The Difference Between "Good" & "Bad" Girls, According To One Idiot

I almost feel bad picking on Marie Claire dating blogger Rich Santos because even though he's the magazine's resident expert on women, I'm beginning to think he never gets laid. And normally I would just think that was a shame, but in this instance, it's actually pathetic. I mean, the title of his column is "Sex and the Single Guy," when the reality of the situation might just be "The Single Guy." Naturally, though, Santos believes his unattached status is because he hasn't met the right girl yet, where as single women are that way because they are behaving incorrectly.

It's not like we haven't ripped into Santos before. But he's about due again, after his most recent column, "Why Men Prefer Innocent Girls to Bad Girls." Some of the reasons he gives? Because men don't like overly confident women—apparently the characteristic of a bad girl—and men "don't necessarily want to be in bed with a girl who knows more than they do." Here's the thing, though: I think he's sort of right here. He should stay away from women who are confident and experienced—mostly because they wouldn't want him to touch them with a ten-inch pole, even if said pole was his peen. Chicks like that don't like insecure pussies who don't know how to properly go down on a woman.

But what's really irksome about Santos piece is exactly the same thing that's kind of admirable about it. He was pretty honest about this being a dominance issue:

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.

Differentiating women into groups of "good" and "bad" over how easy it is to control them is deplorable and downright creepy. The good news is that in this day and age it's less and less likely that Santos will run into a "good" girl he deems worthy of meeting his parents.

Why Men Prefer Innocent Girls to Bad Girls [Marie Claire]