In a stunning revelation that has shocked precisely nobody with a penchant for common sense, The New York Times, a former beacon of journalism, has apparently embarked on a quest to understand why men are “dabbling and scrolling” rather than diving headfirst into the murky pools of intimacy. This journey of discovery unexpectedly led them to, you guessed it, a counsel of women with scorching takes on the male psyche. Ironically, or predictably depending on your worldview, their eye-opening investigation evoked more chuckles than chin-stroking.
The plot thickens as Rachel Ducker, a former scribe for publications best known for their bunnies than their insights on relationships, took a crack at unraveling this enigma. She expressed nostalgia for a time when a woman on a man’s arm was akin to a badge of honor. These days, she mourns, that dynamic has quietly crumbled. One might imagine that if you spend years wrenching the pedestal out from under men’s feet, they might start viewing women less as trophies and more with a wary side-eye. Go figure.
Of course, The Times did what any curious outlet would do when perplexed by male behavior: they asked all the Karens they could muster. Enter our first sage, Karen Screamy Hateface, lamenting that her authentic allure does not seem to draw men like a moth to the flame. Despite all her efforts to tame the beast with beanies and tattoos galore, she remains puzzled at their retreat. Perhaps men’s aversion is less a conundrum and more a natural consequence of the cacophony she so proudly broadcasts.
On their intrepid journey, The Times also consulted Karen Spikenos, a woman with more notches on her belt than grains of rice in a sushi roll. She opines that men simply quiver at the comparison to her overwhelmingly extensive history. What Mr. Times failed to mention is that many men have grown weary of the energy-sapping exercise that is the casual comparison game, preferring instead to expend their emotional currency on pursuits less fraught with peril.
The pièce de résistance, however, came from the ever-insightful Karen Crotchfangs, who revealed a real head-scratcher: men fleeing upon discovering something unexpected beneath all that sultry glam. It seems in this dating game, surprises only make a man run faster than if they’d seen a spider in their favorite slippers.
So where does this leave The Times, still mystified by the absence of men in what they term meaningful connections? Alas, fear not dear reader, for investigative journalism is not entirely extinct. Elsewhere, the brave folks at The Daily Wire took to the fields, wading through daisies and dreams, in search of elusive answers. While their results included daisy garlands and the refrain of regret about a bunked choice between Jennifers, at least they unearthed journalism of a different kind. A kind that, though it might seem marooned in satire, might just harbor echoes of truth.
Ultimately, while The New York Times might be left scratching their heads, let us bask in the humor of such quests. Here’s a hint for any future intrepid explorers: occasionally, history would suggest that if you really want to learn where all the good men have gone, perhaps, just perhaps, it might be worth asking them. This mystery, however, remains unsolved to the Times but perhaps not to the readers who revel in irony wrapped in reality.
