Notice She Doesn’t Say You Can’t Be an Ego-Inflated, Arrogant Jerk
While researching Wednesday’s post on niceness v. meanness, I stumbled across this website. I haven’t delved too deeply into its message boards. I prefer my masochism in the form of an especially unwelcome alarm clock buzzing or a bit of dehydration. But I did read the article that led me to Heartless Bitches International. Is the article, Why ‘Nice Guys’ are often such LOSERS, just the sort of supportive warm and fuzzy pedantry one would expect from the digital watercooler of Heartless Bitches worldwide? Let’s take a gander:
What’s wrong with Nice Guys? The biggest problem is that most Nice Guys ™ are hideously insecure. They are so anxious to be liked and loved that they do things for other people to gain acceptance and attention, rather than for the simply pleasure of giving. You never know if a Nice Guy really likes you for who you are, or if he has glommed onto you out of desperation because you actually paid some kind of attention to him.
Nice Guys exude insecurity — a big red target for the predators of the world. There are women out there who are “users” — just looking for a sucker to take advantage of. Users home-in on “Nice Guys”, stroke their egos, take them for a ride, add a notch to their belts, and move on. It’s no wonder so many Nice Guys complain about women being horrible, when the so often the kind of woman that gets attracted to them is the lowest form of life…
I am pleasantly nonplussed. That is not what I was expecting. The author really honed in on one of the truths about purported nice guys. Will this continue or will I find myself plussed?
Self-confident, caring, decent-hearted women find “Nice Guys” to be too clingy, self-abasing, and insecure.
Nice Guys go overboard. They bring roses to a “lets get together for coffee” date. They try to buy her affections with presents and fancy things. They think they know about romance, but their timing is all wrong, and they either come-on too strong, too hard and too fast, OR, they are so shy and unassertive, that they hang around pretending to be “friends”, in the hope that somehow, someway, they will get the courage up to ask her out for a “date”.
They are so desperate to please that they put aside their own needs, and place the object of their desire on a pedestal. Instead of appreciating her, they worship her. We are only human, and pedestals are narrow, confining places to be — not to mention the fact that we tend to fall off of them.
Self-confident goddesses prefer it when the sacrifice includes both a goat and a fruit tray. The fertility ritual must include frequent compliments of the goddess’ shoes and statements about how good her butt looks in the ceremonial dress.
Or something like that. The author kind of lost me after the first few words. I think she’s plussing me, though I’m not sure. For the sake of science, let me go back and actually read what she wrote.
. . .
My perplexion continues. The language babbles like a brook and the ideas are couched in feelings, but the truncated version is, “No roses, no pedestals, no supplication, just game us. Forget the couching language and let us retire to this couch. I expect you to provide a thorough rib-rocking shagging.” At least that’s how the well-bred gal would phrase it.
Nice Guys are always asking HER to make the decisions. They think it’s being equitable, but it puts an unfair burden of responsibility on her, and gives him the opportunity to blame her if the decision was an unwise one.
Nice Guys rarely speak up when something bothers them, and rarely state clearly what it is they want, need and expect. They fear that any kind of conflict might spell the end of the relationship. Instead of comprimising and negotiating, they repeatedly “give in”. When she doesn’t appreciate their sacrifice, they will complain that, “Everything I did, I did for her.”, as if this somehow elevates them to the status of martyrs. A woman doesn’t want a martyr. She wants an equal, caring, adult partner.
I’m starting to kind of like this unnamed heartless bitch. She’s telling men to be decisive, even if her logic for liking that personality trait has the hamster wheel spinning so hard that smoke and sparks are flying off. She’s telling men to verbalize their desires. She’s telling men not to prostrate themselves. The last line of the above paragraph does need an edit though. Allow me, “A woman doesn’t want a martyr. She wants a man.”
Unnamed bitch then weaves through various expansions of the anti-pedestalization, anti-oneitis themes for a few paragraphs. Now for the big finish or, if you will, the small death:
This ultimately boils down to the fact that Nice Guys don’t like themselves. Is it any wonder women don’t like them? In order to truly love someone else, you must first love yourself. Too often Nice Guys mistake obsession for “love”.
Get this Guys: INSECURITY ISN’T SEXY. IT’S A TURNOFF.
You don’t have to be an ego-inflated, arrogant jerk. You just have to LIKE yourself. You have to know what you want out of life, and go after it. Only then will you be attractive to the kind of woman with whom a long-term relationship is possible.
And there it is. Insecurity isn’t sexy. You don’t have to be an ego-inflated, arrogant jerk, but it doesn’t hurt. Exude confidence. Focus on your own desires. Pursue your goals, including the most bootylicious of goals. Especially the most bootlyicious goals. Listen to the heartless bitch. She knows of what she speaks.
Awesome find, Ulysses. I’m getting a good kick out of reading this site right now.
The “Heartless Manifesto” gave me a woody. Who are these broads???
Good find. And she’s right on target about ‘nice guys’.
God save my boys from being ‘nice guys’. I’d rather they be ‘men’ instead.
That site is a few glittering gems buried underneath a pile of manure. Check out this boner from “10 Reasons Women (who aren’t Heartless Bitches!) Date Jerks Instead of Nice Guys”:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
They think they know about romance, but their timing is all wrong, and they either come-on too strong, too hard and too fast, OR, they are so shy and unassertive, that they hang around pretending to be “friends”, in the hope that somehow, someway, they will get the courage up to ask her out for a “date”
I think a lot of guys without any other major problems (e.g. who are quite secure generally, and who might be absolutely fine once you were going out with them) really mess up over timing e.g. they don’t work to build attraction before asking out (Game is all about building attraction very quickly, guys sometimes read from this that the woman will either be attracted immediately or not at all, that is not necessarily true where Game is not being employed) or never actually come to the point (I suspect that quite a few guys, who complain about girls not liking nice guys, actually ask out very few girls for fear of rejection)
[When they do ask them out, they do so in a way that presupposes and thus invites rejection.]
I agree with Ferdinand about the site btw.
[As do I. I enjoyed the article I quoted and think it's good advice, but the rest of the site seems to be mostly hogwash.]
I’ve stumbled across this before. Agree with this: That site is a few glittering gems buried underneath a pile of manure.
Even when a woman appears to understand gender dynamics, she will always have some of the same rationalized beliefs that most women do. This isn’t necessarily bad, but you just have to be careful when taking advice from a woman who seems to understand herself better than most.
[When they do ask them out, they do so in a way that presupposes and thus invites rejection.]
As long as presupposes rejection includes asking them out when the woman hasn’t decided to herself if she is attracted or not, I agree. A classic example of a guy falling into this trap would be Mr Darcy’s first marriage proposal in Pride & Prejudice. In fairness the terms of this proposal were indeed such as to invite rejection.
I agree with Ferdinand about the site btw
In fairness I should add that I read a bit more of the site over my lunchbreak and although I don’t agree with all of its ball-busting views on
men the Morrigan is a very funny writer.
[Accidentally gluing herself to the bathroom floor while trying to learn how to give herself a Brazilian was an entertaining, if gruesome, read.]
And it hurt!
The only thing wrong with the Morrigan on HBI (I’ve been reading her for years and long may she reign!!) is that she doesn’t post often enough. Why doesn’t this woman have a book deal yet? She’s the funniest writer I’ve ever read. Check out her column about vibrator shopping and her application to the guy who has an online site advertising for volunteers to give free face. She ROCKS.
I don’t think nice has to equal socially inept. I also really don’t care for her elitist tone. She doesn’t want the pedestal because it would create boundaries against her doing whatever the hell she wants and feeling perfectly justified. But she definitely wants to feel superior while she’s feeling totally turned on.
[If she gets the type of man she actually seems to want, those feelings of superiority will be completely illusory. That makes the piece more entertaining for me.]
I don’t think nice has to equal socially inept
I agree, although I have been guilty of misusing it myself i think that the phrases “nice guy” and “cad” need to be properly defined, people have used them in so many different senses, then of course they have to be fitted in to the whole alpha/beta thing for those who dialogue in those terms.
Also, the reverse of your statement applies too, socially inept does not necessarily mean nice guy in the sense you use it.
Also, the reverse of your statement applies too, socially inept does not necessarily mean nice guy in the sense you use it.
Yes, that’s true. I’ve met some socially inept guys who were real egomanic bastards. Grew up living across the street from one and never understood how he could delude himself into thinking he was the shit.
I would also like it if we could stop using “bitch” as shorthand for “strong, independent, smart woman.” Sometimes a bitch is just a bitch.
I would also like it if we could stop using “bitch” as shorthand for “strong, independent, smart woman.” Sometimes a bitch is just a bitch.
I completely and absolutely agree.
Maybe you could come up with another term.
I have been using nice girls as opposed to skanks, based on level of promiscuity. But this is not satisfactory because once again, you can have very nice albeit promiscuous women and horrible paragons of virtue who are not a bit nice in the real sense of the world. Also, you can have promiscuous women who have reformed.
I think we need to review all this terminology.
SDaedalus – I think we would first have to agree on what promiscuous means wrt women (or men).
Given our current morally relativistic dating market, promiscuous more or less means “has slept with more people than I have.” Which is not much of a definition.
To me the term “skank” implies bad hygiene in addition to promiscuity. It’s a slightly greasier epithet than “slut.”
I know there are those in this part of the interwebz who think a lifetime bed partner of more than 3 makes you promiscuous and also interferes with your ability to bond successfully or cook well or learn German, but since we are shoving sexuality on girls who are really too young to know what they are doing and what it means long term, I’m hesitant to consign a girl with 4 past lovers to the garage sale dating market.
I do agree: some clarity would be nice.
I only speak for myself, but there’s an attitude that goes with skank and slut. It’s not solely a numbers game, though the numbers do matter.
Update: I guess I don’t only speak for myself since SDaedalus wrote a similar, if expanded, comment below.
I would also like it if we could stop using “bitch” as shorthand for “strong, independent, smart woman.” Sometimes a bitch is just a bitch.
So true. I hate this thing in which traits like “asshole” and “bitch” are aspired to and you have young people tripping all over themselves in this mad lemming rush to embody ignobility just because they are too lazy to fine tune the thin line that straddles good/evil. Easier to just go balls out and embrace the path of least resistance…
SDaedalus – I think we would first have to agree on what promiscuous means wrt women (or men).
Oh I know, that is a further difficulty. Really, to satisfy some of the definitions of “chaste woman” floating round the Manosphere one would have to be either a virgin or a widow who had remained chaste until her wedding night (indeed some might even reject the widow on the basis of her being used goods).
I don’t necessarily think it is solely the number, the attitude on which the encounters were embarked on would also be relevant. Presumably the woman’s age would also be of relevance. Any categorisation would have to be in the most general and superficial terms.
It is a minefield, but I do think that some basic definitions are essential for dialogue on this issue, even if these involve over-generalisation, otherwise it is like the Tower of Babel.
one would have to be… a virgin….
And this doesn’t even resolve the issue because of course there is the question of whether or not this requires complete purity of all orifices or merely of the one most generally associated with heteronormative sex.
“They are so anxious to be liked and loved that they do things for other people to gain acceptance and attention, rather than for the simply pleasure of giving.”
Asking is begging, and begging is contemptible.
Sounds like someone who is trying to rationalize why she only goes out with dicks.