I didn't "get up off the couch" or have much "ambition or enthusiam" because I have freaking depression, and it is due in large part to Mr. L. that I'm getting the treatment I need. I'd learned to live with its effect on me, but it was because my depression was starting to hurt him that I sought help. And he supported me the entire way and still does. Where my parents said "you can get over this" and "you don't need help", Mr. L. encouraged me. He was proud of me when I went back into therapy, and when I lost my job and worried about affording it, he told me mental health was not a luxury.
This is not to say that it wasn't a horrible uphill battle. My depression has strained our relationship at times, and he did question whether it was worth it to him to stay and support me. Ultimately he did, and I am -- and our relationship is -- much stronger for it. I'm so much healthier than I used to be, and I could never have gotten where I am now without his support. So eff you, AskMen. Eff you hard.
Some of these rules are good for girls too, like the one about having intellectual curiosity and the one about hygiene and stuff.
Then again, some of the rules are asinine in any universe. If, for example, I'd been worried about the guy being able to pay for anything I'd never have had a boyfriend in my entire life. Employed people are not attracted to me. :D
No. 5 & 6 are really, really frustrating. Right now there are jobs being cut all over. A lot of people starting out went from looking for careers in the $1000 a week range to jobs that make that in 2-3 weeks. Big difference, and nothing to do with anything besides the economy and the fact that jobs that do become available in the middle-income realm are expecting much more from applicants than they were a few years ago, and that it's getting harder and harder for young people to gain that experience in the first place.
No. 10 just caters to men who talk down to women. For instance, men who think women can't possibly know how to use their iPod's. There's a legit reason to be concerned for a relationship if the people in it have widely different interests, but there are also a lot of men who will just automatically talk down to women or talk down to people who aren't in their field without considering that maybe the people they are talking to are just interested in different things, but are just as intelligent - maybe even more.
I can't believe that more people on this post are way more concerned about #9 than about the elitist, snobby attitude he displays in #6, where he says life is too short to waste on someone without income. Really?? So if your girlfriend recently got laid off or just doesn't want to waste her money on those TJ McThursdaytown shots, she's somehow morally deficient? Reminds me of how debtors used to be thrown in jail. Pretty sick of this guy, in my opinion.
I really don't have much of a problem with #10 and #2. Especially #2. No matter who you are, you don't want to get involved with someone on the wrong side of the law, or someone who doesn't respect laws. But as others have said, this entire article is poorly worded. It's very bro-centric, which makes me bro-nauseated.
@smizmar: It really sounds to me like it's written by an un-self-aware gay man who's trying to convince some dude he has a crush on that girls are icky.
Well, you have to look at it from their perspective.
In a society that's becoming increasingly egalitarian, the contributors at AskMen seek to reeducate the male population with the hopes of founding an absolute patriarchy in an increasingly influential North America.
When this happens, there will be clear dividing lines between who gets priority over what, and when. This new patriarchy, which will also reassess the mistakes of past male dominated societies, will make the world simpler and thus less confusing for them to live in.
So, if you ask me, these men are standing up for what they believe in. These men are activists!
I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel like there are some legitimate points in #10. I've met people like that, and it's not worth staying in a relationship if you're not on the same intellectual level.
Granted, I do believe that this whole article should be titled, "Ten Ways to Tell that She's Just Not For You."
Ref #10: WTF is wrong with gol durn cussing, bleep it? And using Army boot camp as your military gold standard for foulness? That offends sailors everywhere! Fuck that shit...
@envirodesigner: Yeah. I don't think most guys really feel this way. What the hell is the point of porn in the first place if dudes didn't really want to fuck chicks like that?
Am I the only one who notices a weird classism going on in the article? While a lot of the tips would be pretty reasonable dating advice if reworded, the tone seems to be warning the hard-working, intellectual menfolk away from dating "white trash."
@QueenOfCarrotFlowers:
Seriously. Sometimes people don't have any travel experiences to report because their parents weren't wealthy and they have yet to amass enough of their own $$$ to travel, themselves.
@dkissam: I agree with you that the snobby article probably means "travel abroad", but travel experience doesn't necessarily mean that.
I have friends that make nice salaries, live in the same house that they were born in, and never even went to parks in the city we live at if those parks are *across town* (never mind that they commute longer than that for work), or stop one town over when visiting family members to look at a waterfall or a church or whatever. If he means that type of lack of curiosity about the world and your surroundings, that bugs me too, and I'd never want to date someone like that.
I'm usually right behind you with these AskMen articles, but with the exceptions of #9 and the broke part of #6, I actually think this is some good advice. They just need to change the title to "Top 10: Signs It's A Bad Match".
In my mind, I tried to imagine giving this advice to friends, sometimes with the genders reversed, and for most the points, it works. Really, I don't think #1 is "She's too pretty!" at all. It's more she (or he) is pretty and that's it. No substance, no intellect, no drive, no cleverness. If your looks are your best asset and you ain't Helen of Troy, that's a problem. And I don't think #2 is "Women, know your place!", either. I wouldn't date a guy with a string of DUIs or a penchant for shoplifting, so to me it seems reasonable that men would feel the same way.
In short, I don't think this article is suggesting that women are dumb, immature, and lacking basic life skills. This says to break up with women like that and find good, smart, stable women (which naturally presupposes that such women exist). That makes me think this is advice that is saying "Don't settle. There are good women out there and there's no reason you should stay in a relationship that makes your life worse". I've given that exact advice to friends.
Don't get me wrong. There is a definite undertone of bro-ness and entitlement to this article, but compared to other AskMen lists, this one isn't too bad. AskMen usually gets my dander up, but with the exception of the sexual double standard, I'm just not feeling it here. The wording is bad, but most of the ideas are solid.
@vulcanized: Yeah, okay, but we could definitely rework number 9 to: if you want to do it in bed, and she wants to do it in bed, game on! But prude + kinky can be a problem in the long term.
Sexually adventurous = no self-respect? What the HELL?
I have less of a problem with what he's saying than the way he's saying it -- if the article were written in a non-assy way, it would be good advice for either partner. Except for the thing about the friends (if none of your friends can get along with her, you and your friends just may be immature douchebags, and she's evolved), and the thing about sex (it's not whether or not she has boundaries, it's whether she can respect yours). Ugh. To think someone was paid for this.
Sorry for the double post but I read #9 again, "...if your woman is taking you into uncharted territory that has serious repercussions for personal safety...No limits or boundaries in the intimate sphere means serious problems with self-respect and control in general."
Couldn't this be read as, "If she wants to have sex in an elevator at a federal courthouse OR she doesn't want you to use a condom even though she loves to share her favorite anonymous sex stories about random guys she had (unprotected) sex with on the subway." "No limits or boundaries..." Maybe she wants the guy to punch her in the face during sex.
Since concern for personal safety is mentioned, it sounds more like #9 is referring to sexual activity that makes a person uncomfortable or concerned for their (or her) personal safety. It's not really saying, "Dump her if she likes sex or has more experience than you."
@Ann.in.the.middle: I agree. Personally, I wouldn't want to date someone who's into unsafe sex. There's a difference between kinky and dangerous The writer definitely ruined his point with the last few lines, though.
@gwenhwyfar: He didn't ruin his point, that was his point, quite obviously: women who've had a lot of sex are crazy sluts, and aren't good enough for nice upper-middle-class boys. The unsafe part was really just an attempt to give some faint aura of legitimacy to a point that would have been at home in a men's magazine circa 1955. Is she the kind of girl you'd want to bring home to mother?
09/13/09
I didn't "get up off the couch" or have much "ambition or enthusiam" because I have freaking depression, and it is due in large part to Mr. L. that I'm getting the treatment I need. I'd learned to live with its effect on me, but it was because my depression was starting to hurt him that I sought help. And he supported me the entire way and still does. Where my parents said "you can get over this" and "you don't need help", Mr. L. encouraged me. He was proud of me when I went back into therapy, and when I lost my job and worried about affording it, he told me mental health was not a luxury.
This is not to say that it wasn't a horrible uphill battle. My depression has strained our relationship at times, and he did question whether it was worth it to him to stay and support me. Ultimately he did, and I am -- and our relationship is -- much stronger for it. I'm so much healthier than I used to be, and I could never have gotten where I am now without his support. So eff you, AskMen. Eff you hard.
09/13/09
09/13/09
Then again, some of the rules are asinine in any universe. If, for example, I'd been worried about the guy being able to pay for anything I'd never have had a boyfriend in my entire life. Employed people are not attracted to me. :D
09/13/09
09/12/09
No. 10 just caters to men who talk down to women. For instance, men who think women can't possibly know how to use their iPod's. There's a legit reason to be concerned for a relationship if the people in it have widely different interests, but there are also a lot of men who will just automatically talk down to women or talk down to people who aren't in their field without considering that maybe the people they are talking to are just interested in different things, but are just as intelligent - maybe even more.
09/12/09
I really don't have much of a problem with #10 and #2. Especially #2. No matter who you are, you don't want to get involved with someone on the wrong side of the law, or someone who doesn't respect laws. But as others have said, this entire article is poorly worded. It's very bro-centric, which makes me bro-nauseated.
09/13/09
09/12/09
In a society that's becoming increasingly egalitarian, the contributors at AskMen seek to reeducate the male population with the hopes of founding an absolute patriarchy in an increasingly influential North America.
When this happens, there will be clear dividing lines between who gets priority over what, and when. This new patriarchy, which will also reassess the mistakes of past male dominated societies, will make the world simpler and thus less confusing for them to live in.
So, if you ask me, these men are standing up for what they believe in. These men are activists!
09/12/09
Granted, I do believe that this whole article should be titled, "Ten Ways to Tell that She's Just Not For You."
09/12/09
09/12/09
09/12/09
09/13/09
09/12/09
Jerk off looking in the mirror, you'll be happier, dude.
09/12/09
09/13/09
Seriously. Sometimes people don't have any travel experiences to report because their parents weren't wealthy and they have yet to amass enough of their own $$$ to travel, themselves.
09/14/09
I have friends that make nice salaries, live in the same house that they were born in, and never even went to parks in the city we live at if those parks are *across town* (never mind that they commute longer than that for work), or stop one town over when visiting family members to look at a waterfall or a church or whatever. If he means that type of lack of curiosity about the world and your surroundings, that bugs me too, and I'd never want to date someone like that.
09/12/09
In my mind, I tried to imagine giving this advice to friends, sometimes with the genders reversed, and for most the points, it works. Really, I don't think #1 is "She's too pretty!" at all. It's more she (or he) is pretty and that's it. No substance, no intellect, no drive, no cleverness. If your looks are your best asset and you ain't Helen of Troy, that's a problem. And I don't think #2 is "Women, know your place!", either. I wouldn't date a guy with a string of DUIs or a penchant for shoplifting, so to me it seems reasonable that men would feel the same way.
In short, I don't think this article is suggesting that women are dumb, immature, and lacking basic life skills. This says to break up with women like that and find good, smart, stable women (which naturally presupposes that such women exist). That makes me think this is advice that is saying "Don't settle. There are good women out there and there's no reason you should stay in a relationship that makes your life worse". I've given that exact advice to friends.
Don't get me wrong. There is a definite undertone of bro-ness and entitlement to this article, but compared to other AskMen lists, this one isn't too bad. AskMen usually gets my dander up, but with the exception of the sexual double standard, I'm just not feeling it here. The wording is bad, but most of the ideas are solid.
09/13/09
Sexually adventurous = no self-respect? What the HELL?
09/12/09
09/12/09
Couldn't this be read as, "If she wants to have sex in an elevator at a federal courthouse OR she doesn't want you to use a condom even though she loves to share her favorite anonymous sex stories about random guys she had (unprotected) sex with on the subway." "No limits or boundaries..." Maybe she wants the guy to punch her in the face during sex.
Since concern for personal safety is mentioned, it sounds more like #9 is referring to sexual activity that makes a person uncomfortable or concerned for their (or her) personal safety. It's not really saying, "Dump her if she likes sex or has more experience than you."
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09