Hat tip to Superglucose.
No. No. No. No.
We’ve been over this ad fucking nauseam. This degrading-ass stereotype that men are horny beast manchildren, interested only in food and sex and toys, their entire decision-making process taken over by their dicks, has been debunked fifty thousand times at least. And yet, somehow, like a vampire or a superhero or a Dalek, it refuses to motherfucking die.
I know how absolutely bizarre it seems to you, Daisy Doucheforbrains*, but men are not actually automations controlled by their cocks. Recent scientific research has suggested that, as strange as it seems, men have developed what could be termed primitive “emotions” and may even have the capability to develop strong feelings for people who– get this– are not on their favorite football team.
Seriously, Daisy Doucheforbrains, do you look out your shitcocking window? Because I do! And I will tell you what I see:
I see a socially awkward virgin who has turned down casual sex because he wants his first time to be meaningful.
I see a man who spent most of last night being snuggled by his ex-fuckbuddies while he cried about his ex-girlfriend, whom he still loves, getting a new boyfriend.
I see a guy who had three girlfriends, who all knew each other and wanted to have group sex, and broke up with two of them because he wanted to pursue a monogamous relationship with the third.
And that is literally the people who are in my apartment right now.
Imagine what the rest of the motherfucking cuntsucking cockbreathing world must look like.
Who the fuck even wants a relationship with someone who has to be bribed into having a relationship with them with sex? I mean, what the everloving hell? I would like to think I mean more to my partners than a hyper-advanced Fleshlight. Daisy Doucheforbrains might disagree, but in that case I hate to imagine her relationships:
“Hey, honey, we’re breaking up. I just got this sexbot. Just-like-human body heat and it moans and writhes and talks dirty and realistically contracts its vagina in orgasm. It has bigger tits than you and it never gets a headache! How cool is that?”
That is not how human fucking relationships work.
I cannot say how sick and tired I am of this objectifying, misandric, misogynistic, sex-negative, slut-shaming idea that relationships are some kind of trade, and sex is the currency of the realm, and how fed the fuck up I am with Daisy Doucheforbrains for spreading this shit.
A guy buys a girl drinks or dinner, and she pays him in pussy. A guy is exclusive with a girl, and she pays him in pussy. A guy makes a romantic gesture, and she pays him in pussy. Marriage is a guy making an investment in a single pussy, which will pay him dividends of sex every month. Growing up and getting a good job is necessary to be able to afford a higher grade of pussy.
This whole system is based on the idea that women don’t like sex and certainly can’t seek it out for its own sake. If a single woman fucks a dude because she likes his strong forearms and soft blue eyes, the entire system tumbles. It’s like if people started paying a hundred bucks for Skittles out of the sheer joy of spending money.
(Bonus rape-culture: if women don’t enjoy sex really, then it is almost impossible to tell if a woman is consenting to sex without asking for explicit consent every two minutes. In the real world, thankfully, women who are enjoying themselves generally make their enjoyment… obvious.)
I don’t know about Daisy Doucheforbrain’s sex life, but I have to say that mine resoundingly disproves this notion. With bruises. And marks. And screams. And occasional waking of the neighbors (sorry, Greg the Long-Suffering!).
Some women– and some men, this is a people thing not a gender thing, are you listening Daisy Doucheforbrains?– don’t like casual sex. You know what? There is an easy thricedamned solution to that. Don’t fucking have casual sex! Don’t suck ’em, don’t fuck ’em and don’t motherfucking chuck ’em. It is not that hard. I spent the first seventeen years of my life not having casual sex, you can do it too.
But don’t run around ruining it for the rest of us by your close-minded and fuckwitted insistence that no women enjoy it, and that we’re all having it as a failed attempt to get TWOO WUV AND RAINBOWS AND BABIES AND SPARKLES FOR EVA AND EVA, and that men are so stupid that they think women are easily replaceable by porn.
Because porn will not cuddle you at night, and porn will not make you soup when you’re sick, and porn will not remember that cute story with the soap bubbles about you when you were two, and porn will not comfort you when you cry, and porn will not cheer your successes, and porn will not grow old with you, and porn will not give you a single one of the good things in a relationship except the orgasm, which you already fucking knew how to do for yourself anyway unless you’re a pissfool excuse for a wankstain.
Men care about those things too! Men are human fucking beings! I cannot believe, in two-thousand-hellfuckingbound dickdroppings-eleven, that I am explaining this.
Seriously, fuck that shit up the ass with rusty barbed wire and no lube.
How about this?
If I have sex with you, it’s because you get my pussy wet. If I continue to have sex with you, it’s because the sex made me feel good. If I kiss your cheek and hold your hand, it’s because that makes warmfuzzies fill my heart. If I talk with you until four AM when I have classes at 10:30 the next morning, it’s because I enjoy the electricity of intellectual connection sparking between us. If I buy you dinner, it’s because I love seeing the look on your face when you take that first bite of fried chicken. If I steal your comic books, it’s because you have good taste in books.
And…
If you have sex with me, it’s because I get your cock hard or your pussy wet. If you continue to have sex with me, it’s because the sex made you feel good. If you kiss my cheek and hold my hand, it’s because that makes warmfuzzies fill your heart. If you talk with me until four AM when you have classes at 10:30 the next morning, it’s because you enjoy the electricity of intellectual connection sparking between us. If you let me steal your comic books, it’s because you love to watch me laugh and squeal and cry as I read them. If you let me buy you dinner, it’s because you lost your wallet.
Our relationship isn’t a trade, it’s a synthesis. We both get the same thing out of it: we trade sex for sex, support for support, friendship for friendship, love for love. Reciprocity, not barter. Love, not a marketplace.
*Daisy Doucheforbrains has a real name, but I have decided that this moniker suits her far better.
An interesting analogy, @SpudTater.
The economic model also assumes maximisation of profit and minimisation of cost to find the optimal point where willing seller meets willing buyer. Maybe this also explains the slut-shaming of those who don’t hold out for the greatest “profit” and incredulity at the sugar-daddies who pay over-the-odds.
At first I was appalled and angered at that article, like Ozy was. Then I was troubled, because I noticed that it contained at least some truth — there is a casual sex “market”, and men do appear to be the purchasers. And then finally I realised that an economic model of casual sex can explain why, without making the sexist starting assumptions that the article does. As follows: Consider a simplified model of the heterosexual casual sex market — not all people, just those looking primarily for sex. There are a number of men, and a number of women.… Read more »
@Flyingkal
It’s funny because Samuel Sullivan in my example above was rather obvious about his love to her, and he knew her (they grew up together). He wasn’t manipulative about his feelings, only resentful they weren’t reciprocated once he realized her dreams.
but I’ve also had your A being conflated with B, and then conflated with my example “bitter about women”
The problem with the Nice Guy (TM) syndrom as I see it, is that it’s nigh on impossible for an outsider to properly assess whether someone
A) falls in love with (as in, develop romantic feelings for) a friend
or
B) befriend someone (they think) they are in love with, for the sole purpose of getting in their pants. (Which AFAIK is the defintion of Nice-Guy(TM)-ism)
But that rarely hinders said outsider from jumping to conclusions.
I have on occasion had A) happen to me, but then been blatantly accused of B) when I let my feelings be known.
Samuel Sullivan in Heroes is a Nice Guy TM, and Vanessa was dishonest (didn’t think what she imagined her dreams were actually going to happen, so when he actually realized her dream, was put off by it) and a bit of a classist (but he’s a carny/poor! eww – she is rich and from a rich university). He’s been a clingy, insecure asshole who idealized and pedestalized Vanessa…and when rejected, destroyed a small town from frustration alone, with his power of terrakinesis (control of geologic elements, heightened by everyone around him who happens to have powers). That’s the only textbook… Read more »
@Hugh Tipping Ristik: ““Nice Guy(TM)” is like “creep” we could define it in a reasonable way, but the problem is that other people use the slur more widely, and it is often applied based on assumptions that aren’t true.” The problem is that you’re ignoring that Nice Guy(TM) is a reactionary phenomenon. I have yet to see it used in response to anything but attacks on particular women or women in general. This has been consistent in both Ozy’s, Noah’s, my, and even Marcotte’s use of the word. If a guy just goes around being nice and doesn’t bother anyone,… Read more »
“Nice Guy(TM)” is like “creep” we could define it in a reasonable way, but the problem is that other people use the slur more widely, and it is often applied based on assumptions that aren’t true. I think that if the guy calling himself a “nice guy” is really a jerk, then let’s call him a “jerk who calls himself a nice guy,” not a “Nice Guy(TM),” to avoid the implication that all men who make a big deal of their niceness are really jerks. Likewise, if a guy feel entitlement (and we have evidence of this), then I would… Read more »
Noah: Trainwrecks have an undeniable appeal, even beauty, in self-destruction.
For your birthday I’ll be glad to get you one of those demotivational posters, the one that says “It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.”
Ozy: “Because a Nice Guy (TM) is essentially someone who feels entitled to sex based on their passing grade in Decent Human Being 101 and is pissed off as fuck that they’re not getting it.”
I think this sentence really marks the point where any lingering doubt was removed, and now the truth is undeniable: this blog does not actually care about men, and the banner at the top is simply a lie.
Nice run. Game over. Now go and find something else to do.
@Uncalledfor, this is not the first time you’ve made a similar statement. And yet here you are, hanging around telling us we’re doing it wrong. Are the exits not clearly marked? Are you afraid of the door hitting you in the ass hard enough to damage it? What exactly is preventing you from simply pissing off, and how can I help?
“Letting little Johnny know what part of the “bad boy” is laudable may keep him from turning to actual badness or nastiness later on, and we can affirm to little Janie that her attraction to guys her age who may have seen the inside of a cop car is normal and not to be confused with genuinely bad or abusive people.” True, but I also agree with what ballgame said: “Intelligence and sensitivity can be great things to have in a sex partner. I suspect that some women would be pleasantly surprised if they devalued dominance and more highly valued… Read more »
Ballgame, I think you’re exaggerating. Somewhat. For the record my reaction to much of the “manosphere” is incredible distaste. I also understand that feminists had their reasons to invent the Nice Guy TM stereotype. It was, in its origins, a defensive move against men who were stereotyping them. Not that anyone has noticed, but I have spent a lot of time trying to understand the optical illusion that “women like jerks” and overlook the nice and kind. As Clarisse Thorn put it, this is all phlogiston theory, there are reasons things look this way, but this isn’t the way they… Read more »
NMMNG: A good word for rapist is “rapist.” A good word for stalker is “stalker.” A good term for mass murderer is “mass murderer.”
There seems to be a determined effort here to remain oblivious of the collateral damage done when people who are neither rapists nor stalkers are labeled with a word that implies that maybe they kinda are. It’s a grotesque form of vilification, and egalitarians should be leading the way in opposing it, not in propagating it.
To Ballgame:
It’s common for many guys in the manosphere to equate rape and sex and to believe that date-rape doesn’t exist. And their gurus, Roissy and Roosh say the same things. Furthermore a guy that believe that he’s entitled to sex doesn’t need to be a rapist, he can be an obsessive stalker like Richard Farley (trigger warning for mass murder)
I agree with ballgame. Offcourse people have right to be angry, sad or whatever. People cant controll their feelings, but they can control how they manifest thise feelings. So if somebody refused you, yes you should be angry and or sad. But you should not perform negative actions, neither harming others or yourself; including slander. But this is a non issue. The point is, if the socall nice guy dont take no for an answer and pursuit in chasing that girl….then he is a rapist. If he dont perform any phisical abusive actions, he is surely rape minded….and it signal… Read more »
I have to disagree, noahbrand. I think your characterization here functions as little more than a sweeping ad hominem dismissal of a class of people, many of whom have valid critiques of how our current gender setup adversely affects males. It’s my understanding that feminists faced very similar sweeping dismissals at some points in the past, i.e. “they’re just a bunch of ugly women who are angry that they can’t get laid.” I think egalitarians should be wary of deploying similarly-structured arguments, no matter who the target is.
ozy, I think your broad-minded approach to dating is highly laudatory. Intelligence and sensitivity can be great things to have in a sex partner. I suspect that some women would be pleasantly surprised if they devalued dominance and more highly valued sensitivity in their evaluation of potential dates. Because a Nice Guy (TM) is essentially someone who feels entitled to sex based on their passing grade in Decent Human Being 101 and is pissed off as fuck that they’re not getting it. Even if this were an accurate description of how the term is used in gender discourse, ozy, it’s… Read more »
Someone who feels literally “entitled” to sex would not take “no” for an answer.
Sure they would. They’d take that “no” as a denial of something they have a right to, and they’d feel deeply offended and hurt that their right to sex with a specific person is not being respected, and they’d go off and post angry, passive-aggressive shit on the internet, in which they construct a narrative wherein they are the wrongedest party in the history of wronged parties. They’re kinda like libertarians that way, and about as useful.
Dude. I date nerds. Do you want to see my nerd-dating bona fides? I am currently dating TWO nerds and fucking TWO other nerds, I had a date this week that involved watching Star Trek (and then a threesome) and another one at my first Magic: the Gathering tournament, I was my twenty-two-year-old boyfriend’s first kiss, I fucked seven virgins in a row, I AM THE QUEEN OF DATING NERDS. And I can distinguish nerd and Nice Guy (TM). I can distinguish socially awkward man who can’t get laid and Nice Guy (TM). I can distinguish “beta male”, that amorphous… Read more »
I must say, it’s only in PC genderspaces where you can find people who’ll seriously deny, with a straight face, that women have a strong attraction for bad boys. And the way some people here have been falsely portraying it amounts to a denial – this notion that “women will go for guys that they find attractive (for other reasons), the goodness/badness is just incidental/something the women put up with”. That’s the gist I’m getting from several feminist posters here, and again this is the kind of thing that you’d mostly only hear a feminist claiming. If the goodness/badness is… Read more »
“It deals with how men who are not well socialized into their male gender role are difficult for women to deal with who are relatively well socialized into their female one, however they may chafe at its limitations. ” This, I think is the correct interpretation, or at least the one I agree the most with. Maybe the solution (for these men) is to more thoroughly socialize them in their roles? This whole situation actually smacks to me of a circumstance where you have two players playing a game, and one player gets frustrated with the other for not knowing… Read more »
“The issue I have with this is that I have experienced many geeks, both in real life and from online accounts (from the geeks themselves), who replicate many of the same patterns they experienced back in high school, or its equivalent, but don’t realise it and refuse to take responsibility for it, because they can’t conceive of themselves in the role as anything but the harmless underdogs.” This is funny because it’s probably the source of second wave radfems who are anti-trans (not those who aren’t) being unable to recognize their own transphobia for what it is. It will occur… Read more »
I find it amusing that this comment thread has turned into a rather marvelous example of Nice Guy Syndrome. The seething hostility on display is pretty much textbook.
@AB: So while you’re talking about your country, how -is- Denmark at this time of year?
There are certain arguments which are “ritual arguments” that always run around the same old mulberry bush. This one has evidently gone on since the ’90s, though I ran into it in about 2004. When arguments never get anywhere, then to get anywhere, you have to get off the same old merry go round. I don’t think there is anything truly “feminist” about this one, and until someone shows me something from Susie Bright or Barbara Ehrenreich or even Catherine MacKinnon about the “nice guy TM issue,” I will continue to think of it as a sociological phenomenon rather than… Read more »
@humbition: “The thing is, we have to get away from the idea that oppression or being subordinated or any other such thing makes you “good,” virtuous, superior. Leave moralism to the side for a minute.” Excuse me, but I was the one arguing that people who’ve been subordinated (in this case bitter nerds) were prone to engaging in abusive and bullying behaviours but couldn’t stop seeing themselves as the good guys solely for having been oppressed. You try leaving the moralism out of it for a minute, and explain to me why bullying is any more justifiable when it comes… Read more »
@no more mr nice guy: “Susan Walsh is not using the term “beta male” correctly. Among animals an alpha male is the leader of the pack and a beta male is immediately below and a beta male can replace an alpha male (and become the new alpha male) if the alpha male die. For humans, a CEO can be considered as an alpha male and a beta male is someone immediately below him and that can replace him.” OMG, I didn’t even think about it that way! I’ve been using that meaning about the term for as long as I… Read more »