She doesn't need an invisible boyfriend. She's testing it for the article.

In one of her texts to "Ryan" she writes: "Ha, you're better than my real bf".

It's sad there are people for which having an invisible boyfriend/girlfriend is an appealing idea (which is the entire premise of the service), regardless if it's the case with the writer of the article.

"On its Web site, Invisible Boyfriend calls itself “believable social proof”: When your mom won’t stop asking you when you’re going to settle down, or your weird male acquaintance keeps hitting on you, you can just whip out your phone and show them evidence that you’re not an unlovable loser, thank you very much. Homann says the service has also seen a surge in interest from people in conservative countries, particularly in South America and Europe, where the stigmas against being single or LGBT remain pretty strong."

I find the whole premise depressing.

Be proud of what you are or, if you are unhappy with your situation, take meaningful action to address the problem.

It's also sad that people are saddened by others not like them. The world would be a lot nicer if we accepted, instead of being saddened.

I may be projecting, but I don't interpret Kurtz as saying it's sad that people want an invisible boyfriend. More that it's sad that people feel pressured to have some sort of boyfriend, and get an invisible one to relieve that.

If someone genuinely thinks "actually, an invisible boyfriend would be better than a real one for me", then great, more power to them. But if someone's getting an invisible boyfriend because they can't get a real one, or because their parents are pressuring them, or because they don't want to come out as a lesbian. It's good that invisible boyfriends exist for these people¹, but it's sad that they need to exist.

¹This is debatable in the long run and the big picture. But here and now, it removes a little pain from the world.

"Being sad" means exactly that, and does not imply having disdain, disrespect or not accepting someone.

I'm just saying that whatever problems these persons have with their lives, I cannot see how this service can be of help in any way.

If anything, the problem is with society and social pressure: by conforming to it, and not fight it, you'll end up exacerbating the cause of the problem.

Yes, it will absolutely help the individual while doing nothing to solve the problem (and arguably perpetuating it).

I had a teacher in high-school who was black, and in the first integrated class at a formerly all white school. He said his parents made him do it, he hated it, and he got less of an education than had he been at an all black school because of the controversy surrounding the situation.

Clearly, while it's a good thing in the long-run that the schools were integrated, there is a price to pay for those who take part in the transition.

No it doesn't, it comes across as a light hearted joke.

Context is important as is apparently a thicker skin.

Well, imagine if the gender roles were reversed then. "Haha, you're so much better/funnier/sexier than my gf" would be a disaster to a woman, especially if I spent my day flirting with this fake girl. The hypothetical real girlfriend taking offense at this is 100% understandable. Go ahead and post to /r/askwomen if they think it would be hilarious if their boyfriends and husbands flirted with a fake woman 24/7 and compared her to them. I suspect you won't be getting this libertine and ultra-thick skinned response out of them.

To a guy on the receiving end, its "buck up, pussy" which seems unfair. Men's feelings deserve validation too. Shamefully, the gender dual standard continues even to the younger ultra-liberal crowd who dominate HN.

I'm a liberal but probably not the demographic you think.

Compare if the situation was reversed for the following phrase: "Oh, you're so much more dependable than my actual gf." Or "Oh, you're so much funnier than my actual girlfriend". Men would get far more offended than women. Why is that? Why aren't there as many female comedians?

I think that biologically, women value the intimacy and sexual appeal that their mate seeks in them, and are jealous/threatened when he seeks it in others. While men value the respect and sexual availability that their mate gives to them, and are jealous/threatened when she gives it to others. It ultimately goes back to the very real difference that women can have less children simultaneously than men, and therefore men are the first to be sacrificed for the good of the group and polygamy was a very natural state for men who were the ones who risked and died in wars and other adventures to provide for their tribes.

I highly recommend you read this: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

Justifying dual standards with questionable evolutionary psychology, frankly, is just not convincing.

If I found my wife flirting with other men online, be it via a "fake" service - whatever that may mean, its a serious violation of my trust and damages our relationship on a significant level. I don't care what hamfisted biological theories you toss out, its hurtful and disloyal. We're not all Sheldon Cooper.

>adventures to provide for their tribes.

I don't live in a tribal society and I suspect neither do you. I can't have 10 wives or 20 mistresses nor challenge people to honor duels. In fact, the state demands I'm non-violent, have only one wife, and society puts a great deal of pressure on us to stay monogamous. We have next to nothing in common with cavemen and the tribes of old.

I live in a modern society and play by its rules, that includes taking monogamy seriously in my marriage. My wife doesn't get the luxury of being immune from this because she's a woman and my feelings towards monogamy aren't invalidated because I'm a man.

I think people cling to these theories in the hope they could explain every facet of human behavior. There's no Grand Unifying Theory of Relationships, period.

Certain people may act a certain way, but if you're choosing a mate, you don't want just anybody. Life isn't a popularity contest; you're not trying to capture the imagination of a random person. People mature at different rates, and have different value systems. These forces check our base impulses, and shape us into someone who is more than just the product of our own petty desires.

Worse, reductionism often carries with it an implicit acquiescence to terrible behavior.

I hear what you are saying, but we're not all the same. Women typically are attracted guys taller and stronger than them. Men typically find themselves attracted to women who are thinner and weaker than them. And like you, I don't find it particularly convincing that a culture of forced monogamy is more beneficial to individuals or even the society at large. You mentioned the state, which leads me to believe you might be receptive to considering the plight of the individual. The way you described it, it almost sounds like you are bitter that society has forced you into behaviors that you would not naturally choose yourself, and now you want yourself and your wife to conform to those behaviors because you both owe it each other.

What if it was shown that your mutual happiness would be greatly improved by recognizing that the two of you have different priorities derive your happiness in diff ways and get jealous of different things? It's all well and good to put down different theories, but you also base your life on a theory. A theory of complete equality. After all, if you look at society at large, they don't exactly conform to this standard of monogamy that you put forth as the most moral. In fact, people cheat and lie quite immorally in order to get around it, and do it secretly. Is that really much better? Why is the state coersion morally better? What is your overall point?

If the gender roles were reversed, and the guy was a journalist writing a piece about his invisible girlfriend, then being offended by that joke would be equally ridiculous.

As the aphorism goes 'many a true word was said in jest' [must be from Shakespeare, surely?].

It's a good point, but Chaucer's words. Also - don't call me surely.

Thanks Shirley!

;0)

The context was about speed of responding to messages -- that the service, unsurprisingly, is speedier at responding than her boyfriend.

What boyfriend would be put off by that?