Students demand monogamy-neutral Facebook status – mcb

Mariel Koons

As finals approached last term, many students took a significant portion of their study time to reevaluate their Facebook profiles.
During this hectic season of cramming for exams and writing papers, updating one’s profile becomes essential for self-reflection and remaining centered amidst the chaos.
Finding exactly the right song lyrics to reflect who one is becomes a time-consuming yet vitally necessary task.
However, some students have found these Internet “reflections” difficult due to the lack of options in the “Relationship Status” category. Many have discovered that the available choices don’t fully reflect the complicated nature of college relationships.
“Like, what if I’m hittin’ two chicks at the same time?” pondered a senior member of Delta Tau Delta, who wished to remain anonymous.
“I sure as hell want my friends to know about it — and isn’t my situation with each girl equally complicated? If I wanted to choose just one, I wouldn’t be sleeping with both.”
When asked if he didn’t think either of the two women involved would mind, he simply shrugged and responded, “Hey, they don’t have to approve it.”
One female Lawrentian, “Student 2”, is a self-declared “playa” and agrees with this statement. She’s coped with the lack of choices by simply removing her Facebook status altogether, but this option is not much more agreeable.
“I feel like I’m hiding who I am by not having a status,” she explained. “Plus, it would make it a lot easier to keep track of who I’m supposed to be booty-calling each night if I could have multiple relationships listed.”
Tragically, Student 2 is forced to keep track of her current hookups by writing them on her hand, her diligent record keeping destroyed every time she works the dish room in Downer.
While a growing number of students are expressing discontent over the relationship status options — among other similarly restricted Facebook features, such as the overly ambiguous “Poke” button — there is some disagreement over how they should be changed.
“Student 3,” a sophomore and prominent member of the College Republicans, is calling for some of the options to be removed.
“‘Open relationships are not relationships,” he rants. “And don’t even get me started on the ‘it’s complicated’ thing.”
To Student 3, a relationship is only valid if the ultimate goal is holy matrimony, and all other intentions are sinful. In addition, he believes that “there should also be a rule to stop all these girls from listing themselves as in relationships with each other.”
Such a feature, he explains, presents him with the ultimatum as to “whether I should still try to get them drunk, or just condemn them and look for a lady friend who isn’t so hot for the other gals.”
One such Facebook “couple,” sophomores Claire Rockett and Katherine Smith, defended their choice of being Facebook-“complicated.”
“We wouldn’t have to be “complicated” if Lawrence guys grew some balls and got a little more game than just rubbing against us at frat parties,” Smith declared.
“Yeah,” agreed Rockett, “going from Texan guys to the boys here was a pretty traumatic transition for me. It’s like they’ve never heard of the concept of dating.”
Smith and Rockett explain that their relationship is a social statement and a message to the male population: “If you don’t get your act together, we’re going to have to start doing each other.”
“Frat Boy 1” promptly inquired if the two girls desired “any company.”
Mark Zuckerberg’s representatives had no comment.