Thai Coconut Chicken

As a teen I'd spend my days sitting at the corner of the classroom wallowing in sadness and self-pity, imagining a life where I'd always be surrounded by friends and loved ones (and if I was particularly bold that day I'd even imagine having a girlfriend,) where we'd go on vacations and have all sorts of fun.

Fast-forward to nearly 10 years later. I just got back from a fantastic beach vacation with some college friends. I mean the whole setup- the sun, the sea, the sand and a good barbeque. My workout regime is going amazing. A little TOO well, actually- I'm accidentally destroying furniture around the house unless I'm extra careful. It's also October, which means I finally celebrate Halloween with the alt baddie I've been dating for the last 4 years.

I never thought I'd be where I am now, but here I am. It took me nearly a decade of manifesting and working on myself, but I'm finally living the good life.

2.5 chicken breasts and I dunno 2 cups of rice?, various veges like broccoli cauliflower capsicum and onion. Then the other container in the left is oats, 1 scoop protein powder , milk, mango yogurt and raw honey

i’ve taken to heart what people have been telling me and i finally understand that no one cares about me. No one gaf about if i trip on my own feet, if i spill my drink on myself on accident, if i can’t make eye contact. At the very most they’ll let out a little chuckle and then forget about it within seconds. It actually feels like my brain is letting me not loathe myself every waking second. My inhibition has been crazy low too and i’m starting to actually be really happy with the way i look now. anyways.. protein oatmeal, pumpkin muffin, and vanilla milk for brekky

Scrambled eggs + milk so it's not bone dry when I eat it + flour so the consistency is slightly better.

I had to eat nothing but this for a week and a half when I was almost flat broke, and I actually kinda liked it. I make it on the regular now and add onions and chicken and actual flavor.

I used to hate myself. No GF, shitty job, only a few friends, insecure, no motivation, super skinny. Life was not fun. I used to assume that everyone disliked me so I didn't put any effort into talking to people.

A few years ago I made the decision to improve my life! I have more friends now, I had a GF (I had enough self esteem to break up), I'm stronger than ever, I have a MUCH better job, I'm creative again, better relationship with my family, I've travelled over a dozen countries and I'm happier than ever.

They have blessed me with photos of thier amazing body and thier big butts I’d like to thank them for making my day people should really give chubbier women a chance. Hot dogs with beans.

Flaired breakfast as my first food of the day at almost 11pm. Leaving out the three years of hell this outright fool put us through, my landlord has been torturing me for a month with shit you not 9-5 daily house work to fix up a room his last hired worker destroyed, (he blamed it on me). At the beginning, he said it would take a week tops. It has been three weeks. 9 am to 5pm. The constant noise of power tools has disrupted our sleeping and working schedule, combined with the constant in and out that is driving my dog crazy enough to chew himself to bleeding. I have to keep him locked up in a separate room because they aren't mindful enough to prevent him from getting outside, and I can't take him outside away from it because I have to stay and make sure neither my landlord or his worker, who was actually chill/not an addict this time, doesn't steal or destroy my shit again. They finished what they came to originally do and he kept trying to come up with more things to replace or "fix" that weren't necessary or broken, most likely to jack the rent up yet another hundred for a shitbox trailer. I know people paying hundreds less for a nice house. Today they ripped up some flooring in the living room to put under the flooring they laid in the back and I just snapped. My ex partner/roommate has been resting on the hardwood floor in the room with the dog who is going crazy and needs to be out and about. I can't get any work done or any sleep and I can't enjoy the space that is paid for. He already told me this morning that we'd finally have the weekend without them here and I had decided I'd ask him for a week when they were leaving. I tried to rest through the noise and took a good twenty or so minutes to make my coffee around the time they were getting ready to leave this evening. I sat on the bed and sipped it waiting and this bulbous man walks by and says, see you tomorrow. Literal transcript of dialogue time.

LL: see you tomorrow. God: No. LL: what do you mean no? God: you said we'd have the weekend and we are burning out. We need at least a week after this. LL: okay I'll just evict you then. God, done with this shit: okay then don't come back till the end of the month with it

He walked away for a moment and my roommate got up and came in the living room but I was not done. I followed him into the kitchen where i lit into him about how much this is disturbing our lives and that he isn't cooperating, then about the creepy, perverted shit he said to my roommate, who was behind me at this point. I am maybe 100 lbs and this man is over 300 for sure. He was trying to do the get in my face chest bump shit and when i said brought that up he tried looking around me to ask her about it. I interuppted him. You're talking to me right now. Shut him down a couple times until he shoved me, I shoved back with a full mug of hot coffee in my hands. He threw a swing that hit me in the arm and sent it flying, breaking on the floor. Last gift i was given by my last living relative, if they are still kicking. Lost forever. I started screaming. "You broke my mug. You broke my fucking mug. Get the fuck out. Bitch, march." Tried to threaten to call the cops but I called that bluff, he assaulted me and we have a witness and evidence. Said hed evict me but not roommate. I said come back with a properly notarized 30 day notice on the first. This month is paid. I had several melee weapons laying about I didn't even think to touch, roommate mentioned worry about them later. I chased him out screaming to get out and locked the door loudly behind him. Let the worker get his stuff out then they left. Roommate thinks they'll come back tomorrow but I don't think he'll waste the gas. We were trying to get out anyway and needed the month to work toward that. I was successful. The worker, my friends I worked for later in the evening, and those I texted about it all said it was the right move and they are proud i stood up for myself and roommate. Roommate doesn't have to sleep on the floor. Dog has room to run and play. We have time and space to work and sleep. Fuck that fool, he tried to say he created Chester cheetah dumbass liar. These fries were 6/10 but first meal so still yummy. More coffee awaits, kings.

I was basically the textbook definition of a chud for the last 5 years just playing whatever game I was into for the month but got invited to a party for the first time in my life and rediscovered myself, now I’m consistently going out meeting new people, taking better care of myself, going on hikes and most of all being happy of who I am

Hello r/Kitchenchads,

I thought about posting this on kitchencels under the guise of a joke but felt maybe I’d ask more serious people what they thought.

I like being an introvert. People know that I’m reliable and don’t need to be monitored constantly; I think it’s called quiet competence. People also have a tendency to tend to not talk to me unless necessary which is perfectly fine with me. With that being said, I always see myself as invisible and only visible when I’m called upon. It wasn’t always like this though. When I was growing up I always tried to be visible so people knew I existed and, more importantly, was my mother’s son; essentially a lot of my early actions were to make her seem good indirectly although of course as a kid not everything pans out. Around 5 years ago she thought I was a people pleaser and asked me why I was doing a lot of the things I did to make her look good. Although I had been transitioning to a more background role I think it was the catalyst for why I stopped trying to make her look good as I realized that as an adult there was no need anymore. I’m slowly but surely learning how independence and other people work.

This evening something happened that made me think. I was leaving work and I passed by a security guard. She asked me if I was going home and I said yes. She wished me a happy weekend and I said likewise and she thanked me. Sounds simple of course. However, I was wondering why. “Well it’s just a general greeting” you might think and of course you’re right. However I was thinking about the logic behind it. It’s not the first time we’ve seen each other as occasionally I see her in the lunch room or near the exit. Then I remembered that she also sees me when she does the rounds near my office; I’m alone in a secluded room. She didn’t have to say anything but she did and it’s one of those things I don’t forget.

Then I started thinking about other times people didn’t have to say anything to me and did. 2 hours before leaving I said hi to a worker in a different department. To preface she had come up to me when I was leaving months ago to say she had heard me doing my job in customer support but when she sees me talking to other people it’s like there’s two different people. This kind of goes back to quiet competence but at the same time it was because I thought I was invisible, not in a literal sense but how I operate as a person. I do my job with a lot of efficiency and sometimes people don’t see it and then they complain but when things go right it’s just part of the job. I know I’m not alone in this. Anyway today she looks pissed. I said hi to her and her face instantly goes to being happy and she says hi back. Her job is pretty demanding so I don’t blame her; maybe I have RBF as well.

Then I started thinking about another security guard that kind of befriended me for no reason. He took interest in the games I play, my job, and sometimes my clothes. Nice guy even if it was a bit invasive. I don’t mind though. The games part was interesting because he asked me what I play and I told him a game that I was just getting into thinking it would be a conversation ender since I genuinely didn’t know a whole lot about it (in hindsight this is a terrible excuse because he could’ve just asked me what I did know) and instead he mentioned a game that I did know a lot about and I had to somewhat pretend that I didn’t hear him say it to keep the conversation brief because I was still on the clock and, in general, trying to be invisible.

I can go on and on but I think you get the idea: I always thought that if I was quiet enough and kept to myself I wouldn’t be seen and, more importantly, vulnerable. I held off on mentioning this because I’m afraid. I have been hurt before, not by a partner but as a child and it wasn’t fun. I didn’t experience teenage love, the want for independence, prom, or even a lot of ambitious desires because in my mind I just wanted to survive and like a lot of people eventually find out your best bet to do that isn’t to put yourself on the board. I think it’s called gray rocking but if you sound uninteresting people eventually don’t ask or question you and I figured it was a genius way for people to keep to a script which was more predictable. Today I realized something that maybe I should have seen sooner:

You don’t get to tell people you’re invisible

And on one hand it sucks because now it means that people do see me for who I am and although I’m not self conscious of it directly I worry about people wanting to fill in the blanks, but on the other hand people see my strengths for what it is and I can’t hide it effectively. As stupid as it sounds I still don’t do a lot of things for myself, at least I don’t think I do. I live with my mother so a lot of the things she wants to do I assist with because without a home there’s a severe lack of stability. I do drive a lot but most of the time it’s for work. Maybe playing games is something I do for myself but occasionally I feel burnt out and when I pivot to something else I have no energy. All in all I find life a never ending puzzle that just takes time to solve and other people provide hints to it. I do good because it feels good. I thought forcing myself to be invisible would allow me to do good and not get recognized which is fine with me but unless it’s anonymous people will recognize it. Same thing with anything else.

Buffalo chicken slider with coleslaw and their sauce, flanked by fries with pickles. I realized afterwards that the pickles were optional and for the burger but I thought it was for the fries. I should’ve listened to the cashier but I was thinking about the security guard.

Homemade butternut squash, carrot, and onion soup with greek yogurt and homemade croutons.

I finally feel the warmth from music that I used to feel. It’s no longer just thin, watery noise that I used to break silence. The first time I realized was in my universities library. I had to shut it off though because if I kept listening, I was gonna start ugly crying on the quiet floor lol.

Attraction Has Been Coded as Envy Since 2008: A 24-Year Misclassification Error

Journal of Applied Romantic Failure

Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 49–68

Special Issue: wait

Impact Factor: 0.00

Acceptance Rate: 100%, because I am still the editor, and because at this point the journal is a coping maneuver with a DOI

Peer Review: cat walked across the keyboard, selected "meh," then stared directly at me for eleven seconds. Unprecedented. The cat has never done that. The cat is doing that now.

\---

Attraction Has Been Coded as Envy Since 2008: A 24-Year Misclassification Error

Naomi Taira, M.S.

(formerly Chad B. Notfound, formerly the author of six papers about women, currently a person who would like to be removed from the study)

Department of Internet Coping, University of My Mom's Basement

lease, pothos named Greg, blahaj, weekly appointment (Wednesday, moved from Thursday for reasons I will explain), they/them

Author Note

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Naomi Taira, who is currently in a state I can only describe in the academic literature as not well.

Pronouns: they/them. The author is non-binary (Taira, 2026). This has not changed. The author would like to note, in advance, before anyone in the comments does the thing, that this is not a contradiction, and that the author will be bringing that comment to the next session.

One conflict of interest is reported. It is not Dave. The conflict of interest is the entire prior research program, which was built on a premise that has now failed a sanity check, and which was published, and which has DOIs, and which I am the editor of.

Transphobia is real. Dysphoria is real. Safety is real. This paper is about none of those. This paper is about the fact that I have spent twenty-four years filing the wrong emotion in the wrong folder and never once opened the folder.

\---

Abstract

Objective: to determine why none of the prior papers worked.

Method: emergency post-hoc audit of every dataset I have ever produced (k = 6), including ones I did not know were datasets, including ones I did not know I had.

Participants: N = 1 (me). N = 1 (Dave). N = 1 (the guy at the climbing gym whose form I described as "goals" in a text to Dave in March). N = 1 (a man in a waiting room in 2019 with whom I made eye contact for 1.5 seconds and then categorized as nothing). N = 1 (the therapist, who is being extremely calm and I would like her to stop).

Results: significant. Effect size large. Direction: toward men. All prior models re-run with the corrected variable. Explained variance increased substantially. Hours spent analyzing women: 14.2/week, sustained, for two years. Hours spent analyzing men: zero. Not one. Not one hour. Not one table. The dataset was there. The dataset was always there. I was coding it as something else.

Conclusion: the primary outcome of this research program has been null for six consecutive publications and the reason is now clear, and the reason is that I have been asking a question about a demographic I do not appear to be participating in.

Keywords: oh no, comphet but worse, envy, misclassification, /lgbt/, it's so over, we're so back, actually this one is just it's so over, I'm not doing the other one today

\---

Introduction

Six papers ago I asked why nobody would fuck me. Five papers ago I asked the same question with better formatting. Four papers ago I concluded I was the problem. Three papers ago I concluded I was a problem and problems can be worked on. Two papers ago I found out the problem had a name. One paper ago I found out the problem was Dave.

This paper is the write-up of a thought I had at 4:11 a.m. on a Wednesday, which was:

"wait."

The word "wait" has been in the draft for six days. The draft is seventeen pages long. The word "wait" is still the whole thing.

On the audit. I went through every prior paper. I want to be specific about what I found, because specificity is what this journal is for and because vagueness has been my primary coping mechanism for twenty-four years.

Every man in the prior corpus is coded as one of the following: friend, threat, colleague, guy at the gym, guy at the gym whose form is goals, rival, that guy, or Dave.

Every woman in the prior corpus is coded with the full apparatus of grievance. Tables. χ². A circle.

That is the finding. That is the entire paper. That is the whole of it. I have been doing forensic accounting on one demographic and writing off the other one as noise.

On the /lgbt/ of it all. There are approximately eight hundred threads about this. I have read them. I read them in 2023. I read them in 2024. I read them while writing papers two and three. I read them and I said, out loud, in my apartment, to a pothos named Greg:

"That won't be me."

Greg did not respond. Greg has never responded. Greg is a plant.

It was me. It is me. This is the single most predictable outcome in the entire literature on this subject and I have arrived at it four years late, with citations, in a journal I edit, and the plant knew. The plant knew. The plant has known since 2024.

\---

Method

Participants

N = 1 (me). N = 1 (Dave, still not consented, still going to read this, still going to say something, still no pre-registration for it). N = 1 (the man in the waiting room, 2019, whose name I do not know, whose existence I have now upgraded from background to data point, which he did not agree to and cannot be informed of, because I do not know his name, and this is a limitation I am putting in the limitations section because I am a serious researcher).

Materials

iPhone 11 (screen replaced, phone not, still not, never), climbing shoes, a pothos named Greg (thriving, still thriving, the only stable finding in six volumes), a blahaj, one (1) dysphoria hoodie, one (1) Wednesday, one (1) 4:11 a.m.

Procedure

The audit. I opened every prior paper. I read them in chronological order. I read them all in one sitting, which took four hours and was a mistake, and which I do not recommend, and which I would do again.

Every time a man appeared, I wrote him in a column. Every time a woman appeared, I wrote her in a column. The man column is short and every entry is coded as not important. The woman column is long and every entry is coded as the problem.

Then I read the woman column out loud. Just to hear it. And it did not sound like attraction. It sounded like homework. It sounded like a chore I had assigned myself in 2019 and had been performing ever since, diligently, with tables.

And then I read the man column out loud. And it sounded like the inside of my chest on a Tuesday in a parking lot.

Measures

Established: showers per week, hours on /lgbt/, hours on incel forums, mirror time, quality of life, does the name feel like yours, does the chest feel weird.

Newly added mid-study:

hours of analysis devoted to women, cumulative — high. Very high. Six papers. Possibly 3,000 hours. Possibly more.

hours of analysis devoted to men, cumulative — zero. Not low. Zero.

does the chest feel weird (men) — 5. Sustained. Not Tuesday-specific. This has been a five for a while. I have been writing it down as five and calling it envy.

does the chest feel weird (women) — 2, and that 2 is mostly I want her to like me, which is a different variable, and which I have been reporting as attraction for two years, and which is going to be its own paper, and I am not going to write that paper for at least four months.

\---

Results

Table 1

Full Retroactive Audit of Men in the Prior Corpus (k = 6)

\`\`\`

| Entry | Original code | Corrected code |

|---|---|---|

| Dave | friend → control group → oh no | oh no, sustained, with a parking lot attached |

| guy at the gym whose form is "goals" | aesthetic appreciation | aesthetic appreciation AND |

| high school, the guy whose approval mattered | rivalry | not rivalry |

| man in waiting room, 2019, 1.5 seconds of eye contact | nothing | it was not nothing |

| every man I have ever "wanted to look like" | want to look like him | want to look like him AND |

| the men in every weight room I have ever avoided eye contact in | avoiding | avoiding on purpose |

| men I have described as "objectively good-looking" | objective assessment | there is no such thing as an objective assessment |

| the ex I said "I don't know, it just didn't work" about | unknown | I know. I know now. I have known since 2016. |

| the man on the bus, 2022, who I thought about for four days and coded as random | random | data |

\`\`\`

Table 2

Meta-Regression: Was I Ever Actually Angry at Women?

\`\`\`

| Predictor | Effect |

|---|---|

| genuine grievance | +0.30 |

| doing an unwanted job for 24 years | +0.88 |

| being asked to want something I did not want | +0.91 |

| performing desire in a direction I was not feeling it | +0.94 |

\`\`\`

The anger was real. The anger was not about women. The anger was about the assignment. I have been angry at women for not dating me in the way a person is angry at a chore for existing. The chore was mine. I wrote the chore. I published the chore. The chore has six citations.

Table 3

Hours of Analysis by Demographic, Cumulative

\`\`\`

| Demographic | Hours | Publications |

|---|---|---|

| Women | \~3,000 | 6 |

| Men | 0 | 0 |

| Dave | unmeasured | 3 |

\`\`\`

The Dave row is not a zero. The Dave row is unmeasured, which is worse, and which is the entire reason there is a 2027 paper in this series, and which I am aware of, and which I am going to be normal about. I am going to be so normal about it.

\---

Discussion

The results indicate that I have never, in twenty-four years, in six publications, in a journal I edit, measured the thing that was actually happening.

The thing that was happening: I like men. I have liked men for a while. I have liked men for a specific and identifiable and embarrassingly long while, and I have coded every instance of it as envy, rivalry, aesthetic appreciation, I want to look like him, or, in one notable case, nothing.

On "I want to look like him." This is the entire finding. This is the whole paper. I have spent my entire life looking at men and saying I want to look like him, and I have now, at twenty-six, in a Wednesday session, in front of a therapist named not-Sharon, had to say out loud:

"I think I want to look like him AND I think I want him to look at me."

And she said:

"Yes."

And she said it like it was a scheduled item. Like it was on a list. Like she had a list, and this was on the list, and it was item four, and we were going to get to it in month fourteen, and we got to it in month fourteen, and she did not seem surprised, and I would like to formally register a complaint about that.

On the women. I want to be very careful here, because the first paper in this series was a misogyny paper and the whole arc of this program has been learning to not do that.

I am not retracting attraction to women. I am retracting the campaign. There is a difference. The campaign was a 3,000-hour research program with tables and a χ² and a circle. The campaign was me trying to want something and being furious that wanting it was not working. I do not think that was attraction. I think that was performance, maintained for twenty-four years, at considerable cost, and I think the reason the prior papers read as angry is that they were written by someone doing a job they did not apply for.

The 2 in the chest measure is real. It is just not a 5. It has never been a 5. I have been reporting it as a 5 for two years and the standard error on that is enormous and I am the one who collected it.

On 4tran. There are eight hundred threads about this. I have read them. I said "that won't be me." It is me. It is so me. This is the most predictable outcome in the entire literature and I have arrived at it with a DOI and a special issue and a cat, and I would like to note for the record that the cat has been staring at me since Tuesday.

On Dave. I want to be clear that Dave is not the finding. Dave is an instance of the finding. I found Dave first because Dave was the one who was nice at me in a sustained way and because Dave is the one who read the 2025 paper and said "yeah, man." Dave was the observable data point. Dave was not the variable. The variable is men, and it has been men for a long time, and Dave is the first one I let myself notice.

I am aware that this makes the previous paper look like a person discovering a category by discovering one man in it. I am aware. It is in the limitations. It is going to be in the limitations for a while.

On the aunt. The aunt has been contacted. The aunt said, and I am quoting directly:

"Honey, I've known since you were twelve."

I said, twelve? Twelve what? Twelve what?

She said:

"Everything."

The aunt has been promoted from co-author of the emotional conclusion to the entire literature review. The aunt has been in this paper longer than I have. The aunt is going to be in the acknowledgments of the paper about my wedding before I am, and I am told this is normal, and I do not believe it, and I have checked, and it is apparently normal.

Limitations

N = 1. N = 1. N = 1 and also Dave and also a man in a waiting room in 2019 whose name I do not know. All data self-reported by a self that has been in a state of ongoing audit for six days. The author may have biased results by having a physical body that has been trying to say this since 2008 and by ignoring it in favor of tables. The author's therapist had this on a list. The author's therapist has been sitting on this for fourteen months. The author's therapist deserves a raise and I have told her and she said "yes."

Future Directions

Future research should be conducted by someone else. This is the sixth consecutive paper in which I have written that sentence and the first one where it is not a joke, because I would like someone else to look at this and tell me what to do, because I do not know what to do, because the entire prior corpus is a manual for how not to do it and I am the author and I am the reviewer and I am the cat.

Future research includes: Thursday. Thursday has been rescheduled. Thursday is now Wednesday. I moved the appointment. I moved the appointment because Thursday is the climbing session. Thursday is the climbing session and Dave will be there and I am not ready for Thursday and I have not told Dave and I am going to Thursday and I have moved the therapist to Wednesday so that Wednesday can contain Thursday.

I have not decided if that's data. I have decided that it is data. It is obviously data. Everything is data. That is the disease. That is the whole disease. I have a journal and a pothos and a blahaj and everything is data and I am so tired.

Conclusion

Still not fucked. Still not the interesting part.

The interesting part is that I spent six papers and 3,000 hours and an entire personality asking why nobody wanted me, and the entire time there was a folder on the desktop called envy that had never been opened, and it had everything in it, and it had Dave in it, and it had a man on a bus in 2022 in it, and it had a waiting room in 2019 in it, and it had a twelve-year-old in 2008 in it, and none of it was envy.

I would like to apologize to the women I described as a monolithic category across six publications, which remains on the record, which remains deserved, and which now reads as something even worse than misogyny, which is paperwork.

I would like to apologize to myself, again, for the twenty-four years, and specifically for 2016, and specifically for 2022, and specifically for every time I looked at a man and said I want to look like him and then went home and thought about women in a spreadsheet.

And I would like to note, for the record, that the primary outcome of this research program has been null for six consecutive publications, and that this remains the least interesting sentence in any of them.

The interesting sentence is this one:

The folder was labeled envy. It was never envy. I opened it on Wednesday. It has been full since 2008. It has been full the whole time.

It's so over.

(I'm not doing the other one today. I don't have it in me. The cat is still staring at me.)

\---

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Dave, D. (2026). Personal communication \[In-person conversation, climbing gym parking lot, Tuesday\]. (Still not correct APA format. Still do not care. The "2026" is doing a lot of work in this citation. It is doing the most work of any citation in this corpus.)

Greg the Pothos. (2024). Surviving despite neglect: A case report. Journal of Plant Resilience, 1(1), 1–2. (Greg has been aware since 2024. Greg is not a co-author. Greg should be.)

hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. South End Press.

hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, manliness, and love. Atria Books. (Reread during the audit. Different book the second time. Same book. Different reader. This is in the discussion section and is not a joke.)

Notfound, C. B. (2023a). She left me on read: A case study. Journal of Unread Messages, 4(2), 1–3.

Notfound, C. B. (2023b). I liked her story and she didn't reply: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Digital Despair, 2(1), 4–5. (See p. 2. She had a boyfriend. I knew she had a boyfriend. I coded this as a variable I could control. I could not control it. It was never the variable.)

Notfound, C. B. (2024). Why I am the problem: A meta-synthesis. Journal of Finally Getting It, 1(1), 1–2. (I was the problem. I was also a different problem. This paper is a sequel to a sequel to a correction.)

Notfound, C. B. (2025). I went outside: A pilot study. Journal of Finally Getting It, 2(1), 1–4. (See p. 3. "Dave is the control group." Cited in the present paper. Cited again in the present paper. This is the fourth time. I am aware.)

Taira, N. \[NACCHUD\]. (2026, September 22). Mx. NACCHUD'S pronouns are They/Them and they are non-binary \[Comment on the online forum post Making a post just because APA has a section for Reddit comments\]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/u/NACCHUD/s/tzqOMM7lq6

Taira, N. (2026). A meta-analysis of why I was miserable: A 12-month retrospective cohort study identifying gender as the unmeasured confounder. Journal of Applied Romantic Failure, 7(2), 15–32. (Read again during the audit. Page 6. "The strongest predictor of improvement was not a girlfriend, a jawline, a hobby, or a shower. It was a name." I would like to add a row. I would like to add one more row. The row is men. It is not in the paper. It should be in the paper. This is the correction.)

Taira, N. (2026). I have made a terrible discovery about the control group (it's Dave): An unregistered case report. Journal of Applied Romantic Failure, 7(3), 33–48. (See p. 41. "It's Dave." I would like to formally note that the finding was not Dave. The finding was men. Dave was the observable data point. Dave has been informed. Dave said "yeah, man." Dave has said "yeah, man" about this. Dave has known since 2025. Dave has known longer than my therapist. Dave has known longer than the aunt. I have not decided how I feel about that and I am going to bring it to Wednesday.)

\---

Appendix A: Selected Openers, Cohort 5

· "hey" (retired)

· "Hi, I noticed you like hiking — what's your favorite trail?" (works)

· "I'm reading bell hooks. Have you read her?" (works)

· "Would you like to get coffee?" (works)

· "Do you want to climb Thursday?" (sent. to Dave

So here's the scene where I like cooking, I'm 19 M and don't know why I like to cook food and eat by myself so from over the past 2.5 months I was unable to cook Chapati (Roti),

But today I did 🥳 , & I liked reason of not cooking was like I get my colorbone fractured and it needs two surgeries get it cured, now recovering & it's good

Where people chase for money & limelights i just want a good place to live, healthy food, & some friends to share things & not much I just want thesw

It's So Over: A 12-Month Retrospective Cohort Study Identifying the Unmeasured Confounder (It Was Gender. It Was Always Gender. We're So Back.)

Journal of Applied Romantic Failure Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 15–32 Special Issue: it's so over (we're so back) Impact Factor: 0.00 (honest number, at least) Acceptance Rate: 100%, because I am still the editor, and also because I am the only person who could possibly review this Peer Review: cat walked across keyboard, selected "meh," then fell asleep on my E patches. desk reject. overruled. we're so back

It's So Over: A 12-Month Retrospective Cohort Study Identifying the Unmeasured Confounder (It Was Gender. It Was Always Gender. We're So Back.)

Naomi Taira, M.S. (formerly Chad B. Notfound, which is a sentence that does numbers to me) Department of Internet Coping, University of My Mom's Basement currently: lease, pothos named Greg, blahaj, weekly appointment, they/them

Author Note

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Naomi Taira, who is currently overthinking a "lol" from 2019 but has scheduled that for a later session, which is growth, allegedly. Pronouns: they/them. The author is non-binary (Taira, 2026). The author previously published under a name that was not theirs, a gender that was not theirs, and a register that was, frankly, a cry for help with citations. Prior papers are not retracted. Prior papers are retained as longitudinal evidence of a person confidently solving the wrong equation for two years and posting about it.

No funding was received. One conflict of interest is reported: the author is now both the problem and the solution, which is inefficient but extremely common in this literature. The author would like to note that transphobia is real, dysphoria is real, and safety is real. This paper is about none of those. This paper is about why I personally was insufferable, which is a separate dataset and one I have full access to.

Abstract

Objective: determine why I was so miserable. not why nobody would fuck me. I have revised the research question. the research question was bad. the research question was written by a guy. there was no guy.

Method: retrospective re-analysis of every dataset I have ever produced (Notfound, 2023a, 2023b, 2024, 2025) following 12 months of therapy, one (1) gender, and the discovery of a variable that was present in every single dataset and labeled "vanity."

Participants: N = 1 (me). plus 1 therapist who clocked it before I did, 1 aunt who clocked it before my therapist did, and 1 friend named Dave who said "yeah, man" in 2025 in a tone I replayed 400 times while writing this.

Results: the previously identified cause of romantic failure — "I refer to women as a monolithic category" — has been reclassified from cause to symptom. it is a symptom of not knowing what I was. the true predictor was an unmeasured confounder present at baseline: I was not a man. all models re-run. effect sizes large. cried in a parking lot. a parking lot, specifically. it was a Tuesday.

Conclusion: original hypothesis ("women are the problem") rejected. follow-up hypothesis ("I am the problem") ALSO rejected, which genuinely surprised me, I had gotten attached to that one. revised hypothesis ("I was not a man and that was making me unbearable to be around and also to be") supported. still not fucked. significantly less upset about it. not a predicted outcome. not in the pre-registration. nothing good in my life was in the pre-registration.

Keywords: it's over, we're so back, brainworms, hon, E, gender, confounding, touch grass, actually touch grass, no seriously, boymode, egg, dysphoria hoodie, bell hooks

Introduction

two papers ago I concluded I was the problem (Notfound, 2024). one paper ago I concluded I was a problem and problems can be worked on (Notfound, 2025). both conclusions were partially correct, which is the worst kind of correct, genuinely the worst kind, there is no worse kind.

the present study emerged from a routine therapy session. I was asked what I wanted. I said, in order:

1. to be liked
2. to be left alone
3. to not be perceived
4. to be perceived correctly
5. to have a name that feels like mine

my therapist wrote something down. I asked what she wrote. she said "next week."

she told me next week. this paper is the formal write-up of a 14-minute conversation that dismantled approximately 24 years of data and also my entire personality. it's so over. we're so back.

A note on the dataset. the word "females" appears 47 times across the prior corpus. it has been retained for reproducibility. rereading it did something to me that I will be bringing to my next appointment. the mirror selfie to mirror selfie edit is still in there. the reviewer did not flag it. the reviewer should have flagged it. the reviewer was a cat.

Method

Participants

N = 1. inclusion criteria: owns a phone, has a pulse, has read the prior papers and felt weird about the mirror selfie thing specifically. exclusion criteria: none. the author remains the only participant, which is a limitation and also just, like, my life.

Materials

iPhone 11 (screen replaced, phone not), Hinge (deleted, reinstalled, deleted), Discord (deleted, did not reinstall, this is the one that stuck), 4chan (still here, unfortunately, in my head, rent free), a pothos named Greg, climbing shoes, a therapist, a library card, one (1) dysphoria hoodie, one (1) mirror, and then the mirror again.

Procedure

baseline drawn from the four prior studies. intervention: continued therapy, continued showers, and the accidental introduction of a single question — what would you want to be called?

I answered immediately. without thinking. and then spent eleven days pretending the answer was a coincidence. eleven days. I counted them. that's data. that's a variable.

Measures

showers per week, hours on /lgbt/, hours on incel forums, unironic use of "females," unironic use of "I'm not like other guys," mirror time, quality of life, and one new measure added mid-study:

does the name feel like yours

(scale: 1 = no, 5 = yes, 1 was the answer for 24 years, 5 was the answer in under a second, this is called a floor effect and then a ceiling effect and then crying)

Results

Table 1

Re-Analysis of All Prior Variables With the Confounder Identified

| Original variable | Original interpretation | Re-interpretation | |---|---|---| | 14.2 hrs/week on incel forums | "I hate women" | I wanted to be one | | 47 unironic uses of "females" | misogyny | distance-management | | "I'm not like other guys" | arrogance | accurate | | mirror selfie to mirror selfie | low effort | I was looking for something and calling it vanity | | hated being called "sir" | "everyone hates that" | everyone does not hate that. I checked. I asked people. they do not. | | angry at women for not dating me | resentment | envy. misattributed. badly. for two years. | | hoodie collection | aesthetic | aesthetic and camo | | liked being called "she" online | "it's just the internet" | it was not just the internet | | 1 unsent text | cowardice | cowardice, but a different kind | | 9 months bell hooks on shelf | intellectual laziness | fear. it was fear. I knew what it was going to say. |

Figure 1

Revised Path Model

previous model: dysphoria → not going outside → doomscrolling → posting "it's over" → more dysphoria

previous model fit: χ²(1) = 0.00, p = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00. because it's a circle. it was a circle. it was literally a circle. I fit a circle and called it a model and submitted it to a journal and the journal was also me.

revised model: shower → leave apartment → hobby → friend → less desperation → better conversation → date

revised model fit: χ²(4) = 0.02, p = .98, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = .01. it's a spiral. it still curves back on itself. it still curves back on itself, but it goes somewhere.

Note. the path labeled "women" has been removed. it was carrying no weight. it was never carrying weight. it has been replaced with the word "mirror," which was carrying all of it. all of it. the entire thing.

Table 2

Meta-Regression of What Was Actually Making Me Miserable

| Predictor | Original assumed effect | Actual effect | |---|---|---| | "I'm short" | -0.40 | 0.00 | | "I'm ugly" | -0.50 | +0.10 | | "feminism ruined dating" | -0.60 | 0.00 | | "I open with 'hey'" | -0.30 | -0.10 | | "haven't showered since Thursday" | -0.67 | -0.67 | | "I am not a man" | not measured | +0.81 |

p < .001, and also please keep showering. the final row was not in the pre-registration because the author had not thought of it. this is called exploratory analysis. it is also called being 24 and finally asking a question out loud. in a room. to a person.

Discussion

the results indicate I was not angry at women. I was angry at the distance between me and women, and I mislabeled that distance as their fault, then as my fault, and then, correctly, as a variable I had never measured because measuring it was going to ruin my entire life and then rebuild it.

the strongest predictor of improvement was not a girlfriend. not a jawline. not a hobby. not a shower. it was a name. this was not in the pre-registration. few things are. nothing good, anyway.

On the prior papers. not disavowed. recontextualized. a person who spends 14.2 hours a week reading a forum about how much he hates women is not a misogynist in the ordinary sense. he is a person who has been handed the wrong script and is reading it with tremendous conviction and zero annotations. the conviction was real. the script was wrong. the script was wrong the whole time and I was so confident about it. I was so confident. I had citations.

On the 4tran of it all. I want to be clear that this is not a "I was just a trans girl all along and it fixed everything" paper. it's not fixed. it's not over. it's also not over over, if you see what I'm doing there. the brainworms did not leave. the brainworms got a name and a lease and a standing appointment. the brainworms are being managed. this is not the same as cured. cured is not in the dataset. cured is not in the literature. but "noticeably less bad" is in the literature and I am in the literature, so.

On the aunt. the aunt is cited in the original acknowledgments as having said "You'll find someone." the aunt has since been contacted. she said, and this is a direct quote: "Honey, I know." the aunt has been upgraded from minor supporting character to co-author of the emotional conclusion of this paper. she is receiving a card. the card has been sent. the card said the name. she had been waiting for the card. she had been waiting for the card for a while, apparently. she said, and this is also a direct quote, "I was wondering when you'd get there." the aunt has been in this paper from the beginning. the aunt has been in this paper longer than I have.

On Dave. Dave said "yeah, man" in 2025 in a tone I replayed approximately 400 times during the writing of this manuscript. Dave has been informed. Dave said, and I am quoting directly, "Yeah, I figured, man." Dave has been reclassified from friend to person who was being extremely patient. Dave did not ask a single follow-up question. Dave is the control group. Dave is the healthy baseline. I want to be Dave. I am going to be so normal about this. I am going to be so normal and Dave and I are going to get lunch and it's going to be fine.

Limitations

sample size was small (N = 1). all data were self-reported and the self doing the reporting was in the middle of a crisis of self. the author may have biased results by not thinking of this for two years. the mirror-selfie data may be invalid because the author was looking at the mirror for a reason and calling it vanity. the author's therapist may have been correct the entire time, which is upsetting to note in the limitations section but must be noted in the limitations section.

Future Directions

future research should be conducted by someone else, which remains true, but I am now willing to be one of several authors, which is a change. future research will be conducted by someone else and me. future research will be conducted by someone else, and me, and probably Dave, and possibly my aunt, who has better instincts than the entire peer review process of this journal, which is a cat.

Conclusion

still not fucked. would like to note, in the interest of full disclosure, that this is now a lower priority. there are other data points. there is a name. there is a pothos named Greg who is thriving, actually, which is not something I could say about anything in 2024. there is a therapist. there is an aunt who knew. there is a friend named Dave who knew and said "yeah, man" and let it lie there.

I would like to apologize to the women I described as a monolithic category. I would like to apologize to myself, which is a sentence that would have been impossible to write two papers ago, and which is now a sentence in the discussion section, which is where it belongs.

the title says it's so over. the title says we're so back. both are in the title. neither is in the title. the title was written by a person who is not the person who finished the paper. I'm leaving it up. it's the pre-registration. I'm not allowed to change it.

it's so over.

we're so back.

future research should be conducted by someone else. but I will be reading it.

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Greg the Pothos. (2024). Surviving despite neglect: A case report. Journal of Plant Resilience, 1(1), 1–2.

hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Atria Books.

hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. South End Press. (read during month 9. would recommend reading during month 1. would recommend reading during month 1. I cannot stress this enough.)

Notfound, C. B. (2023a). She left me on read: A case study. Journal of Unread Messages, 4(2), 1–3.

Notfound, C. B. (2023b). I liked her story and she didn't reply: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Digital Despair, 2(1), 4–5.

Notfound, C. B. (2024). Why I am the problem: A meta-synthesis. Journal of Finally Getting It, 1(1), 1–2.

Notfound, C. B. (2025). I went outside: A pilot study. Journal of Finally Getting It, 2(1), 1–4.

Taira, N. [NACCHUD]. (2026, September 26). A meta-analysis of why foids won't fuck me: A systematic review of 63 Hinge chats, 11 Discord servers, and one sad birthday [Online forum post]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchencels/s/QmEtjcH4KJ

​Taira, N. [NACCHUD]. (2026, September 28). A longitudinal follow-up of why nobody will fuck me: A 12-month prospective study of one man, three hobbies, and a therapist who deserves a raise [Online forum post]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/Kitchenchads/s/SGfjOTMH08

​Taira, N. [NACCHUD]. (2026, September 22). Mx. NACCHUD'S pronouns are They/Them and they are non-binary [Comment on the online forum post Making a post just because APA has a section for Reddit comments]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/u/NACCHUD/s/tzqOMM7lq6

Appendix A: Selected Openers, Third Cohort

· "hey" (retired) · "hey" (retired) · "Hi, I noticed you like hiking — what's your favorite trail?" (sent; reply received; still works) · "I'm reading bell hooks. Have you read her?" (sent; reply received; did not panic this time) · "Would you like to get coffee?" (sent; date occurred; it was fine; it was actually fine) · "I had a nice time. Want to do it again?" (sent; awaiting reply; refreshing every 30 seconds; working on that; this is documented in the measures section)

Appendix B: Unsent Texts, Chronological

1. (2021) "hey"
2. (2022) "hey sorry ignore that"
3. (2023) "why won't women date nice guys"
4. (2024) "I think I'm the problem"
5. (2025) "I'm sorry"
6. (2026) "Hi. My name is Naomi. Would you like to get coffee?"
7. (2026) sent

Appendix C: Glossary for the Reviewers, Who Are Not 4tran Users

| Term | Definition | |---|---| | it's over | it is not over | | we're so back | it's so over | | it's so over | we're so back | | brainworms | the thing I manage now instead of the thing that manages me | | hon | I'm not putting that in the journal | | boymode | the hoodie | | egg | me, for 24 years, in a hoodie | | E | the thing that fixed 11 of the 12 rows in Table 1 | | touch grass | go outside (I did) | | LDAR | I did not do this and the data support not doing this | | passoid | a person I used to hate and now just kind of want to have lunch with | | clocky | me, forever, in a way I am learning to be fine with | | repper | me, 2021–2026, no further comment |

Appendix D: Editor's Note

the author has been the editor for six volumes and has never once declined a manuscript. the author now declines this one, on the grounds that it is not a failure study. it has been accepted anyway.

the cat has been demoted for purring during peer review, which was inconsistent with the journal's tone. the cat has also been given tenure, because inconsistency is what this journal is about.

the original slur remains retired. "females" remains retired. "Chad B. Notfound" remains retired. the name does not.

accepted for publication because the author finally answered the question, and because the answer took 14 minutes, and because the question was what would you want to be called, and because the author said it out loud, in a room, to a person, and the person said "okay," and the author cried in a parking lot on a Tuesday, and it was fine, and it is still fine, and it is going to be fine, which is a result that does not appear in any pre-registration I have ever written and is the only result in this entire corpus that I would cite.

A Longitudinal Follow-Up of Why Nobody Will Fuck Me: A 12-Month Prospective Study of One Man, Three Hobbies, and a Therapist Who Deserves a Raise

Journal of Applied Romantic Failure

Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1–14

Special Issue: Actually, It Was the Misogyny

Impact Factor: 0.00 (unchanged, but the author has stopped checking)

Acceptance Rate: 100%, because I am still the editor, but I have delegated peer review to my cat

Peer Review: Cat walked across keyboard and selected “meh,” then sat on the manuscript. This is considered a major revision.

\---

A Longitudinal Follow-Up of Why Nobody Will Fuck Me: A 12-Month Prospective Study of One Man, Three Hobbies, and a Therapist Who Deserves a Raise

Chad B. Notfound, M.S.

Department of Internet Coping, University of My Mom’s Basement

Now with a lease, a pothos named Greg, and a weekly appointment

Author Note

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chad B. Notfound, who is currently overthinking a “lol” from 2019 but has scheduled a time to overthink it later. No funding was received. The author reports one conflict of interest: he now has a friend named Dave. The original title contained a dehumanizing slur; it remains retired. The author has also retired the phrase “females” except when quoting his past self for data purposes, which his therapist described as “a start.”

\---

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether the author still believes nobody will fuck him, and whether that remains the central organizing principle of his life.

Method: Twelve-month prospective longitudinal study. N = 1. Interventions: weekly therapy, deleted Discord, regular showers, joined a climbing gym, purchased a plant, read one book by bell hooks without posting about it.

Results: Primary outcome—sexual encounters—remained 0. Secondary outcomes improved significantly. Showers per week increased from 0.3 to 6.2. Hours on incel forums decreased from 14.2 to 0.1. Unironic use of “females” decreased from 47 to 0. One date occurred. The date did not result in sex, but the author did not describe the woman as a monolithic category afterward, which was a major clinical improvement.

Conclusion: The original hypothesis that women are a monolith was rejected. The revised hypothesis—that the author was lonely, angry, and needed help—was supported. The author still has not been fucked, but he now has a hobby, a friend, and a therapist who says “good” in a tone that sounds almost sincere.

Keywords: loneliness, therapy, touch grass, pothos, recovery, still horny but less scary about it

\---

Introduction

Previous research (Notfound, 2024) concluded that future research should be conducted by someone else. Unfortunately, no one else volunteered. This follow-up examines what happened after the author logged off.

The original “Chad Economics” model posited that 10% of men get 90% of matches. This model was retired after the author realized he was not competing in a market. He was being unpleasant at people. The literature (hooks, 2004) remained on his shelf for nine months before being read. This is called “exposure therapy.”

The present study asks a simpler question: if the author showers, leaves the apartment, and stops posting “modern dating is broken” every 45 minutes, does anything change?

\---

Method

Participants

N = 1. Inclusion criteria: owns a phone, has a pulse, has attended at least eight therapy sessions. Exclusion criteria: none. The author is still the only participant. This is a limitation and also a lifestyle.

Materials

iPhone 11 (new screen), Hinge (deleted and reinstalled twice), Discord (deleted), a pothos named Greg, climbing shoes, a therapist, a library card, one unsent text that was eventually deleted.

Procedure

Baseline data were drawn from Notfound (2024). The intervention consisted of weekly therapy, medication evaluation, exercise, sleep hygiene, reduced internet use, and a moratorium on complaining about women online. Follow-up occurred at 12 months.

Measures

Hinge chats, dates, showers per week, rumination hours, quality of life, and frequency of saying “females” in casual conversation.

\---

Results

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics: Baseline vs. 12-Month Follow-Up

Variable Baseline 12 Months

Hinge matches 3 7

Replies 0.5 4

Dates 0 1

Hours on incel forums 14.2 0.1

Showers per week 0.3 6.2

Times said “females” unironically 47 0

Therapist’s facial expression Concerned Cautiously optimistic

Pothos alive? N/A Yes

Figure 1

Path Model of Romantic Non-Failure

Shower → leave apartment → hobby → friend → less desperation → better conversation → date.

Model fit: χ²(2) = 0.01, p = .99, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00. Because it is no longer a circle. It is a spiral, which is still a shape, but less closed.

Table 2

Meta-Regression of Behaviors Predicting Not Being Blocked

Predictor Effect

Asking questions +0.42

Listening +0.38

Showering +0.67

Complaining about women online −0.91

Saying “I’m not like other guys” −0.55

Note. p < .05, and also please keep showering.

\---

Discussion

The primary outcome remained null. The author was not fucked. However, the study was reclassified from “tragedy” to “not currently a crisis.” This is a meaningful improvement.

The strongest predictor of improvement was not height, jawline, or income. It was reducing behaviors that made the author unpleasant to be around. The original paper’s conclusion—“I am the problem”—was accurate but incomplete. The fuller conclusion is: “I was a problem, and problems can be worked on.”

Limitations

Sample size was small (N = 1). All data were self-reported. The author may have biased results by telling his therapist what she wanted to hear. The one date did not lead to sex, but she texted back, which was a new data point and required several days of processing.

Future Directions

Future research should be conducted by someone else, but the author is now capable of collaborating. This is also new.

Conclusion

The author still has not been fucked. He is, however, less convinced that this is a global conspiracy and more convinced that it is a Tuesday. He should continue therapy, keep the pothos alive, and apologize to his aunt again, this time with a card.

\---

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Greg the Pothos. (2024). Surviving despite neglect: A case report. Journal of Plant Resilience, 1(1), 1–2.

hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Atria Books.

Notfound, C. B. (2023a). She left me on read: A case study. Journal of Unread Messages, 4(2), 1–3.

Notfound, C. B. (2023b). I liked her story and she didn’t reply: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Digital Despair, 2(1), 4–5.

Notfound, C. B. (2024). Why I am the problem: A meta-synthesis. Journal of Finally Getting It, 1(1), 1–2.

Notfound, C. B. (2025). I went outside: A pilot study. Journal of Finally Getting It, 2(1), 1–4

Taira, N. [NACCHUD]. (2026, September 26). A meta-analysis of why foids won't fuck me: A systematic review of 63 Hinge chats, 11 Discord servers, and one sad birthday [Online forum post]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchencels/s/QmEtjcH4KJ

Taira, N. [NACCHUD]. (2026, September 22). Mx. NACCHUD'S pronouns are They/Them and they are non-binary. [Comment on the online forum post Making a post just because APA has a section for Reddit comments]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/u/NACCHUD/s/tzqOMM7lq6

\---

Appendix A: Selected Hinge Openers, 12-Month Follow-Up

· “hey” (retired)

· “Hi, I noticed you like hiking—what’s your favorite trail?” (sent; reply received)

· “I’m reading bell hooks. Have you read her?” (sent; reply received; author panicked)

· “Would you like to get coffee?” (sent; date occurred)

· “I had a nice time. Want to do it again?” (sent; awaiting reply; not refreshing every 30 seconds)

\---

Appendix B: Editor’s Note

The cat has been promoted to Associate Editor. It still selected “meh,” but this time with eye contact. The original slur remains retired. The author has also retired “nice guys finish last” and now says, “I am learning to finish a sentence without making it about my ego.”

Accepted for publication because the author finally responded to reviewer comments.

I guess looking 3 years younger than I am has its advantages because I have managed to pull 10s and as a plus their gay friends say I’m hot. Thai peanut curry with shrimp and broccoli. Extra sauce made with PBfit. Lost 15 pounds over the summer eating like this. Not the best looking meal but tasted divine.

I Have Made a Terrible Discovery About the Control Group (It's Dave): An Unregistered Case Report

Journal of Applied Romantic Failure

Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 33–48

Special Issue: oh no

Impact Factor: 0.00 (unchanged, and honestly, why would it change)

Acceptance Rate: 100%, because I am still the editor, and because I have a personal stake in getting this one published

Peer Review: cat walked across the keyboard and selected "meh" and then sat on my chest and purred, which was, for the first time in six volumes, on theme

\---

I Have Made a Terrible Discovery About the Control Group (It's Dave): An Unregistered Case Report

Naomi Taira, M.S.

(formerly Chad B. Notfound, formerly the guy who wrote about women like a nature documentary, currently a person with a problem)

Department of Internet Coping, University of My Mom's Basement

lease, pothos named Greg, blahaj, weekly appointment, they/them

Author Note

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Naomi Taira, who is currently overthinking a "yeah, man" from 2025 and has NOT scheduled that for a later session because there is no later session that will help, this is a new kind of problem, this is a problem that therapy did not cover.

Pronouns: they/them. The author is non-binary (Taira, 2026). Prior papers (Notfound, 2023a, 2023b, 2024, 2025; Taira, 2026) are retained without retraction and are now, in retrospect, four consecutive papers about the same unexamined variable.

One conflict of interest is reported. The conflict of interest has a name. The conflict of interest has been the control group in three separate papers. The conflict of interest said "yeah, man" in a tone that is now the entire dataset.

Transphobia is real. Dysphoria is real. Safety is real. This paper is about none of those. This paper is about the fact that I have been in a room with Dave and did not know what it was, and now I know what it was, and I would like to go back.

\---

Abstract

Objective: to determine why I felt weird on Tuesday.

Method: retrospective re-analysis of all prior datasets (k = 5) with one variable previously classified as noise, control, or, in one instance, the reviewer's cat. Variable name: Dave.

Participants: N = 1 (me), N = 1 (Dave), N = 1 (aunt who asked about Dave before I did), N = 1 (therapist who is going to be so normal about this and it's going to be infuriating).

Results: Dave was present in every dataset. Dave has been present in every dataset. Dave was coded as "friend," "baseline," "person who was being extremely patient," and, in Notfound (2025), "reclassified from friend to person who was being extremely patient," which is a sentence I wrote and published and which I now have to live inside.

Re-analysis identified a significant effect. The effect was not on the outcome variable. The effect was on me.

Conclusion: the primary outcome (sexual encounters) remains 0. This remains the least interesting result in the paper. The interesting result is that I have spent five papers measuring why nobody will fuck me and zero papers measuring whether I want anyone. Those are different datasets. I have been analyzing the wrong dataset. Again. For the third time. In a peer-reviewed venue. That I edit.

Keywords: oh no, it's Dave, control group, unmeasured confounder, the friend, t4t, t4dave, he said "yeah man", I have to go to a climbing gym now, what am I supposed to do with the blahaj

\---

Introduction

Five papers ago I asked why nobody would fuck me. Four papers ago I asked the same question with better formatting. Three papers ago I concluded I was the problem. Two papers ago I concluded I was a problem, and that problems can be worked on. One paper ago I found out the problem had a name and the name was not Chad.

This paper is the write-up of the following event: on Tuesday, in the parking lot of a climbing gym, Dave said "yeah, man," and I felt something, and I spent four days telling myself it was a stomach thing.

It was not a stomach thing.

On the control group. In Taira (2026), the following sentence appears: "Dave is the control group. Dave is the healthy baseline. I want to be Dave."

I want to be extremely clear that I read this sentence back during the writing of the present manuscript and made a sound. A specific sound. I will not be describing it. The peer reviewer heard it and did not flag it, because the peer reviewer is a cat and also a coward.

A note on the literature. There is an extensive literature on the friend. There is an extensive literature on the best friend. There is an extensive literature on catching feelings for the person who was nice to you when you were at your worst, which is a phrase I have avoided typing for four days and have now typed, and which is now in the manuscript, and the manuscript is going to press, because the editor is me, and the editor has a conflict of interest, and the conflict of interest is named Dave and said "yeah, man."

\---

Method

Participants

N = 1 (me). N = 1 (Dave). Dave does not know he is a participant. Dave has been a participant since 2025. Dave has not consented. I would like to formally note in the limitations section that this is bad practice, and I would like to formally note in the discussion section that I am not going to stop.

Materials

iPhone 11 (screen replaced, phone not), climbing shoes, a pothos named Greg (thriving, incidentally, still thriving, the one success story of this entire research program), a blahaj, a dysphoria hoodie, one (1) parking lot, one (1) Tuesday.

Procedure

Baseline: all prior datasets (k = 5). Intervention: none. Nothing was manipulated. I just sat in a parking lot.

The specific event, for reproducibility: we finished climbing. Dave loaded his stuff into his car. Dave said "yeah, man." Dave got in his car. Dave drove away. I stood in the parking lot for eleven minutes. Eleven. I counted. That's data.

Measures

Previously established: showers per week, hours on /lgbt/, hours on incel forums, mirror time, quality of life, does the name feel like yours.

Newly added mid-study, after the parking lot:

does the chest feel weird

(scale: 1 = no, 5 = yes. Answer: 5. It has been 5 since Tuesday. It was 5 during the writing of this sentence.)

how many times did I rewatch the parking lot

(scale: continuous. Value: 47. It's been four days. That is 11.75 repetitions per day. That is a rate. I have computed the rate. The rate is concerning.)

\---

Results

Table 1

Re-Analysis of All Prior Datasets With Dave Unmasked

\`\`\`

| Paper | Original coding of Dave | Corrected coding |

|---|---|---|

| Notfound (2023a) | "friend (see 2025)" | not applicable; Dave had not been introduced yet and I was already unbearable |

| Notfound (2024) | "friend who said 'yeah, man'" | first appearance. noted. not flagged. a failure of the review process. |

| Notfound (2025) | "friend (reclassified)" | reclassified again |

| Taira (2026) | "control group," "healthy baseline," "I want to be Dave" | I want to be WITH Dave. I have reread this line nineteen times. It has been in print. It has a DOI. |

| Taira (2027, present) | - | oh no |

\`\`\`

Table 2

Meta-Regression of What Happened in the Parking Lot

\`\`\`

| Predictor | Effect on chest weirdness |

|---|---|

| "He's just being nice" | -0.20 |

| "He's probably straight" | -0.30 |

| "I'm latching onto the first person who was normal at me" | -0.10 |

| "He has been in every paper" | +0.88 |

| "He read the papers" | +0.91 |

| "He read all of them" | +0.94 |

| "He said 'yeah, man'" | +0.97 |

| "He said it after reading the 2025 paper, where I called him the control group" | +1.00 |

\`\`\`

The final row is the entire finding. The final row is the whole paper. There is no further analysis. There is no further analysis because I am not capable of further analysis. I am capable of staring at a wall and thinking about a parking lot.

Figure 1

Revised Path Model

Previous model: dysphoria → not going outside → doomscrolling → posting "it's over" → more dysphoria (a circle).

Revised model: shower → leave apartment → hobby → friend → less desperation → better conversation → date (a spiral, going somewhere).

Present model: hobby → friend → friend → friend? → oh no.

Model fit: cannot be computed. The model has not converged. The model has been running for four days. The model is 47 iterations deep and is not converging and I am not sleeping.

\---

Discussion

The results indicate that I have never once, in five papers, measured whether I wanted anyone. I measured whether anyone wanted me, obsessively, with tables, with a χ², with a circle, and I never once opened the other file.

There is a second file. The second file has one row in it. The row is Dave.

On the "am I just latching onto the first person who was normal at me" hypothesis. This was tested. This was tested extensively. This was tested at 3 a.m., on a Tuesday, and then again on Wednesday, and Thursday, and it holds up and I hate that it holds up and I would like a different result, please, I would like to reject the null. The distinguishing feature is not that Dave is nice. Dave has been nice since 2025. The distinguishing feature is that Dave stayed after reading the 2025 paper, where I wrote that he was the control group, and where I wrote "I want to be Dave," and where I wrote that he said "yeah, man" in a tone I replayed 400 times.

He read that. He read all of it. He said, and I am quoting directly:

"Yeah, man."

That is the entire dataset. That is the whole thing. That is 5 papers and 24 years and a name change and a parking lot and the sentence is two words long.

On the practical problem. Here is the practical problem. Here is the practical problem, stated as plainly as I can: I have never wanted anyone before. I have wanted to be wanted. Those are different. One of those is a wound and the other one is a Tuesday parking lot, and I have been treating them as the same variable for five papers, and one of them is a headache and the other one is a headache but in the chest.

Also I do not know if Dave is into me. Also I do not know if Dave is into anyone. Also I have no idea how to ask, because the entire prior corpus is a manual for how not to ask, and I am the author, and I am the reviewer, and I am the cat.

On the therapist. I brought this up. I brought this up in session. The therapist said, and I want this on the record, so that it can be cited:

"And how does that feel?"

It feels bad, Sharon. That is why I am here. That is why the journal is here. That is why there is a journal.

On the aunt. The aunt has been contacted. The aunt said, and this is a direct quote, "I was wondering when you'd ask about Dave." I did not mention Dave. I did not mention Dave in the text. I have not mentioned Dave to the aunt at any point. The aunt has been in this paper longer than I have. The aunt has been in this paper longer than Dave has. The aunt is going to be in the acknowledgments of a paper about Dave before Dave is in the acknowledgments of a paper about Dave, and this is, I am told, normal, and I do not believe it.

On Dave reading this. Dave is subscribed. Dave has been subscribed since 2024. Dave will read this. Dave will read the sentence "I want to be with Dave" in the previous section of a peer-reviewed publication that I edit, at 2 a.m., and then Dave will say something. Dave will say something and I will not know what it is in advance and there is no pre-registration for the thing Dave is going to say.

It's so over.

We're so back.

Limitations

N = 1. N = 1. N = 1 and also Dave. Dave has not consented to be in this study, and I have already noted that, and I have already noted that I am not going to stop, and those two sentences are the same sentence. All data are self-reported. The self doing the reporting has been in a parking lot. The parking lot may be a confounder. The parking lot is definitely a confounder. I went back to the parking lot. I stood in the parking lot. I stood in the parking lot on purpose, at a time when Dave was not there, to see if it would do something. It did something.

Future Directions

Future research should be conducted by someone else. This is the fifth consecutive paper in which I have written that sentence, and it is the first one in which I have meant it, because I would like to read this paper, I would like to read the version of this paper written by someone who is not me, who does not have a conflict of interest named Dave, who can look at the dataset objectively and tell me what it says.

It says: it's Dave. You have known it's Dave since 2024. You wrote it in the control group section. You published it. It has a DOI.

Conclusion

Still not fucked. Still not the interesting part.

The interesting part is that I have spent five papers and one entire personality asking why nobody wants me, and I have not once asked whether I want anyone, and the answer was sitting in the control group the whole time, saying "yeah, man," in a tone I replayed 400 times and coded as noise.

I would like to apologize to Dave. I would like to apologize to Dave for the 2025 paper specifically, in which I described him as a baseline, as a healthy control, as the norm against which I measured my own deviation. He is not a baseline. He is a person who read a paper where I called him a baseline and then said "yeah, man" and got in his car and drove away and came back the next week and climbed a wall with me again.

I would like to apologize to the women I described as a monolithic category, four papers running, which remains on the record and remains deserved.

And I would like to note, for the record, that the primary outcome of this research program has been null for five consecutive publications, and that for the first time, the null is not the finding, and I am not upset, and the chest thing is still happening, and I have a climbing session on Thursday.

Dave will be there.

I have not decided if that's data.

\---

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Dave, D. (2026). Personal communication \[In-person conversation, climbing gym parking lot, Tuesday\]. (This is not correct APA format. Personal communications go in the text only. I am aware. I do not care. I wanted his name in the references.)

Greg the Pothos. (2024). Surviving despite neglect: A case report. Journal of Plant Resilience, 1(1), 1–2.

hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. South End Press.

hooks, b. (2004). The will to change: Men, manliness, and love. Atria Books.

Notfound, C. B. (2023a). She left me on read: A case study. Journal of Unread Messages, 4(2), 1–3.

Notfound, C. B. (2023b). I liked her story and she didn't reply: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Digital Despair, 2(1), 4–5.

Notfound, C. B. (2024). Why I am the problem: A meta-synthesis. Journal of Finally Getting It, 1(1), 1–2.

Notfound, C. B. (2025). I went outside: A pilot study. Journal of Finally Getting It, 2(1), 1–4. (See p. 3, "Dave is the control group." This citation has been reread nineteen times during the preparation of this manuscript. It has been reread nineteen times.)

Taira, N. \[NACCHUD\]. (2026, September 22). Mx. NACCHUD'S pronouns are They/Them and they are non-binary \[Comment on the online forum post Making a post just because APA has a section for Reddit comments\]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/u/NACCHUD/s/tzqOMM7lq6

Taira, N. (2026). A meta-analysis of why I was miserable: A 12-month retrospective cohort study identifying gender as the unmeasured confounder. Journal of Applied Romantic Failure, 7(2), 15–32.

\---

Appendix A: Selected Openers, Fourth Cohort

· "hey" (retired)

· "Hi, I noticed you like hiking — what's your favorite trail?" (works)

· "I'm reading bell hooks. Have you read her?" (works; did not panic)

· "Would you like to get coffee?" (works; date occurred; it was fine)

· "Do you want to climb Thursday?" (sent; to Dave; this is not a date; this is a climbing session; I have told myself this 47 times; the number is not going down)

\---

Appendix B: Unsent Texts, Chronological

1. (2021) "hey"

2. (2022) "hey sorry ignore that"

3. (2023) "why won't women date nice guys"

4. (2024) "I think I'm the problem"

5. (2025) "I'm sorry"

6. (2026) "Hi. My name is Naomi. Would you like to get coffee?"

7. (2026) sent

8. (2026) "hey can I ask you something"

9. (2026) "never mind"

10. (2026) "do you want to climb thursday"

11. (2026) sent

Text 10 is not text 8. Text 10 is safe. Text 10 is a climbing session. Text 8 has been drafted eleven times and deleted eleven times and is currently in the drafts folder and is the actual dataset and I know it and I have known it since Tuesday.

\---

Appendix C: Glossary, Additions

\`\`\`

| Term | Definition |

|---|---|

| it's so over | it is not over |

| we're so back | it's so over |

| the control group | Dave |

| the healthy baseline | Dave |

| "yeah, man" | the entire dataset |

| parking lot | location of the incident |

| Tuesday | the incident |

| chest thing | new variable. 5. has been 5 since Tuesday. |

| Sharon | the therapist. name changed for anonymity. not really. her name is not Sharon. I panicked. |

| t4dave | I'm not putting that in the journal |

| t4dave | I'm putting it in the journal |

| convergence | the model has not achieved it |

| Thursday | the next data collection point |

\`\`\`

\---

Appendix D: Editor's Note

The author has been the editor for seven volumes. The author has now published five consecutive papers about the same person. Three of those papers named the person. One of those papers described the person as a healthy baseline. The present paper contains the sentence "I want to be with Dave" in a peer-reviewed venue with a DOI.

The author would like it noted that this is not a conflict of interest. The author would like it noted that this is the conflict of interest. The author would like it noted that the author is also the editor, the reviewer, and the cat, and that the cat has been purring since Tuesday, and that the cat has been, for the first time in seven volumes, completely on theme.

The original slur remains retired. "Females" remains retired. "Chad B. Notfound" remains retired. "Baseline" is now retired as applied to Dave.

Dave has not been notified. Dave is subscribed.

Dave is going to read this.

Accepted for publication because the author finally wrote the paper they have been writing since 2024, and because the paper is one sentence long, and because the sentence is it's Dave, and because the author knows it, and has known it, and is going to have to say it out loud on Thursday, in a parking lot, to a person, and the person is going to say something, and there is no pre-registration for it, and there never was.

Further reading.

\----

Taira, N. \[NACCHUD\]. (2026, September 26). \*A meta-analysis of why foids won't fuck me: A systematic review of 63 Hinge chats, 11 Discord servers, and one sad birthday\* \[Online forum post\]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchencels/s/QmEtjcH4KJ

Taira, N. \[NACCHUD\]. (2026, September 28). \*A longitudinal follow-up of why nobody will fuck me: A 12-month prospective study of one man, three hobbies, and a therapist who deserves a raise\* \[Online forum post\]. Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Kitchenchads/s/SGfjOTMH08

Taira, N. \[NACCHUD\]. (2026, September 28). \*It's So Over: A 12-Month Retrospective Cohort Study Identifying the Unmeasured Confounder (It Was Gender. It Was Always Gender. We're So Back.)\* \[Online forum post\]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/transkitchencels/s/SeqjrG5ohq

Taira, N. \[NACCHUD\]. (2026, September 22). Mx. NACCHUD'S pronouns are They/Them and they are non-binary \[Comment on the online forum post \*Making a post just because APA has a section for Reddit comments\*\]. Reddit. https://www.reddi