Hey, Chicago readers: If you can make it up to Evanston this Monday, I’ll be giving a talk titled “Escape from the Planet of the Friend Zone,” exploring some of the mythology of this dreaded place. The talk, like my talk two years ago, will be part of Northwestern’s Annual Sex Week, sponsored by the College Feminists. (The talk itself is cosponsored by NU’s Men Against Rape and Sexual Assault.)
It’s at 7 PM in Kresge Hall 4365, which is on the Southern end of campus, near “the rock.” (Here’s a map.) If you’re taking the el, get off at the Foster stop and head east; then a little ways south when you hit campus. I’ll check about parking for non-students and provide details later.
The last time I gave a talk during Northwestern’s Sex Week, some MRAs got a little overexcited and started making up things about what they assumed my talk was about. (They were wrong.) So, just to make clear: I will not be teaching impressionable college students “how to have good sex,” except insofar as I will be talking about how sexist and self-defeating the concept of the Friend Zone is, which means it’s possible that some dude could attend the lecture and decide to stop whining about getting stuck in the Friend Zone, and thus improve his romantic and sexual prospects with that one simple step.
I haven’t finished writing the talk yet, so if any of you have any thoughts on the Friend Zone — or the closely related topic of the “nice guy” — let me know in the comments below.
I’m also curious about what role the concept of the Friend Zone plays in your everyday lives, so I’m going to spit out a bunch of questions that I may address in the talk and may ask the students as well. I’d be interested in your answers.
Have you ever been put in a situation that you or other people might describe as the Friend Zone? Whose fault do you think it was? Have you ever been accused of putting someone else in the Friend Zone? Did you find this insulting? Has someone else, through their own obsequiousness, put themselves in the Friend Zone with you?
Is the Friend Zone a male thing or are there a significant number of women and girls who find themselves friendzoned as well?
Does the notion of the Friend Zone grow out of male entitlement? Is it a fundamentally manipulative to try to pressure a woman into romance and sex? Or does it grow out of male awkwardness — the inherently difficult situation of shy or perhaps socially awkward guys who are still nonetheless expected to be the ones who pursue women rather than the other way around, as MRA types might argue?
When did the term start getting used? The concept is certainly not new, but I don’t think the term is that old. When did you all first start hearing it?
How can guys (or gals) get out of the Friend Zone?
Can a Friend Zone situation — by which I mean one in which one person is romantically interested and the other isn’t — be transformed into a real friendship, or will the different feelings/expectations of the two people make this impossible?
Alternately, can a Friend Zone situation turn into a real romance?
Is the Friend Zone really a useful concept at all? There are very few relationships — platonic, romantic or purely sexual — in which each partner feels the exact same way about the other. There are mismatches all the time. Shouldn’t we just learn to roll with it? Maybe the answer to the old When Harry Met Sally question — can a man be friends with a woman he’s attracted to? — is, “why the hell not?”
I hope they have good security at the event to protect you from MRA terrorists who not only promote arson, stalking, and harassment, but have now decided to pursue violence and physically assault feminists, including the young woman in Canada recently. They can’t win in the realm of ideas so now they just beat people up.
See? Those damn blog authors only ever want to quote the bad…. grammar writers? You know the type, those damn people with their tall, dark inability to have subject-verb agreement who type long manifestos on worn keyboards with flashy LED lights and always include at least one two dot elipsis.
It’s the truth! I’ve looked at the manboobz archieve! This fradulent post author only ever quotes bad people with no style, pronoun perplexion and long-winded manifestos argued for poorly! This is an injustiiiiiceeewaaaaaitamoment.
Oh my god guys, I don’t think the comment-zone actually exists. What about lurkers or one-comment posters or those who are shy about their language skills? I just realized it’s all a anglo-normative conspiracy that erases the existence of thousands!
[Reels from the revelation]
Actually Kim, I was referring to the article when I said it was “common behavior” not my own experience. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. Really just relaying what was said. So no need to be angry. I think it is interesting that you didn’t pick on anything else I said. Also, you don’t know me. There’s really no need to be insulting.
Also, I’m not lecturing about women. I’m lecturing about what people (probably smarter people than I) have written on the topic. I like to leave experience out of it. But as long as I’m on the subject…<———:-)
I had a girl friend for about two and half years. She was great, but I eventually broke up with her because…<—–:-) she was insane and it made me very sad :-(. But while we were together she got me many favors from guys she had "zoned". And I am eternally greatful for that zone. It was clear they wanted it, but she was the ultimate tease and I told her what she was doing wasn't right to which she responded, "then how how am I supposed to hook you up?" Is the zone right? No. Is it wrong? No. Does it get a girl an endless stream of favors without her having to risk sex? Apparently yes.
The most interesting thing I noticed in her was that she claimed adamantly that she did not flirt her way in to those situations. Even when it was clear that she did. In this case, she was definitly the agressor. She also adamantly denied using them for favors at first even while she did so before my eyes.
We had a conversation once about this married contractor she knew before we dated. She stated, "I did nothing to lead him on." Accept for the following: flirtations by phone and by text…making inuendos or allusions to her being naked many times, talking about kissing, calling him her superman, inviting him over alone to her house at night, inviting him to cuddle her in see through night gown and then kicking him to the curb when he tried to kiss her. This followed by the statment, "I can't believe he tried that!"
So why did she do that? Well, her house wasn't done at the time. Of course no women I've met would admit to doing this outright if asked directly. So I didn't, instead I said "well at least you got freebies." To which she replied "yeah I did!" So I said, "____ must of been a great guy." To which she replied, "no but he helped fix my house and kept me company." So I said, "so he's basically a resource and place filler?" This went on for a while, circling back to the point…eliminating all other options to distill the answer which was the following: I flirted with him to get stuff…she was more elquent of course but those are her words not mine.
She is not the only one to tell me this either. It is all in how one asks the question. How many women? A gentleman never tells. And Kim I love these things… …. And that is totally relevent! 🙂 and these ;-). That winks for you Kim!
What is with the ellipses facination on this web page. Is there seriously nothing more relevent or pressing to talk about. And for those grammar nuts out there I have this to say: grammar is one of the lowest abilities of higher thought. In fact, it is right down there with exucitive function, which although useful and needed does not a great thinker make. I would argue that the one who harps on grammar has very little relevant data to contribute.
A life long factory worker can have perfect exucitive function…an editor can have perfect grammar, but guess what! They are editing for those that don’t. For the minds that create. I’m not saying the two gifts are mutually exclusive, just that grammar is useless when mentioned in a discussion that has nothing to with it. Unless it interferes with understanding…<——:-)BOOM In which case, a helpful and constructive pointer would be of more use than sarcasm and snarkiness.
::reads Fibi’s comments::
::dies laughing::
Simon, you asked for pointers. For your edification, I’ve compiled a list of problems with your most recent posts, that (if fixed) would lessen the negative reaction of other commenters. Let’s see, now…
1) An ableist slur. This page (in the comment guidelines) specifically asks for these not to be used.
2) Somehow making misuse of ellipses (which are far too amazing a punctuation to be so maligned so cruelly) even more obnoxious than just the blatant misuse, via arrows and poorly formatted smileys.
3) Misspelling words like eloquent and executive and misusing accept, which appear to only be used to make the writer feel smarter.
4) Admitting to taking advantage of people through an intermediary.
5) Winking at a commenter who disagrees with their viewpoint, for seemingly no better reason than to be obnoxious.
6) Explaining away basic English competency, which is indeed required in most fields, contrary to the aforementioned ‘splainy-ness.
7) Continued sticking to the argument ad ‘documentary I saw once upon a time’ without providing a link of any sort to verify statements after being called on them.
8) Continued implication that everyone who disagrees or finds fault with their diction and syntax is using only the ‘lowest abilities of higher thought’, which sort of works backwards to imply that the person using such grammar is incapable of using ‘the lowest abilities of higher thought’.
9) Willfully ignoring the second half of 8 in order to reassure themselves that they are the more clever creator, while ignoring the possibility that there are quite possibly very well educated, great thinkers on the page (e.g., Fibinachi).
Did I miss any other major ones?
Thanks, simon, that formatting makes reading your posts a lot easier. I appreciate it.
Thanks, fromafar2013 Howard Bannister cloudiah contrapangloss and kittehserf, you are the nicest people anyone could ever hope to friendzone over the internet. By which I mean I think of you all as being in my zone of friends. By which I mean you’re a lovely bunch of people.
Thanks, contrapangloss, that compliments makes reading anything impossible because my fierce blushing is draining all the blood from every other part of my body and… feel kind of… faint.
eerugh..
thud
Misery, there are many things wrong that relate to the “American Dream” concept (bootstraps, etc), but I don’t think the “friend zone” comes from there. Obviously it is one thing to think if I practice diligently I will one day be able to competently perform the Ode de Joy and very different to think of people as prizes to be won/earned/worked for. Also, the entitlement problem is not limited to those from the US or raised in that culture.
Jim, you said basically I know X number of women who do this, so women in general do so. You also said “if men do” as if to imply that you can’t conceive of that happening. Then you suggested their was something wrong with how those who disagree with you perceive reality. Really, you shouldn’t need someone to point out why these are problematic.
Simon, you’re basically a more wordy version of NewJim.
Simon dear, you do know you’re a troll, right?
Well, if you want to argue that, why not try it.
You might not be saying that the two gifts are mutually exclusive but you are implying it. Simon sweetie, I hate to break it to you but having poor grammar skills doesn’t make you creative. It just makes your pathetic arguments easier to mock.
You see, grammar is your friend. It enables you communicate clearly and to argue logically, when, of course, you actually have something to communicate. Unfortunately, good grammar cannot stop you making a sexist, ableist ass-hat of yourself. There, you are on your own.
What was Simon’s anecdote supposed to accomplish? That behavior, even assuming it really happened, does not describe the vast majority of women I know. There are manipulative assholes of all genders out there. It has nothing to do with evo psych bio truthiness.
Wipes tears of laughter away – Fibi, you win all the internetz!
And Contrapangloss said that beautifully.
Also, nthing Fibinachi’s brilliance and the calls for Historophilia to write that essay.
“There are manipulative assholes of all genders out there. It has nothing to do with evo psych bio truthiness.”
This. So much.
I’m always fascinated when people on the Internet who are bad at spelling and grammar bash them for not being real skills anyway.
@ simon
… said absolutely no one who has ever professionally written or read anything ever in academia, industry or publishing etc. EVER.
When writing your shitty first drafts you don’t want to get all hung up on grammar and give yourself writers’ block, but when done, you go back and PROOF READ WHAT YOU WROTE. Read what you wrote! Why is that so hard!?
And this:
<———:-)
Reads as 'dick head'.
Don't do that.
“And for those grammar nuts out there I have this to say: grammar is one of the lowest abilities of higher thought.”
No, you’re just a bad writer. Need proof? Re-read your posts. They suck rocks.
Also, what were these favors this alleged ex of yours called in for you? Was she getting her friend zoned squad of puppets to wash your car for you? Roll you some weed? Did they do your homework for you? Did any of this actually happen?
I think I fainted there for a second.
All that praise went straight to my head and lit up my cortex like a Christmas tree.
I wrote cortex because simon likes it, like he likes being bitter and bored:
which he is here- , and says
You’re not here in “Good Faith”, you’re here to disingenuously argue that women are inferior to men and that men’s brains are better and that feminists are all fools. I just want to make this clear, so that we know this is the case.
Anyway, earlier in the thread (Page 3, second comment) you wrote
And this is all true. And this is where your specific brand of inane blather becomes particularly odd, given that you seem to want to go to some lengths to appear reasonable… while still wanting all of us to dance for your entertainment as if we were monstrous monkeys in furhats paid to do a jig when you are “bored”.
Because this is true. The idea of the “Friend-zone” is to “define a relational space”, and it does act as a “group of constants” by which someone can communicate a certain set of conditions.
But cloaking it in crystal clear definitions has the effect of making it seem reasonable, as if the idea was merely a designator of current status, and does not also attach a stigma of demasculization and hetereonormative abuse of naïve men by cunning women.
See, you continue:
And so, here we are. Oh, the Friend-Zone is a relational descriptor of the threads between people, a mere objective moniker applied to a situation wherein people describe a certain circumstance; that circumstance being the primal imperatives of the female brain which is so different from the male brain that it radically changes a dynamic you yourself just wrote applied to both male and female.
Someone’s been reading their Louann Brizendine, haven’t they? And it begins, the gradual creep of pseudo-scientific inanity into a kind of weasel-wordy attempt at explaining away any bad things about the world while railing that women are simplistic creatures.
Oh, fun thing about Louann Brizendine’s research and books The Female Brain and The Male Brain? I read them, they’re interesting and contains many amusing facts and I recommend them to those who might want to have a bit of an introduction exploration to neuropsychiatry… but… how to put this gently…
The research included is often generalized to a useless degree, conforms to no specifics and is glossed over in many aspects to paint with a broad brush very important details and boil advanced neurochemical networks down to “So All Women Do” – plus, in the first printing of the book one of the references to all the speechifying and talkifying and verbalizing women do were cited from Women Are From Venus, Men Are From Mars (And further, incorrect) –
So what I’m saying here is that while I like pop-science books on the brain, you don’t wanna be the guy who uses them to justify a sentence like:
I mean oh sweet synaptic cleft.
Yes. Yeeeees. Female brains have buttons you can push to achieve desired results. They are shaped by “primary evolutionary emparatives”, which you can learn to cleverly abuse to get out of the friend-zone, for women are but slaves to their evolutionarily engrained desires!
This ain’t sexism, ma’am, this is brain talk! Neuroscience is the frontier of sexist misappropriation of research.
Pro-tip, bro: any fucking brain has “buttons you can push to achieve desired results”.
It’s called fucking “Sapience”.
But of course, writing that wouldn’t make women seem like meek slaves to some clever manipulator, creatures possessing no wit or grace or charm on their own.
A male, which I assume you are, can raise their short term levels of testostereone by posing like superman for ten minutes and doing 10 push-ups.
This means any woman who gets you to pose like superman (Beyond being obviously someone you want to get to know better, because, hey, she’s doing actual biochemical research while also reading comics, that’s cool) is nefariously controlling your braaaaaiiiiinnnnnnnn
Also I love the “You can’t use guilt”. Oh, go ahead and use all your abilities as a man, but don’t use “guilt”. It’s less efficient than other approaches (And not, you know, a fucking skeevy attempt at manipulating someone into your bed by guilting them about their choice in partners). It’s almost like you don’t really consider women people, but just complex machines to be manipulated with the right sequence of actions…
hey look at this
Her “women’s intuition” is now her “female prefrontal cortex”.
Her “Only a slut sleeps with multiple men” is now “Having sex is a high-risk endeavor”
Her “Falling in love with someone” is now “Pick a mate who can protect her”
Come on, you can’t say we haven’t advanced as a species. At least people are trying to be pseudo-scientific about their bullshit excuses for traditional female chattel ownership these days. I consider that a great advance forward!
Also, note how simon explicitly takes the time to point out how women fill sense if you only follow them for sex – so the solution is to fake it even better. Oh, and if someone gets pregnant, that’s on them, nothing to do with you who stalked and lied and manipulated them into sleeping with you, no, no, you can just waltz right out of their life.
I mean, that nasty female slut made the mistake of sleeping with someone! SHE SHOULD BE BRANDED WITH A SCARLET S AND THROWN FROM THE CITY GATES! A STONING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED!
VERILY, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1692, such strumpetry cannot stand!2014, such “unwise pair-bonding with non-protective men” cannot “achieve successful mating strategies”.It’s science, you know. Of a kind.
I think it’s a series of tubes connected with a kind of spring thing that goes “bleep”, but every time I get out the oil my lovers tell me I’ve misunderstood something. Notice again how the neat little trick is it’s no longer “Women are pure creatures who bond with their spirit and have no desires”, it’s “women are pure creatures who bond with their mind”.
Progress! We’re making it.
Also, hilarious, how Wang is capitalized. That’s a literal name. I know someone named Wang. He was laughed at in school. If you touch my Wang, then I’ll be surprised, but I won’t have an orgasm. Sorry. Man’s handsome, but not that handsome.
Plus I love imaging kinky neurophysiologists getting it on.
“Oh baby, baby, caress my prefrontal cortex”
“Mhmh, looking at you is raising my oxytocing levels noticeably!”
“My amygdala is all fired up”
“Yeah lover, stay over there and say sweet things, I just love the way my Parietal Lobe lights up”
That’s bullshit, by the way. Women have sex for a whole lot of reasons, and men stop having sex for a while lot of reasons. If someone just walked right up and petted me down, I’d hit them with my sword.
I’ve had to.
It’s not fucking fun being groped in public by handsy strangers. But simon wouldn’t know that, because in simon’s mind, all men are brutish slaves to their instinctual desires (but their brains are very well developed and much better than those icky female things)
You wanna know how I know?
This is why:
“All of this only works on
stupid peoplethe ones with evolutionary primed brains for certain behaviors”I can do that too.
I found simon’s essay on the female brain and mating behavior to be an interesting exploration of what it would be like to be blind in an art museum dedicated to paintings.
Ah, the smirking parochialism behind the words. By which I mean the complete ignorance of larger trends and other people and a myopic focus on local concerns, like an idealized world of “zero tech” where no woman ever picks up a branch or a stone or slits a throat while someone is sleeping.
Look, simon, you wanna know something about pre-civilization societies and human beings? There has never been a “zero tech” situation where a perfectly weak woman is perfectly protected by perfectly strong men. Anyone can pick up a rock and smash a skull. dying is easy. Women have always fought. The true difference between male and female strength is less important than you think, and an intelligent person (which we all are) can come up with hundred of situations that renders strength itself unneccesary. This world of brutish men as simpletons manipulated by women, childish thugs with amazing strength but no understanding of subtletly is a fantasy. I’d fucking dare you to invent a time machine and go back to Rome and consider the intrigue and plotting of the senate or, for a lark, the mad machinations of Carthages Families and merchant houses.
Men aren’t naïve fools and women aren’t weak damsels.
Also, of course, women are passive receptables for Neanderthal man, because all coercive action by men is done by NEANDERTHALS RAPING HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS, just to be clear here, that is, brutish thuggish creatures using force to overcome a woman (bonus: rapists are real humans, but another species entirely). A real man would obviously just use “Cues physical and mental” so I could trick someone into believing I was sincere long enough to have sex with them and run away.
rape apologia and misunderstood neuroscience AND classism and racism and rank stupidity in one post? Damn, that’s nicely done.
But of course, that’s you being nice, simon. You make vague noises about “shared male and female behavior” and talk abut “history” and “ancient times” and “brains”, but you don’t really know what you’re talking about and it’s used to cover up the same old “Women lie, men vie, women cry, men die, weak women, big men, dance the dance again and again and again and again”
For instance, your other comment on page 3:
Don’t you mean “more evolutionarily primed to be taken in by certain behaviors” instead of dumb? For instance, you’re clearly more primed to engage in the evolutionarily sound behavior of preying on other people and abusing willing victims. Others won’t be. Some people would rather starve than steal bread, and some folk hunt down others to give them their full wallets back. Don’t generalize your own inability to be nice to make the world a shittier place than it is. Predacity isn’t always the rule.
We might all be susceptible to bad moral luck, but, not everyone is rude or crude or evil. The world isn’t just, but you don’t get to justify your bullshit fantasies of manipulating weak women who need to be wooed with “functional cues of physical and mental” nature (or raped by Neanderthals, who, again, is an entirely different species).
And your example is nicely coy, too, by the way. The story is true, but it was from Business Insider. And this was an extreme case, as you said. It proves nothing, but get to say it, and then hold to your “And all women do it, yeah, just maybe not this much! That’s a benefit of traditional courtship, where the poor men get nothing (except an overwhelming societal backup to push for sex as a reward for all that payment and the sanctioned ability to denigrate her for saving money).
Bullshit.
And that smarter person (Again, The Female Brain, Louann Brizendine) was also just as apt at generalizing and handwaving as you are, and just as insulting about it.
But don’t take my word for it!
Read this review from Nature, and pay attention to the bit where it says:
“Like other popular books on the biology of human nature, The Female Brain has a rigid plot line: The foil of political correctness agains which the author wages a struggle for truth. We are told that the media, feminists, pointy-headed intellectuals and a vaguely specified culture dogmatically insists that gender or racial differences in personality and behavior are entirely cultural, an observation that is hard to reconcile with the volume nad tone of media attention to the biology of gender and sexuality”
Repeat it fives times.
Your neuro-endrocrinology is the same murky explain-ology that’s the old tired bitter frivolity
about how men are men and women women, and that’s a tired tautology.
I love people who frame sex as a risk. “She risks sex”. Something fragile about her character could break! She might lose the ability to
bond with another male like glue-papersecrete the correct amount of oxytocin that facilities proper pair-bonding.Ah, she didn’t “risk sex”, this “girlfriend” of yours, but she got a bunch of favors from other people who only did them to have sex with her. A story of manipulators on all sides, and the only moral take away is “God, they were all gits”.
Nice how it props you up, though, as the cool man who saw through the facile façade and got to the righteous heart of the matter:
I, mighty Man, knows her mind better than herself! She lied and laughed about it, while I saw the broken dregs she left behind with my own eyes. She was the aggressor, flirting with people, then claiming she wasn’t! Good thing she didn’t encounter a Neanderthal, huh? But I saw through her clever disguise, and we started dating, so I won! Mwahahahah! Mwahah! I’m king of the world, foolish men who aren’t evolutionarily primed to be as cool as me!
Dear god man. I call people my superman. I like superman. I talk to people when I’m naked, and about being naked, and about those who are soon to be naked. Again ,you start of being so broad, talking about how people:
But in practice, of course, there are no friends with benefits, no friends, only fools who are abused, victims, evil women, and you reigning supreme over them all.
She liked talking about sex with people and being naked?
And so, verily, all women are doomed, for manly men are the only people in a zero tech world who can build houses, and if they don’t have a house-builder around their brains will shrivel and their wombs be unable to be filled with the true seed of man. LIQUID GOOOOOOOOOOLD
God are you tedious.
But you’re right, that’s how I sexy-talk my lovers too.
“Babe, you’re so beautiful. Did you manage to seduce the bakery boy into giving you free food today?”
“Oh hun, yes I did! I also got a diamond ring from a passing guy on the street by smiling at him”
“Nice, that’s why I love you. Mhmh. Work that material gain by manipulation. Work it! Yeah, Warren Farell was right! BUTTS BUTTS BUTTS!”
“That’s not sexy, Fibi, I’m leaving”
“… you going to leave the diamond ring?”
“Oh sure. I have plenty”
“Yeah, I’mma… stare at that all night… just thinking about how much I love your ability to make people do you favours, yeah”
“Still creepy, Fib. Stop talking”
“Aww, b-b-but Warren Farrel!”
“No”
I can tell you are a tedious because you spend so much time pre-emptively asking people if they abuse others for free gifts in order to guard your own ressources against conscious manipulation from those willing to abuse a willing victim.
Dude, maybe as I said, that’s just you and not everyone else is so easily and casually cruel.
We love it for its grammatical utility.
Words mean things
and those means things
will sprout full wings
and fly much better, unfettered
towards the minds of those you hate
if your words march across the page
in lockstep, adjectives holstered
ready to unleash
And when you reach and preach and teach
we understand more the plan
when the man
who deadpans that some women have a cortex that allows them to suck up resources like a vortex
gets his dictionary out
it just reeks from you, you know? “Everyone is willing to abuse a willing victim”, “Editors are for those great thinkers who can’t be bothered with editing”, “My girlfriend had all these dumb men she abused, but she dated me”, “I read this article”, “I make references to a book I barely understood than other people say barely touched the point, and yet, you are all the dumb”
oh, and of course:
“I am nobly and knobbly and my logic is wobbly and respect my heritage!”
Sod off you pillock! You don’t understand neurology or psychology or history or economics or empathy or friendship or grammar or anything but verbose meandering! You are a bad, terrible writer with no ability to express ideas clearly and those same ideas are predatory bullshit cloaked in almost science and wrapped in near-fact to hide the same old tired shit of “Women are evil and men are fools, and Wang rules all”.
You suck, Sir, and I hope you live a long and happy life and manage to understand just how deep into a niche of uncomfortable bullshit you have painted yourself!
After all is said and done and we are left with this ridiculous term, I can’t wait to use it like a banhammer. ‘Dude, I’m friendzoning you.’
I’ve seen some comments that suggest it’s a polite way to let the creeps down but if we are ever to move forward I think we need to just banhammer him and not give a crap about his feelings. We’re just doomed to keep repeating the cycle of dudes fee fees minus our own agency and yes while I like my safety there’s this part of me that’s like ‘fuck it.’ ‘If the dude can’t handle it it’s his problem.’
So, Simon is not only semiliterate, he’s the sort of cranio-rectal-inverted snob who assumes that being a factory worker means a person has no creativity, intelligence or education.
Hey Simon? You’re a pathetic little snob with no basis for your snobbery. Run along to the remedial English classes you need, child. You’re just showing your arse here and nobody really wants to see it.
Fibi, that was epic in the best sense! I can’t be bothered reading Smarmy Simon’s Solipsistic Slime but that takedown was amazing.
::second round of applause::
@RubyRubyRuby, sadly, I think these assholes are much more interested in assaulting women.
But harder to read.
It’s almost like they have a vested interest!
Fibinachi: you are awesome.
Seconding Kim and Kittehs.
That was amazing.
Oh, my.
Preach it Fibi!
I didn’t even notice he tried to use my story to support his ridiculous thesis because his comments were so boring and teal deer.
Simon,
It is fucking insulting for you to compare me with that blogger who went on dates for free dinners. I explicitly said the relationship had nothing to do with that. Maybe you believe I’m lying. Maybe you believe that my female brain compelled me to seek out free dinners. If that were the case, we’d still be together and I’d be eating bon bons and while he went mammoth hunting as we speak.
My story was about how humans and their emotions are complicated and there are a lot of grey areas in relationships. How did you possibly get an oversimplified bio-truth argument out of that? Are you just not capable of understanding emotion? Perhaps your prefrontal cortex doesn’t work properly? You know, like serial killer brains! See! I can talk cortexes too!
Let’s see, when have I had a dinner paid for?
1) When I was a kid
2) When it was a work do and we ate at the most expensive place we could find because fuck the managing director
Other than that, nope, I’ve paid my way even when on the below-the-poverty-line unemployment payment.