Blog posts by the New Misogynists I write about here often seem to be little more than combinations and recombinations of a relatively small number of very bad ideas. Today, let’s look at a blog post from a “conservative libertarian” and creepy Nice Guy ™ who identifies himself only as TIC, which combines a bit of “consent is hard” and “women only like bad boys” with some muddled notions from Evo Psych to conclude that women are such mysterious creatures that no one could possibly know what they really want — and so therefore it’s women who are the ones who are really responsible when they get raped.
It’s an argument that bears a strong similarity to the stories rapists tell themselves to excuse their actions. When people describe so-called Nice Guys ™ as creepy, this is why: in a lot of ways, they think like predators. In the case of TIC here, exactly like predators.
TIC starts off by ridiculing the notion that “no means no.”
Women are notorious for always warning men that “no means no”. For us men who have dealt with enough women, we know this to be pure malarkey. If “no” always meant “no”, many men would die virgins. There would also be fewer rapes as a result, because for once women would mean what they said instead of talking in indirect code language.
And now the victim blaming begins in earnest:
Women, many times, bring rape upon themselves. They purposely reject men, even ones they are interested in, in order to get him to chase her. Since women love to be the prize and the center of attention, leading a man on a wild goose chase through all sorts of hoops and mind games is all too common in today’s society.
Now, if this were actually true it would be, well, sort of annoying for straight men who don’t like jumping through hoops. TIC, though, seems to have convinced himself that the fact that some women play coy in the dating world somehow makes it literally impossible for men to tell when and if they’re raping a woman.
What this does is blur the line between what is acceptable for a man to do to a woman and what is not…because once we can all agree that women want to be chased, we can understand what a predicament it puts men into. Since “no” does not always mean “no”, there is no real way for a man to know when to stop his advances upon a woman.
TIC now pulls out some half-baked Evo Psych to bolster his alleged argument:
My theory as to why women give such pieces of advice goes back to dark triad genes or the lack thereof. You see, when a woman tells a man that he should just be himself, or to respect women, or to give them compliments, or that “no means no”, what she is actually doing is bullshitting the male. This is a weeding out mechanism that women use in order to ensure that men who don’t get it never will.
He follows this up with a fairly standard Nice Guy ™ whine.
You see, women do not want nice guys to propagate their genes. They do not wish for them to be successful with women. This is why advice coming from women is never good; it has been sabotaged from the get-go.
Well, actually, If women are telling Nice Guys ™ that “no means no” because they don’t want to have sex with these Nice Guys ™ aren’t these women, however mean you think they are, communicating what they want pretty clearly?
TIC moves on to another standard Nice Guy ™ complaint: that women actually get to turn down men for sex. Never mind that men also have the right to refuse sex with anyone they want. To the dedicated Nice Guy ™, the fact that women can say “no” means that they’re the ones running the show. And doing a terrible job of it, to boot.
Women have the power and control in the dating scene. This is important to note because it means that any and every problem with society in the context of female-male relations falls on the shoulders of women themselves.
And we’re back in Evo Psych-land again:
If women decide to start dating men who are genuine, nice, and honest, then that is what most men will become. Since women, however, are only attracted to males with dark triad genes, that is what most men strive to be. The ones that do not either are alone or being used.
Therefore, women are responsible for getting raped:
[S]ince women have decided to make men chase and act in an overly-aggressive fashion in order to get sex, the rape culture pervades society. Make no mistake about it, women invariably cause most rapes.
Oh, but ladies, TIC isn’t necessarily blaming you personally for being raped. You may be a perfectly virtuous woman. It’s all those other ladies who created the rape culture that got you raped.
Now, this is not to say that specific individuals who are victims of raped caused it or even desired it. The point is that women overall have created an environment in which only sexually aggressive, narcissistic, abrasive men are seen as sexually attractive (these traits are what women interpret as being “confident”).
They have created an environment in which “no” doesn’t mean “no”, it actually means “try harder, keep going, I want to be chased, I want to feel wanted even though you’ve already made it clear that you want me. I want to play games and toy with you until I’m satisfied.”
Huh. I thought women were only interested in aloof dudes who insult them and refuse to buy them drinks, not with supplicating so-called betas falling over themselves to chase women. At least that’s what all the Pickup Artists keep telling me.
But no. In TIC’s world, women are mysterious creatures who delight in mystifying men, and men have no choice but to try, and try, and try again.
Men are constantly placed in awkward, unsure situations because what women want is always esoteric.
If women are so “esoteric” how is it that so many of them manage to end up in relationships with people they love? Surely at some point they must have managed to convey to their partners what they wanted.
Should he approach? If she rejects him, should he continue his advances because that’s what she may want deep down? Who knows?
Who knows? You should know, dude, and if you don’t, you should find out. Seriously, if you honestly can’t tell if a woman wants to make out with you, or have sex with you, or even just watch an episode of Mad Men with you, STOP WHAT YOU’RE DOING and USE WORDS to ASK HER what she wants.
If you ask if she wants to have sex and she says no, assume she means no, and don’t have sex with her. And don’t assume she said “no” because she thinks you’re a spineless beta for asking. Seriously. If a woman really wants to have sex with you, chances are infinitesimally slim that she’s going to change her mind and throw you out simply because you actually asked her if she wants to have sex. (And if she is that sort of person, count your blessings that you’re not dating her, and move on.)
If the woman you’re pursuing is such a flighty game player that for some perverse manipulative reason she won’t say “yes” when she means “yes,” DON’T HAVE SEX WITH HER. Assume that anything short of a clear “yes” is a “no.” And maybe think about dating someone who can communicate what she wants more clearly.
If you assume that ambiguity means no, the worst that can happen is that miss out on having sex with someone who’s up for having sex with you, but who for some reason can’t or won’t tell you what she really wants. A missed chance to have sex is not the end of the world. If, by contrast, you assume that ambiguity means yes, the worst that can happen is that you rape someone. Err on the side of caution. Don’t err on the side of rape.
Unfortunately, like most of those who pretend that consent is somehow more complicated than quantum physics, TIC doesn’t actually seem much interested in figuring out the alleged mysteries of consent. He seems more interested in providing an excuse for men who want to pretend that consent is so hard, and women such mysterious creatures, that they just can’t help raping women.
For many men, leaving things to chance is not an option. They will continue to press the issue in order to find out the woman’s true intentions.
“Press the issue.” That may be the creepiest euphemism for rape I’ve run across yet.
Thus is the nature of women: enablers of the very thing they claim to despise the most.
No, it’s the nature of sexual predators to pretend that a clear verbal “no” from the target of their sexual advances means “keep pushing,” and, indeed, that any response short of a punch in the nose is evidence that their victim “really wants it.”
Rapists like to pretend that they somehow “misunderstood” the signals their victims gave them. But there’s good research showing that this just isn’t true – and that the predators know it. As Thomas Macaulay Millar has pointed out in a much-cited post on the Yes Means Yes blog, predators can read the signals from their victims just fine. It’s just that they don’t like what their victims are trying to tell them – that is, no. “[T]he notion that rape results from miscommunication is just wrong,” Millar writes. “Rape results from a refusal to heed, rather than an inability to understand, a rejection.”
And this is where predators and Nice Guys ™ find common cause. Predators don’t really care what their victims want, and will keep going regardless of whether or not they get a clear message to stop; pretending that women are mysterious creatures unable to convey what they want gives them a perfect excuse for their predatory behavior.
Nice Guys, by contrast, may not actually be confident enough to believe that the women they fixate on will ever say yes to them. And so they’re drawn to the same specious arguments about the alleged “esoteric” nature of women that predators spout — because these half-believed arguments enable them to pretend that ambigious signals — or even flat-out no’s — are yeses in disguise.
TIC’s argument doesn’t explain rape culture. His argument is rape culture.
@ argenti
Have you ever seen this candy? First time I saw it I thought it was the funniest thing. May have been stoned at the time.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/09/24/rabbit276.jpg
There’s quite a listing of 24 hour hospitals in LA, I hope one of them’s near you and can help, katz!
Argenti – did you see the video here of the kitty leaping back from the tinfoil on the kitchen bench? I wondered if that’s what Owly’s kitchen looks like. 😉
@Argenti
That’s what I’m experiencing, on a desktop. Oh well.
It’s not just the iPad, when I hover over lowquacks’s avatar it comes up as the new one.
It can take quite a while for WP to catch up with new avatars, though.
Cassandra — Sober those are pretty funny. That taffy? I have a small salt water taffy obsession, that stuff’s amazing.
Kitteh — no I haven’t, got a link or anything?
Lowquacks — gravatar glich? Give it a bit?
I’m very committed to my cassowary avatars but wanted to fit in with the kitty avvies, so I aimed for a (very 5-minutes-in-Paint-y) compromise.
White Rabbit is dangerous to fillings. Mr C loves the stuff, though, it’s a childhood memory thing.
@Argenti
If those White Rabbits are the same ones you can get here, they’re similar in texture to Minties (dunno if those are available overseas) but with something of a… milky (?) spearmint taste. IIRC you can eat the internal wrapper, too. You can only find them at Asian groceries here.
I’d describe them as toffee-like, but with the minty undertone lowquacks is talking about.
lowquacks — never heard of minties, but it looks like salt water taffy is mostly/solely a US thing, and from around here too no less.
Dangerous to fillings sounds more like bit o honey (lost a baby tooth into that stuff!)
Here’s the cat and tinfoil clip:
http://youtu.be/ByD0xUr9III
Yeah, I always feel like it’s going to pull out all my dental work. Kind of like toffee but harder and really sticky? It must be a nightmare for people with braces.
What the hell?! What is that cat trying to do in the first place?!
Oh and our cat apparently rejects her box within a box, and the larger box in general, anti-Maru. She prefers to destroy boxes.
“It must be a nightmare for people with braces.”
Gods, that was one of my first MUST HAVE when I got mine off — taffy. Taffy, toffee, chewies, gum, all banned. And holy shit was pulling gum out of my braces a one time affair, no it wasn’t worth it!
At least plain old gum isn’t a nightmare on fillings!
I think kitty in the vid was just going to jump onto the bench or draining board but got its big fright instead.
Destroying boxes, eh? Katie’s the queen of that. All the damage to this box is from her spending a while chewing it.
Yes because if a guy asks a woman out and takes her out to a nice restaurant, he should at least know he’s guaranteed some sex, right?
Yes, because a woman always knows instantly whether dating a guy will work out. It’s not like you sometimes need to spend time with someone to find out if you’re compatible. And women are never regarded as bitches for turning guys down right away. Plus, it’s not like assholes don’t complain about women turning down “nice, decent, good, hardworking, respectable” men and dating guys who aren’t them. Nope, none of those things ever happen.
So yes women should just tell guys straight away if they’re not interested, and be shallow, stuck up bitches. Or, they should NOT turn guys down straight away, and be cruel whores leading the poor “hardworking, good, decent, respectable” dude on. The important thing is that the woman’s choices must always, always be regarded as wrong.
Not to mention that dudes should never, never be expected to put any effort into relationships at all. That’s woman’s work!
@Shiraz:
They’re ASSHOLES TM! (Asshole(tm) = A guy who’s actually just fairly confident, easy-going, interacts with lots of women, quickly shrugs off rejection and move on if something didn’t work out, and therefore end up getting more girls than the mopy Nice Guy ™ – and gets labelled an asshole for it.)
Btw, maybe I’m the only one, but I think the very TERM Schroedinger’s rapist is a bit annoying, since it’s not analogous to the cat. The point of the cat isn’t that you don’t KNOW what state it’s in until you look. It’s that the cat actually IS both dead and alive at the same time until you look. So a Schroedinger’s rapist, to be analogous, would be a man who actually IS a rapist as well as a non-rapist simultaneously and… that just doesn’t make sense.
The asshole ™ (quoting myself from a while ago):
@Argenti
This probably won’t help much, but these are Minties. They’re notable for having a shelf life of forever and seemingly only being available to those of the age of 35 or higher.
Oh, look at that poor cartoonist male, pining for some woman that wouldn’t give him the time of day and this is clear proof that all women like to lead men on and never give up their… opinion when they should. So sly and inscrutable and esoteric! I digress, sarcastically, but let’s get serious:
This would be the same lead-someone-on-devasted-thing described like this, at the Wiki, right?
“Johnson and Schulz eventually became romantically involved and dated for three years, but in 1950 when Schulz proposed to her, she turned him down, saying she was already engaged to fireman Allan Wold. She married Allan on October 21, 1950. Schulz was devastated, but he and Johnson-Wold remained friends for the rest of his life.”
Oh, I see. He wasn’t just courting her. They were apparently romantically involved. So I guess there wasn’t that much active pining involved or, uh, I don’t know, one sided friendship. And they remained friends! What’s fun though, is the quote a little further below that:
“I can think of no more emotionally damaging loss than to be turned down by someone whom you love very much. A person who not only turns you down, but almost immediately will marry the victor. What a bitter blow that is.”
Ah yes. Relationships are wars, bitter fights, and to the victor goes the spoils.
I don’t know anything about the author behind Peanuts, or his life, or the life of anyone related to it, or anything about the comics, but this is easily verifable information I got in three seconds from Googling because your point seemed a little obtuse.
To wit, my conclusions:
A) You are wrong.
B) How does one instance of one person doing one thing and experiencing one emotion get generalized to indicate the whole population (And not just of one place, but the whole human population of planet Earth) behaves?
B-1:)
What does this prove, anyway? That someone and someone else was dating for three years and at the end, they did not get married? That’s hardly exceptional, but more to the point, it hardly means anything about anyone that aren’t those two people.
C) No, I don’t see it as “effort”. Your sly implication is that “effort” should lead to “pay-off” and that the act of engaging with anyone else is in and off itself secondary to the possible goal of “scoring” or “getting a relationship”. You are saying that interactions are efforts one endures to “get” something.
Think about that for a little. You’re not dating someone because you like them! You’re dating someone because you like the things they do to or for you. Cool.
D) This entire example is silly, in any Peanut Comic strip I’ve ever read (And backed up by a few character analysises I just read through), the kid never talks so much as talks to his crush – he always ends up losing courage. Instead he stalks her from afar and admires the various leftovers like religious objects. f that’s your working defininition of “effort”, no small wonder no one ever gets a kiss in your world. That was a joke though, I’m pretty sure you have both life and love aplenty. But do consider what you’re really saying here.
E) Identifying as being in a relationship of unrequited emotional force is fine, and it adds texture and drama and significance to every moment of a day, as you pine for your significant other who will notice you any day now… It’s fine that way, I suppose, and I don’t mind people who do it, but please understand that it has little bearing on everyone else, not engaged in your personal emotional turmoil.
I can totally agree that IF someone gets zir kicks by pretending to be in love with someone else and then just kick the person away, that’s a really mean way to get one’s kicks. But I’ll venture that this is terribly rare. If someone feels that zie’s been treated that way, it’s WAY more likely that a) the other person really was in love at first, and then the feelings died away (this happens, you know), b) the other person was honestly trying to find out zir feelings and whether you were compatible, and only realized after a few dates that the answer was “no”, or c) was never interested in the first place but was TOO INSECURE (not too cruel) to say “no” right away, and had to work up some courage in order to do so.
When I was a teenager and no one wanted me I totally believed that it would be a great kick to have people I wasn’t interested in pining over me, like it would make me feel popular and wanted. So I can sort of understand why these bitter guys believe that women would feel that way when the guys start to pine. Well, a few years later I did have guys I wasn’t interested in pining over me and it was just horrible. Having to tell someone that you’re not interested just SUCKS. I think one of the advantages of being monogamous is that you don’t need to have conversations where you tell people that you’re not in love with them or don’t want to go on a date, since that’s out of the question to start with.
One random thought before bed. Any and all Peanuts strips/movies/etc with the little red haired girl leave me going “would you just go talk to her?!?!” (And my mother is a huge Peanuts fan, I think I’ve seen all the movies)
Seriously dude, you don’t need to ask her out or anything, just ask her if she wants to fly a kite or something! Lol that would be a shit test though huh? If she can put up with the kite eating tree she’s a keeper? (Fish are keepers if they’re big enough to be legally caught, girls are keepers like fish? o.Ō?)
And it’s 5 am, so g’night all!
It’s the whole “object of affection/love/lust is required to reciprocate” theme that creeps me out. It’s predominantly the “women owe men” line of course – men are putting in so much effort by actually talking to us – but whatever the gender combination, it’s just off. It’s like casting your eye on someone means you own them. Of course we want to be loved by those we love – but they aren’t obliged to!
This stuff just irks me on a personal level, because of Mr K’s and my history, apart from all the ugly implications about society in general, male entitlement, etc, etc. It’s not that fucking hard to work out.