Esquire's guide to buying your way out of the "friend zone"

The "friend zone" is a myth, but it's a powerful one. It's a fantasy created and maintained by boys and men who think they have been unfairly denied sexual access to a woman who — as far as they're concerned — should be interested in them physically but isn't.

Other people have written about how problematic this myth is. It's based on some pretty primitive ideas about sexual relations, such as that "nice guys" are tragic figures who women take for granted and that women are possessions to be won. Articles about "how to get out of the friend zone" are even more insulting to women, suggesting manipulative tactics straight out of the "pick-up artist" handbook.

Enter Esquire's "THE DO'S AND DON'TS OF DRESSING TO GET OUT OF THE FRIEND ZONE" an advertising feature that tells men the best way to convince those selfish vagina-hoarders (aka "women") that their own feelings and agency have nothing to do with who they are attracted to.

It's really just a matter of buying the right clothes:

That's right, lads: For just a $350 investment, you could turn that "no" into a "yo". Who could resist a man in this shirt? (Truth be told, it's making me question my own sexuality. And I'm not even friends with expressionless Beard Guy.)

It's nice to know that all those dry spells could have easily have been solved with $500 worth of shaving gear. What was I thinking? The friend zone doesn't stand a chance against a good shave. (Don't tell Beard Guy!)

One of the more affordable ways to show her that you only hang out with her for possible sex.

I'll have to admit, I used stinky stuff as a teen. I didn't know it was still a thing. (Hope she's not allergic.)

I had no idea that not being trendy was so expensive. But if these not-at-all trendy jeans make her think about getting me out of them, take my money! TAKE IT!!!

Bwahahaha!

No, really? It's $3,500 worth of "Look, I know you said I wasn't like those other guys, but I kind of am. Just much, much worse."

What is that even, and how will it help me convince this woman that friendship is just the gentleman's prelude to banging?

Because actually putting yourself in her shoes is way too much to ask.

"So, Madison, you don't think he's kind of cute?"

"You know the rules, Dakota. I'd be all over him, but he wears boring sweaters. So I think I'll spend a lot of my valuable time with him, and tell him all my thoughts and feelings, but withhold my sexual favours until he gets better fashion sense."

Wear your edgiest shades when you meet her, and when she asks to try them on know that she's starting to come around to you. 

(I didn't write that, BTW. It's actually in the article!)

This scarf says one thing, and that's "our friendship feels like a consolation prize".


The author disagrees with me that this article is regressive, creepy, PUA bullshit. But it's time to put this "friend zone" nonsense to rest.

If a woman is not interested in you sexually, your job is to respect her feelings. If she wants to be friends with you, that is not an invitation to spend your time together trying to manipulate her into giving in to your advances. It means she actually wants to be your friend. Or at least let you down easy. (You'll know soon enough.)

If you don't get that women's friendship is valuable in itself, then no amount of shopping can make you less of an asshole.

Sketchy Scientology advertorial muddies The Atlantic

Via businessjournalism.org

Advertorial content is the bane of many a "straight" news editor. I spent the first five years of my career writing them under my own byline. Although they clearly labelled as advertising sections in my hometown newspaper,  from comments my friends and family received it was obvious that many people didn't notice the difference. Some actually thought I was a reporter.

I still occasionally write advertorial for clients. But these days it does not mimic editorial content. It is clearly-branded, informational, long-copy advertising.

That was not the case with a story that popped up on The Atlantic's site this week. Readers were treated to a "sponsor content" story lauding Scientology leader David Miscavige (above). It was an ad. But it sure didn't look like one.

According to businessjournalism.org's Robin J Phillips, the page was removed after The Atlantic campaign "was the subject of much criticism on social media."

What's the big problem here?

Well, I find that this kind of scandal really depends on how hated the advertiser is. Scientology, outside of its ranks, is not going to win any awards for awesomeness. Some people fear and loath them, while others just make them (and their celebrity members) the butt of their jokes.

The Altantic didn't screw up by running advertorial. Many publications do that. They screwed up by letting the advertorial — from a sponsor that many of their readers are already skeptical of — look like their own news. 

And, Phillips adds:

It looks like members of Scientology or their friends were geared up to comment on the piece. And there are other, very positive comments from people who don’t declare whether they are members or not.

In other words, Scientologists wanted this content to be perceived as being perceived as real news. And good news.

In response to criticism, The Atlantic pulled the content with the note, "We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads."

They later apologized fully:

Regarding an advertisement from the Church of Scientology that appeared on TheAtlantic.com on January 14: 

We screwed up. It shouldn't have taken a wave of constructive criticism — but it has — to alert us that we've made a mistake, possibly several mistakes. We now realize that as we explored new forms of digital advertising, we failed to update the policies that must govern the decisions we make along the way.  It's safe to say that we are thinking a lot more about these policies after running this ad than we did beforehand. In the meantime, we have decided to withdraw the ad until we figure all of this out.  We remain committed to and enthusiastic about innovation in digital advertising, but acknowledge—sheepishly—that we got ahead of ourselves.  We are sorry, and we're working very hard to put things right.   

Just another day in the life of online mainstream media.

Speaking of advertising, thanks to the good folks at Ottawa's Mayfair Theatre for the tip (via Twitter).