So, “Nice Guys” are causing a stir on the Internet again, thanks largely to a new(ish) Tumblr blog called “Nice Guys” of Ok Cupid, which posts selected highlights from the OKCupid profiles of self-proclaimed “nice guys” who make it very clear, in their profiles and in their answers to OKCupid’s “match” questions, that they are in fact anything but nice.
Some of them are actual or potential date rapists, convinced that women that they’re “nice” to owe them sex. Others are bitter from too many rejections, and launch long tirades in their profiles about how women are bitches and whores. Still others are clueless on a more fundamental level, declaring that women have “an obligation to shave their legs” and otherwise prettify themselves for men while noting that they themselves only shower or brush their teeth occasionally.
It’s not clear how any of this is supposed to convince the women of OKCupid that these angry, ranting, hapless-yet-entitled “nice guys” are indeed as “nice” as advertised, much less convince any rational human being to have sex with them.
The site is a goldmine of unintentional self-revelation — as is a similar site with the name of, er, OKCupid Goldmine — and I’ve spent hours looking through the pictures on both sites and discussing them with friends. The only reason I haven’t linked to it in the past is that neither of them blur out the faces of the people they feature, which seems to me a pretty major invasion of privacy. (As you no doubt have noticed, I’ve taken the liberty of somewhat creeepily disguising the faces of the guys in the pics I’m posting here.) But “Nice Guys of OKCupid has been pretty widely discussed, linked to by Jezebel (1, 2) and The Guardian and even the Men’s Rights subreddit, to mention merely a few examples; Ok Cupid Goldmine is also provoking discussions. Posts on both sites regularly get dozens if not hundreds of comments and reblogs on Tumblr. The cat’s already out of the bag.
Here are a couple more of these “Nice Guys” with their faces all spiral-ized:
@kittehhelp
Eh, there’s more impressive lyrebird videos out there.
I can’t help but feel zero sympathy for these aholes. It’s not like people are hacking their emails and stumbling across these literary gems in private conversation. These men are letting their douche flag fly for all the world to see as it is. This is just a way for those of us who notice them to lol together.
Putting the face to it is just doing the rest of us a solid, allowing us to know to avoid at all costs if they ever mention us. And hey, it’s not like they’re giving out home towns, phone numbers, jobs, etc. I don’t even think they link to their okc profiles. So it’s not exactly a harassment tool.
Also, my boyfriend is very, very nice. Sure we’ve had to work together to combat some of the sexist behavior he didn’t even think about because, as a society, we teach our men to think a certain way. But when I come to him with a problem about something he does his best to fix it, and I do the same. Unfortunately for these “nice guys,” they never got the memo that relationships are about compromise. You can’t expect anyone to give you sex just for existing. Sometimes you have to work on yourself and not be such a closed-minded dick.
lowquacks – that’s more of the same footage, did you notice? I wonder why it wasn’t in the first Attenborough clip used?
I followed that link from Hoyden About Town rather than doing a search. Pure serendipity. 🙂
BBC probably didn’t want to pay the lyrebirds performance royalties.
met not mention, why did I type mention?
I’ve never used OK Cupid, but I have some experience with True.com and Match.com (I met my SO on the latter), and I don’t remember seeing creeps like this on either site. I suspect it’s easier to find the creeps on OK Cupid, though, since I understand you can answer lots of questions about yourself and other people can see your answers; I’m assuming that’s where the obligation-to-shave-legs thing is coming from. On Match.com, you take a test, as I recall, but that’s used for the matching and other people can’t see the answers. I also took the test at eHarmony, but was rejected as unmatchable. 😛
One thing that struck me about True.com, though, is how many 20-something guys messaged me, a 40-something woman. Do they just message everybody? Are they after some kind of weird MILF fantasy? And I didn’t put a picture up, so it couldn’t be that they just liked my looks.
lowquacks – lol!
Did you see Time Team is being axed after this series? Sad, though I gave up on it after Mick Aston left. (Okay that’s Channel 4 not the BBC, but hey, it’s almost relevant.)
Never heard of Time Team actually. Only real British stuff I’ve been enjoying recently is the Louis Theroux influx ABC is providing (and some other LT from less legit sources) and David Attenborough’s First Life thingo.
Never heard of Time Team?
::faints::
It’s an archaeology show that started almost twenty years ago. The narrator is Tony Robinson (yes, Baldrick). It’s really preliminary assessments of sites, but the catch is the team has only three days to do it. That came about because they’re all working at universities and so on and had to squeeze it in on their weekends. I’m amazed there’s anywhere left in Britain they haven’t dug up yet. They do stuff from Neolithic sites to WWII stuff – lots of Roman and medieval along the way. The fun part is the personalities and the old-mates-bickering stuff that goes on, at least for me.
Unfortunately Channel 4 had some bean-counting morons decide they needed to appeal to a “younger audience” (meaning, get some Babe on to get the teenage boys to watch). Not sure how that gibes with how many kids have grown up watching and got into archaeology because of it. Talk about insulting everyone with their stupidity. They introduced a second presenter who was there to be pretty and knew zip about the subject. The program started going downhill from there. It was always about popularising archaeology, it was never a dry academic exercise, and it was very popular, but oh no, they had to mess with it.
relevant:
That guy sounds uncannily like John Cleese!
So, has this been linked here yet? More depressing news from the gaming world…
That last guy. Confidence: you’re doing it wrong.
OK that I seem to be the only one old enough to remember Rich Hall’s “sniglets” aka “words that should be in the dictionary but aren’t.”
I’ll just go have some Metamucil. If I can find my walker. *sigh*
@sthlivingincolor – OKCupid is free. They make their money from ads. I suspect that’s the biggest difference. If someone is paying a membership fee in an attempt to get laid, most people are going to make an honest effort at it, rather than just take advantage of the platform to vent their spleen.
Yes.
I remember! My favorite was “doork.” (Someone who pushes/pulls the door the wrong way even when it’s clearly marked0>
Reminds me a bit of Douglas Adams’ “The Meaning of Liff”, where he’d try to attach definitions to odd English place names.
Off-topic: Can anyone remind me of stuff Diogenes likes (other than the Voynich Manuscript)? I’m trying to figure out what to put in his bedroom.
@sthlivingincolor
I got so many of those guys during my dating site experience. They seemed quite baffled to learn that the MILF part of the equation doesn’t necessarily share in the fantasy.
The funniest one was the kid who kept trying to invite himself over to “cuddle”. Why he thought that a woman in her 30s wouldn’t see where he was going with that I’m not sure. The best ones though are these guys.
Random dude : Your profile says you’re not interested in casual sex
Me : Yep
RD : So you’re really not interested in casual sex?
Me : Nope.
RD : Why not?
Me : I’m just not.
RD : But why?
Me : Not my cup of tea. If that’s what you’re looking for then I don’t think this is going to work out for either of us.
RD : But other women on here are into casual sex!
Me : Cool. You should probably go talk to one of them, then.
RD : But really, why not? Other women would be interested.
Me : Bye.
(Blocks)
I will totally peer pressure this woman into having casual sex with me by pointing out that other people are doing it! It should work!
Why isn’t it working?!!
Many valid points have been made about the nice guy problem.
I agree being nice to a certain degree is a social norm. All the guys who have cheated on me (apparently not putting out within the first 2 months of dating causes cheating) have been “nice guys”. All the guys who have been faithful were not nice guys. They never claimed to be and owned up to their mistakes and occasional douchiness. They didn’t argue that they weren’t a jerk the way nice guys do.
They always seem to have SOME justification about why they acted that way.
Most of these self proclaimed “nice guys” appear to be the “loan sharks” of the dating world.
I get a bit touchy about the whole “why do women always date jerks instead of nice guys like me” thing because I’ve had two different men tell me — actually tell me — that women like me prove that there’s no reason to respect women or treat them with kindness. Why? Because my ex was emotionally abusive, which proves that women (as I represent us all, obvs) will reject decent men in order to be with assholes.
That’s right folks. A man chose to mess around with my mind and my emotions, and the bad guy is me. For not letting someone else have sex with me.
Loan sharking is a perfect metaphor.
“That’s a nice life you have there. Wouldn’t want it to be ruined if you were stupid enough to choose someone else instead of me.”
“How dare you keep your vagina off the market when other, worthier men are trying to use it! Now I will be mean to women, because why would I bother to be nice to them if it won’t guarantee that I will get laid?”
Guys sorry for the drunken sleepy ranting it is just that I am on vacation and I <3 you guys.
The advantage to you, Viscaria, is that they told you right up front that they are assholes. Unlike the guy who pretended to be a decent human being until he got you isolated and then proceeded to be an abusive asshat.
I am sorry he did that to you.