Dec 25, 2012 5:11am

I don't think it's the thinking women should shave their legs bit that makes it chuckle-worthy. 

Also relevant.


Dec 25, 2012 7:05am

^ Yeah. I think it's other stuff. But generally, thinking anyone is "obligated" to do anything is a bad sign IMO. Similarly the question about forbidding your significant other from doing anything. I think that gets into some kind of power struggle thing. You shouldn't be obligating or forbidding anyone do anything. If you don't want to date a woman with hairy legs, date someone who shaves. If you don't want to date a drug user, don't. You can't "forbid" adults from doing anything. It's weird and controlling sounding.


Dec 25, 2012 9:17am

^^That niceguysofwesteros tumblr is hilarious.

I get where you're all coming from, but there's a fine line between calling out a genuine dick head and making fun of someone whose only real crime is that they happen to be a stereo-typically clueless "nice guy". Is anyone bothering to point out where they're going wrong so they can change their attitude, or are they just supposed to find themselves publicly shamed on a blog and that will make them see the errors of their ways? What about the guys that do OK for themselves but hold similar (and depressingly common) viewpoints? Don't they deserve to get a public outing, or do they get a free pass because they don't claim to be nice? Is it not so easy to laugh at those guys because they're not so obviously pathetic? It could easily stray into bullying territory*.

*but as it stands, most of them are clearly dicks.


Dec 25, 2012 9:37am

^^ Wait, I thought relationships were all about controlling what your partner can and can't do? 

At least 90% of the ones I've seen, and yeah I did always think it was bullshit. In fact when I look at a persons profile the VERY first thing I look at is to see how much control she either wants, or how much control she wants exerted over her (the obligation questions). Like you say its a bad sign, and I totally agree with that.

We put so much pressure on people to find someone, and to be a couple that they have absolutely no idea how to be individuals outside of gender roles. Dating really pushes gender roles on people, and the obligation that comes with fitting the role they have to take on to be successful at dating. Someone who feels strongly towards gender roles is likely going to answer that a girl/man is obligated to do things.

However, that still doesn't excuse some of the answers. When it really comes down to it some of the match question answers should automatically block a persons profile from ever being seen or from someone ever hearing from them. Like the obligated to sleep with them one.


Dec 25, 2012 9:45am

^^Eh.  It's a Tumblr.  People will sign up for free blogs and post stupid things all the time.  They all wind up laming out quickly and becoming totally forgotten.  Don't stress.


Dec 25, 2012 9:50am

It could easily stray into bullying territory*

I guess it could, but it's not like anybody has put up their real names, locations, etc. The commentary is even minimal. This particular tumblr just reposts things that these guys have written and posted publicly. 


Dec 25, 2012 9:53am

^^^^ It's a reality of the time we live in. Where people would rather spend their time mocking people on the internet than doing something productive. It's really quite sad when you consider how much time it consumes.

The only thing the guys can do is complain to OKC about a violation in copyright. I haven't read the terms of service, but I don't think OKC freely allows pictures/match question answers to be repurposed.

OKC could probably get the site pulled from tumblr if they wanted to, and I think they should. They should because is inevitable that other ones will pop up because of the massive amount of mocking potential contained in online profiles. Hell in my match questions answers there is a boatload of potential to make fun of my answers, but I just didn't think anyone would waste time looking through them. 


Dec 25, 2012 9:56am

This is not the only blog in existence reposting the silly things people say on OKC. It's just gotten quite a lot of circulation recently. 


Dec 25, 2012 9:57am

^ It's certainly not, but OKC should be proactive to protect its product. 

Like Snapshot got snapshotsluts shutdown. 


Dec 25, 2012 10:00am

Except that would involve time and resources to shut down something that will be quickly forgotten anyways, and more like it will soon pop up.  Maintaining the level of vigilance necessary to keep all similar blogs down would take way more money than the site could reasonably muster.


Dec 25, 2012 10:00am

^^ You should probably tell them that then, I don't think anyone ITT has that power.


Dec 25, 2012 10:12am

^^ True, especially when it comes to tumblr. 

I expect slutsofokc to pop up any day now.

But, I meant more in terms of just sending a notice to tumblr. That's all it really takes. 

^ I don't think I'll move a muscle to help okc. I think match.com bought okc to keep it from growing. To make sure it wouldn't pose a threat to them. 


Dec 25, 2012 10:29am

I don't think the posting of blogs mocking the dregs of OKC hurts the site. If anything I would think it would direct more traffic here, which is really what matters at the end of the day. 

Tell me, do you feel the same way about people whose Facebook posts get on Failbook or one of its clones? What about people who got their racist post-election tweets reposted on HuffPo? 


Dec 26, 2012 7:37am

Is anyone bothering to point out where they're going wrong so they can change their attitude, or are they just supposed to find themselves publicly shamed on a blog and that will make them see the errors of their ways?

Thing is, whose job is that? Who has time to sit down with every single "Nice Guy" and explain that they're not nice, they're creepy and passive-aggressive and entitled? Why should anyone put in the effort to do that?

After all, it's not like this topic has never ever come up on the internet before; there are _loads_ of blog posts and editorials and discussions about the difference between being a nice guy and being a Nice Guy; the main difference between nice guys and Nice Guys may well be that the nice guys have bothered to find out the difference, and the Nice Guys are waiting for someone else to take responsibility for teaching them how not to have a shitty attitude to women.


Dec 26, 2012 9:04am

You make it sound like "not having a shitty attitude" is mostly learning to conform to the expectations of anonymous women on the internet.


Dec 26, 2012 9:31am

Thing is, whose job is that? Who has time to sit down with every single "Nice Guy" and explain that they're not nice, they're creepy and passive-aggressive and entitled? Why should anyone put in the effort to do that?

Arguably nobody should. But why should they also be publicly humiliated? What did they do besides write a dating profile and answer some questions (questions that should only be view-able by people who have likewise chosen to reveal their answers to other OKcupid users, btw)?  I think the authors of the blog could at least let these guys know that they're being so publicly scrutinized. Otherwise it's difficult to see a constructive justification to all this. It's simply an excuse to point and laugh at some easy targets (aka bullying) and that makes me feel a little bit uncomfortable. Why do their photos have to appear along side their opinions? Are we being invited to judge their appearance as well?

I want to make it clear, I'm not defending these guys. They hold some truly shitty opinions. I'm just not sure I see a point to all this.


Dec 26, 2012 9:49am

Do you feel the same way about people who tweeted racist things about the Hunger Games and the election? What about anyone who has ever appeared on any of the failblogs? People who say/do shitty/stupid things on the internet get blogs reposting their mistakes all the time. Hell, some of the racist tweeters used their real names as their twitter handles, and now their first and last names are preserved forever next to whatever tasteless thing they said. This isn't unique to "nice guys" - other terrible people get pointed out in this way too. I don't get why, of all the terrible people on the internet, you're white-knighting people who say rapey shit and then wonder why no woman wants near that with a ten foot pole.


Dec 26, 2012 10:35am

The conflict between the public and the private sphere on the Internet is something I haven't been able to fully resolve in my head. But I can say that people who use twitter are for the most part using it as a means to publicly broadcast opinions, and therefore are open to more public scrutiny. Whereas an OKC user should be able to expect some degree of privacy. The questions are for the purpose of matchmaking and judgments are made on an individual basis, not in a fully public arena. They are there so that if a potential match is racist, sexist or homophobic, you can steer the fuck clear of them (or vice versa).  

It's not that I'm white knighting for anyone, I just think there's got to be a better answer to the "Nice Guy" problem than this. 

Dec 26, 2012 10:42am

Well the answer to the "Nice Guy" problem is that they have to stop being douches. Which from what we've observed over and over on the forums, isn't likely. It's only really a problem for the "Nice Guys" though. Since women steer clear and don't date them.

I see the deal with these blogs being pretty much the same as the "worst IM" threads, the "douchy email" threads and the profile cliches stuff. Everyone on okc [even if not on the forums] is part of a community of sorts with some stuff that's funny or weird. That's just part of the okc experience. People have blogs about bad dates from okc, guys wearing fedoras, if you google okcupid you get a ton different blogs, forums and postings. It's something people do. If your problem is that they show pics of the offenders, you could write the blog owner and ask, but really, there are only a very few people who would bother to find them on the site and bug them. Most people scroll through once or twice and get bored. These tumblrs don't last all that long.


Dec 26, 2012 10:43am

. Whereas an OKC user should be able to expect some degree of privacy. 

I think the only difference between OKC and Twitter when it comes to membership requirements is that you have to be 18 on OKC and only 13 on Twitter. The fact that you need to be a member to see it doesn't make it private when there's virtually no limitation on membership. Whenever you put something on the internet with a picture or other identifying information, you are making it public. If you weren't aware of that before the Anthony Wiener affair, you should be aware of it now.

Post a comment