As a follow up to my last post, I want to talk about attraction. I’ve read a number of books – in fact, I just read one recently – that instruct women to “give the boring guy a chance”. If these experts are to be believed, it seems that men are divided into two very broad categories:
Type 1: Boring/Nice/Husbands/Marrying Types – White Bread
Type 2: Interesting/Creative/Sexy/Bastards (?) – Everything Bagels
According to these authors, if you want a healthy, trusting, loving relationship, you have to convince yourself to love a Type 1 and give them a chance to show you their nascent Type 2 qualities. I’m an everything bagel woman. I will never be content with a white bread man. Just as a gay man can’t “learn” to be straight, I’m never going to “learn” to love a Type 1. Sure, I can suppress my genuine desires; tamp down what I really want for the comfort and security of Mr. Boring, but will that actually make me happy? Using this weekend as a microcosm, Friday was Type 1 and Sunday was Type 2.
These books just assume that Type 2 guys are “bad boys”. I don’t like bad boys – I don’t seek out bad boys; I’m wise enough to know they are bad news. Bad boys and fascinating, imaginative, arty men are different beasts. Since when does Roget list “asshole” as a synonym for creative and interesting? Why can’t a Type 2 also be a loving, caring and nice guy? Who says they have to be bastards? Can’t there be a Type 3:
Type 3: Interesting/Creative/Sexy/Loving and Nice
Why don’t these relationship self-help books tell us to seek the whole enchilada? Why does it have to be dull/nice or exciting/jerks? There’s got to be Type 3’s in the world, right?