Futura Bold

Futura book sans-serif

Futura demi sans-serif

Futura extra-bold sans-serif

Futura heavy sans-serif

Futura light sans-serif

Futura medium sans-serif

Gaya

Femi sat on a podcast; calm, unbothered, apparently unaware of what was about to happen to his name on Nigerian Twitter, and said that when he first met his wife, Simi, he couldn't approach her because he was driving a rickety Avalon. Just said it. Out loud. Into a microphone. With his whole chest.

Not entirely about the car, though the Avalon did catch a few strays, because how dare you, first of all. An Avalon has never done anything to anybody, and rickety is a very strong word for a car that was simply living its truth. But the real outrage, the thing that sent people to their keyboards with purpose, was what he was actually saying. That he looked at a woman he liked and thought: not yet. That he felt unworthy. That he went away, sorted himself out, came back when he was ready, and then had the audacity to tell people about it on a podcast.

They got married, though. Full wedding, full happiness, full "we are in love, and we don't care who knows it" energy. Simi looked stunning. Femi looked like a man who had won something and the same people who called him a simp are now watching their wedding highlight reel on Instagram, and we are here to explore the debate and possibly put an end to it.

No really. What is it? Because at this point, the word has been used to describe so many things that it basically means nothing anymore. We are just pointing at men who have feelings and screaming it.

Originally, simping described <b>a man giving disproportionate energy, attention, and resources to a woman who genuinely did not care about him at all.</b>&nbsp;A man so deep in his feelings that he abandoned his dignity, his standards, and sometimes his account balance, for someone who saw him as an option at best. That was the simp. That was the original usage.

Then the internet got bored, and slowly, simping started to mean any man who compliments his girlfriend in public or adjusts his schedule for his partner or admits, in any setting, that a woman made him nervous, or any man who says "I couldn't approach her because I wasn't ready yet" and is honest about it on a podcast.

We have somehow arrived at a place where loving someone openly is a character flaw, and we are all just nodding along like this is normal. Like this makes sense. Like we did not build this from scratch and then hand it to men as a rule, they were supposed to follow forever.

When did vulnerability become embarrassing? Who decided that?

Oh, the lover boy is fine. The lover boy is goals. The lover boy plans dates, remembers things that matter, shows up, communicates, posts about his person and is attentive and present but how is this different from simping exactly?

We are genuinely asking. Because the behaviour, the actual, observable, physical behaviour, is almost identical. The attention is the same. The investment is the same. The effort is the same. The only difference, as far as we can see, is that the lover boy does all of this while somehow maintaining an air of cool. Like he loves you, but he is not consumed by you. Like he chooses you but you always feel slightly lucky that he does.

Which is just simping with better lighting and a more expensive outfit if we are being honest.

The real difference is not the behaviour. It is the reception. If she loves him back and the relationship looks good from the outside, he is a lover boy. If the optics are off, if she seems unbothered, if he makes the mistake of being vulnerable before he had his life fully together, suddenly he is a simp. We are not judging what he does. We are judging whether it worked and then pretending with straight faces that we were judging his character all along.

Femi Dapson was a simp when he told the Avalon story. He became a lover boy at the wedding. The man did not change. The outcome did.

Let's Talk About The Toxic Masculinity Sitting Right There In The Room

The reason simping exists as a concept, the reason we needed a whole word for men who love too visibly,&nbsp; is because we built masculinity around performing indifference. You are not supposed to want too badly. Not supposed to need too openly. You maintain leverage. You stay slightly unavailable. You make sure she knows you could leave, even if you have no intention of leaving&nbsp; because the moment she believes you're not going anywhere, apparently, you lose. And we call this having standards, not being desperate and knowing your worth.

What we are actually describing is the instruction to be emotionally dishonest as a dating strategy. To love in a way that protects your ego instead of building actual connection. To perform a cooler, more detached version of yourself because showing up as you actually are is apparently too risky and then we call the men who refuse to do this simps.

Do you see how mad that is? We built a culture that punishes emotional honesty in men and then act surprised when men don't know how to communicate. We told them vulnerability was weakness and then wondered why they showed up guarded. We created the simp label to shame men out of genuine affection and then wrote entire articles about why modern men are emotionally unavailable.

We did that. All of us, and because Femi Dapson refused to participate, he got called a simp for it.

The same women who say they want a man who isn't afraid to love them have, at some point, described a man who loved them too openly as suffocating. As giving them the ick. As coming on too strong. There is a man somewhere who sent a heartfelt paragraph text and got screenshotted into a group chat and torn apart by a group of women who also, by the way, claim they want better communication from men.

We have all been in that group chat. Some of us have been the one sending the screenshots. Let's be honest.

We say we want emotional availability, and then we make fun of it when it actually shows up. We say we want to be chosen and then find reasons to be suspicious of men who choose us too easily. We have been so conditioned to expect emotional games that genuine affection reads as a red flag and we have started calling that intuition.

It is not intuition. It is a pattern we learned from the same culture that invented the simp label and we need to sit with that.

Yes, technically. Real simping, the original definition, is about an imbalanced dynamic where one person has completely lost themselves in someone who doesn't value them. That is real. That happens. That is worth having a conversation about.

But that is not what we are calling simping anymore.

What we are calling simping now is any man who loves without performing indifference. Any man who shows up fully without making sure he looks like he could also not show up. Any man who tells a podcast he was nervous to approach a woman because his car felt like it wasn't enough and doesn't understand why that should be something to hide.

The lover boy and the simp are doing the same things. Genuinely. The only difference is the story around them, the outcome, the optics, whether she said yes, whether the internet approves. Strip all of that away, and you have two men who loved someone and showed it.

He is married. To Simi. They look, by every available metric, completely and irritatingly happy. He loved her before he felt ready, worked on himself quietly, came back, and she said yes, and somewhere out there, someone who called him a simp in is rewatching their wedding video and feeling something they are not going to examine too closely.

We are not saying every man who gets called a simp is actually a lover boy in disguise. We are saying the line between the two is a lot thinner than we pretend and that how we drew it says more about our issues with male vulnerability than it does about any individual man's behaviour.

If loving someone before you felt worthy of them is simping, then maybe simping was never the problem. Maybe the problem is a culture that decided you had to earn the right to love someone out loud.

Simping and being a lover boy look identical from the outside. The only difference is whether she said yes. We're unpacking the blurred line between the two and what it says about how we really feel about men who love out loud.

read more