Single White Female Seeks Passive-Aggressive Misogynist

Sexist ad with a man blowing smoke in a woman's face

With any luck, I’ll find myself in a steady relationship any day now, and this ad won’t be necessary — but it’s sort of funny, so let’s at least post it for now, and perhaps permanently if it proves popular enough:

Who needs online dating services? Eschewing the needlessly complicated dating sites, which I’m told offer an array of dating-candidates who are not Jill — potentially causing men to become confused and end up with the wrong woman — Feministe offers the one dating option that can bring true happiness: Jill. But first, you must read the rules below.

Ten Rules for Dating Jill:

1. Dudes who think that all chicks are overly-emotional irrational basket-cases are hot.

Do you often find yourself saying, “Why are chicks so irrational?”

Do you ever end an argument by saying, “Are you on your period?”

Do other peoples’ tears make you angry because you are unable to feel a full range of human emotion?

Do you believe that men tend to be more logical, or perhaps “from Mars,” while women tend to be more emotional and therefore “from Venus”?

Do “logical arguments,” as you define them, tend to correspond exactly to your personal belief system?

Do you find that if someone is wrong about a particular issue, it is easiest to simply shut down conversation by accusing them of being irrational or emotional?

Do you become angry and resentful when someone opts out of conversation with you?

Do you voice your disgust towards fat women, and then get annoyed when your girlfriend goes on a diet?

Do you voice your disgust towards fat women, and then make fun of your girlfriend for wondering if you think she’s fat?

Do you also voice your disgust towards women with eating disorders, and become annoyed if your girlfriend won’t eat a burger on command, but become more annoyed if it looks like she’s getting fat?

Do you sometimes write passive-aggressive lists on the internet about everything you hate in women?

Do you often find yourself using phrases such as “Sane chicks are hot,” “Women who blow me off are the epitome of all evil,” or “Why don’t women like nice guys”?

Do you think that rigid consistency even in the face of changed circumstances or information is the only sign of true intelligence? Or that it’s acceptable to express anger toward people who point out that you, yourself, have often said one thing yet done another? Do you believe that it’s acceptable to express anger at others when they recoil in horror at the terrible words and actions you have consciously chosen?

Are you currently on, or have you ever gone on, a narcissistic rant about how women are terrible in all of the following ways, so will the one who is not terrible please for the love of God date you already? (Or have you been urged by a medical professional to avoid such rants in the future, as you are prone to going on them, sometimes on C-SPAN?)

Do you think “emotional self-discipline” is a good way to convince yourself that your feelings are the only valid ones, because you refuse to acknowledge that they are, in fact, feelings, and you instead shroud them in the veneer of logical desires?

Do you get shit-throwing angry when your date is five minutes late, or says “I’ll call you” and does not actually call you immediately, or otherwise behaves as normal people with flexible plans may behave?

Do you like to think of yourself as a “logical and rational thinker” who is more intelligent than most people you meet, and definitely more intelligent than overly-emotional broads?

Do you like to berate all of womankind on the internet?

Do you let off steam by picking fights with all of womankind on the internet, or posting long lists of negative attributes that you clearly associate mostly with women?

Do you claim to hate people who lie in order to avoid conflicts, but then badger women into agreeing with you or going along with your plans, only to get angry when it turns out they weren’t 100% into it in the first place?

Do you think that a given statement must be true if you can make what you believe to be logical arguments about the underlying issue? (For instance, that evolution must not exist because there are still monkeys walking around, or that unadulterated capitalism is the way to go because Communism failed).

Do you consider yourself a “nice guy” and find yourself wondering why chicks always date jerks?

If you answered “no” to any of these questions, you may be a decent human being and probably shouldn’t date me (I’m sure many of you would hasten to add “I wouldn’t dream of it!” and that’s good — you’re being wise, for once). This is not to say that you are a bad person — you may even be better than average in many ways, or at least better than the average man — but you are not the sort of condescending, narcissistic, lacking-all-self-awareness He-Man Woman-Hater with whom another condescending, narcissistic, lacking-all-self-awareness He-Man Self-Hater like myself ought to spend a lot of time.

If you answered “yes” to all these questions, there may be hope of us getting along and even building a romantic relationship. But read on and learn the other nine Rules for Dating Jill.

2. If you (a) do not want children or (b) are willing to accept the fact that I will never want children and that therefore if you do, you must be prepared to have only a non-permanent relationship with me, we may be able to build a romantic relationship (no, I do not want to adopt, part-time parent, co-parent, see kids on weekends, or indeed be around kids, whether genetically related or unrelated to me, in any imaginable capacity whatsoever, nor date a man who has kids secreted away somewhere who he promises will “rarely” interact with me). It would also be great if you could refer to kids as “crotch-droppings” and be sure to blame their mothers if they make any sort of noise in public. Or if they appear in public at all.

3. Do you accept the fact that your future girlfriend may have many friends, both female and male, who will not cease to exist simply because you start dating said girlfriend, and are you able to be kind and open toward said friends, including the males, even if in some cases they are ex-boyfriends, right up until you feel threatened and then you can go ahead and humiliate me on C-SPAN? If so, we may be able to build a romantic relationship.

4. Are you capable of having an argument on an intellectual point of disagreement which inevitably culminates in you claiming that your man-logic is clearly superior to my lady-logic, as evidenced by the fact that you are a man and I am a lady? When I point out the logical conclusions of your arguments, do you insist that I am being emotional and write off whatever I have to say as vagina-talk? If so, we may be able to build a romantic relationship.

5. Is your IQ, if it has been tested, significantly above average (average being approximately 100)? Did you learn this fact through a series of internet IQ tests? Do you regularly use your IQ as a trump card in arguments? Do you sometimes begin sentences with, “Well, as a member of Mensa…”? If so, we may be able to build a romantic relationship.

6. Would you agree that no one is born into this world “owing” you anything, whether an investment of time or money, and that as long as no one is actively harming you or taking things away from you without your permission, the world is treating you fairly? And also that the estate tax is a travesty because you earned that money by having a wealthy relative die, and your legacy admission to college was earned by having a relative who went to the school and contributed large sums to its endowment? Do you think it’s absurd when people claim they “deserve” things like a home or health care or time off, because those are shallow yuppie indulgences that no one “deserves”? Do you live in a home and have health care and time off, because, no home or health care or time off? Gross. If so, we may be able to build a romantic relationship.

7. Are you able to get along with people who disagree with you on a variety of issues, such as politics and religion, assuming they are willing to discuss such matters intelligently and civilly, and by “intelligently and civilly” you mean that it’s ok for people (such as yourself) to tell lesser people (such as myself) that they are irrational emotional crybabies when they don’t agree with you? If so, we may be able to build a romantic relationship.

8. Are you resentful of people who take joy in things, and who try to include you in activities that they deem “fun” or “necessary”? Do you hate it when your girlfriend tries to share her enthusiasm for certain things with you, because you are emotionally stunted and immediately hate anything that comes out of her always-yapping lady-mouth? If so, we may be able to build a romantic relationship.

9. Do you think happiness is a fairly natural state — the most important one, in fact — and one easily achieved if people simply calm down and avoid creating insanity, hostility, or trouble? And that the best way to achieve this is to ignore or diminish all of my passions, beliefs, thoughts and interests and insist that I focus wholly on yours? If so, we may be able to build a romantic relationship.

10. If you answered as suggested to all the questions above, are a male of unremarkable physicality, and are not exactly a spring chicken but you definitely want to be banging a 25-year-old (which you justify by saying you’re “thinking long-term” right after you’ve made it clear you don’t want kids), then let’s consider building a romantic relationship.

_________________________________________

Dating in New York is really hard, you guys. Way too many people actually want to go outside. Or to bars. Or dancing, for goodness sakes. Well, I am tired of all that hootin’ and hollerin’, and I think I may have met the man of my dreams. I’m just not sure he’ll have me, as I am, in his estimation, a terrible, selfish fiend of a human being, because sometimes I say “yes” to hanging out and then things get busy and I lose interest or just reconsider. Basically, I am Hitler without the moustache, and all my dreams are dashed:

Oh, but one last thing — and this is very important. Are you the sort of person who says “yes” when asked to do something with a fella, regardless of whether you actually want to go out, then simply keeps rescheduling instead of definitively and finally canceling the date or saying no? Do you do this despite having attained the age of legal adulthood? Do you tell yourself that you’re nonetheless a moral person — even the hero in life’s little narrative — because, each and every time you rescheduled and feigned enthusiasm for getting together “first thing next week” (or maybe even later that very night if you’re a particularly brazen and skilled actress), you thought, “I’m faced with an awkward moment, so I’ll just keep turning it into a positive one, for the time being, by lying…over and over again! That’s the thing to do!”

I don’t really care if you vow never to do this to me — that isn’t good enough. If you’ve ever done this to anyone — wasting not only your time and the fella’s but the time of all the other people whose schedules were disrupted by your lies, from restaurant staffs dealing with canceled reservations to other people who might have met with the fella on the nights blocked out for your illusory outings — you are, I am afraid, a terrible, selfish fiend of a human being, and I really don’t want you as a friend, let alone a date or girlfriend. Yes, that’s right — you are evil. How does it feel — the evil, I mean? Bet you thought being a Hitler or a Jack the Ripper would feel a lot different than being you. But it doesn’t. You’re living the being-evil experience. Please live it without me, though.

I don’t care if you’ve been declared by numerous glossy magazines to be the most beautiful woman not only of our era but of all time. I don’t care if your intellect is so vastly superior to my own that mere moments of conversation with you would fill me with awe and wonder. You are still, as noted above, an immoral, inconsiderate fiend. I can do better, thanks. And when I say “do better,” I don’t even mean that there’s necessarily a woman on the planet above this sort of time-wasting, juvenile behavior. Maybe there isn’t — but I would still be doing better, you see, by living out the rest of my days alone than by dating you. So please, please — please! — if you lack ethics, stay very, very far away. And while you’re there (far away, that is), think about what went wrong in your upbringing, your genetics, or the culture at large to turn you into the monster you have become. It’s dealing with jerks like you that inspires serial killers and misanthropes, you know. Can you really blame them?

Non-monster lady, on the other hand, if you’re out there, drop me a line. If you’re smart, you know how necessary this personal ad’s various complaints are and won’t be put off by them. If you’re not smart, well, a universe of singles bars and online dating sites awaits you, so go to it, missy, and good luck!

(Or more briefly: 5′9″, 180 lbs., blonde, Brown alum, writer-editor, likes cats and dogs but owns neither. Will not have children. Enjoys philosophy and New Wave music.)

I’m also 5’3″ and brunette. DAMN IT. Todd Seavy, you complete me.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

About Jill

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
This entry was posted in Feminism, Gender and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to Single White Female Seeks Passive-Aggressive Misogynist

  1. Heh.

    It’s apparently quite difficult to date here in DC as well, at least from the perspective of the multiple straight women I have talked with since I moved here. Many men seem to consider their Blackberries a kind of replacement umbilical chord, have no personality aside from their job, are gay, or are totally unsavory characters.

    That and there are far more single women than single men.

  2. karak says:

    9_9 canceling a date is what causes serial killers? Really? If a man is likely to go ballistic and lock me a closet and leave my corpse buried in an undisclosed location because I canceled a date… then I might just not want to take men. Because, you know, the threat of constant violence isn’t really a turn-on.

    And if someone is going to kill me because I canceled a date, imagine what he’ll do if I tell him I don’t like him and never want to talk to him again.

  3. groggette says:

    but I would still be doing better, you see, by living out the rest of my days alone than by dating you.

    Who knew there would be one thing in there I actually agree with? He just forgot the part where he’s doing her a favor too.

  4. groggette says:

    karak: And if someone is going to kill me because I canceled a date, imagine what he’ll do if I tell him I don’t like him and never want to talk to him again.  (Quote this comment?)

    Yep.

  5. Nahida says:

    LOL!! This was epically hilarious and definitely worth the wait!

  6. Kristen J. says:

    Ahem, blackberries are FAR more necessary than an umbilical cord at this point. Mine is an auxillary brain. Because of the google I can know anything that is available on the web and because of evernote I can remember everything important I think of whenever I think of it. Plus its an entertainment device….with books and music and TV and access to conversations with my friends. In short, I’m fairly certain my SO knows not to attempt to make me choose between him and my blackberry…it would be very hard on his ego.

  7. Tom Foolery says:

    So, this dude is obviously a douche, but the specific behavior he described (endlessly rescheduling to avoid confrontation) is both real, and really annoying, when practiced by both men and women. Being straight-up rejected is preferable.

  8. norbizness says:

    I don’t like quizzes that try to trick you with the belief that yes = good points when in fact they are bad points.

  9. JutGory says:

    “Do you consider yourself a “nice guy” and find yourself wondering why chicks always date jerks?”

    “If you answered “yes” to all these questions, there may be hope of us getting along and even building a romantic relationship.”

    Huh?

    -Jut

  10. R. Dave says:

    Do you sometimes write passive-aggressive lists on the internet about everything you hate in women?

    Are you currently on, or have you ever gone on, a narcissistic rant about how women are terrible in all of the following ways, so will the one who is not terrible please for the love of God date you already?

    Do you like to berate all of womankind on the internet?

    Do you let off steam by picking fights with all of womankind on the internet, or posting long lists of negative attributes that you clearly associate mostly with women?

    *Ahem*

  11. PrettyAmiable says:

    @Jut, my experience is that most people who complain that women only date jerks are jerks themselves. At the very simplest level, they generalized a behavior to all women that has no support – especially when the speaker decides for themselves who is and isn’t a jerk. (Spoiler, dudes who aren’t the speaker tend to be jerks).

    R. Dave, am I confusing you with a different candidate from Feministe’s top troll?

  12. PrettyAmiable says:

    Oh, I was! Sorry.

    That said, I just had a great laugh checking the archives for the entries. Today’s been a fun day so far. :)

  13. Nahida says:

    JutGory: “Do you consider yourself a “nice guy” and find yourself wondering why chicks always date jerks?”“If you answered “yes” to all these questions, there may be hope of us getting along and even building a romantic relationship.”Huh?-Jut  

    “Nice guys” don’t fall for “nice girls” because “nice girls” aren’t “pretty” to them. And so instead of seriously contemplating about their own personalities and preferences and the women whom they pursue, they complain about how “[all] girls” are never with “nice guys” and how “[all] girls” only ever use them–“nice guys”–for the “friend zone.”

    Unbelievably annoying after a while.

    • Jill says:

      Yeah, re: the “nice guy” thing: That line doesn’t come from guys who are actually nice. It comes from guys who (a) only define women as “women I’m attracted to” (“nice guys” are usually upset that a super-hot chick is blowing them off, not that every actual woman ever is attracted to jerks); and (b) think that women have an obligation to sleep with them or reciprocate interest so long as they are nice.

  14. Nahida says:

    The fact is, I’ve heard several guys state blatantly that they’re going to “give in” and become jerks because girls only like jerks. They think they’re “nice guys.” They were never nice guys–they were jerks already who just needed an excuse to be jerky.

  15. Linnaeus says:

    So, this dude is obviously a douche, but the specific behavior he described (endlessly rescheduling to avoid confrontation) is both real, and really annoying, when practiced by both men and women. Being straight-up rejected is preferable.

    Definitely, though I will admit it took some experience and some growing up on my part to realize that.

    I’m willing to bet that all of us here have dealt with people (in my case, fairly recently) who didn’t communicate very well that they wanted to end the relationship and just figured that you’d “get the hint” through their actions because they didn’t have the courage to tell you. Some of us may even have acted like that at some point in our lives; I know that in my past I was conflict-averse to the point where it affected how I communicated.

    Of course, the difference between mature adults and people like Seavey is that adults don’t try to publicly embarrass their ex-partners (even if said ex-partner was not a very nice person) and, once the grieving process for a failed relationship/dating situation is over, continue on with their lives.

  16. Princess Rot says:

    Has it occurred to Mr. Cleavy that a reason for doing this is that women are socially encouraged to make nice with white lies because there can be harmful reprecussions for directly refusing an entitled male, ranging from minor bitching to outright violence? And that he illustrates this perfectly with his childish demands and refusal to consider the possibility that his potential date is obfusticating for a reason other than being thoughtlessly evil? Surely a rational thinker such as himself would take the initiative and calling it off and moving on if he feels his time is being wasted, even if he’s annoyed? Anyone? Bueller?

  17. Fat Steve says:

    I think the difference between these ‘nice guys’ and ‘jerks’ is that the jerks are aggressive and the ‘nice guys’ are passive-aggressive. Full disclosure: I met my wife 20 years ago i n college, so have never really ‘dated,’ however watching friends remain single over these years, I can definitely say that part of the problems are the sort of dating ‘rules’ which Jill so skillfully parodies in this post. I know so many men and women who have these unreasonable expectations and silly little things that they won’t bend about…especially when it comes to appearance.

  18. Hugo says:

    I loved this. Well worth the wait for the visit to Mr. Seavy’s sad little place.

  19. Bitter Scribe says:

    Jill–Priceless. Just hope you don’t get a call from Mr. Seavey.

  20. jeune fille says:

    I read the entire Seavey article (god help me), and found this gem:

    “zany free-spirited hippie-slut throbbin’ funkiness”

    How awesome does that sound?!?!

    (Minus the uber-judgmental term “slut”, of course…)

  21. Brian says:

    Women liking “jerks” and “nice guys finishing last” is such an establish archetype that all kinds of experiences, situations, people, whatever, get slotted into it. I definitely stated blatantly (at least to myself) that I was going to “give in” and “be a jerk”, and that was wildly successful for me, because my idea of “being nice” was to never reveal, under any circumstances, that I was attracted to anyone (no points for guessing why I had trouble getting dates), so that no one would ever have to be inconvenienced or bothered with unwanted interest. Now that I act like a jerk (i.e. straightforwardly ask people on dates), I’m far more successful (even if I still feel like a jerk).But I wasn’t quite the archetype discussed in feminist circles (although, who ever is?) and initially found all the assumptions about such guys confusing at first too.

    Anyone who’s gotten a lot of exposure to the archetype outside of an explicitly feminist discussion is likely to find the fairly narrow, standardised usage confusing.

  22. Ismone says:

    While I understand the frustration with the whole not seeing someone again but saying that you will bit, it really is ignoring the fact that a lot of women are afraid to say no.

    Because bad shit happens when you do say no. I’ve actually started writing to men to say “no thanks” when they write me online expressing interest, because some have been like, hey, thanks, I appreciate the respect of a reply. Usually I throw in a compliment, too. But sure enough, after only four or five of those, my turn down earned me a rant. Nobody ever rants at me for just flat-out ignoring their message. And then I think, great, I’ve gotten the attention of someone with anger issues who knows what I look like and what city I live in. Fabulous.

  23. Laura C says:

    On the saying no clearly thing, it’s also the case that I’ve several times had the experience of thinking I’d said no clearly and not having that recognized. Think Mr. Collins proposing to Elizabeth in Pride & Prejudice.

  24. Fat Steve says:

    @Brian

    You seem to be discussing the difference between hiding and living, not the difference between being a nice guy and being a ‘jerk.’ Being a ‘nice guy’ is not the same thing as being afraid of women, quite the opposite. To be honest, both your past behavior, your present behavior and your above comments all have elements of ‘jerk’ about them.

  25. PrettyAmiable says:

    Linnaeus: I’m willing to bet that all of us here have dealt with people (in my case, fairly recently) who didn’t communicate very well that they wanted to end the relationship and just figured that you’d “get the hint” through their actions because they didn’t have the courage to tell you.

    It’s actually worth noting that in some cultures, the norm is to be indirect (like by consistently postponing). In those same cultures, that person would think “Why is this person pestering me when I clearly don’t want to go out with him?” It’s not necessarily typical in the US, but it definitely happens elsewhere.

    As far as in the US, I think Ismone and Princess Rot hit it on the head.

  26. bellacoker says:

    Who, in the age of Internet anonymity, puts their real name on a personal ad?

  27. Brian says:

    @Fat Steve

    No, I’m talking about how real life behaviours are matched to archetypes. The short answer is “inconsistantly”. A “Nice Guy” is an archetype, with whatever variations exist within it (obviously no two real people are completely identical), and what does, or doesn’t, fall under that label varies by who’s using it.

    And it is behaviours, not internal motivations. Why I was (and still am, in a lot of ways) a Nice Guy may not be the reason(s) someone else dabbles in the same behaviour. Case in point, you want to match my behaviour to being “afraid of women” (obviously a common archetype), when I was just applying the common maxim “Treat others as you’d want to be treated” (and I certainly had no interest in being subject to the romantic/sexual interests of someone like me, so I assumed everyone else would feel the same way in absence of data to the contrary.)

    But what does, or doesn’t, make someone a genuine nice guy, or jerk, doesn’t really matter to what we mean by “Nice Guy”, or “Jerk”.

  28. Nahida says:

    Brian–

    When I ranted (in real life–it’s gross [pun!] how many times this has happened) to one of the guys who told me he was about to “give in” he meekly replied, “Girls really do like jerks, though. I mean they don’t like jerks but they like certain qualities that come with being a jerk. Like the confidence and ambition and assertiveness.”

    This was his only reasonable statement. You should have seen the argument in context, and him asking why the hell girls who are abused don’t just leave. (Spoiler: he concluded they actually liked jerks.)

  29. Bagelsan says:

    “Girls really do like jerks, though. I mean they don’t like jerks but they like certain qualities that come with being a jerk. Like the confidence and ambition and assertiveness.”

    Some girls like certain qualities that “come with” being, say, a dolphin too, though. Like swimming ability? Or qualities that “come with” being Hitler — like being a compelling public speaker, or getting along okay with (certain) children. Doesn’t mean guys should all start cultivating wee mustaches over their bottlenoses though.*

    More to the point, qualities like “confidence” exist independent of jerkishness. (Just like there are kid-loving swimmers who aren’t Nazi porpoises.) So why in the world do Nice Guys think they have to be jerks to be confident, etc?

    *I may or may not have used this somewhat tortured metaphor entirely in order to describe this image. :p

  30. Kristen J. says:

    Nahida: When I ranted (in real life–it’s gross [pun!] how many times this has happened) to one of the guys who told me he was about to “give in” he meekly replied, “Girls really do like jerks, though. I mean they don’t like jerks but they like certain qualities that come with being a jerk. Like the confidence and ambition and assertiveness.”

    I have had this exact same experience more than once. I family member of mine said the women like jerks thing and so I in a fit of supposed inspiration I asked whether he thought my SO was a jerk…and to my complete surprise he said yes. Because apparently he equates being a jerk with (1) having opinions about his preferences, (2) asserting said opinions, and (3) acting on said opinion without seeking my “approval.” (i.e., I’m going to skip the movie night with your friends and go have a beer with X. Sometimes phrased in the form of a question…but generally intended as informational.) Subsequently, I’ve asked other dudes the same question and have gotten remarkably similar answers. I am continually shocked at the wrongness of what some men think nearly all women want. (Hint: Its not someone who does everything we tell them to so that we’ll like them.)

  31. Nahida says:

    Bagelsan–

    Exactly. If only they would realize this. (Especially since I hate mustaches.) =P

  32. Fat Steve says:

    Brian: @Fat SteveNo, I’m talking about how real life behaviours are matched to archetypes.The short answer is “inconsistantly”.A “Nice Guy” is an archetype, with whatever variations exist within it (obviously no two real people are completely identical), and what does, or doesn’t, fall under that label varies by who’s using it.And it is behaviours, not internal motivations.Why I was (and still am, in a lot of ways) a Nice Guy may not be the reason(s) someone else dabbles in the same behaviour.Case in point, you want to match my behaviour to being “afraid of women” (obviously a common archetype), when I was just applying the common maxim “Treat others as you’d want to be treated” (and I certainly had no interest in being subject to the romantic/sexual interests of someone like me, so I assumed everyone else would feel the same way in absence of data to the contrary.)But what does, or doesn’t, make someone a genuine nice guy, or jerk, doesn’t really matter to what we mean by “Nice Guy”, or “Jerk”.  

    Well, it certainly does if your definitions of ‘nice guy’ and ‘jerk’ are so piss poor. You are now describing ‘nice’ people as those with low self-esteem.

    What you also fail to take into account ‘nice guys’ and ‘nice women’ get taken advantage of by the ‘jerks.’ But just having a decent self esteem doesn’t make you a ‘jerk.’ Your entire premise is completely flawed, as is the concept, which is clearly why Jill so summarily dismissed it in the original post.

  33. Athenia says:

    When/Where was/is dating ever easy?

  34. Jadey says:

    Athenia: When/Where was/is dating ever easy?  

    If someone finds this out, send me a memo.

  35. LMF says:

    “my experience is that most people who complain that women only date jerks are jerks themselves. ”

    My experience has been the opposite. Whose experience wins?

  36. LMF says:

    “More to the point, qualities like “confidence” exist independent of jerkishness. ”

    Here’s the thing, though: when I constantly see women dating men with qualities A, B, and C who are a-holes, and those women could easily be dating men with A, B, and C who *aren’t* a-holes, it becomes quite clear that a-holeness is what she prioritizes.

  37. Brian says:

    I am continually shocked at the wrongness of what some men think nearly all women want.

    If you have enough feminism to think women can do whatever men can, but not enough to not think of women as the (sole) sex class, and combine it with the common transactional model of relationships, you should see a heterosexual relationship as an incredibly one-sided exchange, where women are providing men with something immensely valuable we can’t get any other way (i.e. sex), and generically getting nothing in return. (Or maybe sex+friendship for friendship, but there’s an enormous inequality there). In that paradigm, any man who isn’t trying to make up the difference in value gets labelled a jerk (although I think it should be impossible for him to actually make it up?).

    @Fat Steve – I think you’ve missed the entire point. I almost completely agree with Jill, except I think the ‘Nice Guy’ archetype is somewhat broader. The ‘Nice Guy’ archetype has nothing to do with niceness, except that he thinks he’s trying to be nice. And there’s no corresponding ‘Nice Woman’ or ‘Nice Gal’ archetype. (Though women can exhibit ‘Nice Guy’ behaviour, it’s somewhat rarer.)

  38. bellacoker says:

    There are a lot of things that people do in relationships that they have learned from other relationships, so I try not to get upset when people have a few Nice Guy qualities. For example, if we are at a concert and I want to go read in the car, that might look a lot like someone who was not comfortable saying they are upset going off to pout. And if the guy has never been in a relationship like the relatioship I hope to have, how would he know?

    So, I don’t mind teaching him that I do what I say and say what I mean as often as possible and expect the same thing from him. I know that I didn’t learn how to have healthy relationships without the help and guidance of people who were further along than I was.

    That, of course, is not the case with Teavey. If a guy wants to shit in your hands and tell you it’s flowers, he’s not redeemable.

  39. Kristen J. says:

    Brian: If you have enough feminism to think women can do whatever men can, but not enough to not think of women as the (sole) sex class, and combine it with the common transactional model of relationships, you should see a heterosexual relationship as an incredibly one-sided exchange, where women are providing men with something immensely valuable we can’t get any other way (i.e. sex), and generically getting nothing in return.

    Ah, sexism…it shows up here in so many ways…Alas, people will continue to be assholes until they get “enough feminism” to treat woman (or men!) as whole and complete human beings.

  40. Kristen J. says:

    LMF: Here’s the thing, though: when I constantly see women dating men with qualities A, B, and C who are a-holes, and those women could easily be dating men with A, B, and C who *aren’t* a-holes, it becomes quite clear that a-holeness is what she prioritizes. LMF

    Assuming for the moment that you are not completely misreading the situation, maybe *she* prefers assholes. Maybe a not insignificant portion of the population prefer assholes. Since when did the actions of a few women reflect back onto all womankind?

  41. jennygadget says:

    “and those women could easily be dating men with A, B, and C who *aren’t* a-holes”

    or, you know, it’s possible she has her own opinions on the matter and thinks both groups are assholes. and prefers the assholes that are up front about being assholes because then at least she knows what she’s dealing with.

    it’s even possible she disagrees with you (gasp!) and thinks the guys she dates aren’t jerks but the one’s you seem to think she should be dating are. or that she doesn’t really agree with your assessment that both groups have characteristics A, B, and C in equal amounts.

    it’s also possible that characteristics D, E, and F are more important to her than characteristics A, B, C, and jerkitude. i mean, i know, god forbid she value characteristics you don’t even bother to notice – or (gasp!) think of as not assets – but hey, it happens.

    If you are completely leaving out the viewpoint of the person who is dating the supposed jerk, then it’s not a matter of opposing viewpoints (yours versus other peoples), it’s simply an example of you presuming to speak for other people and then labeling your presumptions The Truth.

  42. Ens says:

    My experience has been the opposite. Whose experience wins?

    Jill’s, considering that the subject of the post is who she would or would not consider dating, rendered in satirical fashion. Why on earth would you think your experience would win?

    And frankly, unless you’re a jerk and/or a woman, you don’t really have any real experience in the field of women dating jerks.

  43. Nahida says:

    If you have enough feminism to think women can do whatever men can, but not enough to not think of women as the (sole) sex class,

    An -ism including the belief that women are the sole sex class is not feminism. I believe it’s sexism.

    you should see a heterosexual relationship as an incredibly one-sided exchange, where women are providing men with something immensely valuable we can’t get any other way (i.e. sex), and generically getting nothing in return. (Or maybe sex+friendship for friendship, but there’s an enormous inequality there). In that paradigm, any man who isn’t trying to make up the difference in value gets labeled a jerk (although I think it should be impossible for him to actually make it up?).

    As (potentially) touching as this may be, the last portion is absurd. It’s not that great of a difference because women have sexual desires too, and besides that, men have plenty to offer! Sometimes a man who isn’t “trying to make up” this supposed “difference” at face value isn’t trying at all not because he’s decided he’s not good enough for his significant other and there’s nothing he can possibly do but because he’s decided that he’s too good, and she doesn’t deserve his efforts or consideration. That’s why he’s a jerk.

    It also implies a relationship revolves around sex. I’m a virgin until marriage, (everyone can shut up about how they feel about this because I don’t care–if you were about to say something you’re as bad as the people who try to force the reverse) and somehow I still managed to date a man who pampers me to death. What happens when sex is taken out of the equation? What’s he trying to “make up” for?

    Could it possibly be that (gasp!) he’s just an awesome person?!

  44. Brian says:

    An -ism including the belief that women are the sole sex class is not feminism. I believe it’s sexism.

    If I had a dollar for everyone who truly holds zero sexist beliefs, I wouldn’t be able to buy a cup of coffee.

    Beyond that, the truth of a belief is irrelevant to how it influences behaviour. Trying to argue that ‘Nice Guys’ shouldn’t believe that doesn’t address whether or not they do believe that.

  45. Pingback: He Probably Drunk-Dails at 7AM, Too : Lawyers, Guns & Money

  46. groggette says:

    I may or may not have used this somewhat tortured metaphor entirely in order to describe this image.

    Have I told you lately that I love you?

  47. PrettyAmiable says:

    Brian: If you have enough feminism to think women can do whatever men can, but not enough to not think of women as the (sole) sex class, and combine it with the common transactional model of relationships, you should see a heterosexual relationship as an incredibly one-sided exchange, where women are providing men with something immensely valuable we can’t get any other way (i.e. sex), and generically getting nothing in return.

    Am I the only one who dates guys for the sex? I mean, the friend part is fun too I guess, but I have friends. Not all of them will fuck me, though, because some of them have weird hangups about not being attracted to me.

  48. PrettyAmiable says:

    Kristen J.: Assuming for the moment that you are not completely misreading the situation, maybe *she* prefers assholes. Maybe a not insignificant portion of the population prefer assholes. Since when did the actions of a few women reflect back onto all womankind?  

    Kristen, you’re clearly NOT a woman if guys making that claim aren’t attracted to you. Did you think you got to determine your gender? Psht.

  49. PrettyAmiable says:

    LMF: My experience has been the opposite. Whose experience wins? 

    Mine! Every time. I am very, very smart.

    Also, you know who doesn’t complain about women being attracted to jerks? All of my awesome straight dude friends, with and without girlfriends, who have better shit to do with their time than to blame their dating woes on someone else.

    You know who has trouble finding an adequate partner when they’re single? Fucking everyone. Dating isn’t easy. It turns out that lots and lots of pairs of individuals are incompatible, and that’s life.

  50. Bagelsan says:

    Have I told you lately that I love you? groggette

    groggette, if you’re not a jerk I’ll have none of you. As a woman, that quality is apparently my highest priority. :)

  51. groggette says:

    If I cyber smack you on the ass does that prove my jerkiness?

    But I think this conversation isn’t even actually happening since we’re both women and we all know that female same sex attraction doesn’t exist. Unless it’s for men. Or they are women who don’t desire to sleep with the Nice Guy (where lesbianism obviously is a valid excuse but also obviously not the only one).
    Also, Nazi porpoises.

  52. groggette says:

    PrettyAmiable: Am I the only one who dates guys for the sex? I mean, the friend part is fun too I guess, but I have friends. Not all of them will fuck me, though, because some of them have weird hangups about not being attracted to me.  (Quote this comment?)

    I have friends with this same hang up. What is the deal with that?

  53. Partial Human says:

    @LMF “Here’s the thing, though: when I constantly see women dating men with qualities A, B, and C who are a-holes, and those women could easily be dating men with A, B, and C who *aren’t* a-holes, it becomes quite clear that a-holeness is what she prioritizes. “

    Ah yes, I see. You’re using ‘asshole’ to mean “Someone who can get a date”. I believe it’s from the Nice Guy Dictionary.

    See also:

    Bitch – woman who won’t date you.
    Slut – woman who has sex, but not with you.
    Woman – passive blowjob/sandwich machine.

  54. JutGory says:

    To PrettyAmiable (and others),
    The two statements I quoted baffled me.

    Jill said: Do you consider yourself a “nice guy” and find yourself wondering why chicks always date jerks?

    Then, she said: If you answered “yes” to all these questions, there may be hope of us getting along and even building a romantic relationship.

    So, it sounds like she is interested in “nice guys.”

    Or, did I miss something? I didnot intend the “nice guy” derail.

    -Jut

    • Jill says:

      Jut, you missed the part where the whole post was satirical, and every characteristic I actually listed is pretty terrible. I was parodying the linked personal ad.

  55. JutGory says:

    Jill,
    Darn it! I guess I did not pass the test. (And I was sooo close.)
    :P
    -Jut

  56. Travis says:

    In my own analysis of the Jerk/Nice Guy thing (based mostly on my experience as a Nice Guy, and some definitions I made up), it always seemed to me that they were two sides of the same coin:

    The Jerk is an objectifier of women: he perceives women as conquests and prizes, and his goal is to manipulate them into sex or (even more horrifying, perhaps) long term relationships which he will use to feed his poorly-understood emotional needs through, trickery, deceit, and possibly The Game

    The Nice Guy, on the other hand, is an objectifier of women: he perceives women as delicate and beautiful Goddesses, symbols of love and nurturing, and his goal is to manipulate them into sex or (even more horrifying, perhaps) long term relationships which he will use to feed his poorly-understood emotional needs through, trickery, deceit, and possibly taking some Women’s Literature courses at University.

    Really, it comes back to what we know: you can’t go wrong treating people like people. Approaching every person you meet as not only a human being, but also a creation unique to the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is both a wise and (in it’s own way) spiritually humbling practice.

    And you also can’t go wrong with realizing that you’re wrong. One of the hardest things for a human to do is ignore patterns (the human mind is the best and worst pattern recognition device we know of. See: optical illusions).
    There’s a difference between recognizing warning signs (a vital skill for avoiding abusers, scammers, and vampires), and assuming everything you think is correct if you can come up with >0 data points. You have to keep your (very, VERY) human desire to categorize stuff in check when it comes to people, because people are just too complicated for simple equations like “Hot + Not Into Me + Occasionally Unhappy With Relationship = Loves Jerks”

  57. PrettyAmiable says:

    groggette: I have friends with this same hang up. What is the deal with that?  

    Maybe they’re capital-W Women-dudes who only like Jerks. And we’re Nice Guy-girls (TM).

    I GET IT NOW.

  58. RD says:

    PrettyAmiable: Am I the only one who dates guys for the sex? I mean, the friend part is fun too I guess, but I have friends. Not all of them will fuck me, though, because some of them have weird hangups about not being attracted to me.  (Quote this comment?)

    LOL.
    Sex and love! (But, in my case, women).

  59. RD says:

    Jill: Jut, you missed the part where the whole post was satirical, and every characteristic I actually listed is pretty terrible. I was parodying the linked personal ad.  (Quote this comment?)

    Even tho I totally got that, I still felt my hackles rising a few times reading your list (and nausea-anger), because too many people say some of those things…pretty much exactly…and completely, totally mean them. Men and women. And I had to remind myself what I was reading again.

    • Jill says:

      Even tho I totally got that, I still felt my hackles rising a few times reading your list (and nausea-anger), because too many people say some of those things…pretty much exactly…and completely, totally mean them. Men and women. And I had to remind myself what I was reading again.

      Yup. It is pretty horrifying.

  60. Linnaeus says:

    PrettyAmiable:
    It’s actually worth noting that in some cultures, the norm is to be indirect (like by consistently postponing). In those same cultures, that person would think “Why is this person pestering me when I clearly don’t want to go out with him?” It’s not necessarily typical in the US, but it definitely happens elsewhere.

    I realize the thread is probably dead by now, but I wanted to say very quickly that this is a good point. Obviously, my view of what constitutes clear communication has been shaped by the cultural milieu in which I grew up.

  61. Ismone says:

    I am now curious to know whether any guy I know thinks I date jerks.

    I did once have the experience of not dating a friend (who I think really wanted me to be his girlfriend and boss him around, which is not my thing) and then getting involved with a charmer who I thought was a good guy, and it turned out that *he was cheating on his girlfriend with me.*

    My “friend” said “well, it’s a shame you didn’t date me.” I think I told him he was being an asshole. I didn’t set out to date the other guy because he was a jerk, but my jerkmeter isn’t perfectly calibrated. I didn’t dislike my friend as a dating partner because he was “nice” it was because he had *no spine.* Also, he wasn’t as attractive as the guy who ended up being a jerk.

  62. Landru says:

    Woman – passive blowjob/sandwich machine

    Wait…no? I have totally got to change dictionaries. Mine also said:

    Lesbian – Any woman who hasn’t had sex with me.

  63. Bagelsan says:

    But I think this conversation isn’t even actually happening since we’re both women and we all know that female same sex attraction doesn’t exist.

    Oh, it goes further than that! We’re both women, having a conversation online that isn’t even happening, but there are also no women on the internet so we don’t even exist! *brainsplode*

  64. blondie says:

    It’s dealing with jerks like you that inspires serial killers and misanthropes, you know. Can you really blame them?

    Poor Ted Bundy was just mistreated and misunderstood.

  65. Chris says:

    This post and comment thread (in general) are pure gold.

    I’m scared by people who can only identify whether or not you’re a “nice guy” by a proxy like timidity versus assertiveness. Like, does that mean they’re totally unaware of the behaviors that actually do or don’t make you a genuinely nice person? Because that sounds to me like the person in question is already a psychopath, no encouragement needed.

  66. Tec says:

    LMF: “More to the point, qualities like “confidence” exist independent of jerkishness. ”Here’s the thing, though: when I constantly see women dating men with qualities A, B, and C who are a-holes, and those women could easily be dating men with A, B, and C who *aren’t* a-holes, it becomes quite clear that a-holeness is what she prioritizes.  (Quote this comment?)

    And how exactly do you define guys who aren’t assholes? In other words, when a guy who ISN’T you but gets a “hot” (i.e. narrowly defined stereotypical iron maiden) girl then he must be a jerk, but you, being an incredibly objective observer of yourself, are a “nice” guy because you do feign niceness to said “hot” girl (while keeping a secret score of all those acts so that you can try to trade ’em in cos all women of course are whores who trade sex for greedy profit), are a “nice” guy.

    Or maybe, you know, you’re not an objective observer and really a “jerk” yourself but instead of actually questioning yourself and beliefs (hey that takes work!) fall back on a widely-used (and proven wrong) stereotype.

  67. Tec says:

    jennygadget:
    If you are completely leaving out the viewpoint of the person who is dating the supposed jerk, then it’s not a matter of opposing viewpoints (yours versus other peoples), it’s simply an example of you presuming to speak for other people and then labeling your presumptions The Truth.  (Quote this comment?)

    Good point. When a “nice” guy says “girls only like to date jerks”, he’s making a lot of assumptions about said girl’s own preferences and choices, namely that his opinion and judgements are somehow better and sounder simply because… well that’s the thing – there is no because. She’s an adult, and the said “nice” guy’s views aren’t more important than her views or even really relevant when talking about her romantic and sexual relationships.

    What’s it to you, nice guy, if a girl likes to date (your definition) of jerks? IT’S HER LIFE! IT”S HER CHOICE! Usually the reason for the whole “nice” guy mantra of “girls like jerks” goes back to simply he’s not getting sex – but guess what? If EVERY woman (meaning by “women” that small subset of the female population you consider “good enough” for you who undoubtedly are not fat, non-white, “old” and/or disabled) doesn’t want you, then it’s YOU. Not her. Not the next woman after her. Not every woman you’ve ever met. Not every woman you haven’t met. You.

  68. Emily says:

    Chris: This post and comment thread (in general) are pure gold.I’m scared by people who can only identify whether or not you’re a “nice guy” by a proxy like timidity versus assertiveness. Like, does that mean they’re totally unaware of the behaviors that actually do or don’t make you a genuinely nice person? Because that sounds to me like the person in question is already a psychopath, no encouragement needed.  

    The “nice guys” we’re talking about are NOT genuinely nice people who are also guys, we’re referring to the subset of males known in internet lingo as Nice Guys (TM). They’re the kind of guys who, when attracted to a girl, will bend over backwards for her and not make any moves that indicate interest. The girl in question then a) realizes that his being “nice” is all about getting in her pants, most likely because he isn’t so nice to her less pretty friends and/or b) isn’t attracted to him so doesn’t reciprocate the interest or show any of her own. The Nice Guy will then start whining “But I’m such a Nice Guy, I don’t objectify her by telling her that she looks hot when she’s wearing a miniskirt, so WHY won’t she sleep with me?!?!” and decide that the girl is really a “bitch”/lesbian/will only date Jerks. This Nice Guy usually has two fundamental problems with his view of women: He believes that women want nothing more than to be venerated and put on a pedestal and only want to have sex with men in exchange for emotional fulfillment from the man, and he also only defines “women” as “women that I find attractive” with a very narrow, stereotypically pretty definition of attractive. Incidentally, this also means that there are probably 10 Nice Guys for every woman that they deem dateable, which only makes them less likely to get a date in the first place.

    TL;DR: “nice guys” != any guy who’s nice. Travis (57) defines Nice Guy and those whom the Nice Guys refer to as Jerks (also != actual jerk) pretty well.

  69. dejah says:

    You know, 99% of the comments here are totally idiotic and bogus. Count me as one fairly hot girl (in my youth), who thought that 1) most girls dated jerks, and 2) made a point of dating only nice guys.

    And “nice” did not mean “spineless.” Nice usually meant that maybe he wasn’t the most physically attractive person in the world–tall, geeky, skinny, in my case, and often “goofy-looking” as my girlfriends put it–but he knew how to treat a girl. He listened when I talked. He treated me like a human being worthy of respect and consideration. He actually thought sex was SUPPOSED to be a MUTUALLY pleasurable act.

    My girlfriends often dated “hot” guys, who because they were hot felt they could treat the girls however they liked because if the girls walked, there was always another waiting in the wings… why? Because the guys were hot. They didn’t have to be intelligent, thoughtful, nice, or considerate… because they simply didn’t HAVE to.

    So yeah, girls date jerks, because they are too busy looking for the cheap thrill and too oblivious to the deep thrill of being with a guy who actually values you as a person.

  70. groggette says:

    I date men who I consider hot who value me as a person.

    Hot and genuinely nice (not Nice (TM)) are not mutually exclusive.

  71. Sheelzebub says:

    So yeah, girls date jerks, because they are too busy looking for the cheap thrill and too oblivious to the deep thrill of being with a guy who actually values you as a person.

    And of course, “Nice Guys” are never too busy looking for a hot woman or looking for the thrill of the chase–the unattainable, uninterested woman whom they can moon and pine over and then bitterly complain that women all like jerks.

    Seriously, get a grip.

  72. preying mantis says:

    Obvious troll is obvious.

  73. Sara says:

    Am I the only one who dates guys for the sex? I mean, the friend part is fun too I guess, but I have friends.

    THIS. I don’t need another best friend. Sex FTW!

  74. McJeff says:

    He believes that women want nothing more than to be venerated and put on a pedestal and only want to have sex with men in exchange for emotional fulfillment from the man”

    I know this thread is most likely over but I can’t resist. As a “hot” “nice” guy, I’ve dated and had relationships with many women (and I was married for 20 years), and I have to tell you most women do seem to have sex and emotional fulfillment inextricably tangled. It could be socialization, after all, women are subject to crazy-making social rules that enforce that entanglement.
    Really though, I rarely meet a woman who is just dating for sex (as PrettyAmiable put it). 99% of women I encounter, whether friends or someone I am dating, has massive calculations surrounding sex with a guy, calculations about a long term relationship, or some other emotionally related agenda.
    It’s refreshing when a woman like PA makes a comment like that, and is honest. Where are the women like that?!?
    Granted, any encounter has an emotional component, and that component is one of the things that makes sex rewarding. However, it’s rare for me to encounter a woman who has an attitude of “You’re cute, let’s fuck” without having some sort of emotional strings attached. Still, I think this is mostly the result of patriarchy, and I think women are under incredible pressure to be different from who they are.
    I hope our continuing work in the area of female rights and equality will include more honest for all about our sexuality.
    And yes, dating absolutely is hard and totally hit or miss. Very difficult to couple up, and even then it’s a lot of work.

  75. groggette says:

    McJeff: Where are the women like that?!?

    My guess is staying away from guys who say that “99% of women I encounter, whether friends or someone I am dating, [have] massive calculations surrounding sex with a guy, calculations about a long term relationship, or some other emotionally related agenda.”

  76. PrettyAmiable says:

    McJeff: I have to tell you most women do seem to have sex and emotional fulfillment inextricably tangled

    And I have to tell you, the same is true for dudes. In February or so, I hooked up with a guy who said he wasn’t looking for a relationship. Apparently, he said this because he was under some mistaken impression that I wanted something more, but in reality, I’m pretty focused on finishing grad school and getting the hell out of here and into a solid career. When he realized I really wasn’t emotionally attached, he flipped. Told everyone I knew we had sex (and embarrassingly for him, I had already been with a few other guys by then), started calling me whenever he was out, then told anyone who would listen about how I was crazy because I was irritated that he told half of my network that we had hooked up. With details about things I do in bed.

    You might argue it was an ego thing, but I would argue that the same is probably true when women are easily “attached.”

    I honestly doubt the desire for emotional attachment and/or sex is as gendered as you think – though I do imagine what we’re willing to display to the public is colored by gender expectations.

    (PS, the lesson I learned from the February guy is to hook up with guys who have a timeline – either graduating in a month, leaving for school in a month, on vacation, and so on. THOSE guys are low drama).

  77. groggette says:

    PrettyAmiable: And I have to tell you, the same is true for dudes.

    Yep.

  78. Sheelzebub says:

    Pretty much what PA said. We’re slut shamed if we have sex without apology (and if we’re assaulted, we’re asking for it by not being Nice Girls). And a lot of men act like if you fuck them, you somehow lose and are diminished.

    Men don’t get emotionally attached if they have sex–until they do, and then if it’s not reciprocated she’s a bitch and a slut. Or doesn’t appreciate nice guys. Heaven forbid they ever fess up and admit that they can tangle up emotions with sex and that women can be just as mercenary about wanting to have NSA sex.

  79. Jadey says:

    Yeah, also agreeing with PrettyAmiable.

    I think it’s easier for guys to not be obvious about a desire for emotional attachment (if they have one) because the ladies are supposed to be taking care of that end. Dude can just go along for the ride, making faint protests to his friends in order to keep up appearances, but not really having a problem with the emotional commitment. I also have a friend who’s having trouble finding guys who are genuinely serious when they say they want no emotional attachment – they seem to assume she’s joking or or will change her mind or something?

  80. Kristen J. says:

    PrettyAmiable: And I have to tell you, the same is true for dudes.

    Yup. It’s sexist bullshit that men (as a group) experience sex differently from women (as a group).* It is extremely harmful to men when we reinforce the notion that they shouldn’t/don’t naturally seek emotional connection.

    One of the hilarious things I remember from the aforementioned ye olden days was the response I received to my categorical rejection of the possibility of having kids. I (wrongly) assumed that 20-25 year old males either (1) wouldn’t care or (2) would consider it a bonus. But nope. The dudes I was casually dating (where both parties were clear that we were dating other people and it was no strings attached) would flip at the notion that I would not under any circumstances have their baby. I heard “but what if we get married” from people I was seeing no strings attached.

    *Of course as individuals wel experience sex differently and may desire different things at different times.

  81. Usually Lurking says:

    My friend always says: “Everyone driving slower than I am is an idiot, and everyone driving faster than I am is a maniac.”

    And everyone feels that way, no matter how fast they’re driving.

    translated to dating:

    Anyone who focuses too much on certain things and not enough on others is a Nice Guy (TM); and anyone who goes too far in the opposite direction is a predatory bastard asshole.

    And everyone feels that way, no matter what type of people they like.

    That’s why Rick may be a Nice Guy as per Jill, but an actual nice guy as per Jane; and why Bob may be an asshole as per Jane but a nice guy to Jill.

  82. Sheelzebub says:

    One of the hilarious things I remember from the aforementioned ye olden days was the response I received to my categorical rejection of the possibility of having kids. I (wrongly) assumed that 20-25 year old males either (1) wouldn’t care or (2) would consider it a bonus. But nope. The dudes I was casually dating (where both parties were clear that we were dating other people and it was no strings attached) would flip at the notion that I would not under any circumstances have their baby.

    Me too! Usually, these were the same dudes who’d go on and on about how women all wanted to snag a man and get married and have babies, and they could just wait I mean who needs that. But when they found out that women in their lives had no interest in getting married or having kids, lord did they ever squeal. (I really wish I had a dollar for every guy who tried to convince me to change my mind on the kid thing. I could retire right now. In Switzerland.)

    It was personally offensive to them–suddenly they realized that they weren’t this prize in this childish “hard to get” game they set up. It wasn’t that they didn’t want those things–they just wanted the power of being seen to not care.

  83. Kristen J. says:

    Sheelzebub: It was personally offensive to them–suddenly they realized that they weren’t this prize in this childish “hard to get” game they set up. It wasn’t that they didn’t want those things–they just wanted the power of being seen to not care. Sheelzebub

    The socially constructed part of masculinity is weird. But then again the socially constructed part of femininity isn’t much better.

  84. Anonymouse says:

    Usually Lurking,

    Nah, there are other people who are neither Nice Guys ™ or predatory bastard assholes. I should know, I exclusively date them.

    For me, kindness is a must, and so is a spine, and I’m not having a hard time finding men with those two qualities.

    Re: NSA sex, I remember a good friend and I talking about how some guys who say that’s what they want get all sappy and relationshippy, so it is this push pull thing. Be my girl–now go away. Now be my girl–now go away. Stay the night (but I don’t wanna), let me cuddle you (no thanks), let’s go out for drinks (let’s stay in and . . . yeah, you get the point.) And then accusations (and that is what they are) that the woman is getting too emotionally involved. I remember I had to get a little snappish with a guy who accused me of that. (I mean, what do you say, no, not in a million years? Seems unduly cruel.)

  85. Another take on the “women only date jerks” statement from Nice Guys(TM)–my boyfriend’s theory is that the reason “negging” and other jerky behavior (or even just “playing hard to get”) works is because it’s used on women who are used to frequently being complimented, flirted with, etc., and that different behavior is needed to stand out from the rest of the guys–but that this behavior ONLY works with the small percentage of women who receive near-constant male attention. (I’m not even sure if I buy that this works for the majority of such women, though–couldn’t they just narrow their suitors down by looks or something instead of going after the few guys who put them down? That might be too rational for human beings, though.)

    Interestingly, this small percentage of women is the only group that counts as “women” to Nice Guys(TM).

  86. Sheelzebub says:

    These guys don’t get it. Even the most beautiful woman has been insulted, dismissed, and rejected.

  87. Sheelzebub, are you talking to me?
    Like I said, I’m not sure if I buy this explanation either, but I’m not sure that it’s fair to say this is “not getting it”. Saying that the most beautiful women are insulted or rejected less frequently, and get compliments and flirting more frequently, than other women (to point that the attention becomes pestering and an annoyance or worse) is not the same as saying they’re never insulted or rejected.

  88. PrettyAmiable says:

    I will say that I know guys who use that strategy, closetpuritan, but I’m with Sheelzebub. Maybe it worked on me when I first started dating, but somewhere along the way I decided that if it’s a choice between a guy who has to insult me to start a conversation or get in my pants, I’d much rather be in bed reading a book.

    …It’s kind of passe, you know?

  89. Sheelzebub says:

    Closetpuritan, what I’m saying is that these women have gotten insulted as well as compliment, so the negging doesn’t always work. You said that the thinking goes “but that this behavior ONLY works with the small percentage of women who receive near-constant male attention”. (I’m not saying you buy into it.)

    When I used to hit the bars on a regular basis, I got a lot of male attention and negging pissed me right the fuck off. And I’d turn it around on them and wow, they couldn’t take what they dished out.

    PUA: “Oh, I like your earrings.”

    Me: “Thanks.”

    PUA: “Yeah, my grandmother has earrings like that.”

    Me: “What a coincidence! These were my nana’s. She passed away a year ago.” Turn my back on him and resume conversation with my friends.

    PUA: “Bitch.”

    Or:

    PUA: “I like your hair. Is it dyed?”

    Me: “Why bother asking? You’ll never find out.”

    PUA: “Bitch.”

    (Seriously? Bitch is the best these d00ds can do?)

  90. PrettyAmiable, I’m guessing that if the guys you know who use this were particularly successful, you would have said.

    Sheelzebub, I doubt anything in this category “always” works… and I’m thinking that this type of BS is less likely to appeal to anyone who goes to a feminist site… but there seems to be no evidence that “negging” or similar forms of “playing hard to get” are successful compared to other strategies. There goes that theory of Nice Guy Psychology.

    We’ve definitely established that “bitch”=”woman who directly turns you down”. (But I guess that’s not as bad as “Hitler”?)

Comments are closed.