A reader alerted me to this post on a very interesting blog I haven’t written about before. Regular readers of Man Boobz may find some of these, er, arguments to be a bit familiar:
Our culture is absolutely fucked up. Girls and women hold all control of sex. … [F]rom the first interest in girls, we’re expected to pursue them, and they’re expected to reject us. …
I’m a perfectly healthy man. I’m stronger than a lot of other men, more intelligent, more competent, I think I’m reasonably good looking, and I’m very well endowed. None of that matters though. Somehow, women go for men that fail on a comparison on multiple accounts. …
There are things like rejecting a woman, or pretending to be uninterested that make her even more interested. … Women subconsciously measure a man’s performance in bed by his dancing and posturing. If only they knew how fucking stupid and wrong they are.
I don’t know what happened with me. I’ve always had a strong sex drive, but I got fucked over socially. I wasn’t even “in” in the reject crowd. All girls rejected me, and most rejects rejected me. People made fun of me, laughed at me, picked on me, and all the girls that I lusted after were either repulsed by me, or didn’t know who I was. Even the girls that were “friends” with me, wouldn’t have sex with me. Meanwhile, they went around whoring themselves out to whatever man played this fucking dumb-ass social flirting game. They [crude sexual remarks redacted —DF] like the dirty little whores they are. I’ve been available my whole life, but the only person that ever chose me as a mate were paid prostitutes, and my wife, who is emotionally and mentally fucked up beyond comprehension.
On the surface, this reads like almost every “nice guy” lament I’ve ever seen on the internet. Oh, it’s a bit more bitter than most, but this “nice guy” hits all the right notes: like the Holocuast-trivializing “nice guy” we looked at last Sunday, he complains that women get to actually choose whom to have sex with; like the “nice guy” Redditor we looked at Monday, he still holds a grudge against former crushes who chose to go out with (and have sex with) guys who weren’t him.
The difference? For one thing, this new guy is a bit more self-aware than most “nice guys,” in that he doesn’t actually describe himself as “nice.” For another, he is (or at least claims to be) a sociopath. As might have been immediately apparent had I quoted these comments, which immediately follow what I quoted from him above:
This is the reason I don’t care about people. Why the fuck should I? Everybody [wears] a mask. I want to rape and murder people, and I pretend I’m “normal.” Normal people wear a mask where they pretend they’re friendly and honest; whereas, they’re really deceptive, insecure, and emotionally hostile.
This posting comes from Sociopathworld, a fascinating blog written by a sociopath who is basically trying to explain to non-sociopaths how people like him or her think, to clear up misconceptions about them, and to help sociopaths themselves deal better with their disorder. (The author of the blog didn’t write the comments above; they were sent in by a reader.)
For those not intimately familiar with abnormal psych, “sociopathy” (often used synonymously with the term “psychopathy”) is a term commonly used to describe what is known clinically as Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). The blogger at SociopathWorld quotes a journal article that gives this useful capsule description of psychopaths as people
characterised by an absence of empathy and poor impulse control, with a total lack of conscience. … They tend to be egocentric, callous, manipulative, deceptive, superficial, irresponsible and parasitic, even predatory.
So are “nice guys” a bunch of sociopaths? Well, no. They may be egocentric – like the “nice guy” on Tumblr who compared his lack of dates to the Holocaust. They may lack empathy – like the “nice guy” Redditor who couldn’t feel sympathy for a female “friend” who had been raped. They may be manipulative – hoping that by being excessively “nice” and doing favors for women they will earn themselves some sex.
But they lack, among other things, the impulsiveness and routine deceitfulness that tend to characterize real sociopaths. Sociopaths can be deceptively charming, but very few people would ever describe them as nice. (Indeed, if anything, it’s pickup artists that act the most like real sociopaths; indeed, I’ve heard “game” described before, I think accurately, as an attempt to get guys to think and act more like charming, conscienceless sociopaths.)
So why do “nice guy” laments make them sound so much like sociopaths? I think their egocentricity and their almost total lack of empathy are key. “Nice guys” get crushes on a lot of girls and women, but these crushes often seem to have nothing to do with the objects of these intense feelings: the “nice guys” have whipped up a romantic and sexual drama in their own head, and simply projected it onto some convenient romantic object . The “nice guy” Redditor was once obsessed with his female “friend” – but when she was raped he did not react as a true friend would, with sympathy and sadness. He responded with a callous “she had it coming.”
Combine this lack of empathy with a sense of wounded entitlement – I DESERVE a cute girlfriend! – and you have a recipe for a pretty noxious stew.
“Nice guys” may not literally be sociopaths. But sometimes they think and act in some pretty sociopathic ways.
If they both raise a child in a cooperative friendship, isn’t that pretty much the same as marriage?
No kidding, that was my first thought too! :p
(And what if the cooperative friends end their cooperative friendship? Would they like, platonic-divorce each other? How would this differ from reality in any way?)
Damn, I didn’t think of that. Teaching his kids that all women are untrustworthy and the only solution is to create sexbots? I guess that would explain why he thinks his wife is about to leave him and take the kids, Magpie. o.O
Magdelyn:
I think “nice guys,” whatever that means, are people who maybe poor at reading social cues, or on the autistic spectrum, or grew up in disfunctional environments. No one, absolutely no one helps guys learn how to socialize.
I’m a woman with Asperger’s, and I’d like to weigh in here.
As far as whether or not young men on the spectrum are less likely than young women to be acculturated, I don’t remember a lot of training in socialization when I was growing up. Frankly, I’m not sure how much of it would have taken, since the Asperger’s also made it difficult to understand not only how social interactions worked but why I should care, but I don’t think I got special help that a boy in my place wouldn’t have. Also, since Asperger’s and ADHD are thought of as “male” conditions, boys are more likely to get diagnosed in the first place, and get in touch with the support they need.
On a deeper level though, it’s not like these guys are completely untouched by the patterns of social interaction proper to our culture. It looks to me like they’ve absorbed plenty of them: men pursue and women are pursued, men deserve to have their social “needs” met, women are commodities but men are agents—-these are all narratives at work in our culture, and to believe in them, these people must first have been socialized into them. Nice guys” are hardly the Wild Boy of Aveyron.
I am so tired of this “women can just leave & steal the kids” bs. A)Kids are not property. Parents who think they are or treat them as though they are, don’t deserve to be parents. B) It’s extremely rare for a woman to just leave for absolutely no reason. The 2 women I know personally who left (not that MASSIVE number TWO) left for very serious reasons. One was rescued from an abusive asshole by her friends after she finally couldn’t take it anymore. The second filed for divorce after catching her husband cheating for the THIRD time. That’s 2 more chances than he would have gotten with a lot of women. And 2 more than most men would have given if the genders had been reversed.
Even the ones I don’t personally know the story have all left for good reason, mostly emotional or physical abuse, cheating or a complete incompatibility.
That last sentence should be that the ones I don’t know personally but have been told their stories online or through other friends.
Too right Skyal.
Men can also leave and take the kids with them. I wonder if Mrs AntZ worries about that? It doesn’t seem to occur to the MRA’s who comment here that they can do it too.
Women subconsciously measure a man’s performance in bed by his dancing and posturing.
If this were true, I would have rejected my husband out of hand. Because this is my husband, only he’s spazzier and has less rhythm:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3it4c0dcU4c?rel=0&w=420&h=345%5D
You think I jest…
I should say that my husband looks like than when dancing, not that I’m married to David Boreanaz. Because I’m not.
‘that,’ not ‘than’ because I can’t type.
Women subconsciously measure a man’s performance in bed by his TYPING and posturing. XD
Dude, if your ultimate fantasy is to move in with another guy, raise kids with him, and fall asleep every night watching nature documentaries and/or porn, you can do that right now. The technology is in your hands.
Your boyfriend would, however, still be able to leave you, so that’s a sticking point.
I’m married to David Boreanaz in VR.
“I think “nice guys,” whatever that means, are people who maybe poor at reading social cues, or on the autistic spectrum, or grew up in disfunctional environments. No one, absolutely no one helps guys learn how to socialize. Since society predominately seems young men as scary and unsympathetic, we spend all our time controlling them, and as a society we don’t help them socialize.”
The majority of this is ill-conceived, at best. Let me highlight which parts.
“”I think “nice guys,” whatever that means … [are] on the autistic spectrum…”
Why in MadoGoddess’ name would you assume they’re autistic to any significant degree? You don’t need a disorder to be entitled and clueless. It is possible, sure, but so are leprechauns dancing under rainbows; You need serious evidence to move this beyond the wildly improbable.
“I think “nice guys,” whatever that means, are people who maybe poor at reading social cues…”
This is entirely plausible. Unlike autism disorders, this is a relatively common thing in both genders, so a relatively common phenomenon could have serious overlap. It’d be interesting to see a study on the matter, but rather difficult to me. I can’t seem to come up with questions that wouldn’t obviously bias any given sample.
“”I think “nice guys,” whatever that means, are people who … grew up in disfunctional environments.”
This isn’t Leprechauns-improbable, but I don’t think it’s particularly likely either; selfishness and a lack of introspection don’t require dysfunction. Further, I don’t think that many homes are amazingly dysfunctional, though I can’t say I’m sure off hand.
“No one, absolutely no one helps guys learn how to socialize.”
This is so wrong that it after wrapping around the wrong-o-meter, it moved past “Right” and STILL landed on wrong. It makes me question whether at some point in your life you’ve spoken to someone identified male-gendered. Boys and guys are frequently taught how to socialize from a huge number of sources throughout society, and within the media. Teaching someone how to socialize isn’t always a matter of direct instruction, lessons are taught to them in a number of ways. Now, I’d agree with you if you wanted to say they weren’t always taught to socialize healthily; that’s true, and relates to the idea of toxic masculinity. But to say they’re not AT ALL? Absurd.
“Since society predominately seems young men as scary and unsympathetic,”
lolwat? What in the Avici Hell is this based on, exactly? You do realize they’re still advantaged and catered to, right? 18-34 Men is considered one of the most important demographies for marketing purposes for a number of reasons, and it leaks into a lot of shit.
You don’t need a disorder to be entitled and clueless.
Not to mention that, if you have a disorder, it’s still your responsibility not to be a knob. I might have to painstakingly figure out the social interactions that come more naturally to others, but in order to be able to live with other people, I still need to be ethical.
“Since society predominately seems young men as scary and unsympathetic,” lolwat? What in the Avici Hell is this based on, exactly? You do realize they’re still advantaged and catered to, right?
I think nothing less than perfect deference to men in all areas of society would be enough for Magdelyn, given how she talks. Magdelyn, you realise that sexist men don’t really like the Only Girl in the Boy’s Club, right?
I have a harem of hot nerdy Johnny Depp and Christina Hendricks clones catering to my every whim in VR.
Why do I get the sense that you patented this system after working 20 hours a day on it and then your invention got stolen and you got fired? Seriously, the best evidence you’ve produced for artificial reproduction is how much you resemble NWO’s clone.
You aren’t. I’m pretty sure the first item on everyone’s want list is “someone who doesn’t want to replace me with a virtual clone.”
Dude. We already have the technology to prevent this. It’s called a prenup. Or, you know, actually communicating with your wife.
Why in MadoGoddess’ name would you assume they’re autistic to any significant degree? You don’t need a disorder to be entitled and clueless. It is possible, sure, but so are leprechauns dancing under rainbows; You need serious evidence to move this beyond the wildly improbable.
You’re right, and I think i missed the point of Magdelyn’s post a little. But even if most “Nice Guys” are on the spectrum, she’s still wrong.
The only bloke I know who spouted this Nice Guy stuff, only started AFTER getting into MRA forums online. Before that he was actually a nice guy.
She could replace him with a virtual clone who doesn’t want to replace her with a virtual clone. Or do this:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2319#comic
The only bloke I know who spouted this Nice Guy stuff, only started AFTER getting into MRA forums online. Before that he was actually a nice guy.
Neurologically normal, as far as you knew, or a little funky?
You want the long version or the short version? 😉 Short version – normal and very popular.
Short version – normal and very popular
So not only mentally normal, but pretty well “socialized” too, rather than one of Magdelyn’s poor misunderstood snowflakes.
Yep. Longer version: he found himself in a horrible situation, the kind of thing MRAs are always on about. It went on for years, the struggle and frustration ground him down emotionally and mentally. When he went looking for help, MRA sites were where he found people talking about his particular situation, and he took their opinions to heart for a while. He got so bad for a short while that he frightened friends and family. I haven’t seen him for a couple of years, but the (worst part) of the bad situation ended, and I hear he is getting back to his old self.
This bloke is why I’m so interested in Manboobz. Now I can see where he got the strange and scary phrases and ideas from.
A comment from a new commenter, kristina.scal, got held in moderation while I was away from the internets; it’s up now, near the beginning. It’s worth reading; it makes a distinction between sociopathy and ASPD, and points out (as I should have made clearer in the post) that mental illness =/= evil.
kristina, if you’re still reading, I wonder if you could expand a bit on the differences. I’ve read a bit on the subject and have read a lot of contradictory things on the various meanings of “sociopath,” “psychopath” and ASPD. I had gotten the impression that ASPD had sort of supplanted those terms in clinical practice.
Hey NWO and various other trolls 😀
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/rising-divorce-rate-spurs-controversial-changes-to-chinas-marriage-law/article2135944/
The words of Ma Nuo, the notorious dating show contestant, not only ignited a blaze of controversy about the materialism of young Chinese, they might have motivated the Supreme People’s Court to re-interpret the country’s 31-year-old Marriage Law. The changes that the court introduced this week are nearly as controversial as Ms. Ma’s remarks, seen by many as a male-dominated court stepping in to protect the rights of men as China’s divorce rates rise.
The key change specifies that whichever side makes the payment on a couple’s house will now keep the property following a divorce. That’s no small tweak in a country where it’s traditional for the groom’s parents to purchase the home, and the bride’s family to furnish and decorate it.
A cartoon published on the front page of one daily newspaper in Yunnan province showed a man clutching his thinner- and younger-looking mistress while laughing at his wife’s demand for a divorce. “I’m not scared. There’s no way you’ll get the house,” he says, clutching a red booklet with the words “Marriage Law 2011” written on it.
Divorce, once extremely rare in Chinese society, is on the rise. There were nearly two million registered divorces in 2010, up 14.5 per cent from the previous year. The country’s divorce rate has more than quadrupled – from 0.4 per 1,000 people in 1985 to 1.85 per 1,000 in 2009 – since the country began a jarring economic transition that has put far more money, and all the issues that come with it, into the hands of ordinary Chinese.
Divorces are still less common in China than in Canada, although the trends are heading in opposite directions. Canada’s divorce rate was 2.2 per 1,000 in 2005, down from over 3.6 per 1,000 in 1987.
Owning your own house has long been seen as a prerequisite to getting married in China. A survey released on Valentine’s Day this year found that only 38 per cent of women would be willing to enter a so-called “naked marriage,” the popular term for a wedding held without first purchasing a house and car.
But skyrocketing real estate costs have forced more and more young Chinese to turn to their parents for help in achieving that goal, and the court hinted that its real aim was to protect the rights of parents who invested their life savings in a home for what is often their only child. “Parents who buy their children houses used to worry that their children’s divorces could result in the loss of family property,” Supreme People’s Court spokesman Sun Jungong said, adding that the court heard nearly 10,000 public views before making its decision.
“(The changes) may push the two sides to consider more before getting married… many people are worried that once they get divorced, they might end up leaving the house with nothing,” said Lu Mingsheng, a divorce lawyer in Beijing. He said the new rules are jarring for some because China’s lacking social security net leaves many expecting their spouses – or ex-spouses – to take care of them financially.
But others – including many women – see the Supreme People’s Court’s intervention is a less favourable light: In the words of one outraged female microblog user, the new guidelines “sweep aside the last obstacle against men being unfaithful.” (The taking of mistresses has become so common in China in recent years that the government in the affluent southeastern province of Guangdong announced this year that all girls in elementary and middle schools would be required to take a course aimed teaching them “self-esteem, self-confidence and self-reliance.”)
Another user of the popular Sina Weibo social networking site wrote: “The new Marriage Law tells us, we women should earn our money, buy our own house, get artificial fertilization in the hospital and have a baby by ourselves.”
Thoughts? :3
Re. building artificial clones because you can’t deal with real people: I am reminded of this passage from The Madness of King George:
Deferred to, agreed with, acquiesced in. Who can flourish on such a daily diet of compliance? To be curbed, stood up to — in a word, thwarted — exercises the character, elasticates the spirit, makes it more pliant. It’s the want of such exercise that makes rulers rigid.”
The threat of being dumped, fired, sued, failing in a society where people live cheek to cheek and must compromise their conflicting wants and needs — that’s what ultimately molds people to be good citizens, friends and partners. But if there is no incentive for you to be a good person, no one to call you on your BS — why would you BE a good person? Huh, Anthony? You keep talking about what you might lose if your wife doesn’t like what you are. Apart from the fact that everything you said is pure MRA hysteria, lies and malarkey (assuming, that is, that your activities as a husband and father do not include vicious beatings, child rape and/or attempted murder), it is quite telling that you don’t examine what it is you can do better to ensure that the partner you claim to love doesn’t lose her love for you. Instead, you dream of owning someone who is a human being in every single respect, except that she won’t have any legal or civil rights, and will be utterly within your control, up to and including killing her. And that means, you are no different from men who clamor for a return of slavery, moan the fact that women are considered human, and order themselves mail-order brides.
I have news for you, Anthony: even if virtual human beings were to be developed in some future, if they are largely indistinguishable from “real” human beings, society will accord them the same human rights that “real” humans have. That is guaranteed. Your slavery paradise will never happen.
And personally — anyone who considers his most fundamental human right NOT to engage in introspection or self-improvement for the benefit of others does not deserve any love, kindness, or any other type of pleasant human interaction. He doesn’t deserve to be a parent either, as children aren’t pets or possessions — even “play dates” are too much contact, in my opinion.