Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Richie at Crimitism has hit another nail in the head with his post on "Nice Guys", and the webcomic he parsed for the post.  I encourage people to read and enjoy; it's one of the reasons I link to his blog in my sidebar (links list updated every now and then - check it out!).

One thing that guys need to understand is that the "nice guy" is not nice.  He's a creep, a whiny, sex-obsessed, condescending asshole who can't understand that the reason he never gets laid is because he's hiding his desire to get laid under a facade of "I respect women!", and it's so fake it screams "stalker!" to every girl with an ounce of sense in her*.  Sure, girls like bad boys and it sometimes sucks (my own particular bad boy is awesome though, thankyewverymuch), but nice guys need to stop fooling themselves that they're a better alternative, because frequently, they're just the flip side of the "women are not worth anything except as sex objects" Pickup Artist coin.

No, really - ask a girl about a self-professed "nice guy", and she'll say "well, he's a nice guy, but - " and that "but" tells you all you need to know.  She's trying not to be a bitch about someone who leaves her completely cold, not because he's not interesting enough, but because he gives off a bad vibe that even if she can't put it into words, tells her that dating this guy will be bad news.

If she wants a stalker, on the other hand - most stalkers think of themselves as NGs, did you know that?  They tell the object of their stalking that they love them, will take care of them, and all sorts of icky stuff, but their fantasy is missing the key component in any real relationship - the permission of the woman they're stalking.  Yet, when asked, they protest that they love the object of their fascination, and that if she only got to know him, they'd totes fall in love and live happily ever after (until he kills her for trying to leave him).


NGs , though not stalkers (mostly) give off a similar vibe, in that the interest of the woman they want to date is massively secondary to their interest in dating her.  Again, this really becomes obvious pretty quickly - the NG doesn't even accord his "love interest" the intelligence to realize he thinks this way, and he never cottons on to the fact that she keeps him at arm's length as "just a friend" because she's not interested at all, but she's too nice to say GTFO.  Instead, he thinks she's just too dumb to see what a great guy he is, and if he only hangs around enough, she'll totes see that, and they'll live happily ever after, like it's the movies, man.  God, women are so stupid!  Why don't they see what a Nice Guy he is?!.

(This "too nice to say no" phenomenon is a separate problem that women have, being deeply conditioned to be kind to everyone, not helped at all by the fact that NGs, when finally rebuffed, will show their true colours and tell her what a bitch she is because she said no [reinforcing the "must ne nice to everyone!" programming].  Because, of course, if she knew what was good for her, she'd absolutely say yes to this guy who just called her a bitch for daring to refuse him.)


Because it's not, nor is it ever, about what the woman wants, it's only about what the NG wants.  All those "nice" things he says he does?  They're just manipulation, building up a debt to him that can only be repaid with sex, and we're bitches if we say no.  Because men are owed sex, somehow.  Because women shouldn't be allowed to refuse a man who wants them.  Which leads to the creepy manipulative behaviour that NGs pull out once the chips are down.

"Romantic" movies frequently perpetuate this idea - most specifically in the trope that when a girl turns a guy down, she just needs a little "persuasion" to see what a great guy he is.  In the real world, this is called stalking.  It only works in the movies, and the NG in the movies is a whiny little ass who ends up with a gorgeous girl who doesn't deserve to be stuck bywith a loser like him only because whiny little NGs write, direct, and most importantly, produce most of these movies (Suck it, Judd Apatow). 

For God's sake - most women given a choice between the two, will pick a jerk over the nice guy, because at least the jerk will be more fun than a damp cold flannel.  But given an honest choice?  Women will almost always go for the man who treats them like a real, live human being, not a sex doll. 

But that's a lesson the NG seems to have skipped.  

*To clarify:  I am not blaming any woman who got mixed up with a NG and got the worst end of it.  Some of them are sneakier than others, and it's not any woman's fault that she got deceived by a slimeball.

*To clarify a bit further, just in case anyone goes back through the archives and reads this with the wrong end of their stick, I am not referring to men who are genuinely nice, I'm talking about the "Nice Guy", as in (referenced above) "He's a nice guy, but...".  Need further clarification?  Read the Crimitism post.



Apr. 21st, 2009 04:15 pm (UTC)
I dated one of those in high school. He was so nice that he went through my crowd of friends like a virus, while they, and he, kept me in the dark. Because he's so nice. They didn't want to hurt me! My feelings, so delicate! I really did know a bunch of assholes in my youth.
Apr. 21st, 2009 04:27 pm (UTC)
High school is rife with these parasites. They're in the larval human stage, and some of them may learn to actually be human beings, but in the meantime, they're evil.
Apr. 21st, 2009 04:51 pm (UTC)
Fortunately, I got revenge without even trying. He knocked up some girl in a bar, on a one-night stand, and my understanding is that she's ugly enough to stop a striking clock. He was so nice, he married her. I haven't seen him since I was in my mid-20's, but he was looking pretty rough after a couple of years of married life. I really dodged a bullet there. Plus, his kid's now about fourteen, and it pleases me to think what he's probably putting his father through.
Apr. 21st, 2009 04:31 pm (UTC)
Wow. I am SOOOO impressed you could type the word 'friends' without any quotation marks in your post!
I understand---I think. More of the "be kind, be *understanding,* be compassionate. They meant well, right?
And apart from this incident, always have loved you and treated you well? Loyally, kindly?
*And* it was high school. When we all mean well, think we understand, want to believe the best in people, and when, if we're fortunate, we haven't known anyone worse than social clods and jackasses, no true psychopaths.

(Sorry: this subject seems to be coming up quite a lot in my own life right now, and I was just struck with a startling and quite chilling realization or revelation this morning. Not recovered from it, yet.)

But I couldn't have written your comment without quote-marks around the word "friends."
Apr. 21st, 2009 04:49 pm (UTC)
Well, you know, it occurs to me that one of those people was the best friend I recently lost--she cut off contact with me after 17 years, without explanation--and remembering how she behaved when my feelings were at stake, so long ago, is going a long way toward erasing any residual hurt I may feel at losing her now. I should have known even then what kind of person she really was.
Apr. 21st, 2009 05:11 pm (UTC)
"Even then" we should have known, but I believe that's because hindsight is 20/20, and in we like to believe, looking back, that our *present* judgment is perfect.
I know I'm still making a lot of the same dumb mistakes.

I've lost a couple of close 'friends,' too, who considered their short-term aims more important than my feelings, one of them right after I'd had a horribly wrenching break-up with someone for whom I'd cared enormously at the time. But as she saw the situation, her feelings were important because she was engaged to be married, while I had only lost "a boyfriend" and not a fiance so I obviously could not have cared as deeply nor been much hurt.
Without getting into a lot of tedious detail, in essence she promised me to a friend of her fiance, to entertain *him* while she and her lovey-duck entertained each other. (Lovey-duck lived on the other side of town; her ma wouldn't let her use the family car *or* see him without chaperonage, so I was called into service, you see.) I wasn't in the mood to go out, and said so; I had no interest in blind dating, and said so.
*She* said she understood, but just needed me to be present.
But three days later, she was icy-cold furious that I hadn't been "nice to my fiance's friend; you weren't friendly at all."

Cripes---the girl was...well, I don't want to say "pimping" or "procuring," but those words are coming to mind. To my hard, judgmental mind.
Apr. 24th, 2009 07:38 pm (UTC)
"To my hard, judgmental mind."

Well, there's a difference between judging hearts and judging _behavior_.

- Susana/Sandy
Apr. 24th, 2009 07:58 pm (UTC)
And what is that difference between judging hearts and judging behavior? How do you, yourself, make the distinction?
Apr. 28th, 2009 09:36 pm (UTC)
"How do you, yourself, make the distinction?"
Very carefully . . . I hope.
No, seriously - what is the logical outcome of her actions?
Obviously, I didn't say my piece very well. What I meant was, are you (even mildly) reproaching yourself for being over-suspicious, or over-judgmental? You're entitled to look at what the consequences to you (mental & emotional, as well as physical) could have been if you'd gone along with her program . . . even if she was genuinely innocently hurt that you didn't take to her friend.
Apr. 28th, 2009 10:44 pm (UTC)
Since making my initial mention of this in my comment of a week ago, I've been giving this some thought.

I'm sure her feelings based on her perspective, were genuine.
I'm sure mine were and are, too.
But I do consider myself to have been and to be in the clear. Thanks.
Apr. 29th, 2009 12:30 pm (UTC)
Please do not question the statements of other commenters as if their feelings can be quantified as right or wrong. The subjectivity of the situation cannot be judged from afar, and suggestions that another person's agenda is more important than the commenter's autonomy are not appreciated in this journal.

Latest Month

April 2017


Powered by LiveJournal.com