Thanks, Feministe, for pointing me toward this piece at Marie Claire: “Why Men Prefer Innocent Girls to Bad Girls” by Rich. Rich’s friends divide women into categories called Innocent/Good Girls and Bad Girls, and I’ve got bad news for women with opinions, self-confidence, and a sexual history.
“Across the board, the guys agreed they prefer an innocent woman over a “bad girl.”
Fortunately, Rich lists and explains his reasons.
Men like to be leaders on the journey that “corrupts our innocence.”
“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.”
If you are not coded as “innocent,” you are THE FILTHY BLACK SNOW OF LATE FEBRUARY instead of, I don’t know, a fresh white snowbank where a man can, uh, mark out new territory.
They don’t take us seriously because they don’t want to introduce us to their mothers.
“Sure a bad girl can be fun and enticing, but she’s not the type we’d bring home to mom in most cases.”
I’m not sure how those two things follow. Does he need a permission slip from his mommy in order to date? My mom has two master’s degrees and raised my brothers to take women seriously, full stop. Was Rich raised by some weird TV throwback? Or is this more about his and his friends’ need to have a category of women they feel okay having casual sex with but not treating respectfully ?
Then, I think we’re getting somewhere, because Rich admits what we’ve assumed all along: He finds confident (by which he means bad) girls intimidating.
“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.”
Oh, Rich, you’re just like a guy who wants a strong, opinionated, outspoken, smart woman…as long as she never disagrees with you and pretends that you are smarter than she is to preserve your fragile ego. Since you say that you have less experience with sex than a Catholic schoolgirl, let me teach you something about sex right now: If you could put your crushing insecurity aside for one second, you’d stop thinking about sex as something that you “perform” and women “find wanting, because they are comparing it to other experiences” (DIRTY SNOW!) and start thinking about it as an interaction between two equal partners who are both figuring out how to make the other person feel good.
And Rich, I believe you when you say that you don’t do well with “intimidating” women, and I’d like to help you out. First, women are human beings with their own thoughts and desires and histories and personalities. All of them are different from each other and no matter how much experience and knowledge you acquire each woman will present her own set of rewards and challenges and you’ll have to learn about those one woman at a time. So when you talk about “types” or put them into categories like “bad girls” (who you feel justified in taking less seriously) and “good girls” (who get the enormous privilege of meeting your mother – I’m sure she’s proud of you), it just makes you a douche.
If you are a virgin and just want to find another virgin and both of you can start from scratch and that’s really important to you, then just say that and go after it. Keep in mind that you’d better marry her – because by your logic if you break up you are turning her into someone else’s dirty snow. And you will also be dirty snow, but don’t worry – the larger culture buys into the same crap double standard you do.
Rich goes on to say a few more inane things about promiscuity and dressing provocatively, and then he takes it out with a bang: A bad girl is tough to control.
“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.”
A bad girl – again, I’m defining that as someone with a) more sexual experience with Rich b) her own desires, thoughts, needs, opinions, c) an excess of self-confidence and worth that Rich finds intimidating d) who sometimes shows a little cleave or otherwise presents as something other than a blank slate or a package of mystery waiting to be unwrapped) – is tough to control.
You say you’re looking for romance, Rich, so good luck finding that easily-controlled woman who is confident but not so confident that she scares you (maybe by being more experienced or better at something than you and not afraid to act like it) who has no little or no sexual history (so you will feel important and sexy). If she starts feeling good about herself because you’re taking her to meet your mother, Manboobz has some gift-recommendations for keeping her self-esteem low.
And good job, Marie Claire! Your quest to turn your readers into the kind of women that Rich can control continues apace! Maybe they will feel so bad about themselves they will need lots of expensive expensive makeup.
P.S. If you enjoyed this post, you can use that “Share” button below to post it to Facebook, Twitter, etc. As always, you can send your questions for Captain Awkward to firstname.lastname@example.org.
27 thoughts on “Marie Claire’s “Rich”: Good girls get to meet your mom. Bad girls are too confident and hard to control….like dirty snow.”
“but they don’t necessarily want to be in bed with a girl who knows more than they do”
In bed with a girl who’s experienced and knows a lot of fun things to do? Sounds terrible.
He leaves that sentence hanging. A woman who knows more than they do…about sex? About U.S. foreign policy? What?
Most of the faked orgasms in the world can be traced back to guys like Rich and his friends. “Sure, whatever, you’re amazing.”
Am I a total feckin’ hypocrite for blaming these guys’ moms…for not kicking their asses hard enough, for not engaging their special snowflake in conversation? Is mom-blaming just me buying into the system here?
From a previous entry by Rich about all the sexual things he would never want to do:
1. I’ve never been with a girl so long that I became comfortable enough to try new things with her.
2. I’ve never been so successful with women that I get bored (like Led Zeppelin or other studs) and spice up things by experimenting. I’m lucky enough just to get to have sex with a girl I like when all the stars align just right.
3. I’m so anxious that I need to get completely comfortable with sex and feel comfortable with myself before I am secure enough to loosen up and try new things. Some anxiety will never go away, like fear of STDs, but maybe I can learn to manage it.
I can see why he’s been tapped to write a dating and sex blog. He sounds so interested and curious about people and life.
So what you are saying is that for Rich, pretty much all women are “intimidating.”
You should steal his job and make the heads of Marie Claire readers explode.
I have to wonder to what extent Rich was chosen because it’s what Marie Claire editors think the Marie Claire girl should want in her ideal man: a guy who respects “good girls” and impliedly is willing to marry one, who won’t make them do freaky stuff they’d read about in that other magazine that’s always about “15 ways to orally pleasure your man – TONIGHT!”
Ooh, good point. I think they are 2 sides of the same bad double standard, though, with Marie Claire and Rich erring on the side of “Make yourself *less* so that men will like you.”
It’s like having a vegetarian write blogs about steak.
I feel vaguely cheated. I spent years in Catholic schools, and I never once got my share of crazy dirty sex. I guess I must be from one of those weird parishes where the girls were pretty much the same as girls of any other religion, ie., people.
I think the place that the Catholic upbringing really comes in is when you do become sexually active there is an extra layer of “so, so forbidden.”
That, and the plaid skirt. Lord, I love the plaid skirts.
High-five! That’s why I’m a fan of the Scots! Is there anyone, of any gender, who doesn’t look five times better in a plaid skirt? 😀
as an “innocent” girl, i’m also pretty offended. easy to control? fuck that. vanilla? fuck that, too. what’s that asshole going to do when the madonna/whore thing roars its ugly head?
Oh, I think that monster reared its head a long, long time ago. Tiresome.
theLeon was a smart guy. he’s been rewarded for his awesome time and time again. this dude should take notes.
Has The Leon considered opening a school?
bwhahahahahaha. it could work.
shall we call it: “theLeon school for non-urban-startrek watchin’-dungeon and dragon geeking-men who want to learn how to romance a real live woman in order to optimize good lovin'”? or would that be too wordy? ::snort::
What scares me is that I think a lot of these guys have been educated…they just reject it because it’s so inconvenient to have to regard women as human beings. Better to other them and have the fun of not having to care.
OOC, what do you think of the poster and/or advice given to said poster by the columnist and other readers here: http://live.washingtonpost.com/carolyn-hax-live-030411.html in the question titled, “Hos before Bros”? Very interesting scenario.
I think Carolyn Hax nailed it, namely, if the women are consensual partners and can figure out their own game they don’t need the judgment/rescue from a total stranger, but I also think that the roommate can/should intervene if the women are clearly impaired to the point that their consent is negligible. Her line “I don’t even know you and I know you can do better” is right on the fence of being judgmental and helpful – the right woman, the right delivery, the right tone and it’s awesome, but get it wrong and he’s being a judgmental shitbag.
Ooooh that made me mad! Confident women are “Dirty Snow?!” Ugh, this is exactly why sexism still exists! Sorry if this seems to strong, but this just feels so violating.
Don’t apologize! Rich = misogynist, insecure jerkface.
HOW DID I MISS THIS POST?!?!?!? Time Warner, my wrath increases with each interesting discussion i find that i missed!
i’d just like to note one thing that no one else seems to have note, but pissed me right the fuck off:
the conflation of “promescuity” with “being a cheating whore-bag”.
A) promescuity when one is not in a monogomous relationship is NOT BAD, is the “norm” for guys, and *IS* a thing guys should ACTUALLY want [and reward in real, non-infantalizing, non-derogotory ways] because more women wanting to get laid tends to equal more MEN getting laid [“tends to” because, like all mammalian species, somewhere between 4-8% of the populace is homosexual, and about twice that percentage is bisexual, but the MAJORITY of women wanting to get laid want to have sex with men]
B) just because one is “promiscuous” outside of said monogomous relationship, he is implying that one would be “promiscuous” INSIDE a monogomous relationship – which IS NOT TRUE. granted, many people ARE, but not all – and it doesn’t follow that ALL “promiscuous” people are cheaters, and that all “non-promiscuous” people are NOT cheaters – i know people who cheat all the freaking time, but NEVER have sex when they aren’t in a relationship.
i’m incredibly insulted by that WHOLE THANG – i’ve been INCREDIBLY promiscuous in my life, and i have NEVER cheated on anyone – and i don’t do “open” relationships. or rather, i’ve been in a few that were nominally open, but i’ve NEVER slept with someone other than my partner when i’ve had one [even if he slept with someone else. i can’t do it. i don’t WANT to do it – if i find myself wanting to sleep with someone else, it’s a sign that i don’t want to be in that relationship anymore. maybe i’m just really, really weird]
also, i know VERY promiscuous girls who pull off innocence REALLY well – as in Richy boy here wouldn’t be able to TELL. judge not a book by it’s cover, nor a person by their dress – hell, i used to wear a corset twice a week, but that was because i was working as Domme, not because i was out looking to get laid [and i REALLY wasn’t looking among my “clients”. i like fire. i understand that others like everything else in BDSM, but it holds no interest for me. i just like fire – but it’s illegal to burn down a house, while it’s NOT illegal to set people on fire if they’ve consenting. and i made such LOVELY art!!!]
i’m babbling – sorry…
i’m not liking this Rich dude. at all. which is, of course, the point.
you rock, btw, and i feel bad that my internet has been so uber-screwy. sigh.
No worries, always glad when you show up here!
The thing that makes me nuts about Rich is that he fully admits that he’s a clueless dolt about women – shy, insecure, bad at picking up signals, etc. – that’s his whole schtick. So why the emphasis on judgment and control? Like, YOU, Rich, Scared Little Bunny want to control the women you date? I mean, I don’t understand why you would want to, but assuming that you do, what gives you the right to be put in charge of things if you’re so fucking clueless about everything?
WHY DOES RICH HAVE A JOB AND A PULPIT FOR THIS SHIT AT ALL?
Ok, sorry, I am new to hearing about him but he is making my blood boil.
Comments are closed.