Mr. Ellicott begins with a quote by Shakespeare. As "pretty" and "eloquent" as Shakespeare seems, he knew this much about women: he preferred penis.
Anyway, the point Ellicott is trying to make is that seemingly wonderful guys are being shafted (and not in the "good" way) by inappreciative women. Men enter what Ellicott calls "The Friend Zone" when they are very close to woman mentally--and perhaps spiritually--so that said woman, when asked about her "relationship" with said man, refuses to elevate their relationship beyond friend because they're "just too good of friends."
Ellicott contends that these "good friends" are the ultimate mates. Instead, women choose men who abuse them in every possible way, content in their seemingly perfect friendship with a would-be soul mate.
Bullshit, Mr. Ellicott. Bullshit by the pound.
It is the very same area in which a male has invested serious quality time, understanding, and conscientiousness towards a girl in hopes of something meaningful.
What does he mean by something meaningful? A life-long, loving relationship in which both partners are equally satisfied with the other? Lies. If a male is really looking for something meaningful then why does he care if he earns rejection? Isn't the perfect mate someone who reciprocates?
Of course, it has only amounted to wasted time, effort, and no doubt, wasted cash. Even worse, however, this is the same area that dooms a man to a life of searching, hoping, waiting, self-doubt, and inevitably, the construction of a porn library, complete with the wasted time and empty feelings that excessive masturbation brings.
Oh, now Ellicott's point is clear. Why would men build a porn collection if they can't have a "meaningful" relationship? Oh, because by "meaningful" he means sexual. Men waste "time, effort, and no doubt, cash" so they can have an alternative for masturbation. Bravo, Mr. Ellicott. You're essay has proven the "all men are jerks" theory true beyond a reasonable doubt.
If a man truly cares about a woman, even if there is no reciprocation, then he should want something in return but expect nothing. How can someone say they truly, with utmost sincerity, care about someone, love them even, and expect something in return?
Are the "guys in the friend zone" any better than the "abusive guys" women date? No. Ellicott proves that the "nice guy" facade is just another attempt to get in a girl's pants. Here's an idea: try being genuine. Novel, eh? Don't stick your life goal in your trousers, and perhaps, just perhaps, you'll A) reconsider the "atrocity" that is the friend zone and B) relocate some day.
I hate men.