TA DA! (and afterward)

I FINALLY finished writing 'Kutztown', which has taken far too long, mostly due to countless re-edits. I'd get about finished, and realize that the stuff I wrote earlier wasn't very good, so I had to start over and by then the rest didn't look so good...did I ever tell you why the computer programmer died in the shower?

The shampoo instructions said: wash, rinse, repeat.

Anyway, here's the link to the chapters. I still need to edit them a bit more (based on reviewer's feedback), but for all intensive purposes, it's finished:

Kutztown


Painfully Sweet


(I make no apologies for the inherent bitterness below. ^_^)

Okay, after suffering yet another painful lash at the hands of an unassuming woman, I must at least give an attempt at explaining something to all the women out there.

There are just some things you don't call a man, especially if you're a woman. The problem is, these words aren't always obvious.

Men don't have a problem being called scum. Tell them they're jerks, assholes, or human garbage, and they won't blink an eye. Inform us that you're seriously considering paying a man a large sum of money to murder us in our sleep, and we'll just keep eating our lunch.

No, the real killing words (that's right, I'm going for the Dune references) aren't so obvious. Below I've listed a adjective you don't want to attach to a man unless you really want to crush his soul, and burn his self-esteem into a tiny black cinder:

Nice.

Never tell a man he's 'nice', unless you actually want to destroy him, and if that's the case, you can follow up by viciously informing him he's...

Great.

OOOOOF! Man, I can still feel the sting from that one. Of course if you really want to put him out for the night, as he's staggering helplessly on his feet, desperate to salvage any sort of self worth, finish him off Muhammad Ali style with...

You're such a sweet guy.

That's it. Referee desperately dives in the way, to stop the beating. The man is twitching helplessly on the floor while the press dives in to interview you, Rocky IV style.

This information will probably surprise most women, as these words were obviously meant as compliments, to build up the man's self esteem. Why would it have the exact opposite effect?

To put it bluntly, men are shallow, simple creatures. We're basically all juvenille misfits with egos as fragile as glass, and I guarantee you, no man cares too much about 'how wonderful a person he is'.

What do they care about then? That women find them attractive. If not attractive, then at least appealing in some sort of romantic context.

Paradoxically, it doesn't really matter if it comes from a woman the man would ever actually sleep with. That's why you get middle aged suburban men sucking their gut in at the beach, when college girls walk by. Those men don't actually believe the college girls would ever give them their number, and they wouldn't (most likely, I can't speak for all men) call them in any case.

Men are childish, insecure and need to feel sexually appealing. There's no way of making that sound like an achievement, but there it is.

So why are the words 'nice', 'great' and 'sweet' such downers?

Okay, stop and think about those words for a moment. Focus on the part of your mind that contains those words. Imagine them as a column of words, with no doubt also contains words like 'considerate', 'helpful', and 'kind'.

Can you see the title of that column? If not, I can read it for you:

TRAITS WOMEN WISH ALL MEN HAD, BUT HAVE ZERO SEX APPEAL IN THEMSELVES

These aren't the traits of the dashing, handsome, one-eyed hero found in romance novels. These of the traits of the protagonist's 'good friend' who no doubt loves the protagonist, but is perfectly understanding when he gets dumped in favor of the far sexier hero. This is the column of Bill Pullman, rather than Tom Hanks. Jimmy Olsen, rather than Clark Kent. Milhouse, rather than Nelson. That guy in Hellboy who wasn't Hellboy, rather than Hellboy. This is their list.

What happens to these poor guys? Well, if the author is a woman, she usually pairs him off with a random less appealing girl (who probably doesn't have a chance in hell with the main guy, so the theory can work both ways), usually created solely for the purpose of giving them a girlfriend, or as we in the industry like to call it: 'Rowling-ed' or perhaps 'Ranma-ed'.

If the author is a man, the rejected guy usually gets killed. From a male perspective, this is usually kinder.

Nonesense, you're probably saying. Any girl would want a guy to have these obviously positive qualities. In response to that, I give these 3 pieces of evidence:

1. Women don't want men who have these qualities, they want THEIR men to have these qualities. They want these qualities instilled in the men they're already with, which only proves that the men they do go out with usually never have these qualities to begin with.

In fact this situaion often leads to the paradoxial phrase: 'I wish I could go out with a guy more like you.' This always has the added subliminal message, 'but not you, specifically'. Yes, she's saying exactly what it sounds like: 'I wish I could find a guy who has your positive qualities, but none of your negative ones.' Apparently, this is meant as some sort of compliment, but I'm not sure why or how.


2. Every man has this inherent, genetically instilled insecurity. So where are the men who don't have it? Well, they obviously all died out millions of years ago. Our juvenille, insecure nature is a testament to the fact that every guy who felt perfectly content with being a 'good friend' all died without mating. Ladies, Darwin is against you on this one.

Imagine a woman talking to a man, and describing her current boyfriend as an uncaring, insensitive asshole. Oh, I bet you can even imagine the guy she's talking to, as she tells him that she loves his qualities, and wishes her jerk boyfriend had them. Finally, she breaks up with the jerk boyfriend. Who does she go out with now? Does she follow through with what she said?

Of course not! 45% chance she's now going out with an identicaly jerk boyfriend, 45% chance she's gotten back together with a previous (or the same) jerk boyfriend, and 10% she's sworn off dating altogether. The punchline being, of course, that the 'sensitive' guy was already disqualified. He was disqualified the second she met him. If he wasn't disqualified, she wouldn't be talking to him about it. Why was he disqualified, and the men his female friend describes as 'horrible' rated so much higher?

A nearly infinite number of books have been written on the subject, but I think the answer's simple: in part, the decision was made for her, by a part of her brain she isn't willing to admit even exists. I'm not saying that part of the brain decided for her who she was going to date, but there's a very good chance it decided for her who she WASN'T going to date.

Men are no better, of course, but men have the exact opposite brain effect. For men, that part of the brain is thrown in reverse.

So men want to sleep with the sensitive friend rather than the attractive bad one?

No, they want to sleep with both!

...and those girl's sisters...and their 40something year old mothers...and the lady who brings the mail to their house...and possibly her mother too.

That's why men can't understand why women wouldn't be interested in a man they like. To help illustrate, here's the same sentence said by both a man and a woman, with the true meaning in parantheses:

WOMAN: "You're such a caring person."

(I will not date you, but I want you to keep acting the same way, regardless)

MAN: "You're such a caring person."

(Let's fuck)


3. This is the most vital point:

I'm almost certainly wrong.

Some or all of what I've said most likely has no basis in reality. It doesn't matter. What's important is that men BELIEVE all this. We can't help it.

When we hear that we're kind, nice, sweet, or a great friend and wonderful guy, you're more likely to drive us to drink than boost our esteem.

So what's the answer? Just as with pets, the solution is to reward behavior, rather than giving them labels.

When a guy does what you want them to do, tell them you think the BEHAVIOR is nice, kind or sweet. They're not a 'sweet' person, but what they're doing is very 'sweet'. Say that you really like it when men do that particular thing, or act that particular way. This is also the reason guys already in relationships tend to turn into jerks.

What happens when you tell a dog that he's 'good', when he isn't doing anything? The dog might be happy, but the dog also gets lazy, because he no longer has to work for your approval. If you withold the treat until they actually are in the process of doing something good, then they work for it, and you're both happy.

So why do 'nice' guys get bitter? We never get any treats. Oh, and the starchy, diet 'I'm sure you'll someday make a woman very happy' treats don't cut it. The high sugar 'you're looking very nice today' treats are good though. The high in unsaturated fat 'let me introduce you to my friend/sister/cousin' treats work great too. The 'you'll make a very good father' treat can also work, as long you don't throw in 'for some woman' onto it (the equivalent of balancing the treat on his nose).

Don't tell us we're good, reward us for being good. The difference is often subtle, but trust me, it makes all the difference in the world.

Just don't get us fixed (translation: tell us that you like us, but not in that way), it's kinder just to put us down (translation: shoot us in the head).


Always half kidding,

Max