Men’s Rightsers and Pickup Artists alike are obsessed with the dilemma of the so-called “Nice Guy” who can’t get laid. MRAs see his plight as a symptom of a gynocratic society in which fickle, asshole-loving women are the gatekeepers of sex; PUAs see it as a sign that beta males need to learn how to imitate the vaguely aloof swagger of the natural alpha male.
And both MRAs and PUAs completely miss the point.
To see just how badly they do, let’s take a look at a recent post from the sadly influential PUA shitbag Heartiste, who uses an alleged Facebook screencap of uncertain provenance as a springboard for a diatribe against the “desperate male,” that is, the “desperate, clingy ünterbeta male” who pursues a woman, often in a weirdly apologetic, even abject way, long after she’s made it clear she has no interest in him.
But Heartiste’s example, as you’ll quickly notice, isn’t exactly a textbook case of so-called “friendzoning.” (I’ve blotted out the dude’s face; Heartiste didn’t bother.)
Be warned: it’s a teensy bit long.
Yeah, so I’m thinking that the problem isn’t so much that the dude here is “too beta” as that he’s “a creepy stalker with no sense of boundaries and the obsessive persistence of a serial killer.” It’s not even clear why he’s developed this fixation on her. He says nothing to suggest he knows anything about her other than that she’s a “pretty lady,” and she doesn’t remember ever even meeting him.
Heartiste, naturally, takes him to task not for his creepery but for violating “just about every Poon Commandment” — that is, Heartiste’s set of “alpha male” rules for getting, well, “poon.”
He also notes the fellow’s repeated promises to not “take advantage” of her if she comes over to his place. Generally speaking, when someone casually promises not to rape you on your first date, and presents this as if it’s somehow a generous gesture on their part, it’s pretty much the opposite of reassuring, as it sort of suggests that they were at least considering it as a possibility.
But Heartiste sees it as an example of excessive chivalry:
Any man who thinks promising a woman that he “won’t take advantage of her” is the way to her heart is a power tool. Chivalry works in the abstract (specifically that abstract where unicorns are a possibility); in practice it’s an abysmal failure. A woman, if asked, will always say she wants a man “who respects her need to take it slow”, but in reality, where her words meet the unstoppable force of her tingles, a chivalrous gentleman’s pose is the equivalent of downselling: “Sure, this smartphone looks fast and functional, but it actually has parts made from Fisher Price toys. Try this cheapskate badboy clamshell over here instead.”
No, dude, the problem isn’t that this guy is being too “nice.” The problem is that he’s creeping out a random woman because he refuses to accept that she’s not interested in him.
The trouble with a lot of so-called “Nice Guys” isn’t that they don’t understand when a woman has rejected them — our creepy Romeo in the screenshots here was aware that he was probably “bothering” her only a few messages in. It’s that they refuse to accept these clear if implicit “no’s” as real” no’s.” Because, on some level, no matter how lonely and desperate and “ünterbeta” they may feel, they still feel entitled to sex with a “pretty lady.”
I rather doubt that many “Nice Guys” show up for work at companies that have interviewed them and hired someone else. The solution isn’t for these guys to learn “game”; it’s for them to learn to respect a “pretty lady’s” no as they would anyone else’s.
I was going to avoid sharing this… but the only guy who said “relax, I won’t hurt you” to me is the guy who tried to rape me.
Also, are serial killers even that persistent? Aren’t a lot of them random and opportunistic?
Did you miss the part where people have said that they recognize this behavior because it looks just like behavior that they’ve experienced coming from guys who weren’t on the spectrum, and whose social skills were just fine except for when it came to hearing “no” from a woman? We are assuming creeperness because we have been creeped on in exactly this way.
FFS, why are you harping on about serial killers, Psychotic Girl? We’re talking about serial pests and yes, possibly rapists, because it is extremely common behaviour. We’re not the ones associating it with mental illness. What part of that do you not understand?
I don’t give a flying fuck if a man has an illness or social inability or what, if he’s creeping me out, or doing it to anyone else. How about reading the post Ally linked to? It’s a strong reminder that this shit is used to excuse men and blame women All. The. Fucking. Time (ever see a woman who’s non neurotypical get a pass on her behaviour?).
Repeating for the umpteenth time: regardless of his inner workings the behaviour is creepy.
Women as a group do not have the luxury of seeing behavior like this from the perspective of uninvolved bystanders. We’re involved whether we like it or not, because it can happen to any of us, and every time people make excuses for the behavior they increase the likeliness of it continuing to happen.
Also, funny how it’s not okay to internet diagnose, or attribute bad behaviour to being mentally ill or non-NT or whatever … when it’s used to blame those groups. Yet we’re being asked right now to feel sorry for this guy, or diagnose him, or yes, give him a pass because his behaviour might, just might, suggest he’s on the spectrum.
Funny how it works in favour of the stalker, the groper, the harasser, every single fucking time. It’s become a handy-dandy new excuse for men who victimise women, yet another way in which the harassers are supported and the victims blamed.
(I got an extra delivery of italics this morning.)
How about no? Even if the dude is on the spectrum, a.) it doesn’t mean he can’t learn, it’s not a free pass to act however he wants, and b.) you’re trying to internet diagnose a person you know nothing about.
I am so tired of this “maybe he’s on the spectrum” shit to excuse a guy’s behavior. It seems to be everywhere recently.
b.) you’re trying to internet diagnose a person you know nothing about.
Which is all the more confusing, given Psychotic Girl started out talking about how it’s wrong that being mentally ill or nonNT is associated with bad behaviour … yet then went on to insist that we should associate this dude’s bad behaviour with being on the spectrum, and to give him a pass on it, despite zir disclaimers.
It makes no sense to me.
Gracious, blockquote monster must be on its lunch break!
Will have to figure out the italics button myself, in the meantime I’ll try caps.
The serial killer thing is a reference to the wording used to describe the guy in the main article. It bugs me that serial killer is the go-to word to stigmatise any kind of abnormal behaviour (e.g. persistence – are serial killers even persistent?) Hence my comments. It may be slight derailing as I am NOT trying to blame the victim. I’m not even trying to say that the guy’s on any spectrum of autism, only that it’s a possibility. When there are so many men that are OBVIOUSLY and UNARGUABLY creeps who IGNORE a woman’s stated refusal and BLAME her for her freedoms, do we really need to assume the worst about men who haven’t yet done this?
That is literally ALL I’m saying. Point out how wrong and threatening the behaviour is, YES. But there’s no need to make assumptions about the person committing it (who yes, may certainly be a total and utter creep, but is not necessarily so). Was all I was trying to say. [end caps]
Bottom line – the fact that women see this behavior and think “creepy” is a good thing, because the behavior indicates a potential disregard for boundaries that could be dangerous. If men start to recognize this behavior as creepy too, even better! Because that would indicate that we’re moving towards a culture where women’s right to not be harassed is being recognized, and that we might get some support from men if we try to defend our boundaries.
Safety is more important than hurt feelings. It sucks for the people whose feelings might be hurt because their intentions weren’t malicious, but there it is. The way for those potentially hurt feelings to be minimized is for men to learn that crossing women’s boundaries in this way is not OK (which will be harder for some men than it is for others), not for women to avoid labeling the behavior as creepy.
I’m sure they’ll be just fine. Here’s the thing–we don’t know a dude is going to pull this shit until he pulls it. If the other dudes get tarred with the brush of my suspicion, too fucking bad. My safety comes before dudely feels.
“Haven’t yet done this?”
Look at your own wording. If we wait until the person who’s acting creepy actually hurts someone before calling them a creep, which is apparently the worst thing ever, then it’s too late.
This is “what about the menz” writ extra-large.
Ok, I had this LOOOONG comment typed up, and then my fucking iPad decided to spit, I’m not retyping all of it.
Pecunium, re: arsenic and forensics — you have my interest piqued, and know me well!
Kitteh, re: the same — yeah, I know, psychology was no better.
Borg stuff — anyone who wants to write on red flags should draft things, or email me about doing so, or such (you can email me via the Borg contact form, clicky my nym to locate it)
Re: serial killers — most aren’t mentally ill, and if they are, it’s almost always antisocial personality disorder. In my weeks now of watching serial killer documentaries, I have, in fact, come across exactly zero that were on the spectrum, or seemed like they may’ve been (for those around before the diagnosis was commonly made). No, they aren’t usually persistent, but stalkers can definitely turn killers, even serial killers; and they do frequently have a “type” (kids, blondes, women who look like their mother, etc)
“I don’t know, is it more ableist to consider the possibility that someone has a disability that may account for aspects of their behaviour, or not to consider it?”
The fucking former. First off, mental illness does not inherently mean disability. Now that that’s been said…speculating from absolutely nothing besides the unacceptable behavior, that said behavior may be the result of some mental condition that we cannot possibly know if he has, is worse than not speculating and just labeling the behavior as unacceptable. For one, said speculation implies that the behavior is directly, and commonly enough to be discussing it, correlated with the condition in question — that is, anyone on the spectrum might act like an asshole in this manner, which is beyond demeaning to the everyone on the spectrum that doesn’t act like an asshole. And even to those that do, as it implies they can’t control their inability to behave acceptably (that’s reason #2). Reason #3 that it’s worse to speculate is that you’re assuming you can tell enough about a person from one thing that may or may not be a symptom of a condition with a large number of symptoms, to make a reasonable enough guess that that’s the cause of the behavior, thus justifying debating whether they might be behaving unacceptably because they have a mental condition.
In short, speculating if this guy is on the spectrum means assuming you can tell, from just this one unacceptable behavior, that the odds of him being on the spectrum are high enough to be speculating about whether he is or not; it also means assuming that anyone on the spectrum may accidentally behave like this; and that if he is on the spectrum it somehow makes this behavior more acceptable.
——
Seeing how we’re having this conversation again, I’m claiming a horse (it’s been more than 24 hours) and reseting the timer to 6~ — that’s six unicorns, three horses, carrots from Shaun and apples from Falconer (I think, if it was someone else, please correct me!)
I mean, a guy who’s acting like this might not hurt anyone. Why don’t we just wait and see? What could possibly go wrong with that? Obviously his right not to be called creepy in a forum that he probably won’t even see is far more important than anything else here.
Yeah, I dunno, it doesn’t matter whether this person has something going on that we don’t know about. If that were me on the receiving end, I’d be concerned that this person was either not aware of my boundaries or choosing to ignore them – both of which are cause for concern.
Plus, this behaviour is way too common, if we started attributing this guys behaviour as something beyond his control that effectively gives a free pass to everyone who exhibits this type of behaviour because how are we supposed to know in almost any situation unless you are already familiar with the person. It sets a scary precedence.
Bottom line is it doesn’t matter because they still need to know that their behaviour is unacceptable.
Really?
I missed that, but yeah, Psychotic Girl, you kind of tipped your hand there in terms of the perspective you’re arguing from.
@pineapplecookies 🙁 that’s horrible, thank you for sharing with us
It makes me angry that women get shamed for being creeped out, it is practically the only mechanism we have to detect unsafe situations
Not a Nice Guy (TM)!!!!
I thought the harshest thing you could call a guy is “creep.”
Instead of calling men who act like this Nice Guys or creepy we should call them wonderful fluffy kittens, so their feelings aren’t hurt. But wait! That might make them feel un-manly, so instead we should call them super cool and awesome guys.
And hey, look, women have now lost the ability to name their discomfort at the way men are behaving and to warn each other about men who cross their boundaries. Isn’t linguistic sexism awesome?