YES. These "why won't women have sex with me" posts are often really baffling, especially because so many of them ask some variant of "am I ugly?". Generally my hypothetical (because I'm not looking) answer would be "you look fine, but you're acting like a douche and this makes you unattractive."

Do these men not…

Actually, if they use the term friendzone, I don't even want them in my friendzone. They can fuck right off.

Nothing makes me want to friendzone a guy more than a guy complaining about being friendzoned. Also, it's too bad a fedora isn't included in that list of things to buy

"Oh my god girl, I met this man and he was fiiiiiiiiiiine! Body like Arnold with a Denzel face and best of all, he was threatening as hell!"

I'm so sick of "nonthreatening" being used as an insult. When's the last time you heard that word used as a compliment? Who the FUCK wants to be threatened?

I know a girl who uses those terms. She always describes herself as an alpha and how she can't get along with other alphas and how alphas don't like it when other alphas are in their territory and I'm just sitting there like, are you human beings or fucking tigers? What is all this nonsense?

99% sure that letter wasn't actually written by a woman.

He is so beta, he won't make any decisions or plans or take responsibility for anything. I find myself longing for an alpha man.

I think the telling bit is where he tells her that when he tries to lead, she doesn't follow. She is the alpha she's been looking for all along.

The last (ok, only) relationship i had, i don't think anyone "wore the pants".

Does this mean we spent the whole time naked? (I hope it does)

What i want to know, is how the fuck did she get as far as marrying him if she doesn't like his inherent personality?

Some people just need a boundary to chaffe against, or they can't tell the difference between content and annoyed. This time it's showing up as a feminist thing, but she sounds like her life is a Goldilocks situation.

Pants are a tool of oppression by the patriarchy. Let's all rebel and lounge around in underwear.

Infidelity implies (to me at least) that the unfaithful party is the one breaking the relationship, even if the cheated-on party is the one to say "yeah, it's over".

That's fairly justified.

Agree with the majority of the article.

I was engaged once to a wonderful woman. She was killed in a car accident several months before the wedding. I did not give the ring a single thought until a couple of days after the funeral, when her parents returned it to me. I wasn't sure what to do with it. Eventually I took it back to the store where I bought…

Sounds like Torres wanted it both ways, he wanted the benefits of being engaged but didn't want to actually be obligated. I'm glad he didn't get the ring back.

People who keep heirloom rings are THE WORST. I can't wrap my head around that kind of entitlement. If he got it at some shit mall jewelry store? Meh go for it, if it was carried to this country on the hand of a dear relative? You give that shit back.

When my husband and I split (man, a lot of my posts start with those words), I gave the ring back voluntarily: it was his deceased grandma's, and he hadn't used it to propose to me (I proposed to him, which is another topic of many of my posts. LOL).

Plus, I think that as I was the breaker-off-er, even if he had…