whether you should allow that interest to grow". If you're already starting to care about their answer, then get that answer ASAP.

[Coidzor]

Neither is "Don't ask someone out until you've decided on their answer and will feel horribly betrayed when it turns out you were wrong", but we still see people play by that rule all the time.

Edit: And it's "Ask someone out as soon as you have romantic interest to gauge whether you should allow that interest to grow". If you're already starting to care about their answer, then get that answer ASAP.

In my case I got the answer and then 8 hours later I had the answer changed on me while I was asleep.

Is that still my fault?

[Oneris]

In my case I got the answer and then 8 hours later I had the answer changed on me while I was asleep.

Is that still my fault?

That's not your fault. That's them being wishywashy and refusing to admit it and so giving falsely definitive answers. They gave you permission to let those feelings grow, and then took that permission away.

[Knaight]

Firstly, what Icewraith says (and, in a ninja move, Coidzor). But it depends how serious it is, hence why I said "seriously interested" in my previous post. If it's someone you've asked out because hey, why not, it's not likely to be a problem. If you actually care about whether or not they reject you, though, it's something you've agonised over for a while, and are likely to be put out by the reaction, then every time you see that person thereafter you're likely to be reminded of that, and the more you see them, the harder it will be to move past it.

I'm assuming that one does care, has spent some time agonizing over things, so on and so forth. It's just that the relevance of that fades pretty quickly. What Icewraith described is, at best, someone who has utterly failed at moving on with their lives. In general it's someone who has never been a friend and has only been faking it to try and get a relationship. I'm not a proponent of relationship vultures; I've known a few and they're generally completely obnoxious. I just don't buy that it's somehow the default post-rejection state for people. All it really takes to avoid it is to actually interpret a statement of disinterest as a statement of disinterest, and to decide not to throw away the existing friendship.

[Cyber Punk]

If you think she's interested in her and she's gotten your attention enough that you've noticed her digging on you and you're not opposed to her digging on you, then you go for it in my book. Also, possibly consider informing your mates when you've got designs on a woman to minimize friendly fire.

I'd recommend setting yourself a goal, or even a quota, to ask out several people on first dates just to get the practice in. And, hey, maybe you'll have something interesting develop.

Concerning minimizing friendly fire, said guy-friend could have learnt that. What's done is done, though.

I tend to not focus too much on having a relationship, so I don't see myself setting any quotas. Still, should a situation arise where a relationship seems likely, I'll be sure to act quickly.

When you have that much emotional investment in a prospect with such a high potential of failure, you've already waited too long.

"Ask someone out as soon as you have romantic interest to gauge whether you should allow that interest to grow". If you're already starting to care about their answer, then get that answer ASAP.

That's the kind of advice I should take. I agree with this, as someone who's tended to wait too long to decide on what the person's answer should be. Asking one out early enough can help to kill unrealistic expectations, make it easier to cut losses (take a no as a no) and avoid becoming obsessed with getting a 'yes'.

I'm assuming that one does care, has spent some time agonizing over things, so on and so forth. It's just that the relevance of that fades pretty quickly. What Icewraith described is, at best, someone who has utterly failed at moving on with their lives. In general it's someone who has never been a friend and has only been faking it to try and get a relationship. I'm not a proponent of relationship vultures; I've known a few and they're generally completely obnoxious. I just don't buy that it's somehow the default post-rejection state for people. All it really takes to avoid it is to actually interpret a statement of disinterest as a statement of disinterest, and to decide not to throw away the existing friendship.

My focus is on the italicized part.
Look, I happen to agree with you, if you get rejected, it's best to cut your losses and move on. It's just that there are many people who don't know how to do that effectively. Usually, when one gets rejected, they'd feel it, no matter how small the 'I just got rejected' feeling is. What they do with that feeling is what separates A from B, so to speak. While some people would take it as it is and eliminate that person from list of potential dates (without killing the friendship), some others would hold on to that feeling, make it bigger than it really is, and so on and so forth.

Like Oneris said, what differentiates A from B is how long one waits to ask someone out when romantic feelings for that someone are discovered. The longer you wait, the more the feelings tend to grow, and the higher the probability you'd get really hurt when rejected (except you lose interest as time passes).

[golentan]

Hey, I was wondering (this is a general thing, not tied to any drama in my current life) why people who are cheated on often get more angry at the person their partner cheated with than the cheating partner? From what I've experienced, as often as not the 3rd party didn't know they were contributing to cheating, but their innocence doesn't change anything...

Bugs me.

[Anarion]

Hey, I was wondering (this is a general thing, not tied to any drama in my current life) why people who are cheated on often get more angry at the person their partner cheated with than the cheating partner? From what I've experienced, as often as not the 3rd party didn't know they were contributing to cheating, but their innocence doesn't change anything...

Bugs me.

If you want to go all psychology on it, it's basically a way to avoid admitting to themselves that they were stupid. If your partner cheats and you blame the partner, that means you were a bad judge of character and completely misunderstood how that person felt. Whereas if your partner was innocent, but they were lured off by an evil 3rd party, then you didn't do anything wrong, you picked a great person and you can put all the blame on the bastard that stole him/her.

[golentan]

If you want to go all psychology on it, it's basically a way to avoid admitting to themselves that they were stupid. If your partner cheats and you blame the partner, that means you were a bad judge of character and completely misunderstood how that person felt. Whereas if your partner was innocent, but they were lured off by an evil 3rd party, then you didn't do anything wrong, you picked a great person and you can put all the blame on the bastard that stole him/her.

So... Doubling down?

[Lissou]

I would say it's a form of displacement. The cheated person, if they still want a relationship with the cheater, doesn't want to hate the cheater, act in a way that would get the cheater to resent them, or think about getting cheated again, so they blame the other party, who is an easier target in the first place because usually, they're not well-known to the cheatee. It's much easier to convince yourself someone is a horrible person if you don't actually know them.

Some people act the completely opposite way, though. I've heard of people seeing their partner being kissed by force and pushing the other person away, and then still blaming their partner for cheating, which I find mind-boggling.

[Douglas]

Some people act the completely opposite way, though. I've heard of people seeing their partner being kissed by force and pushing the other person away, and then still blaming their partner for cheating, which I find mind-boggling.

It's really annoying how common that is in TV shows, movies, books, etc. It's such a cheap way to add undeserved tension to a relationship, and so aggravating that the poorly timed observer always takes it the wrong way.

[Jeff the Green]

If you want to go all psychology on it, it's basically a way to avoid admitting to themselves that they were stupid. If your partner cheats and you blame the partner, that means you were a bad judge of character and completely misunderstood how that person felt. Whereas if your partner was innocent, but they were lured off by an evil 3rd party, then you didn't do anything wrong, you picked a great person and you can put all the blame on the bastard that stole him/her.

Also, the 'tempter/ress' is Lilith, Jezebel, Ishtar, Paris, Ares. Their partner is a real person whom they care(d) about, and it's easier to hate a trope than a person you know.


So, um, this feels a little weird and kind of embarrassing to ask about, but have any of you developed crushes on someone you met on a forum? This one's a first for me. I'm not really looking for advice at the moment because I'm not certain what I want, but I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.

[Coidzor]

Hey, I was wondering (this is a general thing, not tied to any drama in my current life) why people who are cheated on often get more angry at the person their partner cheated with than the cheating partner? From what I've experienced, as often as not the 3rd party didn't know they were contributing to cheating, but their innocence doesn't change anything...

Bugs me.

I've encountered more cases where both parties are equally reviled than cases where the outside party was reviled to any meaningful extent more than the other. Though it does tend to vary with the genders involved, women tending to hate their cheating male partners more than men hating their cheating female partners, for instance. Then again, y'know, anecdotes.

My recollection of general human nature is that it's probably easier to blame an outside party for seducing one's partner than to admit to the flaws of the relationship or whatever lead to such an unpleasant outcome.

It takes quite the... esoteric approach to relationships to presume innocence on the part of one's partner's paramour or be inclined to believe protestations of the fact, too, so innocence is not really something that's going to be on the minds of those who have felt infidelity's sting.

So, um, this feels a little weird and kind of embarrassing to ask about, but have any of you developed crushes on someone you met on a forum? This one's a first for me. I'm not really looking for advice at the moment because I'm not certain what I want, but I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.

Yes. I'd recommend against it. Online-only crushes are undesirable for all of the reasons an LDR is undesirable without even having the benefits of an LDR and also having a fair amount of uncertainty as to whether the identity one is crushing on is anything more than a mask.

There's a few couples who are together because of the Playground, especially meetups, though. Zeb and Alarra and their resultant puddingtroll are the most prominent example that comes to mind, though the official story slips my mind at the moment.

Edit: I suppose they can be fun in the moment, so there's some chance of a net positive if not taken seriously or anything and one just let's 'em pass on by, though.