All of my “Incoming Links” on the WordPress dashboard are “links” from Technarati. I follow the links and there is no link to this site.

This isn’t an entirely new phenomenon, but in the past it’s almost always been fake blogs. By “fake blogs” I mean that they seem to be computer-generated or if not that then extremely lazy blogs that basically take a couple paragraphs of content and are really heavy on advertising. Basically, cheap attempts to make money. In the past there was an issue with lazy bloggers trying to get your attention (this is back when I was higher profile – and under my real name – than I currently am).

But following the links, they don’t seem lazy link-gathering and advertical profiteering. Rather, there is genuine content… that has nothing to do with anything I’ve written about and that contain no links to my site.

Has Technarati signed with a cyberpublicist that promises more visitors? It got me to read a few Technarati entries that I otherwise wouldn’t have. That’s the only idea I have.

1) If a man is still single when he is 32, he is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) A beta who is shafted by women’s perpetual pursuit of alphas
(b) A victim of feminism
(c) Probably a really nice guy who can’t seem to find a woman because they’re all busy dating alphas and jerks.
(d) An alpha who has access to any woman he wants and so does not need to marry
(e) Wisely foregoing an institution so ridiculously lopsided in favor of women.

2) If a woman is still single when she is 32, she (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Is obviously obsessed with alphas and that’s why she can’t find a man.
(b) Is stuck up and has standards set way too high.
(c) Is captive of the feminist ideology about fish and bicycles.
(d) A whale
(e) Is the mother of some kids to some alpha she slept with while spurning betas
(f) Has something seriously, seriously wrong with her.

3) If a man cheats on a woman, she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Culpable because she obviously married an alpha and could have avoided this fate by marrying a nice guy that would have been faithful.
(b) Culpable because she is a harpy that drove her otherwise nice guy to cheat on her.
(c) A victim of feminism as it pertains to the sexual revolution that entitled the man to act on his base instincts the same ways that women always do.

4) If a woman cheats on a man, she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Destroying her family for the chance to sleep with an alpha.
(b) Showing her true, ugly nature and disproving once and for all that women are more sexually restrained than men out of some sense of morality.
(c) Demonstrating the failures of feminism by placing woman empowerment over the value of family and moral values

5) If a woman leaves a man that cheats on him, she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Demonstrating the failures of feminism by placing female empowerment over the values of family and morality.
(b) Culpable because she obviously married an alpha and could have avoided this fate by marrying a nice guy that would have been faithful. Now, she’s only added to her culpability by allowing her original mistake to result in the dissolution of a family.
(c) Only leaving because feminism will allow her to sit around eating bon-bons and smoking cigarettes while he gets every last free dime he has taken in child support and (where applicable) alimony.

6) If a woman leaves a man that cheats on her, he is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Being punished for following his biological impulses the same way that women always do.
(b) A victim of the court system which will probably use his infidelity to limit his access to the children and take every last free dime he has by taking it for child support and (where applicable) alimony.

7) If a woman does not leave a man that cheats on her, she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Proof positive that women are attracted to assholes.
(b) Only sticking around so that she can hold it over his head and control him all the much more.
(c) To blame for any future infidelity since she rewarded his immoral behavior.

8) If a woman does not leave a man that cheats on her, he is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Screwed.
(b) Going to have it held over his head.
(c) Probably going to be forced to stop sleeping with other women because she fails to recognize that he has BIOLOGICAL NEEDS.

9) If a woman marries a nice and faithful guy, she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Use him for his money and/or platonic companionship and cheat on him with an alpha.
(b) Use him until she can find what she wants and leave him for an alpha after the first opportunity.
(c) Going to secretly have an alpha’s baby and pretend that it’s his.
(d) Visibly and desperately unhappy.
(e) Fooling herself into thinking she’s happy while she pines away for an alpha.

10) If a woman marries a guy that turns out not to be faithful, she (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Is proof positive that women are attracted to assholes.
(b) Turned him into an asshole because she’s a harpy.
(c) Drove him to it by having the audacity to age.

11) If a woman stays at home to raise the kids, she (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Is a lazy user who married the dupe so that she wouldn’t have to work so that she could sit around and eat bon-bons all day.
(b) Is proof positive that women will only marry rich men.

12) If a woman stays at home to raise the kids, he is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) A dupe who is being used for his money
(b) Being cheated on by his wife who is sleeping with the pool-boy, outlaw biker, or an investment banker while he’s gone.

13) If a woman works after having children, she (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Is putting her own petty career aspirations ahead of the needs of the family.
(b) Chose to marry a low-IQ bum rather than someone with money that would have allowed her to stay home.
(c) Is proof positive of how feminism has destroyed the institution of family.
(d) Is cheating on him with a pool-boy, outlaw biker, or investment banker.

14) If a woman is thin and attractive, she (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Is a stuck-up b*tch.
(b) Will only sleep with alphas even though betas would treat her far better.

15) If a woman is not thin and attractive she is (circle one or more of the following):
(a) A whale
(b) Worthy of contempt

16) Women who sleep with a lot of men are (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Exhibit A in the destruction of sexual morality thanks to the feminists.
(b) A slut.
(c) A hypocrite.

17) Women who sleep with few men (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Are obviously holding their standards way too high as they wait for an alpha when they could have a super-nice beta who would treat them like a princess
(b) Are fat or ugly
(c) A religious hypocrite because she would totally sleep with Brad Pitt if given the opportunity proving that it has nothing to do with sexual morality and everything to do with thinking that she’s better than all the men she won’t sleep with.

18) A man who wants to put “none of the above” for any of the above questions (circle one or more of the following):
(a) A dupe brainwashed by feminism
(b) A dupe brainwashed by liberalism
(c) A dupe brainwashed by political correctness
(d) A self-loathing man
(e) A nice guy too nice to realize that the above (and feminism more broadly) is to blame for his lack of success
(f) A nice guy who lets his relative success with women (and the relative/eventual success of those he knows) blind him to the obvious truth

19) A woman who wants to put “none of the above” for any of the above questions (circle one or more of the following):
(a) Hates men
(b) Is brainwashed by feminism, liberalism, and/or political correctness
(c) Is a slut
(d) Hates nice guys

There’s a drawn out conversation occurring over at Phi’s place about the propriety of older or married or less attractive men sparking up conversations with young, attractive women. One of the factors is that it’s common for guys to go out of their way to strike up conversations with attractive women that they wouldn’t with guys or unattractive women. Do I myself do this? Not sure. Sometimes I think that I go too far in the other direction. I remember when I was a regular at Seattle’s Best Coffee back in Estacado, I could be downright skittish with the attractive barristas. Not because I was nervous in the same way I would get nervous around girls that I wanted to ask out, but that if I looked at them for a period of time that was construed to be too long they might see me as a lech.

I got a Friend Request today on Facebook from someone that looks not the slightest bit familiar. I have a few friends on Facebook that I don’t know personally, but at least with them I can identify mutual friends. If they’re okay by Hubert, they’re okay by me. That sort of thing. This young woman has no mutual friends. I saw that we went to the same high school, though to be honest her first name rings absolutely no bells with me. It also says that she went to Southern Tech, so I figured maybe we went to high school together and she recognized me from the Sotech student paper. Back when I was a columnist I would periodically get emails from people that never really talked to me in high school. So maybe that was it.

The only thing that gives me pause, though, is that she is relatively attractive. Definitely looking like the sort of girl that would have nothing to do with me in high school. That makes me think that it’s something illegitimate. Sort of like how 90% of the people who added me on MySpace were spam accounts. But so far I haven’t run into that sort of thing at all on Facebook. Besides, how worth their while could it possibly be to mix and match area high schools and colleges? Since we did go to the same high school and college, I was probably a system recommendation or something.

Anyway, I added her figuring that I could un-add her at a moment’s notice if she starts pushing viagra or her new erotic website or something. I just found it interesting to note that if she was a man or an unattractive woman, I doubt I would have even thought twice about adding him/her.

On the Camelot BBS I came to sorta know a girl who went by the name Whirlwind. I was a poor friend to her brother and a good fake son to her mother. For some reason (I can think of a few), she just didn’t like me (even in that brotherly way I had come to fear and expect). Without much choice, I chose not to like her, either. She dated my friend Clint for a spell as well as another friend whose online name was Cladger. Cladger was one of those guys that I always wanted to be friends with because he was a great guy on paper but he was a little too much of a sycophant in reality.

Cladger called me up one day and said that there was something that I had to get in on. What? He wouldn’t say. He needed a ride to Southfield Mall, though. Oh, and he’d be bringing a couple other guys, Kermit (whom I knew) and Nathan (whose handle, “Nathan”, I’d seen online, but whom I’d never talked to). I picked up Cladger first so that he could guide me to Kermit’s house, where Kermit and Nathan would be. As I drove, I quizzed him on what exactly was going on. He said that Whirlwind and Nathan had struck up a little online romance and that they were going to meet.

Seeing as how everyone seemed to be having better romantic luck than I was, I didn’t know why in the world he thought this would be something that I would want to see. “You brought me here to chaperon Whirlwind meeting some guy?”

“No, I brought you a front row seat. You’re going to want to see this.”

The second that I saw Nathan, I said three words to Cladger: Oh, wow, and thanks.

It wasn’t just that Nathan was obese – I’d seen heavier. It was the slimy, repellent nature of his obesity that was truly astonishing. His skin looked like it was struggling to keep the fat inside of it like a pillowcase holding four pillows and about to burst at the seam. His elbows were hidden under a rag of peachy fat. He had no neck, which you almost didn’t notice except that when he looked down what he had of a chin immediately became buried in fat. Had his face been covered end-to-end in acne, it wouldn’t have looked any worse than the pin-sized pores on his face barely visible through a waterfall of sweat.

Whirlwind had declared herself too good for Cladger. She had declared herself too good for my best friend. She had declared herself too good to be even the most casual of friends with me. I cannot presently recall where I was on my weight rollercoaster at this time, but I am pretty sure that I was significantly below my peak and, while perhaps not desirable to most, not repellant. Not like Nathan. How in the world was she going to respond to this guy meeting her at a mall?!

After the girls were running half an hour or so late, we decided that maybe we hadn’t communicated where it was that we were supposed to meet, so we started walking around the mall. And walking, and walking. After about half an hour we did stumble upon them. They politely waved and said hello, but never stopped walking. They acted as though it was a coincidence that we happened to see each other. As though there hadn’t been plans. As though she hadn’t spent the previous week spilling her guts to a guy that had hooked a ride to the mall to meet her. It was enough that I began to wonder if Cladger had misrepresented the nature of the meeting.

“That’s weird,” Nathan said, “I thought we were supposed to hang out.” It was only when he said that when the obvious occurred to me. Of course they were here to meet him. Upon seeing him, meeting him was the last thing that they wanted to do. It was a real let down compared to the show that I was hoping to see, but the idea of all the icks she must have been feeling over the span of weeks would have to be reward enough.

“Maybe they didn’t recognize us, Nathan,” Cladger said, ignoring the fact that he and Whirlwind had dated. “How did you describe yourself?”

“5’8, brown hair. Glasses. Kind of overweight, but I work out.”

I found that hard to believe.

Nathan was ultimately unphased, even when she hid from him immediately after the meeting. He made his way to a couple of Camelot parties afterwards and almost singlehandedly ruined them due to his very unpleasant odor and appearance. The smell was easy enough to avoid in the mall because it was a very open atmosphere. It was much harder at Excalibur’s house and so when he entered a room, people would find a reason to disperse until we eventually all ended up outside in the insane Gulf Coast summer heat because it was so much easier to spread out and shift as the winds carrying the odors requested.

Though he may have never knew how badly he smelled, he must have known that there was something putting everybody off. He tried to make up for it by talking as though he hadn’t been the reject all of his life that Tom confirmed he was. He spoke vaguely of an ex-girlfriend, described himself as “bi-curious” as it was considered cool and edgy to be at the time. Over and over again he tried to present himself as alternative. As many of our peers reasoned, if you can’t be better, try to be different. Really, though, it had the equivalent effect of putting on heavy cologne to cover up the smell of cigarettes: even it wasn’t quite as odious, it was twice as strong and even more unpleasant, on the whole.

The RIAJ (RIAA, Japanese-style) is conspiring with Japanese phone manufacturers to come up with a new way to verify that customers have purchased the content that they’re playing on their cell phones:

The notion is that the RIAJ would work with the phone companies to get verification software on every handset. It could then ‘phone home’ every time the audio player is activated to check if a track was bought legally or not.

Inside sources say not only is such a move possible because the phone networks dictate what software appears on handsets in Japan, but that it’s highly likely to be up and running by 2011.

On the face of it, this is a fair move. After all, nobody who has purchased their music has anything to fear about this. Right?

Except, of course, that’s not really true. What this means instead is that if you want to play music, you have to have their approval. So if their networks are down, you may not be able to play the music that you legally purchased. Or if they discontinue the program, everything you purchased could go inert. So what this will do is either (a) be completely ineffective against people that have hacked, DRM-free versions of the songs being played or (b) make life difficult for people who want to play media that is not in their system. In the case of (a), it will make owning an illegal copy of something more hassle-free than owning a legal copy of it. This was the boat that the American record companies completely missed when music piracy became mainstream while they insisted that listening to music be attached to a disc or tape. The movie industry is looking at that now where DVD’s get scratched and subscription services lapse or the terms change or you can download movies illegally for free and they will always work without anyone’s permission. In the case of (b), well, they have made themselves the complete and total gatekeepers of what can and cannot be played on your phone. May work out well for them, but sucks from just about everyone else’s point-of-view and may not be technically possible.

Then again, Japan is a whole other country and what doesn’t work well in the US could work well in Japan. They may view abiding my DRM as their civic duty or somesuch, so (a) may be a workable solution. Then again, to the extent that Japanese are a cooperative bunch, piracy shouldn’t be the issue it would need to be in order to justify that time and effort to implement this plan.

I realize that I am starting to become a one-note Charlie, returning to the subject of the iPhone as regularly as Half Sigma returns to HBD, but this is yet another reason why I am extremely reluctant to get an iPhone and why I wasn’t going to get one even when it looked like I might need a new cell phone. While Apple hasn’t signed on to anything like this (well, except iTunes DRM, but I wouldn’t count that), they pretty easily could. Their centralized way of going about things makes this sort of thing much, much easier than it would be for Google, Nokia, or Microsoft with their respective mobile operating systems.

-{Link via Kent Newsome}-

Over at Computerworld, Jeff Ello offers an interesting proposition – that the stereotypical IT person (antisocial, anti-management, anti-bureaucracy, etc) is merely a logical being who reacts in a logical way to their stereotypical environment. In particular, this quote caught my eye:

Antisocial behavior — It’s fair to say that there is a large contingent of IT pros who are socially unskilled. However, this doesn’t mean those IT pros are antisocial. On the whole, they have plenty to say. If you want to get your IT pros more involved, you should deal with the problems laid out above and then train your other staff how to deal with IT. Users need to be reminded a few things, including:

– IT wants to help me.
– I should keep an open mind.
– IT is not my personal tech adviser, nor is my work computer my personal computer.
– IT people have lives and other interests.

Like anyone else, IT people tend to socialize with people who respect them. They’ll stop going to the company picnic if it becomes an occasion for everyone to list all the computer problems they never bothered to mention before.

Without fail, not merely for myself but based on the experiences of friends/family I have known in IT, this is a major failing on the part of many organizations. IT people are “leaned on” constantly. They’re expected to fix their friends’ computers, neighbors’ computers, the computers of family members. Heck, they are sent questions by family/friends in other states who think that things can be fixed remotely. Co-workers piling on with this add to stress, especially if it’s done (a) often or (b) unappreciatively. Trust me when I say: we don’t mind, once in a while, helping someone out of a jam, especially if it’s something Worst Buy/Geek Squad/etc routinely screw up on or overcharge for. On the other hand, when we get 10+ requests for such help in a month, there’s a point where even we say “enough is enough.”

There’s another part as well:

Insubordination — This is a tricky one. Good IT pros are not anti-bureaucracy, as many observers think. They are anti-stupidity. The difference is both subjective and subtle. Good IT pros, whether they are expected to or not, have to operate and make decisions with little supervision. So when the rules are loose and logical and supervision is results-oriented, supportive and helpful to the process, IT pros are loyal, open, engaged and downright sociable. Arbitrary or micro-management, illogical decisions, inconsistent policies, the creation of unnecessary work and exclusionary practices will elicit a quiet, subversive, almost vicious attitude from otherwise excellent IT staff.

I’ve added the emphasis above for the basic point – people who go into IT, fundamentally, are (again) logical beings. They approach computers and technology, which are logical machines, in a logical fashion. They appreciate people like Will or Will’s normal working-environment types who, when they bring a problem up, bring the background research (error code, method to reproduce, etc) with it. They don’t appreciate Carol in accounts payable who sends in a request saying “this stupid thing doesn’t work come fix it while I go to lunch”, leaves no indication of what application is “not working”, leaves no recorded error code or method to reproduce the problem, and then has a screaming fit when she comes back to the office to find an email or note indicating that the IT staff would like her to inform them when she is available so that they can observe the problem and implement a solution.

IT people react quite well to Will-types, who we usually refer to by titles similar to “power users.” As far as IT goes, Will-types are collaborators; they respect us, we respect them, and when they ask for help, they’re willing to work with us to see that the solution is found and works well. Likewise, IT people react well to what I’ll refer to as “Joel”-types. Joels are people who know that computers are logical, have a little trouble grasping what they are doing, but are (a) patient about a response and (b) willing to be present and educated on what to do. Yes, we may have to answer the same question 2-3 times for a Joel in order for them to remember what they are doing, and occasionally they forget how to do something, but they recognize when their knowledge is insufficient and call for help rather than making things worse.

There are two other types we have to deal with. As I referred to a moment ago, there are the “Carol” types. Carols are the type who believe that somehow, with zero information and zero cooperation on their part, the magic box sitting on their desk can be made to do whatever they want to do. They believe that sending an email or help request along the lines of “this fucking thing isn’t working fix it” with an “available time” of ASAP and perhaps a threatening note about “reporting IT to the VP” if it isn’t done by the time they’re done with their noon “rendezvous” will somehow make it so that the fix “just happens.” Carol-types are also the type who insist their computer is “so slow” and “takes forever to log on”, but scream bloody murder if you want to remove the 10 different “IE Toolbar” apps, instant messaging apps, screwy spyware-laden screensavers, and other non-job-related miscellaneous widgets that they’ve put on their computer.

The final type I’ll refer to as the “Todd” type. Todd-types are the IT department’s nightmare. Todd-types, in fact, account for 99% of the aggravations that sparked my response to Farhad Manjoo’s column (hey, I warned you; we IT-types are anti-stupidity) earlier. The problem with Todd-types is that they are the portion of the world who overestimate their own competence. They believe (for example) that because they managed to plug in their DSL modem in at home and get their computer plugged in, they are competent to build and maintain a 500-machine network, or that because they managed to install “free” software package X at home, it should be used by everyone in the company (setting aside all questions of the legality, licensing, and security questions of doing so). Worse yet, when they encounter an issue, they don’t check in with us first. Instead, they flail around, delete this, rename that, alter this setting, alter that setting, and instead of coming in to implement a simple fix based on a known error code, we are then forced to work backwards through all the other things they messed up along the way. Todd-types are the type who jam in print cartridges without removing the packaging tabs or “rip-cord” tab first, damaging printers/copiers in the process. They try to remove a paper jam by hand the wrong way, turning a simple removal process into a 4-hour process of taking the printer half apart to get to the one scrap of paper still covering the jam sensor. They see an “error” and download a “driver search” package infested with malicious software. In short, Todd-types are the reason that many companies lock down computers and take “admin” (software installation) permissions away from most users in the first place.

Now, looking back above, what’s the difference between the Will/Joel and the Carol/Todd types? I’ll take them in sequence.

– IT wants to help me. Both the Will-types and the Joel-types recognize that IT wants to help them. IT wants them to be able to do their jobs well. When Will-types feel that IT is taking things away, it’s probably helpful to remind the Will-types that for every Will in an organization, there’s probably an even dozen Carol/Todds, and upper managment freaks out when they see “problems” like that (for example, when “Carol” screams bloody murder and IT’s only defense is to give the now-screaming VP a list of all the extraneous crap loaded to Carol’s computer or else see themselves subjected to the VP’s wrath).

– I should keep an open mind. Again, Will-types and Joel-types do this. When IT tells Will that they may not be able to be there instantaneously, or that they may need to do some research on a fix, Will knows they’re right – hell, he’s already been researching it himself. When IT tells the Joel-types that they would like to schedule ~30 minutes (5 to fix it, 25 to train Joel to better use the application), he gets it. Meanwhile, the Todd-types lie about their thrashing (lest IT twig them for what they did and start proceedings to restrict their access to prevent future damage) and then complain that IT didn’t “completely fix” their issue, and the Carol-types are just downright uncooperative from the start.

And, of course… the Carol and Todd-types are also the most likely reason your IT guys don’t go to the company picnic.

I commented on a Status by Fustle (my friend, ex-roommate for a short time, and Web’s current housemate), which drew the attention of my old friend Kelvin. Kelvin was at the top of the list of guys that met all the criteria of what women should reasonably want (tall, thin, unbelievably nice) and yet only rarely had a girlfriend (a state-of-affairs that I played a role in, unfortunately). Anyhow, he’s apparently got himself an attractive little girlfriend (I say little, she’s probably normal height, but he’s freakishly tall as defined by being taller than I am) that he’s serious about. So I can take him off that list. So on the male side, my list of guys that in a more just world would have a serious girlfriend or wife is at two (neither of which am I positive about). Meanwhile, the woman at the top of the female list – Kelvin’s counterpart in the complete inexplicability of their single status – has seen no movement as far as I’m aware. There are others, on both the male and female side, that are questionable members of this group.

Interestingly, I was just thinking about Kelvin and aforementioned woman a couple weeks ago and pondering a post about when one reaches the point where one looks at his or her friends and wonders why they are in the situation that they are in.

Michael Duff ponders the negative affect that Facebook can have on marriages. Over a dozen users chime in about how Facebook has ruined or is ruining their marriages.

It’s tempting to dismiss this sort of thing under the banner of “If Facebook is ruining your marriage, it must have been weak to begin with.” It’s not unlike comments I’ve seen in the past that prostitution does not pose a threat to a good marriage. There is certainly an element of truth to that, but I think the natural rejoinder is that (a) some strong marriages have weak points and (b) weak marriages are often worth preserving.

The studies I’ve seen suggest that divorce does not make people happier than people that stay in unhappy marriages and that children of divorce tend to do better socially and perform better in school that do children of parents in unhappy marriages. Obviously, there are cases where this it is better for one party, the other, the children, or everybody involved. But I have yet to see a study suggesting that this is more true more often than it is false. So it’s far from clear that “she’s better off without him” (if he cheats due to Facebook) or “he’s better off without her” (if the same).

The Internet as a tool of divorce is certainly nothing new. My business law professor, who also handled divorces, talked about how the Internet was a marriage-killer because of a case he worked on where a woman left her husband for some guy on the Internet that she’d never even met (and who hadn’t met her and had not been informed that she had gained considerable weight since the time of the picture she provided). So is Facebook really all that different?

In a way, I think it might be. Not in the way that Duff suggests, though. I think the unique danger posed by Facebook is that it provides a socially acceptable way for people to contact and stay in contact with old flames and former lovers. And it provides a socially acceptable way for people to stay in contact with friends of the opposite sex, allowing things to inappropriately progress, that would otherwise raise flags or be harder to defend.

There’s nothing wrong with having friends of the opposite sex, of course. But ideally, when you do, there are some relatively firm parameters that if you feel the inclination to pass through that you should instead give pause. If there were a woman in my life that I would like to hang out with (platonically, I’d swear), but for some indescribable reason I would prefer Clancy not be present, that would be a signal to me that I should probably not be alone with this woman.

There is sort of a problem with this, which is that by coming out and saying that, we’re suggesting that we want to sleep with them or otherwise want to cheat on our spouse. If we don’t want to admit that there is a problem, we may set ourselves up for one just to prove that none exists. But even if there isn’t a problem, you don’t necessarily want her to be there if one should arise. I know far too many guys that have been burned with the belief that “Oh, I’m happy in my relationship” and “Oh, nothing is going to happen”. Of course, the vast majority of the time nothing does happen. But the consequences for the times when something does are devastating. As the saying goes, better safe than sorry. At the very least, you want to be asking yourself some tough questions about what she has to offer you that a same-gender friend does not.

The problem posed by Facebook is that it easily allows us to sidestep these questions. The mechanism for getting back in touch and staying in touch is already there. And it is gender neutral. “Hey, I’m looking up lots of people from high school. Why should my prom date be any different?” and then even if you get past that point you still have all the rationalizations to use from other scenarios mentioned in the previous paragraph.

For my part, I have a lot of female “friends” on Facebook, including one ex-girlfriend (Julie). I consider Julie to be safe because even in the Elseworlds event that I were unhappy with my marriage and did want to cheat, she is one of the last people that I would cheat with. If Clancy were to leave me or die, she is not among those I would consider dating. There are other cases where the circumstances are just a little more complicated than that. People that I will always view from a romantic standpoint and with whom every encounter I have ever had has involved things that would be inappropriate for a married man. I am relatively sure that I could, with enough effort, force a platonic friendship and excise all inappropriateness. But frankly, without the sexual or romantic carrot, there’s simply no reason to. They have nothing to offer me that I can’t get from a male friend. So from there I either make the decision not to friend them or if I do it’s only out of the curiosity of finding out what they’re up to and I make no effort to forge any sort of real friendship with them.

The older and more firmly married I get, the more I have come to appreciate boundaries. Some of the problems listed in Duff’s comment section are from people whose spouses refuse to cut off people when asked. That is definitely, in my view, indicative of a problem. My wife has absolutely nothing to fear from anybody on my friends list and really nothing to fear from the people that I intentionally left off. But if for any reason it makes her uncomfortable, that should be reason enough to take it out of the box of potential problems. Clancy is generally not the jealous sort. Julie was, though. And Julie was wrong and wrong over and over again about who did or did not constitute a threat to our relationship… until she was right.

I feel very fortunate that I am in a marriage where Facebook does not even remotely apply as any sort of threat. That’s not just a verdict on our marriage, but also on her unshakable integrity and my absolute determination not to enter the brotherhood of unfaithful husbands. Not everyone is as fortunate.

Clancy fixed my office chair! Ever since I got it, the back has sagged to the point that it’s great for leaning back and relaxing but not for sitting upright. Since I have my laptop for when I lounge/compute and mostly use the desktop for more upright tasks, it wasn’t particularly useful in that condition. But I put up with it.

Clancy is forced to use my chair for less than a week and actually, you know, fixes it.