« Previous | Home | Next »

A Man Of The Sloth

My boyfriend and I evacuated New Orleans right before Katrina. We spent the last year in limbo, with our fundamental personality differences thrown into sharp relief. He is a failed professor with no ambition and holds me responsible for his entire self-worth and well-being. He makes a quarter of my salary, yet insists on living a lifestyle that my money affords. He works for evangelical Christians under a ruse that he is Catholic and engaged to me, but he is an atheist and we are hardly engaged. I do love him, but perhaps the only reason we’re together is that we’re in a very different part of the country with only each other to rely on. I've tried ending it three times, but he always insists, “We must agree to break up.” He has a Ph.D. in philosophy with a specialty in logic, and with my M.F.A. in poetry, I cannot win an argument against him. He wants us to see this shrink next week to work out our differences. Would it be callous of me to break it off for good and return to New Orleans?

--Feel Guilty Abandoning Him

You should feel worse about abandoning Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Remember her famous poem, “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways”? I don’t think one of the ways was “Like a homeless junkie hustling you for cash in your own living room.”

Okay, so last year, when Katrina hit, it was just the two of you against the elements. Understandable. A year later, it’s still just the two of you against the elements. Not so understandable. What, you’re forced to huddle together in case they crank the air conditioning at the wine bar? You do say you’re braving a very different part of the country with only each other to rely on. Yes, life can be a constant battle on the brutal suburban tundra. Apparently, teamwork is the secret to your survival: You get the check. You also get the tip. And he gets to remind you of his vast intellectual superiority.

Sorry, but Aristotle mudwrestling Emily Dickinson this isn’t. The guy’s an ambitionless, ethically vacant mooch. Sure, he’s got a degree in philosophy, and a specialty in cheap manipulation (basically, he’s a tapeworm with a Ph.D.). You do have to hand it to the guy, who’s at his most industrious when he’s desperate to stay lazy. To that end, he’s now proposing a shrink to help you work out your differences; namely, your inability to find being used anywhere near as sexy as he finds using you. Lemme guess, couples counseling, single payer? Thanks, but you already have a fantastic shrink, one who’s cheap, brief, and dead. Yes, Gertrude Stein told you everything you need to know about your future with this guy: “A sponge is a sponge is a sponge.”

After all you’ve been through with him, you do owe him one thing: Not being in such a hurry to get out of there that you back over him with the U-Haul. You owe yourself more -- answers to a few questions: Did you fall in love or did you just step in it? If you’re responsible for his well-being, who’s watching out for yours? And finally, don’t you deserve more than a mind-gaming user? Even if he does have you confused about the difference between “fiance” and “financing” and the significance of “self” in “self-worth,” there actually is no argument to be won or lost here, there’s only you’re unhappy, and you’re leaving. Or, in poetic terms, “Roses are dead, violets are caving, if I wanted to adopt, I’d pick a child who isn’t shaving.”

Posted by aalkon at October 11, 2006 7:55 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


"We must agree to break up" - ?????

Dude, you're being dumped. Agreement is not necessary. That's what being dumped IS!

Posted by: Pirate Jo at October 11, 2006 9:11 AM

Can someone tell me why women get suckered into this shit? Some guys are always whining that women are golddiggers, but I've heard far more stories like this one. I think that the guys that do whine about women being golddiggers are just jealous that they weren't born female. They already act like this guy, but think they'd get more if they were a woman and could sponge off a guy.

My brother and my ex-husband are leeches, so I've had first hand experience watching them play their little mind games and guilt-trip you into supporting them. My brother still does it quite successfully with his wife, and feels that even I owe him a free lunch here and there (which I don't provide and he is angry at me for this).

Posted by: Chris at October 11, 2006 9:21 AM

Can someone tell me why women get suckered into this shit?

I can. It's lack of self-worth. Overvaluing relationships over self. Thinking, deep down, or not so deep down, that a relationship can be a substitute for self.

I wouldn't put up with this crap for 10 seconds. And my take on relationships: A nice addition to an already full life. Not a necessity.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 11, 2006 9:27 AM

And here's another fave: "Would it be callous of me to break it off?" She's just described this manipulative, mooching, lying, absolute creep of a guy, but she's worried about being "callous" for breaking it off? Excuse me while I go stick a fork in my ear.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at October 11, 2006 10:41 AM

Jesus, lady. Keep your money in your own damn bank account and you'll win all the arguments. If he complains just tell him he needs to read more Nietzsche.

Posted by: Paul Hrissikopoulos at October 11, 2006 11:10 AM

Not only should she dump him and move, but she'd better change her email and cellphone number, too. I guarantee that The Sponge will make at least 3 attempts to get his meal ticket back.

Get out now, before he totally convinces you that it's YOU who has the problem.

Posted by: Pat at October 11, 2006 11:23 AM

"basically, he’s a tapeworm with a Ph.D."

Wow, Amy, you just described my father with one pithy phrase!

Posted by: Melissa at October 11, 2006 9:24 PM

Sorry to hear that, but at least you seem to have turned out okay!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 12, 2006 12:12 AM

What Pirate Jo said.

Posted by: Norman at October 12, 2006 2:15 AM

Thanks, Amy. I put in a lot of hard work over the years to evolve beyond my platyhelminthine ancestry!

Posted by: Melissa at October 12, 2006 6:50 AM

Fabulous word. Flatworm, for the uninitiated!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 12, 2006 7:30 AM

What Pirate Jo said. And I'm in shock. This girl sounded like she had a brain. Self-confidence/worth definitely needs work, but that's a whole 'nother story. So how did such a smart girl believe that they had to "agree" to break up?!?!? Jesus. I think only 1 in 100 break-ups is "mutual". To quote Dan Savage - DTMFA. Dump the MF already.

Posted by: Anne at October 12, 2006 10:14 AM

It's sad when them there intellectuals use their book learnin' as a weapon against us simple folk.

Question-what does one do with a PdD in philosophy? I would guess the only applicable use would be to become a professor of philosophy.

Posted by: Chris at October 12, 2006 11:33 AM


if you go by this guy's example, you apparently affix said degree to the business end of a shovel and then use it to beat any sense out of anyone who thinks you should pay your own way.

Though, that's hard to do if you're a tapeworm lacking - long on "ick", short on "opposable thumbs".

Posted by: Anna at October 12, 2006 6:36 PM

Well done! Thanks. I'm back in New Orleans now and have begun hashing out why the fuck I let myself get roped into this bullshit in the first place. I don't know where the shovelling Ph.D. is. Probably back to mooching off his mom and grandmother. Jesus. I've got a job lined up here already, a reading coming up and some interviewing for a friend's Web site. (www.nolafugees.com) I appreciate the advice and am working on the severe lack of self-worth. Seems I ran up a self-worth debt that's around as high as my student loans. I did get the Six Pillars and am reading it daily. I'm single until I get my self worth to a healthy level. And it's beyond wonderful to be home, even though my car got smashed by a semi going the wrong way backward down Magazine Street at 3AM Wednesday night. Welcome home!

Posted by: Kelly at October 13, 2006 10:53 PM

That's just great. Thank you so much for posting here -- means a lot to know the advice helped. Branden's book is a great handbook (Six Pillars Of Self-Esteem). Keep up the great work. And feel free to write back if you need more advice.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 13, 2006 10:57 PM

Kelly, what at refreshing post! It's great to see someone face and admit their problems, and to commit to doing something about it. This world needs more of that. I've seen so many people rush from one relationship to another, never taking time to improve themselves or get to know who they are. And the relationships they get into aren't exactly conducive to self examination either. It's great to see someone think her way through life instead of just feeding unhealthy "needs".

Posted by: Jen at October 15, 2006 10:45 AM

And, it really rocks my world to hear back like this.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 15, 2006 10:59 AM

What Jen said! Congratulations Kelly!

Posted by: Chris at October 16, 2006 6:58 AM

Kelly, The guy is basically calling for help and you decided to dump him. As a woman, you should be more nurturing and caring enough to prop this guy back up to becoming a financially independent working individual that he deserves. You didn't have to take the advice from the men bashers on this board, because you have other options. Dumping him because of your perception of his unworthiness makes it seem like that you are a gold-digger yourself.

Posted by: Rex at October 16, 2006 9:48 AM

Rex, do you understand that Kelly was his girlfriend and not his mommy? Just checking...

Posted by: Chris at October 17, 2006 9:10 AM

I'm available for adoption. I've always wanted to be a kept man.

After saying that, I realize that I wouldn't respect someone who would let me treat them like dirt. Good move Kelly, drive on.

Posted by: Roger at October 17, 2006 11:21 AM

Testing, testing ... yup, sarcasm detectors working. Go ahead, Rex!

Posted by: Norman at October 18, 2006 5:31 AM

Let's review Kelly's cry for help.

> What was he before being a failed professor? Was he successful and employed before he left New Orleans? Maybe Kelly found him attractive during that time when he brought home the bacon. But, now that he doesn't have a high paying job, she deems him worthless.

> It's a job just like any other job that most people have to put up with even though they dislike it. A person with a philosophy degree usualy don't get high paying jobs.

> Kelly is qualifying "rely on" to loving a person. What's wrong with that? You figure it out.

To me, Kelly likes to be with a man that has money and makes a whole lot more than her. I think that this is typical of women, especialy when the going gets tough. It's an easy way out.

Posted by: Rex at October 18, 2006 12:36 PM

Russ, do you date ugly women? I'm guessing you don't. Women do prefer men with ambition, and maybe even a few coins in their pocket. It's an evolved imperative (as in, evolutionary hard-wiring).

I would venture that Kelly respects a man with ambition. I do, too. Also, ethics. Seems wise to me.

And then there's the fact that he's a manipulative jerk who uses his arguing skills to keep her in a relationship that is making her unhappy. If you love somebody, you want them to be happy -- whether or not that means they'll be with you.

The fact is, women prefer guys who earn a good living and have ambition. Men go for beautiful women. Whimpering along the lines of deeming either not fair is silly and unproductive.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 18, 2006 1:28 PM

It's not my job as his girlfriend to build him a spine and convince him daily of his self-worth. It's also not my job to support a grown man while he "finds himself" professionally. I did that for a year, and that was too long. It was driving me mad, and he used guilt and pity to keep me around. Complete passive-aggressive. He had a great deal of ambition when we met and was self-supporting. We were not married, and we have no children. It's absolutely not my job to act as his supporter in all respects: emotionally, financially, mentally. The only thing I DIDN'T do was put his ass in a baby carriage and stroll him around town.
What attracted me to him at first was largely his ambition, responsibility, and passion for his field. But as soon as things got a little difficult for him, he gave up immediately on his lifelong dream of teaching college and resorted to data entry at a Fundamentalist Christian organization - and he claims to be an atheist, like I mentioned previously. I can't respect someone who is apparently completely unethical and lacking courage to pursue his dream. He's waiting around for people to tell him it's ok to go ahead; he's waiting for someone to come rescue him. He's 31 years old. I cannot date a man whom I cannot respect. Who I can date is a man with ambition (I respect that greatly), talent, the courage of his convictions, and the ability to support himself LIKE AN ADULT. I make a good salary; I'm not going to date someone who makes a third of my salary but wants me to take him out all the time and pay for everything. Or someone who resents me for pulling in good money when I busted my ass through ten years of college and worked hard to get into my field. To tell me that " as a woman I should be more nurturing and supportive" is a total misreading of the situation. I suppose you'd love a woman who acted more like your mother instead of a wife or girlfriend. Well, there seem to be plenty out there - I was one myself - so knock yourself out. Only, don't EVER dare to tell me how I "should" or "should not" BE as a woman. You assume far too much, and the comment says more about you than it does about me.

Posted by: Kelly at October 18, 2006 6:34 PM

Hello Amy,

First of all, I'm a married man and I don't date on the side.

Kelly's now ex-boyfriend is a man of ambition. You just don't get a PhD if you're not ambitious. He is not an unemployed slob looking for handouts. Before Katrina, he probably made enough money to keep her happy and provide a good lifestyle for the two of them. Katrina hit and now he doesn't have a good paying job, because as I've posted earlier, he doesn't possess a skill worthy of high pay. I guess that evolutionary hard-wired women would lose respect for a man as he eventualy loses his high paying job.

How about ethics? Do you really think that those television evangelists on cable are ethical? They prey on the fears and hopes of people by mentioning 'GOD' all the time just to get lots of money from them. They're very unscrupulous, yet they portray themselves as god's messenger. Too bad that there are too many dumb folks that could easily be "manipulated," otherwise they wouldn't be on cable. Kelly's ex is working for the money and he does not have to be a Christian to do so.

How can you imply that "he's a manipulative jerk?" Just because he's better in logical thinking skills doesn't mean that he's manipulating her. He's much brighter than her and to you that is wrong. Why is that? He has offered for the both of them to see a professional therapist and she declines. She probably doesn't want to hear the truth about their relationship and it not all her boyfriend's fault.

Rex not Russ!

Posted by: Rex at October 18, 2006 8:30 PM

Further - what you say about me wanting to date a guy who "makes lots more money than me" is ridiculous. I've NEVER dated a guy who could even match my salary. Not even ball park. I did so by choice because I felt it wasn't important, and I do still feel that way with a qualification: I don't care how much a man makes, as long as he is industrious, self-supporting, and doesn't sit around all day complaining about his awful job but not looking for other ones or actively doing things to improve his situation, rather than relying on his girlfriend to make everything better. I also can't understand how a PhD in Philosophy didn't have a Plan B in case his dream was unattainable. Every Liberal Arts person needs a Plan B, Plan C, and Plan D, in my opinion, because tenured teaching positions are NOT easy to acquire, and if he'd done his research back when he was in school, he would have known that and possibly thought about other options. But he didn't. That's not my fault, and I won't pay - literally - for his unthinkingness. The idea of me being a gold digger is flat-out laughable. I make my own money and I expect anyone whom I'm involved with to do the same. The idea of taking advantage of someone's material wealth habitually when that person is fully capable of making her/his own way disgusts me, personally. I've acted the opposite of a gold digger - I've acted like a one-person charity foundation. That won't be happening any longer.

Posted by: Kelly at October 18, 2006 8:37 PM

"How about ethics? Do you really think that those television evangelists on cable are ethical? They prey on the fears and hopes of people by mentioning 'GOD' all the time just to get lots of money from them. "

Um, if you read my blog, you'll find that I don't look kindly on relgion -- a big business that perpetuates itself on a lie, much like this guy -- and find belief in god, sans evidence there is a god, to be ridiculous. I don't care if people believe in dumb, unproven stuff like astrology -- although I don't respect that kind of belief either -- but nobody tries to legislate my life based on the moon being in Aquarius, or any other such crap.

Furthermore, the guy is a walking pile of lacking ethics, from the job to the way he manipulates her with his learned helplessness to stick with him. Poor dear, can't take care of himself. Like Kelly, I broke ass to do what I do, and my boyfriend, likewise. I couldn't respect a guy who doesn't have ambition, and why should I be with one? And why should Kelly. Like me, she's not looking for a sugar daddy. I've never expected anyone to pay for me, and don't believe in marriage. I have a great relationship because I waited for a great guy, and I'm with him because he's a great guy -- in every way, including ethically -- and for no other reason. Being a woman who makes her way in the world and is not helpless gives you choices, and Kelly, like me, is going to start being choosier. Yay Kelly.

Don't disparage her based on your assumptions. Especially not since it's clear the only golddigger in this relationship is the person with the penis.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 19, 2006 8:12 AM

Hello Kelly,

Busting your ass for ten years of college just to get an M.F.A. in poetry? What sort of job could you get from this degree that pays you your "good salary?"

Here's something that's inconsistent from you:
"I'm not going to date someone who makes a third of my salary" followed by your next post "I don't care how much a man makes, as long..."

You are not being truthful with us.

Posted by: Rex at October 19, 2006 8:24 AM

This is my last post to Rex because I refuse to use Amy's site for flaming exchanges. Actually, "Rex," I am being nothing but truthful with you and everyone else who reads this. You seem to have no concept of what it takes to make it though college and then graduate school "only to get an MFA" - you're speaking about something you seem to know nothing about, and I'm not even sure why I feel compelled to address it other than to say Don't pontificate on subjects on which you have no knowledge. For your information, while I was working my way through ten years of undergrad then graduate school, I taught myself to program computers and was trained as a technical writer. (Because, like you, I was unsure about what sort of job I'd get with an MFA other than teaching, which I knew was really difficult to get into as a fresh graduate - SO I MADE A BACKUP PLAN.) Do some research on level 4 tech writers on salary.com and you'll see how I can make that kind of money. More to the point of your clear lack of knowledge of academia - adjuct professors make squat. 6G a semester if you teach three classes, no benefits. Also, if it's not too much trouble for you to do even a little more research, you'll find that an MFA is a terminal degree. That is, it's like a PhD in the sense that with this degree, one can teach college with it - it's as far as one can go in the field. There are a handful of PhD programs with specializations in Creative Writing, but the focus is more on literature & research up until the third year or so.
I chose my degree program with full awareness that I probably wouldn't get a job teaching right out of school, or maybe ever, so I created other options for myself.
Also - your comment that "he is working for the money and doesn't have to be a Christian to do so" - he didn't have to be a Christian, no, but he had to act like one, down to praying every morning with his "group" and going to church on Sunday, and lying to everyone he worked with calling himself a Catholic and also telling them that we were engaged and not living together because it was sinful. At that point, I'd moved out because I couldn't take supporting him any longer. It had nothing to do with any stupid notion of sin. We were never engaged. He claims to be an atheist, as I have said. How is this daily behavior not unethical?
Lastly, to address this contradiction you claim regarding financial status: I thought I made myself clear when I qualified my first comment with "as long as he is self-supporting and doesn't expect handouts." Qualifying a comment isn't necessarily a contradiction. (If you know me in person, Rex, and you have something to say, quit hiding behind the anonymity of this site, grow a set and call me.)

Posted by: Kelly at October 19, 2006 2:47 PM

Rex, good job quoting out of context.

Kelly did not say she would never date someone who earns less than she does, what she said was she would not date someone who makes less than she does, then expects her to be his provider:

"I make a good salary; I'm not going to date someone who makes a third of my salary but wants me to take him out all the time and pay for everything."

I think a lot of women feel as Kelly does, I know I do; a man's exact salary is less important than whether or not he has some ambition, and a good work ethic, and a healthy attitude toward responsibility.

However your spiteful misrepresentation of her words is no surprise.

Like Kelly said before, your assumptions say a lot more about you than about her.

Posted by: Jen at October 19, 2006 5:16 PM

Statements from Kelly that are not truthful:

1. "He makes a quarter of my salary" followed by
"I'm not going to date someone who makes a
third of my salary" followed by
"I don't care how much a man makes"

2. "He is a failed professor" followed by
"he gave up immediately on his lifelong
dream of teaching college"

How could Kelly's ex be a failed professor before he could teach in college?

3. "I also can't understand how a PhD in Philosophy didn't have a Plan B in case his dream was unattainable."

I don't understand how Kelly could NOT have known about his lack of planning, even though they were a couple for a year. Didn't they talk to each about life?

4. "I've NEVER dated a guy who could even match my salary. Not even ball park. I did so by choice because I felt it wasn't important"

Do men and women talk about their salaries openly in their first few dates? Personally, I would never inquire about my date's salary and I never had a date that asked about mine; very rude to do so. Usually, we talked about our jobs and that was the end of it.

So, after Kelly finds out what a man makes, she makes a conscious choice of dating him based on his income. If he makes more, then there's no date.

Does anyone in here find this amusing? I'm laughing as I write this.

Posted by: Rex at October 19, 2006 6:41 PM

Rex, I think you have an agenda here, and I'm not certain of what it is, but your criticism seems not objective and off-base. I don't know the people who write to me, and I rip the ones who deserve it. Kelly's real mistake here was staying with the guy. She's clearly not some golddigger -- quite the contrary.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 20, 2006 3:08 AM

Hello Amy,

No agenda other than trying to get her to post some truths. I don't understand how the folks on this board just automatically take Kelly's side without regards to the other side; two people with two versions of the same story.

Posted by: Rex at October 20, 2006 9:06 AM


I mostly hate women because my ex was an evil, evil, alcoholic, abusive, bipolar, violent piece of work who is now serving time for her second felony for assault. I have trouble trusting anything they say, and I have trouble believing there are actually women out there who are not golddigging, other-side-of-the-fence-looking, grass-is-greener, only-wanting-rich-and-powerful types.

But... in this case it is clear Kelly is the one who does not have the problem. Nobody in this day and age should expect to be taken care of. Especially with a PhD. Good god.

Posted by: Jay at October 20, 2006 10:06 AM

"Post some truths"? Again, you sound like a guy with an agenda -- perhaps a guy who knows that ambitionless Ph.D.? Just guessing. So, you find a guy who is an atheist who pretends to be Christian to work for the Catholics to be ethical? What exactly is the problem?

Jay is right, directly above. Kelly is the one who does not have the problem, at least not anymore. Nobody should expect to be taken care of. I certainly don't and I don't want a man who's a sponge. Is that so hard to fathom?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 20, 2006 11:59 AM


No, I don't know either Kelly or the Ph.D. guy personally.

I point out inconsistencies and now I have an "agenda." Any remarks or inquiries make me the bad guy. If I just go along with all the folks here, then there wouldn't be any discussion. Is this site a RAH RAH support session where everyone agrees or disagrees together?

Here's a quote from Voltaire:
"Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers."

Posted by: Rex at October 20, 2006 1:26 PM

Rex, it would be fine if you actually HAD pointed out "inconsistencies" -- but you haven't. The stuff you've pointed out is merely tiresome, and Kelly's responded to it well.

Now, you're attacking me -- is this a "RAH RAH support session" -- that's not what my site's about. I'm not going to argue with you about that either, as I suspect you're a guy in need of a job or a life or something, and nitpicking non-issues is, perhaps, the best you can do to pass the time.

I bitchslap the people who need it, and all Kelly needed it (ie, deserved it for) was sticking with a man who was an unethical, manipulative, using slug. Case closed.

Rex, try Sudoku.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 20, 2006 1:52 PM

Why do I keep thinking about the term "turd in a punchbowl"?

Posted by: Deirdre B. at October 21, 2006 3:50 PM

Anyone else have the feeling that its been a REALLY REALLY REALLY long time since Rex has had any kind of contact, let alone a relationship, with an actual woman? He's making my spine crawl with the sheer ridiculous nature of his comments. Good luck Rex!! Please promise the rest of us that you will never reproduce...some things we just don't need more than one of!

Posted by: Renee at October 23, 2006 10:46 AM

I think that Rex should take in Kelly's ex. Then, in six month's time post back with his experience. I doubt he will be as supportive of him then. Users come in both sexes. Besides, if Kelly's ex is as ambitious as Rex's believes he is then he is probably with someone now who deserves him. The whole point is moot.

Posted by: Dorothy at October 23, 2006 2:33 PM

Ooh, Iove Dorothy's advice. How about it, Rex?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 23, 2006 8:00 PM

"I mostly hate women because my ex was an evil, evil, alcoholic, abusive, bipolar, violent piece of work who is now serving time for her second felony for assault. I have trouble trusting anything they say, and I have trouble believing there are actually women out there who are not golddigging, other-side-of-the-fence-looking, grass-is-greener, only-wanting-rich-and-powerful types."

Im not trying to insult you here bud, but, honestly, judging an ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE NUMBER IN THE BILLIONS on ONE EXAMPLE does not make for scientific fact. My professor with his lovely degree gives you a failing grade for lack of data. Granted, I know abusive, evil, alcoholic women (my aunt). I also know a many abusive, evil, alcoholic men. Correlation does imply causation, so to speak. Lying is not necessarily a quality of womanhood, and more a quality of humanity. Liars are sexless. And dont think for s asecond I havent dated a liar; I loved her, point in case. I know what it feels like afterward, when all the mess is cleaned up and you are doubtful of anything the opposite sex says, its a natural reaction your have to let go of. None of my girlfriends were such a doozie as your ex, granted, but I plead with you to have a heart and not judge kelly because she's got boobs, and not assuem she's a liar. I'd hope she can return the same and not judge the two of us by our johnson's.

that being said, I don't know the truth of Kelly's story. I don't know Kelly. I don't if kelly is a girl. she could be george bush trying to reason his way out of the katrina disaster in a philosophical metaphor, or some 3 year old genius living vicariously through an internet persona because its not taken seriously in reality. This is the internet, where men are men, women are men, and young children are FBI agents. So maybe kelly is lying, maybe she's not. She can type whatever she wants and present the fatcs however she wants. Im going to assume from her words that she is telling the truth because its not worth my time to investigate.

I actually had a rex response at first because I read it hastily, and after rereading I realized it was just worded in a particular manner that threw me off at first. But, based on what I read, I would agree with amy's response regardless of Kelly's gender. If you're in a relationship with an umabitious person and they have a negative influence on you, leave that relationshp behind you. Man or woman. If, being a guy, am expected to raise all the money and she stays home all the time, I expect that she can clean the house and wash the dishes etc. I don't care if its perfect so long as the effort is made. I would say that make the situation one of fairness regardless of the setup.

To clarify; I do not always agree with Amy. but here I do.

Posted by: Scott at October 24, 2006 1:41 AM

"I mostly hate women because my ex was an evil, evil, alcoholic, abusive, bipolar, violent piece of work who is now serving time for her second felony for assault. I have trouble trusting anything they say, and I have trouble believing there are actually women out there who are not golddigging, other-side-of-the-fence-looking, grass-is-greener, only-wanting-rich-and-powerful types."

Thanks, Scott, for highlighting the idiocy of that comment. I'm on deadline, and missed it.

My response to the person who made that comment: Um, personal responsibility anyone? Unless you were dragged into the relationship at gunpoint, you must have had your head stuffed so far up your ass you burped Rogaine.

I have an amazing boyfriend. Why? Because I limited the assholes to a date or two; I didn't get into relationships with them, thus preventing me from being free to get involved with my boyfriend. Also, I have standards for myself, and standards for what I want in another person. Ethics are extremely important. If a guy didn't have them (usually reflected in conversation, if you're interesting in knowing and willing to pay attention), he didn't get a second date.

Again, personal responsibility.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 24, 2006 1:55 AM

Rex is unhappy, not very bright, and now he's angry because people don't agree with him. He is responding by repeating the samed flawed arguments over and over again, like someone in a foreign country yelling louder in the hopes that this will make the damn furriners understand English. There is a saying on the newsgroups . . . "Don't feed the trolls." Maybe we should stop feeding this one, eh?

Posted by: Anathema at October 24, 2006 9:25 PM

What I think is funny is for anyone to feel like they have the right to determine Kelly's criteria in choosing the right guy for her.

She didn't say she wanted a guy who makes more money than she does - clearly all she wanted was to not be treated like a doormat and mooched off of. But what if she HAD said that? What's wrong with saying, 'I only want to date guys who make twice as much money as me,' or 'I only want to date guys with huge schlongs,' or 'I only want to date guys who I find physically attractive.'

It's YOUR life, YOU'RE the one choosing the guy, so YOU get to be the one to decide on the requirements.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at October 30, 2006 12:35 PM

If this Ph.D. dude had a vagina, he would dress up like a nun and sell his virgin goods all day long.

Posted by: Kg at November 14, 2006 11:21 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)