'Nice Guy' Tools

the-boy-got-game:

THIS!

Or maybe you’re just not as nice as you think you are.

So maybe a better question is: Why are so many women reinforcing the idea that insecure, manipulative jerks who feel entitled to 20-year-old booty if they put on a clean shirt and refrain from saying “whore” out loud are nice guys? How is it that so many guys like Sodini — the kind who routinely refer to women as “hoes” (sic) and “bitches,” and act disgusted by the thought of women having sex with any other men — have heard, “You’re really nice, but…” again and again in the course of being rejected?

In a post about how women’s socialization leads to the very behavior we’re blamed for if we have the poor judgment to let ourselves be raped, blogger Harriet Jacobs offers one answer. She says women are taught, among other things, that “it is not okay to set solid and distinct boundaries and reinforce them immediately and dramatically when crossed (‘mean bitch’)… it is not okay to make personal decisions that the adults or other peers in your life do not agree with, and it is not okay to refuse to explain those decisions to others (‘stuck-up bitch’)… it is not okay to completely and utterly shut down somebody who obviously likes you (‘mean dyke/frigid bitch).”

sophistory:

So I realised the other week, as I do at fairly regular intervals, that I don’t know jack about Feminism.

Oh, feminism, I do okay with; I like to think I’ve internalised the basic concepts fairly well, at least. Capital-F Feminism, though? Not so much.

I had a big long post here about Dalygate, and about white women’s tears and how we keep making the same mistakes, but basically it boils down to:

1. Privileging academia and holding it up as the One True Way is gross and exclusionary. If some higher power decided that you had to have X amount of book-learning, or a piece of paper from such-and-such university before you could call yourself a feminist or advocate for equality, then not only would it pretty much be a death knell for the movement, it would also be bullshit, and classist as fuck. HOWEVER,
2. There’s value in knowing where we’ve been. Partly because we are standing on the shoulders of giants, and can learn a lot from what they’ve accomplished - but also because as long as we fail to learn from history, we will keep fucking up, and keep perpetuating the same oppressions and marginalisations that made feminism such a toxic place for anyone who wasn’t a white, middle-class ciswoman.

Hence this post: 25 downloadable introductory texts on the history and philosophy of feminism; on the key debates, major movements, and important figures both past and present; on feminist literature, sociology, political theory, and theology; and on perspectives that challenge mainstream feminist traditions.

Some notes:

• This is in no way intended to offer a comprehensive or be-all and end-all view of feminism. This is pretty much just a bunch of texts, some more academic than others, that I was able to dig up and that sounded as though they might be useful. If you have a book you want to add to the list, feel free to do so via reblog, or send me the link via submission (credit will be given). Likewise, if any links are broken, let me know via ask.
• I have tried for the most part to stick with edited anthologies and university readers rather than works by individual authors, both to offer broader and more varied perspectives, but also to try and minimise the loss of profit to feminist writers. There are lots of the latter, and they are cool beans; check out this much fuller reading list at Autostraddle, and buy their work if you can.
• Where possible, I have avoided Amazon purchase links, because Amazon are really terrible. I have instead used AbeBooks, which is all independent retailers, and BookDepository, which offers free shipping to all these countries.
• The following books are all .rar’d PDFs on MegaUpload. With the exception of two or three, which are scans of the book pages, all of them should convert reasonably well to other ebook formats. For conversion/general ebook management, I recommend Calibre.
• Is that it? I think that’s it. ONWARDS!

Some basic introductions to feminism: 

Feminism: A Very Short Introduction - Margaret Walters (2005)

This book provides an historical account of feminism, exploring its earliest roots as well as key issues including voting rights, the liberation of the sixties, and its global relevance today. - [BUY]

Feminism: The Pocket Essential - Susan Osborne (2001)

The Feminism Pocket Essential looks at the important names and texts in the history of feminism, from Mary Wollstonecraft to Germaine Greer; from John Stuart Mill’s ‘The Subjection of Women’ to Betty Friedan’s ‘The Feminine Mystique’ and Naomi Wolf’s ‘The Beauty Myth’. It explores the history of feminist thought and the wide range of debate and discussion in contemporary feminism. - [BUY]

Read More

[Good morning, Professor Psychology. Oh, I’m fine; how are you? Still your usual charming self, I hope? Good. Now, I know I said last night that I would attempt to address your submission, but since you have shown in such abundance that you are not, in fact, hoping to have a ‘healthy discussion’ as you claim below, and are more interested in looking like an internet badass, I have decided: nah.

I am, however, publishing your submission without commentary, as I feel that such majestic, dazzling stupidity ought never to hide its light beneath a bushel. This, if I may hold your work up to the rest of the class, is a truly magnificent example of Not Getting It; a masterpiece of obtuseness. It is, in fact, one of the densest, most blitheringly asinine things I have read all week - and I track the ‘misandry’ tag.

In short: it doesn’t need my commentary. It speaks for itself.

Good day, Professor Psychology. I hope your degree in Telling Bitches serves you well.]

I am not much for debates but I like discussions. So here i go.

On the topic of ‘Nice guys/girls being obligated to be with someone’ from the post http://niceguytools.tumblr.com/post/13972835563/marikgorasi-derptwerp-werocksocks

I have a few questions but I guess the ask box would be too small for the amount of text allowed. Would you say that the ‘nice-guy syndrome’ is a generally learned behavior that has been bred from interaction with others who continuously have the comment of ‘I just want a nice guy/girl’ whenever they have a relationship problem/breakup, being single for an extensive period of time or just being a whiny person?

Also how would you define being nice for a person? I know that the definition of it is to be pleasant, good-natured, kind but wouldn’t that be the simple social game of knowing your cues and being able to juggle your social skills in order to be a pleasant person? I am not trying to say that there are no good-natured people in the world, I mean its all about upbringing and character predisposition but still there are people who are genuinely good-natured.

Would they be the ‘true’ nice guys because they are unbiased by the social game where they need to respond to social cues in order to appear nice but still dont get the girl because of bad timing, opposing interests, wrong location, current life crisis and etc?

I would like to have your opinions on this and possibly have a healthy discussion.

marikgorasi:

Gotta play the part in order to get you guys going.

Okay, so I see your submission, and I’m going to try to get around to it tomorrow, but you need to know: this is not cute, and it is not funny, and the only reason I did not call you on the exact same thing Anon is reaming you for is because my response was already tl;dr enough. Women get to use language like that in an ironic, reclamatory manner. As a dude attempting to mansplain to women what they want BECAUSE MAH MAN-BRAIN PSYCHOLOGY LEARNINGS, you really, really do not. And the fact that you’re attempting to excuse it with “Haw haw only a joke, had to get you feminists properly riled up!” is seriously not helping your case.

Knock it the fuck off.

marikgorasi:

derptwerp:

werocksocks:

sanityscraps:

niceguytools:

gentlesavage:

thegrayofit:

ginny-wrocks:

kupoh:

tidepooling:

niceguytools:

Fuck you if you think anyone is ever obligated to ‘give someone a chance’, romantically or sexually. You are not owed anything. You are responsible for your own behaviour. And if you use this to excuse ~turning into~ an asshole, chances are you were pretty much an asshole to begin with.

Although I do see everyone’s point here, it does suck to be constantly put in the friend zone. Several times the reasons have been because I was too nice of a guy. 

I understand that it isn’t necessarily  another person’s fault for not being in a relationship with someone, and that no one is obligated to be in one with someone either (unless you live in that kind of a culture). I am just saying that it stinks that a lot of people don’t give us nice folks a chance. 

Okay, I am gonna go ahead and drop a truth bomb here. Gentlemen, hold onto your egos. Here it is:

Nobody ever gets rejected for being literally too nice.

Okay, that’s a bit of overstatement. Out of 100% of rejections, I’m sure there’s a slender 0.00001% who just genuinely don’t like nice people. These rejecters may have a fluffy white cat, an underground fortress filled with doomsday devices, and an obsession with hunting down and eliminating sexy secret agents - but then again, they may not. Whatever you’re into, and all that.

People, in general, don’t want to be asswipes - or at least not to your face. We are conditioned to be polite, because it greases the wheels of social interaction. We are taught that while we can express a ‘yes’ with directness and enthusiasm (“Sure, I’d love to.” / “That’d be great!”), a ‘no’ must be softened, prefaced and padded with apologies and explanations (“I’d love to meet up for lunch, but I have a dentist appointment that day.” / “I wish I could come up for coffee, but I have work in the morning, sorry.”). This is doubly true for women, who are heavily socially conditioned to avoid displays aggressiveness and forthrightness whenever possible - after all, that’s the sort of thing that gets us called ‘dyke bitches’ and ‘ballbusters’ and ‘ungrateful cunts’.*

So when someone rejects you and mentions how ‘nice’ you are in the process, odds are that they mean one of a number of things:

“You’re really nice, but…” - “I’m not into you. This may be because: I am not sexually attracted to you / I do not think we are romantically compatible / I don’t want to be in a relationship right now / [any other reason I am entirely within my rights to have for not wanting to date you]. Because I don’t want to be rude, I will soften and paraphrase my reasoning, and pad it with compliments so as not to hurt your feelings and risk you becoming angry.”

“…but you’re just too nice.” - “I think we get on well enough as friends, but you are too clingy / self-abasing / lacking in self-confidence / needy / your attention is smothering / you put me on a pedestal in a way that makes me uncomfortable / being in a relationship with you would be exhausting / etc. etc. However, because I don’t want to be rude and I don’t want you to become angry, I will avoid mentioning this directly, and instead turn it into a compliment in such a way that implies the fault is mine for not liking nice people.”

If people aren’t giving you a chance and are constantly friend-zoning you (p.s. THAT’S NOT A THING, and you should stop talking about it as though it is), you can be 99.99999% sure that it is never because you are literally too kind and decent to want to be in a relationship with. Trust me, the problem lies elsewhere.

*Slightly more in-depth breakdowns of this can be read here, and in the second half of this post - and these are just from what I happened to have open in my tabs. That’s how pervasive this is. Note that the first article is about how rapists can choose to deliberately misinterpret a lack of explicit consent - so you can also consider this a trigger warning - and the second is mostly about a different brouhaha and the phenomenon of mansplaining, but they’re still good basic examinations of the difficulties people, especially women, face in saying ‘no’ directly.

WARNING: This is gonna sound quite anti-feminist for most of you ladies so hold onto your panties, don’t get them in a bunch and get your feminist hats off and think objectively. Thank you. 

 As a psychology student I can say that the above commentary is quite valid and all but that is quite biased on the feminist aspect as well. The main reason why a feminine male (not gay but a ‘nice guy’ as you call them) is rejected the majority of the time is mainly the social teachings of society. We can preach about how hard it is for women to say no, how men are crafty, and how nice guys finish last but the reallity of the situation is that women will always go for the guy who can meet their basic needs first (that have been developed over millenia)  over someone who can not do so.

Basic needs:

1. Protection: A woman wants to be protected/sheltered by their significant other. Be secure physically, which means that the scrawny dude who is sucking up to her will be run over by the more confident wingman. This is why the majority of pictures of males that are in circulation on tumblr is that of ‘handsome men’ who have a ‘hot body’ and a chiseled physique. 

2.  Resources: Once a girl actually talks with the guy she will find out what he does for a living. THIS is where feminine men need to prioritize in order to even get a girlfriend. If all a ‘nice guy’ does is sit around and hangout with friends who also just sit around and do nothing, his chances are diminished by a whole standard deviation. If he had a 50% chance now he has 15% to get the girl. Why? RESOURCES. Because if he were to be friends with the right people, have a strong job position that places him into a career path, or has a meaningful hobby his chances would be increased. More resources means more self reliance which means higher chance that a girl will be with the guy and not kill her bank account or have him JUST for emotional support.

3. Physique: Yes, we are all vain inside. And we all think how cute we would look to others as a couple. Do not deny it, embrace it. Its a natural thing to think of because we as organic lifeforms want to have offspring with the highest potential. That is why most of you ladies drool allover your monitors while staring at the half naked men that I get bombarded with on a regular basis. And 99.9999% of the time all of them can fit the same identical mold as though they came from a cloning facility. Sharp jawline, abs, arms, shoulders, pecks etc. Basically the works. Rarely is there the ‘anti-media’ and artistic expression of males where they are average looking if not chubby. 

4.Social interaction: Here nice guys dominate but they always seem to have a few bumps down the yellow brick road because the ‘retarded frat-jock’ throws a curve ball at you ladies. The frat-jock escapes his job of being a jerk 24/7, shows his nice side which is like a breath of fresh air in a cesspool full of shit. This is the main problem with feminine guys, if they keep being ‘nice’ they do not even register on the radar because they keep doing the same things over and over again, never spiking the scale. So this double edged sword slices them back whenever they do something ‘mean’, ‘bad’, ‘stupid’ or ‘unacceptable’ which catches the radar for you ladies but negatively. All of those negative actions that I mentioned are not registered when the frat-jock makes them because its expected of them to do all those things. So nice guys really have to work hard to stay nice, which kinda makes them bland and they blend into the background.

For you TLDRs: Feminine males are placing themselves at a harder position when it comes to the dating game if they want to stay within their parameters of being nice, which means being honest. By being a ‘nice guy’ they are in the hardcore mode in the dating game so they have little lee-way when it comes to making mistakes. So nice guys need to learn how to play the dating game if they really want to be with a certain girl. Toughen up, read up and get out there. Stop being a ‘nice guy’ when trying to get a girl and get into gear.

Oh jeez. Evo-psych. Here we go.

(Note: this was getting hella long to be plastering all over people’s dashes, so I cut out some of the intervening, “Preach!” / “This!” type commentary to try and condense it down to the main thread of discussion. You can see what I removed here, in marikgorasi’s post.)

Point by point:

0) Nice intro. You almost make it seem like you think we haven’t heard all these arguments a million trillion times before. But whoa, hey, I guess we ladies who actually have the lived experience of being women better sit down and let Professor Psychology here explain to us what we really want. Also, any argument that predicates itself on, “This is what women/men want because evolution!” is intrinsically fucked, because it erases the lives and experiences of trans* folk.

1) ‘Protection’: If this were true, we would still be stuck in the 50s, when (middle-to-upper-class, primarily white) women were expected to be content to stay at home, raise the kids, and let the big, strong man provide for all her needs. Pretty demonstrably untrue. The physical preferences part of this, I will address below.

2) ‘Resources’: SPOILER, everyone likes a bit of security. That is, the knowledge that tomorrow will be pretty much like today, that no catastrophes are looming, that one’s job/finances/relationship/etc. are not about to go spiraling off the edge of some precipice of uncertainty. Whether or not a partner will detract from that security or will be unwilling to contribute towards it is a legitimate factor for anyone considering a relationship. However, this is a rational choice, and not some primordial instinct that women can’t override. Everyone is perfectly capable of deciding for or against it, and plenty of women can and do decide that, to them, a wealth of resources is less important than other factors in a relationship. See: my mother, who supported my father for the duration of his professional apprenticeship, with no promise of subsequent financial security.

3) ‘Physique’: Where to begin. First off, perhaps by pointing out that the strongest proponents of this chiseled, beefcake male ideal are… men. Seriously. Go to a newsagents’, and look at the magazines. Which is the one with the hunkalicious, shirtless, muscular Adonis on the cover? Is it up by Playboy, plastered with teasing cover-ups and headlines like, ‘FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AT THE READY! RYAN GOSLING FLEXES HIS RIPPLING PECS JUST FOR THE LADIES’? Is it over with the rest of the ‘women’s interest’ magazines, showing Taylor Lautner draped sensually in wolfskin? Nope. It’s Men’s Health, over by a bunch of magazines with titles like Choppers: Manly As Shit!, and Fuck Yeah Sports and Technology and Stuff - FOR DUDES. That chiseled, super-buff ideal is a male power fantasy, and coincides with straight women’s preferences only inasmuch as sexual taste is as varied and unique as individuals themselves.

That segues into my next point, which is: stating that all straight women prefer this concocted standard of male beauty is as stupid and fallacious as saying that all straight men prefer the equally-fabricated female beauty ideal. I’m not saying that these arbitrary standards don’t inform how people judge the appearance of others - that’s part of why they’re so damn harmful. But they’re also harmful because they invalidate other models of sexual desire. How many men do you think are into chubby or fat women? How many men do you think find very dark-skinned women beautiful? How many men do you think are turned on by butch women, or androgynous women, or women bodybuilders? And how many men do you think would be comfortable talking with their dudebros about how super hot they find these women that fall outside the parameters of the ‘ideal’?

It’s the same for women. Though in fact, this is one area in which I think straight women do have it a little easier than straight men, simply because - even considering all of the above - society and the media are still much more accepting of a wide variety of body types and appearances amongst men than amongst women. I mean, how many films and tv shows can you think of where the Average Joe protagonist gets the hot, thin girl, or has a hot, thin wife? And how many can you think of where the reverse is true? Straight women have a little more leeway with regards to what it is socially acceptable for us to consider attractive. The reason you don’t see this reflected in the media is because, as above, said media is not generally interested in catering to our actual desires.* We love all sorts. We really do.

*There’s probably something to be said about why so many straight women are into gay porn, and how much it might have to do with the fact that in gay porn, a much broader spectrum of male bodies are framed as sexually desirable, but that is a whoooole other essay, and way too complicated an issue to start delving into here.

4) ‘Social interaction’: I don’t even know what the hell to say to this, apart from: cool ableism, bro. Like. This is just straight-up nonsense. People generally expect known assholes to act like assholes, and decent folk to stay decent? And are taken aback when they turn around and do the opposite? AMAZING. More importantly, though, I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to this quote: ‘So nice guys really have to work hard to stay nice’.

I… see.

Re: your final point about ‘nice guys needing to drop the act and get into gear’, I refer you back to my very first response to this image.

Thank you, and goodnight.

gentlesavage:

thegrayofit:

ginny-wrocks:

kupoh:

tidepooling:

niceguytools:

Fuck you if you think anyone is ever obligated to ‘give someone a chance’, romantically or sexually. You are not owed anything. You are responsible for your own behaviour. And if you use this to excuse ~turning into~ an asshole, chances are you were pretty much an asshole to begin with.

^^^^ yep

oh fucking hell

Preach. I’m so fucking sick of “nice guy syndrome”—I’m so sweet, if you don’t want to date me, clearly you’re an evil bitch and hate me because I’m nice.

Mmmmhhhhmmm. Sorry if I want a guy with a little confidence. 

Although I do see everyone’s point here, it does suck to be constantly put in the friend zone. Several times the reasons have been because I was too nice of a guy. 

I understand that it isn’t necessarily  another person’s fault for not being in a relationship with someone, and that no one is obligated to be in one with someone either (unless you live in that kind of a culture). I am just saying that it stinks that a lot of people don’t give us nice folks a chance. 

Okay, I am gonna go ahead and drop a truth bomb here. Gentlemen, hold onto your egos. Here it is:

Nobody ever gets rejected for being literally too nice.

Okay, that’s a bit of an overstatement. Out of 100% of rejections, I’m sure there’s a slender 0.00001% who just genuinely don’t like nice people. These rejecters may have a fluffy white cat, an underground fortress filled with doomsday devices, and an obsession with hunting down and eliminating sexy secret agents - but then again, they may not. Whatever you’re into, and all that.

People, in general, don’t want to be asswipes - or at least not to your face. We are conditioned to be polite, because it greases the wheels of social interaction. We are taught that while we can express a ‘yes’ with directness and enthusiasm (“Sure, I’d love to.” / “That’d be great!”), a ‘no’ must be softened, prefaced and padded with apologies and explanations (“I’d love to meet up for lunch, but I have a dentist appointment that day.” / “I wish I could come up for coffee, but I have work in the morning, sorry.”). This is doubly true for women, who are heavily socially conditioned to avoid displays of aggressiveness and forthrightness whenever possible - after all, that’s the sort of thing that gets us called ‘dyke bitches’ and ‘ballbusters’ and ‘ungrateful cunts’.*

So when someone rejects you and mentions how ‘nice’ you are in the process, odds are that they mean one of a number of things:

“You’re really nice, but…” - “I’m not into you. This may be because: I am not sexually attracted to you / I do not think we are romantically compatible / I don’t want to be in a relationship right now / [any other reason I am entirely within my rights to have for not wanting to date you]. Because I don’t want to be rude, I will soften and paraphrase my reasoning, and pad it with compliments so as not to hurt your feelings and risk you becoming angry.”

“…but you’re just too nice.” - “I think we get on well enough as friends, but you are too clingy / self-abasing / lacking in self-confidence / needy / your attention is smothering / you put me on a pedestal in a way that makes me uncomfortable / being in a relationship with you would be exhausting / etc. etc. However, because I don’t want to be rude and I don’t want you to become angry, I will avoid mentioning this directly, and instead turn it into a compliment in such a way that implies the fault is mine for not liking nice people.”

If people aren’t giving you a chance and are constantly friend-zoning you (p.s. THAT’S NOT A THING, and you should stop talking about it as though it is), you can be 99.99999% sure that it is never because you are literally too kind and decent to want to be in a relationship with. Trust me, the problem lies elsewhere.

*Slightly more in-depth breakdowns of this can be read here, and in the second half of this post - and these are just from what I happened to have open in my tabs. That’s how pervasive this is. Note that the first article is about how rapists can choose to deliberately misinterpret a lack of explicit consent - so you can also consider this a trigger warning - and the second is mostly about a different brouhaha and the phenomenon of mansplaining, but they’re still good basic examinations of the difficulties people, especially women, face in saying ‘no’ directly.

Fuck you if you think anyone is ever obligated to ‘give someone a chance’, romantically or sexually. You are not owed anything. You are responsible for your own behaviour. And if you use this to excuse ~turning into~ an asshole, chances are you were pretty much an asshole to begin with.

niceguyrules:

gordonecker:

naespark:

goodbyeblues:

dragonhugs:

niceguyrules:

by http://youraverageromeo.tumblr.com/

ah yes

oh my GOD

Oh my fucking god, everyone is misinterpreting this?

They don’t mean stalk, jesus christ. They mean when the girl is upset and tries to send you off because of that. But you stay, in case she needs you. Would you take a moment to think?

I read through that Tumblr, and you seem to be right, it’s filled with advice aimed at genuinely nice guys who know what they’re doing, and a lot of them seem to be aimed at guys who are already in romantic relationships and / or close friendships. IMO there are two reasons for that misinterpretation. I’m pretty sure the rule is supposed to be read as something along the lines of “If your close friend or significant other tells you she (or he) doesn’t want to stay but you’re sure that she (or he) needs you there, trust your instincts.”. A lot of people misread it as “She needs you because you’re a man and you know better than her. Chip away at her boundaries until she hooks up with you. It’s not stalking until she slaps you with a restraining order.”.

They’re probably misinterpreting it because a bunch of creeps on the internet have given the term “nice guy” a bad name. I think it started with a website called “NiceGuy’s Ameriskanks (mostly) Suck!” in 2001, which is, as I understand it, one of the most popular websites offering dating advice for misogynistic creeps (alongside Ladder Theory). Basically, a bunch of bitter, entitled misogynistic creeps who try to seduce women by pretending to be their friends and then grumble about getting friend zoned have been calling themselves nice guys (and it seems that a lot of them genuinely believe they are nice guys), and their misuse of the term has made a lot of people wary of the term “nice guy” due to the negative connotations it has acquired. In that context, it’s easy to misinterpret the Nice Guy Rule #49 Second, the rule comes off as sexist, and seems to be implying “She always needs you to stay, and you should know it.”.

thank you.

I’m pretty sure the rule is supposed to be read as something along the lines of “If your close friend or significant other tells you she (or he) doesn’t want to stay but you’re sure that she (or he) needs you there, trust your instincts.”. A lot of people misread it as “She needs you because you’re a man and you know better than her. Chip away at her boundaries until she hooks up with you. It’s not stalking until she slaps you with a restraining order.”

Your weasel-wording doesn’t make these two statements different things, jsyk. If you choose to ‘trust your instincts’ over what your friend* is asking you to do, then you are ipso facto presuming that you know better than them.

Look, this is what you need to understand: it doesn’t fucking matter that you’re not consciously thinking, “Muahaha, silly female, my man-brain is superior to yours and I know better; ergo I shall simply overrule your wishes and erode away at your boundaries until you give in and have sex with me!”. I mean, jfc, if you were consciously thinking that, then you’d have much, much worse problems than simply being a dickrinse Nice Guy. When a Nice Guy elects to ‘trust his instincts’ and disregard the fact that his lady friend is asking him to leave her alone, it doesn’t fucking matter if he thinks he’s doing it for Noble Reasons(TM). He didn’t learn that shit from thin air. This pattern of thinking does not take place in a vacuum. It occurs in, and is wholly supported by, an entire kyriarchal system that holds that men know better than women and are entitled to make decisions on their behalf. What you think people are ‘misreading’ is actual, societal truth. That truth is what underlies and enables all that bullshit, self-congratulatory noble reasoning, and Nice Guys need to cut it the fuck out.

*I’m not even going to address the weaksauce, “Oh it’s meant to refer to either male or female close friends or significant others!” backpedaling. When you have an entire set of rules about how Nice Guys should treat ‘her’, and what ‘she’ should be told, and about how ‘Nice Guys finish last because they put their ladies first’, then you do not get to wipe that egg off your face when you get called on it and pretend it was never there. Bull. Shit.

Holy crap, it all makes sense now!