Anonymous wrote:I’m admittedly a Jonah Hill fan, but I seriously don’t get it.
Everything I read was basically just a calm and respectful statement of his “boundaries” in a relationship. Not something I personally would be cool with, but this idea that it was somehow “abusive” is crazy. The ex was free to decide any time if they were a good match or not.
We routinely defend women for having preferences—whether it’s wealth, height, certain type of career, liking or not liking certain hobbies or activities, drinker or non-drinker, etc. And if some MRA incel gets mad about that (surely because he doesn’t fit the criteria), he’s rightly condemned. Women don’t have to give a guy a chance if he’s a short, fat, unemployed pothead who plays video games all day.
JH doesn’t want a girlfriend who poses publicly in bikinis, or frolics in the ocean with other guys. So what? I suspect there are many people, men and women, who would feel uncomfortable with that in their partner.
Anonymous wrote:He's creepy and controlling and deeply screwed up. Just because he was polite in the texts doesn't make him a nice guy - he was trying to impose absurd, unreasonable constraints on a romantic partner. That is by definition abusive. How screwed up would you have to be to get involved with someone whose job involves wearing a bathing suit and then chastise that person for wearing a bathing suit? And his girlfriends aren't permitted to talk to men? Ayatollah Jonah is a jerk.
Anonymous wrote:I’m admittedly a Jonah Hill fan, but I seriously don’t get it.
Everything I read was basically just a calm and respectful statement of his “boundaries” in a relationship. Not something I personally would be cool with, but this idea that it was somehow “abusive” is crazy. The ex was free to decide any time if they were a good match or not.
We routinely defend women for having preferences—whether it’s wealth, height, certain type of career, liking or not liking certain hobbies or activities, drinker or non-drinker, etc. And if some MRA incel gets mad about that (surely because he doesn’t fit the criteria), he’s rightly condemned. Women don’t have to give a guy a chance if he’s a short, fat, unemployed pothead who plays video games all day.
JH doesn’t want a girlfriend who poses publicly in bikinis, or frolics in the ocean with other guys. So what? I suspect there are many people, men and women, who would feel uncomfortable with that in their partner.
Anonymous wrote:One thing I think people in this thread are glossing over is that social media engagement is effectively her job/a major part of her job. Following his rules would be akin to asking her to quit her job and become financially dependent on him after only a few months of dating. Which is creepy and weird.
I still think she should never have released these, but his “boundaries” (not boundaries at all, rules for her life) were not reasonable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:One thing I think people in this thread are glossing over is that social media engagement is effectively her job/a major part of her job. Following his rules would be akin to asking her to quit her job and become financially dependent on him after only a few months of dating. Which is creepy and weird.
I still think she should never have released these, but his “boundaries” (not boundaries at all, rules for her life) were not reasonable.
This is where I’m at, too.
She kinda sucks.
He sucks more, though. His insecurity is so unattractive. High value LA chicks are going to see those texts and steer clear of him - the juice ain’t worth the squeeze.
Anonymous wrote:One thing I think people in this thread are glossing over is that social media engagement is effectively her job/a major part of her job. Following his rules would be akin to asking her to quit her job and become financially dependent on him after only a few months of dating. Which is creepy and weird.
I still think she should never have released these, but his “boundaries” (not boundaries at all, rules for her life) were not reasonable.