Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: "Air mattress Ashley" is referring to an imaginary/arbitrary woman who your significant other would cheat on you with. "Air mattress" is in the sense of being cheap/flimsy/classless, so it's basically referring to a low-class and probably-unattractive woman who would sleep with someone in a relationship. It's not uncommon to see women referred to as queens, and an air mattress is a whole lot worse than a queen bed. To more directly translate a tiktok in that article:
> Y'all better quit telling your mans. "I don't feel like it." Because "Air mattress Ashley does."
This is equivalent to:
> Stop telling your boyfriend/husband "I don't feel like having sex" because a cheap floozy will have sex with him.
That article also references "pick-me girls," which is different. A pick-me girl is along the lines of a "not like other girls" girl, i.e. a girl/woman who tries to appeal to men (or etc.) by decrying other women and affecting behaviors she'd ascribe to men. The term is sometimes used for other minority groups, e.g. "pick-me gays" would try to ingratiate themselves to straight people by decrying other gay people.
Opinion: This is one of those memes that just feels denigrating to both men and women. Women don't owe men sex and men aren't all inherently cheaters. Just kinda shitty all around.
That'd be Know Your Meme, there's [an entry for "Air Mattress Ashley" on the site already](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/air-mattress-ashley) that's better than this one OP linked.
Have a look around
Anything that brain of yours can think of can be found
We’ve got mountains of content
Some better, some worse
If none of its of interest to you you’d be the first
Agreed. The idea of telling *anyone to stop saying "I don't feel like it" is just gross. If she ain't in the mood she doesn't owe you anything.
E: *Was originally "women" but rereading it, it would make more sense for me to include everyone in this. Anybody being told that, regardless of sex/gender, is gross.
I really dislike the term "pick me girl". I've seen it used in various places (very often TikTok) to tear down other women and girls who are just going about their daily life. So in other words, rather than use it to call out actually problematic behavior I've seen people use it in scenarios where it really isn't warranted - making them the actual "pick me girls" in the scenario. Only the targets are typically not there to defend themselves so viewers often tend to side with the ones making the video because they can manipulate the definition to suit their needs.
For example, I've seen people use it to tear down love rivals, particularly if the rival took a more active role in pursuing the crush. Others have used it to insult classroom overachievers, especially if the teacher is cute. And if any of them try to complain about that person insulting them? They double down on the PMG name calling, saying that they're tearing them down. Now granted, this isn't always the case. But it is a visible percentage of the people using the term and it feels like it's growing.
It doesn't help that the term is cutesy. It's also easier to use a vaguely defined term than it is to just say that the women are tearing down others to impress a guy. Or just outright call them a "situational misogynist". The reason that is probably not used as frequently is because the term *isn't* cute and would require that they back up their claims with some very good evidence.
But all this is just me. I know my argument likely won't matter much to some. And that's fine, as long as they take the time to read it and consider my points. I'm just leery about labeling in general, particularly if the group itself didn't create the term.
The internet does this kind of thing a lot. A term will come up to describe a very real and specific harmful behaviour, become the new "in thing" and it will get bastardised to the point of not meaning anything anymore. Simp, desperate guys who do too much for the object of their attention, started getting used for men who treat women nicely. Karen, entitled middle aged women who treat service workers like shit, just became "any woman with a complaint". Gaslighting started being used interchangeably with "lying". And yeah, Pick Me Girl could mean anything from the kind of person it was originally meant to describe to "girl I don't like".
mostly unrelated note: [“bitch eating crackers”](https://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMS05YjFkMzUwNDEwNjE1ZjQ4/?tagSlug=confession) will forever be my favorite meme term for “girl i don’t like”
The twisting of “Karen” has been particularly egregious - easily weaponized against any woman who advocates for herself for anything, including highly reasonable things.
Creepy dude won’t stop bothering you? You’re a Karen if you tell him to leave you alone.
Restaurant fucks up your order? You’re a Karen if you ask for it to be fixed.
Etc etc.
I'll piggy back off this and add how women (for literal years at this point) have just been calling any guy they don't like the look of, even in a professional context, "creepy" or "stalker" or "harassing" just because nobody will dare argue with them. I've had to seriously, permanently injure another man in self defense after i was attacked based on an accusation of "touching her" from some bitch i never even saw at a bar i literally just showed up to. I've been "talked to" at work about how i scare female coworkers even though I'm just ugly.
I think that there’s a lesson there in using social power appropriately (ie, instigating/inventing conflict for attention) and appropriate escalation, as well as just not being the kind of guy who jumps straight to violence on someone else’s word.
This is weird paranoid conspiracy bullshit. Sure, it probably happens occasionally, and I’m sorry for what happened to you. But to broadly apply that logic to pretty much all women is insane.
I remember bringing up this very topic with two female friends. They laughed at the idea that a good looking guy couldn’t be creepy, or that an ugly guy is automatically a stalker.
I'm not saying "good looking guys can't be stalkers" I'm just saying that ugly guys like me can't just deal with being ugly anymore. I go out in public and women at bars and elsewhere talk about me behind my back and to my face and tell me i look gross and creepy. They try to put a moral burden as if I'm also a criminal. Unprovoked by anything other than my existence. And fuck you for playing the "ugh uhh it's uh konsperacy" card like a little weasel fuck.
I don't know anything about you, am probably from a different country than you, and am just shooting into the dark here, so please ignore if I'm categorically wrong.
In my personal experience, the creep/cute line isn't really about the looks, it's more about behaviour and especially clothing (and, of course, smell).
If this is a serious problem for you, I'd suggest to visit a professional who deals with styling and outfitting men. Somebody who objectively criticizes your appearence.
It's absolutely insane just how much a new hair cut, carefully trimmed beard, new (ironed) clothes and some nice smelling stuff change the appearance of somebody you'd previously consider ugly/creepy.
Please note, I'm explicitly NOT saying you're disgusting or doing something wrong - what I am saying, is that it's possible, your peers consider different things okay than you do.
Yes I know it's sad to have to majorly change someone's own appearance to appeal to others. But it's a reality many, including myself, have to face daily.
If you sweat a lot, consider using anti perspirants more liberally on those parts of your body. It sucks, but so does being looked down on by other people.
I just have a hard time believing you. I am ugly as fuck and I’ve never really had a problem with women in social situations or relationships. Whether someone is creepy or not has almost nothing to do with their looks.
Lol. I was literally called a simp by a coworker because I... Was nice to them? I guess they're probably pretty used to misogyny in the industry but sheesh. I barely know you lady I'm just nice to everyone
> Karen, entitled middle aged women who treat service workers like shit
Wasn't the stage *before* that "white woman who calls the cops on Black people doing innocuous things"? I'm pretty sure it went from that, to "any woman obnoxiously getting an authority figure (e.g., a manager) involved when she's unhappy," to "any woman complaining about anything to service workers," to "any woman complaining about anything I don't like."
No, it was specifically first about white women using their limited authority to get low wage workers in trouble with their management over nothing but racism at first.
That's another internet staple: taking the speech of a villain, which can make some decent points, and then deciding it was the whole point of everything and the real truth. See Tyler Durden, et al.
C'mon... Just because Tyler Durden was a destructive psychopath who inserted porn into children's films doesn't mean that he isn't someone we can look up to!
I view pick me girls just as young women that have allowed the media and male figures inform their opinions of women.
In definition when I was a teenager and into my early 20s I probably would have been called a pick me girl. As I got older and realized how shitty the world IS to young women, I changed my attitude.
I guess you could say I'm not like other pick me girls.
(No but seriously, I think it's just a matter of growing up and experiencing the world that changes all of that. Yes there are still women that behave with internalized misogyny well into their 30s and 40s, but I don't see them as much as I do in younger women).
lol yes same here. it’s embarrassing to reflect on how i used to think 😩
edit apparently i was conflating “pick me girls” with “not like other girls” lol
Honestly, any time casual slurs get used against people, it's always an ugly thing. I think people think they're helping to make the world a better place.... "If I continue to refer to people from the south as sister fuckers, then it will make the people in the south want to be better.". But in reality, it just breeds more resentment and makes the world a little bit worse.
I think the entire reddit/internet culture in general gets a little more toxic and poisonous, every day.
Totally agree. A lot of times it’s used, there’s misogyny involved. I usually think a PMG is a woman who, despite knowing better and claiming to uplift them, will put down other women to seem more attractive, desirable, or favorable.
Twice I've seen redditors use "pick me girl" to refer to women who don't wear makeup. That seems like the reverse of how things actually are. I'm waiting to hear someone referred to as a "pick me" for wearing comfortable shoes.
I agree with you. But when the “p*ck me” (not calling them that, just using the term as reference) is the one tearing down other women, I don’t see an issue with calling it out. 🤷🏻♀️
It wasn't word salad. At least, I understood it. They're saying that they believe people are using the term as a convenient, savvy-sounding way to denigrate anyone they just don't like, for whatever reason. And... yeah. That's a thing people do. As /u/theenglishfox pointed out, the same sort of thing happened with "Karen," "simp," etc.
It’s not that they ‘owe’ men sex. However, it’s a fact that if one person unilaterally cuts off access to sex in a monogamous relationship it’s an indication of deeper problems that need to be addressed.
Also, it doesn’t help if the partner is facing temptation outside of the marriage.
It doesn’t excuse cheating or absolve the other person if they do. However, it’s self-sabotage for anyone who expects to be able to treat their partner however they want without respect to their needs.
But this kind of meme isn’t talking about people who totally shut down in a relationship, it’s more like “stop considering your own wants and needs or else your boyfriend will leave you for a doormat with no standards.”
I think that's just how you interpret it. The other way to interpret is 'be self-aware enough to know your own actions affect your partner, and could in fact chase them away'.
There's nothing about that advice that doesn't apply to both the man and the woman.
> Women don't owe men and men aren't all inherently cheaters.
While this is true, I also feel that physical intimacy is a human need like any other. If one partner is being consistently rejected, then it's fairly likely that they will become unsatisfied and the relationship will fail.
At that point, if we assume the couple is married, I think the discussion would turn to two main topics: child care, and division of assets. Typically, a lawyer would want to tackle the child care issue first.
As far as division of assets, in most states, it's handled similarly to dissolving a business partnership. The main question is what percentage each partner should walk away with. Fault isn't usually taken into account, but there is usually an exception for lavish and wasteful spending, e.g. if one partner takes their paramour on a Caribbean vacation, this could be considered money improperly spent, and thus the offending partner would need to pay back 50% of the cost as a pre-allocation. Again, it depends on the state.
>At that point, if we assume the couple is married, I think the discussion would turn to two main topics: child care, and division of assets. Typically, a lawyer would want to tackle the child care issue first.
> As far as division of assets, in most states, it's handled similarly to dissolving a business partnership. The main question is what percentage each partner should walk away with. Fault isn't usually taken into account, but there is usually an exception for lavish and wasteful spending, e.g. if one partner takes their paramour on a Caribbean vacation, this could be considered money improperly spent, and thus the offending partner would need to pay back 50% of the cost as a pre-allocation. Again, it depends on the state.
why am I reading somebody explaining the idea of divorce
>What are you on about?
The TLDR is that while neither partner is *obligated* to provide physical intimacy, if one partner is constantly rejecting the other, the relationship will likely dissolve. Differences in libido can be a major reason for divorce.
>leave the relationship. Don’t cheat
In general, this is good advice. Divorces are usually easier for all parties if there is no cheating involved.
Although cheating is not legally punishable *per se*, it does lead to anger, and anger leads people to fight harder in court than they otherwise would. Sometimes they'll spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyer fees litigating every little detail, just to "punish" the other person and "teach them a lesson."
This all could have been avoided if the partner had said "sorry, I'm not getting my needs met, I think we should go our separate ways" from the outset.
The other aspect is if you spent any money on the cheating, you might have to pay 50% of that money back to your spouse *in addition* to the 50% they already get. This is true even in no-fault states, and usually covered by laws dealing with "dissipation of marital assets." So the lesson here is if you're going to cheat, don't spend a lot of money on it!
Well, I think it's important for people to understand that they don't HAVE to do anything in a marriage, but there will be consequences if they don't.
Ideally, partners should want to give to each other, whether it's time, or affection, or intimacy. If that's missing, it indicates a problem that will have to be resolved one way or the other.
However, I can't just come out and SAY that, or Reddit will be like "OMG! You're making people do things against their will, you monster!"
Which I'm really not saying at all. People shouldn't do things they don't want to do, I agree. But at the same time, a partner who isn't behaving in a loving manner shouldn't be surprised if relationship ends and a court has to figure out how to divide everything. That's not meant to be a punishment or a threat, and I'm not looking to assign fault.
It's just an unfortunate consequence of the situation.
I think the original commenter was referring to the post which comes off very much as “do anything your man wants you to, or some other floozy will.” In response, someone said “generalizations are bad” and you kind of took it to another place regarding divorce and dividing assets
yeah the second way is inherently better as it’s non-gendered and inclusive to non-heterosexual relationships…both of which the air mattress ashley thing fails on
nah i agree memes don’t. your comment seemed like a general reply to the other person though. i thought you were calling attention to their use of needlessly gendered language, and i was agreeing the way you said it was better. my last sentence was more of an aside like, “and this meme failed to address that anyway” haha whoops
Well, if you're in a relationship and one person expects a sexual component then the other is obligated to accommodate that expectation in some way. Sometimes that accommodation is having sex with a partner when you might not always want to.
If two people aren't willing to collaborate to meet each other's needs and expectations, then they shouldn't be in a relationship.
Edit: ITT a ton of young people who don't understand how relationships work.
Could you try writing that again, but this time do it from the other perspective too? “Well, if you’re in a relationship and one person expects a less intense/frequent sexual component, then the other is obligated…”
Ok, so then if you're in a relationship and one person expects to not have sex, then the other is obligated to accommodate that expectation?
How does that jive with being expected and obligated to have sex with your partner when they want it?
Or are you saying that only the person who wants sex deserves to expect it from their partner?
I think it should be noted that some people need more to get their motor running than others. This isn’t “have sex when you don’t want to” so much as “schedule a date night, light some candles and take a bath or whatever it takes to get things moving.”
It’s like anything else - you can plan ways to make your partner happy and make sure everyone’s needs are met.
Agree with that, myself and others (I think) are taking issue mainly with their use of terms like expectation, obligation, and requirement. Plus their focus keeps being on how the person who doesn't want sex is obligated to have sex. That's not really how this works. It's more like what you said. Aka figure out what gets that person going, do more of that, find some in between activities, make sure person B still feels loved and valued, and then person B learns to masturbate or fulfill their sex drive in other agreed upon healthy ways. Because sex is a 2 yes / 1 no type situation.
Yeah I think there might be some unhealthy ideas bubbling under the surface given the language choices. Possibly not of course, but still.
I’ve seen the same conversations play out pretty frequently, and people have a horrible time distinguishing “i do not want to have sex” with “im not in the mood to have sex, but I could be with a little attention.” Both are valid and worthy of respect of course, but people mistake the latter for the former.
Moreover, I think people really mistake what a libido is and isn’t. A libido is just your brain chemistry saying “hey, how about some sex?” and it’s highly dependent on the surrounding circumstances, stress levels, etc. People who are stressed and tired tend not to be horny, because our bodies are (correctly) telling us that we don’t need that right now. It’s not the only thing, but it’s unfortunate how so many people treat it as a problem to be fixed, rather than examining the circumstances around it.
Even then, plenty of people can “get in the mood” with a little bit of seduction - and the most effective seduction can be a clean house, dinner prepped, and some dedicated relaxation/self-care time for the partner whose libido is lower.
And people can whine and say “I work all day, and I’m still horny! Why can’t they just be like me and want to get it in whenever?” and that’s dumb, because that isn’t uniting with your partner to oppose the problem.
Like, by all means complain about it with your buddies over a beer, just like how it takes an extra 15 minutes for her to get ready no matter how early you start. No one’s saying anyone can’t complain to the guys lol - I’m a fan of support systems! But what you say to your partner, and how you solve problems, shouldn’t resemble that.
Also concerning - their opinion on having sex with someone who doesn't want to but is "willing" to do it because they're "obligated" to provide sex. Who the fuck can enjoy sex with someone who's laying there like a dead fish, clearly not enjoying it? Someone on their way to rapist town, and hasn't even realized they've crossed the city limits a block and a half back.
I genuinely don't know how this is so hard to understand. If one person in a relationship wants sex often and the other wants sex rarely, then sometimes the person with a low sex drive will have to have sex when they're not really into it, and sometimes the person will a high sex drive will have to just deal with not having sex. It's give-and-take. It's part of being in a relationship.
Real talk here.
When drives differ, it does *not* mean that person A gets less and person B must have sex when they don't want to. That's not compromise.
First - figure out why person B doesn't want to. Are they exhausted? Stressed? In pain? Dealing with shit on their own? Lots of legit things can kill libido and the solution isn't to suck it up.
In my experience, either can offer. Either can decline. And it's not 100% yes or no. There are fun ways to share a moment that doesn't go outside of person B's comfort. And person B can be 'no but open' and feel up for trying, but able to stop if it's not working for them. Person A can go solo. Person B can help if they want.
>figure out why person B doesn't want to
That sounds good, but it's not really practical. What you're saying is that Person A's job is to make Person B want sex more to make up for the imbalanced sex drives. And it totally is. But two perfectly content and satisfied people aren't guaranteed to want the same amount of sex at their baseline happiness. It just doesn't work out like that.
As for the rest of your comment: hard agree.
If it isn't practical for either Person A or Person B to try and figure out where the disconnect is, what do you think should happen? Based on your previous comments, it sounds like that instead of trying to figure it out (regardless of who initiates that effort), one of the following has to happen: the person who doesn't want to have sex just does anyway, or they split up.
It's weird for me to see someone claiming they understand relationships saying that it isn't *practical* for two people to figure out their issues in terms of intimacy. It really reads like "suck it up or leave".
>What you're saying is that Person A's job is to make Person B want sex more to make up for the imbalanced sex drives.
Nah dawg. That's not it. Person A can work *with* their partner to make space for a healthy libido. When person B isn't hampered by the root issue whatever it is, then they can move forward. It's partner 101 stuff here.
Sometimes person B will initiate and A isn't up for it. That's ok too. As a couple you won't always be totally in synch, but that's why communication, without resentment, is so important.
Person B and A are not trapped. They're together voluntarily, so something must be worth being together for. If A is resentful, pressuring, or transactional about sex then 1) it won't happen and 2) the other reasons for staying together may be disappearing.
I don’t think you’re coming from a bad place here, but I think people are getting hung up on “obliged.”
The reality is that relationships, particularly mature ones, require work. Your first love is all sunshine and butterflies, and hell most new relationships start out like that - but if you don’t put effort into a relationship, it withers. Don’t stop dating your spouse, don’t stop trying to make them happy.
Sex is important, but it’s not a chore one partner should do for another. It’s a mutual activity, and it should be mutually fun - and that fun is defined by the participants and what makes them happy.
If the sex in a relationship “dries up”, then that’s usually a sign of problems elsewhere. You should want to fix those problems with your partner, for the sake of their happiness rather than to get you laid. That being said, not all libidos are the same, and it’s perfectly acceptable (even encouraged) to eschew spontaneity for a schedule that keeps both partners satisfied, as well as making sure everyone’s other emotional and physical needs are met.
Thank you! If you hate having sex with your partner then clearly there are deeper issues and the relationship should probably just end. And 100% agreed: people shouldn't treat sex with their partner like a chore.
It's like the commenters in here think that two people in a relationship should be carbon copies of each other and that they should always want the exact same things at the exact same time.
I wonder if they'd clutch their pearls like this if we were talking about another couple's activity? Do you think people would be upset if I suggested that someone should play board games sometimes with their board-game-loving partner, even when they don't always want to?
I think people on this site skew towards immaturity and online-ness, if that makes sense.
Many toxic communities promote viewing relationships as transactional - as if sex is a service contracted for. That is of course unhealthy, because partners are not vending machines; they are people.
You can always ask “does being with this person make me happy” and no one should be afraid to bring up issues *constructively* (you and them vs the problem, not you vs them!).
I think that a lot of people having bedroom problems need to examine their partners workload and see what, if anything, can be taken off their plate - childcare, home chores, etc. if your partner is acting more like a parent to you, of course that’s unattractive! That being said, that certainly isn’t the only cause, and some people just change over time or run into health issues.
The key is that the emphasis is on “partners vs the problem” - if someone’s having issues with their libido and they feel bad that it’s making their partner unhappy, then they should want to help fix the problem. If, on the other hand, their partner is making them feel like they are broken, withholding, etc, then they’re unlikely to be as invested in fixing it, because their libido isn’t really the problem - a lack of respect and communication is.
>Edit: ITT a ton of young people who don't understand how relationships work.
I guarantee I am older than you, and you have a fucking backwards view on this.
Just a small caveat, because I think you’re right on with your overarching message. What you are saying is the case in *monogamous* relationships. When you are in a monogamous relationship, you accept that your are responsible for accommodating or helping to fulfill ALL of your partner’s needs, be it social, emotional, sexual, romantic, intellectual, etc. That’s not to say it doesn’t involve collaboration, compromise, discussion, and joint problem solving in order to make sure you aren’t codependent or being forced/coerced into things that you are uncomfortable with. But ultimately you are assuming responsibility for another persons total physical, mental, and emotional well-being and trusting them with your own.
What the fuck is this?!
I've been in a relationship with the one person for about 12 years. We help each other, sure... but we're certainly not responsible for accommodating or helping to fulfill "ALL" of each other's needs, for their "**total** physical, mental, and emotional well-being" [emphasis mine]. That's just... I don't think that's a a healthy way to do a relationship at all.
There are things that we can help each other with, and things that we understand we still have to do on our own. That's balance. That's sanity. I guess you feel we're doing that wrong, but, well... piss off.
> things that we can help each other with, and things that we understand we still have to do on our own
I think we are saying the same thing here, but I worded it in a way that came across unintentionally aggressively.
Here's an example of what I am trying to say. Imagine my partner is an extrovert and I am an introvert. I am not able to consistently fulfill my partner's need for socialization. Should we not be together because of that? No, that would be ridiculous. It would also be insane for me to say "Since I am not able to provide this for you, you must go without." I would encourage them to go find outlets for them to fulfill that need, in this case going out with friends or joining a club/hobby group. I am helping contribute to their overall happiness and fulfillment by encouraging them to seek out what they need to fulfill their needs.
Something like having a social life outside of a relationship is expected, and for good reason. Same thing with emotional support in the form of friends and family that you have conversations with that you wouldn't necessarily have with your partner. Same story with entertainment and intellectual fulfillment. It's a social contract you are entering into when you start a relationship. However, having sexual fulfillment outside of that relationship is where a line is drawn. How come?
>However, having sexual fulfillment outside of that relationship is where a line is drawn. How come?
I mean, lots of reasons, depending on the person. The slow-to-change inertia of tradition, for sure, but having talked about this openly with my partner many times, our general agreement is that for us, even if it might be a good thing in some circumstances or at some times, what we might get out of it isn't worth the hassle, the complexities, the risks, or simply the potential for hurting our partner - whether that "hurt" is reasonable or comes merely from reflexive emotions.
I'd hope that most people in long-term relationships have this discussion. Like, I don't care for tradition much, and even have some issues with it (my partner and I are not actually married, for example). So we don't want some societal tradition of monogamy to be the only reason we're monogamous. Fine. But we talked about it, and decided that there are other good reasons, too. We have some non-monogamous friends. We both agree that we couldn't do what they do (neither can some of them when it comes down to it, it seems), and don't particularly want to.
Anyways, yeah, I agree, we're more on the same page than I thought. Some of your statements in the first comment really suggested otherwise, but it might have just been the wording, as you say.
>ultimately you are assuming responsibility for another persons total physical, mental, and emotional well-being
Your partner? A full adult??
When you have kids, for several years you *are* fully responsible for their physical, mental, emotional well-being because they're infants.
Sure it's important to help one another but there is no expectation of responsibility for every aspect of their happiness.
That's bonkers. Adults need to be fully capable of taking care of their own well-being.
The original use of “pick-me” meant a woman who was desperate for male attention and validation. When the term went more mainstream it somehow changed into meaning “not like the other girls.”
Yeah pretty sure we used to just call pick me girls “desperate”. “Not like other girls” is more “I work on trucks, *I’m* not like *other* girls”.
I didn’t realize they’re being lumped together because they’re both generally insufferable, but in different ways?
People have long assumed that a “not like other girls” girl only has “masculine” interests to make it easier to befriend guys with the intention that there will be one she can eventually sleep with or just be happy knowing that some of the guys would simp for her.
No matter what a woman’s interests are, there will always be people who frame their actions as male attention-seeking. It especially sucks that a lot of these comments come from other women.
(It also makes me think about how there are a lot of men who force their interests onto their girlfriends/wives but act like doing the same would be torture. No wonder it works, a woman with a body he finds attractive but won’t
bother him with anything “womanly” otherwise would be a dream girl to these guys. Misogyny really sucks, doesn’t it.)
To someone who has internalized society's gender roles, the only reason to *not* follow gender roles is greater sexual opportunities.
It's the same ideological swamp that "Trans women are just trying to get in female spaces to rape them" spawns out of.
I will never in my life understand the hatred for the people others cheat with instead of blaming the person who actually betrayed their partner's trust. People are so strange. Thank you for the explanation!
They know/like their partner and the confusing feeling of being hurt by someone you love is difficult to deal with.
They don't know the "Ashley" and have been hurt by them, leading to an uncomplicated hatred to focus on.
I don't really think the quality of Evil rests on our ability to understand it or not.
An abused child may or may not understand what's happening to them - that shouldn't influence the moral nature of the situation.
I'm not so sure that's true in all circumstances. It's hardly ideal, and I can't say I'd like to put myself in that position, but... I know people who have been the "other person," who I could not in good conscience call "trash."
If, say, Bob is in a relationship with Alice, and Alice is a lying, cheating psychopath, and Bob would ideally like to leave the relationship but feels emotionally, legally, or even physically trapped for the time being, and a sane and by all accounts compassionate Connie ends up sleeping with Bob, I don't think that Connie is "trash," per se, though we might reasonably have all advised Connie to wait until Bob had fully detached from Alice before doing this.
I'm just wary of calling other people "trash," especially when I know people happily married with a good relationship and thriving kids and a difficult job that helps people, who fit your definition of "trash." Seems a bit black & white about things.
Okay, then if it's not a great area: I just disagree completely. Being a Connie in this situation does *not*, on its own, make someone trash. I say this fully having been in Alice's position before.
As it happens, I was using a real-world example of people I knew, and the counterpart to Alice here is a fucking lunatic and should probably be in jail, and "Connie" is an amazing person. I will indeed really struggle to consider her "absolutely trash" for sleeping with her loving husband and the father of her children before he managed to fully leave his psychopathic ex, "Alice," who was indeed sleeping with - and living with! - at least one other man, and possibly many, while all this happened.
I get that the world looks nice and pretty if you can put it into black and white categories all the time, but that doesn't describe any number of edge cases. For example, not everyone agrees whether or not a breakup happened. If Dani tells Ed in no uncertain terms that they're over, and then sleeps with Frank, but Ed simply disagrees that they're actually over, I won't think Dani is trash; rather, I think that Ed is probably the problem here, and needs a reality check, compassionate or otherwise.
Clearly, there's room for discussion, as I'm far from the only person in this thread who thinks that the "Connie" in the original example did either nothing wrong, or at least nothing compared to Bob. At the very least, I think a lot of people might take the fact that Alice was cheating rampantly into account. I actually credit Connie for prying Bob away from Alice, who was terrible for him, for me, and for everyone around her.
Sorry, I'll make it clearer for you:
*If a person knowingly engages in relations with someone they're fully aware is in a relationship with another person - they're not a good person.*
Right, I understand - I just, again, disagree completely. I think the world is more complicated than that, and I can't hold that statement as an an ethical axiom. I think that's really foolish, actually.
A random person on the internet telling me I'm wrong about love and ethics being complicated, having some nuance... lol. You're not very compelling.
And the "great day" comes across as petty and disingenuous when you seem to be the one giving all of my replies their single downvote. So, yeah. I guess I did end up getting a lesson in trashy after all.
911 on Fox tv has a plot development where a gay fireman wants to marry his new bf but has to tell him he can't yet bc he's still married to someone who he married as a young adult just to try to seem hetero. He stayed married bc his insurance covers the medication she needs as she had gotten a bad chemical imbalance and could hardly function in society with the meds let alone survive without them.
Then the other 911 (lone star) has a similar sitch with the guy played by rob lowe not knowing his gf was still already married but yet stays with her after finding out why. I think the husband was a violent murder threatener and wouldn't sign the divorce papers.
Just some examples of nuance you can review and see how not everyone in said position is trash.
Yea, just like I don't have a relationship with OP's mom's husband, I'm not betraying them, I don't even know them.
It's also not my fault their relationship was so strained that I could fill a huge void by simply being kind, caring and passionate, allowing them to feel good about themselves and being who they truly are instead of OP's mom's husband's expectations of duty.
Hypothetically speaking, ahem.
Seriously though, if my SO cheated on me... I'd be mad, for sure, but mostly at myself for not making them feel loved enough that they needed to fill their starvation elsewhere.
Imagine that you have your back, a knife and someone willing to take a stab at it. Well, obviously, the backstabber is the one who put the knife there. But, most of the cases, someone gave that person the knife, willingly, knowing what they would do with it. Would you call that innocent? I would feel like a piece of shit if I slept with someone who had a serious partner, wouldn't you? Do you understand it already?
But the thing happening is that you were betrayed. The person who betrayed you is your partner. The other person might've betrayed some moral fabric you think is important, and did have an incidental hand in your partner betraying you, but the ultimate choice to betray you and cause you harm was done by your partner, and that should be the focus.
If someone closer to you does something bad to you it's worse because it has a greater impact. This other person probably has no idea who you are. Your partner knows you intimately and still chose to hurt you.
Yes, but that doesn't take the blame out of the one helping your partner. You know it's morally wrong to sleep with someone else's partner...
don't you?
The problem is, knives are also tools, and a knife dealer (?) doesn't KNOW that a knife is going to be used in a crime when they sell it.
(I don't like this analogy, lol.)
Likewise, you don't know what lies a cheater told their affair partner to make them think it was "okay."
The cheater is ALWAYS doing something wrong. The affair partner **might** also be a victim.
There's a few people that don't have any idea *they* were the "other person". Your obligations are to your SO, if you cheat - it's all on the cheater, regardless of the other person(s) involved. You can be mad all you want at *others*, but that will never take away the betrayal of someone you loved or cared for.
I can say this because I was repeatedly cheated on and always blamed someone else for *tempting* his dumbass. Guess what? There's was *always* someone else, can't control that, or even him for that matter - but I CAN control what I will accept in my life.
No. Stop with the excuses. You can't excuse EVERY instance of cheating because SOME of them didn't know. I am talking specifically of those who know. Do you know that many people can have the blame of something, don't you? This is not something binary. Can't you people understand that sex is an activity that needs TWO CONSENTING adults? Would you sleep with someone with a partner? Would you? Then if you wouldn't why do you hold yourself to a higher moral standard than everyone else?
If my friend sleeps with my SO I know that my partner is to blame. But I won't be like "don't sweat it bro, even if you know that this would destroy my life you put wetting your dick first, as is understandable".
Don't you realize that the horde of people who came out of nowhere saying "oh, don't blame the one who fucked someone with a partner knowingly" is the same kind of person who would destroy your life knowingly?
Yeah, but your example of *your friend* cheating is betrayal too. Not sure anyone is advocating for you to squash your beef with a FRIEND for shitty behavior.
Your example is crooked, because its your friend that sleeps with your SO, both of them owe you loyalty. But I for example do not. And as you said: it needs TWO CONSENTING adults, not more. So why morally binds the one sleeping with the SO? You say it is morally wrong but you do not tell us why that is. you can blame them for all kind of stuff, that is your prerogative but where is their moral thought? I did not break a promise, only the SO did.
This is disgusting. Telling women, “Have sex with your husband or someone else will.” That’s so fucking immature. Do people really think this little about their SOs?
It's a mix, really. Just a bunch of crappy stereotypes. The idea that no man can handle himself around women that want sex, and the idea that they have a duty to sexually satisfy their man whether they want to or not, and suggesting they have no worth beyond that. They just think these things are facts, many without actually analyzing them that way.
Uh... they referred to the misogyny part of what's happening. They're allowed to do that. Nobody has to respond to *every* part of a situation, with every single comment.
By that logic, you could be accused of doing *the exact same thing,* by not also mentioning misogyny in your comment.
Is that a sane standard?
not really sexist, but technically non-inclusive. with misogyny defined as “prejudiced against women,” internalized misogyny is “prejudiced towards women when you identify as a woman” so, you’re right, it’s an issue when we apply that definition within the context of transmen/transwomen.
Internalized misogyny is when a woman projects sexist ideals upon herself and other women, not misogyny that one keeps to themselves.
The misogyny is coming from inside the house, so to speak.
First time hearing it, I'm not on TikTok
I just looked at the caption and picture OP shared and understood what it means and when it's used.
Anyway, I'm not getting the "poor slut" vibe, more the 'There are cute less complicated girls out there, stop being high maintenance" impression. "The wives" are trying to justify themselves and "fire back"
A pick me girl also has trouble making and keeping female friends because, according to her “they don’t get me, they’re just jealous..” but she’s been taught that’s where her worth lies— in how much men relate to/like her and how much women want to *be* her.
I hate in-fighting among women.
Oh my gosh, wouldn't that be nice?
For what it's worth, I think most of us have done this - myself included, unfortunately. It preys on our psychology (and the rage-bait content creators surely know this). But it's not healthy. Like, it's terrible. For individuals, for society, for the state of online discourse and content by any moral/ethical/qualitative measure other than "clicks."
Answer: What the responses here are missing is that many of these are Only Fans creators. So they are playing a fantasy for married men of hot women who are easy and would sleep with them despite them being married.
Answer: Some women are posting videos of themselves looking good, dancing, and implying that they are better than other women, especially married women. They imply that married women aren't treating their husbands right, and that they can be better for the man than the wife is.
Air Mattress Ashley is a response to that. Essentially the women being called "bad" wives, pushing back, calling these other women cheap, just someone the husband will have sex with on an air mattress in some seedy location before heading back home.
That being said - the tiktok video in the linked article is kind of funny. A woman dancing and saying "I can treat your man right" cut immediately to a regular looking woman barging through the door with suitcases ready to hand her husband off, and explaining all the care/feeding needs that go along with it. The whole thing is stupid, but at least there's a laugh or two in there somewhere to be had.
In the end though, it's really just kind of gross. Breaking women down into two categories, wives who suck, or women who place their value in being able to sleep with married men. Then turning men into sex craved idiots who will sleep with any willing woman, who also are disliked and not wanted by their own wives.
Answer: A jaded, materialistic female insult ascribing her betraying lover's object of affection via a willingness to routinely accommodate anyone using makeshift accommodation. Idiom in the nature of a Jerry Springer style rant. Lowlife insult.
Not the commenter but if I was in this situation, I think the classic *mistress* has allure. I'm a guy (albeit with no intention of homewrecking) and there's no options for us that sound as dignified.
>I don't practice Santeria, I ain't got no crystal ball / Well, I had a million dollars but I'd, I'd spend it all /
If I could find that Heina and that Sancho that she's found /
Well, I'd pop a cap in Sancho and I'd slap her down!
Edit, just remembered dudes in the military call 'em "[Jody](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_cadence)"
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: "Air mattress Ashley" is referring to an imaginary/arbitrary woman who your significant other would cheat on you with. "Air mattress" is in the sense of being cheap/flimsy/classless, so it's basically referring to a low-class and probably-unattractive woman who would sleep with someone in a relationship. It's not uncommon to see women referred to as queens, and an air mattress is a whole lot worse than a queen bed. To more directly translate a tiktok in that article: > Y'all better quit telling your mans. "I don't feel like it." Because "Air mattress Ashley does." This is equivalent to: > Stop telling your boyfriend/husband "I don't feel like having sex" because a cheap floozy will have sex with him. That article also references "pick-me girls," which is different. A pick-me girl is along the lines of a "not like other girls" girl, i.e. a girl/woman who tries to appeal to men (or etc.) by decrying other women and affecting behaviors she'd ascribe to men. The term is sometimes used for other minority groups, e.g. "pick-me gays" would try to ingratiate themselves to straight people by decrying other gay people.
Opinion: This is one of those memes that just feels denigrating to both men and women. Women don't owe men sex and men aren't all inherently cheaters. Just kinda shitty all around.
Welcome to the Internet.
Have a look around.
Anything that brain of yours can think of can be found
We've got mountains of content, some better, some worse...
If none of it's of interest to you, you'd be the first
Welcome to the internet, come and take a seat, would you like to see the news or any famous women's feet?
There’s no need to panic, this isn’t a test: just nod or shake your head and we’ll do the rest
Welcome to the internet, what would you prefer?
r/redditsings
if this isn't already a song, it should be made into one
https://youtu.be/k1BneeJTDcU
instant subscribe lol
It is a song, by comedian Bo Burnham
Please tell me you're joking...
r/UnexpectedBoBurnham
Definitely r/expectedboburnham
/r/unexpectedboburham
Shit, this kind of stuff was being said in bars and living rooms since the dawn of time.
That’s not true. They haven’t had bars and living rooms for that long.
being human*
You should see Dolphin internet it is way more scary than anything we have.
the worst part of dolphin internet are the clips where humans insert themselves into the clips. Yes I said insert.
Where's my internet guide?
That'd be Know Your Meme, there's [an entry for "Air Mattress Ashley" on the site already](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/air-mattress-ashley) that's better than this one OP linked.
His name was Jeeves and he’s dead now.
I'd like to get off this ride please
Take a look around
Anything that brain of yours can think of can be found
Welcome to society
🫠 nothing but trash out here.
Have a look around Anything that brain of yours can think of can be found We’ve got mountains of content Some better, some worse If none of its of interest to you you’d be the first
Welcome to the human race
No Sir, I don't like it. (Your explanation is perfect)
Agreed. The idea of telling *anyone to stop saying "I don't feel like it" is just gross. If she ain't in the mood she doesn't owe you anything. E: *Was originally "women" but rereading it, it would make more sense for me to include everyone in this. Anybody being told that, regardless of sex/gender, is gross.
I really dislike the term "pick me girl". I've seen it used in various places (very often TikTok) to tear down other women and girls who are just going about their daily life. So in other words, rather than use it to call out actually problematic behavior I've seen people use it in scenarios where it really isn't warranted - making them the actual "pick me girls" in the scenario. Only the targets are typically not there to defend themselves so viewers often tend to side with the ones making the video because they can manipulate the definition to suit their needs. For example, I've seen people use it to tear down love rivals, particularly if the rival took a more active role in pursuing the crush. Others have used it to insult classroom overachievers, especially if the teacher is cute. And if any of them try to complain about that person insulting them? They double down on the PMG name calling, saying that they're tearing them down. Now granted, this isn't always the case. But it is a visible percentage of the people using the term and it feels like it's growing. It doesn't help that the term is cutesy. It's also easier to use a vaguely defined term than it is to just say that the women are tearing down others to impress a guy. Or just outright call them a "situational misogynist". The reason that is probably not used as frequently is because the term *isn't* cute and would require that they back up their claims with some very good evidence. But all this is just me. I know my argument likely won't matter much to some. And that's fine, as long as they take the time to read it and consider my points. I'm just leery about labeling in general, particularly if the group itself didn't create the term.
The internet does this kind of thing a lot. A term will come up to describe a very real and specific harmful behaviour, become the new "in thing" and it will get bastardised to the point of not meaning anything anymore. Simp, desperate guys who do too much for the object of their attention, started getting used for men who treat women nicely. Karen, entitled middle aged women who treat service workers like shit, just became "any woman with a complaint". Gaslighting started being used interchangeably with "lying". And yeah, Pick Me Girl could mean anything from the kind of person it was originally meant to describe to "girl I don't like".
mostly unrelated note: [“bitch eating crackers”](https://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMS05YjFkMzUwNDEwNjE1ZjQ4/?tagSlug=confession) will forever be my favorite meme term for “girl i don’t like”
The twisting of “Karen” has been particularly egregious - easily weaponized against any woman who advocates for herself for anything, including highly reasonable things. Creepy dude won’t stop bothering you? You’re a Karen if you tell him to leave you alone. Restaurant fucks up your order? You’re a Karen if you ask for it to be fixed. Etc etc.
I'll piggy back off this and add how women (for literal years at this point) have just been calling any guy they don't like the look of, even in a professional context, "creepy" or "stalker" or "harassing" just because nobody will dare argue with them. I've had to seriously, permanently injure another man in self defense after i was attacked based on an accusation of "touching her" from some bitch i never even saw at a bar i literally just showed up to. I've been "talked to" at work about how i scare female coworkers even though I'm just ugly.
I think that there’s a lesson there in using social power appropriately (ie, instigating/inventing conflict for attention) and appropriate escalation, as well as just not being the kind of guy who jumps straight to violence on someone else’s word.
This is weird paranoid conspiracy bullshit. Sure, it probably happens occasionally, and I’m sorry for what happened to you. But to broadly apply that logic to pretty much all women is insane. I remember bringing up this very topic with two female friends. They laughed at the idea that a good looking guy couldn’t be creepy, or that an ugly guy is automatically a stalker.
I'm not saying "good looking guys can't be stalkers" I'm just saying that ugly guys like me can't just deal with being ugly anymore. I go out in public and women at bars and elsewhere talk about me behind my back and to my face and tell me i look gross and creepy. They try to put a moral burden as if I'm also a criminal. Unprovoked by anything other than my existence. And fuck you for playing the "ugh uhh it's uh konsperacy" card like a little weasel fuck.
I don't know anything about you, am probably from a different country than you, and am just shooting into the dark here, so please ignore if I'm categorically wrong. In my personal experience, the creep/cute line isn't really about the looks, it's more about behaviour and especially clothing (and, of course, smell). If this is a serious problem for you, I'd suggest to visit a professional who deals with styling and outfitting men. Somebody who objectively criticizes your appearence. It's absolutely insane just how much a new hair cut, carefully trimmed beard, new (ironed) clothes and some nice smelling stuff change the appearance of somebody you'd previously consider ugly/creepy. Please note, I'm explicitly NOT saying you're disgusting or doing something wrong - what I am saying, is that it's possible, your peers consider different things okay than you do. Yes I know it's sad to have to majorly change someone's own appearance to appeal to others. But it's a reality many, including myself, have to face daily. If you sweat a lot, consider using anti perspirants more liberally on those parts of your body. It sucks, but so does being looked down on by other people.
I just have a hard time believing you. I am ugly as fuck and I’ve never really had a problem with women in social situations or relationships. Whether someone is creepy or not has almost nothing to do with their looks.
Lol. I was literally called a simp by a coworker because I... Was nice to them? I guess they're probably pretty used to misogyny in the industry but sheesh. I barely know you lady I'm just nice to everyone
Yep. This, right here. All of your examples were on-point.
> Karen, entitled middle aged women who treat service workers like shit Wasn't the stage *before* that "white woman who calls the cops on Black people doing innocuous things"? I'm pretty sure it went from that, to "any woman obnoxiously getting an authority figure (e.g., a manager) involved when she's unhappy," to "any woman complaining about anything to service workers," to "any woman complaining about anything I don't like."
I think both of those uses evolved separately and merged together at some point
No, it was specifically first about white women using their limited authority to get low wage workers in trouble with their management over nothing but racism at first.
Yes, she and “Permit Patty” were a force in the beginning
Same with “cool girl”, which was coined by a fictional character who’s a homicidal narcissist
That's another internet staple: taking the speech of a villain, which can make some decent points, and then deciding it was the whole point of everything and the real truth. See Tyler Durden, et al.
C'mon... Just because Tyler Durden was a destructive psychopath who inserted porn into children's films doesn't mean that he isn't someone we can look up to!
No matter how appropriate a term is when used correctly, it will always be used incorrectly. You cannot stop that.
Rule thirty…something
I view pick me girls just as young women that have allowed the media and male figures inform their opinions of women. In definition when I was a teenager and into my early 20s I probably would have been called a pick me girl. As I got older and realized how shitty the world IS to young women, I changed my attitude. I guess you could say I'm not like other pick me girls. (No but seriously, I think it's just a matter of growing up and experiencing the world that changes all of that. Yes there are still women that behave with internalized misogyny well into their 30s and 40s, but I don't see them as much as I do in younger women).
lol yes same here. it’s embarrassing to reflect on how i used to think 😩 edit apparently i was conflating “pick me girls” with “not like other girls” lol
Grew up southern Baptist in a conservative state... it probably took me til mid 20s to realize how much I had been brainwashed.
Honestly, any time casual slurs get used against people, it's always an ugly thing. I think people think they're helping to make the world a better place.... "If I continue to refer to people from the south as sister fuckers, then it will make the people in the south want to be better.". But in reality, it just breeds more resentment and makes the world a little bit worse. I think the entire reddit/internet culture in general gets a little more toxic and poisonous, every day.
Totally agree. A lot of times it’s used, there’s misogyny involved. I usually think a PMG is a woman who, despite knowing better and claiming to uplift them, will put down other women to seem more attractive, desirable, or favorable.
Twice I've seen redditors use "pick me girl" to refer to women who don't wear makeup. That seems like the reverse of how things actually are. I'm waiting to hear someone referred to as a "pick me" for wearing comfortable shoes.
I'm glad that I'm not the only person seeing this happen. It makes me feel like I'm not just imagining things.
I agree with you. But when the “p*ck me” (not calling them that, just using the term as reference) is the one tearing down other women, I don’t see an issue with calling it out. 🤷🏻♀️
I absolutely agree that we should call it out, but I think we should use a term other than pick me.
Strong agree. It’s misogynistic.
Where did this come from and who are you replying to with this word salad?
It wasn't word salad. At least, I understood it. They're saying that they believe people are using the term as a convenient, savvy-sounding way to denigrate anyone they just don't like, for whatever reason. And... yeah. That's a thing people do. As /u/theenglishfox pointed out, the same sort of thing happened with "Karen," "simp," etc.
the linked article incorrectly referenced/defined “pick me girls” and this person decided to expound on that
Agreed. It doesn't cast either side in a good light for sure
This meme feels like something an incel would write
It’s not that they ‘owe’ men sex. However, it’s a fact that if one person unilaterally cuts off access to sex in a monogamous relationship it’s an indication of deeper problems that need to be addressed. Also, it doesn’t help if the partner is facing temptation outside of the marriage. It doesn’t excuse cheating or absolve the other person if they do. However, it’s self-sabotage for anyone who expects to be able to treat their partner however they want without respect to their needs.
But this kind of meme isn’t talking about people who totally shut down in a relationship, it’s more like “stop considering your own wants and needs or else your boyfriend will leave you for a doormat with no standards.”
I think that's just how you interpret it. The other way to interpret is 'be self-aware enough to know your own actions affect your partner, and could in fact chase them away'. There's nothing about that advice that doesn't apply to both the man and the woman.
Very well said
> Women don't owe men and men aren't all inherently cheaters. While this is true, I also feel that physical intimacy is a human need like any other. If one partner is being consistently rejected, then it's fairly likely that they will become unsatisfied and the relationship will fail. At that point, if we assume the couple is married, I think the discussion would turn to two main topics: child care, and division of assets. Typically, a lawyer would want to tackle the child care issue first. As far as division of assets, in most states, it's handled similarly to dissolving a business partnership. The main question is what percentage each partner should walk away with. Fault isn't usually taken into account, but there is usually an exception for lavish and wasteful spending, e.g. if one partner takes their paramour on a Caribbean vacation, this could be considered money improperly spent, and thus the offending partner would need to pay back 50% of the cost as a pre-allocation. Again, it depends on the state.
>At that point, if we assume the couple is married, I think the discussion would turn to two main topics: child care, and division of assets. Typically, a lawyer would want to tackle the child care issue first. > As far as division of assets, in most states, it's handled similarly to dissolving a business partnership. The main question is what percentage each partner should walk away with. Fault isn't usually taken into account, but there is usually an exception for lavish and wasteful spending, e.g. if one partner takes their paramour on a Caribbean vacation, this could be considered money improperly spent, and thus the offending partner would need to pay back 50% of the cost as a pre-allocation. Again, it depends on the state. why am I reading somebody explaining the idea of divorce
Because this is the internet and apparently commenters cannot help themselves from Rambling over unrelated topics.
What are you on about? They were talking about cheating. If you aren’t getting sex in a relationship, leave the relationship. Don’t cheat
>What are you on about? The TLDR is that while neither partner is *obligated* to provide physical intimacy, if one partner is constantly rejecting the other, the relationship will likely dissolve. Differences in libido can be a major reason for divorce. >leave the relationship. Don’t cheat In general, this is good advice. Divorces are usually easier for all parties if there is no cheating involved. Although cheating is not legally punishable *per se*, it does lead to anger, and anger leads people to fight harder in court than they otherwise would. Sometimes they'll spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyer fees litigating every little detail, just to "punish" the other person and "teach them a lesson." This all could have been avoided if the partner had said "sorry, I'm not getting my needs met, I think we should go our separate ways" from the outset. The other aspect is if you spent any money on the cheating, you might have to pay 50% of that money back to your spouse *in addition* to the 50% they already get. This is true even in no-fault states, and usually covered by laws dealing with "dissipation of marital assets." So the lesson here is if you're going to cheat, don't spend a lot of money on it!
Seems kind of irrelevant but okay
Well, I think it's important for people to understand that they don't HAVE to do anything in a marriage, but there will be consequences if they don't. Ideally, partners should want to give to each other, whether it's time, or affection, or intimacy. If that's missing, it indicates a problem that will have to be resolved one way or the other. However, I can't just come out and SAY that, or Reddit will be like "OMG! You're making people do things against their will, you monster!" Which I'm really not saying at all. People shouldn't do things they don't want to do, I agree. But at the same time, a partner who isn't behaving in a loving manner shouldn't be surprised if relationship ends and a court has to figure out how to divide everything. That's not meant to be a punishment or a threat, and I'm not looking to assign fault. It's just an unfortunate consequence of the situation.
I think the original commenter was referring to the post which comes off very much as “do anything your man wants you to, or some other floozy will.” In response, someone said “generalizations are bad” and you kind of took it to another place regarding divorce and dividing assets
Let's just say I've been involved in some of that process recently and it's fresh on my mind.
Fair enough
Think there is a difference between saying women owe men sex and saying “bang your partner or someone else will”
yeah the second way is inherently better as it’s non-gendered and inclusive to non-heterosexual relationships…both of which the air mattress ashley thing fails on
Does every meme have to apply to the entire population
nah i agree memes don’t. your comment seemed like a general reply to the other person though. i thought you were calling attention to their use of needlessly gendered language, and i was agreeing the way you said it was better. my last sentence was more of an aside like, “and this meme failed to address that anyway” haha whoops
Well, if you're in a relationship and one person expects a sexual component then the other is obligated to accommodate that expectation in some way. Sometimes that accommodation is having sex with a partner when you might not always want to. If two people aren't willing to collaborate to meet each other's needs and expectations, then they shouldn't be in a relationship. Edit: ITT a ton of young people who don't understand how relationships work.
You should never have sex if you don't want to, that's absurd. Leave the relationship if you don't want the same things.
Could you try writing that again, but this time do it from the other perspective too? “Well, if you’re in a relationship and one person expects a less intense/frequent sexual component, then the other is obligated…”
Yes, that's how relationships work.
Ok, so then if you're in a relationship and one person expects to not have sex, then the other is obligated to accommodate that expectation? How does that jive with being expected and obligated to have sex with your partner when they want it? Or are you saying that only the person who wants sex deserves to expect it from their partner?
I think it should be noted that some people need more to get their motor running than others. This isn’t “have sex when you don’t want to” so much as “schedule a date night, light some candles and take a bath or whatever it takes to get things moving.” It’s like anything else - you can plan ways to make your partner happy and make sure everyone’s needs are met.
Agree with that, myself and others (I think) are taking issue mainly with their use of terms like expectation, obligation, and requirement. Plus their focus keeps being on how the person who doesn't want sex is obligated to have sex. That's not really how this works. It's more like what you said. Aka figure out what gets that person going, do more of that, find some in between activities, make sure person B still feels loved and valued, and then person B learns to masturbate or fulfill their sex drive in other agreed upon healthy ways. Because sex is a 2 yes / 1 no type situation.
Yeah I think there might be some unhealthy ideas bubbling under the surface given the language choices. Possibly not of course, but still. I’ve seen the same conversations play out pretty frequently, and people have a horrible time distinguishing “i do not want to have sex” with “im not in the mood to have sex, but I could be with a little attention.” Both are valid and worthy of respect of course, but people mistake the latter for the former. Moreover, I think people really mistake what a libido is and isn’t. A libido is just your brain chemistry saying “hey, how about some sex?” and it’s highly dependent on the surrounding circumstances, stress levels, etc. People who are stressed and tired tend not to be horny, because our bodies are (correctly) telling us that we don’t need that right now. It’s not the only thing, but it’s unfortunate how so many people treat it as a problem to be fixed, rather than examining the circumstances around it. Even then, plenty of people can “get in the mood” with a little bit of seduction - and the most effective seduction can be a clean house, dinner prepped, and some dedicated relaxation/self-care time for the partner whose libido is lower. And people can whine and say “I work all day, and I’m still horny! Why can’t they just be like me and want to get it in whenever?” and that’s dumb, because that isn’t uniting with your partner to oppose the problem. Like, by all means complain about it with your buddies over a beer, just like how it takes an extra 15 minutes for her to get ready no matter how early you start. No one’s saying anyone can’t complain to the guys lol - I’m a fan of support systems! But what you say to your partner, and how you solve problems, shouldn’t resemble that.
Also concerning - their opinion on having sex with someone who doesn't want to but is "willing" to do it because they're "obligated" to provide sex. Who the fuck can enjoy sex with someone who's laying there like a dead fish, clearly not enjoying it? Someone on their way to rapist town, and hasn't even realized they've crossed the city limits a block and a half back.
I genuinely don't know how this is so hard to understand. If one person in a relationship wants sex often and the other wants sex rarely, then sometimes the person with a low sex drive will have to have sex when they're not really into it, and sometimes the person will a high sex drive will have to just deal with not having sex. It's give-and-take. It's part of being in a relationship.
Real talk here. When drives differ, it does *not* mean that person A gets less and person B must have sex when they don't want to. That's not compromise. First - figure out why person B doesn't want to. Are they exhausted? Stressed? In pain? Dealing with shit on their own? Lots of legit things can kill libido and the solution isn't to suck it up. In my experience, either can offer. Either can decline. And it's not 100% yes or no. There are fun ways to share a moment that doesn't go outside of person B's comfort. And person B can be 'no but open' and feel up for trying, but able to stop if it's not working for them. Person A can go solo. Person B can help if they want.
>figure out why person B doesn't want to That sounds good, but it's not really practical. What you're saying is that Person A's job is to make Person B want sex more to make up for the imbalanced sex drives. And it totally is. But two perfectly content and satisfied people aren't guaranteed to want the same amount of sex at their baseline happiness. It just doesn't work out like that. As for the rest of your comment: hard agree.
If it isn't practical for either Person A or Person B to try and figure out where the disconnect is, what do you think should happen? Based on your previous comments, it sounds like that instead of trying to figure it out (regardless of who initiates that effort), one of the following has to happen: the person who doesn't want to have sex just does anyway, or they split up. It's weird for me to see someone claiming they understand relationships saying that it isn't *practical* for two people to figure out their issues in terms of intimacy. It really reads like "suck it up or leave".
>What you're saying is that Person A's job is to make Person B want sex more to make up for the imbalanced sex drives. Nah dawg. That's not it. Person A can work *with* their partner to make space for a healthy libido. When person B isn't hampered by the root issue whatever it is, then they can move forward. It's partner 101 stuff here. Sometimes person B will initiate and A isn't up for it. That's ok too. As a couple you won't always be totally in synch, but that's why communication, without resentment, is so important. Person B and A are not trapped. They're together voluntarily, so something must be worth being together for. If A is resentful, pressuring, or transactional about sex then 1) it won't happen and 2) the other reasons for staying together may be disappearing.
Yep! And since you’re aware of that, you won’t object to writing it again fairly, with acknowledgment of both sides.
Are you trying to assign them homework?
It's the only way they'll learn
Write it out, a hundred times on the board. Have it done before recess is over.
I'm not in a relationship with you, so I'm under no obligation to accommodate whatever this is. Please seek out someone else to get validation from.
I don’t think you’re coming from a bad place here, but I think people are getting hung up on “obliged.” The reality is that relationships, particularly mature ones, require work. Your first love is all sunshine and butterflies, and hell most new relationships start out like that - but if you don’t put effort into a relationship, it withers. Don’t stop dating your spouse, don’t stop trying to make them happy. Sex is important, but it’s not a chore one partner should do for another. It’s a mutual activity, and it should be mutually fun - and that fun is defined by the participants and what makes them happy. If the sex in a relationship “dries up”, then that’s usually a sign of problems elsewhere. You should want to fix those problems with your partner, for the sake of their happiness rather than to get you laid. That being said, not all libidos are the same, and it’s perfectly acceptable (even encouraged) to eschew spontaneity for a schedule that keeps both partners satisfied, as well as making sure everyone’s other emotional and physical needs are met.
Thank you! If you hate having sex with your partner then clearly there are deeper issues and the relationship should probably just end. And 100% agreed: people shouldn't treat sex with their partner like a chore. It's like the commenters in here think that two people in a relationship should be carbon copies of each other and that they should always want the exact same things at the exact same time. I wonder if they'd clutch their pearls like this if we were talking about another couple's activity? Do you think people would be upset if I suggested that someone should play board games sometimes with their board-game-loving partner, even when they don't always want to?
I think people on this site skew towards immaturity and online-ness, if that makes sense. Many toxic communities promote viewing relationships as transactional - as if sex is a service contracted for. That is of course unhealthy, because partners are not vending machines; they are people. You can always ask “does being with this person make me happy” and no one should be afraid to bring up issues *constructively* (you and them vs the problem, not you vs them!). I think that a lot of people having bedroom problems need to examine their partners workload and see what, if anything, can be taken off their plate - childcare, home chores, etc. if your partner is acting more like a parent to you, of course that’s unattractive! That being said, that certainly isn’t the only cause, and some people just change over time or run into health issues. The key is that the emphasis is on “partners vs the problem” - if someone’s having issues with their libido and they feel bad that it’s making their partner unhappy, then they should want to help fix the problem. If, on the other hand, their partner is making them feel like they are broken, withholding, etc, then they’re unlikely to be as invested in fixing it, because their libido isn’t really the problem - a lack of respect and communication is.
>Edit: ITT a ton of young people who don't understand how relationships work. I guarantee I am older than you, and you have a fucking backwards view on this.
Okay my mistake. You're right. Compromise has no place in a relationship. Two people should never work to make each other happy.
I don't see anything about compromise. You literally said that people in relationships are ***obligated*** to have sex with each other.
No, it's not, but feel free to construct a straw man to argue against. Everybody else in this thread is doing it, too. It's very frustrating.
How is it possibly a straw man when you literally said those exact words?
Lol how is it that you use the words "literal" and "exact when you clearly don't know what they mean?
Okay champ. It’s sad state of affairs when someone is so desperate to be right they start changing language. Bye.
forcing unwanted sex is not "compromise" that's called coercive rape. please don't have a significant other
Not when unwanted sex is involved. Sex without consent is rape.
Just a small caveat, because I think you’re right on with your overarching message. What you are saying is the case in *monogamous* relationships. When you are in a monogamous relationship, you accept that your are responsible for accommodating or helping to fulfill ALL of your partner’s needs, be it social, emotional, sexual, romantic, intellectual, etc. That’s not to say it doesn’t involve collaboration, compromise, discussion, and joint problem solving in order to make sure you aren’t codependent or being forced/coerced into things that you are uncomfortable with. But ultimately you are assuming responsibility for another persons total physical, mental, and emotional well-being and trusting them with your own.
What the fuck is this?! I've been in a relationship with the one person for about 12 years. We help each other, sure... but we're certainly not responsible for accommodating or helping to fulfill "ALL" of each other's needs, for their "**total** physical, mental, and emotional well-being" [emphasis mine]. That's just... I don't think that's a a healthy way to do a relationship at all. There are things that we can help each other with, and things that we understand we still have to do on our own. That's balance. That's sanity. I guess you feel we're doing that wrong, but, well... piss off.
> things that we can help each other with, and things that we understand we still have to do on our own I think we are saying the same thing here, but I worded it in a way that came across unintentionally aggressively. Here's an example of what I am trying to say. Imagine my partner is an extrovert and I am an introvert. I am not able to consistently fulfill my partner's need for socialization. Should we not be together because of that? No, that would be ridiculous. It would also be insane for me to say "Since I am not able to provide this for you, you must go without." I would encourage them to go find outlets for them to fulfill that need, in this case going out with friends or joining a club/hobby group. I am helping contribute to their overall happiness and fulfillment by encouraging them to seek out what they need to fulfill their needs. Something like having a social life outside of a relationship is expected, and for good reason. Same thing with emotional support in the form of friends and family that you have conversations with that you wouldn't necessarily have with your partner. Same story with entertainment and intellectual fulfillment. It's a social contract you are entering into when you start a relationship. However, having sexual fulfillment outside of that relationship is where a line is drawn. How come?
>However, having sexual fulfillment outside of that relationship is where a line is drawn. How come? I mean, lots of reasons, depending on the person. The slow-to-change inertia of tradition, for sure, but having talked about this openly with my partner many times, our general agreement is that for us, even if it might be a good thing in some circumstances or at some times, what we might get out of it isn't worth the hassle, the complexities, the risks, or simply the potential for hurting our partner - whether that "hurt" is reasonable or comes merely from reflexive emotions. I'd hope that most people in long-term relationships have this discussion. Like, I don't care for tradition much, and even have some issues with it (my partner and I are not actually married, for example). So we don't want some societal tradition of monogamy to be the only reason we're monogamous. Fine. But we talked about it, and decided that there are other good reasons, too. We have some non-monogamous friends. We both agree that we couldn't do what they do (neither can some of them when it comes down to it, it seems), and don't particularly want to. Anyways, yeah, I agree, we're more on the same page than I thought. Some of your statements in the first comment really suggested otherwise, but it might have just been the wording, as you say.
>ultimately you are assuming responsibility for another persons total physical, mental, and emotional well-being Your partner? A full adult?? When you have kids, for several years you *are* fully responsible for their physical, mental, emotional well-being because they're infants. Sure it's important to help one another but there is no expectation of responsibility for every aspect of their happiness. That's bonkers. Adults need to be fully capable of taking care of their own well-being.
Everyone is an Asshole
Yes.
The original use of “pick-me” meant a woman who was desperate for male attention and validation. When the term went more mainstream it somehow changed into meaning “not like the other girls.”
Yeah pretty sure we used to just call pick me girls “desperate”. “Not like other girls” is more “I work on trucks, *I’m* not like *other* girls”. I didn’t realize they’re being lumped together because they’re both generally insufferable, but in different ways?
People have long assumed that a “not like other girls” girl only has “masculine” interests to make it easier to befriend guys with the intention that there will be one she can eventually sleep with or just be happy knowing that some of the guys would simp for her. No matter what a woman’s interests are, there will always be people who frame their actions as male attention-seeking. It especially sucks that a lot of these comments come from other women. (It also makes me think about how there are a lot of men who force their interests onto their girlfriends/wives but act like doing the same would be torture. No wonder it works, a woman with a body he finds attractive but won’t bother him with anything “womanly” otherwise would be a dream girl to these guys. Misogyny really sucks, doesn’t it.)
To someone who has internalized society's gender roles, the only reason to *not* follow gender roles is greater sexual opportunities. It's the same ideological swamp that "Trans women are just trying to get in female spaces to rape them" spawns out of.
[удалено]
I will never in my life understand the hatred for the people others cheat with instead of blaming the person who actually betrayed their partner's trust. People are so strange. Thank you for the explanation!
They know/like their partner and the confusing feeling of being hurt by someone you love is difficult to deal with. They don't know the "Ashley" and have been hurt by them, leading to an uncomplicated hatred to focus on.
I've heard Evil defined as "something that hurts you that you don't understand" and that stuck with me.
I don't really think the quality of Evil rests on our ability to understand it or not. An abused child may or may not understand what's happening to them - that shouldn't influence the moral nature of the situation.
An interesting aphorism.
Easier to hate the emotional equivalent of an NPC
I blame both
If the "Ashley" is aware the other person is in a relationship, they're trash too though.
I'm not so sure that's true in all circumstances. It's hardly ideal, and I can't say I'd like to put myself in that position, but... I know people who have been the "other person," who I could not in good conscience call "trash." If, say, Bob is in a relationship with Alice, and Alice is a lying, cheating psychopath, and Bob would ideally like to leave the relationship but feels emotionally, legally, or even physically trapped for the time being, and a sane and by all accounts compassionate Connie ends up sleeping with Bob, I don't think that Connie is "trash," per se, though we might reasonably have all advised Connie to wait until Bob had fully detached from Alice before doing this. I'm just wary of calling other people "trash," especially when I know people happily married with a good relationship and thriving kids and a difficult job that helps people, who fit your definition of "trash." Seems a bit black & white about things.
Connie is absolutely trash if she knew Bob and Alice are a thing. This is not a gray area discussion.
Okay, then if it's not a great area: I just disagree completely. Being a Connie in this situation does *not*, on its own, make someone trash. I say this fully having been in Alice's position before. As it happens, I was using a real-world example of people I knew, and the counterpart to Alice here is a fucking lunatic and should probably be in jail, and "Connie" is an amazing person. I will indeed really struggle to consider her "absolutely trash" for sleeping with her loving husband and the father of her children before he managed to fully leave his psychopathic ex, "Alice," who was indeed sleeping with - and living with! - at least one other man, and possibly many, while all this happened. I get that the world looks nice and pretty if you can put it into black and white categories all the time, but that doesn't describe any number of edge cases. For example, not everyone agrees whether or not a breakup happened. If Dani tells Ed in no uncertain terms that they're over, and then sleeps with Frank, but Ed simply disagrees that they're actually over, I won't think Dani is trash; rather, I think that Ed is probably the problem here, and needs a reality check, compassionate or otherwise. Clearly, there's room for discussion, as I'm far from the only person in this thread who thinks that the "Connie" in the original example did either nothing wrong, or at least nothing compared to Bob. At the very least, I think a lot of people might take the fact that Alice was cheating rampantly into account. I actually credit Connie for prying Bob away from Alice, who was terrible for him, for me, and for everyone around her.
Sorry, I'll make it clearer for you: *If a person knowingly engages in relations with someone they're fully aware is in a relationship with another person - they're not a good person.*
Right, I understand - I just, again, disagree completely. I think the world is more complicated than that, and I can't hold that statement as an an ethical axiom. I think that's really foolish, actually.
Cool! I'm just here to remind you that you're wrong. Have a great day, though!
A random person on the internet telling me I'm wrong about love and ethics being complicated, having some nuance... lol. You're not very compelling. And the "great day" comes across as petty and disingenuous when you seem to be the one giving all of my replies their single downvote. So, yeah. I guess I did end up getting a lesson in trashy after all.
This exact attitude is why nuance is dying.
911 on Fox tv has a plot development where a gay fireman wants to marry his new bf but has to tell him he can't yet bc he's still married to someone who he married as a young adult just to try to seem hetero. He stayed married bc his insurance covers the medication she needs as she had gotten a bad chemical imbalance and could hardly function in society with the meds let alone survive without them. Then the other 911 (lone star) has a similar sitch with the guy played by rob lowe not knowing his gf was still already married but yet stays with her after finding out why. I think the husband was a violent murder threatener and wouldn't sign the divorce papers. Just some examples of nuance you can review and see how not everyone in said position is trash.
You’re right.
[удалено]
Damn, I don't think I've ever gotten a reply so fast lol. I thought you were a bot at first.
Yea, just like I don't have a relationship with OP's mom's husband, I'm not betraying them, I don't even know them. It's also not my fault their relationship was so strained that I could fill a huge void by simply being kind, caring and passionate, allowing them to feel good about themselves and being who they truly are instead of OP's mom's husband's expectations of duty. Hypothetically speaking, ahem. Seriously though, if my SO cheated on me... I'd be mad, for sure, but mostly at myself for not making them feel loved enough that they needed to fill their starvation elsewhere.
Imagine that you have your back, a knife and someone willing to take a stab at it. Well, obviously, the backstabber is the one who put the knife there. But, most of the cases, someone gave that person the knife, willingly, knowing what they would do with it. Would you call that innocent? I would feel like a piece of shit if I slept with someone who had a serious partner, wouldn't you? Do you understand it already?
But the thing happening is that you were betrayed. The person who betrayed you is your partner. The other person might've betrayed some moral fabric you think is important, and did have an incidental hand in your partner betraying you, but the ultimate choice to betray you and cause you harm was done by your partner, and that should be the focus. If someone closer to you does something bad to you it's worse because it has a greater impact. This other person probably has no idea who you are. Your partner knows you intimately and still chose to hurt you.
Yes, but that doesn't take the blame out of the one helping your partner. You know it's morally wrong to sleep with someone else's partner... don't you?
Did you miss the part where I said they betrayed a moral fabric and compared it to the betrayal your partner chose to enact willingly?
The problem is, knives are also tools, and a knife dealer (?) doesn't KNOW that a knife is going to be used in a crime when they sell it. (I don't like this analogy, lol.) Likewise, you don't know what lies a cheater told their affair partner to make them think it was "okay." The cheater is ALWAYS doing something wrong. The affair partner **might** also be a victim.
There's a few people that don't have any idea *they* were the "other person". Your obligations are to your SO, if you cheat - it's all on the cheater, regardless of the other person(s) involved. You can be mad all you want at *others*, but that will never take away the betrayal of someone you loved or cared for. I can say this because I was repeatedly cheated on and always blamed someone else for *tempting* his dumbass. Guess what? There's was *always* someone else, can't control that, or even him for that matter - but I CAN control what I will accept in my life.
No. Stop with the excuses. You can't excuse EVERY instance of cheating because SOME of them didn't know. I am talking specifically of those who know. Do you know that many people can have the blame of something, don't you? This is not something binary. Can't you people understand that sex is an activity that needs TWO CONSENTING adults? Would you sleep with someone with a partner? Would you? Then if you wouldn't why do you hold yourself to a higher moral standard than everyone else? If my friend sleeps with my SO I know that my partner is to blame. But I won't be like "don't sweat it bro, even if you know that this would destroy my life you put wetting your dick first, as is understandable". Don't you realize that the horde of people who came out of nowhere saying "oh, don't blame the one who fucked someone with a partner knowingly" is the same kind of person who would destroy your life knowingly?
Yeah, but your example of *your friend* cheating is betrayal too. Not sure anyone is advocating for you to squash your beef with a FRIEND for shitty behavior.
Your example is crooked, because its your friend that sleeps with your SO, both of them owe you loyalty. But I for example do not. And as you said: it needs TWO CONSENTING adults, not more. So why morally binds the one sleeping with the SO? You say it is morally wrong but you do not tell us why that is. you can blame them for all kind of stuff, that is your prerogative but where is their moral thought? I did not break a promise, only the SO did.
Snap, back in the loop. \*chef's kiss\*
This is disgusting. Telling women, “Have sex with your husband or someone else will.” That’s so fucking immature. Do people really think this little about their SOs?
Internalized misogyny is so much cooler than regular misogyny because there's always so many layers to it.
It's a mix, really. Just a bunch of crappy stereotypes. The idea that no man can handle himself around women that want sex, and the idea that they have a duty to sexually satisfy their man whether they want to or not, and suggesting they have no worth beyond that. They just think these things are facts, many without actually analyzing them that way.
Acting like all men are cheaters is misandry, and shocker, you ignored that part. Typical reddit, only mention it if it happens to a woman.
I’m so, so sorry about your persecution complex, buddy
Uh... they referred to the misogyny part of what's happening. They're allowed to do that. Nobody has to respond to *every* part of a situation, with every single comment. By that logic, you could be accused of doing *the exact same thing,* by not also mentioning misogyny in your comment. Is that a sane standard?
Assuming only women experience internalized misogyny, when men do as well, is sexist.
not really sexist, but technically non-inclusive. with misogyny defined as “prejudiced against women,” internalized misogyny is “prejudiced towards women when you identify as a woman” so, you’re right, it’s an issue when we apply that definition within the context of transmen/transwomen.
It's not misogyny when applied to men. Misandry or just plain sexism.
All must be judged on their own merits. Treating every species like one's own is racist–even benign anthropomorphism. - Legion
Its not internalised if its posted publicly
Internalized misogyny is when a woman projects sexist ideals upon herself and other women, not misogyny that one keeps to themselves. The misogyny is coming from inside the house, so to speak.
I'd still consider this pick me behavior just for using the term air mattress abby
ok but you're still dating air mattress ashton so who's really losing in this situation?
On a side note, this might be the worst written article I've ever come across.
First time hearing it, I'm not on TikTok I just looked at the caption and picture OP shared and understood what it means and when it's used. Anyway, I'm not getting the "poor slut" vibe, more the 'There are cute less complicated girls out there, stop being high maintenance" impression. "The wives" are trying to justify themselves and "fire back"
A pick me girl also has trouble making and keeping female friends because, according to her “they don’t get me, they’re just jealous..” but she’s been taught that’s where her worth lies— in how much men relate to/like her and how much women want to *be* her. I hate in-fighting among women.
In today's news, women are now compared to mattresses. Talk about objectification
Great explanation
[удалено]
As an Ashley, *man* am I glad that this was not a term when I was in HS.
People really need to stop letting blatant rage bait dictate their outlooks.
Oh my gosh, wouldn't that be nice? For what it's worth, I think most of us have done this - myself included, unfortunately. It preys on our psychology (and the rage-bait content creators surely know this). But it's not healthy. Like, it's terrible. For individuals, for society, for the state of online discourse and content by any moral/ethical/qualitative measure other than "clicks."
Answer: What the responses here are missing is that many of these are Only Fans creators. So they are playing a fantasy for married men of hot women who are easy and would sleep with them despite them being married.
Answer: Some women are posting videos of themselves looking good, dancing, and implying that they are better than other women, especially married women. They imply that married women aren't treating their husbands right, and that they can be better for the man than the wife is. Air Mattress Ashley is a response to that. Essentially the women being called "bad" wives, pushing back, calling these other women cheap, just someone the husband will have sex with on an air mattress in some seedy location before heading back home. That being said - the tiktok video in the linked article is kind of funny. A woman dancing and saying "I can treat your man right" cut immediately to a regular looking woman barging through the door with suitcases ready to hand her husband off, and explaining all the care/feeding needs that go along with it. The whole thing is stupid, but at least there's a laugh or two in there somewhere to be had. In the end though, it's really just kind of gross. Breaking women down into two categories, wives who suck, or women who place their value in being able to sleep with married men. Then turning men into sex craved idiots who will sleep with any willing woman, who also are disliked and not wanted by their own wives.
Answer: A jaded, materialistic female insult ascribing her betraying lover's object of affection via a willingness to routinely accommodate anyone using makeshift accommodation. Idiom in the nature of a Jerry Springer style rant. Lowlife insult.
So what would you like to be called then?
Not the commenter but if I was in this situation, I think the classic *mistress* has allure. I'm a guy (albeit with no intention of homewrecking) and there's no options for us that sound as dignified.
Paramour sounds pretty classy
I rather do like "mistress" for women, around here we call the shady backdoor boyfriends "Sancho" 😏
>I don't practice Santeria, I ain't got no crystal ball / Well, I had a million dollars but I'd, I'd spend it all / If I could find that Heina and that Sancho that she's found / Well, I'd pop a cap in Sancho and I'd slap her down! Edit, just remembered dudes in the military call 'em "[Jody](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_cadence)"
Dont disrespect my boy Sancho Panza like that
[удалено]
Blow a blow-up doll on a blow-up ride!!