Each week on Snarcasm, I tackle the worst articles on the Internet. Isn’t it astounding how long it’s taken me to do an article from Elite Daily?
The alleged “voice of Generation Y” lives up to that weird promise in a piece that’s all about love, baby doll. The ultimatum of clickbait headlines is appropriately titled, “If You Can’t Answer ‘Yes’ To These 5 Questions, She’s Not The One.”
In other words, “Her failure to be your soul mate has everything to do with your knee-jerk reaction to something you just read on Elite Daily.”
Our love guru, Paul Hudson, kicks us off with something we were all on the fence about.
Love is complicated.
Pack it up, boys. Hudson has cracked it.
How do you know if the woman you’re with now is the one you should spend your life loving?
At this point, I’m wondering how the woman must feel about you after walking in on you reading Elite Daily in order to figure out who you’re going to marry.
Do you “just know,” or are there practical questions you should be asking yourself?
Gee, I don’t know. It’s not like there’s a third option where you ask practical questions to the girl you’re supposedly in love with. Best not to get her involved, though.
Is there some sort of checklist or guide?
“Can I Google it?”
“Nope, love is complicated.”
Love seems mysterious, and maybe even impossible to define.
Right, ignore those countless texts and definitions compiled over thousands of years by people who are far more intelligent than you. Love is way too complicated for your edumacation.
People often say that words fail to appropriately capture love.
Well, if people often say it, then it must be true.
I, for one, believe it isn’t the words that fail. It’s the people who use them.
OK, let’s scenario this.
“What do you think love means, honey?”
“Well, I think it has to do with that moment right before the suggested hashtags give you the one that’s spelled just right.”
“This isn’t working out.”
Point, Paul Hudson.
Love is a natural, logical result of two compatible souls meeting.
Look at that! Hudson is acknowledging how love comes from the actions of two people. What a step forwar—
The real question is: What’s “just right”?
New York accent: “How much can I get outta this whole thing, huh?”
But wait. “Love is complicated.” How can—
You can find the answer through a few simple questions.
1. Has your life drastically improved since you met her?
So, her contingency on being “the one” (which hasn’t been defined yet) depends on the quality of your life? Look, I know this is a website for millennials, but even Bieber would call that too narcissistic.
Are you happier? Do you have a better outlook on life? Do your problems seem less dire and more manageable? Do you have more good days than bad days now? If all of this is true, she may very well be “the one.”
Paul Hudson must own Elizabethtown on Blu Ray.
This is beyond irresponsible for anyone to write and publish. Elite Daily is telling you to cross off a personal checklist of desires that could be entirely separated from anything within the control of your significant other and then telling you to dump those expectations on her.
Here’s a real question: Do you make her happier? Is her life improving? That’s a far better rubric for knowing if she deserves you, not the other way around.
2. Do you smile every time you see her, think of her and talk to her? If you do, then you’re in love — and that’s really the most important sign.
I sympathize with what Hudson is sort of not really getting at, but this is just a soft way of asking, “Is she perfect?”
Because no girl is going to make you smile EVERY time you see her, think of her, and talk to her. You’re going to fight. You’re going to have bad days when you take your significant other for granted.
Being in love has nothing to do with a perpetual state of hedonistic butterflies in your stomach. If you still care for someone even when they aren’t making you smile (because apparently women are now 90s McDonald’s) then yeah, that’s a sign of this oh, so complicated “love.”
If you feel happy just being reminded of her existence, then what you have is true love.
The first four words of that sentence sum up the pure garbage that is this entire article.
If you love her, she very well may be the one.
Oh, is that all?
3. Can you talk to her for hours on end without getting bored or feeling awkward?
Because God forbid awkward moments or times when two people are out of sync.
If talking to her is one of your least favorite things to do, why are you even dating her?
Well, that wasn’t the question. Hudson is trying to say that companionship and conversation is essential to having a good relationship, and that’s certainly true. Even 10 year olds who just read Twilight would tell you that.
But his qualifier is, “She can’t make you feel bored or awkward.”
Dating Paul Hudson must be like dating one of the townspeople from Parks and Recreation.
4. Is she there for you?
Not, “are you there for her.” That’s more of a Buzzfeed thing.
The key to finding an amazing life partner is finding someone who lives up to her role in your life.
If you’re a guy reading this and you want to grasp how absolutely insulting this is, just switch the roles for a second. Can you imagine an article telling your girlfriend to determine your worth by whether or not “you live up to your role in her life?”
Is she there for you when you need her to be? Is she someone who supports you, motivates you and keeps you on track? Or does she hang out just when it’s convenient for her?
The problem with Hudson’s line of thinking here is that real “partnerships” like this take time to develop, and he’s failing to talk about what the guy should be expecting at each point in the relationship.
Some girls aren’t going to be your fully supportive cheerleader early on in the relationship, especially if you haven’t developed a friendship yet. Sometimes, girls just want to have a relationship for the fun of it, and not feel pressured to commit fully until they’ve gotten to know you better. That’s not a reason to swear them off.
People have different expectations of how relationships progress. An honest, responsible question would be, “Have you talked to her about the future?” That’s when you can have a real conversation about whether or not you see the relationship going anywhere, and if you have the same expectations.
Instead, Hudson wants you to implant your girlfriend on a pedestal without giving her any warning or heads up. Love is complicated, alright.
5. Has she opened up to you and let you into her life?
You get it at this point, right? Hudson’s questions center around nothing but one of the most selfish definitions of love you can explore. “What’s in it for me?” is what he wants you to ask, ultimately, before deciding that someone “deserves being your one.”
You need a woman in your life who loves you with every atom in her body. Never settle for less.
Ah, now I get it. I’m reading the diary of a lovesick teenager, because that’s the only way someone could put forth ideas like this and call it true love. Fault Elite Daily however you want, but at least they have decent editors.
Hey! If you’ve come across a silly article that deserves the Snarcasm treatment, send it my way via Twitter or the comments below!
I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni
10 thoughts on “Snarcasm: The Mystery of Love Has Finally Been Solved”
I don’t need to answer anything to know I’m in love with Snarcasm.
This was awesome and my most favorite Snarcasm yet!
I find myself saying that every time I finish reading a new Snarcasm.
You seem to have a bone to pick with Elite Daily. And I don’t blame you.
3 weeks is too long to wait for a new Snarcasm. This was a great one to kick off the new year 🙂
To be fair, love is pretty complicated.
Reblogged this on wwwpalfitness.
This is so perfect I’m losing my mind.
The author is also assuming that everyone who reads the article is a straight man. Not the mention the fact that a romantic relationship that has each person being together ALL THE TIME would actually just be super creepy and damaging to entire lives.
Just read another article by Paul Hudson I vehemently disagree with for many of the reasons you mentioned here! Glad I found this post… Even if two years later. 🙂