The Summer 2017 WHTM pledge drive is on! Donate generously to enable our continuing coverage of really really creepy dudes! Thanks!
By David Futrelle
I don’t even know how to begin to summarize this very long and very creepy post from the Relationship Advice subreddit from a male boss who seems just a teensy weensy bit too “concerned” about a female employee’s relationship with her boyfriend.
So you’re going to just have to read it for yourself. But here’s a fun game you can play as you make your way through it: See how many paragraphs you can get through before your skin starts to crawl!
Yipes.
In the movie Election, the main characters periodically break frame for brief “confessionals” in which they explain what they think is going on; it doesn’t take long to figure out that, well, they have no idea what’s really going on, and their little monologues are at once self-serving and completely un-self-aware.
Boss man has outdone all of them here.
H/T — @leyawn
Love that “I wrote it” anecdote, Alan. More anecdotes, please!
Holy cow, this guy. It just got worse and worse, like the lead up to the climax of a horror movie. Yes, I’m sure that would-be restraining order is not self-serving at all…
You know, I wonder if the Nice Guy I ghosted last year talked about me on reddit. He did seem to be online a lot… “I tried to get her to read my book but she wouldn’t date me. I gave her the cold shoulder because *****s, amirite? I saw her working on a project but she wouldn’t even smile when I told her to (twice)! And she didn’t even work for me for free! Even though she said she’d take a look and “polish” my book cover!” (*spoiler* It didn’t need a quick polish; it wasn’t even a rough sketch. It was basically a big thumbnail. And he wanted it completely changed to a realistic style. Lolno.)
—-
OT: So, just witnessed a quick MSNBC Mosul prop segment. “…but the might of American firepower…” etc. What is this? I read a piece by Robert Evans on Cracked (humor website!) on Mosul that was less sensationalistic (this is not a subject that needs dramatic affect -_-) and more civilian-oriented…and less reminiscent of a WWII propaganda film. Whatever this was mentions the nasty (even war crime-y) things being perpetrated on all sides but just kinda moves on quickly (though I guess it was a fairly short segment >_>). “It’s ISIS’ fault we have to kill civilians in their homes! Yes, we know it’ll get used for ISIS* recruiting material and there’s nothing left for people to return to, but they’re using them as meat shields and their homes as tactical positions. So, really, it’s all their fault!” I mean, yeah they’re doing that, but can we not schluff off all responsibility or somber recognition of the cost of tactical victory, please?
*Also, like the War on Terror, can’t say how long or under what conditions fighting ISIS will end. –To be fair, that guy wasn’t a general or Pentagon top brass. You can’t kill ideas with bullets though. I’d point out the importance of rebuilding, but that’s been thoroughly botched too.
~ Cathartically rewatches the Onion video about the National Money Hole (with mentions of the Soldier Hole and the Energy Hole): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnX-D4kkPOQ
“I love the money fire!” ~
Jules,
Thank you for that video! That’s some funny stuff.
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants,
Maybe the boyfriend was wearing this?
http://www.tuxedo-tshirts-online.com/black-original-tuxedo-t-shirt/#PhotoSwipe1500094637019
From here:
http://www.tuxedo-tshirts-online.com/original-tuxedo-t-shirt-heavy-cotton-in-8-colors/?gclid=CjwKEAjw16HLBRDF9L2UmOCH7U8SJAASVESoL4iNPilqtX1c16eRrAOoNlwxzaYD2HPWm4Tsv1wtjhoCbHLw_wcB
Technically that could be a tuxedo. 😀
ETA: Trying to post an actual pic of one of those tuxedo tees, and not succeeding. And probably won’t before the edit timer runs out.
Bummer. 🙁
Wow, reading this was kinda a journey. At first it was pretty eyerolly, and I laughed at his very loud and repeated denial about caring about her boyfriend. I got a little disturbed at him mentioning “I was even thinking about promoting her.” But then the gala stuff happened. I was happy he labeled his red flags, but then I realized he meant the boyfriend. Some fun bits for me!
I honestly had to read this a few times before I realized he was considering this a date between him and his coworker. I kept reading date as referring to the boyfriend, so it was confusing…
Here he is trying to suggest he and Jennifer are a couple.
Really though, after that, it seemed he was making her very uncomfortable so she excused herself and called her boyfriend to “please come get me right now. Code red code red!”
@Pretty much everyone who replied
You do realize I address his creepy behavior in the second paragraph of my original post and the subsequent response right?
As I said, everyone’s fair game but the guy was creepy. Also manipulative, possessive and paranoid, which are three flags you need to watch out for when dealing with abusive people.
It’s crazy how much he sounds like this Onion News video from 2011: America’s Waitresses: Are They Hitting On You?.
@Diego:
His creepy behavior isn’t separate from the fact that she is in a relationship, though. They’re not mutually exclusive conditions; the entire factor contributing to the existence of this story is the fact that she is in a relationship and that makes him mad. Yes, he probably would’ve found a different reason to be a creep if she was single, but that doesn’t really make a difference because that’s not the situation that happened.
You don’t get to assume what someone else’s boundaries are and whether they’re okay with having a relationship with more than one person or not, and you shouldn’t very obviously act like the subordinate you have a crush on is your girlfriend when she has shown no interest in you and is already in a relationship. Some people being okay with having multiple relationships, or even with cheating, doesn’t mean that everyone is okay with it, or that you should automatically presume that a person you’ve just met would be. In fact, I’d dare say that you shouldn’t really presume anything about a person’s sexual/relationship preferences until such a time as they happen to become relevant to your personal relationship with them.
Tldr: I’m justifying my attempt to break up her relationship for my own ends. Who’s with me?
I don’t think it’s a faux pas at all to show up in casual clothes if you’re just picking someone up. Now if you start hobnobbing and eating the canapes, then that’s another matter.
holy shit. I don’t know what else to say. reading this, and the “supplemental material” was a real… journey. I hope this is the end of the story for “Jennifer” and that the OP manages to get it through his head that this is on HIM and, I dunno, maybe SEE A GODDAMN THERAPIST.
the lack of self awareness is next level.
@Diego
We know. Everyone agrees he’s a creeper, no need to bring it up in our responses. I did bring it up in my response, but it ain’t necessary. We responded generally to the bits we disagreed with. Pretty standard internet discussion protocol actually
@Diego Duarte: The issue here is one of context. The morality of approaching people already in a relationship is not relevant to the post David made, the response of the commenters, or even the screed from the creeptastic Reddit bossman himself. This is why people are raising eyebrows at your comment, because this post (dude creeping on a woman and also resenting her preexisting relationship) has no bearing on the point you brought up (getting together with a person in a preexisting relationship).
As a rough comparison: A long time ago, I read a blog by a woman describing how she had been abused by her parents when she was young, involving a lot of physical abuse the parents framed as being justly punitive. I won’t go into details, but it was definitely extreme, and easily recognizeable as abuse.
One of the commenters said, “It’s important to recognize that not all spankings are abusive”, and proceeded to describe their own happy, loving childhood in which they got spanked occasionally.
Whether or not you agree that corporal punishment is ever a good idea, that was WEIRD in context to the original author’s blog post.
“My parents abused me” –> “Not all spankings are abusive” = sounds a lot like suggesting that maybe the OP’s parents aren’t that abusive after all, and is she really sure that they weren’t just unfortunately strict?
“I am obsessed with my employee and want to convince her that her BF is abusive and that she should dump him for me” –> “There’s nothing wrong with hitting on someone in a relationship” = sounds a lot like suggesting that maybe the OP isn’t as creepy as we all think, didn’t he have a right to see if she’d be down for getting romantic?
I get that the above wasn’t your intention, and that your goal was to defend your friends/family/people like them who have made moves on non-single people. The commenter in my example wanted to defend her parents who spanked her. But in both cases, it’s not a great context to bring that up in, because it reads far too easily as minimizing the abuse that is unambiguously being described in the OP, and which is unambiguously troubling and worthy of being decried without any qualifying statements.
OT stuff:
The Majority Report youtube channel has cut out my recent call to the show and posted as its own video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wd5p7TyTXnM
Due to some of the discussions and troll posts in the comments, I plan to call back in next week, probably Tuesday or Wednesday, and share some facts on so called no-go zones, general crime, the police force, the prison situation, etc. Gotta do some additional research first, since I didn’t have proper data regarding other crime in front of me when I made this call.
@Diego Duarte
You’re getting pretty defensive. Your original comment was kind of shit, and people are telling you why, and your reaction is to double down. That’s not the way to convince anyone that your original comment wasn’t actually shit.
Everyone is not fair game. Everyone else here is giving this a pass, but I’m not going to pass it. People who are not interested in a relationship with you are not “fair game” for you, and it’s not actually that difficult to suss out whether someone is interested in you. In fact, I would go as far as to say that when you start talking about people as if they are prey animals, there is something deeply wrong with your thought process and you need to re-assess.
You want to know what creeps me out? When people talk about me as being “fair game.” Because that’s what you’ve done. When you say “everyone” you are including me, and that’s a deeply creepy thing to say about me, a near-stranger to you.
So not only are you eliding something completely irrelevant into the conversation that doesn’t belong there, you are being pretty creepy yourself in the process. So maybe take a step back and have a little think about what you’re trying to accomplish by dying on this hill.
IP, that’s brilliant. Properly awesome, in fact.
Ugh, I’m afraid I have to pile on about the “fair game” thing too. I accept that you can ask anyone out or try to start some kind of social relationship with them, but when there’s no interest good manners and respect dictate that you back the fuck off. Some people seem to think that it’s romantic to pressure and cajole and keep reminding the target of their “affection” that the opportunity is always there, but that’s not romantic, that’s a pain in the ass at best. And harassment at worst. I realize @Diego Duarte may have only meant sending out the feelers for openness to a relationship, but he did kind of double down when other people pointed out his problematic expression.
In any case, it’s not relevant to this story in particular because, as others have said, this guy isn’t being honest about what he wants anyway. He might not even know he is attracted to her because asshats like this have lied to themselves all their lives about what they want and what other people want. His refusal to consider anybody else’s perspective, which is clear in his responses to comments on reddit, makes it excruciatingly obvious that he can’t weigh his own emotions against third party reactions to his own words. That’s the kicker, he tries to make himself look good and his own story makes everyone think he’s thoroughly creepy and out of touch with reality. Or a master troll. Several people accused him of (or praised him for) that.
And something else about being in relationships and starting new ones, a lot of people, especially women, use the relationship to let the dude down gently. It’s the famous soft no. Maybe if we respected people’s feelings as a society, we could act to do away with the assumption that somebody in a relationship is automatically not looking, but at this point I would rather have that escape available to me, irritating as it is to have to use it.
IP, I’m happy your segment is getting highlighted and I’m chuffed you stepped up to the plate and made an argument that really needed to be made. Good for you! I hope your call makes some big ripples in discussion circles. Keep us posted!
Thanks, Hollywood…
I think for some PUA types they back down not because it’s a signal she’s not looking, but they don’t want to face the anger of said partner. What she wants is irrelevant in their eyes. Even then they sometimes don’t even take “I’m in a relationship” as a reason to stop trying.
http://replycandy.com/wp-content/uploads/Godzilla-Nope-Response-Meme.jpg
NOPE!
@CMH
I’ve made point of mentioning my husband to the guys at my new workplace as a pre-emptive measure. I mean, I am actually kinda romantically available, but not to any rando who happens tp share a workplace with me.
Adding this here because the edit window ran out: in the above comment I first wrote “I’m taken” instead of “I’m in a relationship” then realised the implications of the phrase. AND it’s pretty common in modern vernacular. Even I tossed it out there without a second thought, at first. Yeeeesh.
All the Norman Bates references are way too on point.
You go, IP!
Nicely done IP. You also have a really cool accent btw. But you made the relevant points superbly.
There have been some similar claims about no-go zones here. They’re trivially easy to debunk too. But if you need any material on that score for your follow up, give me a shout.
I do not feel that I implied a person is entitled to another person’s attention or the right to needlessly harass them. In case I didn’t make myself clear then I apologize for whatever confusion my initial comment may have brought about. That was not my original intention.
My perception of the story in the first paragraphs was that there was some initial chemistry between the boss and the girl, or rather this is what the guy portrayed. However this turns out to not be the case and the initial paragraphs lose all validity when you take into account the rest of the story, which is when the woman in question sets very clear boundaries in regard to whatever the guy thought was going on.
It is of course not acceptable in anyway whatsoever to continue to hit on someone after they’ve declined and expressed no interest in you whatsoever. My initial comment regarding “fair game” and “consenting adults” is a throwback to the initial perception that the two might have had some chemistry. Since I’ve seen this happen before, particularly with my mother who “cheated” on my father (after he did about a million times) during their marriage, and who got out of an abusive relationship, I felt the need to defend the fact that it is NOT morally reprehensible to hit on someone who’s on a completely fucked up relationship.
Granted, this is not the case. It is all too evident from the subsequent paragraphs that whatever the man thought he had going on was just his own perception. And the subsequent reactions he had in regard to her just cement that position.
It was not my intention to say any man, or person for that matter, should feel entitled to endlessly harass a person who is not interested with romantic advances. Though I do not find it morally reprehensible or creepy to hit on someone who is in an abusive or unsatisfied relationship, if they’re giving you cues or flirting back.
I apologize for any offense I might have given otherwise.