What if the ‘Nice Guys of OK Cupid’ is Harming Innocent People?

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Joanna Schroeder

Joanna Schroeder is the type of working mom who opens her car door and junk spills out all over the ground. She serves as Executive Editor of The Good Men Project and is a freelance writer whose work has appeared on sites like xoJane, hlntv.com, and The Huffington Post. Joanna loves playing with her sons, skateboarding with her husband, and hanging out with friends. Her dream is to someday finish her almost-done novel and get some sleep. Follow her shenanigans on Twitter.

Comments

  1. Here’s a question, while we’re on entitlement: Is there a term for women who think they automatically deserve love and sexual attention simply because they exist?

    • or:
      Why do women feel that they can pull the evolution card for not approaching but not in anything else in society?

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Or what about women who have extensive checklists of what they require for a man, but then cry “sexism” and “unfair beauty standards” when men simply want a woman to be physically attractive?

      Let’s talk about that “entitlement.”

      • A little insight, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this applies to men too:

        Most women’s “lists” are not checklists of requirements, but wishlists. A few of the items on there might be dealbreakers – I want a nonsmoker, I want someone who wants to be a dad, I want someone of my same race – but other items are more flexible. I hate to compare it to househunting but it’s sort of similar, there may be certain features you can’t live without, like a garage, and others that are perks that you’d certainly like but don’t require, like a Jacuzzi tub in the master bathroom.

        I think some women misinterpret the Physically Attractive ‘requirement’ or overreact to it. Of course, everyone, man and woman, wants a partner they’re physically attracted to (except maybe asexuals?), but when a man says he wants a woman who’s physically attractive, it’s very tough for women to compartmentalize that as just this one guy’s preference and divorce it from the cultural forces at play with beauty and attractiveness.

        Anyway, back to entitlement – if there’s anything men AND women are entitled to, it’s having standards. One of my other favorite sites is an advice column with a primary female following, and it saddens me to see the low, low, low expectations some women have of their men, and the shady behavior they tolerate just for the sake of staying in a relationship. The phrase we use on the advice site is “Aim Higher” – encouraging them to actually have standards other than “being in a relationship with him means I’m not single and that’s good enough for me.”
        Also, it’s rare to see entitled behavior excused/justified/encouraged in that site’s community – in fact, we’re downright eager to tear those letter-writers or commenters a new one and call them out. I can’t guarantee that’s representative of all women. The site skews towards 18-35-year-olds from mostly-white North American and European countries, and the audience tends to be more progressive than conservative. But, just in case anyone thinks that we women like and condone entitled, bratty, snotty attitudes among our peers, that there’s some conspiracy at work here, well, that’s just not been my experience.

        • I think I obscured my point somewhere there in the last paragraph. Got distracted. Point was, everyone is entitled to standards. My personal opinion, though, is that it’s best to keep these standards to yourself and not publicize them, discuss with friends (which becomes gossip), and definitely not go around telling the people you want to date. It’s a good idea to include the dealbreakers in your online dating profile, for instance, but incredibly tacky (in my opinion) to post a long list of “requirements” that are really “wishes and perks.”

        • Must point out that saying you’ll only date someone of your own race* would be enough to get you listed on the rogues gallery of NGOKC if you were male.

          *not a position I share or respect, btw, but a point worth considering.

          • Joanna Schroeder says:

            Some of the things that get you put on that site are even more innocuous like saying you believe that a person can have too many sexual partners.

            What if the is answering just for his own standards? Like maybe he believes you should only have sex with marriage? Then anything more than “1″ (in the case of a life-long marriage) would be immoral to him. But that doesn’t automatically mean he thinks that should be universal.

            Am I going to judge him for that? You know what? I’m not. Because your sexual preferences don’t have to be mine. That question isn’t, “Do you think that all people should adhere to the same guidelines as far as number of sexual partners goes?” As it’s framed, it’s simply a personal preference. And while some of those guys ARE saying that they judge women who’ve had “too many” sex partners as sluts, that’s the vast minority of guys compare to how many have simply made that statement in general.

    • I can’t think of a noun for it along the lines of NiceGuys(TM) but “shallow” comes to mind – even that is not quite accurate though. I’d probably be inclined to call such a woman a b__ch but that’s also really non-specific and can refer to a range of behaviors.

      Maybe we can call them Ugly Stepsisters, after the Cinderella myth – the ones who think they deserve the prince when they have nothing going for them.


  2. And the Nice Guys™? Do all of them deserve to be mocked, to have their faces plastered all over the place because we’ve all known one too many assholes who masquerade as “nice” only to turn out to be cruel, or even scary, self-righteous assholes?

    The people that engage in this bullying and mocking are doing the exact same thing that the those that bullied/mocked Schwyzer and Sarkeesian did when they engaged in their bullying. They try to make them out to be as bad as possible in hopes that people would ignore little things like fair consideration and good faith.


    But who are we sacrificing to that anger?

    Actual nice guys.


    Because if you don’t, you’re silencing a woman. And that is truly a very bad thing.

    And that’s a train they have been riding for ages. You can’t talk about male rape/abuse victims because that silences female victims. You can’t talk about sexism against men because that erases sexism against women. Misadry is nothing but an attempt at erasing misogyny (although anyone that actually knows the term and how it is used would immediately recognize that misandry and misogyny aren’t competing for existense but actually work hand in hand). Saying that things that happens so men are on an instituational level is an attempt at denying what happens to women happens at an institutional level.

    The “Don’t piss off women” card has been used for a long time (ironically using the card to keep things in place that oddly enough, pissed off women) to keep men quiet. I’m ready to tear that damn thing up.


    And their anger was used as a weapon against them, too. They were told they were crazy, out of control squelching witches. It was used as an excuse to not listen to women’s voices. Ladies, just settle down here for a moment. Everyone just calm your pretty little heads. And that patronizing bullshit only made them more angry. But their anger changed things.

    Which is why I’m happy to see that people are challenging women and feminists that think they should get a free pass on doing the exact same things that were done to them. Hopefully the days of, “It’s okay, we’re women/feminist.” being passed as justification for what amounts to hypocrisy are dying out and will die altogether one day.

    In short our anger is starting to change things as well.


    Noah Brand recently pointed out to me the ways in which we’ve almost turned anger into a god…

    I’ve been working on a post off and on over the last few months with this exact point in mind. It’s a god that requires tithing in order to sustain itself.

    • The most disturbing thing is that the article isn’t just about the site, but actually in defense. It’s titled “Why we _should_ mock…(underline mine).

      This is where modern feminism has totally lost me. Danny’s right too often the “it’s okay, we’re women/feminist” is used to excuse bad behavior (just look at the article about psycho bitches which calls for us to understand “psycho bitches” instead of calling them what they are, abusers and manipulators”.

      I would think you could be a feminist and also be able to say 1. yes some of those guys are assholes and 2. the site is wrong, and in poor taste. Apparently Hugo nor the people at Jezebel can see that yes you can still think the “Nice Guys” are wrong, but so is the site. Who cares who gets hurt? It’s all in the name of feminism.

      • Joanna Schroeder says:

        Just for clarity – at most sites, including Jezebel, authors do NOT title their own articles. 90% of the titles even here are given by editors, not authors. So while I disagree with some of Hugo’s points, I’d hold Jez more accountable for the title than Hugo.

        • The problem is though even if Hugo didn’t pick that title, that title is not really out of line with something he would actually use.

      • This is where modern feminism has totally lost me. Danny’s right too often the “it’s okay, we’re women/feminist” is used to excuse bad behavior (just look at the article about psycho bitches which calls for us to understand “psycho bitches” instead of calling them what they are, abusers and manipulators”.
        And it doesn’t help that that thread seemed to turn into arguing over the correctness/incorrectness of calling someone a bitch. Let’s see if some of that same concern carries over to situations where guys are called dicks and dickheads.

  3. Richard Aubrey says:

    As I alluded to in the disposability thread, there is a type of nice guy who gets crap and isn’t considered.
    He’s the guy who is naturally pleasant, listens to society and women when they say they want a considerate, thoughtful, pleasant, not-pushy guy. And then, starting maybe in junior high, sees the hottest girls going out with guys who are not that. Whether the guys qualify as jerks is another question, but they’re certainly not what he’s heard women say they like or that society has told him endlessly is the Right Thing To Do.
    And his resentment at having been misled is most certainly not “entitlement”. Not in a million years.

  4. CyberQuaker says:

    I’ve been following niceguysofokc, and I’ve felt that most of it is justified. I was just like your brother in high school, but I learned not to use the term “friendzone,” as it stems from male sexual privilege. Guys who complain about being friendzoned only see women as sexual objects, and they are not interested in actual friendship. I recently saw someone brilliantly turn this around, as women being put into the “fuckzone,” and I feel if your guys saw that, they would understand what they were doing. Also, it might be beneficial for men to realize that complaining about women on a dating profile is not going to help them at all.
    However, I also came across “fedorasofokc,” and much of that is just making fun of guys for wearing fedoras. Then there is “okcgoldmine,” which has some “Nice Guys,” but also makes fun of some people for just being geeky. Notably, that one is run by a man and occasionally makes fun of women’s profiles. Those kind of sites obviously cross over into bullying.


    • I recently saw someone brilliantly turn this around, as women being put into the “fuckzone,”….

      I’d say both the friendzone and fuckzone exist.

      However I think that the problem with the friendzone is not that it doesn’t exist but that it’s been overblown by having it’s definition broaded to apply to things where it doesn’t apply (kind of like using YOLO as an excuse to engage in stupidity).

      • elementary_watson says:

        Hmm, the friendzone as the place where men land who try to get a women’s love by being her friend, and the fuckzone where women are who try to get a man’s love by having sex with him? I think both concepts (if defined in the way above) make sense in a way.

        It’s also obvious that neither behaviour is quite healthy, and that the person engaging in these behaviours can easily be taken advantage of (especially if the other person knows about the feelings the person has for them).

    • elementary_watson says:

      What, what, oh what, please, is this “male sexual privilege” you speak of? I’d rather say that thinking in concepts like “friendzone” stems from male sexual frustration instead of privilege, but then again, that might sound just too sympathetic to some ears.

      But honestly, what constitutes this “male sexual privilege”? Especially when it comes to men who haven’t even had a regular *date* with a woman in ages, let alone had sex.

      • Joanna Schroeder says:

        I can’t even get into the difference between your INDIVIDUAL experience and how that is separate from “privilege” right now, but my message to you is this:

        You’re not having a date in ages has NOTHING to do with me or any other women in your life. I bear NO responsibility to you and your sexual/romantic fulfillment. None of the women in your life or in the world do.

        And you bear no responsibility for my sexual/romantic fulfillment. None!

        Let’s just all be clear about that. You aren’t owed sex—not from any particular woman, nor from the universe.

        • I think that difference between his individual experience and privilege is precisely what EW is asking about.

          It’s not that he thinks that women owe him sex. It’s that despite not haveing any luck (or very little) he is still told that as a man he is benefitting from some sort of privilege in the realm of dating/relationships/sex that is afforded to him due being male.

          • elementary_watson says:

            Not withstanding my lack of lack of sexual success (see below), I’m wondering a) what sexual privilege even a “normally” sexually successful man has compared to women, and b) how this affects sexually unsuccessful men intoo adopting concepts like the friend zone.

        • elementary_watson says:

          Sorry if my above post was a bit too ranty, but huh?

          I’m not saying that I don’t have a fulfilling sex life. Even if I hadn’t, that wouldn’t mean that I expected women as a whole or an individual women to be responsible for changing that.

          The reason I mentioned sexually, or even dating-ually unsuccessful men, is that the assertion that men have special benefits in the sexual/dating area just for being men, while tenuous at best, becomes downright insulting when thrown at men who aren’t even let into this area.

          It’s like bringing up the male privilege of getting paid a dollar for every 77 cent a woman earns when talking about homeless men, except that I cannot possibly see what the analoguous privilege for men could be when it comes to sex.

          Anyhow, thanks for the advice, I certainly appreciate those Caps Locks …

          • Joanna Schroeder says:

            Sorry for the capslock, it’s just that it triggered a very intense anger within me for those guys who act like women are bitches because they don’t give the guy the time of day. It’s like, “Maybe she doesn’t give you the time of day because you give off the vibe that you think women are bitches?”

            Ugh, I know women can be horrifically shallow and that shy guys have a really hard time. I personally do NOT think guys have dating privilege, though I”m sure someone will tell me why I’m wrong, but men have sexual privilege because of the fact that you guys generally don’t walk down the street, or get on a subway train or go on a date with the ever-looming fear that you could be raped at any moment.

            We do.

            I know you guys have other things you’re afraid of when walking down the street, etc, and I’m not going to say that those things aren’t real.

            But being held down and raped in public until your colon and intestines are pulverized and you almost bleed to death probably isn’t one of them.

            And no, I’m not talking about the girl in India, specifically. Amazingly, I know TWO other women personally who have had that happen to them. The almost bleeding to death because of rape. And then there’s the girl in India.

            • elementary_watson says:

              Hmm, my first reaction would be to see sexual privilege as part of dating privilege and separate sexual privilege from “privilege with regard to exposure to sexual violence”.

              Then again, that would be willfully ignoring the effect that sexual violence has on the victim’s sexuality, so I see your point.

              (FTR, I’d still guess that CyberQuaker’s point would make more sense if he was talking about male dating privilege, because I see hardly any link between women’s fear of getting raped and the friendzone concept.)

            • …but men have sexual privilege because of the fact that you guys generally don’t walk down the street, or get on a subway train or go on a date with the ever-looming fear that you could be raped at any moment.
              That is very true. I think the problem is that this gets passed off as dating privilege.

              Totally rhetorical to you Joanna (but if someone else reads this feel free to answer). How exactly does not having the fear described above wash away the misfortunes that guys have in the realms of dating/relationships/sex?


              It’s like, “Maybe she doesn’t give you the time of day because you give off the vibe that you think women are bitches?”

              I think there is a bit of a problem where what you say here gets passed off as the ONLY reason a woman would rudely brush a guy off. It’s not because she’s a jerk. She picked up on his jerk vibes and acted accordingly. While that certainly can and does happen it’s at the point now that it’s being used as a screen for women that really are jerks themselves. Thus protecting them from having to recognize that maybe, just maybe, its not always the guy that is the one with the jerk vibe.

            • Bay Area Guy says:

              I think there is a bit of a problem where what you say here gets passed off as the ONLY reason a woman would rudely brush a guy off. It’s not because she’s a jerk. She picked up on his jerk vibes and acted accordingly. While that certainly can and does happen it’s at the point now that it’s being used as a screen for women that really are jerks themselves. Thus protecting them from having to recognize that maybe, just maybe, its not always the guy that is the one with the jerk vibe.

              As usual, Danny nails it. The same thing with “creep.” If a woman feels creeped out by a guy, then he must have done something creepy, end of story. Couldn’t possibly be the fact that she herself is wrong in the head.

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              It doesn’t wash anything away. Recognizing that it’s a reality of our lives doesn’t do a thing to diminish anything in your dating life.

              That’s why I separated out “dating” and “sexual”.

            • I appreciate your answering but your answer shows why I didn’t need you to.

              You recognize they are separate.

              However that’s not the what I was talking about. The implication isn’t that your fears as a woman somehow diminishes my dating life as a man. The implication is that your fears as a woman somehow enhances my dating life as a man. As in I benefit from your fear.

              Personally I think its just an attempt at trying to make out everything under the sun that’s bad for women into something that benefits men. Again you don’t have to address because I know you don’t do this.

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              Danny, WHAT are you talking about?

              Tell me, seriously, quote me, where I said that my fear of rape has in any way benefitted men’s dating lives?

              It makes NO sense. I separated dating privilege from sexual privilege and you’re still linking them!

              I never once, NOT ONCE linked the two and it is disingenuous and dishonest of you to say I did.

            • There is an implication that as a man I benefit from your fears as a woman.

              But please hear me out Joanna. I’ve now said not once but thrice (and now four times) that you DO NOT DO THIS.

              From what I’ve said above:

              1. Totally rhetorical to you Joanna (but if someone else reads this feel free to answer)….

              2. I appreciate your answering but your answer shows why I didn’t need you to.

              3. You recognize they are separate.

              4. Again you don’t have to address because I know you don’t do this.

              This is not an accusation that you try to link these together. This is me wondering why they get linked together by other people.

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              Okay so you’re saying that I don’t do it specifically but that others do.

              But I don’t even think others do. I think your’e thinking they do.

              I don’t think there is any power in you not having to fear being raped. But I think you have more inherent rights and safety than I do from rape. And that needs to be recognized. You don’t “gain anything” because I don’t have it, but you do HAVE something that I don’t have.

              It’s not cause and effect, but it is the truth.

            • But I don’t even think others do. I think your’e thinking they do.
              Of course you do that’s nothing new….

              I don’t think there is any power in you not having to fear being raped. But I think you have more inherent rights and safety than I do from rape. And that needs to be recognized. You don’t “gain anything” because I don’t have it, but you do HAVE something that I don’t have.
              True. I fully recognize that as a woman you are much more likely to be the victim of s sex crime than I am. And I also recognize that something must be done about it.

            • Greg Allan says:

              “I know you guys have other things you’re afraid of when walking down the street, etc, and I’m not going to say that those things aren’t real.
              But being held down and raped in public until your colon and intestines are pulverized and you almost bleed to death probably isn’t one of them.”

              Having those organs kicked or blown out of you, a fate FAR more often endured by boys and men, somehow just doesn’t register.

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              Greg, I recognized men have their own things they have to fear.

              You’re just being combative. The original topic in the thread was about SEXUAL privilege. That’s all. I recognized that men have different legitimate fears.

              There is no need for you to pretend like I didn’t recognize that.

              The bad things that happen to women IN NO WAY diminish the bad things that happen to men.

            • Joanna, serious question: Could you please define “sexual privilege” and “dating privilege”

              These days I feel like I see ” privilege” so often it’s making my head spin to understand what anyone is talking about.

        • Greg Allan says:

          Yes, let them eat cake.

        • Greg Allan says:

          “Let’s just all be clear about that. You aren’t owed sex—not from any particular woman, nor from the universe.”

          So why is it that every time I’ve said “no” I was put down or ridiculed?

          • Joanna Schroeder says:

            Most likely because you were either disrespectful when you proposed sex, or you were not asking a person whom it was appropriate to ask.

            And you being put down has NOTHING to do with whether you’re owed sex. Nothing. And you thinking it does may be why you’re being rejected.

            • Wait.

              Greg asked why he was put down/ridiculed when he said no (presumably no to sex with someone that was proposing) and you say that it was mostly likely because he was disrespectful when he proposed it?

              Im confused….

            • Greg Allan says:

              @Danny…

              Regrettable misinterpretation, but telling.

              I’m not confused. There are domestic violence advocates who demand that the exercise of male consent be seen as a denial of affection and, thus, abusive. Some jurisdictions have rendered this into law and others will follow. Depending on the outcome of the next Australian federal election it could be coming to my country.

              The comments segueway nicely.

              Greg Allan said on January 4, 2013 at 6:06 pm…

              So why is it that every time I’ve said “no” I was put down or ridiculed?

              Joanna Schroeder said on January 4, 2013 at 6:44 pm…

              Most likely because you were either disrespectful when you proposed sex, or you were not asking a person whom it was appropriate to ask.

              And you being put down has NOTHING to do with whether you’re owed sex. Nothing. And you thinking it does may be why you’re being rejected.

              Under Rape Culture: What It Is and How It Works I included the following…

              …how my male privilege prevented my aunt from NOT doing what she did.

              The drumbeat goes on.

              I’m not an initiator of sexual activity to begin with. I might be unusual but I’ve been in the habit of saying “no” more often than not. It has caused some problems to say the least.

              Did you see the bit where I put the word “no” in quotes? That was because it was ME who said “no”. My words. Not somebody else’s. Am I allowed to do that? Because the women concerned didn’t think I should be. Nor does a culture that WILL tell me I’m sick or gay or hate women if I do say “no” AND that I have sexual privilege to boot. My so-called “privilege” is a right to consent and to bodily integrity that is dubious at best.

              It was in that recent “rape culture” thread that I mentioned that GMP is not really a safe place for male survivors. My thinking at the time was that even after telling their stories they still needed to re-invent and prove themselves time after time after time. It took quite a bit of courage for some of them to open up in the first place. The return of the same drum beat that forever marginalises them is their disprivilege.

              You wonder why I get narky(“combative”?), Ms Schroeder?. It was a simple, single sentence. You were and are aware of my status as a survivor. Read your own words again.

              Not a safe place!

              Meanwhile, on the home front, the local rape crisis service is removing references to “male privilege” because it has come to understand how demeaning it is to so many of their clients.

            • Mr Supertypo says:

              maybe she misread your comment? It happens sometime.

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              Yeah, I just misread your comment. Thanks to Mr Supertypo for going into the conversation with good faith.

              If girls are ridiculing you for saying “no” then they’re doing something horrible, and acting like entitled assholes.

              As far as the why of it, my feeling is that in our society we’re taught that guys ALWAYS want sex, and it doesn’t matter who the girl is, guys just want a wet warm hole.

              So, not to diminish the responsibility on the girl to NOT be an asshole, for her the rejection is like double… I mean, we’ve been told you guys would never say no, and then you do? We must be like, beyond horrible. We must be ogres.

              I tell a similar story of how so many female on male rapes I believe happen because of this same messed-up societal message of guys never say “no” here:

              http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/why-its-dangerous-to-say-only-bad-guys-commit-rape/

            • Instead of the snarky zinger, the three words you should have written were “I’m sorry, Greg.”

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              I don’t think I made a snarky zinger, actually Jacob. I genuinely was thinking Mr. Supertypo for the good faith. Jesus fucking Christ.

              Greg, sorry for the misread.

              Jacob, thanks for parenting a 35 year-old woman. That was so nice of you to tell the dumb little girl what to say! I sure do owe you for teaching me my manners.

              Gosh, it’s amazing I get through the day without Jacob around to help me.

              (Now that’s snark, just for clarity).

            • Mr Supertypo says:

              Johanna, you are welcome :-)

              To me was obvious that Johanna misreaded, it can happen to me, it can happen to you and to everybody else. Mistakes happens and nobody is perfect (not even me ;) ). And beside that its not even Johannas style to just lash out against other users for no reasons.

              Anyway what is obvious to me doesent mean that is obvious to everybody, we are not clones (fortunately).

            • Thanks to Mr Supertypo for going into the conversation with good faith.
              Oh you mean like that good faith you showed Greg?

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              Hey Danny, it was pretty obvious I misread the question, being as I answered the opposite of what he actually asked. It had nothing to do with faith in any way, it was a misread.

              Oh, and NEWSFLASH you guys, I’m on your side here. You’re so used to fighting that you don’t know how to not stab your allies when they’re walking by your side. So I may not agree with every tiny aspect of what you’re saying, but you guys make it awful hard to speak up on your behalf to my own community, against their message.

            • Oh, and NEWSFLASH you guys, I’m on your side here. You’re so used to fighting that you don’t know how to not stab your allies when they’re walking by your side. So I may not agree with every tiny aspect of what you’re saying, but you guys make it awful hard to speak up on your behalf to my own community, against their message.
              As much as my inner grudge would love to answer this I’m going to answer this instead.

              The reason it’s so hard to tell friend from foe is because is because we are being expected to extend consideration and faith when we are not being shown any in return.

              You don’t have to agree with every little thing but in times that we disagree and we told things ranging from its in our head to being we support terrible behavior so yes, it can be a little hard to tell the difference.

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              I’m not? In what way, Danny? Because you disagree with me about what a woman experiences when she is rejected by a man? I think that this cultural expectation is so prevalent that it is one major reason why men are raped by women, as I wrote in the piece linked above.

              If you want to ignore that insight from a living, breathing woman with some experience, go for it. If you want to say, “No, that’s not real. She can’t be right.” then fine. But don’t say that I’m NEGATING anyone’s experience. I was simply answering the wrong question because I misread it. That’s all. I completely honor his experience TO THE DEGREE that I said it’s a major reason why I believe men get raped by women.

              I have no doubt in my mind that Greg experiences this, not an ounce of doubt. That’s why I wrote what I wrote.

            • I’m not? In what way, Danny? Because you disagree with me about what a woman experiences when she is rejected by a man? I think that this cultural expectation is so prevalent that it is one major reason why men are raped by women, as I wrote in the piece linked above.
              I’m not trying to say that you are doing anything in regards to that comment I just made.

              You told us that we stabbing allies and I just expanded on why we sometimes do that.

              Not justify it. Not say it’s okay. Not say that you deserved to be stabbed.

              Just explain why the holy hell it happens.

            • Joanna, please read that question again from Greg, hes the one that said no and being put down. Hes not proposed sex. Please answer that question from Greg again, unless you really believe its just men who think they are entitled to sex or love, and no women would do it.

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      Noah and I talked about Fedoras of OKCupid too.

      I feel two ways about that. First, yes, you’re getting made fun of FOR YOUR HAT! It’s SO juvenile and obnoxious and basically I could never be friends with someone who thinks that publicly mocking someone for his hat is okay. It’s just gross.

      On the other hand, as the dude in the photo in the fedora, it’s just a hat, dude.

      In “nice guys” they’re mostly making fun of guys for having been rejected by women and carrying forth the trope of being “too nice”. They’re also mocking people for some profound political incorrectness in ways that in real life they might challenge but not necessarily mock.

      So in some ways the Fedoras meme is just as bad as Nice Guys, in other ways it’s not as bad. I haven’t quite sussed out my feelings there. Regardless, it is clearly bullying.

      For instance, I have 3 brothers. Of them, I would say at least 2 of them would have answered “yes” to the leg shaving question. However, if I sat down with them and talked about the leg-shaving, they would probably amend their answers to say “no” because they don’t believe ALL women have an obligation to it, they might not even believe their own wives have an obligation to it, they just are mainstream American dudes who grew up with Playboy and SI Swimsuit Editions and think that smooth legs are sexy, and until I respectfully posed a thoughtful challenge to them about it, they may have never questioned that social norm.

      So here we have guys like my brothers, who probably just haven’t thought much about the issue or engaged in thoughtful discourse about it, being mocked because they answered “yes” about a question they probably interpreted as being about personal choice instead of a broader sexual-political issue.

      Again, that doesn’t mean their “yes” isn’t problematic, but I’m asking us as human beings to realize how complicated individuals are and to keep our challenges respectful so as to not humiliate someone without really understanding them.

      • See, I’ve read profiles of women who say yes on a lot of these questions. That part really does bother me. – the whole idea that clicking the “wrong” answer on a question makes you subject to ridicule.

    • CyberQuaker, it seems like you really don’t understand the people you are talking about at all.

      Their anger has nothing to do with “seeing women as sexual objects” and everything to do with being lied to and manipulated by another human being with whom they were completely honest.

      The trope that you, Hugo Schwyzer, and others reach for is based on a fundamentally false assumption that says “The man was dishonest about his intentions while the woman was honest with hers.” when I look at friends of mine that felt they were “friend zoned,” this is almost universally false.

      Two very common patterns looked like this:
      Guy asks girl out on a date, unambiguously.
      Girl says that she would like to date guy, but cannot do so “officially” because she (1) wants to “get to know the guy first” or (2) has some kind of ex boyfriend drama and doesn’t want others to know she is dating again.
      The guy begins a relationship with the understanding that the girl knows his romantic interests and will inform him when (1) she “knows him well enough” to make a decision about dating or (2) the ex boyfriend drama is resolved.
      At some point the girl decides she is not going to date the guy, but does not tell him, and instead merely begins dating someone else, or gets back together with the exboyfriend.

      In these scenarios, both of which I saw play out multiple times among my friends, the guy was ALWAYS clear about his intentions, saying so upfront, while the girl later lacked the common courtesy to make her intentions clear.

      But in the modern feminist movement, this reality is being denied. That these girls did not treat the men involved as fully human is ignored. If the guys complain that they were mistreated, they are accused of “gas lighting” or just being misogynists. Their anger at the duplicity they were dealt is then dismissed as “thinking they are entitled to sex.”

      Only they do not think they “are entitled” sex. They think they are entitled to honesty from someone they became emotionally intimate with. And yes, honesty, is something we all deserve from those we are emotionally intimate with, even if the relationship never evolves beyond “friends.”

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        But in the modern feminist movement, this reality is being denied. That these girls did not treat the men involved as fully human is ignored. If the guys complain that they were mistreated, they are accused of “gas lighting” or just being misogynists. Their anger at the duplicity they were dealt is then dismissed as “thinking they are entitled to sex.”
        Only they do not think they “are entitled” sex. They think they are entitled to honesty from someone they became emotionally intimate with. And yes, honesty, is something we all deserve from those we are emotionally intimate with, even if the relationship never evolves beyond “friends.”

        Yes, exactly.

        • Joanna Schroeder says:

          Everyone deserves honesty from the people they’re intimate with. Men and women.

          Men are dishonest with women all the damn time, and women are dishonest too. This isn’t a gendered thing. The way they may do it may be different, but people’s individual behaviors shouldn’t be extrapolated to the entire group.

          The feminist movement may not acknowledge these women exist because there are all sorts of problems with things individuals do and if some women aren’t honest about what they want to get out of dating a person, that doesn’t have to do with feminism. That has to do with individual people acting like jerks sometimes.

          Should the MRM be responsible for the guys who don’t call girls back when they say they will? The guys who say they’re crazy about a girl when they just want to bang her? To me, no, they shouldn’t.

          Of course there are asshole women, but there are also asshole guys. In my mind, this isn’t feminism’s problem, this is society’s problem. Anita Sarkeesian is one example. I gave others. Stop bullying. It’s never justified. It’s bullshit.

          If your case is strong, you can level well-founded critiques without insults or bullying. If you MUST make a site like this one then put a picture of a bag over the guy’s face that says “DOUCHE” and get rid of identifying information.

      • Joanna Schroeder says:

        Hey could you all do me a favor and stay on the topic of bullying and STOP making this about “women are bad too!’

        Mike, the women who did that to your friends are assholes who should have been honest. There are asshole men who should have been honest with their partners.

        This isn’t a game of “who’s worse” and it’s ridiculous to try and make it into that.

        • I apologize if my comments read as though I was arguing “women are bad too.” That is a terrible argument to make, and not of the form I would ever make myself.

          The salient points I was trying to get across are those quoted by Bay Area Guy: it seems unlikely that any “nice guy” anger comes from a feeling of being “entitled,” but rather from a feeling of being lied to.

          Both Hugo Schwyzer’s piece, and the one here, state that women are “right to be angry” when men have been manipulative, suggesting that the anger of “nice guys” is based in the failure of their manipulations to get them sex. This supports a narrative that “nice guys” are the liars rather than the lied to.

          This is not saying “women do it too!” or “men have it worse!” It is saying that the narrative of “Why is a ‘nice guy’ angry?” is beginning with the wrong assumptions and thus leading to the wrong conclusions. Don men lie to women? Sure, all the time, just as women lie to men all the time. But to go a step further and say that ” nice guys” fundamentally view women as sex objects seems like a step too far, and yet one that is stated both here and on Schwyzer’s piece at Jezebel.

          • Joanna Schroeder says:

            Mike, read about the people I say are making women scared and angry. They aren’t nice guys, they are Nice Guys™. That’s why I made the distinction.

            If nice guys are being treated like shit, they have a right to be angry, but they don’t have a right to be angry at me and for their own benefit, they most certainly shouldn’t be putting it on a dating profile!

            That’s the only thing this site gets right, I think we can all see from this site that guys put on their dating profiles that women treat them badly or that they don’t get dates. It’s just not a good idea. This is a voluntary site, you do have to sell yourself a bit.

            As always, state what’s best about yourself when first meeting someone. And don’t call your ex-girlfriend a slut. Good God.

            And Mike, this is what you do that drives me fucking nuts: You say things in a way that makes them sound true, but they’re NOT TRUE. “But to go a step further and say that ” nice guys” fundamentally view women as sex objects seems like a step too far, and yet one that is stated both here and on Schwyzer’s piece at Jezebel.”

            I didn’t say a thing about sex objects. Not once. But I did say that there are Nice Guys™ who believe they have a right to sex and women and that entitlement they think they have leads them to be angry and obnoxious.

            Not the same thing. Stop twisting my words.

            And, by the way, I know from past comments here that you hear “stop twisting my words” more than anyone I’ve ever seen in a comments section. The reason you hear it so much is because you do it so much. And when you do it, I completely lose my ability to trust that you have any objective besides slamming people down.

            • At what point do we draw the distinction between a nice guy and a Nice Guy™? What makes someone who is a nice guy become Nice Guy™?

              In my case, and I can’t speak for everyone, it was frustration. I was frustrated that everyone, my female friends, my mom, movies, tv, etc kept telling me to be nice and respectful, listen to her, give her gifts, take her out on dates, pay for her meals; this is the sort of thing that girls like and will “win the girl’s heart.” I never felt entitled, I was frustrated that I was being told to keep trying the same thing over and over and I was not getting any results.

              It’s was like reading an instruction manual that tells you to press Button 1 to change the channel, but when you press Button 1 it changes the volume instead. You go back to re-read the instructions, and sure enough it says “Press Button 1,” so you press Button 1 again and again it changes the volume. Now you log onto the website and the website says “Press Button 1 to change the channel.” You press Button 1 and again it changes the volume. Now you call Tech Support and tech support says “Press Button 1 to change the channel.” You Press Button 1 and it changes the volume.

              If you’re lucky you finally realize that the instructions have a typo in them and all of the places you’re going to for that advice are reading from the same misprinted instructions and what you really need to do is press Button X.

            • Joanna,

              I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. You say guys don’t have a right to be angry at you. I never said otherwise. More importantly, from what I have seen, neither do the angry guys. Making a statement like “Nice guys finish last,” is hardly the same as saying “I am angry at Joanna Schroeder.” yet you seem to be drawing a line between the two. This doesn’t make sense to me in the slightest.

              Second, I never said that what these guys did on OKCupid was the right thing to do, or even a good idea. I responded to very sweeping generalizations made by CyberQuaker where CyberQuaker defended a site that seems to promote cyber bullying. There is a huge difference between “I think CyberQuaker’s sweeping generalizations are wrong,” and “I think these guys have great dating profiles!”

              Which brings me to my third point. I have been nothing but courteous here, going so far as to apologize and assume that I failed to communicate properly when you misunderstood me. You responded with a personal attack. You seem to have purposefully misstated my positions multiple times now (I never said “women do it too,’ I never said that individuals had a right to be angry at you, and I never said these guys had great dating profiles). You then ended with a narrative about how I apparently “slam” people which is either a personal attack, derailing, or both.

              I really do not understand what is going on here.

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              I’m talking about the sex objects conversation, Mike, and it’s very obvious if you read my comment that I’m talking about that particular statement.

              I know you, I know what you do. I’m done engaging with you, there is no point. You don’t want to have a conversation in good faith, you want to manipulate. You can cruise through all the comments on this entire site and you will see that I have said this to nobody — well maybe ONE person — else here. It’s not about silencing you, it’s about knowing your particular style of manipulation and choosing not to buy into it anymore.

          • Bay Area Guy says:

            The salient points I was trying to get across are those quoted by Bay Area Guy: it seems unlikely that any “nice guy” anger comes from a feeling of being “entitled,” but rather from a feeling of being lied to.

            I’m surprised you were able to read that earlier comment, since it has been sabotaged by moderation.

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              Just so you know, moderation doesn’t sabotage, it has automatic filter keywords and holds.

    • @CyberQuaker

      I’m surprised you were able to fit so much wrongness into such a short post. Impressive, really…

      First off, on the whole sexual privilege/entitlement thing: Having a sense of entitlement implies that you think you deserve something just because of who you are. If all of these guys just woke up one day and said, “Hey ladies… I’m a ‘nice guy,’ how about some sex?” then that would imply male sexual entitlement, and I’d buy off on your argument. But that’s not at all what’s happening. If you read these guys profiles and comments on the blog, you can see that they are seeking out them women they desire and asking, “Hey, so what’s a guy like me gotta do to get a girl like you?” And the girls respond by saying, “Well, you just gotta be a nice guy. If I could just find a guy that did a, b, and c things then I’d love to go out with that guy.” So the guy goes out and does a, b, and c things, goes back to the girl and says, “Hey, I’m a nice guy now… how about that date?” And the girl responds, “Fuck off, loser!” and the guy is rightfully pissed. NGOKC is basically just one giant middle finger to every nice guy (genuine or not) who’s ever tried to meet a cool girl online or in real life.

      On the “friendzone” thing: Guess what, guys objectify women. Big deal. However, your implication that these guys ONLY see these women as sexual objects is demonstrably false. Many of these guys are spending weeks, months, and years in the company of women they’re attracted to with no sex in site. If it was only about sexual objection, they’d rightfully be spending all their free time and money on strippers, hookers, and porn. What they want is an emotional AND physical connection with these women; but the women are saying these guys aren’t good enough for both, despite having all of the traits that women SAY they want. It’s a total mindfuck for these guys… they literally have no concept of what women want, because there’s such a huge disconnect between what women SAY they want and what they ACTUALLY want. These guys are bitter and angry because women are lying to them point-blank about what actually turns them on.

    • The “friendzone” isn’t and never was about having to settle with being a woman’s friend when you’d want more and the friendship being inauthentic. It critiques a very specific pattern of women putting their male friends into an asexualized category of “just friends,” with any possibility of anything more being written off. Why it chafes the guys who can’t deal with it or who let it chafe is for exactly that reason: being treated as asexual.

      “Fuckzone” is a great term for what I can see as the closest gender-flipped equivalent: men having sexual relationships with women with no intention or possibility of anything more serious, basically categorizing them as “friends with benefits” or “no-strings attached” or similar.

  5. I would say that the efficacy of mockery as a social tool in general is pretty weak.

    Two other things:
    1. I have encountered the female equivalent of a Nice Guy TM on an advice site on which a self described large woman bemoaned the fact that she wasn’t dating attractive guys. When someone suggested she lower her standards, many posters argued that it was unfair to ask her tht.
    2. The fact is that Nice Guyism started as a coping mechanism. It plays into cultural stereotypes that women like “bad boys.” I woud argue that the equivalent is not Nice Girlism but “men just can’t handle a strong successful woman.”

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      Good comparison in point 2. I find that any sort of gender-swapping example is problematic simply because men and women simply aren’t equal in every single way, so they don’t start from equal footing.

      But that’s the best analogy I’ve heard so far. Or, I should say, the least problematic.

      • And I think both stem from a misconception about both genders. I don’t think all women want “bad boys” or even an overly assertive man (although I have encountered women who reject any kind of submissiveness with “if I wanted a woman I’d date a real one.”) Many do, however, so that becomes the cultural norm.

        Similarly, many men are intimidated by Strong Successful Women, but not all are. The problem in both cases is that personal preferences (“I like bad boys/submissive women” or “I like big dicks/tits”) become imperatives (“all women prefer bad boys/all men prefer submissive women”)

        • wellokaythen says:

          And the word “intimidated” is overused. It’s used to cover a multitude of reactions, some of which are not “intimidated” at all. I happen to get easily overwhelmed by loud, obnoxious people with aggressive personal boundaries (obnoxious and aggressive from my point of view anyway), whether the person is a man or a woman. I could never be in a relationship with a woman who was totally loud and obnoxious. Perhaps for many people that means I’m “intimidated by strong women.” I tend to think of it as “annoyed by loud people.” I’m not scared of her, and I’m not intimidated by her strength or independence, I just can’t stand the volume. Call me a wuss, but I just don’t like icepicks in my skull.

          • I dislike being with loud, obnoxious people in general. I’ve heard about the double standard of “men are assertive, women are bitches” and always felt that it doesn’t tell the whole story. “Assertive” men are often just plain assholes (Trump, anyone?)

  6. Yes, righteous fury. That is the default for all movements today. Everyone shouts and screams so loud and everyone has started to just, unless it’s something they care about in the first place, tune it all out.

    I agree there was a time for anger. That time was when there were only a few major movements issues people were focusing on at any given time. That time was when movements had a clear purpose and one or two single, consolidated efforts that were focused on. Now there are so many organizations, so many things to be passionate and loud about: Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gay, anti-animal cruelty, pro-education, it is deafening, so solution: Tune it out.

    The strategy needs to change. Righteous fury doesn’t gain supporters. Denouncing your opponents doesn’t gain your supporters. Well it does, but only those who believed what you believed in the first place.

    When I first was interested in gender issues I approached my friends who were members of my campus’s feminist organization. Rather than sit down and hear where I was coming from and then ask me questions or politely say, well have you considered this I was met with “That’s such hetero-normative garbage. You clearly don’t know anything about gender politics, here you should read these articles.” To which I said “I have read those articles. I’m ending this conversation now before I get more angry.” I was immediately turned off by their organization. They had a chance at gaining an ally and instead I became a vehement opponent of their organization’s approach. It’s taken me a year to shift my attitude from “Feminists are all nutty psychos” to “Some people are so blinded by what’s been regurgitated to them over and over they aren’t willing to ask critical questions.”

    What really needs to be the focus of getting the word out is a combination of patience, consistent and thorough facts, and a good branding and marketing campaign. That will always be better than anger and name calling, get you more allies, and have a greater impact when done correctly.

    Then let them scream and let them yell. Let them keep spouting their lies and then reply with very patient, consistent information. Be even and unmoving, look astonished when they get angry, ask questions and make them stumble and fume. Let them gather venom and then send people to your website, but make sure that you message is clean, clear, and welcoming.

    If you do something wrong and the other person starts screaming at you, who looks like the psycho asshole? The screamer may get more attention in the moment. They may get what the want right then and there, but the screamers you already can’t change, it is the people in-between, who are watching you handle things with grace, shrug your shoulders and say, “This is what happened” who will join your side. Let the zealots scream because their screaming will scare away the middle ground.

    • Also, always, always give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to save face. It’s better to say “I used to think the same thing until I spoke to someone who showed me this other set of statistics or read xyz article.”

      I think the “feminism is bad, rawr” approach is detrimental. I believe that most feminists really believe that the best way to achieve gender equality is through focusing on women’s issues. I don’t think that, for most feminists, there is some sort of female conspiracy for female supremacy; yes there are some that are spreading misinformation and lies. I believe most feminists really do want equality, they believe in a different way to get there than I do and it’s not that they are badly intentioned, rather that there is new information they have not yet learned that means it is an issue of simply not having had enough of a conversation yet.


      • Also, always, always give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to save face.

        First let me say that this is a good advice. Now let me say that I have broken this piece of advice countless times. Let me tell you why.

        When being denied the benefit of the doubt it takes oh so good to turn around and deny it to them when the opportunity arises.

        That’s why people are getting so riled up over this post. After having to put up with unfair (and in many cases stragith up wrong) treatment at the hands of their opponents they see this post as an opportunity to strike back. Now let me take this up a notch.

        Another reason the striking back feels so good is because they have seen this prediction, ”
        If you do something wrong and the other person starts screaming at you, who looks like the psycho asshole? The screamer may get more attention in the moment. They may get what the want right then and there, but the screamers you already can’t change, it is the people in-between, who are watching you handle things with grace, shrug your shoulders and say, “This is what happened” who will join your side. Let the zealots scream because their screaming will scare away the middle ground.” go unfulfilled many, many times.

        It’s a bit hard to keep this in mind when in fact in many cases the screamers actually do win. Let me give you an example. Unless you have seen her work at GMP, on her own blog, or have crossed paths with her whereever she lives most people that know about feminism wouldn’t know Julie Gillis from Eve. Comparitively Jill Filipovic is almost a celebrity in the world of feminism.

        During the last major dustup over the rape posts at GMP two things happens. Filipovic screamed up and down the internet about how GMP welcomed MRAs, wouldn’t be a useful site until we got rid of them, and that the GMP community supported rape apologia. Gillis basically said, “I see and respect the kind of conversation you’re trying to have, and it’s one that needs to be had. But I don’t think you picked the best way to kick things off.” It’s going to be a while before that moment dies down where the screamer is on top.

        Also I think another reason this post (like many of the ones at GMP) is going to be hard is because this is a long over due example of women/feminists getting called on the mistreatment they have been getting a free pass on inflicting for a long time. They have kept the mistreatment alive by convincing people that genunine nice guys that have even the slightest complaint in these areas are jerks that, “probably weren’t that nice in the first place”. And it also doesn’t help that the ones that are engaging in this behavior will probably never actually cop to their actions.

        I’m not saying all this in response to your comment because I think you need to hear it KC Krupp. I’m saying it because I think there are a lot of others out there that do need to hear it and your comment was a good place for it.


        I believe that most feminists really believe that the best way to achieve gender equality is through focusing on women’s issues.

        Maybe but for me that belief stops when they begin to actively deny men’s issues (or issues from a male perspective) and selectively redefining issues that affect men until they are made out to be women’s issues.

        I don’t think that, for most feminists, there is some sort of female conspiracy for female supremacy; yes there are some that are spreading misinformation and lies.
        The question though is how far does the misinformation and lies go. Sure you might not be able to call it a conspiracy but when sexism is selectively defined as only being possible of happening as male against female, it gets weird. And that’s a belief that is not just limited to random radfem nutters.


        I believe most feminists really do want equality, they believe in a different way to get there than I do and it’s not that they are badly intentioned, rather that there is new information they have not yet learned that means it is an issue of simply not having had enough of a conversation yet.

        I’ll agree there are some that just believe in a different way, and there are some that are acutally open to new information. However there just too many whose different way is badly intentioned and those that actively deny new information.

  7. I don’t get the NiceGuys of Ok Cupid. How are they expecting sex for being nice? Are people mocking them because they are self-deprecating and nice? It seems like a gigantic assumption that these guys are expecting sex for being nice. Are they demonizing men who publicly share vulnerabilities? This seems to me like a bunch of people on the internet being assholes and picking on men who fit their category of being too “nice” or sounding vulnerable. This is internet shittiness.

    With internet dating, people are vulnerable and they share their prejudices and personal issues. We could make all sorts of tumblr sites that make fun of different types of people. We shouldn’t though because everyone deserves our compassion, even those who we don’t like.

  8. Excellent point with this Joanna:
    —–
    Perhaps they call themselves “nice guys” because they don’t realize that in the blogosphere, that actually means Nice Guy™
    ————-
    I think people who are interested in the issues we discuss here as well as “cyber feminists” can easily forgot that not everyone is speaking the same language. The guys probably have no idea that “nice guys” means something horrible and bad to feminists. I would say the same goes for Friendzone. I would guess these guys have probably been told over and over again, by women, that they are really “nice”. Why would they not call themselves that? We might all be speaking English but we aren’t all speaking the same language.

    • Excellent point. IMO, the only mistake I see in your reasoning is that you see this obfuscation of terms as accidental. I personally believe it to be a deliberate attempt to misdirect the argument and reframe it in terms more favorable to the “cyber feminists.” Joanna makes it a point to strictly define what she means by “nice guy”; however, most women do not. Eventually all nice guy behaviors get lumped in together, creating another large block of men that be written off for being weird, creepy, losers.

  9. I think you are actually missing part of the point of NGOKC (though I am not necissarily condoning the bahviour). I think the site is often just calling out people who are putting up sob stories on datings sites. Is that nice? No. Is it something to be terrible offended by? Not really. Sure its bitchy (I don’t think the author ever pretends it isn’t), but it might also be doing you a favor if you are a genuine “nice guy”. It is telling you that you shouldn’t be telling your sob story on a dating sight. You should be talking about all of the reasons you are great, not how many women have overlooked you or why you think that is. You come off as bitter and sad…not “nice.” And for anyone who says that they are just trying to express themselves…How can you NOT know that you sound bitter and or mopey when you write out all the reasons women haven’t liked you? So…to all you genuine nice guys out there. Pluck up. Change your profile to something that tells us girls how wonderful you are. Instead of saying “I’m a nice guy” or “I get friend zoned all the time”, tell us what kind of awesome date you’d like to take us on and why you’re genuine friends (not the girls you were dying to date, but never did) think you are awesome.

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      So the good way to do that is to show their faces and make fun of them publicly, so that their friends can see it, copy it and distribute it in social media and around campus?

      Is it also doing a guy a favor when he’s walking through the hallways at school to point to him and go, “Nice hat, dumbass, you’re such a fucking loser!”

      I mean, maybe the hat makes him look like a loser, and you want to help him realize he’s making himself look like a loser, but are you TRULY helping him by saying it in public?

      Here’s a thought – how different would the site be if they covered the faces of the guys? Wouldn’t the point come across just as well, without all the public humiliation?

    • So just to be clear. Does that mean it’s open season on women who are similar positions? Because nothing would get women to pluck up like public humiliation.

      In all seriousness I think you are missing the difference between constructive criticism (or at least an attempt at it) and having a good time on someone else’s expense and then when/if called on it trying to retroactively claim that they were only trying to help.

      If the brains behind this site are so into helping people then why don’t they start an advice column or make a profile and send private messages with their constructive criticism? You know actually interact with people with something other than a tumblr whose sole purpose is to make fun of guys.

      I don’t dig a lot of what Dr. Nerdlove says but I’ll give him this. He’s not flying around the net making fun of people while trying to call it “advice” (well IMO he’s not). In his own way (even if I don’t always agree with it) he saw an area where guys needed help and he tries to actually provide help.

      Wow I just had a weird and sad thought. If that site were to add nude photos (which technically can’t be done because OK Cupid doesn’t allow nudity) and include personal information (like names and locations) you know what it would be?

      It would be isanyoneup.com ver2.0

      • Joanna Schroeder says:

        OMG Danny, I thought the same thing! How different is it from IsAnyoneUp?

        It’s just too much of a stretch for the article, but it’s an “ad absurdum” to consider.

    • PursuitAce says:

      Nice guys don’t go around telling people how wonderful they are.

      • I'm in the wrong place says:

        The nice guys on NGOOKC do. The site is down, but I remember that one of the photos had the terms: “Ladies, I’m the guy that all your friends say don’t exist . . . a genuine nice guy . . . All my female friends don’t understand why I’m single. I say, ‘You’re the bitches who won’t let me touch your titties.’
        Except there were more typos. That is the kind of stuff on the site.

        • Mr Supertypo says:

          “The nice guys on NGOOKC do. The site is down, but I remember that one of the photos had the terms: “Ladies, I’m the guy that all your friends say don’t exist . . . a genuine nice guy . . . All my female friends don’t understand why I’m single. I say, ‘You’re the bitches who won’t let me touch your titties.’”

          To me sound more like a prank profile or a fake texts. But perhaps a dude with strong issues. But either case none of this condone bullying or illegal acts like displaying to the public personal pictures of other people. BTW what evidence do we have that the text presented on the blog, is the actual one of the dating profile of the guy?
          And im surprised that somebody try excuse to horrible acts (bully) with the lame excuse that the person in question is horrible. Hello? its like trying to wash mud away with other mud.

          If the anglophone society try to justify bully and marginalization with this or that excuse, no wonder you have so many mass shooting in the states. Change your attitude toward the less fortunate people, and perhaps the shootings will vanish like magic, Worth a try, dont you think?

          ciao

          • That is actually a Good point Supertypo. There is still Much work to do to stop and prevent bullism. But im not so sure that is The main reason behind The mass shootings.
            But online and offline bullism is surely between The causes and that blog and their supporters
            Are to no help. They dont stop The (fake) nice guy tm phenomena and They only manage in make the lifes of some lonely and miserable guy Even more lonely and even more miserable.

  10. Three things.

    On male sexual entitlement: I’m uncomfortable with the term ‘entitlement’ used here, because, at least to me, the word ‘entitlement’ comes with it a connotation of something that is expected unearned. That is to say, if I’m entitled to something, I don’t have to do anything to earn it – I have a right to it, and just like I don’t have to earn my right to freedom or earn my right to life, I shouldn’t have to earn my right to this.

    But even the Nice Guys TM are trying to ‘earn’ sex from women. They’re actively trying to do the things they think women want, in hopes of attracting that woman’s romantic or sexual interest.

    I think the problem isn’t “Men think they’re entitled to sex”, but rather “Men think sex is something they can earn from women.”

    And I don’t think they’re entirely in the wrong to try to be a ‘nice guy’ when so many women will say “I wish I could meet a nice guy!” What they don’t seem to understand is that women want a nice *boyfriend*, not a nice *friend*. As I’ve told other guys, playing the “Nice Guy TM” role is like walking into a restaurant with a help wanted sign and telling them about how you’ve been working as a server for ten years, you can carry a hundred pounds with one hand and remember the orders of a table of thirty and you’re fluent in seven languages — but then being upset when they don’t hire you as a cook. In other words, you’re selling yourself for the wrong position.

    Anyway, another analogy I’ve made on here, in the recent past:

    If you are starving and another person is passing you on the street, and you know they have money, you have about three ways of trying to get it from them. You can attempt to rob them, you can try to steal it, or you can beg them or try to earn it.

    The way our society conceptualizes sex as something that women own and men want leads men to seeing themselves as the starving person in the hypothetical. So you get the ones who try to get sex through violence, threats, or coercion – Rapists who rob sex from women. You have Pick Up Artists and Bad Boys who try to trick women into sex. And you have Nice Guys who try to pressure women into giving them sex by making them feel bad (“Can you spare a dollar, I haven’t eaten in a week”) or acting as though sex has been earned (akin to the guy who washes your windshield without permission and expects payment).

    The heart of the problem is that we’re trained to see sex as something women have and men want, rather than something that each sex has equally, wants equally, and can take equal pleasure in engaging in.

    • Oh right, the third thing:

      On inarguable anger: I had a conversation with a feminist once, where she was talking about her experiences with gender. When I talked about my experiences with gender, she said she “Felt like I was talking over her.” When I said I wasn’t, she angrily told me that “you said my feelings were wrong!”

      Because, apparently, if you phrase an accusation (“You are doing X”) as a statement of feelings (“I feel like you are doing X”), no one can ever argue with you, lest they be “telling you your feelings are wrong” or “disregarding your feelings”.

      Not a central point, of course, but it crossed my mind.

  11. I think another part of the problem is the social pressure on women not to voice their actual desires, but to voice only the aspects of a partner they want that will not reflect badly on them. Of course it happens to men too, in other ways.

    As Ozy put it, “Men are orcs and women are elves.” So when women are asked what they want in a partner, they have to give Elf Reasons – they want a guy who is nice and sweet and funny and thoughtful and generous. And all of those things are true, but they leave out that they also what a guy who is handsome or sexy or dresses well or is tall or has a big dick or is good in bed or has money – those are Orc Reasons, and admitting to those would make her a slut or a gold digger or shallow and superficial. So she only expresses that she wants “nice sweet and funny” but ends up going for “sexy and charming and funny and arrogant”. And the guy who tries to win her over by being nice and sweet and funny fails to gain her interest, because he’s lacking those other qualifications that she isn’t allowed to express.

    As I said, the same thing happens for men. We’re pressured to give Orc Reasons for wanting one partner over the other. We want big breasts and a nice ass and good blowjobs, or a Blonde or Redhead or Asian. We’re not supposed to want emotional connection or someone we can feel safe being insecure or vulnerable with or care what kind of books she reads or subjects she studies – those are Elf Reasons and what are you some kind of faggot? Real Men want to fuck, Little Boys want to cuddle.

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      Interesting points.

      • Thank you. I apologize for the tone I took with you in our previous encounter on the other comment thread. It was rude and unnecessary.

    • “I think another part of the problem is the social pressure on women not to voice their actual desires, but to voice only the aspects of a partner they want that will not reflect badly on them.”

      Great point. No woman will openly state that she wants a 6’2″ motorcycle gang-looking guy to bang her hard and have sweaty balls in her face.

  12. The NGOKC site is using bullying tactics. They’re bullying the men on both ends of the nice guy spectrum; the guys who really seem to be assholes and the guys who really seem to be merely awkward or unfortunate.

    While I don’t agree with pillorying the assholes or the merely misguided, I’ll admit that I’m more concerned about the impact the bullying might have on the awkward, unfotunate men. I think they are entitled to consideration when they express their frustration in a respectful manner. Doing so on an internet dating site is asking for disaster, but then no one is obligated to provide that disaster, especially in an organized, self righteous mob action like this. I also wonder if there’s a visceral reaction to men whining about their plight that motivates some of this.

    A sight that selected portions of Nice Guy profiles for critique but didn’t identify the authors with a name or picture or join date might have some value. Sure, some people would be recognized, but many fewer than with NGOKC as it’s apparently set up. Rather than their purpose of harming people in an act of vengence, an alternative might list examples of clearly ugly or questionable profile selections and ask men if they see themselves portrayed, literally or figuratively, and if they do they might want to know that it’s not a pretty picture. Of course the Nice Guys might just conceal their asshole tendencies, but the nice guys might just agree with the futility of portraying themselves in a negative and not entirely accurate way.

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      I actually thinking that finding a cute or funny way to completely cover the person’s face and other obvious identifying details would have been just as effective without the risk of ruining someone’s life.

  13. Wow… that website is horrible. If I guy believes its possible to have to many sexual partners he gets put on that website…

    That’s disgusting , a man who believes that men and women shouldn’t sleep around in this day and age?! what was he thinking? ¬_¬

    Sigh, Honestly though that website seems to bully and target men with self confidence issues on a matter that really isn’t their fault. Many men are brought up thinking that if they treat women with respect and be the “nice guy” they will get the dates while in reality most women aren’t interested in that which leads to the women date jerks comments.

    This website states that men who fit that category of a nice guy and want to sleep with a woman are disgusting, while men who aren’t in that category can sleep around all they want. its illogical and harmful.

  14. What a horrible site of pointless/shameless mocking –

    Any lawyers in the house? From OKCupids Terms of Use:

    Access and proprietary rights:

    The pages and content on this Website may not be copied, distributed, modified, published, or transmitted in any other manner, including use for creative work or to sell or promote other products. Violation of this restriction may result in infringement of intellectual property and contractual rights of Humor Rainbow or third parties which is prohibited by law and could result in substantial civil and criminal penalties.

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      OH WOW.

      I think that OKCupid would have to be the ones to sue, and they’d have a really good case because who is going to join OKCupid if they’re so subjected to mockery?

      If I were single I would have quit OK Cupid the moment I saw the first meme, which ever was first. But the Fedoras of OK Cupid would have been enough to make me not join, even though it’s not OKCupid’s fault at all.

    • hopefully okcupid gets onto this quickly for moral, and business reasons, and gets tumblr to delete NGOKC

  15. The glaring omission I see in the article is even a notional effort to offer meaningful advise, only derision and mocking contempt.

    The only two options for these unfortunate guys seems to be adopt the pick up artist lifestyle, so at least then they’ll be getting cut down for their conduct after sex, or the go their own way approach and cease interacting with the anyone of the female gender in anything other than a platonic, arms-length fashion.

    Is this what the readers of Jezebel really want?

  16. The more I look at this site the more terrible it reveals itself to be.

    One guy that shows up on the site has 3 bits of info and one question that supposedly damns him.

    For you personally, is abortion an option in case of an accidental pregnancy?” to which he says “No.”

    Apparently his personal choices inherently mean that he hates women or something. Maybe the folks behind the site are trying to say that since he doesn’t think its an option that automatically means he would try to force his personal preference on a woman.

    I’m calling it. The people behind this site are taking some examples of truly loathsome men and propping them up as a shield so they can take cheap shots at guys that don’t meet their personal preferences.The site is bullshit.

  17. wellokaythen says:

    So, maybe this is why so many people use someone else’s photo for their online profile or use a false identity. (Not like I would ever to that, of course….) You never know when someone else is going to circulate all sorts of nasty things about you with that photograph.

    Hell, for that matter, how do we really know those men really did write the things that they’re accused of writing? People are far too gullible on the internet.

  18. The main problem I have with the article is the labeling of assholes as Nice Guys™.

    The niceguys TM theme is meant as a rebuttal to any man who has ever complained of being friendzoned.

    What this is about is shutting down the friend zone complaints of men and portraying a lamentation that somebody you are crushing on isn’t into you (or on the worst side, the love prospect openly manipulated and used the love-lorn person).

    What the “niceguy TM” is about shutting down ALL MEN who complain of being friendzoned (truly nice or Niceguy TM assholes). It’s basically saying that men don’t have the right to express frustration over a bummer situation or anger at having been played.

    If I started trying to promulgate an “Easy Girl TM” theme about shutting down complaints of ALL WOMEN who had sex on the first date/meeting either falsely believing or being misled that the guy implied a relationship was brewing only to get no answer to her calls as a rebuttal to the “pump and dump” and said that all girls that complained of “pump and dumps” were actually bitches anyway and deserving of their fate, maybe then you could see how harmful the “NiceGuy TM” theme is.

    I think it is a very bad idea of you Joanna to give credence to the “Niceguy TM” theme. Much like the actions of OK Cupid attacks, this theme is about shutting down ALL MALE COMPLAINTS about female behavior by besmirching the complainers. It essentially says any man who ever complains of being friend-zoned is secretly an asshole.

    It’s indiscriminating in it’s dismissal to those men who have legitimate complaints.

    Also, I think this OK Cupid attack tactics is wrong EVEN WHEN the guy hits all the bullet points of being a NiceGuy TM asshole in sheeps clothing.

    Nobody deserves unmitigated hate for superflous arbitrary reasons.

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      John, go back and read it again.

      First, I made a HUGE distinction between Nice Guy™ and nice guys. I even called my brother a nice guy.

      I also said that I thought the term Nice Guy™ was very problematic.

      Feel free to apologize.

  19. “Noah Brand recently pointed out to me the ways in which we’ve almost turned anger into a god, a thing we worship, in our society. He says that justified anger gave way to a major change in the nature of discourse.”

    The culture has given us back though a proper response to anger: mockery. The “u mad bro?” troll face is the best response to 99% of all the anger out there, feminist or otherwise. Laugh at them.

    http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/145/2/5/u_mad__by_gnuenguemo-d3h620v.jpg

  20. Funny thing is while this is happening there are articles, sites and shows about woman complaining about their love life.
    Instead of the anger and mockery men get, woman get sympathy and support.

  21. I can’t hold tears in my eyes every time I read an article about Nice Guys™. This kind of article always bring me back to my dark lonely time as a teenager. I admit I’m an ex Nice Guys™. Back in high school I was the shy guy who only have few close friends in high school ( none of them is female). I was the guy who never have a date with a girl. I was the socially awkward guy who couldnt hold a proper conversation more than five minutes with a girl. I was the guy who prefer playing guitar alone in my room or watching DVDs instead of going out with a girl on friday night. I was the guy who almost never going to parties and clubs with a girl and prefer going to music concerts with my male friends.

    Sometimes, on my lonely nights, I cried alone in my room and feel the world is not fair. Why I never have girlfriend? I didnt want sex, I just want love and relationship. I wondered why so many girls were in relationship with abusive boyfriend who only want sex, but they don’t want a guy who genuinely want love not sex like me. Yes, I was the pathetic loser asshole jerk Nice Guys™ who think being nice means you are entitled to love with a woman.

    I wondered why women would go with bad guys and not with me, but to be honest, I already know the answer. But admitting the answer hurts. The answer is because I was a pathetic loser shy guy who couldnt hold a proper conversation with a girl. Why would any girl want to be with a guy like me? Of course they would go with a guy who are confident, funny, althought they are maybe bad guys. I already know that. Instead of learning the problem is on me and learn to change to became a better guy, I just blamed everything. I blamed women who went with bad guys. Actually I know they are not the one to be blamed, I just feel so hurt and depressed I need someone to blame. I blamed the bad guys because they abused nice girls. I blamed my parents because I think the way they raised me are the reasons I growing up as a socially awkward guy. I blamed societies for alienating socially awkward people. I even blamed God because I think I was born as a loser.

    Its not up until my college years that I learn that the problem is on me, not on women, my parents, or societies. My hours of playing guitar alone in my room made me a guitarist for an indie metal band in my town. I learned how to interacts with women because there are so many women in music scene. The manager, the roaddie, the fans. I learn how to talk with them and slowly grew up my confidences. I also learn how to dress, going to gym, and taking care of my appearance. And then I met a woman and she became my first girlfriend. And after that, my dark years being Nice Guys™ ended. I still shy guy, but no so shy like back then.

    Joanna, I agree that some Nice Guys™ are not actually nice guys, but I dont agree that all lonely bitter Nice Guys™ who think they are entitled to love are all bad guys too. I think many Nice Guys™ who blamed women are not actually blamed women. I know some of them do, but most of the shy and socially awkward guys I think already know the problem is themselves, not the women. Being shy and socially awkward guy is not pleasant experiences, I know that. Its really depressing. And in this society where men are the one who usually approaching women, being shy guys means you probably wouldnt have any date nor love. And I can tell you, its really depressing. I even think about suicide back then. And I even can guaranteed that most of us do not want sex, we just want love and relationship like regular people have.

    Although I’m agree that Nice Guys™ should look for the problem in themselves instead of blaming women and societies, I can relate to why many of them blamed women and societies. And I still think many of them are genuinely nice, they are just so hurt and lonenly they couldnt saw the real problem. You maybe call them Nice Guys™ , but I stil think they are genuinley nice guys. And I could relate to their feelings. Thats why I cant hold my tears reading article about them. I couldnt help it.

    Sorry for my really long comment. Just wanna give my thoughts about Nice Guys™ syndrome.

    • Now, it was your reply that just made me cry. Because, yes, it is very depressing, it is a feeling of deep apathy and sloth, that life is not worth living – and suicide seems the only reasonable choice. Yes. I feel it right now.

      You see, it’s kind of confusing. I really thought I loved women. That I liked to hear them talking about relationships, their smile, the way they giggle. While this is true on some level, on another level it was just a lie I was telling myself. It was only one night, in deep meditation, that it dawned on me: “I HATE WOMEN!”

      It is the wolf in sheep’s clothing. If all those who feel they are entitled to female bodies just plainly told that, life would be easier. It is a much deeper “sin” to pretend you enjoy friendship when what you want is sex. Because now there is not only lust – you lied as well! And that creates such a mess, and then everybody is confused: women, nice guys, maybe even Nice Guys™ themselves. As long as “sin” (I mean mistakes) exist, everybody will pay.

      You say that you believe many of the Nice Guys™ are genuinely nice. Yes. Even now, as I write all this, I’m thinking: “Yeah, I know all this intelectual stuff about how and why my ego does what it does. THEN WHY DO I STILL FEEL THIS WAY? WHAT DO I DO? WHY DO I STILL FEEL HURT?” And then, in my confusion, I may hurt others. And the fact that I’m aware of it just creates more guilty. Yeah, probably many of these Nice Guys™ just don’t know what to do. In a sense, it is not my fault that I feel hurt. That is an automatic biological and psychological feeling. But then again, I’m the only one who could possibly be responsible for that feeling. Crazy, huh?

      The last thing I want to point out, related to how men have become victims of their animal ego instincts, is porn. Porn is at the root of this unconscious belief that we have a right on women’s bodies. It only takes some clicks to have dozens of naked female bodies delivered to our male eyes. And, as we drool, we are not aware that we are programming ourselves to believe that getting a woman’s body is supposed to be so simple as a click. That is the origin. Because reality is not this way – and shouldn’t be this way -, and Nice Guys™ get frustrated. On top of that, then somebody else comes bullying them (and nice guys as well). I’m laughing here, but it is so terribly awful! It sometimes seems hate is everywhere. But everybody is just confused. Just confused. And then it is easy to have compassion for them all.

      • Joanna Schroeder says:

        First, suicide is never the only reasonable choice. Please, we implore you to reach out to someone who can help with the feelings of suicide.

        There are tons and tons of men in the world who will tell you that they felt as hopeless as you do right now. And then they find love and happiness and have beautiful lives. But you can’t do that if you stay in this depression. Reach out to someone you trust and find a medical professional to help you. Not just for you, but for the relationship you could have in the future.

        As far as porn, yes I do wonder if there is something to that idea that sexual gratification and women’s bodies are instantly available. And airbrushed! And we never say “no” – at least we don’t mean it. In porn, there’s never a negotiation for comfort or boundaries. And in real life, EVERY man, even Brad Pitt or George Clooney hears “no”… a lot. To sex, to a certain position, to ANYTHING! Because that’s real life. Brad probably tells Angelina “no” to certain things. But there are no REAL “no’s” in porn and that is damaging people. I firmly believe that.

        Real life is full of “no’s” that are accompanied by compassion, passion, desire and love. I give my husband loving boundaries and he does the same for me. But if you never saw that happen, you wouldn’t know that “no” is healthy and good.

        Everyone IS confused. Try to find a way to be happy, stop trying to meet women or get sex. Just be happy. Then you will meet a woman and just by living your happy life, she will fall in love with you. That’s how it’s happened to everyone I know.

        (Though I also know a lot of people who, once they were happy, went on dating sites like Match or JDate and fell in love and got married, that works great too, just make sure you’ve worked to get yourself to a great spot FIRST so you’re not saying things like, “I don’t care if women like me, women are sluts and bitches” like these fucking assholes do, haha).

        • “I don’t care if women like me, women are sluts and bitches” like these fucking assholes do, haha

          And that’s no different with those fucking assholes women who said ” I don’t care if men like me, men are shallow and jerks ”

          Both are fucking assholes

      • Joanna Schroeder says:

        http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org

        800-273-TALK

        We’ve been told this is the best one, by lots of professional organizations.

        • Oh, don’t worry too much about that! Perhaps I should have written my first paragraph differently. I said that suicide SEEMS the only reasonable choice. But that’s just a feeling that I watch closely inside me day after day. It is like a child crying for my attention, I don’t believe in what this “inner voice” says. Just like John, I slowly began making some changes so that one day I might eventually become a really good man. Change is slow, and perhaps the most painful part is taking full responsibility for what I am today and what I want to be. But it cannot be more painful than to keep being what I have been being my whole life.

          Well, in a sense it does feel more painful. But you see, I can’t just wish for this pain to go away, I can’t run away from it. Because that’s what I have always done. Being shy and avoid talking to people. And even porn became a way to run away. Life becomes so frustrating that its only pleasure is masturbation in order to fall asleep, haha. It is an anesthetic for pain. But that’s a vicious cycle, a very dangerous one. That’s why I must face this pain head on. “Come on, is that it? Piece of cake. Give me more!”. I found I’m stronger than the pain, and I trust it’ll eventually be silenced. :)

          By the way, I’m not from the USA, I’m from South America. I’m sorry if there is anything weird with my English! :)

          Thanks for your concern, and thanks for your work here. And sorry for each time I have hated women. I couldn’t help it. Nobody taught me how to deal with my instincts, my parents and teachers were not zen masters. It was all my fault.

          Oh! And remember you shouldn’t need an e-mail from your husband reminding you to eat! Please! ;)

  22. Another thing comes to mind here: in Shwyzer’s Jezebel piece he writes that no one is entitled to sex “except with themselves.” This reminds me of someone’s comment on here that female masturbation is considered liberating while male masturbation is considered pathetic and icky.

    • I'm in the wrong place says:

      Hi there,

      I’m a regular Jezebellian. There is no way anyone who is a regular over there thinks that masturbation (whether male or female) is wrong. You’re entitled to do whatever you want with your body. Obviously, because it is yours.

      You may have gotten that vibe because some people object to women being used in fantasies (that is, objectifying them) to the point where it creates a situation of irrealis – and men expect women to behave like a fantasy in real life (which links to a broader discourse of how unreal (most) porn is and why men/women shouldn’t expect their real-life sexual partners to behave as those in porn do.).

      But everyone over there is all good with masturbation. Seriously. Go forth.

      • I wasn’t really making a judgement on Jezebel, just Shwyzer’s comment, which seemed snarky. But seriously – what is one supposed to think of a song like “U And Ur Hand” or the general feeling that male masturbation is considered sad a pathetic?

  23. Mr Supertypo says:

    Is what they are doing legal? what if one of the guys sue them?

  24. Woman and society creating these nice guys, and now they’re pissed that the nice guys are noticing that the men who didn’t cave to the laundry list of requirements are attracting woman. This debates on what a nice guy truly is will never end, because societys view of a nice guy will always be someone that lives their life for everyone else.

  25. The point of that tumblr is to show the amount of men on okcupid who feel male sexual entitlement. Most of the guys “mocked” on that site say sexist and racist things. They deserve to be mocked. Public awareness of the “Nice Guy Syndrome” needs to be discussed and pointed out as much as possible so that guys stop acting like they deserve sex from a woman just because they want it.

    I have always been anti-dating sites but I did a little experiment and tried OK Cupid for a week to see if my stigma against dating sites was justified and it totally was. Yes, most of the guys who messaged me said funny stuff and were respectful but I also had a good number of “Nice Guys” calling me a whore and slut because I ignored their message or because I simply thanked them for calling me beautiful but did not say “OMG let’s have sex.”

    The level of passive aggressiveness and attitude from men who did not like being rejected, even though I did it completely respectfully and gently was out of control and I was so glad to delete my account and thankful that I don’t need to go on a dating site to get laid.

    • I’ve encountered at least a few women on OKC with similar opinions to these guys – yes, even the thing about women being obligated to shave their legs. Should I mock them in a blog? Face it, the tumblr is just mean.

      “Thankful that I don’t need to go on a dating site to get laid.”

      Well, bully for you. Oh, and some of us actually want meaningful companionship.

      • Not every guy on okcupid is a scumbag but obviously enough are that there is a tumblr dedicated to them. I fully support it. I’m sick of “Nice Guys” and think that tumblr is an amusing, feminist response to that.

        • Mr Supertypo says:

          That Tumblr is unethical and probably illegal so good the blog is gone. There is no excuse for cyberbully.

        • So we are supposed to just trust the judgment of that small group of feminists on who is a Nice Guy or not?

        • Again, some of the guys are singled out for clicking “yes” to “women are obligated to shave their legs” (which, again, I’ve seen women click yes to) or “men should be the head of the household” (sexist, but not an uncommon sentiment shared even by some women).

          I’ve even seen guys on the site because they clicked that they don’t believe in evolution or dinosaurs – what does that have to do with sexism or misogyny? And what is sexist or misogynist about WEARING A FEDORA?

        • AnonymousDog says:

          So you wouldn’t object to sites dedicated to mocking the profiles of entitled women?

          I really have to think that the whole “Nice Guy TM” thing is really just a way to discourage men, all of them, from voicing any frustration with dating and/or women. Shame them into silence!

          • Bay Area Guy says:

            I really have to think that the whole “Nice Guy TM” thing is really just a way to discourage men, all of them, from voicing any frustration with dating and/or women. Shame them into silence!

            That’s exactly how I see it.

      • I'm in the wrong place says:

        I appreciate your answer, but I think you might be underestimating just how pervasive the Nice GUY TM thing is. Like, a lot of guys think sex is an equation. That is, if I do Flowers + Listen + Say I’m a Nice Guy + Be Patient + Hear complaints about ex-boyfriends + Drive her to/from places = sex for me!!!

        And practically every cultural trope tells guys that they will get the pretty girl at the end, even if she doesn’t seem to be sexually interested in him at first (my God, like EVERY romantic comedy, and this cracked article helps explain it http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html ). So you can understand that naive young men often feel that if they hang around long enough, they will get the girl.

        But the problem is when they feel they’re *entitled* to the girl. And when that girl reiterates her platonic feelings, that she becomes a target for rage. That’s what NGOOKC is about.

        I agree, some of them were just misguided, but a significant portion were fairly horrific racist, misogynistic, Nice GuysTM.

        • Joanna Schroeder says:

          The majority of guys on NGOKC were racist assholes who call women bitches and sluts, but it was the others who really troubled me.

          As far as the entitlement, I think you’re exactly right. SOmeone even said it here. That society trains men to push “button A” to get women to like them, and it allegedly does nothing, and so they get frustrated. Then they figure out that you actually push “button B” and women like you…

          But think about that model. That there is something you can do, some formula, that will “get you women”… Women are the result. Or women are the reward.

          Does anyone see how dehumanizing that is to women?

          In a similar regard, I would say that when women talk about some sort of formula to “get guys” that it would also be dehumanizing to guys.

          Just exist. Don’t try. If the way you exist isn’t working, then sure, get some advice from a guy like Dr. NerdLove who is all about respect and finding tools for actually starting conversations, but NerdLove doesn’t offer the women up as the prize, as the reward.

          We’re human beings. We’re not a reward. We’re not YOURS to win.

          • Just exist. Don’t try. If the way you exist isn’t working, then sure, get some advice from a guy like Dr. NerdLove who is all about respect and finding tools for actually starting conversations, but NerdLove doesn’t offer the women up as the prize, as the reward.

            I agree with most of your article and comments in the thread, Joanna, but not this bit. Just existing without trying is a fantastic dating strategy if you’re an attractive person in the gender that’s not expected to take the initiative in seeking out dates, but for most men, it’s the equivalent of giving up any hope of getting dates, relationships, or sex.

            As for Nerdlove, he dresses up his PUA in feminist finery, but just because he doesn’t call women “prizes” or “rewards” doesn’t mean that his advice isn’t framed with being more attractive to women as the goal, where “success” means getting dates or relationships. I see a *lot* more women talk about themselves and sex as prizes than men, including here on GMP where I have seen sex described (recently) – by a woman – as a precious gift from women to men, and take umbrage at being challenged that it could just be a physical thing that both men and women want and give to each other. I think the idea of sex as a prize to be earned tends to be projection on the part of women, who think they’re a prize, and then get pissed at guys who think they’ve “earned” it.

            Many guys who are accused of entitlement are simply sexually frustrated. That’s still not a good excuse for lashing out at whoever the frustration is about, but it’s pretty different from thinking anyone is *obligated* to have sex with them. I’ve been sexually frustrated countless times in my life at sex I wanted but couldn’t have, but not once have I ever thought someone owed it to me, or felt “entitled” in the way so many Feminists™ accuse guys like me of feeling.

            • Bay Area Guy says:

              As for Nerdlove, he dresses up his PUA in feminist finery

              And so many women, including feminists, keep on falling for it.

            • I’ve been sexually frustrated countless times in my life at sex I wanted but couldn’t have, but not once have I ever thought someone owed it to me, or felt “entitled” in the way so many Feminists™ accuse guys like me of feeling.

              Precisely. Thank you. Frustration and disappointment with being sexually rejected do not automatically equate to “male sexual entitlement” (yet another entry in the apparently endlessly growing set of clinical-sounding terminology that invariably means “men are bad / men are at fault / men are the problem / etc”).

              If I care about a woman, if I’m attracted to her and wish to develop a deeper relationship with her, and if she doesn’t want that and turns me away, am I not allowed to have any feelings about it? If I reject a woman sexually and she’s disappointed, hurt, or frustrated about it (and runs into the bathroom to throw up, which actually happened once), is she demonstrating “female sexual entitlement”?

              I think it’s grossly unfair to automatically characterize any man (or woman) who’s disappointed in a relationship or social interaction that’s fallen short of his (or her) desires as some sort of premeditated, predatory, selfish manipulator who’s upset at failing to extract a sexual prize from the other party. Why should a man’s desire for intimate relationship, and his disappointment when he fails to have it, be treated any differently than a woman’s?

              Maybe if we all started to see men’s and women’s motivations and feelings as being equally legitimate, and equally worthy of consideration, we could begin to get somewhere instead of spinning into infinity in these bitter circles.

            • “I think it’s grossly unfair to automatically characterize any man (or woman) who’s disappointed in a relationship or social interaction that’s fallen short of his (or her) desires as some sort of premeditated, predatory, selfish manipulator who’s upset at failing to extract a sexual prize from the other party.”

              Very well said.

            • Tim Margheim says:

              I’ve got some agreement, and some disagreement.

              Precisely. Thank you. Frustration and disappointment with being sexually rejected do not automatically equate to “male sexual entitlement”

              Absolutely right.

              If I care about a woman, if I’m attracted to her and wish to develop a deeper relationship with her, and if she doesn’t want that and turns me away, am I not allowed to have any feelings about it?

              If those feelings are disappointment, frustration, grief, etc., then absa-friggin’-lutely. And it looks like the “Nice Guys of OK Cupid” tumblr included cases where they were actually bullying this kind of guy. That was messed up. And it hurts their own cause.

              If those feelings include confusion–”I was a good friend and a nice guy, so why doesn’t she like me?”–then that may be simple grief (which needs comfort), and it may include some mistaken expectations (which needs education & maturity).

              It it includes frustration or anger at her over specific things that she herself said–then that may be appropriate, depending on the specifics.

              If those feelings include indignation, or blame, or undeserved anger at her–if they include a response like “shallow bitch”–then that is absolutely an example of entitlement. And that kind of thing should be called out. And re-educated. (Maybe the NGOKC tumblr shouldn’t have used pictures, though–that might take it into bullying territory. Or maybe not. The basic validity of that tumblr approach is a different question from whether some of the profiles they called out are legitimately screwed up exactly like the tumblr claimed.) Maybe the dividing line is the difference between having feelings about unmet desires and feelings about unmet expectations.

              Regardless, we need to all agree that it’s entirely appropriate for a woman to respond to an offer of friendship with simple friendship.

              “male sexual entitlement” (yet another entry in the apparently endlessly growing set of clinical-sounding terminology that invariably means “men are bad / men are at fault / men are the problem / etc”).

              Invariably? Really?

              I found out about the whole OKCupid tumblr thing from this blog entry. If you read it, you might find some valid criticisms you could make (I dunno), but that’s definitely not one of them. She included this disclaimer: “A final note: the term ‘nice guy’ as used in here does not represent all men, and I want to make clear that I have never pretended that it does. I know a large group of truly wonderful men, who genuinely deserve to be called nice guys. Too bad that term has been really sullied.”

              Be careful you don’t interpret “this problem exists among men” (which is what all “male sexual entitlement” means) as “this is a problem in all or most men, and it comes entirely from them”. And don’t generalize the cases where someone does actually blame men onto everyone who uses that phrase.

              I think it’s grossly unfair to automatically characterize any man (or woman) who’s disappointed in a relationship or social interaction [...]

              Absolutely right.

              So let’s all agree that we should be careful about generalizing and aiming our criticisms too broadly.

              That includes being more careful about words like “invariably”. And the people who made the “Nice Guys of OK Cupid” tumblr at least need to be more careful about the criteria they use. And men who blame women who themselves only ever accepted the guy’s offered friendship and reciprocated in kind need to stop.

            • Very well said indeed, Tim.

            • I appreciate your thoughtful reply, Tim.

              Invariably? Really?

              Point taken. I would happily substitute “all too often” for “invariably”.

              Be careful you don’t interpret “this problem exists among men” (which is what all “male sexual entitlement” means) as “this is a problem in all or most men, and it comes entirely from them”. And don’t generalize the cases where someone does actually blame men onto everyone who uses that phrase.

              “Male sexual entitlement” doesn’t imply “this problem exists among men” to me. What it implies to me is that there is an inherent linkage between “sexual entitlement” and being male, and it’s a very negative generalization that I find unwarranted, damaging, and completely unhelpful.

              If the intention is truly to define or characterize a problem that is present with some men as opposed to all or most men, then I think the current phrasing fails, and it fails in a way that is going to put a lot of men on the defensive rather than engaging them in productive discussion.

            • Tim Margheim says:

              Counter-examples for you, with the same kind of language:
              Male Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome
              Female Athlete Triad Syndrome
              Canine Epileptoid Cramping Syndrome

              The phrasing doesn’t imply more than that the problems are present in some males, some females, or some canines. (I work in linguistics, and noun phrases where you use one noun as an adjective on another are the bane of my existence–precisely because it’s impossible to nail down what the phrase means just by looking at it. It indicates some kind of relationship, but not what kind. Common usage patters sometimes make specific meanings more or less likely, but not certain–particularly with a newly-coined phrase.)

              The most you can get simply from the phrase “male sexual entitlement” is that it’s supposed to be a form of sexual entitlement that is notably related to males in some way. It doesn’t mean that “sexual entitlement” is exclusive to males, or that this is a biological phenomenon instead of a cultural one, or even that all/most males are particularly susceptible to it (let alone actually have it).

              All that extra meaning & definition is something you have to get from the context–either explicitly, or by inference. And there, since you’re a human being, you’ll be heavily affected by your preconceptions about “how feminists think”. Plus your natural human defensiveness will lead you to read it that way–and to insist, like you’re doing, that there’s no other way to read it.

              You’re mistaken about the language itself. You may or may not be mistaken about the attitudes of the people using it. But I can testify that I have several outspoken feminists friends who definitely don’t have that attitude, or fit the stereotypes.

              I do think feminists would do well to put more effort into making arguments in a way that reduces the likelihood of defensiveness. (I mean, I think it would help them achieve their goals.) But I’ve also seen plenty of men react defensively without any reasonable justification. The more a guy assumes that feminists are man-haters, the more likely that is–he won’t notice that they didn’t actually say anything that blamed all men or was targeted at men in general instead of being targeted at the men for whom the shoe fits.

            • Joanna Schroeder says:

              Interesting point about the noun-used-as-adjective issue.

            • Tim Margheim says:

              Linguistics is fun. :)

              Examples of what I’m talking about:
              “leather book” vs “geography book” vs “nuisance book” vs “joke book” — Most people would read those as “book made of leather” (probably not “book about leather”), and “book about geography”, and “book that is a nuisance”. The last could either be “book full of jokes” or “book that is a joke”, but you can’t tell without looking at the context.

              “dog collar” vs “restraint collar”
              – “collar used for dogs” and “collar for restraining”

              “dog sweater”
              –Could be either “sweater for dogs” or “sweater with dogs on it”. Or if you lived in a place where dog fur was used to make clothes, it could just as easily be “sweater made of dog fur”.

              We’re all subconsciously familiar with the common possibilities, and we automatically narrow things down to meanings that seem likely–either based on our general knowledge about the world or based on the context of the phrase.

              If you’re predisposed to think that feminists blame men in general, then you’re apt to read “male sexual entitlement” that way, and not even be conscious that the language itself is ambiguous. You might not even know you’re doing it, but you might be very sure (mistakenly) that you’re just taking the language at face value.

        • I’m not saying its not a problem. I’m skeptical of the efficacy of public mockery as a tool to remedy this. As well, I’m appalled that one person considers themselves enough of an authority to determine who should be so mocked, especially when many choices have little to do with actual Nice Guyism.

          Again, what does ones beliefs on evolution have to do with being a Nice Guy? I’ve read profiles where women have actually stated that the Earth is bigger than the Sun. Should I put them on a tumblr?

          • Joanna Schroeder says:

            I’m with you, D.

            I can’t believe the shitty things I used to say. Not long ago, I casually used the word “Retarded” to mean stupid – concepts, not people – “ghetto” to mean janky. I was sort of just willfully careless.

            Then a friend was like, “You just sound like an asshole” and I stopped. But it happened privately, and I stopped and have talked about it publicly in an attempt to be clear about the fact that it’s uncool, but what if someone had publicly mocked me when I was in a vulnerable stage for it? Would I have stopped saying it, as I did when someone just talked to me about it?

            And the Fedoras one is about 100x worse.

            • Then a friend was like, “You just sound like an asshole” and I stopped. But it happened privately, and I stopped and have talked about it publicly in an attempt to be clear about the fact that it’s uncool, but what if someone had publicly mocked me when I was in a vulnerable stage for it? Would I have stopped saying it, as I did when someone just talked to me about it?
              Exactly. We are now at a point where people that want to make a name for themselves will try to make such moments public. Yes they might be a jerk and yes ideally they would not do/say such things but when you really get down to it, how much good does having such moments in public?

              More than likely it doesn’t do any good and the person that tries to make it a public display are either horribly misguided or are clearly doing it to make a name for themselves.

          • I’m not saying its not a problem. I’m skeptical of the efficacy of public mockery as a tool to remedy this. As well, I’m appalled that one person considers themselves enough of an authority to determine who should be so mocked, especially when many choices have little to do with actual Nice Guyism.

            Again, what does ones beliefs on evolution have to do with being a Nice Guy? I’ve read profiles where women have actually stated that the Earth is bigger than the Sun. Should I put them on a tumblr?
            Here’s a way to check on whether or not public mockery based on the judgment of a small select group is okay or not. Do the same to another group and see how they react.

            Simply put someone go make a tumblr about the way horrific and incorrect ways that women act on OK Cupid and see how quickly the same people that were tripping over themselves to call out guys turn around and scream the bloodiest of murder.

            I commented below on what supposedly made one of the guys on the site a Nice Guy and the selected question that supposedly made him a bad guy (in short it seems that a guy thinking that to him personally abortion should not be an option in accidental pregnancy is a sign that he doesn’t respect women).

            • Unless he is a trans guy, then yeah, he isn’t talking about the abortion of a fetus inside of him, so he is talking about violating someone else’s bodily integrity by forcing them to carry a fetus to term. Even in cases where he only dates people with a similar ideology, whether someone considers abortion a viable option can change drastically once it is no longer an abstract question. His only ethically sound option while holding that opinion is to only have sex with people who do not have uteruses until he agrees with someone to immediately start a family.

        • “I appreciate your answer, but I think you might be underestimating just how pervasive the Nice GUY TM thing is. Like, a lot of guys think sex is an equation. That is, if I do Flowers + Listen + Say I’m a Nice Guy + Be Patient + Hear complaints about ex-boyfriends + Drive her to/from places = sex for me!!!”

          So is it too much to ask that women not accept the flowers, and the extra attention, and the sympathetic ear, and the rides, (etc, etc) when they’re coming from a man she isn’t interested in? Or at very least to make her lack of interest known? Is there any responsibility on women to not benefit from these attempts at earning sex from them, or are women free to enjoy the benefits of men trying to win them over and then act shocked and indignant when a man is upset that his attempts have not won her over?

          Or are we men to believe that women really are just so oblivious that they don’t know it’s going on?

          • Right? It would be nice if just once a woman could tell a “Nice Guy”, “you know I appreciate all these things you do for me, but you should stop, and need to stop because it’s not healthy for you or me. I don’t want to lead you on by thinking that all your attention is going to get us to a romantic place because it won’t. We can still be friends, but if you chose to no longer be my friend I respect that decision.”

            Instead what happens most of the time is the woman benefits from the poor guy’s attention, she never declines it, and judging from what I’ve read in these threads reacts with righteous indignation if they guy ever chooses to end the friendship (because OMG! it’s such “shocking” realization that the guy wanted more than just platonic friendship).

            • But then they couldn’t enjoy all the perks of being chased and then accuse men of “thinking they are entitled to sex!”.

              Maybe, just maybe, some men get pissed off that women sit back and allow them to invest time, energy, and money into something the woman knows from day one isn’t going to work out.

            • “Maybe, just maybe, some men get pissed off that women sit back and allow them to invest time, energy, and money into something the woman knows from day one isn’t going to work out.”

              I wonder how many play innocent by asserting they don’t realize the guy likes them. Or do they think a man giving them gifts, extra attention, etc that he doesn’t give others means he simply views her as a friend? I’ve known women who would milk this, users, I think they’re the ones that cause the most resentment, at least they did in me. I’ve been attracted to female friends but never felt any of the annoyance when they treated me with respect, didn’t use me for comfort, etc. Infact the way I dropped a lot of my bitterness over women was to get rid of the users n hang around the decent ones instead (which were hard to find at first, especially when you’re young and people are still immature).

              Women do realize that these men’s resentment, etc doesn’t just magically appear from nowhere right? It’s unfair of course to be lumped in with bad women, but why do I not see anywhere near as much focus on the bad women as there is for the men? Are there articles in existence by feminists that even address these women that use n abuse men? Telling them to quit treating others like shit? I see plenty addressing male’s bad behaviour, but I’d love to see some addressing female’s bad behaviour too because these issues are all inter-connected. Just like I am lumped in at times because of other bad men’s behaviour, just like these innocent nice guy ™’s are lumped in with the misogynist assholes. Many people have a fetish for lumping in people by groups which causes generalizations n attitudes towards them that are unfair.

              An article by women, telling other women to not use men for attention, resources, etc would be great. Let them know it causes the bullshit and resentment to grow n spread, especially in those who are already hurtin. As a man I am pissed off at guys that add to the bullshit n resentment against men, are women also feeling that way towards the other women?

          • Tim Margheim says:

            A few thoughts.

            1.) If she says “be patient”, then that sure sounds like leading him on. You have a point there.
            2.) If the guy has told her that his purpose is to develop a romantic relationship, then you have a point. (Though it’s different if she;s told him it’s not going to happen.)
            3.) If we’re talking about the guy doing things that go beyond just the actions of a good friend, then you have a point. (Though that can be hard to judge, and different people can reasonably have different concepts of what counts as “beyond just the actions of a good friend”. To some extent.)

            On the other hand:
            4.) If a guy is acting like a good friend, he can expect no more than good friendship in return. Don’t you agree?
            5.) If a guy is actually doing “nice guy” things simply in order to achieve a sexual relationship with her, then he is not a nice guy. He’s a guy who’s acting nice with motivations other than being nice for its own sake. Right?

            • 4.) If a guy is acting like a good friend, he can expect no more than good friendship in return. Don’t you agree?

              That would make sense except for the common social narrative, which comes primarily from women, that the way to a woman’s heart is by being her friend. All of the traits that we associate with friendship are the very things many women say they want in a potential partner. If men are told to be women’s friends first before ever hoping for something more, is not rather hypocritical for women to call foul for men doing exactly that?

              5.) If a guy is actually doing “nice guy” things simply in order to achieve a sexual relationship with her, then he is not a nice guy. He’s a guy who’s acting nice with motivations other than being nice for its own sake. Right?

              No. The key word here is “relationship”. If the person, man or woman, befriended someone solely to have sex with them, and after doing so once had no further interest in that person, that would make them not a nice person. If someone pursues a friendship with someone they like in the hopes that it will become a sexual relationship, that is pretty much how dating works.

              I continue to marvel at the double bind men are put in: if they are direct about their sexual interests, they are creeps. If they are indirect about their sexual interests, they are losers. If they follow the script women feed them to the letter, they have “motivations other than being nice for its own sake”.

            • Bay Area Guy says:

              I continue to marvel at the double bind men are put in: if they are direct about their sexual interests, they are creeps. If they are indirect about their sexual interests, they are losers. If they follow the script women feed them to the letter, they have “motivations other than being nice for its own sake”.

              This reminds me of a conversation that some of my friends and I had with one of our female friends.

              Basically, she was saying that the way a guy can express interest and convince her to accept him as a boyfriend is for him to respect her, show that he’s interested in her for reasons other than looks/sex (not that she was much of a prize catch), and overall connect with her emotionally.

              And YET, at the same time, she said that upon meeting a guy, she can very quickly determine whether he’s boyfriend or friend material.

              WTF?!

              So yeah, he just has to successfully emotionally connect with her and demonstrate that he respects her for reasons other than sex, all while making sure to express explicit interest in her as a girlfriend in a short amount of time.

              Seems easy enough…

              I would say that her views are fairly common among women.

              To all women and feminists out there who complain about guys griping about the friendzone, and who are intent to mislabel such complaints as “entitlement” and all that jazz, I have some words:

              If you want to stop this whole phenomenon of guys denouncing the friendzone, then it is on YOU to be more honest about what you want from men. When you complain about “male entitlement” and how men who act nice and try to be friends are not really nice or being dishonest in order to get in a woman’s pants, they’re only really mirroring the kind of mixed and contradictory messages that women give to men all the time.

            • Tim Margheim says:

              For myself, I’ve never been in that double bind.

              I’ve certainly heard the idea taught that friendship is a good foundation for a romantic relationship. I agree with that idea–any good serious romantic relationship is going to be a friendship at its core, along with particular kinds of intimacy (physical and emotional), built-up trust, etc. And I’ve always preferred romantic relationships that grow out of friendship first. On the other hand, I asked out my current (>1-year) girlfriend when we didn’t know each other well, and we’ve built our friendship in the context of romance. That works too, as long as you can keep the emotional high & physical intimacy from leading to a friendship based in illusion about each other.

              On the other hand, I also know that if I present myself simply as wanting to be someone’s friend, and they accept my friendship, then what they’ve done is reciprocate. They haven’t used me–they’ve accepted what I offered. If I later try to bring romance into the picture, and they don’t reciprocate that, then OK. If I got angry at that point, if I felt cheated, then that would be messed up.

              (At this point, I honestly can’t tell if you’re disagreeing with that.)

              But if I told her I wanted to date her, and she said “be patient, let’s just be friends for now”, then sure, that’s leading me on / keeping me on the hook. And if a particular woman told me the best way to her heart was through friendship, then maybe that would be leading me on–particularly if that was her response to me asking her out.

              But if I blame a new woman who never said anything of the sort–a women who simply accepted my offer of friendship–if I blame her on the basis of me having heard the “script” you’re talking about from multiple women in the past, then I’m being irrational. She’s not responsible for other women’s social dysfunction.

              Anyway, even the wording “The way to a woman’s heart is through friendship” is a proverb. It’s best-practice recommendation. It’s not a promise of something you earn the right to expect. Friendship is a good foundation for romance, but romance isn’t bought with friendship. If you’re saying you heard it that way, then that’s messed up–either it’s messed up on your part, or if you heard correctly then it was messed up on the part of whoever said it and meant it that way.

              The key word here is “relationship”. If the person, man or woman, befriended someone solely to have sex with them, and after doing so once had no further interest in that person, that would make them not a nice person.

              Right. Hence, I used the word “simply”. If their only motivation was to get sex–if they don’t genuinely care for the other person–then they’re not a nice person. They were never actually the other person’s friend–they just acted like it.

              If someone pursues a friendship with someone they like in the hopes that it will become a sexual relationship, that is pretty much how dating works.

              I also had a third case in mind: If someone pursues a friendship with someone they like in the hopes that it will become a sexual relationship, and then reacts with indignation or anger or blame if they’re turned down, then they are not a nice person. And that definitely happens, too.

            • The problem is that most nice guys do not just want to be someone’s friend; they want a relationship and they are following the social script you described above to get that result. You can argue that social scripts do not apply in every individual case, however, it is unlikely that most people are so socially inept that they would not know someone has more than a platonic interest in them. One can then understand the frustration of having a group of people tell you what to do to get their attention only to have them constantly ignore you when you do it.

              One cannot say “friendship is a good foundation for romance” and then say “‘the way to a woman’s heart is through friendship” is [...] best-practice recommendation”. Either it is good advice or it is a bunch of nonsense. That is where the confusion lies. Men are told to befriend women because it helps in getting a romantic relationship only to be told that it really does not help at all and they are bad people for trying it and complaining about their failed attempts.

              As for your third case, I think these situations should be taken in context. In context, men’s reactions may be reasonable. That said, I also think that our lack of empathy for these men and the terrible relationship advice we give them plays a major role in their negative responses.

              Let us flip the situation: men tell women that the way to attract them is to look attractive. Scores of women go through hell to do this only to find that most men, particularly the men they are interested in, will not give them a first glance. Do we blame women for being upset over being misled? No. So why is that when women feed men the same misleading nonsense the fault lies with the men?

              I do not think many men believe friendship guarantees a romantic relationship, but I do think they believe it can lead to that and it is the best way to make their interest known. And clearly plenty of women think the same thing because many of them prefer their relationships to start that way.

            • Tim Margheim says:

              The problem is that most nice guys do not just want to be someone’s friend; they want a relationship and they are following the social script you described above to get that result.

              Just to be sure, you mean the script you described, right?

              I question “most”. I can buy “most guys have had a least one female friend they’re also interested in”–I’ve had several. But not “In most man/woman friendships, the guy wants it to be more.” But I could be wrong about that (especially if we’re talking about heavily-invested friendships), and it’s not important to my point anyway.

              Anyway:
              Yeah, that’s a problem. It’s a combined problem of messed-up expectations on the part of some men, and dysfunctional patterns taught in some movies/TV and taught by some women.

              Regardless, “I’m in the wrong place”‘s answer to your question was spot-on–depending on the specifics of the situation. Depending on the context. If you’re talking about actions that are simply the actions of a friend, then yes it’s too much to ask for her not to accept friendship from a man she isn’t interested in. That would be pretty absurd, and it wouldn’t be reasonable for you to hold all woman accountable for dysfunctional movies or the statements of some women.

              But, if we’re talking about attention other than “good friend” kinds of things (and the flowers you mentioned are often an example of that), then no, it’s not too much to ask her not to accept that attention. At least, if it becomes clear to her, it’s kind & good for her to make some effort not to encourage hopeless expectations.

              One cannot say “friendship is a good foundation for romance” and then say “‘the way to a woman’s heart is through friendship” is [...] best-practice recommendation”. Either it is good advice or it is a bunch of nonsense.

              I honestly have no idea what you’re saying there.

              Unless you think that the wording of “the way to a woman’s heart is through friendship” implies not just a necessary (and even helpful) condition, but also a sufficient condition?

              Men are told to befriend women because it helps in getting a romantic relationship only to be told that it really does not help at all and they are bad people for trying it and complaining about their failed attempts.

              I’m pretty sure that if the people who made the Tumblr weren’t dealing with cases along the lines of “shallow bitch” or “there must be something wrong with them, if they don’t want to date me after I’ve been a good friend”, then they wouldn’t be overreacting to cases where the guy is only complaining of disappointment.

              And yes, people need to respond to the dysfunction with discernment for what’s appropriat in each case. Actual condemnation needs to be reserved for cases where the guy actually is reacting to his disappointment/frustration with asshole behavior & language. Education should be a priority.

              As for your third case, I think these situations should be taken in context.

              Would you mind looking back at my first comment, with the five points? Can you see how that’s exactly what I was attempting to do?

              I do not think many men believe friendship guarantees a romantic relationship, but I do think they believe it can lead to that and it is the best way to make their interest known.

              If that means “the best context in which to make their interest known”–as in, they eventually tell a friend “I’m interested in you”–then they’re arguably correct. (At the very least, it’s often a good context in which to do that.)

              If that means the guy is acting like a good friend and hoping that she’ll initiate a change to romance, then it’s a bit silly, but it will work occasionally. It’s fine, as long as he doesn’t get pissed off at her if she remains uninterested in anything other than friendship.

              If that means that they think women should know that a guy who is presenting himself as a friend is also interested in her… Then that’s messed up. It’s extremely silly. At the very least, we need to teach them otherwise.

            • Just to be sure, you mean the script you described, right?

              No, I meant this: “[...]any good serious romantic relationship is going to be a friendship at its core, along with particular kinds of intimacy (physical and emotional), built-up trust, etc.”

              Unless you think that the wording of “the way to a woman’s heart is through friendship” implies not just a necessary (and even helpful) condition, but also a sufficient condition?

              What I am saying is that you are trying to have it both ways. On one hand you are saying that friendship is necessary for building a relationship, but on the other you are saying it really does not matter. That is a confusing message. If a friendship is an essential part of winning a woman’s heart, why attack men for befriending women to do that?

              I’m pretty sure that if the people who made the Tumblr weren’t dealing with cases along the lines of “shallow bitch” or “there must be something wrong with them, if they don’t want to date me after I’ve been a good friend”, then they wouldn’t be overreacting to cases where the guy is only complaining of disappointment.

              I am pretty sure that if the people who were mocked on the Tumblr blog were not dealing with cases along the lines of “I can’t find any nice guys” or “there must be something wrong with me if men don’t want to befriend me before dating me” they would not overreact to cases where the woman only want platonic relationships.

              This is a two-person problem, and I think many women and most feminists miss that. These men’s reactions do not happen in a vacuum. They are direct responses to the way women respond, or do not respond, to them.

              If that means that they think women should know that a guy who is presenting himself as a friend is also interested in her… Then that’s messed up. It’s extremely silly. At the very least, we need to teach them otherwise.

              As I noted before, I find it hard to believe most people are so socially inept that they do not realize when someone is romantically interested in them, and I think the idea that women feign ignorance about men’s interest by “friendzoning” them is what prompts some men’s anger.

            • Tim Margheim says:

              By the way, do you really mean “if they are direct about their sexual interests, they are creeps”? As in, you ask a women out on a date upfront and her response is “you’re a creep”?

              I have personally seen guys who acted like creeps and were blind to the creepy aspects of their own behavior. I’m sure they felt victimized. On the flip side, I’ve heard of women who had a hair-trigger unreasonable “that’s creepy” reaction.

              Let’s not generalize that to “women”, though. Even if that actually is your experience, your experience isn’t other people’s experience. And each new woman you meet doesn’t bear the responsibility for any social dysfunction in the past women in your life.

              I can’t quite tell if that’s what you’re saying or not.

            • Tim Margheim says:

              Oh, one last thing.

              4.) If a guy is acting like a good friend, he can expect no more than good friendship in return. Don’t you agree?

              That would make sense except for the common social narrative [...]

              Will you agree that’s how it should work? That we should all proclaim and defend it from the rooftops, men and women together?

            • I'm in the wrong place says:

              “That would make sense except for the common social narrative, which comes primarily from women, that the way to a woman’s heart is by being her friend. All of the traits that we associate with friendship are the very things many women say they want in a potential partner.”

              But, here, the traits needed for friendship are a *necessary but not sufficient* set of qualities for a relationship. So, for instance, my husband is honest, interesting, funny, cool, and quirky. So are a bunch of my friends. But I only fuck my husband because (a) the whole marriage thing; and (b) I’m not attracted to my friends.

              I don’t know where you’re getting this “friendship leads to relationship” thing. I’ve never heard any of my friends say that. I mean, I’ve seen it in movies and TV, but they’re all fictional. Generally, people have to be attracted to one another, and that’s usually a pretty quick to determine process.

            • Apparently I’m fictional as well. All but one of my intimate relationships began as a friendship and the attraction developed over time as we got to know one another.

            • Tim Margheim says:

              Huh. Me too. All but one of mine. Sort of. In two of them, a friend turned me down initially then changed her mind. In another, an acquaintance and I dated for a couple months before she was actually attracted to me. (We were both upfront about our feelings during that time. And it took me that long to develop something like a crush, too.)

              “I’m in the wrong place” does have a point, though. Maybe we should say that there’s “initial attraction”, which a pretty quick-to-determine process, and then there’s attraction that develops over time. Both definitely exist, and are reasonably common.

              Anyway, the problem is with “I should expect friendship to lead to romantic relationship”, not with “Friendship can lead to romantic relationship”.

            • I'm in the wrong place says:

              Completely agree. Many people are initially attracted to one another but choose to be friends (for whatever reason). But I suspect that it is really unusual to develop an intimate relationship with someone you met and categorised as purely platonic.

            • But I suspect that it is really unusual to develop an intimate relationship with someone you met and categorised as purely platonic.

              Then I must be really unusual, in addition to being fictional, because I’ve been in multiple intimate relationships that began as purely platonic friendships and evolved into something deeper over time.

              In each case, I wasn’t attracted to the other person initially. At all. And never expected I would be. But spending time getting to know each of them changed my perception and my view.

            • I'm in the wrong place says:

              Then, sir, my hat is off to you.

            • Count me in too. Every long term relationship (except my first and that was it’s own horror story) I’ve had started as friendship. I’ve mentioned before that women just flat out don’t like me when we first me. I’m not tall or athletic, I don’t have any “lines”, and I’m not good conversing with people I’ve just met of either gender. The women in question were all forced to spend time with me either through work or mutual friendships, and of course since they actually were forced to get to know the real me they all became attracted to me.

              My wife flat out told me, “I didnt find you attractive at all when we first me”. After being around me for eight years and realizing I was a really good guy became attracted to me because she knew I was a really good guy.

              Since women decide on their attraction to a man within seconds of meeting him what hope (generally) do men have of actually getting to show the real them if they aren’t a smooth talker that can even get a first date out of her. In reality friendship is the best path to relationships, but it’s difficult to convince women of that.

          • I'm in the wrong place says:

            The sex as an equation thing is troubling to me because it eliminates women’s *desire* from sex. Just because you accept a lift (or whatever) from someone, it does not mean that you’ve led them to believe you will be having sex with them. That’s fucking weird.

            The Nice GuyTM thing, like much of life, is best summed up by this XKCD comic: http://xkcd.com/513/

            To answer your specific question of: “So is it too much to ask that women not accept the flowers, and the extra attention, and the sympathetic ear, and the rides, (etc, etc) when they’re coming from a man she isn’t interested in? Or at very least to make her lack of interest known?”
            Yes. It is too much to ask. Because if a person says that they’re a “friend” then, you know what, friends do stuff for each other like give lifts and have conversations. All without the expectation of sex (I know, right?). Unless someone makes their intentions clear, like, ‘Hey, I really like you and I would like to get to know you better. Why don’t we go out on a date?’ There is very little ambiguity in that. Obviously, there’s a huge risk of rejection, which is why people go the friends angle. Less risk of rejection.

            Dude, if you’re thinking you would rather not give someone a lift home if they’re not going to sleep with you, then just be honest and say so. Sure, they might think you’re a dick. But, ultimately, by attaching conditions to acts of kindness, you kind of are one.

            • “The sex as an equation thing is troubling to me because it eliminates women’s *desire* from sex. Just because you accept a lift (or whatever) from someone, it does not mean that you’ve led them to believe you will be having sex with them. That’s fucking weird.”

              Yes, the whole sex as an equation thing is also bother me as a guy. I want to have sex with woman who want to have sex with me because she likes me and she find me sexy and hot. Not because I gave her something and she give me sex as a reward . I don’t know, I just feel the whole being nice and get sex is not interesting to me. If we have sex, then it would just a pity sex, not hot sex. And its also eliminates men’s role as a desirable gender. Men have to do something to be sexy while women need to appear sexy. Its not appealing to me. I want to be sexy and desirable guy to my partner.

              But I think its the whole another case when it comes to many2 nice guys who only want relationship, not sex. Being nice = get love, is not as ridiculous as being nice = get sex. Although both of them are still pitiful. But I think many lonely nice guys only want relationship, even if its without sex.

            • I'm in the wrong place says:

              Preach, man. Preach. When you hear men or women talking about how they train/earn their way through sex, they seem less like a functioning couple and more like a pet and its owner. Ugh.

              My husband feels very much the way you do (in wanting to feel desired; as opposed to wanting to earn sex through a series of brownie points and whiny complaints) and I really respect that. Which makes him principled, and sexy, and all sorts of cool.

              I agree with you that some guys may want a relationship even more than sex but the same issue still applies: they are dependent on someone else for validation. And often in a way that it will never be given/achieved. I think you really have to comfortable with who you are (and comfortable in some people rejecting who you are) to be ready for a relationship.

              Anyway, rock on.

            • Curious.
              How is “wanting to feel desired” *not* being dependent on someone else for validation?
              Isn’t being comfortable with who you are, in many ways depending on getting the validation you need?
              Or, if you consider it a slippery slope, where do you draw the line?

            • “Yes. It is too much to ask. Because if a person says that they’re a “friend” then, you know what, friends do stuff for each other like give lifts and have conversations. All without the expectation of sex (I know, right?). Unless someone makes their intentions clear, like, ‘Hey, I really like you and I would like to get to know you better. Why don’t we go out on a date?’ There is very little ambiguity in that. Obviously, there’s a huge risk of rejection, which is why people go the friends angle. Less risk of rejection.

              Dude, if you’re thinking you would rather not give someone a lift home if they’re not going to sleep with you, then just be honest and say so. Sure, they might think you’re a dick. But, ultimately, by attaching conditions to acts of kindness, you kind of are one.”

              The guy you just met who is taking an hour out of his day to give you a ride, or spending money to take you out, or listening to you gripe about another guy and telling you how stupid that guy is for not seeing how wonderful you are — you’re going to tell me you think he does that for everybody? You’re going to tell me you can’t tell when guys are doing extra things for you because they’re interested in you?

              Sounds to me like you just pull the “Men just want to get into my pants!” card so you can accept the benefits of them trying to win you over without guilt of taking advantage of them. In most cases, the guys trying to win you over *aren’t* just looking for sex, because men (*GASP*) actually want emotional connection and companionship too.

              “Unless someone makes their intentions clear, like, ‘Hey, I really like you and I would like to get to know you better. Why don’t we go out on a date?’ There is very little ambiguity in that. Obviously, there’s a huge risk of rejection, which is why people go the friends angle. Less risk of rejection.”

              Yeah, I’ve done this before – almost every time the reaction has been something like “That was very direct” or “Oh.. well I don’t know what to say, you just kind of put that out there.”

              Men aren’t allowed to be direct because direct is bad. Direct makes girls uncomfortable. Direct puts her on the spot and she doesn’t know how to handle that.

              “Dude, if you’re thinking you would rather not give someone a lift home if they’re not going to sleep with you, then just be honest and say so. Sure, they might think you’re a dick. But, ultimately, by attaching conditions to acts of kindness, you kind of are one”

              Aww, cute, you found some passive aggressive way to accuse me of being a dick by “attaching conditions to acts of kindness”. I bet you feel real good about that one, honey. :)

              So do all women have the right to think men are dicks when men don’t do extra favors for them? Or is it just you who gets to say “That guy won’t give me a ride home? It must be because I wont fuck him – he’s such a dick!!”?

            • Really, could it possibly be that maybe a guy wouldn’t want to keep spending time with someone who he is developing feelings for, and getting his hopes up about, if she isn’t interested in him?

              You’re certainly in the wrong place if you’re going to keep the mindset that everything men do when it comes to women is just to have sex with them, and as such you can take advantage of men and then write them off with “You’re just mad that I won’t fuck you!”

            • I'm in the wrong place says:

              Drew, I seriously don’t think that guys are just hanging out with women because they want sex. Quite the opposite. I have many male friends. It is entirely platonic. And that’s pretty obvious given that I’ve been married for a few years, and my husband is awesome.

              I don’t think we’re working at cross purposes here. I don’t think men owe women anything, like lifts home or flowers. Not at all. But, if someone offers it, I think anyone is entitled to take up the offer as stated.

              If it’s offered with the purpose of really only being worthwhile if there’s something more attached to it, that’s also fine. But the Nice Guy should be upfront about this. Not necessarily overly direct, if that’s not your style. You could go, ‘Hey, I could give you a lift home and we could grab some dinner on the way. Does that suit your plans for tonight?’ That attaches one-on-one time to an act of kindness. It’s also far more transparent in the actual intentions. Everyone wins from that.

              “Men aren’t allowed to be direct because direct is bad. Direct makes girls uncomfortable. Direct puts her on the spot and she doesn’t know how to handle that.”
              That is so condescending. Women can handle directness, as well as a range of other adjectives. Obviously, context is needed. No one should just approach a stranger and demand blowjobs. But after chatting with someone for a while (to make sure they’re not a white supremacist or something), saying, ‘Talking to you has been great. I’d love to do dinner sometime,’ is not crazy. It’s just a suggestion. A suggestion that can be taken up if someone reciprocates the interest. Or not, which is also fine.

              Because rejection isn’t about you. It’s largely about the circumstances of the person you asked. Everyone, however stunningly attractive or successful or clever, gets turned down from time to time.

            • “Drew, I seriously don’t think that guys are just hanging out with women because they want sex. Quite the opposite. I have many male friends. It is entirely platonic. And that’s pretty obvious given that I’ve been married for a few years, and my husband is awesome.”

              I was speaking more to the dynamic where a man meets you and starts going out of his way to do things for you. It’s not always “I’ll do this and that and they she’ll have sex with me!” Often it’s “I’ll do this and that and then she’ll realize I’m a good guy and fall in love with me and we’ll be happy together!”

              “I don’t think we’re working at cross purposes here. I don’t think men owe women anything, like lifts home or flowers. Not at all. But, if someone offers it, I think anyone is entitled to take up the offer as stated”

              I just think there’s a line that gets crossed where it’s obvious that the lift home or the flowers aren’t just a lift home or flowers – they’re an attempt at starting a relationship. And yes, I agree that often both men and women don’t communicate clearly or directly. But when one person is doing the giving, and the other person is the beneficiary of that giving, I think the beneficiary has just as much, if not more, reason to call out what’s going on. Especially if the person being chased is actually soliciting those favors (which I’ve seen happen quite a few times).

              I agree that guys should be more upfront (see my waiter/chef analogy earlier on this thread). But I’m not the only guy on here who has had experiences where women have either implicitly or explicitly said that being direct is bad.

              ” But after chatting with someone for a while (to make sure they’re not a white supremacist or something), saying, ‘Talking to you has been great. I’d love to do dinner sometime,’ is not crazy. It’s just a suggestion. A suggestion that can be taken up if someone reciprocates the interest. Or not, which is also fine.”

              But that’s the thing – it’s never “she can reciprocate or not, which is fine.” I’ve heard plenty of times that “Well, I don’t really like this guy, but he asked me out to dinner and I felt bad saying no – so we’re getting dinner, but just as friends.” Which opens the door to him thinking its a date, her trying to indirectly make it clear that it isn’t a date, him getting upset that she accepted a date invitation when she wasn’t interested, and her accusing him of thinking buying a meal entitles him to sex.

            • I’ve known a few men who were very strategic in their approach. Without stating it, I think their strategy was to overwhelm a woman with kindeness to either demonstrate their dateability (kindness=dateworthy) or to wear down her defenses. Either strategy is pretty dicky in that it doesn’t recognize the woman’s desire or lack as part of the deal, and it perverts “kindness” into some intrumental thing you do as a means to an end. Definitely dicky.

              However, if a man makes it clear that he’s interested in a woman and behaves more like a boyfriend than a friend, he might just be in (lust or limerance or whatever) over his head. When he clearly states his desire and a woman doesn’t feel the same, the decent thing for her to do is to make her lack of feelings clear. Not doing so can be pretty dicky on her part.

              While it’s a little gray, a man giving a woman flowers is pretty potent communication that he has romantic feelings for her. A ride or a conversation, no. Flowers, yes. A guy gives you flowers and you’re not in a defined romantic relationship or not interested in starting one, then tell him so. If he persists, that’s his problem.

            • My comment is a response to “in the wrong place”.

            • ” Either strategy is pretty dicky in that it doesn’t recognize the woman’s desire or lack as part of the deal, .”

              I disagree with this part. In most cases, it’s about trying to gain or earn a woman’s desire through acts of kindness and/or generosity.

            • One man I’m thinking of consistently applied this strategy with women who weren’t interested. I don’t mean indifferent, but clearly not interested. Coincidentally, I knew a woman who used the same strategy.

              Point being, in most cases there is a spark (or tingle) or there isn’t. It can develop, but I don’t think it can be elicited through good acts.

            • I'm in the wrong place says:

              Just as a clarification, you can’t earn desire or sex. It’s not the way healthy relationships work.

            • I totally agree, actually. I just disagreed with Adrian’s point that the guys who try to earn a woman’s desire are not recognizing the issue of her desire.

            • I'm in the wrong place says:

              I’ve been given flowers by a bunch of my female friends as well as (male) work colleagues. Unless it comes with some kind of note or something equally indicative, I wouldn’t assume romantic overtures.

              You’ve got to appreciate, women are just as insecure as men. Many might think, ‘Hey, flowers means he’s totally into me, right?’ but then you second-guess with ‘But then he would have said something more obvious or directly asked me on a date or whatever’ so you can get mixed signals for a number of reasons. I assume the guy moving softly because he doesn’t want to seem weird and a woman second guessing herself would be pretty common. These, incidentally, are the kinds of things that feminist theory and practice tries to redress. Women should be much more up front with their desires. Men should not take any rejection of overtures as a personal failure. Man, would we save time if that happened.

            • Would you say then men should indicate interest very early in friendship or just avoid friendship and ask out strangers?

              So much seems to conflict with other things I’ve heard from women who want men to like them for them, and to do that you need to get to know them which usually means friendship (or creepy stalker shit that is not ok). We’d have to stick to online dating or becoming friends with someone before asking them out to know more about their personality, asking out strangers could only really be based on looks alone and a 1-4hour max reading of their body language to guess what they are like? Maybe asking friends about their mutual friend?

            • I'm in the wrong place says:

              Good question and, unfortunately, I have no answer. I think it depends on how risk-averse people are. If you’re risk averse, you probably prefer to get to know someone before you’re in a situation where there’s a lot of social pressure (e.g. dating). Or, if someone is high on the personality trait of Openness to New Experience, then you could probably ask them out and if you seemed funny or interesting enough, then they’d do it just to see what happens next.

              The thing is, I really don’t think the friend-zone exists. In that, I think that people who have been “FZed” were never relationship prospects in the first place. They were always friends (which is not a shitty outcome; people aren’t usually friends with those who are considered dicks).
              But, then, you find out a friend is into you in a romantic way and – because you like them and you care for them – you don’t want to reject them outright, so you might say, ‘I value our friendship more than a possible relationship.’ Because you don’t want to be hurtful and say, ‘There was never a chance because of [whatever].’

              But, honestly, I think the best approach varies from person to person. There appear to be guys on this board who are only comfortable with relationships after they’ve known someone for a while; I imagine there are many women who feel the same way. I guess you just try and figure out what your preference is and seek people who are comfortable with the same pace.

            • I might differ from others in my definition of friendzone, where the women treats him a bit more than a friend but isn’t a lover, will use him for comfort, etc. Treating him like a sexless bf, the responsibilities? of a relationship without the sex. May also extend to those who say they feel the friendship is too valuable to risk on a relationship, as in they’re afraid of it not working out but I dunno how common that is and it often sounds like an excuse to not date. Maybe the most damaging aspect of it is that it treats the guy as if he is an asexual being, treated like a brother, not a friend, some have even been told by women that the women didn’t think they even got aroused!

              I suppose it also describes when someone takes too logn to show interest and she feels he’s just a friend, maybe feelings get blocked out or fail to spark if he isn’t showing interest early enough and instead she see’s him just as a friend. Would this happen at all or often?

              “‘I value our friendship more than a possible relationship.’”
              But lying about it gives hope for the future, that he can change your mind to seeing the value in both. Very bad idea to do.

              “They were always friends (which is not a shitty outcome; people aren’t usually friends with those who are considered dicks).”
              It gets frustrating at a point, I don’t really need more female friends atm, I want a girlfriend though. Being just friends when you’re a sexual + romantic being get’s annoying, though for me personally I just always meet women who are taken already. :P

        • FlyingKal says:

          I appreciate your answer, but I think you might be underestimating just how pervasive the Nice GUY TM thing is. Like, a lot of guys think sex is an equation. That is, if I do Flowers + Listen + Say I’m a Nice Guy + Be Patient + Hear complaints about ex-boyfriends + Drive her to/from places = sex for me!!!

          Actually, I have never met I guy in real life who had that view on getting sex, except for the few for whom it actually worked that way…

        • If I took romantic movies as a sign, it’d be that women want to cheat and that true love comes from cheating on your fiance. Or I’d just look at movies as I dunno…movies?

          What I did take from movies and other people is the romantic view of falling in love with your best friend, or at least being good friends with a woman before dating them. I have a feeling this probably doesn’t work for many women and chances of being seen as a friend vs a potential lover increases (zomg friendzone). Ladies, does not showing you’re interested in more than friends end up making you feel more like the person is a brother and off-limits to dating or does it not matter that much?

          How about everyone, both male n female start being more upfront with who they like n ask each other out? Half these issues come from expecting 1 gender to do the initiating. Also there is a problem of this idea of winning someones love that probably doesn’t help. So these guys try romantic gestures that they’ve been told to do, and when they continually fail they sit there wondering why. It’s sad really.

  26. The blog appears to have been taken down now
    http://niceguysofokc.tumblr.com/
    anyone know why? (hopefully tumblr themselves pulled the plug on the odious project)

    • Mr Supertypo says:

      Jamesq: I will not get surprised if OKCupid reacted. Afterall the blog were stealing pics from OKcupid site, and placing OKcupids customers in display. There is no way in heaven or earth that somebody can make me believe that this is a ethically, morally and legal thing to do.
      Imo I think people reported the blog to Tumblr and Okcupid and it would be nice if hope the owner/s of the blog will get their account closed with a nice law suit. The optimal thing would be if the victims of that blog sued the owners and demanded reparations.

  27. You have some points, but your example of bullying on NiceGuysOfOKC for no reason is a bit flawed. I read through a bunch of the reblogs of it. Judging from the rest of the blog, that guy is being mocked for his second to last sentence:

    “I was always in the friend zone.”

    They’ve pretty clearly established the “friend zone” as one of the concepts they find offensive and worthy of mockery. Now, we can debate whether it’s ok to mock people for mentioning it, but we cannot do that while ignoring that it’s something people find offensive in the first place.

    If you don’t think it’s an offensive concept, fine. But at least acknowledge that a lot of people do find it offensive.

    • But why do “incorrect” opinions on non sexual issues (ie believing in dinosaurs) or “questionable” fashion choices (fedoras?) deserve sanction?

      Ive also read a lot of snark (not on the site but elsewhere) about facial hair. At what point does “taking offence” become just being mean?

  28. I feel that to lay all of the blame on the NGOKC is to completely ignore the general nature of “dating sites.” And that is to always “shop up” from both male and female perspectives. Female friends who join these sites are looking for the best and the brightest, and that means that they’re looking for the man who’s most fit, best looking, has the most impressive salary, and ideally a full head of hair. I’ll admit it: had I come across one serious (ex-)significant other on a dating site, I wouldn’t have considered responding to him had he contacted me. Physically, he wasn’t my type at all. He wasn’t in my age range. But, when we met in person, that “something” about him — including his genuine niceness — shone through, and I was an instant goner.

    You can have a heart of gold and be worth the long-term investment that you say you are worth. But the reality is that on dating sites, people typically judge each other on superficial features only. It’s like a virtual bar, only no one has on beer goggles. No wonder nice men — and nice women — begin to acquire an edge of resentment, and even privilege.

  29. In the whole history of the world, no female has ever given a man any accurate, constructive advice on how to attract other women sexually. Sure, they give useful advice on how to deal with a woman who is feeling strong sexual attraction, “Like just be yourself”. Which is useless if there is no tingle.
    Opinions vary as to why this is so. The best is probably that women in general have needed thru out history to extract resources from men they can never feel sexual attraction towards and having too much insight into their own true “gut” feelings would definitely get in their way.

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      If there is no tingle, why would you want to attract that woman? If she doesn’t have a tingle for you, or you don’t have it for her.

      You can be something other than yourself to get that tingle from her, but that will only lead to misery down the road. I’ve seen it dozens of times, mostly from women trying to get a guy’s attention, but a few times the other way around, too.

      • FlyingKal says:

        Joanna.
        I think you are misrepresenting and circumventing the issue with your answer.

        It’s not about wanting to be with someone without the tingle.
        It is about what it takes to get the tingle in the first place.

    • Tim Margheim says:

      In the whole history of the world, no female has ever given a man any accurate, constructive advice on how to attract other women sexually.

      Hyperbole aside: There’s no formula. Every person is different. I don’t expect my woman friends to know more than generalities that may or may not apply in any given situation.

      And some of them will come up with real stinkers when asked for relationship advice… Just like men will.

      Sure, they give useful advice on how to deal with a woman who is feeling strong sexual attraction, “Like just be yourself”. Which is useless if there is no tingle.

      Nope. Tingle develops over time, too.

      Note: “just be yourself” is much more likely to work if you are a genuinely good guy (for whom “being nice” is a sufficient reason to act nice)–not perfect, but well-intentioned, self-aware, and willing to consider constructive criticism and try to fix problems when appropriate. And if you are fun, and you have traits that the person in question admires. And if you combine both (1) being straightforward about your intentions, and (2) accepting and respecting her response.

      It’s also good to approach developing a relationship in a “relaxed but intentional” way. (Figuring out a good balance on that usually takes practice. That’s part of maturing.)

      Also, we all (men and women) have to accept that some people are just not going to be interested in us. Oh well, move on.

      They might make a quality friend who makes our lives better, though.

    • Tim Margheim says:

      Here’s some more good advice. I’d call it accurate and constructive. And it’s from a woman.

      Assuming you’re interested in a friend:

      Be a good friend, a true friend, who is legitimately there for her without an agenda. Don’t be opportunistic with your friendship, and don’t treat it as disposable if or when she does not express romantic interest in you. When you’re rejected, understand that it’s not because you’re “too nice,” or because she’s a “shallow bitch.” Sometimes things just don’t work out.

      And, for God’s sake, have a real personality that can be described without using the word “nice.” Have hobbies and interests and a job you care about, take pride in yourself. One of the best things David Wong writes in the article I linked to earlier is that being “nice” simply isn’t enough:

      [Women] won’t put it as bluntly as [Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross] does — society has trained us not to be this honest with people — but the equation is the same. “Nice guy? Who gives a shit? If you want to work here, close.”

      Women don’t care if you’re nice (well, they care, but not that much). There’s a guy down the street from the woman you like who’s just as nice, and he doesn’t whine all the time. She works with a guy who’s nice and, get this, funny, and who loves dogs, to boot. At the laundromat she runs into a nice guy who’s an avid jogger, takes his mom to brunch on Sundays, and has travelled across Europe and Asia. Expecting “niceness” to set you apart will never work, because it’s the lowest rung on the ladder of dateability.

      Note: Maybe you haven’t been falling into the traps she mentioned. If not, great. Plenty of men do.

    • Mr Supertypo says:

      Check out the female PUA teacher Kezia Noble. She gives genuine advices….

  30. Jacob, thanks for parenting a 35 year-old woman.

    Given what you wrote and how Greg responded to it, the right thing to do was apologize, explain that you misread his comment, and wait for his reply. I would think, given you professed concern for male survivors, it would bother you that Greg took your comments as minimizing his abuse. Apparently I am mistaken. My apologies.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This was a comment by CyberQuaker, on the post What if the ‘Nice Guys of OK Cupid is Harming Innocent People?’ [...]

  2. [...] to avoid being a creep. Hat tip to Emily! Is the Nice GuysTM of OK Cupid harming [...]

  3. [...] what remained of his good name lay in tatters, torn limb from limb by the Mindless Digital Mob – the same mob that has demolished innocent Men before – and by those who side themselves with the very same mainstream media outlets who led the charge [...]

  4. [...] at a code monkey conference. Another example of socio-pathological behavior, explained right here. I am not alone.   Footnotes: [1] “slutwalker”: a woman who attends or supports a [...]

  5. […] what remained of his good name lay in tatters, torn limb from limb by the Mindless Digital Mob – the same mob that has demolished innocent Men before – and by those who side themselves with the very same mainstream media outlets who led the charge […]

Speak Your Mind