Lest You Drive An Angel From Your Door

        3/19/11

(Many thanks to Déborah for bringing to my attention this piece of tripe from Marie Claire.
 My rebuttal follows.  As always, the other guy is in red, and I'm in black.)

        *

Last time around, I addressed the plight of women who like porn — yet another type who doesn't count as “real” women in the eyes of a certain school of feminism.  I always feel their pain especially sharply whenever I am reminded — as I was by this Marie Claire article — that in the eyes of a certain school of dipshits, I don’t count as a man.

Honestly, if I had a nickel for every time I saw an article about how all men think this or all men prefer that and it turned out to be something that I do not in fact think or prefer...  then I would have slightly more money than I do now, but not a lot exactly, because even if this had happened a thousand times, that would still only be fifty bucks, and it probably hasn’t happened a thousand times, because that would mean I had seen articles like this at the rate of two a week for nine years and seven months, which I almost certainly haven’t.

I did just see this one, though, and it was stupid.

What?  Just pick one.  What's the problem?

This time around, the idea is that all men prefer innocent girls.  As the first paragraph explains, author Rich Santos arrived at this conclusion by talking it over with his friends, which is clearly a scientifically rigorous way of arriving at broad conclusions, because it’s not like your friends tend to like the same stuff as you and that’s why they’re your friends in the first place or anything.

I could end the essay there if Rich Santos — who obviously knows from manly, because he’s writing for Marie Claire — were the only one who had ever voiced the opinion that men want wide-eyed giggling pigtailed virgins, but he’s not.  You’ve got the fact that Mary Ann is historically the clear victor in Ginger vs. Mary Ann polls.  You’ve got the fact that most PUA blogs spend a lot of time disparaging “sluts” and concentrating on how to seduce good girls.  And you’ve got…  well, I was going to make a joke about Japan here, but now is not the time.

I never understood that first bit, by the way.  Ginger is the sexy one.  That’s the point.  I want to have sex with the sexy one, because that’s what sexy means.  What am I missing here?

Anyway, there’s no need to take this into generalities.  Santos’s article is so asinine that if I address it holistically I might miss something, so I say it’s time to break out the red font and do a good old-fashioned point-by-point response.  You may not have seen Passenger 57 recently, but here's hoping you remember to always bet on black.

The other day some guys and I were discussing the "innocent girl" versus the "bad girl." Across the board, the guys agreed they prefer an innocent woman over a "bad girl."

I’ve already addressed the fact that your own goddamn friends do not constitute a random sample.  I might add that referring to one of the options as “bad girls” turns this into somewhat of a leading question.  Here’s an idea:  go ask some more guys, but this time phrase the choices as “girls who wear pink sweatpants with Ugg boots and don’t swallow” vs. “girls who love whiskey and anal and will never ever make you see a movie where a stressed-out magazine editor who seems to have it all thinks she can be the one to finally reform Matthew McConaughey,” and I bet you get different results.

It's important to own whatever mojo you have, because we do pay attention to that overall aura you're giving off. And sometimes we go for the opposite of what we went for in the past — but we definitely bucket women into innocent or bad.

The first sentence doesn’t mean anything, the second goes without saying, and the third is not true.  But other than that, it’s brilliant.  Honestly, if you are a guy who thinks this is true, do me a favor:  go outside and walk around the block, then come back and pick up from right here.  

Okay.  Did you categorize every woman you passed on the street as “innocent” or “bad?”  Did you even categorize one of the women you passed on the street that way?  Then why the hell are you under the impression that not only you, but every other guy on earth, does this in 100% of cases?  Yes, the concepts of “innocent” and “bad” mean something — but they are deliberately silly sexual stereotypes designed for bedroom roleplay.  This is like if someone seriously suggested that all women divide all men into either cowboys or pirates.

Both of these are the same girl, but with
slightly different hair and clothing.  COSMIC!

It's tough, though, because, while we like innocent women, we don't like to be bored. On the other hand, a crazy bad girl is too much. I like an innocent girl with a bad streak that comes out once in a while.

Has anyone else noticed that this guy has the sentence structure of a middle-schooler?

Anyway — got it, ladies?  On the one hand, be innocent.  On the other hand, don’t.  Meanwhile, be a bad girl, but without crossing the line into “crazy” bad girl.  This shouldn’t be hard to avoid, because the criteria distinguishing one from the other are made so clear here.  Above all, remember that, in order to count as innocent, your bad streak can only come out once in a while.  For example, having sex with someone that you have made the conscious decision to have sex with at a time and place that are convenient for the having of sex is fine, but if you were unable to restrain yourself from scrawling “PIGGY” on your forehead in lipstick and shoving random objects up your ass at all hours of the day, irrespective of company or location, then that would be too much.

You know all the women you know who act like that?  Well, apparently, men don’t like them.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:  the existence of the internet has caused the number of jobs for experts dangerously to exceed the number of people who have the slightest idea in eternal hell what they’re talking about.

My buddies and I also theorized that women all go through a bad guy phase. It was an interesting epiphany, and one that may be way off, like most of the theories my buddies and I make about women.

Wait…  Did this guy just come right out and admit that he’s wrong about everything?  Did he mention that on his resumé?  Why did Marie Claire hire him?  I expected better from them.  Hold on, no I didn’t.  Also, that's not what epiphany means.

Do you know why women like bad guys, Rich?  Because they’re under the impression that their options are “bad guys” and “you.” 

Here are some reasons guys like innocent girls:

Here are some words that rhyme with Corey!

The reason I think the buttoned up business look is so hot on women is that I like taking things apart. The "innocent" style is put together. Making someone bad is fulfilling and fun, and it feels more like a mutual journey. Guys just want to be the leader of that journey instead of the followers. I guess it's like white fresh snow versus the snow that's turning black on the side of the road in under the haze of car exhaust. The fresh snow is more of a palette for adventure.

Wow, that’s weird.  I also have a businesswoman fetish, but I think of them as bad girls.  I’m starting to suspect that this guy just doesn’t know what “innocent” means.  I realize that women are art, and that two people’s interpretations of art can differ — but the word “innocent” means “not evil,” so if he thinks it means dressing properly, he’s just wrong.

I think I’m on pretty safe ground here:  the first thing they teach you in porno class is that businesswoman is the opposite of schoolgirl.

But the important thing to remember is that women who know what they’re doing in bed are full of carbon monoxide and rock salt.  Never sit in a closed garage with one, or mistake her for regular salt and put her on your food.  You will die.

Sure a bad girl can be fun and enticing, but she's not the type we'd bring home to mom in most cases. We also assume that a bad girl is not looking for anything too serious, so it's safe for us not to look for anything serious.

Let’s get this “bring home to mom” shit out of the way first and foremost.  I hear guys say this all the time, but I have no clue what it is even supposed to begin to mean.  Why would you not want a girl who likes sex to meet your mom, and more importantly, how would your mom even know this about her?  I’m willing to bet that even the “baddest” girl you’ve ever known would be able to restrain herself from dropping to her knees and deep-throating you in front of your mom, so these are almost certainly independent variables.  I once dated a girl who liked to take it up the ass with no lube because she got off on the fact that it made her bleed, and my mom loved her.  Conversely, when I was dating that virgin, she and my mom could not stand to be in the same room for fifteen seconds.  But all this is ultimately beside the point because, when you get right down to it, I profoundly do not give a shit what my mom thinks about anything.  How ironic that this has apparently made me less judgmental of women.

Oh, and when it comes to determining who is or is not looking for something serious, I have this crazy thing I do called “asking them.”

I know I already made the joke, but it's a shame not to use both pictures.

I don't do well with intimidating women. I love confidence, but that confidence has to be a quiet confidence — not in your face confidence. Most guys don't want to admit it, but they don't necessarily want to be in bed with a girl who knows more than they do (though a Catholic school girl probably knows more than I do, so I'm always on the defensive in bed).

Once again, I’m not even sure what he means here.  I mean, I get feeling intimidated by women.  I get that.  It’s hard to approach a woman.  Once you approach her, it’s hard to keep the conversation going.  During the conversation, it’s hard to tell whether she likes you or is just being polite.  But once you get up to the part where the girl wants to have sex, the intimidating part is over.  This guy has it all backwards.  It’s like not being nervous about the regular season, the playoffs, or the Superbowl, but then after you win being terrified of the part where you have to look into the camera and say you’re going to Disneyland.  Sex is pretty much the only thing about women that’s not intimidating.  Even if a girl tells you that she wants you to take her ass-to-mouth and film it, what exactly is the stumbling block there?  How does “knowledge” even become an issue?  Do you not know where her ass is?  Do you not know how a camera works?  What?  There comes a time in life (and usually fairly early in life) where “knowing more than” the other person is just no longer an issue.  If you’re a grown adult and weren’t raised in a Skinner Box by religious zealots, what information can someone else possibly have that you don’t?  Yes, some people are certainly better in bed than others, but that’s not about whether you have information — it’s about whether you’re afraid to use it.  So use it.

Oh, and I had to read that last sentence about ten times before I finally realized that he was using “Catholic schoolgirl” as an example of someone who isn’t sexually experienced.  Dude, have you ever known any actual Catholic schoolgirls?

"Bad Girls" seem promiscuous.  I'm not sure if anyone likes promiscuity.

Well, now you are:  I do.

I am sure no one likes being cheated on.

...which has precisely shit to do with shit.  Saying that a woman who likes sex will automatically cheat on you is like saying that a woman who likes music will automatically rob a record store.

Either way, a woman who seems promiscuous will get hit on because a guy wants to take her home, but it usually doesn't amount to anything in the end.

And whose fault is that, chucklenuts?  What you just said translates to “When a man decides that a woman is a slut, and also arbitrarily decides not to pursue a relationship with her for this reason even though he is attracted to her, he will not end up in a relationship with her, and therefore being a slut is bad.”  Do you know what “self-fulfilling prophecy” means, Rich?  It means that if you claim wearing green shirts increases one’s chances of getting punched, and then go around punching people in green shirts, you’re not really psychic.

Bad Girls' styles are less mysterious.  I've always thought the nerdy girl who covers up her figure underneath is sexy. Leaving a glimpse or a tease of hotness is more effective. Then I can do the work to reveal the rest. I guess I like glasses better than tight leather. I wouldn't complain about a woman showing too much skin, but I don't find it as compelling.

Wait, what?  That’s like saying “I’ve always thought the cheeseburger in the box looked better than the cheeseburger outside the box.”  If it’s in a box, how do you even know it’s a cheeseburger?  Oh, right:  you’re imagining it is, because you’re an asshole.  If this “nerdy girl” is hiding her figure, how do you know she’s attractive underneath — because that’s what always happens in the movies?  Movies are movies for a reason, dude, and it’s not because that’s what happens in real life.

And as far as you “doing the work to reveal the rest,” this means…  that you’re so sensitive you have a rape fetish?  Well done.  Why would a womens' magazine even hire this guy?  Although he did openly admit that he's always wrong three paragraphs into the article, so I guess if that didn’t stop them, why would the fact that he’s obviously an aspiring rapist?  Actually, I’m sorry.  That wasn’t fair.

Guys have control issues.  We hate to admit it, we usually like to be in control. A bad girl is tough to control — we never know what she's going to do next.

Oh, okay.  I guess it was fair.

Seriously, though.  This guy’s probably not going to rape anybody, but I’m getting at a legitimate complaint here:  schmucks like this are able to charm dumb women who read mainstream magazines because they praise innocence and inexperience, which is reassuring to dumb people — but because it’s reassuring, nobody bothers to brush away the dust and see that "innocence fetish" = "misogyny," and womens' magazines keep hiring clowns like this no matter how many times I point this out.

I don’t need a woman to “know less” than I do, I don’t need to “do the work” of taking off her clothes for her, and I don’t even know what “in control” freaking means.  But I’m the asshole because I like porno, even though I want to watch said porno with a woman who also likes porno.  Whatever.  I’m done.

Is Rich Santos right that most guys are like this?  Probably.  But then, the most popular show on TV is American Idol, so one must always bear in mind that the majority of people are retarded.  Most guys are looking for the virgin who’s magically great in bed, most girls are looking for the frat asshole who magically stops being a frat asshole the second he lays eyes on her, and all of them are eager to find out whether unicorns write more accurate horoscopes than chupacabras.  I would tell you to just forget the existence of these people, but unfortunately they're allowed to vote, so we are obliged to remain peripherally aware of their existence in the same way that we remain peripherally aware of the warning signs that the mold on our bathroom walls might be toxic. 

And speaking of warning signs, here’s something else I noticed.

It wasn’t hard to predict that Santos's article was going to have pissed-off comments from women at the bottom…  But what’s interesting is the form they took.  The pissed-off women weren’t coming in from a feminist angle and decrying Santos’s virgin/whore complex.  Instead, they were appropriating PUA language and calling him a Beta.  It’s debatable whether this assessment is accurate — after all, the self-appointed Alphas who dominate PUA threads overwhelmingly agree with Santos’s preference for innocent girls — but this is still an interesting development:  women who presumably hate PUAs are more than willing to see the world from a PUA framework and deploy PUA terminology if it allows them to insult men.

In this case, the man in question deserved to be insulted (I cannot fathom the utter lack of self-awareness it must take to be this shockingly condescending and this embarrassingly immature at the same time), but women should be very careful here.  On the one hand, there are few things more devastating to a man than to be openly called a Beta by a woman, so if you want to hurt a man, this will definitely work.  But on the other hand, using PUA language for any reason is only going to promulgate the PUA worldview and create more PUAs, which women presumably do not want to do.  Like the One Ring, this is simply not a weapon that can be wielded for good.  It has only one master.

"IIII NEEEEEEG YOUUUUUU..."

When a man writes an article about liking nice girls and the women in the comments call him a pussy, you know culture is headed someplace interesting.  We’ll see how it pans out, but I do hope that sooner or later we manage to chuck this whole “good girl / bad girl” thing.  Not because I prefer bad girls to good girls — but because there’s probably no such thing as either.  Sure, if we’re talking about devout Mormons and sexy female assassins, then I guess there are good girls and bad girls.  But in terms of day-to-day life, there aren’t.  In terms of 99% of the women you know, I’m betting that they act professional at work, deferent around their parents, like teases when they hit the bars with their girlfriends, and like dirty sluts in the bedroom with their boyfriends.  Nobody is innocent, and nobody is guilty, because none of this has anything to do with good and evil.  You can keep chasing the wide-eyed virgin if you want to, dumb guys, but assuming you’re dealing with chicks of legal age — which I certainly hope you are — this whole “innocence” thing is probably all in our heads.