Dear Abby: Boyfriend's TikTok following gives her cause for concern 43%

By Abigail Van Buren72%

7/22/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 28.8% saturation with 161 hits. Analysis detected 906 faulty-reasoning hits from 559 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.5% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,227 of 21,180 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.70% of the article peer group.

DEAR ABBY: I recently started dating a guy I have known for 30 years. 
He has moved in and asked me to marry him. 
Our relationship is perfect except for anything having to do with social media. 
He has an account on TikTok using a sexually suggestive name. 
He's following 500 women and has just as many following him. 
I'm worried this will lead to other things, and the fact that he hides this from me makes it worse. 
Of all the women he follows, I am not on his list, and that hurts, too. 
I'm sure other readers deal with this issue, and I'm not sure how to handle this situation. 
Is this a form of cheating, or, because it is social media, should I not worry about it?  UNCERTAIN IN SOUTH CAROLINA 
DEAR UNCERTAIN: How does your partner earn his living? 
Following 500 women seems time-consuming. 
If he's hiding it from you, how do you know this? 
Your doubt, which is reasonable, already is a trust issue. 
I will assume that you know about his "hobby" because you looked at his computer or phone. 
If you felt the need to do that, do not shrug it off. 
Have a heart-to-heart talk with him and ask what he's seeking from these online relationships. 
Is he a voyeur or looking for adventure? 
Once you know the answer to those questions, you will know how to proceed. 
DEAR ABBY: My mother is 86 years old. 
She has been widowed for more than 10 years. 
She works, sings in a choir, volunteers at her church and has three children who dote on her, but she desperately wants a man in her life  and the man she wants is married. 
They have been together for more than five years on and off. 
They get together, feel guilty and break up. 
This has happened more than 20 times. 
She lies to us, her counselor and her friends about this affair. 
We are tired of her lies, her crying over the adulterer and her inability to enjoy what she has instead of complaining about what she doesn't have. 
Doctors, counselors and church members have all tried to convince her this pattern is destructive, to no avail. 
Help!  OVER IT 
DEAR OVER IT: It sounds like Mom may be in love with the drama more than the man. 
The best way to deal with it would be to stop engaging. 
When she starts discussing her affair, change the subject. 
If she persists, leave the room. 
Let her know that you really are "over it." 
Tell her you refuse to watch her make a fool of herself any longer. 
Then encourage her to talk about the parts of her life that are not so self-destructive. 
Dear Abby is written by Abigail Van Buren, also known as Jeanne Phillips, and was founded by her mother, Pauline Phillips. 
Contact Dear Abby at www.DearAbby.com or P.O. 
Box 69440, Los Angeles, CA 90069. 
For an excellent guide to becoming a better conversationalist and a more sociable person, order "How to Be Popular." 
Send your name and mailing address, plus check or money order for $8 (U.S. funds) to: Dear Abby, Popularity Booklet, P.O. 
Box 446, Kings Mills, OH 45034-0446. 
(Shipping and handling are included in the price.) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.2%Abigail Van Buren: 3.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Confirmation Bias3.2%This article: 1.6%Abigail Van Buren: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias1.6%This article: 5.0%Abigail Van Buren: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 7.2%Abigail Van Buren: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Abigail Van Buren: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 5.9%Abigail Van Buren: 2.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.6%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 2.9%Abigail Van Buren: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion2.9%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Abigail Van Buren: 2.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect1.3%This article: 4.7%Abigail Van Buren: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 3.6%Abigail Van Buren: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 28.8%Abigail Van Buren: 13.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 8.4%Negativity Bias28.8%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Abigail Van Buren: 5.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error5.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.3%Abigail Van Buren: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Recency Bias1.3%This article: 3.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Abigail Van Buren: 2.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem7.3%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.6%Abigail Van Buren: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Appeal to Authority6.6%This article: 7.3%Abigail Van Buren: 6.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%False Dilemma7.3%This article: 3.6%Abigail Van Buren: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope3.6%This article: 2.5%Abigail Van Buren: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.5%This article: 2.9%Abigail Van Buren: 5.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.8%Hasty Generalization2.9%This article: 1.6%Abigail Van Buren: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring1.6%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.7%Abigail Van Buren: 2.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion9.7%This article: 6.3%Abigail Van Buren: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Begging the Question6.3%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.0%Abigail Van Buren: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.5%Abigail Van Buren: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.2%Anecdotal9.5%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.6%Abigail Van Buren: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.6%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.1%Abigail Van Buren: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground2.1%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.2%Abigail Van Buren: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice3.2%This article: 8.2%Abigail Van Buren: 3.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Indoctrination8.2%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Abigail Van Buren: 9.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.7%

559 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.