Since I am banned from H & R I must post my thoughts here. The tiresome and circular debates about "Friend-zone" often get me thinking. There must be a spectrum that has not been defined wherever people are debating things in a black-and-white manner and both sides look both right and wrong.
a) "Friend-zone" wherein your male or female friend, depending on your own gender and orientation, does not consider you a viable mate, but you have enough about you to worth bothering with and they consider you a nice enough person to do so.
b) "Friend-zone" where you could probably **** your friend. The flirting between the both of you is just "going through the motions" and something of a formality, but the lack of sexual tension does not compel either party to make any sort of move. The risk of ruining the friendship would need to be offset by something.
c) "Friend-zone" where you aren't really a friend, at least not the way most would define a "friend". You are used for things. These things could be: emotional rubbish skip, therapist, walking partner, run errands, used as a "banter" target for the other party to regain confidence and I've even known of cases where this sort of "friend" is bidden to varnish the other party's toes and blow them dry with their mouth.