I have to admit, I never truly cracked
the confusing code to the interrelated blogs and posts I read through. There is considerable
mingling of multiple topics which makes it difficult to identify a single issue as the main subject. What I found consisted of debate about misrepresentation, unreasonable entitlement expectations, discussion of creepy attitudes as well as the belief public humiliation is required were a few of
the points brought out in the threads. Eventually I gave up trying to
sort everything out and wrote this equally muddied post. I apologize
in advance for the disorganized mess I'm writing. Still want
to proceed? Good.
The original driving force for the
Jezebel-hosted story involves a Tumblr blog that is entitled "NiceGuys Of OkCupid", or NGOKC for short. I don't know who the author of the blog is
but it contains pictures of guys from a dating site called OkCupid.
The common thread between the fellas is they proclaim to be nice guys
but have written things which may imply otherwise. Browsing through
the Tumblr blog, a large number of posts exists showing dating
profile pictures from the supposed nice guys as well as associated
quotes and answers to questions they provided on OkCupid.
Looking at the Jezebel-hosted article by Hugo, it starts off talking about how the "nice guys" have indicated an expectation of unconditional sex for one reason or another. Okay, I understand the entitlement issue. Expecting sex unconditionally in some given circumstance is not acceptable. Engaging in sex requires consent on both sides. Anyone expecting otherwise has a deeper issue. If it moves beyond an expectation and becomes a demand, then it becomes a transgression punishable by law. If the article(s) simply brought up these points, I would have been okay, but both the NGOKC and the Jezebel article go off on their own soapboxes, each in a different way. The NGOKC blog posts the photos of individuals from the dating site OkCupid with excerpts of what they said overlaying the photos. The problem with excerpts is the context is not always clear or unambiguous. I've answered a number of these questions on OkCupid and they are not always clear cut which is why they (OkCupid) allow for write-in explanations. Said write-in explanations are then used, at times, to further convict the "nice guys" as the supposed true creeps they are. Whether or not they are creeps is up to each individual they interact with to decide. It's not for NGOKC or Hugo Schwyzer to pass public judgment but rather each individual can decide for themselves. Public ridicule focused on singling out a select group of individuals is a dangerous thing because it influences the community with the poster's personal judgment.
Looking at the Jezebel-hosted article by Hugo, it starts off talking about how the "nice guys" have indicated an expectation of unconditional sex for one reason or another. Okay, I understand the entitlement issue. Expecting sex unconditionally in some given circumstance is not acceptable. Engaging in sex requires consent on both sides. Anyone expecting otherwise has a deeper issue. If it moves beyond an expectation and becomes a demand, then it becomes a transgression punishable by law. If the article(s) simply brought up these points, I would have been okay, but both the NGOKC and the Jezebel article go off on their own soapboxes, each in a different way. The NGOKC blog posts the photos of individuals from the dating site OkCupid with excerpts of what they said overlaying the photos. The problem with excerpts is the context is not always clear or unambiguous. I've answered a number of these questions on OkCupid and they are not always clear cut which is why they (OkCupid) allow for write-in explanations. Said write-in explanations are then used, at times, to further convict the "nice guys" as the supposed true creeps they are. Whether or not they are creeps is up to each individual they interact with to decide. It's not for NGOKC or Hugo Schwyzer to pass public judgment but rather each individual can decide for themselves. Public ridicule focused on singling out a select group of individuals is a dangerous thing because it influences the community with the poster's personal judgment.
Another key problem I have is some of the
answer/question pairs are interesting involve moral choices. More to
the point, the NGOKC author has decided his or her viewpoint is the
correct viewpoint. To give an example, for anyone who answered yes to
“Is there such a thing as having too many sex partners,” they
were apparently classified as a not-so-nice guy. I think the answer
is a choice driven by personal moral. Why is a person categorized as
not nice if they have a differing opinion on this matter? Answering
yes is judgmental but I fail to see anything establishing a
correlation to negative resultant behavior. Unconditional punishment
of people who disagree with our moral choices is not a given.
And if you answer the question, “If
one of your potential matches was overweight, would that be a
deal-breaker?” with some form of yes, bing... we have a winner... er
loser. Hmm, again, people can and should be able to have filter
criteria without being flagged as bums. When women tell me they don't
like to date short guys, I have no right to become upset because it's
their choice. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Weight, height, gender, race, religion, it is a personal choice. Say
for instance I prefer to date Asian girls, so be it. I might be
limiting my choices, but it's a personal choice and does not make me
a cad. When it comes to love--and more so with lust--we don't always
use rational logic. At least I don't and I don't know anyone else who
does. Actions speak in this case. How we treat others is more telling
on this matter, not so much the opinions we state. The wording we use
for our opinions might not even properly state how we feel. But I'm
getting off course so let me return to the article.
Another issue bothering me is how the
Jezebel-hosted article from Hugo defends much of what the NGOKC
Tumblr blogger is implying. Notably, these men have potentially
violent tempers and need to be kept in check. Furthermore, the NGOKC
blog contains questionable implications beneath in implying it is
acceptable to mock people when they “deserve it”. Hugo tries to
attach arguments to support this by claiming the Tumblr blog was
written as a form of self-preservation. Last time I looked, joining a
dating site was not a requirement of life. And as such, a person does
not need to be associated with it to survive. Self-preservation in
that case can involve deleting an account if men become abusive in
their approach.
Hugo proceeds to explain how the public
beat-down of these not-so-nice guys is a necessary public action.
Hmm, beat-downs don't seem valuable to me. Yes, discipline or corrective actions are necessary even for adults. But public humiliation is not
the best way to handle the core problem which is more related to
personal issues these fellas have. I would imagine much of the
frustration these men have is related to feeling powerless in the
situation. I understand the feeling well and it is easy to fall prey
to. I've succumbed to it many times in the past and am not immune now
either. But ultimately, ridiculing someone seems a questionable means
of correcting their action. Rather, I suspect it will make these men
feel even more disconnected and angry as well as justified in their
feelings. A vicious circle never ends unless someone decides to make the buck stop at their hands by taking positive action. But I think Hugo as well as the Tumblr blog author would prefer it to be the Hatfields and McCoys.
Ultimately, we humans are flawed
beings. Perfection is on the opposite end of the spectrum. All we
need to do is take a road-trip to experience how nasty people can be
when they feel disconnected from the situation. Dating sites are no
different. Guys and girls can act nastier than they would in person.
Public posting pictures of most notably, guys, is a confrontational
tactic. Heck, I might very well find myself on their list since they
have a “submit” profile button. Am I a nice guy? Sometimes. But it
depends upon how much stress I have in my life, how tired I am as well as being influenced by my blood sugar level. Seems I'm off topic again.
By criticizing the Tumblr blogger as well as Hugo Schwyzer's Jezebel article, I run the risk of being called hypocritical. But if I can't openly disagree with something, it becomes a catch-22 situation where silence is the only option. I don't like the sentiment the blogger had nor do I like Hugo's sentiment so I'm going speak out regardless of what others think.
Fundamentally, I disagree with the Schwyzer's
mindset completely: defending the NGOKC author as using
self-preservation tactics simply doesn't hold up for me. The Tumblr
blog seems to be focused on riling up emotional responses and it does
succeed. If I had to say one positive thing about Schwyzer's article, it
would be that it makes people stop and think. Inflammatory or not, it
has served a purpose even if I disagree with much of what it states.
Sadly, I was unable to touch upon many other concerns the Tumblr blog and the Jezebel article raised for me such as vigilantism. In any form, it is dangerous because mob-mentality doesn't subscribe to rational thinking. And as is evident by comments from the Jezebel and Tumblr community, it seems a number of members are supportive of the public ridicule approach in use. But in the end, I can only touch upon so many topic points. And for that matter, I can't convince any of the more staunch supporters of such activities that there is anything questionable about the tactics employed. The best I can do is discuss the issues and hope it causes others to think before they act.
As a follow up, after this, I've posted a pair of articles I wrote for a dating site which lamented changes in social interaction due to technology. As per the Tumblr blogger, I would most likely be labeled a creepy guy who complains about being ignored. Read it yourself and decide. Perhaps I'm a bit of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Regardless, let the judgment begin.
Sadly, I was unable to touch upon many other concerns the Tumblr blog and the Jezebel article raised for me such as vigilantism. In any form, it is dangerous because mob-mentality doesn't subscribe to rational thinking. And as is evident by comments from the Jezebel and Tumblr community, it seems a number of members are supportive of the public ridicule approach in use. But in the end, I can only touch upon so many topic points. And for that matter, I can't convince any of the more staunch supporters of such activities that there is anything questionable about the tactics employed. The best I can do is discuss the issues and hope it causes others to think before they act.
As a follow up, after this, I've posted a pair of articles I wrote for a dating site which lamented changes in social interaction due to technology. As per the Tumblr blogger, I would most likely be labeled a creepy guy who complains about being ignored. Read it yourself and decide. Perhaps I'm a bit of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Regardless, let the judgment begin.
