I’ve been thinking lately about the pop-feminist phenomenon of Nice Guys (if you’re not familiar, this comic provides a helpful introduction. It’s obvious to me that there’s something deeply problematic about being a Nice Guy in the fullest sense. But I’m also concerned that some important insights are being demonized along with the bad ideas Nice Guys are prone to.
Some issues with the Nice Guy persona that are rightly criticized:
1) The notion that a girl ever owes a guy sex or romantic partnership because the guy in question has treated her kindly. This is obviously contemptible.
2) A resistance to accepting gentle rejections as such and leaving things at that, rather than pushing and pushing until the woman is forced to say no in uncomfortably explicit terms.
3) The notion that friendship with women is only valuable insofar as it leads to romance.
But there are also some characteristic ideas of Nice Guys which have an important grain of truth to them:
1) Women often prefer assholes over kind men. I don’t mean to say this is universal, or anything like it. It’s also not really the fault of the women who have this preference, it’s a result of how they’re acculturated. Kind of like how too many men are raised to prefer vapid women. But it is not sexist to observe that many women have sexual preferences that end up doing them more harm than good. Indeed, being raised with such preferences is one way that our society oppresses women.
2) There is nothing wrong with being disappointed about being “friend zoned.” If you want a romantic relationship with someone and they don’t reciprocate, it’s reasonable to be disappointed.
3) Indeed, it’s sometimes said that anyone who uses the term “friend zone” is deplorable just for that. Of course not. We all categorize our friends and acquaintances into the ones we’d like to sleep with and the ones we’d rather not sleep with.
4) Just as women are not obligated to be romantically interested in men who want to be more than friends, men are not obligated to remain friends with women who’ve rejected them romantically.
This is one reason I read otherwise-entertaining blogs like Nice Guys of OKCupid with a grain of disappointment along with my enjoyment. Because I think there are some unreflective feminist women out there who use the Nice Guy meme to avoid some important self-examination and critique. I don’t know, what do you think about this stuff?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There is a pretty good meme mentioned on Jezebel called "Stop trying to girlfriend zone me."
Sure it's disappointing to fall for somebody who isn't going to reciprocate. But you are self-limiting your relationships (and I would say to your detriment) if you categorize all opposite sex relationships as "those who I may get to sleep with, and those I will not".
Some of my best relationships are girls who were not interested in me romantically though I was towards them, and patiently waited while I got over myself and determined if I really wanted their friendship absent romantic intimacy. I eventually made my choice that I wanted to be friends absent anything else, and now I see just how stupid the friendzoning thing is for women.
And let's get something straight, if you are sexually interested in a girl you are probably the last person who can fairly judge another guy as being worthy or unworthy of her affections.
Ultimately you will look at everything they are that you are not and at best you will call those things "things that shouldn't matter" or at worst "things bad for her". It's never ever "things that are good that I don't have" or even "things she happens to like and doesn't have to justify to me."
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
If a girl isn't attracted, a man just needs to move on. Yes, showing her that you're a quality male is one thing . . . being pushy is just pathetic. There are (literally) billions of other fish in the sea.
If you have time for a friendship, sure, be a friend. But expectations are for chumps. A man is either pursuing or in neutral. It's unhealthy to pine for a "friend".
As for women? Yes, they're fickle creatures. Yes, they change their minds. And yes, they tend to make bad decisions. Everyone does. Most people don't often date with long-term goals in mind. If you're a nice guy and she doesn't want you: - You're either not her type. - She doesn't find you attractive. - She honestly doesn't want to hurt the friendship. - She doesn't consider you a prospect for some other reason (financial, career, short-term needs, etc). - She's not ready or mature enough for a long-term relationship. Nice guys are long-term relationship material -- not short term.
Look, for a girl to select a nice guy means that you might be the one. It's a commitment. Don't be pushy. Don't be a dick. If you're not it right now, try to change one of the factors above. But don't get hung up or obsessive. You might think you're great -- but she might not.
She don't owe you nothing. . . .
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Regarding women being attracted to jerks, sometimes "nice" end up being the same as "timid". "Jerks" are often mistaken for "confident". I tend to stay away from "nice guys" because I don't find it attractive to have to make all the decisions because he is afraid to make a mistake. It is a darn fine line to walk between being a jerk but still being able to pick a flippin' restaurant without guidance and that is not fair, but it is true.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I've seen the "friend zone" come up a lot with a good deal of my friends (because honestly, your early 20s in when you're most susceptible to the kind of thinking that leads to it), though it's not something I've ever personally experienced. And I think the main cause is dishonesty.
So...
Obviously, there's nothing wrong with becoming attracted to a friend of yours, and there's nothing wrong with befriending attractive people. The big problem - and I've seen guys do this *all* the time - is befriending someone with the sole or main intention of dating them. I think this comes from a mixture of fear of rejection and a mistaken belief that relationships should simply grow smoothly from friendships.
If, when befriending a woman, you're interested in her romantically and want to persue that interest, you should *let her know*! Like, not a huge romantic gesture, but something like "hey, I think you're really cute. Do you want to hang out sometime? Here's my phone number." And then after a few weeks of hanging out, "would you like to go on a date with me this Friday?" Or, if you're not comfortable asking just then, still say "I like hanging out with you, but just so you know, I'm romantically interested in you." So your intentions are perfectly clear. And then, if she says "I'd rather just be friends with you." then you say "ok" and decide whether or not you want to be just friends with her.
If you do, then simply accept that there's no possibility of a relationship there and *start looking elsewhere*. Otherwise, politely say "I don't think we'd really work out as friends" and stop hanging out with her. (and again, *start looking elsewhere*!)
Honestly, as long as you're honest and explicit about your intentions from the get go, this really shouldn't be a problem. It's the guys who pretend they're not interested but secretly are at first that run into this problem. Because the whole reason their victims are befriending them in the first place is because they think there's no danger of hurting feelings or having to reject someone they care about. So when it turns out that said guy was just befriending them hoping to sleep with them eventually, it's a sort of betrayal. Because now they have to deal with a rejection, a guilt trip, and losing a friend instead of simply dealing with an awkward rejection in the beginning.
tl;dr: Just be honest. Seriously.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: 4) Just as women are not obligated to be romantically interested in men who want to be more than friends, men are not obligated to remain friends with women who’ve rejected them romantically.
This one is especially thorny because it seems like one of the ways women are socialized to reject men romantically is to "let them down easy" by suggesting they remain friends, and also because it's not at all unusual for a woman to actually want to remain friends in those circumstances. So when a man responds to rejection by declining to remain in contact, it can be seen as a violation of a social norm.
I think it's still worth it, though. After a fairly painful lesson, I learned not to keep in touch after rejections or breakups.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
Most men who are girl magnets, are also really nice people. The assholes who are girl magnets, are a minority. It's a no brainer: Men who are good-looking, confident, witty, funny and friendly are natural magnets for women. When you have those other characteristics, the ass-holism actually tends to drive a lot of women away. Because frankly, people - all people - don't really like assholes.
The whole term "nice guy" is very misleading. What it actually means is a "wuss". Women are not attracted to wussies.
Wussies have a great preference to use the term "nice guy", because they don't like to call themselves wussies. Everyone knows that being a wuss makes you less sexually desirable. So they use the misleading "nice guy" instead, because it takes the burden off from their shoulders. They can blame women, other men, society, everybody but themselves.
If we would be using the much accurate term "wuss" in these discussions, there wouldn't be any confusion about what the problem is.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Hmm. . . Tuukka might be on to something.
My dating life used to be miserable, when I was younger.
After I divorced, it was excellent. But I was in my mid-thirties, with a good job, and extremely confidant. Girls absolutely adore a nice guy, as long as there's not anything wrong with him. Unfortunately, I think, most nice guys come across as the dog who just want to be petted . . . needy and without better prospects.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
My advice to nice guys who aren't having luck with woman: - Don't focus or obsess on a single woman. Be a good friend, but never be pushy. She'll signal if / when she's ready. - Make sure you're educated. - Make sure you read reguarly. Stay current with book trends. - Read Esquire. Follow the style and grooming advice. - DON'T EVER BE SELF-CONSCIOUS. - Be self-deprecating. Learn to take a joke, and make fun of your faults. Then correct them. - Don't ever be scared to talk to anyone. - Again, focus on your grooming. - Start lifting weights and watch what you eat religiously. - Don't smoke. Don't drink too much. - Learn a lot of little things. - Be interesting. Travel. Get a hobby. - Be social. - Learn to cook well. Even if it's only a few dishes. - Try wetshaving. You know, with an old fashioned razor and brush. There are a lot of little manly details that women find attractive. - Have a dream. Make a plan toward pursuing it. - Did we talk about grooming?
Focus inward, not outward. If women aren't interested, it's probably not them. It's you.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: Most men who are girl magnets, are also really nice people.
This is very true, and honestly the biggest "girl magnets" I know are also kind, easy going, gentle, loving, confident men. The "douchebag players" seem to be a small minority, and only really cater to certain kind of woman. And honestly, the only reason they have any success at all is because they're physically attractive (ever see an ugly/fat/awkward guy try to act like a douchebag player? It's not a pretty sight) - if they were to start acting nice, they'd find themselves having quite a bit more luck.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I think I intended this thread to be more of a discussion of social mores than a place to air dating advice. (That wouldn't be the topic of greatest interest to me right now, since I'm in a happy relationship.)
quote: Some of my best relationships are girls who were not interested in me romantically though I was towards them, and patiently waited while I got over myself and determined if I really wanted their friendship absent romantic intimacy. I eventually made my choice that I wanted to be friends absent anything else, and now I see just how stupid the friendzoning thing is for women.
Yes, one of my most valuable friendships came about in roughly that way. But that's because the woman involved was a very special person with a lot to offer me as a friend, and it would have been a huge mistake to let her go from my life. Lots of times, I think it's entirely the right move to just cut off contact rather than risk weirdness, like twinky says.
quote: The whole term "nice guy" is very misleading. What it actually means is a "wuss". Women are not attracted to wussies.
Maybe you can elaborate here. What are wussies, as you understand the term? Why are women not attracted to them? Is there some objective reason women ought to avoid them?
quote:After I divorced, it was excellent. But I was in my mid-thirties, with a good job, and extremely confidant. Girls absolutely adore a nice guy, as long as there's not anything wrong with him.
I would be concerned that there might be some selection effects entering in here. For example, maybe women in their thirties are more inclined to seek out kind partners than younger women.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Maybe you can elaborate here. What are wussies, as you understand the term? Why are women not attracted to them? Is there some objective reason women ought to avoid them?
Wussies are timid, needy, weak-minded, fearful men. You can be a wuss to a greater or lesser degree. Some men are 90% wussies, some are only 10% wussies. Women are not attracted to them because of the aforementioned characteristics.
Objectively, those characteristics can and often do lead to many things: Less fun, less adventure, less sexual tension, less good sex (because confidence is important in sex), less protection and feeling of safety, less *trust*. The last one is important, because wussies typically hide aspects of themselves. If someone is needy and tries to please you because he fears your rejection, he is essentially lying. It's a bad basis for a healthy relationship.
Wussies are also often closet-misogynists. They play "nice" when they are in the company of women, but don't have problems about going on misogynist rants on the internet. Fear often leads to anger.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:I would be concerned that there might be some selection effects entering in here. For example, maybe women in their thirties are more inclined to seek out kind partners than younger women. [/QB]
I don't know how old women he dated, but men in their mid 30's don't have any problem dating women 10 years younger. I'm in my late 30's and I get women 10-15 years younger giving me the looks, a lot. Getting a date, or a relationship, with a much younger woman is easy.
But anyway, a question:
How many men do you know closely, who are babe-magnets? I mean the kind of men who date the *most* beautiful and attractive women out there, and do it often, and have been doing it for a long time?
I know quite a few men like that, and I've seen them all in action. Everyone thinks they are super nice people. Like, exceptionally nice. Much nicer, polite and friendly than just about any insecure wuss you have ever met (Wussies typically don't have strong social skills, one reason why they struggle with women).
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
That is literally the worst comic I've ever read...
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
+1 for Tukka's remarks.
It's not niceness but weaknesses that is off-putting.
(putting on my evo-bio just-so story hat) "Weak men will not protect you, will not protect your young. Strong men will, which is why you are attracted to them. Confidence is a sure indicator of this strength."
And the "niceness" in wussies isn't actually kindness -- it's simply the absence of provocation out of fear.
What does this weakness look like in practice? Utter agree-ability to anything the coveted woman proposes.
That's not niceness. It's an unwillingness to engage. And it's actually quite maddening for the female, unless she is so insecure that she can't take any kind of challenge. In which case she and the wuss are MFEO.
So you can have a strong point of view but still be nice.
Examplia:
WOMAN: "What do you feel like eating?"
WEAK MAN: "Whatever you want, Suzy Q."(afraid that his preference will alienate her)
DICK: "Anything other than Thai food. That crap tastes like garbage." (knowing full well that the woman likes Thai food ... and he's using this opportunity to take her down a notch ... you know,a kind of advanced tactic to put her in her place ... which is beneath him.)
STRONG: "Burgers, for sure. I've got a craving for a juicy slab of meat." (hmmm ... maybe this particular remark sends the wrong idea. But at least it shows a definite preference.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
EVEN STRONGER: Has a restaurant in mind that he thinks she will like and suggests it.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Some people don't really have a preference. Bad example.
And sometimes it IS niceness. I've known a lot of genuinely kind people who aren't only nice because of fear. Sheesh.
But, yeah, a lot of nice guys are wussies. Mainly because of a lack of confidence and charisma.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I don't think he's saying said strong man isn't nice. There's the difference being nice and being "Nice". The former is being kind, considerate, well mannered, and treating other people well because you believe it's the right thing to do. The latter is feigning those qualities (usually by being as passive and submissive as possible) in order to get someone to sleep with you, while being a mysoginistic bastard the whole time and complaining about how "woman only like jerks!"... as if "women" were a homogeneous group with a single set of behaviors that they universally follow rather than just being, you know, people.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
The point of "Nice guys" of OKC is that the people who complain that they are too nice for women are actually jerks. It has nothing to be with being a wuss and everything to do with irony.
These people are NOT nice people, which is why the "I'm such a nice guy" is put up right next to that same profile's homophobic rant, and some really sketchy comments about forcing sex on people. It's the guy who asks why women oinly date idiots and answers the IQ test question wrong.** More importantly, it is also really gauche to fill out your online dating profile (which is supposed to make you look good, btw) with complaints about exes, or exes the person wishes they had.
These people are like Newt Gingrich talking about the sanctity of marriage.
These people are like the girls on the school bus who say very loudly they are not into "drama", but they could start by shutting up.
If you aren't also noticing those things in the pictures of people's profiles, you are missing the entire point.
**Got an message from a guy on OKC once telling me I had the probability question wrong. I did not, and was working on a reply that explained the answer, before realizing that 1. I wasn't *his* TA, 2. why help him? 3. I didn't want to engage someone who was also the kind of person who corrects people without taking the time to confirm if they were even correct.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Some people don't really have a preference. Bad example.
Yes. Some people really don't. And they are incredibly frustrating to date.
We all have days when we don't care about choice X, but if someone literally never has any opinions to contribute--whether they're hiding their opinions to be "nice" or they genuinely don't have any--they are probably not great relationship material.
Jerkiness isn't attractive, but assertiveness is.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Eh, I have lots of opinions. But I generally feel like the other person has a stronger opinion:
Wife: What do you want to eat. Me: Anything, dear. What would you like. W: I don't care either. You pick. M: Okay . . . Chinese. W: I don't really feel like Chinese. M: Okay . . . what do you want. W: I said I don't care. Anything is fine. M: Mexican? W: Too heavy. M: Italian? W: Too greasy. M: Barbecue W: <dirty look> M: So what do you want? W: I honestly don't care. If you want to eat at one of THOSE place, I really don't mind. But soup sounds good. M: So . . . Marie Calenders? W: No. <pause> How about that place down by Home Depot?
If you suspect that the other person has a preference and you're easy going, you'd think that you could just let them pick. But the lady doesn't want to be bossy. So it turns into a guessing game.
It's always ladies who are themselves unable to compromise that complain about indecisive men. The men are just gunshy after too many of these experiences.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I can totally related to that conversation.
Step 1: Don't say you don't care IF YOU ACTUALLY CARE! (there is no step 2)
I'm usually down for anything so it can be frustrating having the onus of making a choice when so many of the choices are not actually acceptable.
I make no assertion about the specific male/female dynamics. I'm sure this works in both directions for different couples.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Wussies are timid, needy, weak-minded, fearful men. You can be a wuss to a greater or lesser degree. Some men are 90% wussies, some are only 10% wussies. Women are not attracted to them because of the aforementioned characteristics.
Do you think of these characteristics as the kind of thing people either have or don't have, independent of context? If so, that seems simplistic. People who know me in the context of work, for example, think of me as self-assured. I don't think that's how I come across at parties where I don't know anyone, though. (This might be why I often date other academics.)
As far as neediness goes, in my experience it's pretty hard to tell how needy someone is until you've been dating them for a few weeks or months.
quote: How many men do you know closely, who are babe-magnets? I mean the kind of men who date the *most* beautiful and attractive women out there, and do it often, and have been doing it for a long time?
I know quite a few men like that, and I've seen them all in action. Everyone thinks they are super nice people. Like, exceptionally nice. Much nicer, polite and friendly than just about any insecure wuss you have ever met (Wussies typically don't have strong social skills, one reason why they struggle with women).
I certainly know some men who fit the mold you describe, but I also know some (about equally many) who get a lot of attention from women by using "pick-up-artist" type douchey behavior, whether consciously or not.
quote:The point of "Nice guys" of OKC is that the people who complain that they are too nice for women are actually jerks. It has nothing to be with being a wuss and everything to do with irony.
Exactly--this is the sort of "Nice Guy" that I'm interested in talking about. I feel like Tuukka might have something else in mind.
quote:while being a mysoginistic bastard the whole time and complaining about how "woman only like jerks!"... as if "women" were a homogeneous group with a single set of behaviors that they universally follow rather than just being, you know, people.
I mean, we're all individuals, and no pattern in human behavior is universal. But there is a recognizable pattern of women dating men who treat them unkindly, out of a desire to change them, or because the bad treatment they receive fits with their own insecurities, or for a million other reasons. Just like there is a recognizable pattern of men avoiding intelligent women out of a feeling of intimidation. These are some of the ways that our diseased culture teaches people to act.
Saying "women only like jerks" is ridiculous. Saying "too many women like jerks" seems, to me, regrettably accurate.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I also think the converse is true. A lot of guys are legitimate nice guys, but girls misinterpret their motives. I think that this could entirely be an accurate description of the comic -- that the girl is just making invalid assumptions about the man's character.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
It's a bit like the date - marry - kill game. - A lot of girls are attracted to the "dating" type of male (exciting, opinionated) when they would marry a DIFFERENT type of guy. They just aren't ready for a long-term relationship. - These women often lead "marry" type guys along or friend-zone them because they aren't ready to focus on a long-term gig. - Sometimes, women go through a string of bad relationships because they've allowed guys who are bad for them ("date" type excitement) become their focus, and they no longer desire more stable guys.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:while being a mysoginistic bastard the whole time and complaining about how "woman only like jerks!"... as if "women" were a homogeneous group with a single set of behaviors that they universally follow rather than just being, you know, people.
I mean, we're all individuals, and no pattern in human behavior is universal. But there is a recognizable pattern of women dating men who treat them unkindly, out of a desire to change them, or because the bad treatment they receive fits with their own insecurities, or for a million other reasons. Just like there is a recognizable pattern of men avoiding intelligent women out of a feeling of intimidation. These are some of the ways that our diseased culture teaches people to act.
Saying "women only like jerks" is ridiculous. Saying "too many women like jerks" seems, to me, regrettably accurate.
It was just this sort of realization that led me to ask my wife on our first date. We had only been acquainted a short time (we sat next to each other in language classes).
I think for some guys -certainly for me- it takes a lot of growing and experience to be comfortable asking for what you want. And it is about self-esteem. If you don't value yourself enough to see when others value you, then you can miss a lot of cues. I suddenly realized that this woman who I'd met only about a month before was a wonderful person, and that when she smiled at my jokes and expressed interest, she was not being false. And while it seems so obvious now that I had to ask her out on a date (because I did, and now she's my wife, so it was going to work), I had been of the frame of mind that led me to believe that this wasn't the kind of thing I deserved.
And while I can't pinpoint a cause as to what suddenly altered my perceptions, it happened quickly- and it happened, perhaps unsurprisingly, at a moment in which quite a lot of other things started to go well for me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the problem with the OP is that all three of those things described as problematic Nice Guys are actually just douchebags.
So it's not a Nice Guy Problem. It's a Douchebag problem. It doesn't matter if they self-identify as nice guys because they think so, they're still douches.
I think of myself as a genuine nice guy, but in my life I've never had a problem with any of those three things. In fact, I much prefer it when a girl gives me a gentle turn down rather than leaving me wondering what's happening or using me for free meals and nights out.
Real, actual nice guys usually do pretty well...once they get just a little bit older. I guess I sort of agree with the women making bad choices schtick, not as a universal rule, but as an extremely strong strain. But I think that attenuates as they get older and really figure out what's valuable and what's not in a partner.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Do you think of these characteristics as the kind of thing people either have or don't have, independent of context? If so, that seems simplistic. People who know me in the context of work, for example, think of me as self-assured. I don't think that's how I come across at parties where I don't know anyone, though. (This might be why I often date other academics.)
People are different in different situations. You are different with your parents, your children, your wife, your friends, your co-workers. For example, you have sex with your wife, but not with the rest, typically. This means you have different behavioral patterns with your wife.
So yes, obviously context matters.
But everyone also has some core characteristics that more or less come out in most social interactions.
quote: As far as neediness goes, in my experience it's pretty hard to tell how needy someone is until you've been dating them for a few weeks or months.
A lot of women can tell if a man is needy in just a few minutes, or a few hours max, when the context is romantic/sexual.
quote: I certainly know some men who fit the mold you describe, but I also know some (about equally many) who get a lot of attention from women by using "pick-up-artist" type douchey behavior, whether consciously or not.
What would you define as pick-up-artists type douchey behaviour?
Because *seduction* is fun. Flirting is fun. Expressing sexual interest openly can be fun. Women tend to enjoy those things - women like fun. But some people - particularly wussies - often confuse those with douchey behaviour. They're not, unless you do them in a douchey, impolite manner.
Douchey behaviour means being rude and impolite. It's a rather ineffective way of seducing women, so I doubt you know many men who use that tactic successfully.
quote:
quote:The point of "Nice guys" of OKC is that the people who complain that they are too nice for women are actually jerks. It has nothing to be with being a wuss and everything to do with irony.
Exactly--this is the sort of "Nice Guy" that I'm interested in talking about. I feel like Tuukka might have something else in mind.
No, I agree with OKC. It's a satiric site, the writer thinks that most "nice guys" A.KA wussies (He also laughs at the "nice guy" term) are in fact timid misogynists. Which is why he makes fun of them, and their prejudices.
I'm talking about *exactly* people like that.
quote:I mean, we're all individuals, and no pattern in human behavior is universal. But there is a recognizable pattern of women dating men who treat them unkindly, out of a desire to change them, or because the bad treatment they receive fits with their own insecurities, or for a million other reasons. Just like there is a recognizable pattern of men avoiding intelligent women out of a feeling of intimidation. These are some of the ways that our diseased culture teaches people to act.
Saying "women only like jerks" is ridiculous. Saying "too many women like jerks" seems, to me, regrettably accurate. [/QB]
So, out of the pool of women you know personally, how many repeatedly seek to be abused by men, and repeatedly end up in such relationships? And I'm not talking about women who might complain to you that their boyfriend has done something bad - EVERY relationship has both participants doing "bad" things every one in a while.
I'm talking about *abuse*. Either mental or physical.
Out of the women I know, maybe 5% would fit that category, max. I've also read some larger scale statistics on the issue, and abusive relationships are a small minority in modern society. They're not the kind of statistical problem, that would damage the possibility of healthy male-female relationships in general.
Sure, a much a larger percentage of people end up in a bad relationship once in their life. But we are looking for repeated patterns here. Everyone makes a mistake or two in their lives, when it comes to relationships.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I think there are some unreflective feminist women out there who use the Nice Guy meme to avoid some important self-examination and critique. I don’t know, what do you think about this stuff?
Just to make sure, you do realize that the "Nice Guy" meme was not invented by feminists? I assumed you know this, but now I'm not sure.
The whole thing was invented by men who identify themselves as "nice guys", and lack success with women. It's an old thing - decades old - but it became a movement with the birth of the internet, and over the last 10 years it has exploded into a fairly notable cultural phenomenon, which has a strong presence particularly at internet. "Nice Guy Meme" is sub-genre of the "Mens' Movement", not part of some feminist agenda.
"Nice guy", "friend zone", sexual "market value", etc, are all terms coined by bitter men who have trouble attracting women.
The "feminist" counter-arguments like the blogs at OKC or the comic at Imgur are simply a very, very small counter-move by a very small amount of people, who think that the much, much bigger internet "Nice Guy" movement has many logical fallacies.
[ January 30, 2014, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I know plenty of women who date guys that are just plain damaged. They can't hold a job, they always need to "borrow" money, they cheat on them, they verbally abuse them, they're insanely jealous, and all around just terrible partners.
But women still flock to them. Sometimes it's because they're attractive, but most of the time it seems to be a combination of attractiveness and that some/many women like a fixer upper. And once they get invested, they fall prey to a sort of Relationship Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I know plenty of women who date guys that are just plain damaged. They can't hold a job, they always need to "borrow" money, they cheat on them, they verbally abuse them, they're insanely jealous, and all around just terrible partners.
But women still flock to them. Sometimes it's because they're attractive, but most of the time it seems to be a combination of attractiveness and that some/many women like a fixer upper. And once they get invested, they fall prey to a sort of Relationship Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Didn't you work, or do charity work, with abused women? I recall something like that.
I also know women like that, but they are a fleetingly small minority. Someone's personal perspective might be different if they live/work in an area with a lot of social problems: Unemployment, alcoholism, drug abuse, high crime rates, etc.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Sure, a much a larger percentage of people end up in a bad relationship once in their life. But we are looking for repeated patterns here. Everyone makes a mistake or two in their lives, when it comes to relationships.
I definitely agree with this and I think part of the "Nice Guy" issue may stem from romantically unsuccessful men seeing these "jerks" as flawed and themselves perfect replacements, hence why they choose a name for themselves like "Nice Guys."
I kind of just want to scream it from the rooftops that most people have personal flaws that make them not great at dating.
That "fix-upper guy" could be funny and confident and adventurous. I've fallen in love with that guy. No, it doesn't work out and there were alot of fights and break-ups, but when things were good they were really good. Exciting, playful, full of laughs, etc.
But the self-confessed "Nice Guys" are rarely nice. Even if a guy is genuinely a nice fellow and missing the misogyny that is so rampant in "nice guy" culture, he probably has flaws that make him romantically uninteresting. He may be shy, unadventurous, non-ambitious, dispassionate in his personal life or insecure in sharing those opinions with others for fear of judgment. I've been the girl version of that guy. You don't get alot of dates that way and if you do score a date, they likely don't go well. The "jerk" may be a loser down the road, but they can atleast get in a few enjoyable dates to make the investment seem worthwhile for the other party.
Personally, my biggest criticism with the "Nice Guy" culture is that it seeks to applaud men for achieving the bare minimum. Congrats...you're NICE. Wow. What an achievement!
There's a reason they didn't name themselves "The Funny Guy" or "The Accomplished Guy" or "The Confident Guy." They AREN'T those things and THAT'S why are they aren't successful with women.
They think simply be decent to woman earns them romantic and/or sexual interest. And women can read that condescension and its NOT attractive.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna:
quote:Sure, a much a larger percentage of people end up in a bad relationship once in their life. But we are looking for repeated patterns here. Everyone makes a mistake or two in their lives, when it comes to relationships.
I definitely agree with this and I think part of the "Nice Guy" issue may stem from romantically unsuccessful men seeing these "jerks" as flawed and themselves perfect replacements, hence why they choose a name for themselves like "Nice Guys."
I kind of just want to scream it from the rooftops that most people have personal flaws that make them not great at dating, atleast for some part of theirs lives until they figure out what works and attract a suitable partner.
That "fix-upper guy" could be funny and confident and adventurous. I've fallen in love with that guy. No, it doesn't work out and there were alot of fights and break-ups, but when things were good they were really good. Exciting, playful, full of laughs, etc.
But the self-confessed "Nice Guys" are rarely nice. Even if a guy is genuinely a nice fellow and missing the misogyny that is so rampant in "nice guy" culture, he probably has flaws that make him romantically uninteresting. He may be shy, unadventurous, non-ambitious, dispassionate in his personal life or insecure in sharing those opinions with others for fear of judgment. I've been the girl version of that guy. You don't get alot of dates that way and if you do score a date, they likely don't go well. The "jerk" may be a loser down the road, but they can atleast get in a few enjoyable dates to make the investment seem worthwhile for the other party.
Personally, my biggest criticism with the "Nice Guy" culture is that it seeks to applaud men for achieving the bare minimum. Congrats...you're NICE. Wow. What an achievement!
There's a reason they didn't name themselves "The Funny Guy" or "The Accomplished Guy" or "The Confident Guy." They AREN'T those things and THAT'S why are they aren't successful with women.
They think simply be decent to woman earns them romantic and/or sexual interest. And women can read that condescension and its NOT attractive.
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Graeme: What does this weakness look like in practice? Utter agree-ability to anything the coveted woman proposes.
Backtracking a bit, but nail on head there.
My perspective is a little odd, since I am functionally asexual and have never pursued or wanted to pursue a romantic relationship of any kind. This is not something obvious from the outside with the effort I put into being generally cheerful and easy-going to encourage smooth social encounters. Apparently I'm an attractive enough woman to be approached regularly with more than friendship in mind. Everyone is only ever going to be a friend or acquaintance by default, which has forced a kind of caution and objectivity when noticing any interest beyond friendship.
It appears that being a quiet geeky type myself has made me seem accessible to this general category of 'wussies' as we've been calling them. Their primary method of approach is to agree with everything I say at all times, never having their own original thoughts, and trying to impress me by giving examples of how nice or talented or special they are... specifically relevant to what they think I want. Of course, this fails, because I won't know they're nice by them telling me that they are nice. I'll know it by observing their kindness when interacting with other people they aren't romantically interested in. They're oblivious to this, only concerned that I always see them in a perfectly positive light, which gives me no insight into their character--aside from being clearly disingenuous.
When I let these guys know I have no interest whatsoever (straightforward and politely) they're always the ones most personally offended and obstinate. I assume it's because their soul concern is their own status and not that I have personal autonomy. Massive red flags there.
...
I think it's worth mentioning that many 'friend zone' proclaimers I've come across online try to define it the same way as unrequited love, but these are different things, are they not? Unrequited love is a totally understandable frustration where the parties involved aren't on the same page, aren't ever going to be, and what a bummer that is, but there is an absence of guilt. The person being pined after is not blamed for not returning the feelings of affection. The 'friend zone' goes this extra icky step where the person being pined after is somehow at fault for the relationship not becoming romantic, as if that should be some guaranteed development achieved via friendship.
The way I see it, unrequited love is the potential realm of actual nice guys. The friend zone is the realm of 'nice guys', aka. jerks.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I love the fact that there are so many smart and insightful women posting on this thread.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Some people don't really have a preference. Bad example.
It isn't about having a preference; it is about having a plan. It is about taking some responsibility instead of being passive and making your partner do all the work of planning a date or deciding what to eat or nagging you to do X around the house. Bring something to the table other than a willingness to follow orders. If you don't have a preference, maybe put together what you know about her and make a plan that you think she will like. Which is not at all the same as making her come up with a plan.
[ January 30, 2014, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I know plenty of women who date guys that are just plain damaged. They can't hold a job, they always need to "borrow" money, they cheat on them, they verbally abuse them, they're insanely jealous, and all around just terrible partners.
But women still flock to them. Sometimes it's because they're attractive, but most of the time it seems to be a combination of attractiveness and that some/many women like a fixer upper. And once they get invested, they fall prey to a sort of Relationship Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Didn't you work, or do charity work, with abused women? I recall something like that.
I also know women like that, but they are a fleetingly small minority. Someone's personal perspective might be different if they live/work in an area with a lot of social problems: Unemployment, alcoholism, drug abuse, high crime rates, etc.
I worked with at-risk youths.
But the women I'm talking about weren't the products of bad geography or the problems listed above. They're college-educated and middle class.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
This topic seems to slant on a particular online subculture.
Some people (like myself) are talking about actual nice guys -- kind, polite, well mannered, empathetic, and considerate.
I don't understand this subculture you're referencing. It seems that you're inferring that men are trying to emulate a lot of the qualities of an actual nice guy in order to attract a partner but are (in fact) seeking sexual favor?
I'm bothered by this. I'm an engineer, and I've known MANY genuinely nice people who aren't the most socially astute. I think that women who are following your line of reasoning might easily mistake the former definition for the latter.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:I don't understand this subculture you're referencing. It seems that you're inferring that men are trying to emulate a lot of the qualities of an actual nice guy in order to attract a partner but are (in fact) seeking sexual favor?
Most of the people who go online and complain about being "Nice Guys" and still getting friendzoned do seem to be engaged in that kind of behavior.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I don't think that real nice guys would go online and complain about this sort of thing.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Destineer, you've got a dangling open paren in the OP that's been bugging me. First paragraph. Just FYI.
I think this is an interesting topic. Like many feminist positions I think it is recognizing a real phenomenon, but suffering from a lack of critical self evaluation and a generally sexist default attitude focused on finding an external outlet for blame.
For example, the resistance to rejection (#2) issue is so heavily reinforced as desirable by most mainstream women that it's sort of silly to put the blame for it solely on some stupid insecure kid who's been brought up in this culture. Of course he will be persistent and assume she is playing some game. Because that's what our culture encourages, so she very easily could be.
Relatively few people, women or men, actually value blunt honesty. It's generally treated as unromantic. Probably because it is, in many ways. So many aspects of romance essentially require a lot of lying to yourself and others about what you actually want/prefer in order to make the romance work.
I think there's a level of dissonance in the way feminists talk about Nice Guys, where they accurately call out bad behavior in men and fail to recognize how the behavior of women typically reinforces/advocates/encourages this. Or even mirrors it, in cases like Taylor Swift's wildly popular song that somehow managed to win some award despite being up against the best music video of all time (of all time!). So there's a lot of hypocrisy there. Or at less willful blindness.
Overall I don't have any specific objections with your list of defendable Nice Guy traits. Or at least I haven't thought of any yet. At work though, so I may return to this later.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Eh, I have lots of opinions. But I generally feel like the other person has a stronger opinion:
Wife: What do you want to eat. Me: Anything, dear. What would you like. W: I don't care either. You pick. M: Okay . . . Chinese. W: I don't really feel like Chinese. M: Okay . . . what do you want. W: I said I don't care. Anything is fine. M: Mexican? W: Too heavy. M: Italian? W: Too greasy. M: Barbecue W: <dirty look> M: So what do you want? W: I honestly don't care. If you want to eat at one of THOSE place, I really don't mind. But soup sounds good. M: So . . . Marie Calenders? W: No. <pause> How about that place down by Home Depot?
If you suspect that the other person has a preference and you're easy going, you'd think that you could just let them pick. But the lady doesn't want to be bossy. So it turns into a guessing game.
It's always ladies who are themselves unable to compromise that complain about indecisive men. The men are just gunshy after too many of these experiences.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I can totally related to that conversation.
Step 1: Don't say you don't care IF YOU ACTUALLY CARE! (there is no step 2)
I'm usually down for anything so it can be frustrating having the onus of making a choice when so many of the choices are not actually acceptable.
I make no assertion about the specific male/female dynamics. I'm sure this works in both directions for different couples.
I think most people have been on both sides of that. So often, "I don't care" is an unwillingness to have a suggestion shot down, because it's frustrating. It's a vicious cycle, man.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think there are like two or three simple things to keep in mind:
1. Be yourself / be honest. If that doesn't work, try changing (not pretending).
2. Don't try to be with people who don't want to be with you. You can frame this in a dozen ways from crass ranking systems to detailed personality analysis, but you can keep it pretty simple, too - respect what the other person wants.
Assholish "Nice Guys" are breaking one or both of those rules. You can still break one or both of those rules to some extent without being an asshole, but you still shouldn't.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
This also includes the "friend" who is just a hanger-on, hoping that their love will someday be requited. Yeah. These guys are pathetic and often a little creepy.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think there's a level of dissonance in the way feminists talk about Nice Guys, where they accurately call out bad behavior in men and fail to recognize how the behavior of women typically reinforces/advocates/encourages this. Or even mirrors it, in cases like Taylor Swift's wildly popular song that somehow managed to win some award despite being up against the best music video of all time (of all time!). So there's a lot of hypocrisy there. Or at less willful blindness.
Do you read any feminist blogs? Are you assuming the VMA awards were voted on exclusively by "feminists"? Do you know what feminists care about?
Let's get this clear, then: Feminists are well aware of Taylor Swift and do call her out for the problematic attitudes that she perpetuates.
I don't care about Taylor Swift specifically. She's just an example of something that is wildly popular among girls in our culture. "Calling out" people is also missing the point.
Our culture has deep problems. The fact that those problems sometimes manifest in a way that is harder on women than on men is pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things. Feminists don't tend to understand or care about the actual problems.
I can come back to this again later.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The fact that those problems sometimes manifest in a way that is harder on women than on men is pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things. Feminists don't tend to understand or care about the actual problems.
Is it possible that you, as someone who either benefits or is unaffected by the problems which specifically afflict women, are not the most unbiased person to be telling feminists how they should prioritize the problems facing our culture? Is it not also possible that someone might care about "feminist" problems while also caring about problems that you would agree are important?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That would be fine if they were approaching those problems in a productive, rational way. In a way that actually was likely to, you know, significantly change things?
Nobody benefits from the problems in our culture. Not really. Using other people's bad values to help you to live a bad life is not, ultimately, in your best interests.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
This also includes the "friend" who is just a hanger-on, hoping that their love will someday be requited. Yeah. These guys are pathetic and often a little creepy.
Yup.
There might be confusion about this topic. What most people here are talking about are the self-confessed "nice guys", who regularly use that exact term when talking about themselves, and blame that characteristic on not having success with women.
The name has it's origins in the "nice guys finish last" aphorism. Which actually was originally about baseball, but has been about dating and girls for the last 50 years or so.
There is an actual "nice guy" subculture, which is partially organized on internet. There are "nice guys" public spokespeople, a lot of blogs, discussions forums, etc. Here in Finland, in last elections one guy actually tried to run to parliament with a "nice guy" meme. He got a lot of publicity, thought thankfully much of it was negative. Many "nice guys" also tie the whole thing closely to Men's Movement, and anti-feminism.
I get that some people might be completely unaware of all of this. It's a subculture, not yet really mainstream. But it's a phenomenon which is getting more and more traction every year. This isn't going to be the last time you will be hearing about it.
The comic and the blog linked in the OP were both satiric criticism of the "nice guy" subculture. The comic is actually frighteningly accurate. If you go to some of the "nice guy" discussion forums, you will hear a lot of men talking about women exactly like that, completely oblivious to the fact how misogynist and condescending towards woman they are. Instead, they think that they are being really nice and respectful towards women, unlike "most" men.
All of this is why I said that a "wuss" would be a much better word than "nice guy". When you meet anyone who is a self-confessed "nice guy" and uses that term regularly, he is almost without an exception a wuss. And the reason why he doesn't get women is that he is a wuss. The characteristics that "nice guys" attribute to themselves are typically characteristics of a wuss, just with nicer, more positive wording.
But try telling that to the men in any of the "nice guy" discussion forums, and you will be battered to death. It's uncomfortable to admit that you're a wuss, so they like the more miseleading "nice guy" better. And it allows them to passive-aggressively blame women, other men, and society for all their oproblems with women.
AND THIS IS IMPORTANT: *Those men genuinely believe that they are the good guys*, and that the other men are the bad guys. This is a fundamental part of their worldview. Yes, they often have to ignore a lot of logical fallacies that their world view has. But as we all know, humans tend to be very good at self-deception.
It might seem to you like some of the women in this thread are giving out too definite examples of how a man should behave - But you have to remember that they are venting out their frustration towards the self-confessed "nice guys" who have a certain ideology. Not towards actual nice, kind men. The context of this thread skews things a little bit, as the behavioral examples are about certain kind of men in certain situations, and of course there is random overlap with other kind of men, who occasionally behave the same way in similar situations.
The dinner example works better if you think about it more as repeated patterns. If someone *never* tells what he wants, and always wants you to lead, it becomes frustrating at some point, doesn't it? It becomes kind of frustrating even in a male-to-male relationship. We don't want our friends to be weak-willed and submissive. We want them to be equal. Moreover, if our friend is like that all the time, it means he has some kind of a problem with us. There is a lack of trust. He is afraid.
It seems obvious to me that you are a genuinely nice guy. Not a "nice guy".
[ January 31, 2014, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To be blunt, it's difficult to take you seriously when you flat-out say things like 'feminists don't tend to care about actual problems'. I...what? Someone who can say this, in such a sweeping way, I'm a little shocked you would make such a brazen statement. I suppose domestic and sexual violence, health care inequality, wage gap, massive political and economic underrepresentation...since these are obviously very real frigging problems, I can only assume they're vastly outnumbered by a bunch of fake problems to make your position sustainable. Right?
As for no one benefitting from our country's problems...Dan. For pity's sake, don't be so obtuse. You know perfectly well that hardly anyone ever means 'benefit' to mean some uktimate, overall, cosmic improvement or something. We don't say 'well actually a man who beats his wife doesn't really benefit if the cops just ask a few questions and then leave, because it's not in his best interests to be an abuser.' Just as an example of one of those non-actual problems feminists care about and have striven for generations to force into public debate. We don't say 'men don't benefit from having an overwhelming majority of the political offices in this country, because it's not actually in their best interest to continue a disproportionate representation'.
Honestly it feels like this ties into your broader serious beef with a range of ideas and policies associated with liberals. 'Feminists don't tend to care about actual problems' is, like, news story comments section material, man. You're better than that.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: There's a reason they didn't name themselves "The Funny Guy" or "The Accomplished Guy" or "The Confident Guy." They AREN'T those things and THAT'S why are they aren't successful with women.
They think simply be decent to woman earns them romantic and/or sexual interest. And women can read that condescension and its NOT attractive.
This, so much.
Being nice isn't some special achievement, it's pretty much the baseline for "are you basically a decent human being?" It's one of the things you check off when considering dating a person. ("Literate?" check. "doesn't smell too bad?" check. "Confident?" check. "Not a serial killer?" check. etc.) Like, if someone isn't basically kind and considerate there's simply no way I will even consider dating them. I used to, but only for the adventure of dating the "wild party girl" type. I was never very serious about any of them.
Yet the self described "nice guys" seem to think that possessing (or often, faking) those basic qualities of a decent human being somehow earn them the right to sleep with any girl whom they "befriend" with pretty much the sole intention of boning.
Those who think this is a double standard, tell me: if an unattractive, socially awkward, boring girl who you had very little in common with started acting very nice towards you, and then got incredibly angry with you when you didn't want to sleep with her and stopped talking to you, wouldn't you feel a little perturbed? Now imagine that happened to you all the time, and said girls (who seem so friendly when you meet them, and who you treat well and do absolutely nothing to piss off) start spreading rumors about you, and claim you "only want to sleep with bitches" and are too stupid to make good decisions for yourself.
Luckily, we live in a world where women normally aren't under the mistaken belief they are superior to men or that they can somehow own or coerce a man's sexuality, so us men usually don't have to put up with that. Unfortunately, the opposite isn't true.
I get really frustrated with the false dichotomy between "nice guys" and "jerks" too. Often times it seems like being a "jerk" just means:
A) You're sexually attractive B) You're confident C) You're successful and of course, D) You happen to be dating a girl a "Nice Guy" thinks *he* deserves.
Of course, as has been mentioned in this thread, another downside of the prevalence of "Nice Guy" predators in my age group is it makes it more difficult to actually make female friends. Like, there's a nerdy girl I know who I think is pretty cool and have wanted to be friends with for about 4 years now (we've worked together off and on for a while) who I've just finally began to build a friendship with in the past month and a half. She's very pretty and somewhat shy and unassuming, and so "Nice Guys" flock to her like she's a magnet. I think it was me getting married that finally made her realize I'm really, truly not interested in her romantically and caused her to start opening up and trusting me.
I've had other cases where it's taken me months or even over a year to form friendships with women simply because they're so wary of "Nice Guys" that it takes them a while to trust me. It's pretty frustrating.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To be blunt, it's difficult to take you seriously when you flat-out say things like 'feminists don't tend to care about actual problems'. I...what? Someone who can say this, in such a sweeping way, I'm a little shocked you would make such a brazen statement. I suppose domestic and sexual violence, health care inequality, wage gap, massive political and economic underrepresentation...since these are obviously very real frigging problems, I can only assume they're vastly outnumbered by a bunch of fake problems to make your position sustainable. Right?
Nah I just didn't reiterate my point clearly enough probably. Sorry about that. Been posting more hastily than I'd prefer, in hindsight.
Anyway. Some of those are real problems (I mean some aren't, but wage inequality is a different question ) but addressing those don't address the problematic cultural memes that are giving rise to the problems feminists notice.
For example: Talking about how guys should get enthusiastic consent and shouldn't rely on cues or body language before initiating sex is... Accurate, really. But it will never be very effective the way feminists approach it. Prima facie, most women don't agree, or else they wouldn't continue to use nonverbal/inexplicit communication in relationships.
But more importantly, our society constantly reinforces bad ideas about the importance (or lack thereof) of consent before enacting your will on other people. It's not a principle that is taken seriously enough. So it's not terribly surprising that people have screwed up ideas about this.
Suspect I'm still not making my position actually clear. Let me know how much made sense, Rakeesh.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
There's a lot of inertia in media, for sure. Consider that it's still somewhat socially acceptable to make jokes about taking advantage of gullible drunk young women, or even act like that sort of behavior is even remotely acceptable (a la Barney Stinson) in TV shows and movies.
That being said, there's a *huge* difference between nonverbal communication in relationships and nonverbal consent in sex. Not picking up on a cue by, say, assuming that my wife didn't want a certain gift but was too polite to say so is a far cry from just assuming it's ok to kiss/touch/have intercourse with a woman because "she was asking for it" by her "nonverbal cues." (especially when alcohol is involved) I can't think of too many women who would say they wouldn't prefer to be asked "is it all right if I kiss you/take your clothes off/touch you there." Or simply asking "is this all right?" before each progressive step and waiting for a verbal response. I mean, do you really think there are an appreciable number of women who would prefer not to be asked?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
quote:Anyway. Some of those are real problems (I mean some aren't, but wage inequality is a different question ) but addressing those don't address the problematic cultural memes that are giving rise to the problems feminists notice.
Without attempting to be dramatic, it's with a somewhat appalled fascination that I ask: which of even that list aren't 'real problems'? And it seems like you're defining 'real problems' in the same, grandiose, basically never used sense that you were defining 'benefits' earlier. These problematic cultural memes you speak of (whatever those are), how are those to be addressed without, say, getting women more into the public sphere as equal with men? What cultural memes, for example, are behind massive political underrepresentation of women that can be addressed by a method that doesn't include getting women into something even approaching gender parity in political offices? Or is that not one of the 'real' problems?
quote:For example: Talking about how guys should get enthusiastic consent and shouldn't rely on cues or body language before initiating sex is... Accurate, really. But it will never be very effective the way feminists approach it. Prima facie, most women don't agree, or else they wouldn't continue to use nonverbal/inexplicit communication in relationships.
In order for this statement to be true, we would need to look at the history of sexual violence in our culture, specifically what is believed about consent, and try to determine if there has been any shift and in what direction-towards or away from insisting upon explicit consent for someone to be able to fairly claim a sexual assault wasn't committed.
I think that's really a pretty darn easy question to answer with 'yes, much closer than we used to be, obviously' and then wonder who had a hand in building that shift in perception. I suppose that while feminists were out worrying about fake problems and addressing them in ineffective ways, someone else took the lead?
Your statement that 'well, most women don't actually want explicit consent to be a standard' is pretty silly. For that to be true, among a variety of things that would need to happen would be one, a widespread attitude that such a thing is acceptable and not ridiculous; and two, even having the idea that requiring explicit consent is a way things can be done. It's an idea that has only very recently started to be bandied about in public debate. How far along does a large cultural shifts need to be before we get to start saying things like 'well, most women don't want that anyway'. I would ask what sort of world requiring that sort of standard would mean if you insisted on it for, say, minorities a hundred years ago. 'Well, how can we say most of them even want equality? They don't seem to be insisting on it.'
quote:But more importantly, our society constantly reinforces bad ideas about the importance (or lack thereof) of consent before enacting your will on other people. It's not a principle that is taken seriously enough. So it's not terribly surprising that people have screwed up ideas about this.
Now I don't know what you want. One of the things feminists try to do is use debate to change the culture. But when they attempt to do just that, your response was literally in the same post 'most women don't want that anyway'. As for the rest, I'm happy to hear about what other areas our culture is bad about having a good policy of 'enforcing one's will' on a other person. In what other area of our culture is it considered acceptable not to have explicit consent before doing someone to someone else's body?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan,
quote:Anyway. Some of those are real problems (I mean some aren't, but wage inequality is a different question ) but addressing those don't address the problematic cultural memes that are giving rise to the problems feminists notice.
Without attempting to be dramatic, it's with a somewhat appalled fascination that I ask: which of even that list aren't 'real problems'? And it seems like you're defining 'real problems' in the same, grandiose, basically never used sense that you were defining 'benefits' earlier.
Income inequality was an example of something I disagree is a problem. Also, I don't mean anything grandiose by it. Abusers live sad, pathetic lives. They'd be happier if they could figure out how to resolve the problems and dissonance in their minds and stop abusing people. I'm not speaking in vague abstracts. I mean it quite literally.
But I'm going to try to keep this at least tangentially related to feminism and Nice Guys because I think that's what Destineer was interested in discussing, and I like Destineer. I want him to get what he wants.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: These problematic cultural memes you speak of (whatever those are), how are those to be addressed without, say, getting women more into the public sphere as equal with men? What cultural memes, for example, are behind massive political underrepresentation of women that can be addressed by a method that doesn't include getting women into something even approaching gender parity in political offices? Or is that not one of the 'real' problems?
Yeah, this is a fabulous example of what I meant by not a real problem. That's not to say there is no problem present here, but rather the problem is being misidentified. What you're describing is a result of a problem. You could analogously call it a symptom of an actual problem. If it was a critically bad result (e.g. People were dying because of it or something) it might be worth it to directly mitigate it before actually addressing the underlying issue. But I'm thinking in this example it's not.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:For example: Talking about how guys should get enthusiastic consent and shouldn't rely on cues or body language before initiating sex is... Accurate, really. But it will never be very effective the way feminists approach it. Prima facie, most women don't agree, or else they wouldn't continue to use nonverbal/inexplicit communication in relationships.
In order for this statement to be true, we would need to look at the history of sexual violence in our culture, specifically what is believed about consent, and try to determine if there has been any shift and in what direction-towards or away from insisting upon explicit consent for someone to be able to fairly claim a sexual assault wasn't committed.
I think that's really a pretty darn easy question to answer with 'yes, much closer than we used to be, obviously' and then wonder who had a hand in building that shift in perception. I suppose that while feminists were out worrying about fake problems and addressing them in ineffective ways, someone else took the lead?
I'm confused. Yeah, feminists have something approximating the right idea about getting consent. I think I said that earlier didn't I? But their approach is flawed because they don't really understand the problem very well, so they've had limited success in actually changing most people's minds.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Your statement that 'well, most women don't actually want explicit consent to be a standard' is pretty silly. For that to be true, among a variety of things that would need to happen would be one, a widespread attitude that such a thing is acceptable and not ridiculous;
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. What is "such a thing" referring to exactly?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: and two, even having the idea that requiring explicit consent is a way things can be done. It's an idea that has only very recently started to be bandied about in public debate. How far along does a large cultural shifts need to be before we get to start saying things like 'well, most women don't want that anyway'. I would ask what sort of world requiring that sort of standard would mean if you insisted on it for, say, minorities a hundred years ago. 'Well, how can we say most of them even want equality? They don't seem to be insisting on it.'
Not really. You're comparing an institution of imposed oppression to a bad culture that people perpetuate on themselves. Wherever there is oppression imposed on women (e.g. Saudi Arabia) I agree that we should tear down those institutions.
But that's not what's going on here.
Maybe if you really want to make it about race a better analogy would be: the attempts by some groups to improve academic performance among black students, when a significant subculture among urban black Americans derides academic achievement. Something like that. But I don't really see the value in this analogy.
A significant majority of women reinforce the devaluation of consent regularly. Look at the popularity of books like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray among female readers. Look at romance movies or basically any romance fiction at all. Nonverbal communication, sudden romantic kisses, etc. all abounds.
Simply insisting that men have to get explicit, enthusiastic consent ignores the reality that many women they may want to sleep with don't want men to do that. Similarly, insisting women ought to want that isn't going to change their mind. They've adopted the romantic memes that say they should. It's not a trivial thing to change.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But more importantly, our society constantly reinforces bad ideas about the importance (or lack thereof) of consent before enacting your will on other people. It's not a principle that is taken seriously enough. So it's not terribly surprising that people have screwed up ideas about this.
Now I don't know what you want. One of the things feminists try to do is use debate to change the culture. But when they attempt to do just that, your response was literally in the same post 'most women don't want that anyway'. As for the rest, I'm happy to hear about what other areas our culture is bad about having a good policy of 'enforcing one's will' on a other person. In what other area of our culture is it considered acceptable not to have explicit consent before doing someone to someone else's body?
Some straightforward answers are "parent/child relationships" and "government/citizen relationships."
I think the first one is the huge factor in the current discussion, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If it was a critically bad result (e.g. People were dying because of it or something) it might be worth it to directly mitigate it before actually addressing the underlying issue.
You don't think women's health issues -- i.e. matters of actual life and death -- might be better represented in politics if women were better represented in politics? How would you mitigate that lack of representation before addressing the underlying cause?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If it was a critically bad result (e.g. People were dying because of it or something) it might be worth it to directly mitigate it before actually addressing the underlying issue.
You don't think women's health issues -- i.e. matters of actual life and death -- might be better represented in politics if women were better represented in politics? How would you mitigate that lack of representation before addressing the underlying cause?
What women's health issues did you have in mind, that are matters of life and death and that you think would be better represented if we had more women in politics? Would this increase in representation solve those issues? How? What is stopping that from happening now?
As to your last question, I don't know of a good way. I am critical of the ways I've seen people try to accomplish that, but I'm sure I haven't seen them all. If you have a preference feel free to share; perhaps I won't have any criticisms of it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If it was a critically bad result (e.g. People were dying because of it or something) it might be worth it to directly mitigate it before actually addressing the underlying issue.
You don't think women's health issues -- i.e. matters of actual life and death -- might be better represented in politics if women were better represented in politics? How would you mitigate that lack of representation before addressing the underlying cause?
What women's health issues did you have in mind, that are matters of life and death and that you think would be better represented if we had more women in politics? Would this increase in representation solve those issues? How? What is stopping that from happening now?
As to your last question, I don't know of a good way. I am critical of the ways I've seen people try to accomplish that, but I'm sure I haven't seen them all. If you have a preference feel free to share; perhaps I won't have any criticisms of it.
Are you seriously asking that?
Two words: Sandra Fluke. Not the Rush Limbaugh version of the story.
We're going to play a little game called someone else makes my point because I don't want it ignored. Please answer the following questions:
1. Sandra Fluke was supposed to testify before a House Committee, but was not allowed to. What was the panel about, and what was problematic about the panel?
2. One of the key things she wanted to talk about was a story about a friend who had some trouble with birth control. Why could this friend not afford birth control?
3. What, if any, were the long term consequences to this?
Sounds like a boring game...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Capax,
Yes, games that yield uncomfortable answers to important questions can be unpleasant.
---------
Dan,
quote:Income inequality was an example of something I disagree is a problem. Also, I don't mean anything grandiose by it. Abusers live sad, pathetic lives. They'd be happier if they could figure out how to resolve the problems and dissonance in their minds and stop abusing people. I'm not speaking in vague abstracts. I mean it quite literally.
I respect you so I don't think you're just screwing with me. But if it were someone I didn't know, I would be inclined to think they were, because in my experience nearly no one ever speaks about who benefits from things in this sort of way. Not when discussing policy. So in that sense, it is grandiose and quite abstract.
quote:Yeah, this is a fabulous example of what I meant by not a real problem. That's not to say there is no problem present here, but rather the problem is being misidentified. What you're describing is a result of a problem. You could analogously call it a symptom of an actual problem. If it was a critically bad result (e.g. People were dying because of it or something) it might be worth it to directly mitigate it before actually addressing the underlying issue. But I'm thinking in this example it's not.
OK, so I would love to hear your ideas about addressing the 'real' problems that don't involve directly addressing that very real symptom! Again, respect, so I don't think you're just screwing with me. But geeze. If you were a doctor, you would scoff at the idea of giving aspirin for a headache and insist on a dang brain scan!
quote:I'm confused. Yeah, feminists have something approximating the right idea about getting consent. I think I said that earlier didn't I? But their approach is flawed because they don't really understand the problem very well, so they've had limited success in actually changing most people's minds.
First, while it's hardly impossible for men to lecture women in general and feminists in particular on what the 'real' problem of consent is when discussing sexual violence, it's usually pretty darn silly. As it is here.
Limited success in changing most people's minds? What were the ideas on consent for sex three generations ago? Two? One? If there was any change, in what direction did it move? Further, if there was any change who had a hand in it, or did it just happen by cultural inertia or something?
quote:I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. What is "such a thing" referring to exactly?
Presently-though less than ten years ago and quite a bit less than fifty-the idea of people requesting or giving explicit consent* is often something that is either simply never considered as an authentic option, or scoffed at as, among other things, feminist nonsense. Before it can fairly be said that 'women don't actually want explicit consent to be the standard', it has to be a choice that at least a simple majority of women both know is on the table and don't view as an invitation to ridicule.
quote:Not really. You're comparing an institution of imposed oppression to a bad culture that people perpetuate on themselves. Wherever there is oppression imposed on women (e.g. Saudi Arabia) I agree that we should tear down those institutions.
But that's not what's going on here.
No, it's not. But doesn't it say something that the exact same charges you're leveling here can apply just as well to these other, more bluntly oppressive systems? And, you know, are used to justify such systems and were in the past?
quote:A significant majority of women reinforce the devaluation of consent regularly. Look at the popularity of books like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray among female readers. Look at romance movies or basically any romance fiction at all. Nonverbal communication, sudden romantic kisses, etc. all abounds.
Simply insisting that men have to get explicit, enthusiastic consent ignores the reality that many women they may want to sleep with don't want men to do that. Similarly, insisting women ought to want that isn't going to change their mind. They've adopted the romantic memes that say they should. It's not a trivial thing to change.
This is the fairest point by a wide margin I think you've raised. I'll address it down below since I already threw an asterisk about it above.
quote:Some straightforward answers are "parent/child relationships" and "government/citizen relationships."
I think the first one is the huge factor in the current discussion, though.
So one of the ways to address these problems isn't by narrowing the range of people for whom consent isn't always required? This is a strange way of addressing problems you have, Dan: directing efforts towards serious subsets of the problem is, apparently a waste of time.
*Here's the thing about nonverbal communication and implicit consent. Men-and women, for that matter-whether they're sleeping with the other gender, the same gender, or distinctions other than those two, may very well want and not insist upon partners who don't expect to give or be given explicit consent. That's quite alright. Private choices and all that.
But when they're wrong about that, if it should turn out that they didn't actually have the consent they thought they did, it seems we should just say...what, exactly? "Sorry, sir or madam, but he really did think you gave implicit consent, and she didn't imagine you were too intoxicated or too frightened or something, so there's just nothing to be done."
For that matter, isn't attempting to build a culture that strives for explicit consent also a help to those who are falsely accused of sexual assault
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: A significant majority of women reinforce the devaluation of consent regularly. Look at the popularity of books like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray among female readers. Look at romance movies or basically any romance fiction at all. Nonverbal communication, sudden romantic kisses, etc. all abounds.
Simply insisting that men have to get explicit, enthusiastic consent ignores the reality that many women they may want to sleep with don't want men to do that. Similarly, insisting women ought to want that isn't going to change their mind. They've adopted the romantic memes that say they should. It's not a trivial thing to change.
I'd appreciate some clarification about this. Should fantasy be limited in respect to how unhealthy it would be in reality? Uh... I'm struggling to word this effectively. Maybe if I switch the gender here...
A significant majority of men reinforce the glorification of violence regularly. Look at the popularity of video games like Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty among male gamers. Look at violent movies or basically any violent fiction at all. Gratuitous gore, vigilantism, etc. all abounds.
So, if heroic violent figures in popular media are attractive to men, should we encourage such behavior in reality? I would think not, because it's harmful. The same applies to women, doesn't it? If sudden romantic kisses of questionable consent in popular media are attractive to women, should we encourage such behavior in reality? I would think not, because it's potentially harmful.
That being said, I've never encountered a woman who thought of Twilight or Fifty Shades of Gray as healthy romance. I read all of Twilight to have an informed opinion and found it to be a display of textbook abusive relationships, though I don't recall any of the romantic stuff being non-consensual. A train-wreck can make for compelling entertainment when it's fantasy (not that I was entertained by Twilight). And when it comes to romantic movies... aren't they often written by men? I genuinely don't know the proportions there, so I could be wrong in assuming most movies are being made by men.
Lastly, there is a minority of women (and men) who have a fetish for non-consensual stuff (rape-play, BDSM, etc.), but these fantasies are played out in reality with full consent/safety precautions from all parties involved beforehand. Fifty Shades of Gray was massively criticized for dangerously misrepresenting that lifestyle.
I guess my main question is whether you think fantasy and reality are so inextricably linked that fantasy must be censored to limit any potential harm it inspires in reality?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You're comparing an institution of imposed oppression to a bad culture that people perpetuate on themselves. Wherever there is oppression imposed on women (e.g. Saudi Arabia) I agree that we should tear down those institutions.
"a bad culture that people perpetuate on themselves" is a very clear way to miss how the 'people' in this equation are not an equal mass perpetuating equally amongst themselves. Just like with racism, it's not "people perpetuating on themselves," its empowered groups perpetuating a power imbalance against marginalized groups.
The distinction is also completely meaningless. You admit that where "there is oppression imposed on women" requires a tearing down of those institutions, so, what's the former category? non-imposed oppression? What even would that be?
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
While otherwise I don't agree with Dan's overall points, I do agree that obviously women don't want men to ask whether she will give consent or not, when it comes to kissing, hugging, sex, etc.
When two adults with normal intelligence and normal level of confidence are interested sexually in each other, the consent is obvious. Neither side is in any doubt.
In a normal, romantically and erotically charged situation questions like "can i kiss you", "can I take off your bra", "can I have sex with you", etc, are buzz-kills. Neither the man or the woman wants to start asking those questions, because frankly, asking those questions means you're totally disconnected from the woman and her desires. You're completely clueless about how humans, or women, behave. You're not even completely seeing her as human person. Women typically will be weirded out by this kind of behavior.
If you tend to end up in situations where you're inclined to kiss a woman, or take off her clothes, or have sex with her, and you're not sure if she's giving consent... Then there is something wrong with you. Sorry for saying it aloud. But there is something deeply wrong with you.
If a woman is not giving consent, you can see it in a million different ways. She's uncomfortable. She's not kissing back. She's not wanting to touch you. She's not taking off her own clothes, or your clothes. She's not smiling, she's not showing arousal or passion. She's not positively excited. Her face isn't showing any warmth. She's closed down, frozen, afraid, or even fighting back.
If you're not able to see those things, and you have to ask aloud whether she's giving consent, then WTF. If I were a woman, I wouldn't want be alone in the same room with you.
If you're seeing any of those negative signs, THAT'S when you should ask whether she's giving consent. Because she's not giving it, and it's obvious even without asking.
"You should ask for consent" is important only in in scenarios where man has sex with a scared/intoxicated woman who is *not fighting back*, and then the man can later say, that well, maybe she did want to have sex. She didn't say "no". Because she was so intoxicated, or so afraid. The fear might come out of the man being physically intimidating, like straight up grabbing a woman and immediately having intercourse with her with all the foreplay removed (A typical date-rape scenario), or with him being in position where he has other kind of power over the woman (Like being her boss).
Some men like to degrade women, and treat them like objects, instead of humans. So they intentionally use the approach of "Oh, she doesn't enjoy kissing me. Well, I'll just have sex with her right away". When she doesn't say "no" and doesn't fight back (Because she's afraid), the man can claim that it wasn't rape (Which it was).
But it's an intentional choice. There isn't any confusion whether she wanted to have sex or not. The man knew she didn't want it, she wasn't enjoying it (Which is the purpose of sex). He just didn't care. Because he didn't like to consider her as an equal human being. Some people say that this is not rape, it happens on a "grey area". But there isn't any real grey area, the grey area exists only because some people want it to exist, because they want to degrade others. It's a "get out of prison" card that rapists use.
However, this has *nothing* to do with normal sexuality between adults. It's the complete opposite of what happens between most men and women. And I'm not going to start acting like someone who is not capable of seeing and understanding basic female sexuality. Women feel safe with me. They would feel less safe, if I would start asking inappropriate questions, at the most inappropriate moments. Because those questions would reveal that I'm completely disconnected from their sexuality, and their desires. And that would be troubling, and even scary.
Yes, you could come up with some scenarios where it's appropriate to ask those questions out of politeness, but with 7 billion people in this world and hundreds of millions of sexual encounters every day, you are bound to find exceptions to every rule. One example would be if I were to have a sex with a really shy and insecure woman with little sexual experience. She might be showing some odd signs of fear, and being uncomfortable, even if she were absolutely wanting the experience. Actually asking the questions, every step on the way, could make both her and me more comfortable. (It would probably help me more more than her).
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:In a normal, romantically and erotically charged situation questions like "can i kiss you", "can I take off your bra", "can I have sex with you", etc, are buzz-kills. Neither the man or the woman wants to start asking those questions, because frankly, asking those questions means you're totally disconnected from the woman and her desires. You're completely clueless about how humans, or women, behave. You're not even completely seeing her as human person. Women typically will be weirded out by this kind of behavior.
This is like literally, completely opposite of everything I have ever found to be true of women, or sexuality in general. If you know the woman well and this isn't your first time kissing her or whatever? Yes, of course you're not going to be asking every time. But just because you *think* you're connected with a woman and her desires doesn't mean that is actually the case, which is why it's both respectful and, you know, just a basically decent thing to *ask*! Seriously.
FWIW, I've had multiple occasions where, after the fact I've had women tell me "I really appreciate that you asked before you did x or y. (including my wife, incidentally) A lot of women have had bad experiences with overly intense and forceful men, asking permission (even when the answer seems pretty obvious) lets them know that you're paying attention to their desires and are willing to respect them and their boundaries. That is *incredibly* important.
Women will be weirded out by men asking permission? Seriously? Have you ever actually heard a woman say that? On what basis are you saying any of this? Have you actually talked to a woman about this?
Obviously there are a lot of physical indications as well, and you should definitely pay attention to them and follow them. I'm not talking about a man standing there awkwardly asking these questions to a woman, I'm talking about, while in the middle of making out, you start running your hand up her shirt and pause for a second and ask "is this ok?" before continuing, etc. Obviously, if it stops being ok she's going to freeze up, stop kissing you back, etc. But IMO it's far better to ask *before* that point, because A) it shows you respect her and are willing to listen to her before making your move and B) it gives her a chance to think about it and decide whether or not it's what she wants before it happens. (which lowers the chance of her being surprised/scared)
Honestly, I've come to find quite a bit of love making takes place in these conversations. "Is it ok if I do this?" "How does this feel?" "Would you prefer this? "I would like it if you did this." Again, I have literally never had a negative reaction from asking permission, and have had several women thank me saying they really appreciated that I did. I'm really curious as to why you think of it as such a negative thing? Has a woman ever told you she thinks of it negatively?
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:In a normal, romantically and erotically charged situation questions like "can i kiss you", "can I take off your bra", "can I have sex with you", etc, are buzz-kills. Neither the man or the woman wants to start asking those questions, because frankly, asking those questions means you're totally disconnected from the woman and her desires. You're completely clueless about how humans, or women, behave. You're not even completely seeing her as human person. Women typically will be weirded out by this kind of behavior.
This is like literally, completely opposite of everything I have ever found to be true of women, or sexuality in general. If you know the woman well and this isn't your first time kissing her or whatever? Yes, of course you're not going to be asking every time. But just because you *think* you're connected with a woman and her desires doesn't mean that is actually the case, which is why it's both respectful and, you know, just a basically decent thing to *ask*! Seriously.
FWIW, I've had multiple occasions where, after the fact I've had women tell me "I really appreciate that you asked before you did x or y. (including my wife, incidentally) A lot of women have had bad experiences with overly intense and forceful men, asking permission (even when the answer seems pretty obvious) lets them know that you're paying attention to their desires and are willing to respect them and their boundaries. That is *incredibly* important.
Women will be weirded out by men asking permission? Seriously? Have you ever actually heard a woman say that? On what basis are you saying any of this? Have you actually talked to a woman about this?
Obviously there are a lot of physical indications as well, and you should definitely pay attention to them and follow them. I'm not talking about a man standing there awkwardly asking these questions to a woman, I'm talking about, while in the middle of making out, you start running your hand up her shirt and pause for a second and ask "is this ok?" before continuing, etc. Obviously, if it stops being ok she's going to freeze up, stop kissing you back, etc. But IMO it's far better to ask *before* that point, because A) it shows you respect her and are willing to listen to her before making your move and B) it gives her a chance to think about it and decide whether or not it's what she wants before it happens. (which lowers the chance of her being surprised/scared)
Honestly, I've come to find quite a bit of love making takes place in these conversations. "Is it ok if I do this?" "How does this feel?" "Would you prefer this? "I would like it if you did this." Again, I have literally never had a negative reaction from asking permission, and have had several women thank me saying they really appreciated that I did. I'm really curious as to why you think of it as such a negative thing? Has a woman ever told you she thinks of it negatively?
Sorry if my post came off as confusing. But I'm not talking about whatever usual chat that casually comes up during foreplay and lovemaking. Yes, chit-chat and asking how the other is feeling is part of everything.
The context of the discussion was supposed to be about men being *obliged* to *officially* ask for the woman's consent, always. So what the man is saying is not the natural thing that comes out of normal, casual discussion during sex. Instead you are saying things, because you are required to.
So when a woman hugs me in a sexual manner, her face is one inch from my face, and she's all smiles, I have to ask for her consent to kiss her. Then I have to ask for her consent whether I can touch her body.
When she's taking my clothes off, kissing me all around, and grabbing my penis, I have to stop and ask her whether she will give me consent to start taking off her clothes.
When we're both naked, I've just done oral sex on her, and she's at the top of her heat, I have to stop and ask for her consent to have intercourse - When she quite clearly desperately wants it.
And this is all duty. Because you *must* ask for consent. And it's really strange to be asking all those things, when the situation itself is completely counter-intuitive to the question.
Physically, I'm a pretty intimidating guy. But in bed, women are not intimidated by me. If someone were nervous, I would of course open it up in discussion (Like I referred in the last paragraph of my previous post). But in the far, far majority of cases, the women are not the slightest bit nervous.
My first-times with women have typically been very relaxed, humorous, fun moments. And my personal preferences are sexually active, open-minded women with a strong sense of humor.
I don't think women are hard to read, sexually. And so far, the only real negative feedback I've ever received has been from times when I had trouble getting erection due to too much intoxication, or nervousness when I was younger.
I've had a woman mildly froze up on me only a few times, ever. I've always noticed the froziness immediately.
And every time, it happened was due to my inexperience - I wasn't sure how much I could push ahead, before I get the positive signals from the woman. I fixed the situation by immediately apologizing, and taking it much easier from then on. And I learnt my lesson, now I always wait for the physical signals to come, before I proceed. Women excel at sending physical signals, and I find them remarkably easy to read.
Maybe some men don't find them easy to read, but I can only speak for myself.
In my experience, asking for consent becomes important when you're doing something, well, kinky. Like showing play-aggression or dominance. That stuff needs very concrete rules, and absolute, undeniable consent.
Someone else might have different experiences on how easy it is to read a woman during sex. And I have no doubt that cultural background means a lot. Many people on this forum live in mormon communities, and I can only imagine how different their perspective might be from a very sexually liberal and free-spirited Finnish perspective. And personal preferences towards women, and sex, probably mean a lot here. And of course people also have varying ability to read each others physical language. When in doubt, ask.
But regardless, I'm not intending to change my ways with women. They have said - both with verbal and physical communication - that they like what I'm doing.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Personally, as a woman, I find consent incredibly sexy.
I would like to think that most men can read signals, but then I go to bars and watch men pursue women who are doing everything to send the "leave me alone" signals, so my faith in the "I can tell" argument fails.
The modern consent movement is really about communication. The old "no means no" talking point works only to an extent and has led to a generation that thinks that silence is an agreement to go ahead.
When I'm talking about consent, I'm not insisting that the guy (or woman, it goes both ways) needs to be nervously asking "is this okay?" every time they move their hand. I'm talking about active communication of wants and desires so that both participants have a chance to draw boundaries.
If I'm flirting with a guy and he leans over, looks me in the eye and says, "I think you're incredible and I want to kiss you," then that guy is probably getting a kiss and then some.
If I'm in bed with a guy and he's telling me all the things he wants to do with me, then I'm only more encouraged to say YES. If a guy asks me to tell him what I want, then that's just another awesome way to give consent and set boundaries. I could probably describe a million ways in which "Can I?" becomes the sexiest thing I've heard/seen but this is a family message board so I won't.
There are ways to utilize consent in a way that is confident, sexy, and enjoyable.
Now I'm not denying that there are ways in which to give "enthusiastic consent" without speaking, but like I said above, in a culture in which "no means no and silence means yes," this is about covering bases and educating people who may be pursuing romantic and sexual relationships with former rape/abuse victims. And a partner, male or female, may not always have that intimate information relayed to them at the very beginning of their friendship. Basically, better safe than sorry.
And because consent means communication, as much as its important to teach men and women to ask, its just as important to teach young men and young women that its okay to ASK for what they want. That its okay to say, "I only want to do..." Its why the consent conversation and sex positivity are both so desperately needed in sex ed programs.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
The simple inequality that exists is that your average woman, in her child bearing years, has far more "sexual value" than your average man. In today's culture, young women are being competed for not just by their peers, but my older men as well. Romantic relationships are pretty zero sum. For, consider the man who is in a relationship with a woman from the 11th grade until a few years after they both complete university, at which point the man soon after forms a relationship with a 20 year old woman. This man is consuming more than his fair share of what a poster named Sa'eed used to refer to as "Female Erotic Capital."
This sort of thing happens all the time. Men who remarry after a divorce marry women younger than their previous wives. Top men are allowed to engage in soft polyamory.
So called "nice guys" have always existed in America. They were just saved by the fact that women were forced to settle in their early 20s. The Sexual Revolution however has taken America in a more Darwinian direction. Female sexual agency has been given primacy, and it turns out that, without the constraints of merciless shaming and religion, a great deal of young women who don't feel a financial necessity to settle down end up squandering their teens and 20s sleeping around with men who only care to use them for release. This naturally leaves out a lot of young men out in the cold.
Groups like the Mormons practice "sexual socialism" by encouraging their women to marry young, which naturally benefits the "nice guys" of that group. However, most Americans are not attached to a religious sub-group that as strongly stresses family creation.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: Most men who are girl magnets, are also really nice people. The assholes who are girl magnets, are a minority.
I believe this.
The problem is that attractive men are not just contenting themselves with dating attractive women and only "winning" in that way. No, they must win the numbers game as well by dipping down and using their status to "date" (cough) girls a point or two below them on the hotness scale, girls who consider themselves "single" but who are still receiving the validation of sexual attention/action from so called "alpha" males. As long as the attention from the "alpha" males continue, entreaties from non-alphas will repel her. In today's America, it is only when the alpha males no longer give her as much sexual attention or are more insulting and plain about their intentions to user her that she suddenly finds herself becoming more marriage minded -- perhaps in her late 20s or early 30s. She will make sure to spend as little "female erotic capital" on the non-alpha she must settle for if she wants a family. A truly wicked state of affairs indeed!
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
Therefore, the situations I've painted in the previous two posts lead to there being a great deal of more desperate young men, so called "nice guys." When you understand this you see why the "Nice Guys of OK Cupid" tumblr was so cruel. Ostensibly the joke was these guys were sexist/jerks, but the real joke was that they were male sexual losers who were complaining.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with the number of men in this thread making blanket statements about what women think or do?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Oh boy. 'Female erotic capital' is back.
Dude. No. Seriously. Stop it.
ETA - Shanna, yep, it is a bit weird. I think there are just a lot more guys here, and they kind of don't see how odd it can be. Not that women don't similarly generalise about men. But yes. We probably need more female perspective on this.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: My advice to nice guys who aren't having luck with woman: - Don't focus or obsess on a single woman. Be a good friend, but never be pushy. She'll signal if / when she's ready. - Make sure you're educated. - Make sure you read reguarly. Stay current with book trends. - Read Esquire. Follow the style and grooming advice. - DON'T EVER BE SELF-CONSCIOUS. - Be self-deprecating. Learn to take a joke, and make fun of your faults. Then correct them. - Don't ever be scared to talk to anyone. - Again, focus on your grooming. - Start lifting weights and watch what you eat religiously. - Don't smoke. Don't drink too much. - Learn a lot of little things. - Be interesting. Travel. Get a hobby. - Be social. - Learn to cook well. Even if it's only a few dishes. - Try wetshaving. You know, with an old fashioned razor and brush. There are a lot of little manly details that women find attractive. - Have a dream. Make a plan toward pursuing it. - Did we talk about grooming?
Ah yes, men must somehow standout and perform to be worthy of love. A woman just has to be a woman.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka:
quote:I would be concerned that there might be some selection effects entering in here. For example, maybe women in their thirties are more inclined to seek out kind partners than younger women.
I don't know how old women he dated, but men in their mid 30's don't have any problem dating women 10 years younger. I'm in my late 30's and I get women 10-15 years younger giving me the looks, a lot. Getting a date, or a relationship, with a much younger woman is easy. [/QB]
Yes, of course. And those men would have already had relationships in their younger days but in their 30s and 40s will then continue to form relationships with younger women. There simply aren't enough younger women to go around for the number of men willing to date them, which NATURALLY creates more male sexual losers.
This is why prostitution should be legalized.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
*blink*
There are no words.
I want to debate but there's so many problems above that I have no idea where to begin.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Isn't this just another alt for Clive or Sa'eed or whoever that guy is? It's all the same old stuff. We've been over this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've got my suspicions.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: *blink*
There are no words.
I want to debate but there's so many problems above that I have no idea where to begin.
80% of all women who ever lived managed to reproduce while only 40% of men have.
The claim is sourced to some 2005 arcane genetics paper but it's cited in this NYT piece:
quote: The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.
The tradition of monogamy was a compromise between men to share the "good" of female sexuality. The West thew that compromise out of the window in the 60s. We have moved back to a state closer to that of nature. Women have been liberated. Now it's time to liberate those "Nice Guys of Ok Cupid" to simply buy the physical relationships they can't otherwise get.
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
Yikes. I've got my suspicions and I've barely ever been more than a lurker.
The thing about that list--It's entirely about the basics. Health. Hygiene/grooming. Hobbies.
I can't fathom the shallow thinking required to see those things as 'only for men'. The average PERSON does those things by default. Aros's advice was aimed at men who are struggling with their priorities when it comes to women.
Simplified... try to be a healthy/fulfilled person. Nothing gendered about that.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote:Originally posted by Betwixt: Yikes. I've got my suspicions and I've barely ever been more than a lurker.
The thing about that list--It's entirely about the basics. Health. Hygiene/grooming. Hobbies.
I can't fathom the shallow thinking required to see those things as 'only for men'. The average PERSON does those things by default. Aros's advice was aimed at men who are struggling with their priorities when it comes to women.
Simplified... try to be a healthy/fulfilled person. Nothing gendered about that.
Some of the things on the list are sensible...others are not demanded from women:
quote:Make sure you're educated. - Make sure you read reguarly. Stay current with book trends. - Read Esquire. Follow the style and grooming advice. - Learn a lot of little things. - Be interesting. Travel. Get a hobby. - Have a dream. Make a plan toward pursuing it.
Are the women who fail at these things as unlucky at love as the "nice guys of ok cupid?" I doubt it. The female equivalents of those guys are having babies because other men settle for them due to the shortage created by alpha males hoarding female erotic capital.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
Husbands must bond with their wives when their wives are young women. That way, the husband develops "wife goggles" as he has burned into his mind his wife at her physical best, which allows him to better accept his wife's aging as he at least can always recall in his mind when she was at her best. This is why I stress women's age.
All the alpha males cannot marry all the women, so the tragedy of the current marriage/sexual system is the men who marry the women the alphas get tired off end up missing their wives "peak" and probably have a harder time accepting their wives' aging. And as mentioned earlier, such men are spoiled to the wives because of the memories the wives have of relations with alphas.
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yehudi Ben Israel: Are the women who fail at these things as unlucky at love as the "nice guys of ok cupid?" I doubt it. The female equivalents of those guys are having babies because other men settle for them due to the shortage created by alpha males hoarding female erotic capital.
How are the "nice guys of ok cupid" relevant?
This makes zero sense to me. I can't figure out these delineated gendered groups you're talking about.
Edit: Specifically, who are these alpha males? What are they? What do they look like? Are there alpha females?
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote:Originally posted by Betwixt:
quote:Originally posted by Yehudi Ben Israel: Are the women who fail at these things as unlucky at love as the "nice guys of ok cupid?" I doubt it. The female equivalents of those guys are having babies because other men settle for them due to the shortage created by alpha males hoarding female erotic capital.
How are the "nice guys of ok cupid" relevant?
This makes zero sense to me. I can't figure out these delineated gendered groups your talking about.
"Nice guys of Ok Cupid" are young men pining publicly that they can't find love. Are there young women doing the same thing? This is a pretty gendered problem that stems not from sexist entitlement but simply due to the shortage of available young women.
quote: Specifically, who are these alpha males? What are they? What do they look like?
They are the top 20% of men in terms of looks/physique/personality/wealth etc. They often use their advantages to outshine other men and hoard female erotic capital. Before the Sexual Revolution, such men had to settle and were shamed if they used their advantages that way, much like women who slept around were also shamed. Now these men are allowed to make a killing by monopolizing multiple women's FEC.
edit: fixed a typo
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote: In the midst of the cries to young men to man up and the concern over hookup culture, it’s important to really understand what is motivating both young women and young men. When women don’t need a man as a personal provider and protector they are freed up to have casual sex, delay marriage and pursue hotter men, in hopes of catching him, or, to a lesser extent, simply enjoy the ride. Top men clean up while average and lesser men are left out in the parched desert of involuntary celibacy with only their discouraging thirst for love and sex to keep them company.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: There's a reason they didn't name themselves "The Funny Guy" or "The Accomplished Guy" or "The Confident Guy." They AREN'T those things and THAT'S why are they aren't successful with women.
In danger of being repetitive it's also because the guys who ARE "confident/accomplished/funny" are now allowed to hoard multiple women's female erotic capital. And curious how women do not have to be funny/confident/accomplished to be worthy of love. So why not just decriminalize prostitution for these "nice guys" who are not naturally desirable to women?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
As a woman who dates, its my experience that confidence, humor, goals, and accomplishments play key roles in attracting desirable romantic companions regardless of the gender of either parties.
Also note that these are all traits that can be achieved through hard work and introspection. "Nice guys" are fully invited to overcome their sexist, ignorant ways and become desirable members of society.
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yehudi Ben Israel: "Nice guys of Ok Cupid" are young men pining publicly that they can't find love. Are there young women doing the same thing? This is a pretty gendered problem that stems not from sexist entitlement but simply due to the shortage of available young women.
Absolutely women are doing the same thing. On the internet, sometimes, but to other women and friends, all the time. Women get harassed online. Especially on sites like OK Cupid. No reason to flock there to air relationship grievances, or lack thereof.
quote:They are the top 20% of men in terms of looks/physique/personality/wealth etc. They often use their advantages to outshine other men and hoard female erotic capital. Before the Sexual Revolution, such men had to settle and were shamed if they used their advantages that way, much like women who slept around were also shamed. Now these men are allowed to make a killing by monopolizing multiple women's FEC.
edit: fixed a typo
Top 20% of hot/successful men? Or 20% of all men? I'll assume the first, since there is nowhere near 20% of all men are hot/successful. So you're saying this tiny population of hot/successful men are having long-term sexual relationships with a massive population of diverse women. And the rest of the men are getting 'scraps'.
This strikes me as utterly absurd. Seeing people as parts of simple math equations with absolute values. Simplifying closer to reality, there is an equivalent percentage of hot/successful men and women. They pursue each other. A large percentage of average men and women who pursue the hot/successful men and women and 'settle' with each other.
This FEC claim is set in such a distorted view of reality that I'm not touching it.
The topic has veered off of 'nice guys'. I'll refrain from posting until others have picked it up again.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with the number of men in this thread making blanket statements about what women think or do?
No. I've been uncomfortable with it since it first started.
And now YehuCli'eed has started posting his things... so I think I shall go back to lurking.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yehudi Ben Israel:
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: There's a reason they didn't name themselves "The Funny Guy" or "The Accomplished Guy" or "The Confident Guy." They AREN'T those things and THAT'S why are they aren't successful with women.
In danger of being repetitive it's also because the guys who ARE "confident/accomplished/funny" are now allowed to hoard multiple women's female erotic capital. And curious how women do not have to be funny/confident/accomplished to be worthy of love. So why not just decriminalize prostitution for these "nice guys" who are not naturally desirable to women?
HOW INTERESTING GOOD SIR WE HAVE A USER ON THIS FORUM WHO CONSTANTLY TALKS ABOUT "FEMALE EROTIC CAPITAL" AND WHO CREATES NEW ACCOUNTS TO BE AN INSANE MISOGYNISTIC CREEP WHENEVER HE IS BANNED FOR BEING AN INSANE MISOGYNISTIC CREEP PERHAPS YOU HAVE MET HIM OR HIS SIX PRIOR INCARNATIONS
SINCERELY, AN ACTUALLY CONFIDENT ACCOMPLISHED AND FUNNY PERSON
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:First, while it's hardly impossible for men to lecture women in general and feminists in particular on what the 'real' problem of consent is when discussing sexual violence, it's usually pretty darn silly. As it is here.
I should clarify, when I said this I meant 'a man' rather than the whole gender.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: In a normal, romantically and erotically charged situation questions like "can i kiss you", "can I take off your bra", "can I have sex with you", etc, are buzz-kills. Neither the man or the woman wants to start asking those questions, because frankly, asking those questions means you're totally disconnected from the woman and her desires. You're completely clueless about how humans, or women, behave. You're not even completely seeing her as human person. Women typically will be weirded out by this kind of behavior.
What? No. No, we will not be weirded out by this behavior. This behavior is normal. It is not a buzzkill, unless you are so incredibly uncomfortable with sex that you cannot bear to talk about it--in which case you should not be having sex.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That right there. These questions aren't somehow intrinsically uncomfortable or a buzz kill (however could they be? We assign our own values to them).
And I also feel like 'explicit consent' is getting an unfair hypothetical 'this wouodnt work' evaluation. No one has said or suggested a preplanned, abrupt halt and a carefully seriously spoken question, then continuing, and then repeatin the process a few times. Dogbreath and Shanna actually gave if a fair shake in describing how it might be done. The kinds of questions they describe are likely, it seems to me, uncomfortable in proportion to how uncomfortable one or both parties are to begin with.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
Re consent, the man does not have to explicitly say "can I kiss u" or "can I take of your bra." He can just say something like "oh baby I want you so bad" and see how she reacts. That is much less of a buzzkill amirite.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
How are you still allowed to post here Clive? Seriously?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Clive? Have you heard from him lately, Dog? I was thinking about him the other day, actually.
See, I was out at a restaurant picking up some take out and I saw this pretty average looking guy sitting to one end of the bar. He didn't look bad or anything, but guy had a bit of a neckbeard, coulda used some clippers. Anyway, dude was positively seething. Like, livid. My food wasn't ready yet so I watched him while I waited. My best was on some really bad service that had upset the guy. Coulda been a bad day for him anyway, and bad service set him over the edge.
But then I realized something weird. He was pissed, but it didn't appear to be at a server or a bartender! The guy was staring so hard it wasn't difficult to see what he was looking at, and at the other end of the bar I saw a couple, and I wondered what could possibly be going on. They both looked good, the dude was maybe in his 30s or 40s, and the lady a bit younger, maybe, but they were across the bar so it was pretty hard to tell. She was attractive, though, I noticed that because hey, heterosexual male here. If for nothing else than a passing mystery, I had neckbeard to thank for a visual cue, at least.
At this point I could see neckbeard was grinding his teeth. He was so upset I could almost hear his molars scrape against each other! I was torn, because on the one hand maybe a recommendation to a good dentist might be helpful, but on the other hand, serious creepy stalker vibe too, y'know?
Deciding I've got Netflix for drama, I just quietly paid for my food when it arrived. That put me a few seats from the guy, and aside from what may have been a bit of BO, I'm not sure, my sinuses were acting up, it sounded like he was muttering what really evoked ideas of a manifesto of some sort. I'm not too sure, and I wasn't inclined to find out because hey, crazy! Plus the food and all. But it sounded like he was worried about a conspiracy of sexy female capitalists or something who were appearing on one of those Hoarders shows. Considering my initial wariness thoroughly validated, I beat a hasty, no-eye-contact retreat. Food was nice!
Anyway, so you were mentioning Clive? Have you heard from him?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Clive is not allowed to post here. But I felt it necessary to conclude my investigations before just assuming Yehudi is him.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
xkcd's take on the issue. Is he reading hatrack or what? Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Munroe has done several comics about OSC books (including a rather brilliant one about Lost Boys), so it's entirely possible that he lurks here.
Also, BlackBlade: it took him all of 4 posts to get back into Female Erotic Capital. I know it's not solid proof, but it's pretty obviously him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait! What about my cherry picked expert with an article in the NYT?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I thought the same thing when I read that this morning. The alt text really makes it.
*
I'll say this: the rabbit hole YBI has gone down is very, very deep. I did some research into it once and found some places on the internet that I never want to see again. There's an entire ethos built up around it, and it even has a name. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's kind of like this for me (I started looking at MRA stuff awhile back too, and like you I didn't get far) a perverse spin on 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon', but instead it's 'Six Degrees of Sexual Property' or something. You've got your authentic, non-creepy guys concerned about equal rights and make concerns not being gradually shoved to the sidelines, guys like Lyrhawn for example. But when I look, and admittedly bias speaks here too, he seems like a very rare species.
Instead almost at once the entire environment whether it's in a discussion board or an article, starts getting a bit more comfortable with 'women are just greedy bi#%*es' sort of rhetoric. Not the first layer, but then you take a look at a thread about an article or an essay and it's even more there.
It's possible the second degree is actually 'Female Humans are Authentic Human Beings in Their Own Right, and Efforts to Control or Criticize Them for Not Being 'Fair' to Men are Creepy', but I wouldn't bet on it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Good god.
So for whatever it's worth I've got no real desire to rejoin this conversation with him here. Sorry Rakeesh for leaving our conversation hanging.
Also, in case I wasn't clear before, I agree with you and Shanna about how people ought to act regarding consent. I'm just skeptical that you guys represent anything approaching a majority of the culture. Art/film/novels in the culture don't seem to support that idea, anyway. That's why I object when to the feminists that vilify people with views more like Tuuka's. I think he's the norm, frankly, among both women and men.
That said, vilifying Sa'eed is fine by me though. God damn.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who here has vilified Tuuka?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Nobody. It's just been civil disagreement. I considered parenthetically confirming that in my post but didn't think anyone would assume I was saying so. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
What I was saying was, attitudes like Tuuka's are vilified by many people who advocate very ardently for enthusiastic consent. That such people don't frequent Hatrack doesn't really surprise me.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
On the topic of consent -
It's obviously true that explicit verbal consent isn't always necessary. Tuukka isn't wrong about that.
HOWEVER, it's very much ALSO true that there are a lot of people who SUCK at identifying when it might be necessary.
There are many people who, due to inebriation or extreme self-centeredness or wishful thinking or delusions or a desire to appear confident and aggressive in ways they've been told (over and over) are sexy, due to any number of factors you can't practically account for in a lesson about when you need explicit verbal consent and when you don't, will end up pushing too far.
AND THERE IS MORE - many of the people who are terrible at this ALSO think they are great at it.
I don't see any decent alternative to the advice to seek explicit verbal consent. A bright line. Any other guideline will be misinterpreted and misapplied. Anecdotal evidence of successful encounters that didn't involve explicit verbal consent do not solve the enormous problem that exists with people who misread signals or take silence for an invitation.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:attitudes like Tuuka's are vilified
I hope you don't think I'm vilifying the attitude. I'm quite convinced that downplaying the importance of explicit consent increases the likelihood of traumatic and harmful and intrusive sexual acts - not by those who have the attitude, but by those who lack the skill and luck to avoid doing something wrong without following such a guideline.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
The National Review uses the term "alpha male." The manosphere is ascendant!
I don't want to hear any more about the state of your manospheres, thank you.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:The National Review uses the term "alpha male."
...?
Now I'm wondering if you think someone involved with MRA or legal prostitution activism came up with that term or first applied it to humans.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Dammit, Sa'eed, seriously?
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:attitudes like Tuuka's are vilified
I hope you don't think I'm vilifying the attitude. I'm quite convinced that downplaying the importance of explicit consent increases the likelihood of traumatic and harmful and intrusive sexual acts - not by those who have the attitude, but by those who lack the skill and luck to avoid doing something wrong without following such a guideline.
No, I don't think you are.
Actually, I'd go further than you. I think Tuuka's attitude, the prevailing attitude, is wrong. I don't care how good anyone thinks they are at reading body language, I think everyone should be much more blunt and straightforward than they are. I don't think things like spontaneity and tension and body language are worth much. Better to be clear.
But I'm in a small minority. That's not how most people feel. Most men and women like a certain amount of spontaneity and tension (so long as the person with them isn't a creep).
The objection I have is when men who have the most common attitude (shared by men and women alike) are then maligned as just barely a step above rapists by people who's attitudes fall a bit closer to mine, outside the mainstream. I think that decrying some people for a belief structure embraced by most people is unfair and wrong.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:The National Review uses the term "alpha male."
...?
Now I'm wondering if you think someone involved with MRA or legal prostitution activism came up with that term or first applied it to humans.
The term is quite popular in those circles (which includes the pick up artists crowd) and has become almost exclusively associated with them. In any case the substance of the article is quite fitting with manosphere themes but it's too hopeful that alpha males will change their ways by limiting themselves to alpha females only.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: On the topic of consent -
It's obviously true that explicit verbal consent isn't always necessary. Tuukka isn't wrong about that.
HOWEVER, it's very much ALSO true that there are a lot of people who SUCK at identifying when it might be necessary.
There are many people who, due to inebriation or extreme self-centeredness or wishful thinking or delusions or a desire to appear confident and aggressive in ways they've been told (over and over) are sexy, due to any number of factors you can't practically account for in a lesson about when you need explicit verbal consent and when you don't, will end up pushing too far.
AND THERE IS MORE - many of the people who are terrible at this ALSO think they are great at it.
I don't see any decent alternative to the advice to seek explicit verbal consent. A bright line. Any other guideline will be misinterpreted and misapplied. Anecdotal evidence of successful encounters that didn't involve explicit verbal consent do not solve the enormous problem that exists with people who misread signals or take silence for an invitation.
Yep. This.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You were banned, Sa'eed. Why are you here?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I do want to reiterate that the current structure could just as easily be said to be "tolerated" rather than "embraced" by the majority of people.
Women both enjoy and are conditioned to be expected to enjoy "romantic comedies." In Hollywood, women hold less than 25% of behind-the-camera job. So we have a predominantly male controlled industry making movies they think women want. As was pointed out above, its incredibly uncomfortable when its men telling women what they will enjoy.
But of course, women turn out in droves for these movies because its really not like there's alot of options. If I got to a buffet and all that's being served is chicken, you can't jump to the assumption that women don't like beef.
Still, on the other hand, there's nothing wrong with women choosing to indulge in fantasies via movies, tv, or books, that they would not actively choose in real life. In a culture that tells women that they are sluts or whores for wanting sex, it shouldn't be a surprise that women fantasize about being spontaneously kissed or aggressively pursued. In a fantasy setting, if its "not our fault" then we think we can't be shamed for what happens.
I think that's the idea at play when books like "Fifty Shades of Grey" become hugely popular. My generation was vocally shouting down the book's inaccurate depictions of consent within the BDSM lifestyle. But the book was devoured by an older generation of women for whom the wanting-sex=dirty mindset was even more engrained. But here's a fantasy where they can enjoy the kinky sex along with the female protagonist without the guilt because it was happening to her with her minimal control.
I have no delusion that tomorrow we could turn into a society with a explicit-consent sex culture if we just tried hard enough, but I don't think "male-written romantic comedies make me assume that women don't find consent sexy" is a good excuse for not pushing forward with consent education.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: I do want to reiterate that the current structure could just as easily be said to be "tolerated" rather than "embraced" by the majority of people.
Women both enjoy and are conditioned to be expected to enjoy "romantic comedies." In Hollywood, women hold less than 25% of behind-the-camera job. So we have a predominantly male controlled industry making movies they think women want. As was pointed out above, its incredibly uncomfortable when its men telling women what they will enjoy.
But of course, women turn out in droves for these movies because its really not like there's alot of options. If I got to a buffet and all that's being served is chicken, you can't jump to the assumption that women don't like beef.
Hollywood is only catering to demand. "Romantic comedies" are often mainly about female fantasies and the result is often unflattering. For instance, "Sleepless in Seattle" portrays women as very fickle when it comes to commitment. The Tom Hanks character is all the more attractive to Meg Ryan's character because the former is more accomplished and wealthier and has already shown and is indicated to be a good mating prospect by the fact that he already earned the devotion and love of a now deceased woman. The Bill Pullman character on the other hand -- Meg Ryan's boyfriend in the film-- is an entirely decent chap, his only foible being that he has allergies (big whoop). And, despite sharing a lot of tastes, interests, and other commonalities with his girlfriend, she ends up dumping him mercilessly for the mere PROSPECT of a better offer. And this in a screenplay by Nora Ephron no less.
Reverse the genders. Imagine a "romantic" film in which a man dumps a woman whom he likes and appreciates, shares a lot of interests with, etc, for the mere chance of getting with what strikes him as a better mate. That guy would be considered a jerk.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Imagine a "romantic" film in which a man dumps a woman whom he likes and appreciates, shares a lot of interests with, etc, for the mere chance of getting with what strikes him as a better mate.
Have you seen "Serendipity?"
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
When I was 12 or 13 I would often read the "naughty" bits of Harlequin romances for titillation. It often seemed that the men in these stories never needed to "ask," that the heroines wanted to be "taken" by them. This was material written exclusively by women for women. No doubt though that these heroines would not want non-alphas whose character they're sussing out to be so presumptuous as to "take" them. Thus the request from feminists that men always ask for consent is significantly about urging non-alpha males to know their place.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
A) How long ago was that?
B) Why do you have such difficulty separating fantasy from the real world?
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Imagine a "romantic" film in which a man dumps a woman whom he likes and appreciates, shares a lot of interests with, etc, for the mere chance of getting with what strikes him as a better mate.
Have you seen "Serendipity?"
No.
In "Sleepless in Seattle," Bill Pullman's character getting dumped was part of the only plot. This is how Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan get together in this movie: Tom Hanks' loving wife dies. Meg Ryan dumps a loving fiance for the prospect of getting with a man she has never met. Can the film work if it's Meg Ryan's husband who died and Tom Hanks abandons a loving and compatible fiance all the while semi-stalking and obsessing about the new woman he wants (as Meg Ryan does to Tom Hanks in the film?). No. It's men who can be discarded at women's whims. The point is that female produced movies/romantic fiction is only too revealing about women's nature and desires.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: B) Why do you have such difficulty separating fantasy from the real world? [/QB]
We can infer a lot about what about what women want and think about relationships from the romantic stories they create or find appealing.
I'm 28.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
Argue that this also applies to women when it comes to relationships: You're a sexist.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yehudi Ben Israel:
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: B) Why do you have such difficulty separating fantasy from the real world?
We can infer a lot about what about what women want and think about relationships from the romantic stories they create or find appealing.
I'm 28. [/QB]
No, you can find out something about what women fantasize about when you read the their fantastical works. You can also explore what they do not want because fantasies are a safe place to explore the multi-faceted issue of romantic attraction and sexuality.
If you want to learn about how human beings live their lives, then you should talk to living human beings. And since they're live people deserving of your respect, you should actually listen and take to heart the things they say without twisting it into some strange sexist-based bias.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As if you weren't enough of a laughingstock alteady, Clive, you explain that one of your formative insights into heterosexual female sexuality was [i]old bodice rippers[/].
Please, make sure you tell people that little anecdote at every opportunity.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
This guy has an interesting theory about why women like "a**holes."
quote: I've been developing a theory that I think might add a bit to TRP thinking on this topic.
Men are sexually attracted to traits in women that are fully observable when they first meet (i.e. physical beauty).
Women are sexually attracted to traits in men that are only partially observable when they first meet (i.e. social status, confidence).
What does this mean for dating? Well imagine a world in which the traits men find attractive in women are partially unobservable. Specifically, let's pretend women walk around in full burqas on the streets and in public, but otherwise act just like Western women. You can see if a woman is overweight or not, but otherwise you can't tell if she's hot. After a few dates though, you get to see what's underneath. These women are relatively experienced, they've dated men before and shown them what is underneath their burqas, and thus these women know their own sexual market value.
Now, you approach a woman on the streets who looks decently in-shape and you think might be attractive. She is very receptive to your approach. She's kind and sweet and seems excited to go on a date with you. What do you think to yourself? "Shit, this girl is probably ugly."
You approach another girl. When she sees you, she is cold and standoffish. What do you think to yourself? "Awesome, this girl is probably so hot. I better try harder."
This is the world women live in. When they meet you, they can't really tell how attractive you are. So they rely on your behavior to tell them. The less interested in them you are, the more options they think you have, and the more attractive they think you must be. So when you treat them like dirt, they think you must be god's gift to women.
It's only later that they find out whether or not you really have those qualities they are looking for. This is your "burqa" coming off. If you want to keep a girl after that point you better be as alpha as your behavior implies, but before that point they only have your behavior to go on.
Posted by Yehudi Ben Israel (Member # 13128) on :
The most hilarious part of this manosphere scene is the group of "nice guys" who have fallen for pick-up artist guru schemes and shelled considerable $$$$ to become better with women but now are totally bitter against those gurus.
Oh, that's not the most hilarious part, by a wide margin. It's not even a contender.
Well above that, for example, would be the man in your quoted reddit remarks who claimed that women wait to decide how sexually attracted they are to a guy by a careful analysis if his behavior and what it might mean about his status. While also suggesting that status is unimportant to men.
Say, Clive, how's the dating life going? Are you still nursing some hopes in the midst of your little misogyny vanity project, or have you just given into the nice, soothing worldview that requires no change or growth from you and places all f the blame in women or in the men women like, which also sets you aside from any unpleasant realizations?
Remember! A few internet articles and discussion forums means Mans are On the Rise!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
You know, there are plenty of fantasy books and movies where men go around on vigilante killing sprees, or even just really enjoy beating people up. Do you think the fact that a lot of men in our culture comsume and enjoy that sort of media means that murder is somehow more socially acceptable?
Fantasy is just that - it's not real. And in certain situations, BDSM can be very exciting if it's done in a safe environment. Without going into too much detail, my wife sometimes asks me to be "rough". And that's because she trusts me completely and knows I respect her and will stop instantly if she asks. If, OTOH on our first date I had (without asking or talking about it first) grabbed her and shoved her against the wall and started ripping her clothes off she would've been absolutely terrified. (and rightly so) The inability of some posters here to tell the difference between fantasy and reality is somewhat terrifying.
Another example: I greatly enjoyed watching Spartacus Blood and Sand. Do I like the fantasy of being a gladiator? Yes. Would I like to participate in gladiator LARPing in a safe and controlled environment? Maybe. Do I actually want to be a gladiator? F*** no!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, but you've got a good job, right? Ask yourself: since you were like a Walmart greeter* when you met her, and you've got a suitably alpha job now, doesn't that just prove it???
*cmon. We know you were. Otherwise she wouodnt have found it alarming!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Hmm. That's a good point. I've been promoted twice since I met her (two more phalluses on my rank insignia!)... I should really consider going officer. (maybe then she'll consent to more offspring)
Posted by Betwixt (Member # 12600) on :
Geez. Linking to The Red Pill... that's not biased at all. At least the Blue Pill had some funny comments in response to said post.
The fantasy thing is what I was trying to pry out of Dan_Frank a page back. Dogbreath, I really appreciate what you shared from your personal experience. Violent fantasy in media appears to be comparable to romantic fantasy. It's a way of exploring some extremes that are otherwise not acceptable in the reality of our personal lives (unless consented to). I grew up playing a lot of violent first-person shooters. This did not cause me to see tragedies like Columbine as okay or normal. Non-consensual stuff implied in romantic movies shouldn't be spilling over into the real world either, and yet this seems like a much greater leap for people to recognize the potential harm in.
The few 'nice guys' I've come into contact with did not recognize this separation. They were pulling many of their courtship methods from romantic movies (and porn maybe) as if they were examples of what all women wanted. Yet most of these same guys consumed violent media and understood those as fantasies, which didn't apply to real life.
The argument can be made (and is) that violence in media can desensitize its impact to the viewer and normalize violent behavior and likewise that unhealthy/non-consenual romantic tropes are doing the same. Which is fair, but I don't believe censorship is the answer. I would think education and awareness are key. And more than that, broadening the kinds of entertainment available so that people have alternate options to choose from. There are efforts being made to get more women into writing and directing, which may shift things a bit, but the status quo will take a while to break down. The industry would likely benefit from fresh perspectives outside of the dominant white male experience.
I do think that consent should be a significant topic in sex education curriculum, where it is often totally absent (in the US at least). Maybe that could help alleviate anyone feeling like they are owed any kind of relationship, regardless of how 'nice' they are.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The interesting thing is that you can see just how much a perspective such as Clive's is rooted in confusion of fictional portrayals and fantasies with reality. This alpha male business, this view of women, it's like something out of a luxury car commercial or cologne when he's attempting to be more high-minded and rational. More like a beer commercial when he's not.
As for the rest, I wholeheartedly agree with you re: consent and education. How can anyone fairly say that humans in general and women in particular don't actually want something like explicit consent if they're not taught that it's a viable option early on?
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I've been promoted twice since I met her (two more phalluses on my rank insignia!)
Phrasing = Brilliants!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Is that you, Dan?
And do you ever post more than 20 words at a time?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I... What?
I'm not sure what that post means. Why would I post as a different name? And since when are my posts so short? Hell, scroll up half a page to see a post of mine that is longer than 20 words.
I'm baffled. I'm not even sure if you're intending to insult me or call me out or something, or if that was a genuine question, or if you meant it as (confusing) good natured ribbing, or you're thinking of a different guy named Dan, or what.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No, I have a buddy named Dan who lurks here and posts occassionally. I've yet to find out what name he posts under (he thinks it's funny), I just saw Hatrack up on his computer occassionally back when we worked together and I've long suspected he's narrativium. Nothing related to you at all.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Aha!! Okay that makes way more sense. Sorry.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I can confirm that Yehudi is just another Sa'eed alt. In the meantime could y'all forbear from engaging with him?
Thank you.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
You've long suspected wrong, Dogbreath. Sorry to burst that bubble.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I am Danicus!
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I am Danicus.
Posted by Danicus (Member # 13130) on :
I am Danicus!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, this is awkward.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who ya gonna crucify now, Crassus, and whatcha got against Thracian generals anyway? Thought you said you liked gladiators!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I hope Danicus is in fact your buddy Dan, and he's enjoying crowd sourcing his screwing with you;)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
god willing some day men will break the chains of their social oppression. god willing. it may be too much to dream but someday i see a man in the white house. maybe 44 in a row.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
*snort
---
It's also worth noting that the world of publication is rife with pseudonyms. I don't think many would disagree that more women than men are trade published romance authors -- though the balance is shifting over time -- but there have always been male writers using female pseudonyms.
Leigh Greenwood (in RL, Harold Lowry) started writing romance in 1985 and is a former president of the Romance Writers of America.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: god willing some day men will break the chains of their social oppression. god willing. it may be too much to dream but someday i see a man in the white house. maybe 44 in a row.
God damn the uterine tyranny that is the humble man's lot in life, but even now as things stand, another masked of our oppression, we may not reach 45 consecutive make presidents! Outrage! Let's also not forget the way that these women don't always react in the ways which I expect and approve of. They're all playing games!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I do kind of hope for a day when Hatrack can discuss issues without these without being absolutely frighteningly atrocious
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary has almond breath. Discuss.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yehudi Ben Israel... Jesus. I should've known this topic would draw out Clive C.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I really liked this. I wonder if any of these friendzoners would just simply try something like "Hey, you're really cute! Can I have your number?" and then, you know, ask a girl out on a date or something, if they wouldn't find themselves having a lot better luck. Because of all the guys I've ever heard complain about the friendzone, I can't think of any who have actually tried asking more than a handful of girls out. Instead, they try and befriend the girls they like, and then get angry when the girl doesn't respond to their creepin'. Rejection isn't that terrifying, I mean, my friend Ed is famous for approaching two girls at a bar and saying "Hey, you're beautiful. Want to dance?" "No? Well, what's your friend's name?" and then asking her friend the same question. He might talk to 10 or 20 girls in a night, but he usually ends up taking one home because he's not terrified of the first 9 or 19 or whatever rejecting him. He just smiles and moves on. Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Rejection isn't that terrifying,[/b]
Please speak for yourself! Luckily I don't have to approach women, all of my relationships found me.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary has almond breath. Discuss.
Cyanide poisoning? Get to a doctor, Samprimary!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
no jokes, I've been direly ill for over a month now and poisoning was one if the things being investigated medically alongside video records
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
(Post Removed by JanitorBlade)
[ February 08, 2014, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
(Post Removed by Janitorblade)
[ February 08, 2014, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I told this story on the other site. But my old roommate had a conversation with a girl and recorded it without her knowing so he could listen to how he talks to girls. I got back from class and he was literally watching it on my HDTV.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ...this comic...
Am I the only one kind of bothered by the fact that the female protagonist violently attacks the male when he was being verbally obnoxious?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
1. It's a comic in which the characters are literally costumed vigilante-types, inspired by, well, comics. Fisticuffs are rather expected. Now if you actually believe the moral is 'use violence against guys if you don't like what they say', thenn I think you might have a point, but I think such a reading would be pretty bizarre.
2. Labeling her an evil bitch and asking for romantic credit for not raping her (do you recognize the implicit threat there, by the way?) is a little more than just 'verbally obnoxious'. That said, though, if you do believe the point was 'violence in response to words', I'll agree with your uneasiness.
3. Personally I was a little annoyed at the near-nudity. I mean it's like she was some sort of exhibitionist, isn't that a little unsettling? And did they ever pay for their meal or what? I'm not sure I like the message that sends.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I really liked this. I wonder if any of these friendzoners would just simply try something like "Hey, you're really cute! Can I have your number?" and then, you know, ask a girl out on a date or something, if they wouldn't find themselves having a lot better luck. Because of all the guys I've ever heard complain about the friendzone, I can't think of any who have actually tried asking more than a handful of girls out. Instead, they try and befriend the girls they like, and then get angry when the girl doesn't respond to their creepin'. Rejection isn't that terrifying, I mean, my friend Ed is famous for approaching two girls at a bar and saying "Hey, you're beautiful. Want to dance?" "No? Well, what's your friend's name?" and then asking her friend the same question. He might talk to 10 or 20 girls in a night, but he usually ends up taking one home because he's not terrified of the first 9 or 19 or whatever rejecting him. He just smiles and moves on.
This was bothering me for a while and finally motivated me enough to respond:
a) yes, effortlessly, confidently saying "hey, want to dance?" works fine *if* you are not terrified, if you have an array of important social skills which do not come naturally to some people.
b) the actual recommendations by PUA books prominently tell people "don't get fixated on one girl, ask a whole bunch of people out, you'll get practice and you'll gain confidence." They also do come with a bunch of advice (some good, some bad, some ugly) on how to approach women and be interesting to them, but acting like all you have to do is be simple and open up with a confident one liner is just false.
You won't be successful trying to approach it with all the numbers and strategy in your head - but there's a bunch of subtle stuff going in the "hey, let's dance?" that some people just don't know and that you're not noticing because it's so second-nature to you.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: This was bothering me for a while and finally motivated me enough to respond:
a) yes, effortlessly, confidently saying "hey, want to dance?" works fine *if* you are not terrified, if you have an array of important social skills which do not come naturally to some people.
I'm not entirely sure why you would be terrified, or what those skills would be.
b) the actual recommendations by PUA books prominently tell people "don't get fixated on one girl, ask a whole bunch of people out, you'll get practice and you'll gain confidence." They also do come with a bunch of advice (some good, some bad, some ugly) on how to approach women and be interesting to them, but acting like all you have to do is be simple and open up with a confident one liner is just false.
Ok, full stop. I'm neither talking about being a pick-up artist or endorsing any kind of "strategy" so to speak. I've never had a one night stand, and there's a *huge* difference between successfully getting a girl you just met to have sex with you that night, and getting her to give you her phone number or maybe asking her on a date. The former seems to rely on blind luck, alcohol, incredible good looks, and good social skills. (usually in that order, unfortunately, though I'm not entirely sure) The latter mostly involves just being a honest and decent person, having reasonable expectations, and, you know, talking to somebody.
That being said, you definitely have a point about practice, which I guess is mostly what I'm trying to get across. For me, I started swing dancing socially when I was 16 (took a class, and me and my dance partner at the time went every Friday night), and I learned quite a bit instinctively from that. (my wife and I met swing dancing, and we still go most weeks) How to approach someone with open, nonthreatening body language (to ask them to dance). How to make small talk. What seems creepy or disturbing, and what seems funny or charming. About 20 or 30 funny stories about myself I learned to tell over and over. (4-6 minute dances 30 or 40 times a night lead to repetition) Not that I was writing any of this down or doing it consciously.
That being said, those are basic social skills anyone learns in school. It's the whole point of dances, social events, games, parties, etc - it's a (more or less) safe environment to learn those sorts of skills by trial and error. It's not some sort of PUA playbook or complex strategy. And if for some reason you don't have those skills, you can easily learn them just by taking some time, finding a hobby you like (whether it's drinking or dancing or kayaking or hiking or whatever), and talking to people you meet.
I'm not trying to be condescending with this. I'm as socially awkward as your next nerd, and by no means am I a "player" or anything. I just think people (perhaps afraid of rejection, or maybe just situations they can't control) try to hard to manipulate and strategize their way through a perfectly simple and natural process.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Hmm. I'm realizing that the point I'm making was relying on a lot of underlying assumptions we don't seem to share, and I don't know if its worth the time to discuss them in full detail.
Your paragraph listing skills you learned in swing dancing is a good example of the sorts of skills I'm talking about, and the way you went about it was a good way to go about it.
But they are also clearly skills that a) came easily to you, b) you were fortunate enough to learn when you were 16, where the stigma for screwing up at them was lower.
The more general point is that almost all skills work best when you've internalized them and can do them "simply, and naturally", but almost *no* skills are actually simple and natural.
When you first learn to draw, you have to learn how to hold a pencil properly (because you're probably holding it wrong), you have to learn how to look at objects and actually see them (because you are probably looking at objects wrong), and you have to learn to move then pencil where your brain actually wants it to go.
Then you have to learn how to integrate all of that into a single, fluid process.
To some people (like me), those skills come fairly naturally, don't produce anxiety, and I was good enough at drawing at an early age that I put a lot of practice hours in and got good.
To other people I've taught, they didn't come naturally at all, they had to learn each piece in a deliberate, strategic way, and it's only *after* they've learned all the pieces that they can integrate them into something smooth and natural.
And some people are afraid of "drawing badly and getting judged" just as some people are afraid of getting rejected. And we can come up with Evo-psych reasons why that might be the case, which are probably wrong, but it's still the case that a *lot* of people are terrified, and your statements still feel very dismissive of that to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that if Dogbreath's remarks had been made in a more general context, waving aside anxieties over rejection in a more normal interaction, I would agree with you, Raymond. But in this context, wherein the inward anxiety of a given man twists into various shades of false, agenda-driven friendship with a given woman-and all of that somehow becomes her problem-I think some stern reminders that no, this anxiety isn't somehow immutable, and that even if it is, it's the given man or woman's responsibility to work through that rather than insist potential mates must accommodate, are in order.
For one thing,it's not really much like drawing. There are similarities, but this is an interpersonal thing, and no one, least of all a friend who is being falsely pursued, is under any obligation to value the anxiety and fear of embarrassment of someone else over their own dignity. The people in your example, even those deeply anxious and embarrassed about exposing their (initially) poor talent at drawing...they've got the option to take a class. Practice, study, committment. Granted the stakes are potentially higher in dating becaus you're offering up more of your own vulnerabilities, but isn't that the cost of entry anyway? Which is really better at cutting the anxiety? Direct advice on tools that will work if used, friendly sternness that it can be done; or an overall focus on the high stakes and acknowledgments that risking rejection is a big, dangerous hurdle?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Raymond: I can definitely appreciate that some skills come more easily to some people than others, and that some people (due to bullying, or shyness, or other physical or social reasons) don't really begin socializing until their 20s. I can also understand and appreciate social anxiety - now I know a bit more of what you mean by "terrified" and it makes sense.
That being said, feeling terrified about admitting your feelings to your first crush when you're 14 is one thing, feeling that way at 22 or 23 is quite another. I think, much like how the first time you ride a given rollercoaster it's gut wrenching, but by the end of the day at the amusement park it barely causes any rush at all, it's something that should go away with practice. If not, it's probably indicative of bigger problems...
I guess my main objection is that many men and some women of my generation (including some friends of mine) seem to resort to dishonesty and manipulation to get around this social anxiety rather than simply working through it and getting better. Much like some people choose to take painting lessons, there are a plethora of resources for learning and practicing social skills. Speed dating, dance lessons/clubs, hiking clubs, kayaking clubs, fraternaties, social clubs in general, coed sports teams, "singles groups" at churches, online dating, even clubs and bars if you're feeling traditional. And it's not like every woman (or other man, I guess) is completely smooth or socially apt, either. Just making the attempt and being honest and upfront covers a lot of ground, no matter how awkward or uncomfortable it may seem.
It's easier for some people and harder for others. Finding a mate has certainly NOT been easy for me by any means, and I've had to struggle quite a bit with relationships and learning how to be a partner in a healthy relationship. Or, in fact, learning what a healthy relationship *is.* I spent a good part of my admittedly short life as a loner, and I've gone through quite a bit of pain and grief over the past 4 years because of it. So please don't think I'm being dismissive.
But would you recommend someone learn how to paint legitimately - even if it takes him or her 10 years to learn the fundamentals, or would you rather have him or her be a lousy painter who learns how to manipulate other people into telling them that their painting looks nice? Because I honestly feel if these guys would take the same time and energy they put into learning PUA tricks or befriending girls with the intention of guilting them into a relationship, and put it into learning actual social skills, they'd be a lot better off.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Going back to the beginning comic, I'm paint a scenario that might help some of the heterosexual men here understand it a bit better.
Imagine you meet a guy. He's a lot bigger than you are and you feel somewhat physically intimidated by him. He's kind of shy and awkward, but he's really friendly towards you, and you two strike up a friendship. He's always there for you, talking to you after you've had fights with your girlfriend, seeing movies, spending weekends at the beach or waterpark or star wars convention, and he's very patient and kind and giving with his time. You start to trust him, telling him some of your deepest secrets, and consider him a close friend.
Then one day, he says:
"do you want to, you know, go out with me?" "Um, aren't we out right now???" "No, like, as a date." "Oh. Wow, uh, no offense bro, you're really cool and everything, but I'm not into you that way..." (you don't want to hurt his feelings, he is a really great friend) "This always happens! You stupid men never like me because I'm too *nice*. I spent all that time hanging out with you and being your friend and it means nothing to you! You just want some asshole, don't you? See what a nice guy I am, I didn't even rape you that one time we were hanging out and you were really wasted!"
And at that point your friend starts being a complete jerk and either completely ignores you, or starts being all stalkery and creepy.
Now would you think he was a genuinely nice guy who's miffed about being turned down, or would you think of him as a creeper? And would you feel grateful he didn't decide to take advantage of you, or would you feel completely creeped out that he thought that was an option in the first place? Would you even want to keep seeing him, knowing that everything he did was just an attempt to get you to have sex with him? Would you feel he betrayed you in some way?
I imagine that's somewhat similar to what women who have men befriend them under false pretenses feel.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think it's helpful to remember that preferring to make friends in low pressure, less stressful situations, and hoping that this may lead to some kind of eventual romantic connection is not always creepy and problematic.
If you think being a nice friend entitles you to romance and a sexual relationship, yeah, that's probably creepy. But lots of us who have genuine/good/healthy relationships got there through that sort of path.
The advice is: don't be an entitled creep.
One way not to be an entitled creep is to make your attraction known up front. This can require (or be a way to build) certain types of social skills to learn how to start dating people you are interested in.
But it's not the only way. If you can't stop objectifying and longing for the love of your friend who isn't interested in the romantic angle, you probably need to back off the friendship and spend your time with other people. But if you can just be friends with someone because you like being friends with them, and you aren't hung up on something they aren't up for, then that can be okay.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I think that the examples being used are prone to more than a touch of hyperbole. And I'd wager that a lot of this behavior stems from a lack of social skills.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
This thread is oriented around the sorts of people who specifically treat friendship as a means of manipulating girls into dating them and act as if "being nice" entitles them to sexual favors from said girls. It's a real problem.
That being said, of course there's no problem with falling in love with a friend. So long as you're honest with your intentions, there's not even any problem with befriending someone with the hopes of dating them. It's the "I'm going to pretend to be your friend, but really I'm trying to get you to screw me" attitude that is really the issue. And with that, the main problem is with the attitude afterward, the "she friendzoned me because I'm too nice!" entitlement bullshit. If it was more of "want to go out?" "No." "Ok, I accept that and respect your choice, because I am a well adjusted adult" it wouldn't be an issue.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I just realized I hadn't been participating in the conversation prior to now, so it's probably not clear: I totally agree with the "nice guy" problem (I think scifibum's recent phrasing most summed up my position.)
What I don't like about the comic was that it dismisses the nice guy in exactly the wrong way. Saying "just be yourself and ask her out simply" is just about the most useless advice you can give a person, and I think the lack of *actual* good advice is part of why we end up with Nice Guys™ in the first place.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
How is it useless, though? I honestly think it's fantastic advice. I think the bad advice is the "don't ask consent, girls don't like being asked" and the "you have to play the game and do x, y and z to get a girl to like you" nonsense. I've stated repeatedly, and afaik every woman who has posted in this thread has agreed, that simply asking someone is by far the best way to go about it.
Obviously it can be more nuanced than that. And having appropriate body language, a nice smile, pleasent small talk, etc. can certainly make someone more likely to say yes. But why on Earth do you think teaching men to simply ask a girl out is a bad idea? This is mind boggling.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think Raymond's issue is with the specifics of the advice, rather than the overall approach. That said, though, isn't the only way to mitigate the often taught shame and reluctance associated with rejection to...well, advise those worried about it to just go for it and thus innoculate themselves by discovering it's not a terrible idea?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:That said, though, isn't the only way to mitigate the often taught shame and reluctance associated with rejection to...well, advise those worried about it to just go for it and thus innoculate themselves by discovering it's not a terrible idea?
A lot of dating advice tends to be oriented toward being confident and forward (and hopefully respectful and polite at the same time). I think there are people who do better with a different approach, that can resemble "Nice Guy" behavior in some particulars without amounting to the same thing.
One can take an approach that guards against a fear of rejection without going full on "Nice Guy" creep, in other words.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, there's a lot to be said for being subtle. And it's entirely reasonable if you want to just be flirtatious and let the other person make the first move. (this is common and even, unfortunately, expected of women) And sometimes, if you happen to become attracted to a friend, it's better to drop hints or flirt and see if they respond in kind than force a direct confrontation. But that's all about comfort, situation, or preference. No matter how you go about it, you are making a proposition, and are standing the chance of being rejected. And if you're using a subtle approach *because* you're afraid of rejection, it's probably not the healthiest situation.
Honestly, if you have a crippling fear of rejection, it seems like you should take care of that before trying to get involved in relationships.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
No . . . screw this post.
I would posit that this whole "nice guy" meme is nothing more than a defense for women, a rationalization to be a-holes. A genuinely nice guy becomes infatuated with a woman, treats her well, and at some point is rebuffed. He is not socially able to handle it well. That DOESN'T mean he is a bad guy, just that he isn't well socialized.
So . . . hey . . . there's a meme about it. Let's just assume that all the guy ever wanted was sex. The onus is on them. They're a creep, right? It's an obligation, right? Let's belittle the fact that he is a decent human being. Oh, what, he's not socially on par to make a proper romantic approach? Well, he should learn better, because he's coming off like a creeper.
I'm glad we can just make up memes to make us feel better about ourselves. You have guys pining all Dawson's Creek style, about some true romantic love or whatever, and sexist (yes, sexist) women minimizing their affections into technique to get sex.
Honestly, ladies. If that's all a guy wants, he would use a PUA approach. I would wager that 90% of these guys are just too sensitive or genuine or honest to go that route. They're hurt because you broke their heart -- might as well just chalk it up to rape culture, right?
I'm kind of ashamed for you all right now.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Aros, there can definitely be bad behavior by individuals in any group of people -- women or men, young or old. And also, I think this is critically important:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: A genuinely nice guy becomes infatuated with a woman, treats her well, and at some point is rebuffed. He is not socially able to handle it well. That DOESN'T mean he is a bad guy, just that he isn't well socialized.
And his inability to handle it well is his problem. That doesn't make it easy to deal with, and it doesn't make it pleasant, but it is his to deal with and take responsibility for, not anyone else's.
That's the heart of it. It doesn't make him a bad guy, but it does make him a guy with a problem. His problem.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
I'm kind of ashamed for you all right now.
And the entire gender weeps at your disapproval.
Wait, no. No, we don't. Because, as stated above, your emotions are not our responsibility.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Perhaps part of the problem with nice guys is nobody really tells you what to do after you ask a girl out and they say no. If you are strangers it's not too difficult, but what if you have grown close as people?
You have unwanted feelings that you can't switch off. Do you retain the relationship? What if she gets a boyfriend, how do you accept a weaker relationship without feeling hurt? What if her boyfriend is abusive? Do you try to persuade the girl to break up with the guy despite the obvious reasons to recuse yourself?
I wish I could say I was a good friend when presented with these questions. For me, she liked me once, but I didn't like her back. Soon after I fell hopelessly in love with her, but she found a boyfriend who was seriously broken inside and abused her verbally.
I was *not* supportive in the ways I should have been. Part of that was dealing with love and sexual attraction for the first time, and at the same time with my best friend who I wanted to help because she was being hurt.
What do I do with my feelings? Do I show persistence and prove that I'm serious? All sorts of media says this will work. Surely I shouldn't repress them because they are new beautiful painful powerful emotions I've never felt before, and that would be sinning against myself. But these feelings make me unhappy, but they wouldn't if this other person would just change how they felt about me. I would be indescribably happy if these feelings I had were reciprocated. Possibly the most important thing that could ever happen to me will happen if I try to change her mind. The cost of failure is easily eclipsed (wrongly believed) by the fruits of success. What's the worst thing that could happen? She continues to not like me?
Couple that with the seemingly therapeutic effects of venting your frustration at the source of your frustration and you have a potent recipe for a person acting like a selfish jerk to a friend.
I think learning to deal with unwanted attraction would be a good fertile ground to start preventing nice guy syndrome. Also men learning as others have said, that those feelings of attraction, loneliness, etc are *your* problem. If you felt incredibly angry, we'd all react in horror if you told a friend, "You should let me punch you in the face so I feel better." So why does, "I am dealing with strong feelings of physical attraction, you should let me have sex with you." feel so much more acceptable?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
I'm kind of ashamed for you all right now.
And the entire gender weeps at your disapproval.
Wait, no. No, we don't. Because, as stated above, your emotions are not our responsibility.
That's my point. Not much seems to be ANYBODY'S responsibility anymore. They're all ready to blame a meme and shove the onus in somebody else's lap.
People aren't memes.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
BB: I don't think it's about sex in most of these instances. In my opinion, the men want relationships. Isn't it sexist of some people to believe they're one and the same?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: That's my point. Not much seems to be ANYBODY'S responsibility anymore. They're all ready to blame a meme and shove the onus in somebody else's lap.
People aren't memes.
*gently
Yes, people are people. And adult people are responsible for their own feelings, actions, and reactions.
Adult people are not responsible for other adults' feelings, actions, or reactions -- no matter how close they may be, not even if they have been married for 20 years to one another.
We are each, as adults, responsible for ourselves. If we didn't yet learn what we needed to learn about emotional continence and appropriate actions, then it is our own responsibility to find a way to learn it. It is not any particular other person's responsibility to teach us.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I really think you're missing a lot of the subtext. Nobody is saying don't be nice.
There are plenty of nice guys who ask girls out and get accepted. There are plenty more who are rejected and take it gracefully and with maturity.
The only thing that's being condemned in this thread is the entitled attitude and the dishonesty. And that definitely happens, to one degree or another, with a lot of people.
Can/do women use this meme as an excuse to be A-holes? Oh absolutely. There are people who use any excuse to be A-holes. And sometimes if you're a legitimately nice guy, you can get burned because a woman is too quick to be judgemental. Her loss, right?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: BB: I don't think it's about sex in most of these instances. In my opinion, the men want relationships. Isn't it sexist of some people to believe they're one and the same?
You might not be thinking about fornication right now, but if you are thinking of being boyfriend/girlfriend you are navigating sexual attraction or put another way physical intimacy.
We can change the analogy to, "I have a strong need to be physically intimate, let me cuddle you right now."
"I have a strong need to feel loved, tell me you love me."
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Meh.
This meme is a pill for women who don't want to feel guilty about leading on good men. They string them on as a backup plan and then dump the onus on the guy.
All of the posts have referred to this "behavior" as if it's a sort of strategy to get in girls' pants. 99% of the time it isn't.
I'm generalizing. So is everyone else on this thread. "Nice guy" isn't a thing. It's an excuse to make yourself feel better. You're not attracted to him? Fine. He reacted poorly? So what? His reaction is on him. But don't pretend like it was just a strategy to get you in the sack just to shrug off a real thing.
Affection is not equal to sex. Yes, they both get to the same place eventually. But that's like saying that the only goal in football is to go to the Superbowl.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: All of the posts have referred to this "behavior" as if it's a sort of strategy to get in girls' pants.
*eyebrows raised, gently
quote:You're not attracted to him? Fine.
Yes, it is fine.
quote:He reacted poorly? So what? His reaction is on him.
Yes, it is on him.
quote:But don't pretend like it was just a strategy to get you in the sack just to shrug off a real thing.
Yes to this, too. If this is what happened in a given circumstance, then engaging in pretense is the responsibility of the person doing it, and she (or he) would be engaging in inappropriateness.
And it is also true that no matter how badly someone wants something, that doesn't mean they get to have it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
A pretense is still a pretense. Whether you're manipulating someone into having sex with you or into cuddling or smooching with you, it's still manipulation. If the friendship *is* genuine, then there shouldn't be this expectation of reciprocation and anger when it doesn't happen. "I did all this stuff for you and you still won't go out with me!" - but were you honest with your intentions or is you do that stuff under the pretense of friendship? If you were nice to her only because you wanted something back, you weren't really nice. And I think that most people (men or women) would view said "poor reaction" as an indication that you were doing just that. It certainly wouldn't build trust, in any case.
Again, being nice (to all people) is one of those basic, fundamental qualities of a decent human being. It isn't something that somehow entitles you to have what you want from someone else. It's that other person's choice to decide if they want to give that. All you can control is what you decide to give.
[ February 19, 2014, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
A pretense is still a pretense. Whether you're manipulating someone into having sex with you or into cuddling or smooching with you, it's still manipulation. If the friendship *is* genuine, then there shouldn't be this expectation of reciprocation and anger when it doesn't happen. "I did all this stuff for you and you still won't go out with me!" - but were you honest with your intentions or is you do that stuff under the pretense of friendship? If you were nice to her only because you wanted something back, you weren't really nice.
Again, being nice (to all people) is one of those basic, fundamental qualities of a decent human being. It isn't something that somehow entitles you to have what you want from someone else. It's that other person's choice to decide if they want to give that. All you can control is what you decide to give.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I still maintain, Dogbreath, that the perception of the reaction is incorrect.
Person A and B are friends.
Person A begins to "fall" for person B.
Person B doesn't reciprocate.
Person A expresses frustration. - From person A's perspective, they are in love with someone who doesn't reciprocate. Period. They may react with frustration. They may react in anger. They may be embarrassed. - If person A discontinues the friendship, it isn't because they "didn't get what they want". It is because they are hurt. - If person A is upset, it isn't because they felt "entitled to sex", it's because they had anticipated reciprocation of emotion. They were wrong. - If person A handles it poorly, they're human. If they break the law, they're a criminal.
None of this excuses Person B from poor behavior. - This is a friend, right? They are hurt and embarrassed. - Person A's primary goal wasn't sex. - To blow a friend off as a "nice guy" is wrong. You're categorizing someone and believing the worst of their intentions. - You're criticizing someone else's behavior and oversimplifying their motives. This isn't empowering. This doesn't make them a "creeper" and you a hero.
I'm not justifying creepy stalker-ish behavior. That's wrong. I'm talking about the "middle 80%" of the situations.
I'm just saying that people can't be oversimplified as memes. This isn't empowering for women; it's making them seem shallow.
I'm certain that both sides are correct, for a certain percentage of cases. But I feel like I am correct for the majority. And I feel it's dangerous to label any person exhibiting this behavior as a "creeper" or to believe that sex is their only / primary motivation.
[ February 19, 2014, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If person A has feelings that aren't reciprocated, he can act like a grown up gentleman about it. If he doesn't, person B is right in believing that person A is not a grown up gentleman and revising her opinion of him. Person A does not get to make person B feel guilty about it. Not reciprocating person A's feelings is not "poor behavior".
There is nothing wrong with wanting a romantic relationship. The wrong is in blaming the other person for your disappointment. They do not have any obligation to return your feelings. Treating a friend like a friend is not leading them on.
By the way, this kind of situation is perfectly likely to happen regardless of the genders of persons A and B.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I concur. Not reciprocating feelings is not "poor behavior". Everyone has a right to feel the way they feel.
Labeling a hurt friend as a "nice guy", assuming a singular motivation of sex, and placing blame on the other person IS poor behavior.
Be nice. Be polite. Realize that feelings are complex. There isn't a single book out there that advocates "nice guy" behavior as a methodology to get laid. If sex is the primary motive, the guy would be following the PUA playbook. And the rules are pretty much the opposite.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Why is it acceptable for person A to act poorly and lash out at person B, but not ok for person B to "act poorly" and not assume person A has only the best motives, especially in light of their childish and selfish behavior? For that matter, how are women who act friendly "leading on" nice guys? The "Nice Guy" label usually comes due to the manipulations and guilt trips and feelings of entitlement. If you can be honest and handle rejection like a mature adult, than it doesn't really apply, does it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Aros, you keep mentioning that sex is not the motivation. Sex is usually part of a romantic relationship eventually. The "nice guy" meme applies whether person A is after just sex or wants to marry person B. In either case, A is angry that B is not providing what he wants and acting like B should give him what he wants - whether that is sex or love or any combination - just because he (previously) had acted like a decent human being.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Why is it acceptable for person A to act poorly and lash out at person B, but not ok for person B to "act poorly" and not assume person A has only the best motives, especially in light of their childish and selfish behavior? For that matter, how are women who act friendly "leading on" nice guys? The "Nice Guy" label usually comes due to the manipulations and guilt trips and feelings of entitlement. If you can be honest and handle rejection like a mature adult, than it doesn't really apply, does it?
It isn't acceptable for anybody to lash out. But it is understandable.
Someone is upset and they say some things they don't mean. That's understandable. If they become super-creep or break the law, that's another.
But you have two sets of actions to judge: - Someone who's just had their heart broken and their immediate "heat of the moment" reaction. - Someone who, in a premeditated manner, is dismissing an entire friendship as a strategy for sexual gratification.
The first is understandable. The second is naive at best, probably delusional.
It is possible that SOME people use "friendship" as a misguided attempt to garner sex. I would argue that this is the minority and there are two problems: - It's ineffective. And most people know it. - Not all women are savvy enough to understand the motives behind behavior. Perpetuating this meme causes people to be judged poorly, if not unjustly.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The "nice guy" meme applies whether person A is after just sex or wants to marry person B. In either case, A is angry that B is not providing what he wants and acting like B should give him what he wants - whether that is sex or love or any combination - just because he (previously) had acted like a decent human being.
No, it doesn't. It assigns a singular intention to behavior and oversimplifies a whole lot of human psychology.
Buying a car will also lead to a flat tire at some point. But one doesn't buy a car because their end game is a flat tire.
Arguing that sex is the end game is misleading and leads to some really bad places. I would argue that love is the real impetus for most of these cases.
You can argue that sex = love, but I don't buy it.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
And I never said anyone should be expected to give someone else what they want. Only that I can understand the frustration that comes with rejection better than I can understand people perpetuating false motive.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The "nice guy" meme applies whether person A is after just sex or wants to marry person B. In either case, A is angry that B is not providing what he wants and acting like B should give him what he wants - whether that is sex or love or any combination - just because he (previously) had acted like a decent human being.
No, it doesn't. It assigns a singular intention to behavior and oversimplifies a whole lot of human psychology.
Buying a car will also lead to a flat tire at some point. But one doesn't buy a car because their end game is a flat tire.
Arguing that sex is the end game is misleading and leads to some really bad places. I would argue that love is the real impetus for most of these cases.
You can argue that sex = love, but I don't buy it.
You're focused on sex, but Kate is not specifically talking about that. She's saying that, regardless of whether sex is the goal or not, the problem occurs when people get upset that someone else isn't doing what they want, as if they deserved it.
Her point, I think, is that no one has an obligation to give you what you want just because you think you deserve it. I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong.
Regardless, I agree with (my idea of) what she said. It's a general principle, too. It doesn't have to be sex. It could be a date instead. Or marriage. Or helping you move. Or a college education. Or health insurance. Doesn't really matter.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I agree as well, and I feel like I'm the only one NOT focused on sex.
My argument was only that I feel it's a worse crime to judge a person's intent by a single outburst of emotion.
Obviously we're dealing with a sliding scale. At one end we have a friend casually asking another on a date. At the other we have full blown stalker.
I feel the meme itself is harmful and a form of discrimination. Every situation is unique. We're NOT talking about PUAs. The meme, however, says otherwise.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah...wouldn't take it quite there, Dan.
But, relationship-wise, yes. Behaving badly when someone doesn't feel the way you want them to is certainly "human" as you keep asserting, Aros. So is being annoyed when someone is behaving badly toward you - and rather more justified.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: This meme is a pill for women who don't want to feel guilty about leading on good men. They string them on as a backup plan and then dump the onus on the guy.
All of the posts have referred to this "behavior" as if it's a sort of strategy to get in girls' pants. 99% of the time it isn't.
The problem with this is that in the first paragraph you're saying that the woman probably knows the man has a thing for her and is stringing him along as a back-up plan. In the second, you're saying that the man probably started out intending to really just be friends and found himself falling for the woman unintentionally, then having to deal with the emotions. You repeat this in your other examples.
Why, in what you are positing for the majority, "middle 80%" of situations, is the woman a conniving bitch following a strategy and the man an innocent bystander not following a strategy?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yeah...wouldn't take it quite there, Dan.
Seriously considered finishing my post with a "yeah, I went there. " but decided it was basically implied.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But, relationship-wise, yes. Behaving badly when someone doesn't feel the way you want them to is certainly "human" as you keep asserting, Aros. So is being annoyed when someone is behaving badly toward you - and rather more justified.
Right. Lots of bad behavior is "human" but that's kinda meaningless. If we can identify it as bad behavior there's no purpose served in pretending it's something else.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Aros: [qb] Why, in what you are positing for the majority, "middle 80%" of situations, is the woman a conniving bitch following a strategy and the man an innocent bystander not following a strategy?
I have also stated that I am employing a strategy of hyperbole.
Everyone else is arguing that the man is a conniving opportunist and that the women is an innocent bystander that his been deceived.
The reality is almost always somewhere in the middle. But I reiterate, "nice guy" is not a premeditated strategy for getting laid.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Again, it doesn't matter if what he wants is to get laid, to get married, to go out for coffee, or to maybe think about possibly calling each other "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" in the school cafeteria. If he gets mad because she doesn't give him what he wants, then he's behaving like an entitled jerk.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Aros everyone else is talking about the guy's behavior when the cards are finally on the table. Not his behavior leading up to that point.
If a friend says "hey I like you, wanna date?" And the response is "oh my god you have just been my friend so you can sleep with me?? Get out you despicable Nice Guy!" Then that's not good behavior. But that's not really what's being described.
You're sort of glossing over the part where the person gets a simple (or even gentle!) rejection and responds with anger/spite/vitriol or just general entitled bitching. That's what makes them a Nice Guy, the term being taken from reality-evading statements like: "stupid bitches only want jerks, not Nice Guys like me."
None of this is actually gender specific of course. I've known Nice Girls too, but there's more cultural support for Nice Guy behavior.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
Actually, I think the point is that people are not all people. Men are taught entitlement to women's bodies. This is a common thing that manifests in a particularly annoying strain in the "nice guy," which is criticized pointedly in the meme. What's annoying about the nice guy is that he believes women specifically, as a subset of "people," owe him things because he is a man. He also believes that he knows what men she should date (NO ASSHOLES) better than she does, because he believes men know better than women about everything. (LET ME LOVE YOU, YOU STUPID BITCH)
Meanwhile, I don't think I've ever wanted to give people swirlies more than reading this conversation. For heaven's sakes, a relationship without sex is a friendship for most people. So the only thing a "nice guy" doesn't get by having his feelings reciprocated is sex. It's about sex. It's about women's bodies. I can't. I can't even right now.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Aros: [qb] Why, in what you are positing for the majority, "middle 80%" of situations, is the woman a conniving bitch following a strategy and the man an innocent bystander not following a strategy?
I have also stated that I am employing a strategy of hyperbole.
Everyone else is arguing that the man is a conniving opportunist and that the women is an innocent bystander that his been deceived.
The reality is almost always somewhere in the middle. But I reiterate, "nice guy" is not a premeditated strategy for getting laid.
When you're arguing a behaviour isn't sexist and offensive, and that the people saying it is are looking to excuse women for being assholes, employing a strategy of hyberbole that makes you look sexist probably isn't a winning strategy.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: Actually, I think the point is that people are not all people. Men are taught entitlement to women's bodies. This is a common thing that manifests in a particularly annoying strain in the "nice guy," which is criticized pointedly in the meme. What's annoying about the nice guy is that he believes women specifically, as a subset of "people," owe him things because he is a man. He also believes that he knows what men she should date (NO ASSHOLES) better than she does, because he believes men know better than women about everything. (LET ME LOVE YOU, YOU STUPID BITCH)
What makes you think you've correctly identified the cause of this behavior? What are your arguments that the assertions you made here are correct? What is your criticism of the alternative explanations that exist, e.g. That this behavior is an example of people feeling entitled to unearned windfall in general?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: Actually, I think the point is that people are not all people. Men are taught entitlement to women's bodies. This is a common thing that manifests in a particularly annoying strain in the "nice guy," which is criticized pointedly in the meme. What's annoying about the nice guy is that he believes women specifically, as a subset of "people," owe him things because he is a man. He also believes that he knows what men she should date (NO ASSHOLES) better than she does, because he believes men know better than women about everything. (LET ME LOVE YOU, YOU STUPID BITCH)
Meanwhile, I don't think I've ever wanted to give people swirlies more than reading this conversation. For heaven's sakes, a relationship without sex is a friendship for most people. So the only thing a "nice guy" doesn't get by having his feelings reciprocated is sex. It's about sex. It's about women's bodies. I can't. I can't even right now.
I honestly believe that this discussion isn't about the topic in general. People are arguing about their experiences rather than the subject. Therefore, rationality probably went out the window some time ago.
Bad behavior is bad, whether it's a poor reaction to a situation or stereotyping others.
There is nobody on this board upset because *you* won't date them. There ARE, on the other hand, a whole lot of people stereotyping.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Me, I'm just trying to get on board with the notion that a guy (or a girl, really) befriending someone while keeping a distinct romantic interest in them to themselves both initially and over time is this unusual behavior. That's not been my experience, for either gender.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'm not sure if you're saying that in your experience it happens frequently, or not very often?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
The discussion this far:
Me: Most guys don't have ulterior motives. They're just nice and a little socially awkward. Please forgive them if they don't always have the most tact.
The Other Opinion: Whatever. Guys are only nice because they want sex. And if a guy gets slightly upset because I won't date him, it's only because his only motive at all is sex.
Me: Sex and love are quite different as motives. Love can actually be a pretty noble emotion. I'm not just talking about the Greek notion of eros. What about philia?
Others: Nope. Love just means you want to hump me. Guys only want friendship because it means we are obligated to hump them. It's pretty much about humping.
Me: That's not very enlightened.
Other: Well, the guy isn't entitled to get upset when he asks me out. Or he never had pure motivation to begin with. Just humping.
Me: But what about--
Other: Nope, not listening, just humping. Nah nah nah nah nah. Mad, angry humping.
????
[ February 19, 2014, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Pseudo-up-in-the-night-feminists
Can you name these people? I'm curious who precisely you thought was saying this.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Me, I'm just trying to get on board with the notion that a guy (or a girl, really) befriending someone while keeping a distinct romantic interest in them to themselves both initially and over time is this unusual behavior. That's not been my experience, for either gender.
It seems to me that woman often categorize men as either a friend or relationship material. It's called "the friend zone" for a reason. Once you're classified thus, it's hard to change.
For guys, the possibility of a relationship is always on the table. Period.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Goodness, could you repeat that drivel again in a more mocking way while lecturing *others* on not listening?
Show ofhands, was one single person talking about organically evolved romantic attraction in the midst of an authentic friendship? And would you like to reassert your 'this is just hyperbole, not a ploy to say what I really think or anything' veil again?
As for your categories, no, it's not always on the table. But if you'd like to make sweeping generalizations some more, maybe stop lecturing these 'up in the night' feminists for doing so. ----- Dog, I meant to say it is not uncommon in my experience for that to happen.
[ February 19, 2014, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Pseudo-up-in-the-night-feminists
Can you name these people? I'm curious who precisely you thought was saying this.
I can, but I won't. One person on the first page, two on the second. Any more analysis isn't worth my time.
That was disrespectful. I've changed the text tag. But we're awful close to turning this into a discussion on post-modernist feminism. And I'm done with that topic. I am firmly aware that this board feels it demeaning to open doors for women.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Goodness, could you repeat that drivel again in a more mocking way while lecturing *others* on not listening?
Show ofhands, was one single person talking about organically evolved romantic attraction in the midst of an authentic friendship? And would you like to reassert your 'this is just hyperbole, not a ploy to say what I really think or anything' veil again?
----- Dog, I meant to say it is not uncommon in my experience for that to happen.
Oh, I said what I think. But I was arguing from a devil's advocate-esque perspective.
There are crap-heads out there. But there are a whole lot of good guys that are being heaped into the doggy-pile. And a lot of girls are liable to make themselves feel better by classifying actual nice guys as "nice guys".
Tell yourself whatever you like, if it makes you feel better. Memes -- and stereotypes -- are dangerous.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Rakeesh: Oh, then yeah. That's my experience as well. I've had several relationships start that way, and think it's a pretty common thing. I don't really know if the "friendzone" really exists. My friend Hannah says she won't consider dating a guy she hasn't been friends with for at least half a year. It's a trust issue, for her. Other women I know don't like dating friends (for different reasons, mostly having to do with bad experiences with "nice guys") and prefer a romantic undertone from the get go. I think it's perfectly valid to want to be friends with a woman before dating her, and of course you have to become friends with the woman you're dating for any hopes of a long term relationship. I generally think the "friendzone" is what guys say when they mean "I don't want to admit this woman, or in fact, a LOT of women just aren't attracted to me sexually so I'm going to blame it on her being a dumb woman instead."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Pseudo-up-in-the-night-feminists
Can you name these people? I'm curious who precisely you thought was saying this.
I can, but I won't. One person on the first page, two on the second. Any more analysis isn't worth my time.
That was disrespectful. I've changed the text tag. But we're awful close to turning this into a discussion on post-modernist feminism. And I'm done with that topic. I am firmly aware that this board feels it demeaning to open doors for women.
Yeah, that's not at all an accurate summary of that discussion. If you don't already know that (because hey, don't get too upset anyway, this is a strategy of hyperbole..wherein I say what I mean), then you have forgotten and should revisit it.
Here's a meme for you: expressing concern with some aspects of, say, opening doors for women and underlying culture equates to 'it's demeaning'. Another meme: lumping rivals entirely together as feminists and mocking them as a whole. I admit it's no guarantee, but it is a nice indicator right there.
Perhaps the most revealing meme: using stereotypes and untrue summaries while castigating opponents for employing stereotypes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
[quote]There are crap-heads out there. But there are a whole lot of good guys that are being heaped into the doggy-pile. And a lot of girls are liable to make themselves feel better by classifying actual nice guys as "nice guys".[/quote
Eh, ElJay nailed this one already. Feel free to refer to her response once more.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'm surprised that you don't think I'll resort to everyone else's tactics, Rakeesh. Why should I elevate the discussion? There'd be no . . . fun . . . in that. Too classy, not my bag.
I don't classify myself as a troll specifically; but I do find it humorous to utilize my opponents' tactics against them when they're stereotyping and trading in generalities. It's not my goal to win "arguments".
And how do you suppose I should reference the "opening doors" thread? I deleted the dang thing, upturned the table so to speak. Don't you remember?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah. We remember.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
So . . . are you arguing against my treatise? - I propose that most "nice guys" are actually nice guys. Albeit most of them in this category are somewhat socially inept. - I further submit that most females using the "nice guy" meme do so to villainize men that they don't want to have a relationship with. - A man's poor behavior when rejected is inexcusable. - A woman's stereotyping in order to alleviate guilt is also wrong, and the perpetuation of the meme acts as a justification for said women.
And if I've offended anyone making my point, I am, actually, sorry. I sometimes feel like I'm the only one arguing for all the well intentioned (and sometimes naive) good guys out there. Sometimes I think these discussions get too esoteric and omit a lot of the relevant facts. An intellectual model is far too prone to misinterpretation. Reality is a million shades of gray.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You're saying "most" nice guys are genuinely nice. And "most" women who use the term "nice guys" are cruelly misrepresenting the guys.
So it's (mostly) the women's fault, then. When you get down to the brass tacks of your argument.
No. I don't agree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: - A woman's stereotyping in order to alleviate guilt is also wrong, and the perpetuation of the meme acts as a justification for said women.
Guilt for what? What has the woman done to create this guilt for which she needs justification?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Hmmm, opening doors.
So, I hold doors for people. Men, women, children, you name it, because of the way I was raised, I open doors for them. It's a small courtesy, a way of saying "hey, I respect the fact you exist and I'm going to delay myself a second or two so you can catch the door." I do this a lot at my gym, specifically, because the doors are unreasonably large and heavy, and people are usually coming up the steps holding a gym bag, so I hold the door. And almost always the response is a grateful "thanks man, I appreciate it!"
A few months ago, I held the door for a woman who looked at me, glared, said "I can open doors for myself", and went and used the far door. I replied, rather exasperated, "I have no doubt that you can."
Was her rudeness justified? No, not really. Was it understandable? Probably. Maybe for her, because of the way she grew up or a bad relationship, a man holding a door was a symbol of sexism and she felt the need to say something. Was I in any way hurt or damaged by it? No, not at all.
Should we not have discussions about the somewhat troubling implications of chivalrous behavior because these sorts of discussions might lead to stereotypes, and those stereotypes may cause some woman somewhere to say a rude thing to a man?
Likewise, imagine a guy. Great guy. Sweet guy. All around, squeaky clean boy scout, never sassed his mum, would never think of lying or disrespecting a woman guy. He's good friends with a girl, and she tells him it's going to be her birthday soon. It's her first year away from her family (she recently moved to Hawaii), and she doesn't really have anyone to celebrate with. So, he goes and makes a bunch of cupcakes for her, puts candles in them, and surprises her. She acts very happy and grateful, and after talking for a few minutes and telling her happy birthday once more, he leaves.
She stops talking to him and starts avoiding him. A few weeks later, he find out from a mutual friend that she thinks he was just being nice because he has a crush, and has been avoiding him because she doesn't want to date him but also doesn't want to hurt his feelings. Guy is nonplussed, as he meant nothing romantic by the gesture. After talking to her some more, turns out girl had some problems with a "Nice Guy" stalker back home.
Was her reaction justified? Probably not. Was it understandable? Definitely. Was the guy in question hurt or damaged? maybe a little.
Should we avoid discussing the very real problems of predatory "nice guys", and of men feeling entitled to a woman's sexuality, because these sorts of discussions can lead to stereotypes forming, and at some point in the future a woman might hurt a man's feelings with said stereotypes?
Or maybe these stereotypes - and the occasional, unfortunate mistaken "Nice Guy" issue - exist as a reflection a deep and ugly problem with the way our culture portrays healthy romantic interaction between men and women, and because there really are predators out there, as well as otherwise decent guys who are horribly mislead or mistaken about how to attract a mate.
You're so terrified of the side effect that you want to pretend the disease doesn't exist rather than treat it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: - A woman's stereotyping in order to alleviate guilt is also wrong, and the perpetuation of the meme acts as a justification for said women.
Guilt for what? What has the woman done to create this guilt for which she needs justification?
For using her womanly wiles? For her sexual preening forcing a man to fall in love against his will? For not sharing her Female Erotic Capital with a non-Alpha?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: You're saying "most" nice guys are genuinely nice. And "most" women who use the term "nice guys" are cruelly misrepresenting the guys.
So it's (mostly) the women's fault, then. When you get down to the brass tacks of your argument.
No. I don't agree.
A man getting upset is the man's fault. If a woman misreads his intention, that's her fault. If a man thinks she owes him anything, that's his. If she is falsely attributing this intention, it's hers.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Aros, this part in particular is false:
quote:The Other Opinion: Whatever. Guys are only nice because they want sex. And if a guy gets slightly upset because I won't date him, it's only because his only motive at all is sex.
Nobody said that guys are only nice because they want sex. Nobody said that getting upset is always an indication of a singular motive.
It should probably be called "Pretending Nice Guy" or something, because you're right: most nice guys aren't the frustrated, bitter, and manipulative "Nice Guy" that pretty much everyone agrees should try something else instead. But I think that's been made clear from the first page of this thread, as well...
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: - A woman's stereotyping in order to alleviate guilt is also wrong, and the perpetuation of the meme acts as a justification for said women.
Guilt for what? What has the woman done to create this guilt for which she needs justification?
For using her womanly wiles? For her sexual preening forcing a man to fall in love against his will? For not sharing her Female Erotic Capital with a non-Alpha?
Hahaha.
I wasn't saying that she SHOULD feel guilt. Merely that she might. I know if a girl was a friend and fell in love with me, I would worry that I might have sent mixed signals at some point.
I was inferring instead to the fact that it's easier to deploy the "nice guy" stereotype, write the guy off as a predator, and move on. Rather than treat him like a human being who's been her friend and is a little hurt / upset.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Have you seen this happen a lot? I mean, seen a woman deploy the nice guy stereotype? I have a couple times, and usually it was an honest mistake a conversation was able to fix. I can't remember ever seeing it used maliciously.
FWIW, I couldn't be douchy or aggressive if I tried, so I know the pain of being mistaken for a "Nice Guy." I've also met some truly sociopathic people who pull the "Nice Guy" routine, as well as some friends who are pretty decent, but mistakenly think it's ok to try and guilt/pressure a girl into a relationship by being a really good friend, and then complain to me frequently about how they always get friendzoned.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I do have to say it's strange not having that distinct... flavor Clive always added to these conversations.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Should we avoid discussing the very real problems of predatory "nice guys", and of men feeling entitled to a woman's sexuality, because these sorts of discussions can lead to stereotypes forming, and at some point in the future a woman might hurt a man's feelings with said stereotypes?
Or maybe these stereotypes - and the occasional, unfortunate mistaken "Nice Guy" issue - exist as a reflection a deep and ugly problem with the way our culture portrays healthy romantic interaction between men and women, and because there really are predators out there, as well as otherwise decent guys who are horribly mislead or mistaken about how to attract a mate.
I loved this response. And I agree that I am a man and have some bias. Maybe that's why I see the numbers differently? But I would suppose: - The number of predatory "nice guys" is vastly lower than the number of actual nice guys. - That the "unfortunate mistaken 'Nice Guy' issue" happens FAR more with real nice guys than with the predators. - And I would in fact argue that most predators would use a different approach. - And that it is doing good men an injustice to promulgate this stereotype.
Yes, I agree that our society and media share much of the blame. But the problem is that they promote these sorts of stereotypes, they try to tell us what LOVE IS and IS NOT. I think a lot of the negative behavior is championed by the media and that memes create a negative effect. We're being told that romance SHOULD be a certain way, and it is clouding our judgement.
How many movies champion falling in love with a friend and pursuing her, even if she isn't interested?
How many memes simplify complex human behaviors in a bite size chunk so that we don't have to think for ourselves? We're still responsible for our judgements, even if they're incorrect.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Have you seen this happen a lot? I mean, seen a woman deploy the nice guy stereotype? I have a couple times, and usually it was an honest mistake a conversation was able to fix. I can't remember ever seeing it used maliciously.
I haven't seen it deployed at all. I wasn't even familiar what a "nice guy" was before this conversation, so I assume I'm at a handicap. It just seemed to me, based on the thread, that it could be (or is being) readily deployed to dismiss good people. It seemed like people didn't care to even have honest discussions. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I think there are a lot of messed up people with a lot of messed up problems. Everyone tries to look like a decent human being. But it isn't indicative of "nice guys". It's indicative of people. Some people just . . . suck.
I've also seen abusers.
I'm thinking that this meme exists because women posit a man's frustration, when opposed by a lack of interest, is a sign of future behavioral issues.
They think: "Wow. He was a good friend. But he got upset when I wouldn't date him. Either he was manipulating me by pretending to be a friend, or it was a sign that he really is a sucky person."
Some people DO suck. But a single incident is rarely indicative of a pattern of behavior. And it's easy to get scared. And it's crappy that some people turn out to be jerks.
I would just advise not to judge people by a certain incident. When a good man feels like he has a connection, it can be difficult to find that it isn't reciprocated. Maybe you can't continue to be friends. Maybe you can. But I don't think that manipulation / coercion / predatory behavior is a logical conclusion without more substantial evidence to back it up.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I forget how old you are, but I'm pretty sure that you're in your early 30s? I think the main problem with your understanding of this thread is you don't really grasp the terms being used, or how they're being used. For instance, nobody at all is condemning being nice to a girl, especially a girl you're interested in.
"Nice Guy" refers to a certain movement that's sprung up on the internet over the past 5-10 years. I think the first example I saw was this, and since it popped up there has been a fairly sizable culture that has appeared around it. One of the phrases supposedly endemic to said culture (though this may be a "Beam Me Up Scotty" type deal) is "...and I'm a really Nice Guy!" thus the term "Nice Guy" was applied to a follower of that particular misogynistic philosophy.
It in no way refers to guys who are, in fact, actually nice and pleasant people. Not even guys like that who are socially awkward. It more refers to basement dwelling neckbeards who have very little to offer romantically other than friendship, so they use their "niceness" as a weapon, and as security blanket.
But back to the age thing. These sorts of guys are already fading away from my circle of friends, and I just turned 25. I think by the time you hit your 30s, it doesn't really exist anymore, as said "Nice Guys" have either matured emotionally, or retreated into their parents basement forever and settled for the company of a blowup dolls and internet porn. Which is probably why you're not familiar with the culture in question.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Maybe I just have a hard time believing this is a "culture". It seems more likely to be pejorative used to describe a very narrow set of guys, a stereotype that is being used to categorize a much larger set of men in general. I may certainly be wrong. I just feel bad for men that might be mislabeled because they're socially inept or believe in silly love movies like Can't Buy Me Love.
If there really is a "nice guy" culture, at least as far as a strategy for getting laid, you'd think there would be a book about it. It'd be pretty idiotic. They'd have a lot more luck with the stupid PUA garbage.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Aros, I don't think it's a thought-out strategy. I think it's more like stumbling about in the dark, as opposed than printing out a MapQuest layout in advance.
Generally tending towards downhill in the dark seems to be a regular trend. It's the path of least resistance, I expect.
--- Edited to add:
These are more likely to be a series of reactions to events unfolding, not predetermined actions, in my opinion. Of course, the individual is still responsible for them. Of course.
--- Edited again to add:
Remember, you yourself characterized these gentlemen as having poor social skills. They aren't going to be savvy about what does and doesn't work in social situations. A savvy-less approach is going to be more likely in such cases, not less.
[ February 19, 2014, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Dogbreath (sorry, don't know your name behind your alt), I wanted to commend you for some truly wonderful posts in this conversation.
Aros, as a girl who has been friends with nice guys and "Nice Guys," there is a difference and there's also a sliding scale to the point where I don't think that most guys are aware of their problematic behavior because it hasn't gone to that scary point yet.
I've been friends with guys who I suspected were romantically interested in me. Sometimes they'd ask me out early in our acquaintance and I'd tell them I wasn't interested in them romantically. A few would stop hanging out with me and I'd be sad because I'd been looking for a friend, but it was a choice I could sympathize with. A couple would say they were okay with being friends but there was an underlying concern that maybe they weren't being honest with me or themselves. I can think of atleast to young men in my college years who decided to remain my friend but would often overwhelm me with behavior that seemed to blur the line between platonic friendship and flirting.
These situations aren't enjoyable or comfortable, but I wouldn't call these guys "Nice Guys." I would however point out that, even subconsciously, alot of that behavior seemed to come from a place of thinking, "Well, if I just keep being nice to her, maybe she'll change her mind and want to date me." Its not directly harmful behavior but it does show up on that sliding scale for me. Some guys get really aggressive to the point of, "I'll show her how amazing I am until she HAS to change her mind."
It goes back to the "men who think they know better than women" behavior that is really problematic.
My experience with "Nice Guys" mostly involved stories of male friends who would aggressively (or even passive aggressively) insult my boyfriend at the time or insinuate that he wasn't good enough. Other times, it was friends coming to me because a guy I had considered a friend was complaining that I had led them on. Its an odd idea for someone like myself who is largely unromantic and barely even hugs my closest friends, much less engage in flirting behavior on accident. I've had guys respond to rejection by immediately going to classmates and calling me a "b*tch." And I've seen it play out with girl friend and their male friends, over and over again. I see it all the time on facebook status updates, even by male coworkers that I'd otherwise hold a high opinion of. Its the constant whining about how girls always pick losers but never THEM. Its the comments about how they think they'd win more girls if they were jerks, while handwaving and say they could never think/say horrible things about women, even though apparently they think most women are too stupid to make their own choices about romantic partners.
Those are the "Nice Guys" that we are talking about.
And you're right, its not been the majority of my acquaintances but the scariest "Nice Guy" I ever met, had me terrified for weeks. And women hear stories all the time about domestic violence and how a woman's chances of being killed by a romantic partner go WAY up after a breakup/separation. So maybe the scary "Nice Guy" is a rare occurence, but we also know it only takes one. And at the moment I currently have a friend who being stalked by an ex-fiance who keeps breaking into her house, but the police claim there isn't enough evidence to take action.
This is the world we live in. And yeah, I don't see anything wrong with using the "Nice Guy Meme" as a way to A) remind women that they don't owe men anything in exchange for friendship and B) educate men on even the subtle, unconscious ways that they project entitlement to a woman's body/life.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
And it is believed that these men are statistically significant? In much higher numbers that's it's fair to believe they're common? Or is there just a disproportionate amount of hate directed at them because they're D bags?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
They're common enough.
I think the main cause is mostly related to media, specifically books, TV Shows, and Movies that project wish fulfillment, beautiful girl falls in love with her nerdy friend scenarios. That, and lingering notions that men can own a woman's sexuality, or that women owe sexual favors to men who do nice things for them.
I think the main reason it's become so prevalent recently is that, for the first time, platonic friendship and social interaction between members of the opposite sex is quite widespread - even the norm. The notion of "hanging with the boys/going shopping with my girlfriends" has really disintegrated in the past 20 years. I'm sure this problem existed before, as well, but was more isolated.
I think the main solution is, well, education and discussions like these. Just like you didn't know it really exists, most "Nice Guys" aren't really consciously misogynistic. (I hope) They do what anyone who hasn't had their beliefs questioned do - accept them at face value, because they didn't know there was any other way to think.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*blink* So, Aros, you've been scolding people for discussing problems with a subculture that you didn't even know existed, because you assumed they were actually talking about something other than a particular subculture? Is that accurate?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: *blink* So, Aros, you've been scolding people for discussing problems with a subculture that you didn't even know existed, because you assumed they were actually talking about something other than a particular subculture? Is that accurate?
I don't feel like that's the case. My argument was that perpetuating a meme is dangerous because it can cause people unfamiliar with ALL the background to resort to a stereotype. With regard to "nice guys", I felt that the stereotype could be harmful to nice guys.
And obviously I was a good object lesson. If I was a 19 year old girl and believed the meme, it COULD have caused me to treat good guys poorly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It certainly seems possible. This is also the same guy that made a scolding reference to a past discussion he himself made sure no one else could check to validate his 'strategy of hyperbole'-not to be confused within the simultaneous strategy of 'saying what I think', mind you.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I can't bear to read much of this dreary pseudoscience. It seems fairly similar to PUA theory. I had assumed that, since there are no books available, Nice Guy isn't actually a theory / strategy.
Does Red Pill = PUA? Or Nice Guy?
Posted by Mr. Y (Member # 11590) on :
I can't claim to have much experience in the field of relationships, but I have been following this thread, peeking in every once in a while. Nor do I really have that much to add, but upon reading the link that Dogbreath posted as a prime example of this whole phenomenon, I just had to share this excerpt from that link
Basically, this is where this type of men go horribly wrong in their thinking:
quote: You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy.
The direct equation of emotional intimacy with physical intimacy seems to be... I can't even find the words to describe it... miles off base.
Pray continue your interesting discussion.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
After last night's discussion, and experience with several different social circles, my current hypothesis is this---
Women - Most women classify males as either friend / romantic interest. - If romantic interest, pursue accordingly. - If unavailable as romantic interest or if classified as friend, pursue friendship. - Continue in friend mode. Do not think about the possibility of romance unless previously considered. - Be wary of any money spent, excessive attention given, or any favors offered. Consider the implications. - If male tries to change the nature of the relationship, consider if previous treatment was being used as a strategy to gain trust. - If previous romantic interest, pursue relationship. If not previous romantic interest, proceed to freak out. - If not previous romantic interest, proceed to freak out. - Freak out: Consider the implications of all prior interactions. If anything implied manipulation or unnatural attempts to gain trust, discontinue friendship. Rumors, namecalling, and hateful speech are optional. - If friendship seems genuine, proceed awkwardly with friendship.
Men - Friends are cool, but I'm pretty much interested in all my female friends. Unless they're too fat, dumb, or ugly. - If a friend is interested in me or wants to spend money on me? Freaking sweet! Bonus! - If I'm unavailable, I PROBABLY won't try anything with female friends, though I might flirt. The person I'm dating now is most likely the one I'd pick to be with in the long-term. - If I become available, all AVAILABLE female friends are fair game, in order of desirability. If there have been significant shifts in weight / looks / job / my own interest, pecking order might be reassessed. - Friends might also be assessed by possible perks, hair color, a cute dimple, or whatever else is on our mind at the time. Sometimes we want something different from our ex. Sometimes we want something the same. Sometimes something poignant someone says can become intriguing and stay on our minds. - If highest value female friend is unavailable, feel free to pursue her in whatever manner you feel comfortable. This includes demeaning her boyfriend, trying to impress her, and making an extra effort to show interest in her. - Even if I'm unavailable AND the highest value friend is unavailable, I will still change situations should the opportunity come. This includes any types of behavior discussed previously and may include dumping my girlfriend / spouse, berating her partner, or trying to be impressive. - Only engage in another committed relationship when necessary to maintain high value female. Until then, it's go time!
My guess is that men have an advantage -- they really don't have to fear female friends or potential mates. I can understand how it might be scary for females. A lot of dudes, a lot of people for that matter, are broken.
From a biological perspective, there's a definite advantage to males seeing all females as future mates and women limiting it to only a single male. Plus this behavior is mirrored in most social animals. I guess I tend to forget the implications that it has on humans.
Hmm. . . .
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
When following the above, an actual nice guy operates with the feelings of others and a code of ethics in mind. The Nice Guy, player, PUA, and a lot of other idiots don't.
But I maintain -- the real difference between men and women is that men consider EVERYONE a potential mate. Even inanimate objects, in some cases.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, not actually a biological immutable fact, again. For either gender, really.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
No, but a propensity that seems to hold solid for a majority. Nothing is immutable.
I, for one, strongly believe that monogamy is a natural state ordained by God. But while dating, biological impulses certainly had their influence.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
See, now my understanding is this:
Women -Are human beings.
Men -Also human beings.
That's about it, actually.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Define human being. And state the difference between biological differences, psychological differences, and sociological differences among the sexes and sex variants.
Now discuss what's outdated. What related to that is due to physical or biological propensity? What are due to outdated social mores?
Bah. Dating in the information age is stupid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Quite the contrary. Rather than relying on authoritarian religious doctrine or blunt tradition instead of even considering those questions, now some of us apes have begun to ask them.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
A thinking, rational creature capable of making his or her own decisions. Apparently, you can even converse with them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Now I am really curious about whether fat chicks rate above or below inanimate objects on your pecking order of desirability scale. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Define human being. And state the difference between biological differences, psychological differences, and sociological differences among the sexes and sex variants.
Now discuss what's outdated. What related to that is due to physical or biological propensity? What are due to outdated social mores?
Bah. Dating in the information age is stupid.
Let's be clear: these have *always* been some of the questions necessary for human romantic interaction. Or human interaction generally, really. If dating is stupid now, it was equally stupid a hundred years ago or a thousand-humans not having changed much in these fundamental ways.
Except perhaps in their culture. In which case dating might not have been stupid a hundred years ago, but only because culture and religion mandated answers for these questions, and people either from fear of earthly or other punishments committed to believing them. You skip daintily around, Aros, sometimes claiming a 'strategy of hyperbole', sometimes claiming to be plainly speaking your mind, making blanket statements about both genders as a whole and then qualifying them later, so it's frankly difficult for me to know the answer to this question: is *that* what you're pining for?
For a time when those questions didn't actually have true answers, but answers humans were taught were true and thus believed them? One cannot help but wonder just how much of the things that peek through in your remarks is simple trolling (because, yeah, it's totes everyone else's fault that you troll and mislead) such as the remarks kmbboots noticed, and how much is an earnest pining for a 'simpler' time when one could open a door for a woman and if she objected in any way, she was somehow deficient.
(Something of a shame, isn't it, that that thread is gone. Now my own statements about what transpired there have equal validity to your own.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm skipping over the last bit of repulsive generalizations because there's something from earlier that I meant to come back to and didn't have time for.
One of the things you keep bringing up, Aros, is that maybe these guys have poor social skills and react badly to rejection, but the woman should understand that and give them a break and not ruin the friendship over it.
Have you considered that maybe a lot of these women also have poor social skills? Why should they be expected to be capable of dealing with an out of the blue emotional outpouring with patience and grace? When you're surprised by something you weren't expecting, isn't it fairly normal to not know what to say, even for fairly well-adjusted people?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You skip daintily around, Aros, sometimes claiming a 'strategy of hyperbole', sometimes claiming to be plainly speaking your mind, making blanket statements about both genders as a whole and then qualifying them later, so it's frankly difficult for me to know the answer to this question: is *that* what you're pining for?
For a time when those questions didn't actually have true answers, but answers humans were taught were true and thus believed them? One cannot help but wonder just how much of the things that peek through in your remarks is simple trolling (because, yeah, it's totes everyone else's fault that you troll and mislead) such as the remarks kmbboots noticed, and how much is an earnest pining for a 'simpler' time when one could open a door for a woman and if she objected in any way, she was somehow deficient.
(Something of a shame, isn't it, that that thread is gone. Now my own statements about what transpired there have equal validity to your own.)
I like that you called me dainty.
So . . . most people here use blanket statements that I feel aren't universally applicable. I guess I should feel honored that I CAN rile people and have so many people argue against me. From my perspective, I want to analyze a subject. I want to look at it through a bunch of lenses, from a bunch of perspectives and a bunch of viewpoints. This forum allows me the opportunity to do that. I can "try on" a number of different metaphors and mental constructs to approach a problem from different directions and form an opinion on a topic I'm not familiar with. Or to challenge my own assumptions on one that I do.
Trolling? Only inasmuch as my constantly changing viewpoint bothers some people and causes me some level of delight. When I may seem to be on one side and then shift to the devil's advocate. F. Scott Fitzgerald stated that the mark of a first-rate intellect is to hold opposing views on the same topic. I don't claim to be first-rate, but I don't come here with a finite view that I espouse and try to "sell" to others. Most people don't discuss to learn -- they discuss to teach.
And, yes, I constantly modify my logic, my qualifiers, and the scope of my arguments. This is a broad topic, and I don't actually have an opinion on it. A lot of people are addressing a lot of details, and most of them are being rather vague. I don't expect that I will present a perfect, unified front when I am "arguing against" multiple people at once. I firmly expect that I come off rather schizophrenic.
But my point has had nothing to do with "nice guys". Most of the details on the micro level have been in opposition to various threads of thought. On the macro level, I have maintained an opinion that memes and stereotypes are dangerous.
I would concur that my aims and those of most of the posters are at odds. Though I feel my tactics are similar, my strategy is not. And no, I don't generally feel altogether successful.
If I offend, I'm truly sorry. But the only reason I'm here is to think, use everyone here as a sounding board for interesting new ideas, and form new opinions (many of which I'll discard at some point). Then again, I can't see another useful point to being here -- other than sharing news and reviews.
I also apologize for my stream of consciousness post. I try to take a little more time with my writing, but I'm busy today.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I'm skipping over the last bit of repulsive generalizations because there's something from earlier that I meant to come back to and didn't have time for.
One of the things you keep bringing up, Aros, is that maybe these guys have poor social skills and react badly to rejection, but the woman should understand that and give them a break and not ruin the friendship over it.
Have you considered that maybe a lot of these women also have poor social skills? Why should they be expected to be capable of dealing with an out of the blue emotional outpouring with patience and grace? When you're surprised by something you weren't expecting, isn't it fairly normal to not know what to say, even for fairly well-adjusted people?
Yes, I agree. I'm not arguing that their reaction isn't human. Just that it isn't optimal. I don't expect everyone to be perfect.
I would only say that the meme is a mental crutch, a shortcut. When we rely on a stereotype, we think we can put someone in a box. The meme perpetrates the stereotype that the man is ACTIVELY using friendship as a means to procure sex. This isn't always the case. If a woman uses the meme as a mental shortcut, she might write off an otherwise good dude. I just think that sucks.
But it is what it is. . . .
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I guess I don't really understand 1) why it makes the slightest bit of difference whether he is doing it actively or subconsciously or 2) why it "sucks" for her to write off "an otherwise good dude." The nature of dating is that we have to write off the vast majority of people we meet. Writing someone off because they have one trait that is undesirable to you, even if they have other good traits, isn't a flaw; it's the selection process functioning smoothly.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: I guess I don't really understand 1) why it makes the slightest bit of difference whether he is doing it actively or subconsciously or 2) why it "sucks" for her to write off "an otherwise good dude." The nature of dating is that we have to write off the vast majority of people we meet. Writing someone off because they have one trait that is undesirable to you, even if they have other good traits, isn't a flaw; it's the selection process functioning smoothly.
1- I am saying that it is entirely possible he isn't doing it at all.
2- Because someone upset with the outcome of another person's behavior can lash out. A girl gets mad and trashes someone's reputation because he's a "nice guy" when he doesn't deserve it. At the least, this can result in social inconvenience. At most, it can result in suicide due to bullying.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
What?
You seem to be seriously advocating not discussing a real and pressing problem, because some guy might be mistaken for having that problem and be socially inconvenienced? Do you realize how crazy that logic sounds? It's like saying, "lets just all pretend alchoholism doesn't exist, or else some girl might get mad at me and tell everyone I'm an alchoholic!" Your argument makes absolutely no sense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stream of consciousness is one thing. That, on the other hand, was an often internally contradictory pile of horse puckey, Aros. It isn't a 'position' to say 'this is just hyperbole' and then claim 'it's my actual position'. It's not an enlightened assumption of contrary positions, it's trolling mixed in somewhere with your actual thoughts on a given issue-you've admitted as much.
Right now your stance is basically that whenever you say something stupid or repellant-which has been more than once on this topic-why, that just your way of examining more positions! Or it's hyperbole. Or it's a principled reaction against forum attitudes. Or it amuses you and that's why you do it.
So please, just spare us the self-important grandiosity in the future and just state your case, and say what you like, and skip over the parts when you claim for whatever that hour's reason is that you didn't mean *that* particular thing, you're just exploring! I'm not the only one who remembers the door opening discussion. This dancing you're doing is much closer to your actual opinions than you admit. Feel free to muster up the minimal nerve necessary to stop hiding it anytime.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would love to hear about one example anywhere ever where a man was bullied to suicide over nice guy behavior. I suspect sole time in your next posts this too will be another stance that is disclaimed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I believe the correct phrase is, "talking through one's hat".
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I'm skipping over the last bit of repulsive generalizations because there's something from earlier that I meant to come back to and didn't have time for.
One of the things you keep bringing up, Aros, is that maybe these guys have poor social skills and react badly to rejection, but the woman should understand that and give them a break and not ruin the friendship over it.
Have you considered that maybe a lot of these women also have poor social skills? Why should they be expected to be capable of dealing with an out of the blue emotional outpouring with patience and grace? When you're surprised by something you weren't expecting, isn't it fairly normal to not know what to say, even for fairly well-adjusted people?
Yes, I agree. I'm not arguing that their reaction isn't human. Just that it isn't optimal. I don't expect everyone to be perfect.
I would only say that the meme is a mental crutch, a shortcut. When we rely on a stereotype, we think we can put someone in a box. The meme perpetrates the stereotype that the man is ACTIVELY using friendship as a means to procure sex. This isn't always the case. If a woman uses the meme as a mental shortcut, she might write off an otherwise good dude. I just think that sucks.
But it is what it is. . . .
I actually doubt many women are thinking about the "meme" when this happens to them, if they are aware of it at all. Like you said, it's not like every guy out there acts like this. And people aren't generally waiting around for their friends/aquaintences to fulfill some role they've read about on the internet.
What happens is a guy asks a female friend out, she says no, and he acts poorly about it either then or in the future. She deals with it as best she can, maybe successfully maybe not, and then perhaps later comes across a discussion of the "Nice Guy" thing and recognizes some amount of her experience in what other people are talking about. At that point, if it happens to her again, she might handle it better the next time, but she probably won't Because when it's happening, it's awkward and unexpected and you don't know exactly what's going on or how to react and you're acting like a person and treating the other person like a person, not a meme.
What you seem to be objecting to is how people are talking about something. In order to talk about things, you generally have to make generalizations. There are people who act this way, and it's annoying. There are people who act that way. It generally helps to do this, it generally doesn't help to do that. Most people aren't going to lay the specific details of their dating/non-dating lives out in this kind of forum, because 1) it's rude to the other people involved 2) it would take too long to type and 3) it's not actually any more helpful than speaking in generalities is. That doesn't mean that the people involved are heartless or insensitive or "following a meme" when they actually interact with other people in real life. Seems pretty unlikely, really.
Posted by hilary hahn fan (Member # 13139) on :
We should differentiate between "nice guy" behavior and the exaggerated reaction to the behavior itself from feminists and white knights. Is there anything women do wrong when it comes to dating that people here are all too eager to criticize and label? Feminists and their white knights can always complain about men's behavior...always. If a man is forceful and blunt and immediately hits on chicks, he's a boor who "objectivies" women. If he's subtle and tries to be friendly and "nice" (or is hesistant to make a direct move) over a period of time he is a "nice guy." Women, as a class, significantly control social belonging, so it isn't a surprise that many men (white knights) would be eager to defend their whims.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hi there, Sa'eed.
Still dealing with romantic and sexual rejection by pretending it's the whole society that's messed up, rather than you? Rhetorical question, that, no need to answer.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by hilary hahn fan: If he's subtle and tries to be friendly and "nice" (or is hesistant to make a direct move) over a period of time he is a "nice guy."
This is not the definition of a nice guy. Its the definition of a quiet, likely shy guy.
A "Nice Guy" may initially behave this way but earns the title when he responds to rejection with insults, passive-aggressiveness, and other such actions that are very much NOT NICE.
Stop trying to change the definition in an attempt to reframe the debate.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Eh, I have lots of opinions. But I generally feel like the other person has a stronger opinion:
Wife: What do you want to eat. Me: Anything, dear. What would you like. W: I don't care either. You pick. M: Okay . . . Chinese. W: I don't really feel like Chinese. M: Okay . . . what do you want. W: I said I don't care. Anything is fine. M: Mexican? W: Too heavy. M: Italian? W: Too greasy. M: Barbecue W: <dirty look> M: So what do you want? W: I honestly don't care. If you want to eat at one of THOSE place, I really don't mind. But soup sounds good. M: So . . . Marie Calenders? W: No. <pause> How about that place down by Home Depot?
If you suspect that the other person has a preference and you're easy going, you'd think that you could just let them pick. But the lady doesn't want to be bossy. So it turns into a guessing game.
It's like you were in the car with us last week....
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by hilary hahn fan: We should differentiate between "nice guy" behavior and the exaggerated reaction to the behavior itself from feminists and white knights. Is there anything women do wrong when it comes to dating that people here are all too eager to criticize and label? Feminists and their white knights can always complain about men's behavior...always. If a man is forceful and blunt and immediately hits on chicks, he's a boor who "objectivies" women. If he's subtle and tries to be friendly and "nice" (or is hesistant to make a direct move) over a period of time he is a "nice guy." Women, as a class, significantly control social belonging, so it isn't a surprise that many men (white knights) would be eager to defend their whims.
But just to hasten another inevitable banning...
First, it's a dishonest, childish, transparent gimmick, your labeling of disagreeing men as white knights. At once you imply that they're simply lackeys, unworthy of consideration, and thus you secure yourself from having to deal with inevitable direct challenges to your misogynistic self-pitying claptrap. Women, of course, don't have to be listened to at all if they have a different opinion about an issue dealing with gender interaction, but you need a method to sidestep challenges from your own gender.
Let's see. Women aren't a class anymore than men are. What an absurd position. If they *were*, and if they controlled 'social belonging' (which of course will mean whatever you wish it to mean at the moment), why on earth do the overwhelming majority of stories, wealth, political power, rest in the hands of men? Because, you know, they do your inevitable 'women choose not to!' bull notwithstanding.
You're not fighting a good fight, Clive. You're nt fighting a cause that can be wom, which is good because it's a terrible one. Women are, as generations pass, steadily approaching parity with men in terms of social, political, economic, and sexual power. It's happening. Even if your fight was a good one-and it's not, it's actually pretty vile-you would be doomed to failure.
Instead of railing at conditions you will never, ever change-conditions that by refusing to adapt to, you ensure your own unhappiness-you simply quietly give up just a little bit of pride and change, just a little? Note I didn't say 'dignity' because there's nothing dignified in wishing for less dignity for an entire gender, but pride. No one but you would even need to know. Whichever rejection you're recoiling from, whether it was overt or simply one you imagined would happen, doesn't have have to be just one more in a long line. It can be one of the first of the last.
Or you can simply return here regularly, amusing and irritating pretty much everyone while exposing the rot and sadness at the core of this worldview of yours, and make BlackBlade work for the lay he's not getting.
Posted by hilary hahn fan (Member # 13139) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Hi there, Sa'eed.
Still dealing with romantic and sexual rejection by pretending it's the whole society that's messed up, rather than you? Rhetorical question, that, no need to answer.
It's part of Red Pill wisdom that the men complain the loudest about the current sexual marketplace are the men who lose out.
Perhaps many more other men aren't eager to complain because of the cackling/shaming from the likes of men who are all too eager to seek social approval from women through white knight behvior. These so called "white knights" defend everything women do and find a way to criticize anything men do so long as women signal that they disapprove of this behavior.
Posted by hilary hahn fan (Member # 13139) on :
I'm not Sa'eed. I agree with Sa'eed's views though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by hilary hahn fan: I'm not Sa'eed. I agree with Sa'eed's views though.
Yeah, you are. We've been through this before. The entire time I've been on Hatrack, you are literally the only person who has ever donned this costume of misogyny masquerading as an authentic rational cultural movement. Like, over ten years now I think. The only time it comes up is from you, or you as eventually admitted when you cop to it.
As for 'white knight' behavior, you're kidding yourself if you think exposing your misogyny and insecurity wins me any kind of romance/sexual currency of approval, or whatever. In fact of the women I might be interested in, most would likely view my relish in dissing you unfavorably. No, this is because I enjoy an argument, because you're an embarrassment to my gender, and because I feel there is some slight social value in speaking up bluntly, even online, against stupid and da feels ideas such as yours. The truth the importance of these motives to me is the reverse of what I recognize is the true importance of them in general.
When I point out the in-effect or even poorly disguised racism and class warfare aspects of, say, voter ID laws, it's not because I'm currying favor with Latinos. When I disagree with hate speech laws it's not because I'm sucking up to the ACLU. And when I point out the misogyny you've exposed yourself over various names, it's not to get a VIP guest of honor seat at the next sisterhood meeting.
Posted by hilary hahn fan (Member # 13139) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna:
quote:Originally posted by hilary hahn fan: If he's subtle and tries to be friendly and "nice" (or is hesistant to make a direct move) over a period of time he is a "nice guy."
A "Nice Guy" may initially behave this way but earns the title when he responds to rejection with insults, passive-aggressiveness, and other such actions that are very much NOT NICE.
I have been recently going over the "nice guys of OK Cupid" blog which totally brought this whole cliche more into the mainstream a little over a year ago. A lot of those guys seem like regular blokes, who are laughed at merely because they dare pine about not having love in their profiles. There was no way to know how they'd react to rejection. So many people (mainly feminists and white knights) were okay with the cackling/shaming that it even made some decent liberals uncomfortable:
quote:Originally posted by hilary hahn fan: I'm not Sa'eed. I agree with Sa'eed's views though.
As for 'white knight' behavior, you're kidding yourself if you think exposing your misogyny and insecurity wins me any kind of romance/sexual currency of approval, or whatever.
It's not necessarily a romance/sexual award. White knight behaivor is an amoral status game. Regardless of the merits, a white knight sees himself as gaining status points for publicly defending the whims of women, because women have more value than the men who would directly or indirectly criticize them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Please put the thread on hold until this alt is banned too
Posted by hilary hahn fan (Member # 13139) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Please put the thread on hold until this alt is banned too
So basically you want an echo chamber where feminists and white knights agree amongst themselves?
Posted by hilary hahn fan (Member # 13139) on :
This whole "nice guy" phenomonon is so interesting. Here is one perspective taken from a user who commented on the last of my links:
quote: “Nice guys” are basically approval seekers. Approval-seekers are very easy to bully because they don’t stand up to bullies, but instead try to placate and please them. “Nice guys” seek approval in particular from women. Feminist bullies call such men misogynists who think they’re entitled to sex, not because it’s true, but because they know it hurts, and they know the “nice guy” will respond by trying ever harder to earn their approval, by doing what women say they want and ever more effacing his sexual desire, and thus leave himself open to more accusations of misogyny and entitlement to sex. And the cycle continues until the nice guy finally gets fed up with this treatment, at which point the bully says this shows he was never nice in the first place.
Bullies, of course, feel the need to believe the people they pick on deserve it. Hence the inordinate attention feminists give to justifying hating “nice guys”. We need to find ways of training men out of approval-seeking behaviour, for the sake of their own happiness. But feminists who weigh in on the issue are simply bullies and they can **** off.
Posted by hilary hahn fan (Member # 13139) on :
That user goes on:
quote: I’d add a couple of things to what Ally said. One, it assumes that male sexual interest is innately selfish and hostile, i.e. that wanting to have a romantic/sexual relationship with someone is incompatible with liking them. It also comes from a position of female privilege where, not having to make the approaches, you can believe that relationships “just happen”. They don’t. Men, as the designated approachers, have to make them happen, while pretending we aren’t so as not to disturb women’s said privilege. This is a double bind that men find themselves in, that “nice guys” can’t cope with, and that women are apparently oblivious to.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
This conversation is already really long winded and unwieldy, and you're not helping.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Now I am really curious about whether fat chicks rate above or below inanimate objects on your pecking order of desirability scale.
It depends on the chick and the inanimate object. Are we talking Star Jones and a footstool? That's a tough one.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I would love to hear about one example anywhere ever where a man was bullied to suicide over nice guy behavior. I suspect sole time in your next posts this too will be another stance that is disclaimed.
Sole time? Or do you mean soul time? Should I cue the James Brown?
I don't know if there is a specific example -- especially as "nice guys" don't really exist. But I'm sure nobody has ever committed suicide over women scumming their reputation. You're totally right.
Gold star! Sex = love and bullying stereotypes are Super-Cool! Good takeaways from this thread. <writes his findings down in his feminist notebook>
[ February 21, 2014, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Or you can simply return here regularly, amusing and irritating pretty much everyone while exposing the rot and sadness at the core of this worldview of yours, and make BlackBlade work for the lay he's not getting.
Dude, I think you meant "pay", here.
As for the rest of you. Aros, how very charming of you. And new Clive-Alt, there is a huge difference between being worthy of my esteem and grovelling for my approval.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I would love to hear about one example anywhere ever where a man was bullied to suicide over nice guy behavior. I suspect sole time in your next posts this too will be another stance that is disclaimed.
Sole time? Or do you mean soul time? Should I cue the James Brown?
I don't know if there is a specific example -- especially as "nice guys" don't really exist. But I'm sure nobody has ever committed suicide over women scumming their reputation. You're totally right.
Gold star! Sex = love and bullying stereotypes are Super-Cool! Good takeaways from this thread. <writes his findings down in his feminist notebook>
Oh, I forgot for a moment who I was speaking to. I didn't take into account that you could at any moment radically broaden the scope of your argument, and then claim it had been vindicated. Because after all, it's obvious I was saying no man has ever committed suicide, ever, at campaigns to bully or ruin reputations. Never happened anywhere, that's absolutely what I meant.
----
Indeed, kmbboots.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As for that link...you do realize it doesn't actually fit your theme at all, right? Women are only a fraction of that guy's problems. Did you just pick it without reading because it said nice guys?
(Who don't exist. They're memes. Angry hypersensitive feminists, though, THEY exist. Right. Just so we're clear that this stance against stereotype is yet another hypocritical double standard you employ.)
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Women are only a fraction of most nice guys' problems. Doesn't mean they have the right to kick 'em when they're down.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It doesn't mean that we have to feel bad for not dating them either. Or think that they are "nice" when they are not.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Nobody said that you had to feel bad. Date whomever you want. Think whatever you want.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
My only argument is the same as it's always been:
Proposition - Guy tries to ask you out. - You say no. - Guy gets upset. - The meme seems to say that the automatic assumption is he's trying to guilt you into sex.
Problem - This is not true all the time.
My Assertion --- Supposition: Anecdotal Evidence - This is USUALLY not true.
Proposed Solution - Think for yourself. Don't blindly follow a meme.
Conclusion - This meme could be harmful as it can cause women NOT TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. - If women retaliate based on a false pretense, it can be harmful to the guy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And you are still making the same mistakes about this as you have from the beginning of the conversation. No wonder your argument is the same.
Plus added shallow crap about fat people.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Oh, that's right. Nobody takes looks into consideration when deciding who to date. Or is it just feminists? That's certainly good to know. <scribbles down more notes for his feminist notebook>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I didn't say that. I just said that it is shallow crap. That if a person has looks that don't appeal to you they may as well be a footstool (way to go for the demeaning there, btw) is pretty shallow crap.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, the demeaning/objectifying comments really aren't helping you any, Aros.
"If women retaliate based on a false pretense, it can be harmful to the guy."
What retaliation? No one is suggesting that she kick the guy in the face. The whole "meme" is about showing guys some specific ways NOT to act, it's not about how to treat the guys.
Seriously what are you so worried about? What's going to happen to these poor guys?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I see we're in the 'make straw men about rival position, and criticize opponents for your version of their beliefs' stage of an Aros conversation. Not when taken by its own standards does the nice guy idea go 'any discontent expressed for refusing to date is actually a guilt ploy for sex'.
Try a little thought exercise, Aros. Imagine a world-just for a moment, just in your imagination-where the people you disagree with don't conform so perfectly with your own take on what you *think* they're actually saying.
Little chance that it would be effective what with your conversational technique of 'hyperbole...or not!...don't generalize about nice guys, but let me get my feminist notebook!...don't be a bully women but fat chicks ade just sick'
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Aros, three out of four of your propositions are erroneous:
It's not just a guy trying to ask you out; it's a guy feeling entitled to sex because he's nice.
The woman says no. Correct.
The guy isn't just upset; he engages in performative and passive aggressive behaviors where he blames women's poor taste in partners for his inability to sex. Which he's entitled to 'cause he's nice.
The meme only concerns people who engage in the public (online) displays of wailing and lamentation that women only want to sleep with jerks and never with nice guys; that in a truly just world their perceived adherence to basic standards of decency would get them sex.
And your problem is irrelevant to the discussion. The meme is referring to fairly specific behaviors. If those behaviors aren't present (which one hopes is most of the time) then it doesn't apply.
Your conclusion is poorly worded and quite possibly insulting. Also, the meme could be helpful because it can allow women to recognize the behaviors it identifies and respond appropriately. It generally helps to know if someone's being an entitled wanker.
It also can help the guy avoid giving a false impression by allowing him to recognize when he's being an entitled wanker or at least to avoid problematic language and concepts when being upset about being rejected.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dude, Nice Guys gotta be entitled to wank. Especially if all the alpha males are taking up all the female capital except for the fat chicks and footstools and whining won't work anymore. And they can't buy hookers.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
It's not the wanking I object to; it's the performance and passive-aggressiveness.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I think kmboots is very firmly with tongue in cheek.
Good to see you, Noble Hunter. Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Aaand that's where the hijack and I part company lest I transgress unforgivably past the bounds of family friendly.
Good to see you, too, CT.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
You changed the parameters. Under your scenario, I concur. Some people here are arguing against my scenario and parameters.
Read the thread. Though I'll admit, most of the people bagging in me haven't.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
I have read the thread. I think my parameters more accurately describe the phenomena that are the subject of this thread.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
The original subject is sexist.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Are you aware that the original poster and most of the people posting on the beginning of the thread are male? The thread isn't women griping about men.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: You changed the parameters. Under your scenario, I concur. Some people here are arguing against my scenario and parameters.
Read the thread. Though I'll admit, most of the people bagging in me haven't.
Yeah, you did. I asked a question about suicides in response to shaming over 'nice guy' behavior, and you replied crowing about any male suicide related to female-harmed reputation. The example you gave was only even tangentially related! So, yeah. Changed parameters.
As for people 'bagging' on you: you admit to trolling, to changing tactics and positions to suit your given whim, and this isn't a thread you can just flip the board over and storm out like a child. So people can see what you've said, see you talking about fat women, and bullying women, and rejecting stereotypes while sneering at feminists. They're bagging on what you say, because it's garbage. And it amped up when you started being openly hypocritical and cracking misogynistic jokes. (Just as an example, is don't see MattP getting bagged on, and he even made a direct, sternly worded challenge.)
NobleHunter-and others-have already addressed your chief objection: that this antagonism is directed at innocent guys who simply are nice and then seek romance. That's not a Nice Guy for the purposes of this discussion. You can either (finally) accept that and move on, or continue to ignore it and get 'bagged on'.
Posted by hilary hahn fan (Member # 13139) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Yeah, the demeaning/objectifying comments really aren't helping you any, Aros.
"If women retaliate based on a false pretense, it can be harmful to the guy."
What retaliation? No one is suggesting that she kick the guy in the face. The whole "meme" is about showing guys some specific ways NOT to act, it's not about how to treat the guys.
Seriously what are you so worried about? What's going to happen to these poor guys?
Oh okay. Show me when posters here -- men and women -- get indignant about telling women "how not ot act." Show me when they use memes to mock any subset of women. The sight of white knights tripping over themselves white-knighting is getting pretty hilarious here.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:...don't see MattP getting bagged on, and he even made a direct, sternly worded challenge.
Wait, what? In this thread?
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
Ooooooh.
This is opens doors guy.
Sorry. I'm out. Peace.
Posted by hilary hahn fan (Member # 13139) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: Aros, three out of four of your propositions are erroneous:
It's not just a guy trying to ask you out; it's a guy feeling entitled to sex because he's nice.
Not just to sex, but compansionship, love, togerthness of spirit and body, etc. It's so telling you dudes reduce the longing of the "nice guys" just to "sex" as to all the more justify your white-knight preening.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Are you aware that the original poster and most of the people posting on the beginning of the thread are male? The thread isn't women griping about men.
You know, my interest in this topic (and, probably, the reason why most men posting here are interested) is unrelated to feminism. Not that I don't support equality between the sexes, mind you.
It more has to do with analyzing and discussing a behavior I see in some male friends, as well as my own behavior. My own understanding of relationships and romance and interaction between men and women has changed and deepened over the past few years, and now that I am as of late married, I feel like I've only really seen the tip of the iceberg.
I feel like these sorts of discussions (both online, and IRL) are really useful for helping one analyze his own relationships and assumptions and see if they really line up with what he believes. I know I often subconciously do things in a set pattern until a discussion like this makes me think "wait, why am I acting this way/treating this person this way? This makes no sense" and then change my behavior.
That being said, I do appreciate the irony of a man complaining of feminism and sexism in a thread that is mostly men discussing a predominantly male behavior/culture with other men. The butthurt is strong with this one.
Posted by hilary hahn fan (Member # 13139) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: That being said, I do appreciate the irony of a man complaining of feminism and sexism in a thread that is mostly men discussing a predominantly male behavior/culture with other men. It's pretty surreal.
It's not so surreal when you realize that the men in question are all (mostly) operating out of a gynocentric mindset they've been reared in and breathe everyday.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Aren't you banned? Or did BlackBlade allow you to come back with a different alt?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:...don't see MattP getting bagged on, and he even made a direct, sternly worded challenge.
Wait, what? In this thread?
I was referring to your criticism (I mean the in the constructive way) of some of the positions expressed here, particularly Dogbreath. I thought there was a good case expressed there, and it went against the broad current of the thread, but I don't recall your being bagged on.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
???
I don't think he criticized any of the opinions here...
Are you thinking of Raymond Arnold?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Aren't you banned? Or did BlackBlade allow you to come back with a different alt?
I would be surprised. No, this is likely just another in the long, stories and sleazy tradition of names such as Clive Candy, Sa'eed, and something something Jewish sounding name, among others. So far it's pretty true to form.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: ???
I don't think he criticized any of the opinions here...
Are you thinking of Raymond Arnold?
Wow, I sure am. Sorry Matt!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, maybe if Matt was more to you than just a nice butt and a pair of knockers you'd at least remember his name, you pig!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you'd seen his butt and knockers you wouldn't judge!
As for Raymond, if he weren't such a fat chick I wouldn't rate him like furniture. And hey! Before any of you whining, hormonal feminists start bi*%#ing, I don't mean anything bad by that, so don't go criticizing me! I'm not a meme! God, can't have a simple conversation with you feminists!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Let's not fight boys, there's plenty of me to share.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by hilary hahn fan:
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: Aros, three out of four of your propositions are erroneous:
It's not just a guy trying to ask you out; it's a guy feeling entitled to sex because he's nice.
Not just to sex, but compansionship, love, togerthness of spirit and body, etc. It's so telling you dudes reduce the longing of the "nice guys" just to "sex" as to all the more justify your white-knight preening.
Yep. Surprise. He's not entitled to any of that either.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I appreciate that so many people are passionate about the subject. If you'll note, I've been the brunt of attacks but I haven't delivered any personally. Nor have I been offended or upset myself. Sure, I've employed multiple techniques, including some humor that might have been mildly off color, but it's been on topic.
There are obviously some people who have a problem with either my debate tactics or my platform. My guess is both. I apologize if you have concerns, and I think rational debate is over, so I'll kindly excuse myself from this thread. Hopefully, if there's anything worthwhile left to discuss, you can get back on track.
Good day.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Passive aggressive is still aggressive. Sarcasm and dismissiveness is rude. You can't scrub it out on your way out the door with a "I always took the high road and when I didn't that was humor."
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Remember the chivalry thread he deleted?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Who doesn't? Presumably the faux-cordial exit is the backup plan when you can't do that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the chivalry thread is worth remembering because it was where Aros revealed a major amount of sexism underpinning his lines of thought regarding gender relations, then he baleeted it all when people were calling him on it so
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Among the many funny things in that palpably insincere apology was that, in this thread, he openly stated 'this is an in your face to people who said things in ways I didn't like, which makes it fair!' I suppose he might have deleted those, too.
But yeah, I remember that thread. There were someunpleant things under that particular rock. But anyway, sincere or not, if he's not gonna continue, I'll stop bagging on him for it. Well.,.now;)
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you'd seen his butt and knockers you wouldn't judge!
As for Raymond, if he weren't such a fat chick I wouldn't rate him like furniture. And hey! Before any of you whining, hormonal feminists start bi*%#ing, I don't mean anything bad by that, so don't go criticizing me! I'm not a meme! God, can't have a simple conversation with you feminists!
Speaking of memes and feminists, this seems appropriate especially in the light of how some in this thread, particularly Clive-Whosit, want to characterize feminists.
Posted by hilary hahn fan (Member # 13139) on :
^^^^^^
I actually liked that cartoon -- it made me laugh out loud the first time I read it. I grudgingly acknowledge it's hilarity though I disagree with its point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That was pretty funny. I love HAV.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you're not totally dead to humor and irony. It's never a good sign when someone can't laugh at their own sacred cows and taboos.
As for its point, though, something to think about: the ideas expressed by those snakes lady straw-feminists aren't very far at all from some of the positions you impute to them on a regular basis. The absurd, over-the-top ridiculous hyperbole they hiss at children is not much further than kissing-cousins close to what you think they think.
ETA: Obviously, that was directed at BB.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:As for its point, though, something to think about: the ideas expressed by those snakes lady straw-feminists aren't very far at all from some of the positions you impute to them on a regular basis.
Bwuh? I have?
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
I'm guessing the
quote:ETA: Obviously, that was directed at BB.
was a joke. Or Rakeesh forgot the "not".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That would make sense. I honestly thought, "Have I lost my grasp of things I've thought in the past?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm tempted to keep going, but it's too easy in a text format. Joke, yes:)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: ???
I don't think he criticized any of the opinions here...
Are you thinking of Raymond Arnold?
Wow, I sure am. Sorry Matt!
Heh.
For the record, I was about to get really annoyed at a different comment (the one about "if they didn't want sex they'd be okay with friendship") but then the thread became really ridiculous before I had a chance to reply and I lost interest.
I think Aros has been pretty rude and easy to dismiss for personal reasons, but I think they had made a lot of good points that people were just ignoring or talking past.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
What points? There were some things Aros said that weren't directed at anything anyone here actually said, so I can see why you would agree with some of those. Anyway, he's gone now, and I'm interested in what you have to add.
I'm interested in what you have to say, and I'm not sure why you felt the need to stop discussing this earlier. Nobody was being rude or disrespectful to you, or "ridiculous." At least, I don't think any of my responses to you were ridiculous.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Might I suggest we not all be too hard on Aros? Usually when somebody is angry at women they need a combination of "stop hating on women" and "you can let go of your frustrations with women, they aren't serving you or anybody else."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It was not that anyone was disrespectful to me or anything, it was just I've been trying not to get into internet arguments in the first place these days unless there's a good reason to, and I felt like the timber of the conversation got overall pretty silly.
The parts that were continuing to frustrate me were some number of people continuing to use "Nice Guys just want women's bodies" as their main talking point.
People can be acting entitled, but still genuinely want long term commitment/companionship/non-sexual-touch/love and all the other subtle things that make a relationship. Relationships are not just friendships + sex. (I don't think you were the one claiming this, someone said it explicitly and others implied it)
I can't remember who said what at this point and don't care that much.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It was one person who said it, actually. And in a somewhat sarcastic manner. In one post. Not "a number of people." It certainly was the argument of Aros's strawman, though.
I guess the point everyone was trying to make (including Emreecheek, btw) is that it doesn't matter if they explicitly feel entitled to sex, or commitment/companionship/non-sexual-touch/love/free nachos or whatever. The point is that they feel showing basic human decency entitles them to something from a woman, and if she doesn't give it to them, then they act as if they've been cheated. The feeling of ownership and treating love as a transactional affair is the issue, not the specifics of if it's sex or cuddling or whatever.
That being said, all the things you describe fall under "intimacy", which is perhaps a better description of what we're talking about than "sex." The defining quality of a relationship *is* intimacy.
For example, everyone makes jokes about me and my "deployment wife." My buddy Sam and I, when we were deployed, did everything together. We slept in the same room (or racks next to eachother, while on ship), went out together on port calls, shared the same tent, talked to the same girls, pretty much shared life together. I love him like a brother and we certainly shared a lot, but nobody (expect jokingly) would say we were "in a relationship". Or dating.
Human sexuality, or intimacy if you will, includes the actual act of sex, or lying next to eachother and holding one another, being completely vulnerable with eachother, living together, trusting each other, kissing, hugging, cuddling, commitment, and companionship. They're all intimately tied together and complement and reinforce each other.
It seems very strange and unlikely to me that you could have or want a "relationship" with a woman that is more than a friendship, contains all those other things, and yet is devoid of sexuality. And by that I mean, either actually having sex, or the eventual promise of sex (at a later time or after marriage) reinforced by sexual acts. (like holding hands, hugging, kissing, cuddling) I can't honestly say I've ever heard of that happening (outside of strange, bizarre "Children of the Mind"-esque cults), and I wonder why it keeps getting brought up. Obviously there's more to a relationship than just intimacy, but that is the defining aspect of a relationship, is it not? Can you explain why you disagree?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think some conversation on this subject uses "sex" and "friendship" as shorthand for "romantic relationship" and "platonic relationship," which is probably confusing the issue. Especially since not being "just after sex" can be one of the things that self-proclaimed nice guys count as a factor in their niceness.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just let us know when clive is rebanned
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
dkw, the thing with nice guys and sex is that their narratives often suggest they're acting like boyfriends in everyway but sexually. A common complaint is they're doing all the "work" of a boyfriend without the reward.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if some "nice guys" actually did focus on the relationship they feel entitled to, rather than sex. The performative nature of the meme does allow for individual variations.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Isn't the reward of being a good friend having a good friend? Why should a woman feel obligated to have sex in return for friendship, instead of, you know, being friendly?
That being said there's a bigger problem here, actually the one *big* problem. They feel if they do enough "work" (by being a psuedo boyfriend or whatever) then a woman is obligated to "reward" them with sex. It makes love a transactional affair, and dehumanizes one or both parties. Presumably, you're trying to date someone, not buy a hooker.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just let us know when clive is rebanned
Who are you talking about?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hilary hahn fan is as obviously clive as was yehudi ben israel before it. i really hope that this was recognized immediately.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think (hope) that BlackBlade was joking.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
if so, the wit definitely WHOOSH'd me
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I wasn't kidding. I hadn't followed the thread yesterday so did not see hilary hahn fan.
Will take care of it.
edit: Maybe y'all are tired of whistling his posts? :\
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No, Sam's comment made me think he already had whistled his posts and I thought to myself: "Self, BlackBlade probably doesn't appreciate having 18 people whistle the same post." so I let it be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yikes! I succumbed to crowd impulse there too, BB, re: not whistling. My bad.
Bad Samprimary!:pl
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
He even calls himself a nice guy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hrm. I don't know, the concluding dismissal felt a little staged to be honest. Not that I disagreed with its content, but it didn't feel very authentic in a 'this happened' way.
(Admittedly this may not *sound* like abject fawning over your gynocracy, Risuena, whose approval I value over all things. But it totes is because of course I do!)
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Well, I did include an (apparently), so I allow that there's room for it to be staged/faked. Still, I think that you do need to work on your fawning. I'm a big fan of fawns.
Even if it is fake, it still feels like something that could easily happen. And it makes me happy that facebook wasn't a thing when I last worked retail - because I was definitely approached by customers - sometimes repeatedly. And if they could have found me online and intruded in my non-work life, I'd have been extremely upset/uncomfortable/creeped out/etc.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, well as for the larger story, I have little doubt that that sort of thing happens quite a bit. (Picture me as Igor, lurching forward with eager toadying.) The wording of the last Facebook post, though, rang a bit sketchy for me.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
The rather large number of nerd-culture references from both sides, along with her outright quoting tvtropes with her last reply makes me think it might be staged. That along with the fact that it's rather unusually well worded and structured for what basically amounts to a giant "f*** you" to a stranger seems suspect.
Then again, she might have had the idea of screen shotting it before/while writing it and was therefore cognizant of the fact she was writing for an audience. Thus the "staged" feel.
Or maybe that's just the way she writes. *shrugs*
Anyway, my wife actually had 2 guys do this same thing! One was over a year ago. One guy she met briefly at a social event found her because she was part of a Swing Dance group on facebook, identified her by her profile picture, then sent her a long series of messages. After a while (like the 3rd time he asked her to "come over and hang out", and she replied politely "sorry, I have plans with my boyfriend"), she eventually told him "look, I really don't want to hang out with you and I think it's kind of creepy that you keep messaging me" to which she got a long "hey, whatever bitch, screw me for being a nice guy blah blah blah" diatribe in response.
The second was about 5 months ago. She had signed up for a tutoring session for a chemistry class she was taking (basically, you go on the university website and pick a tutor/timeslot) and was studying in the library afterwards. The tutor approached her about 5 times over a 6 hour period (she was waiting to take a test that evening) and kept trying to strike up a conversation. Afterwards, he looked up her name in her class roster, found her e-mail address, and sent her an e-mail asking if she wanted to come to his house for a tutoring session the next Monday. She didn't reply, so he sent 2 more before she blocked him.
Now, I may be old fashioned, but isn't it courteous to at least ask a girl for her phone number or permission to add her on Facebook/e-mail her before just blithely harassing her? Since when has stalking been romantic?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Also, the comments from that article are pretty great. My favorite so far:
quote:As he waited for her reply on Facebook, he let himself lean back in his chair with the brim of his fedora shielding his eyes from the light of the room. He imagined what fun they would have until her ex-partners tracked him down. There would be exes, of course, he wasn't naive enough to think that he would be her first.
They would come for him, and he would fight. Not just for himself, but for her. The one he vowed to worship. In dedication to her cause like a Paladin to their deity he would gain strength beyond normal limits. With his trenchcoat billowing behind him he would charge forwards, lashing out with fist and blade blazing with the physical manifestation of his passion for that cat goddess he had pledged his life to.
When the battle had been won, he would stand victorious over them. And his kitty would come to bless his struggles with the sweetest kiss.
With a slightly ragged breath he forced himself up to check his Facebook page.
Still no response.
Maybe the last one failed to get through. He hadn't been blocked, and her page still existed. Those two facts put hope in his heart.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: The rather large number of nerd-culture references from both sides, along with her outright quoting tvtropes with her last reply makes me think it might be staged. That along with the fact that it's rather unusually well worded and structured for what basically amounts to a giant "f*** you" to a stranger seems suspect.
Then again, she might have had the idea of screen shotting it before/while writing it and was therefore cognizant of the fact she was writing for an audience. Thus the "staged" feel.
Or maybe that's just the way she writes. *shrugs*
Anyway, my wife actually had 2 guys do this same thing! One was over a year ago. One guy she met briefly at a social event found her because she was part of a Swing Dance group on facebook, identified her by her profile picture, then sent her a long series of messages. After a while (like the 3rd time he asked her to "come over and hang out", and she replied politely "sorry, I have plans with my boyfriend"), she eventually told him "look, I really don't want to hang out with you and I think it's kind of creepy that you keep messaging me" to which she got a long "hey, whatever bitch, screw me for being a nice guy blah blah blah" diatribe in response.
The second was about 5 months ago. She had signed up for a tutoring session for a chemistry class she was taking (basically, you go on the university website and pick a tutor/timeslot) and was studying in the library afterwards. The tutor approached her about 5 times over a 6 hour period (she was waiting to take a test that evening) and kept trying to strike up a conversation. Afterwards, he looked up her name in her class roster, found her e-mail address, and sent her an e-mail asking if she wanted to come to his house for a tutoring session the next Monday. She didn't reply, so he sent 2 more before she blocked him.
Now, I may be old fashioned, but isn't it courteous to at least ask a girl for her phone number or permission to add her on Facebook/e-mail her before just blithely harassing her? Since when has stalking been romantic?
Two words: Stephenie Meyer.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Staged or not, it was gag worthy. Jeesh. I feel embarrassed for him.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) but addressing those don't address the problematic cultural memes that are giving rise to the problems feminists notice. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)