Dear Sincerely Shallow: “It’s True, You’re Horrible. Show Your Fiancé Your Letter, And Go Pimp Yourself Out Like Anna Nicole.”

This could be you, SS!

This could be you, “Sincerely Shallow” ! Go for it!

Emily Yoffe is Slate’s stunt advice columnist, who in her “Dear Prudence” column answers questions reminiscent of the freak-show howlers they used to concoct for the “Penthouse Forum” (or so I’ve heard.) Sometimes Emily’s advice has me convinced she is the consort of Pazuzu, and other times her advice is measured and wise. This time, she sided with the demon, and I’m about finished with her.

Here is the query sent by “Sincerely Shallow” in its entirety. I’m sure it’s viral by now:

Dear Prudence,
I’m recently engaged to the most honest, thoughtful, and loving man I’ve ever met. He has supported me through many hard times, including losing my job and being assaulted. Here’s the but about him: He makes no money. He has ambitions, and he’s smart, but will likely only bring a middle-class income at best. I have an OK job and I’m self-sufficient. Now here’s the but about me: I’m really, really pretty. My whole life people have told me I could get any man I want, meaning a rich man, and are shocked that I’m engaged to my fiancé, nice though he is. I’ve never dated a rich man, but it does make me curious. So part of me thinks I’m squandering my good looks on this poor man, and the other part of me thinks that I’m so shallow that I don’t even deserve him or anyone else. Am I a fool for thinking that a poor man can make me happy, or an idiot for believing a sexist fantasy?

You can read “Prudence’s” annoying answer here, which concludes with this:

“You’re not a shallow fool for thinking that a life of scraping by won’t be so pretty.”

No, she’s a shallow fool because she is seriously considering seeking the age-old woman’s bargain of trading in her short-term sexual attractiveness and bedroom favors for a life of supposed luxury, even though her resulting partner probably won’t be as admirable as the lovely man she has already committed to. I’m sure her self-proclaimed allure has blinded him to her obvious and serious flaws—she’s an exploitive, ungrateful, venal twit—but she really does owe him the benefit of her damning calculations.

Middle class equals “loser” in her eyes, even when he has bailed her out of trouble when she was unemployed. Her letter tells us that “Sincerely” lacks loyalty, gratitude, appreciation of character and respect for qualities that don’t translate into diamond bracelets. It tells us that she equates a good life with an easy life, and that material things matter more to her than love, initiative, sacrifice, courage, perspective, compassion….oh, how long this list is.

She’s worried about “squandering her looks” when she could really cash in, like Anna Nicole Smith did when she married ancient billionaire J. Howard Marshall. (Anna Nicole’s daughter finally collected Anna Nicole’s payoff, in a $475 million court award. The late Anna Nicole. Post Howard, she spent her final years in court trying to collect, humiliating herself by appearing fat, drunk and stupid on a reality show, getting back in millionaire-hooking shape just in time to bear a daughter of mysterious parentage, and dropping dead of drug abuse before she was able to cash in her momentary good looks a second time. Go for it, SS! It’s a plan!)

If Yoffe had her own values aligned properly, she would have told this vain and vile gold-digger that it was her future husband who would be squandering his virtues on a trivial human bauble like her, and that she should do him and the gene pool a favor, show him the moldy ugliness beneath her glamorous surface, and go on a hunt in Vegas, Wall Street, the Poconos or various cardiac clinics to become a trophy wife. I’m sure she’ll make some rich, horny, wrinkled old bastard very happy, and doubtlessly propel him to an early grave. It only cost Anna Nicole a year for Marshall to kick off.


Facts: Slate (Emily Yoffe)




9 thoughts on “Dear Sincerely Shallow: “It’s True, You’re Horrible. Show Your Fiancé Your Letter, And Go Pimp Yourself Out Like Anna Nicole.”

  1. I have long been convinced that these types of advice seekers are contrived on behalf of the columnist or their employers. Anyone who could write something so eloquent and simplistic in it’s perfection of getting it’s point across while garnering our interest could not be so dumb as to not be able to discern the truth for themselves. I’ts a sensationalist plant to pique the public’s interest. In this case it worked.

  2. I don’t get how in anyone’s book “middle-class income” could equal poor. Poor means you don’t know where your next meal is coming from…
    Am I right or am I right or am I right?

    Also think it’s fake.

    • I think more advice column letters are fake than we like to think, and Dear Prudence, because it deals in a lot of “My father has started dressing as a wombat at night, and today he asked if I would be his side-kick” questions, is more suspicious than most. This letter doesn’t seem improbable to me—I have known both women and men who have had exactly these thoughts—but none of them would write such a thing. The real issue is the advice. Advice columnists choose topics they supposedly have something valid to say about, and her answer was atrocious.

      • Cheap shot, Jack. You, yourself, have expressed admiration for several of those ‘bimbos’ on multiple occasions, as well as Fox news.

        Yes, we can agree that Fox hires too predominantly based on looks. But they do seem to hire talented people who look good. Dismissing these journalists as ‘Bimbos’ simply because they are attractive is discrimination, of an unusual sort.

        • No, in fact, if you check, I have more than once pointed out that the practice of hiring pretty faces at Fox, CNN and elsewhere is a classic example of sexism and bias in the workplace.

          The fact that there are attractive and qualified journalists in the mix–Megyn Kelly comes to mind—doesn’t excuse the practice, and I will call attention to it every chance I get. The proportion of blondes among the Fox females is so out of whack with probability that it is laughable. It doesn’t matter that Fox (and others) seeking to turn the network into the broadcast version of Hooters hire competent women—the question is whether they make looks such a high priority that more competent but less curvy and cute professionals lose out. And that is undoubtedly the case.

          I’ll cop to “bimbos” being unfairly harsh, but women who capitalize on appealing to male fantasies in order to get an irrelevant edge over competitors forced to compete on only their skills deserve a little harsh…they know what they are doing, and they deserve the heat for it.

      • I was thinking more along the lines of modelling. That would provide her with money and less opportunity to provide anyone with verbal proof of her self-centred-ness (<is that even a word?).
        She'd also be in the company same-minded people in that business. It's a win-win for her.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.