The “Good Guy” Trope and its Effect on Intimate Relationships in University
Edited by: Alana Dunlop and Meredith Johnson
_______________________________________________________________
Purpose: To understand the effects of the “Good Guy” trope in intimate relationships; to provide a point of reference through which we may address the adverse effects of this trope in practical scenarios.
Context: Emotional harm enacted within intimate relationships at McGill University
*I want to be careful in universalizing my personal experiences, so I will stick to the context of emotional harm enacted within intimate relationships at McGill as it is one that I have personally experienced. However, I am sure that the “Good Guy Trope” and its adverse effects extend far beyond the context of McGill
*As well, I recognize that although this piece is based on my personal experiences in mostly heterosexual intimate relationships, the “Good Guy” trope can also apply to platonic relationships between men and women, and men and men, as well as LGBTQ+ relationships.
Key Terms:
*This is a really specific piece that I feel needs to be properly contextualized with key terms in order to mitigate (as much I can) confusion that may ensue.
- “Good Guy” (or alternatively, “Nice Guy”) — Identity marker which is used (by individuals to describe someone or which an individual uses to describe themselves or their friend group) to gain social benefits such as: sex, status, friendships, girlfriends etc.
- Intimate relationship — A repetitive sexual and/or romantic relationship between two or more parties which does not necessitate exclusivity
- Emotional harm — An act which causes a negative and prolonged emotional response that affects the daily functioning of one or more parties in the intimate relationship
________________________________________________________________
“Good Guy” is a term I am wary to use lightly or often. When I do use it, I am referring to a man I can trust and feel safe around. It’s a very broad definition and one that is based on my personal experiences with men. On the other hand, when a man describes himself or his friend as a “Good Guy”, I am rarely reassured, and to be quite honest, can become even more wary of this person. In my experience, the problematic use of “Good Guy” is used for three reasons: 1) to defend non-good actions, 2) to fix or uphold a reputation, and 3) as a performance for women. As a result, the “Good Guy” rhetoric, when used in these contexts, can have negative effects on both male and female self-hoods. I will first describe each usage, and then explore their collective effects on women’s ability to speak out against emotional harm and feel validated, and men’s ability to take accountability when they’ve enacted said harm. Lastly, I will discuss specific ways in which we can address the adverse effects of the “Good Guy” trope in real life scenarios.
The “Good Guy” as a Defense
I have heard “Good Guy” being used most in a defensive state, usually by people who are trying to defend their friend who did something definitely not good. More specifically, I have heard this used in instances where I have shared personal “non-good” experiences regarding the “Good Guy”, and people (women included) have reassured me, “I’m sure he didn’t mean to do that. He’s a good guy”. In this way, the “Good Guy” rhetoric obscures men’s duty to take accountability for the emotional harm their actions cause. Moreover, some men have even internalized notions of themselves as “good guys”, and feel confused and attacked when presented with information that does not align with their views of themselves, and also, the views of their friends who constantly reaffirm to them that they are “Good Guys”. Because of this, “Good Guy” is frequently used as an excuse for men to bypass taking accountability when they have caused emotional harm.
In many cases, the existence of the “Good Guy” trope also works to alienate men from their own very human ability to cause pain. Descriptors such as “Good Guy” imply a binary representation of men: they are either good, or they aren’t. It is illogical for the “Good Guy” to understand consequences without taking it as an attack on their character, and moreover, to take accountability and be proactive in dealing with these relational issues. As a result, when a “Good Guy” causes emotional harm, he feels the need to protect his identity as a “Good Guy” at all costs, and this usually involves blaming the other party, or gaslighting their experiences entirely.
The “Good Guy” as a defense also affects female self-hood by causing women to internally invalidate themselves when faced with a situation in which a “Good Guy” has caused them emotional pain. The “Good Guy” trope also externally invalidates women who courageously share their experiences only to be met with the “Good Guy” defence.In relation to taking accountability, the “Good Guy” trope creates a system of “goodness” which cannot be engaged with. The good guy is good, and moreover, untouchable. For this reason, the “Good Guy” rhetoric can be frustrating to engage with because one is not allowed to hold them responsible for their actions.
The “Good Guy” as a Performance and Women as the Audience
The “Good Guy” rhetoric can also be a performance for women. I experience this most when someone is trying to vouch for their male friend in order to set me up with them. To this effect, I usually hear something along the lines of, “he’s a Good Guy,” or equally as bad, “he’s a Nice Guy”. This rhetoric is part of a performance that aims to tell women something important: this is a guy (unlike others) you can trust, and moreover, someone you should take a chance on because they possess an exceptional quality — they are “good”. In the past, I have learned someone is a “Good Guy” before I have learned anything else about them, and usually, before I have ever even talked to said “Good Guy”. Why should your friend’s “goodness” impress me? Am I supposed to expect less than good? What are you really trying to say when you describe your friend as a “Good Guy”?
Keep in mind: it is not only men who describe their male friends as “good”. Women do this as well. In fact, I have personally asked a guy’s friends, “is he a good guy?” in hopes of weaning out potential “bad” guys, and minimizing personal heartbreak down the line. When “Good Guys” perform for female audiences, it limits us to partners who deserve the bare minimum, and subsequently, as “bitches” if we do not settle for the “Good Guy”.
The “Good Guy” as a Reputational Mechanism
The “Good guy” is a mechanism that reaffirms to those within and outside of the friend group that each member individually, as well as the group collectively, is “good”. It is a framework by which those within the friend group internally validate one another and themself, and feel righteous in their belonging to that friend group. “Goodness”, in the most arbitrary of senses, unites each member of the group and also benefits that group’s social standing. Whether or not members are actually striving to be better, the “Good Guy” moniker removes the need for real and consistent strides towards self-awareness and improvement. It applauds men who are half-hearted in their self-improvement efforts and validates those who do not feel they even need to be better in the first place. It assures men and their friend group that they are good enough where they are, and any information against this is met with intense opposition. It elevates social standing while obscuring the need for personal growth.
The “Good Guy” in this context also has the effect of obscuring men’s duty to take accountability when they have caused emotional harm. It creates a system of untouchability wherein the “Good Guy” is exempt from all wrong. This makes it difficult for women to speak up, because when they do so, they are not only speaking up against the specific emotional harm done, but also the entire “Good Guy” system which protects men at all costs.
Practical Applications
Here is a point of reference on how we can go about addressing the “Good Guy” Trope in real life scenarios. Note that the scenarios mentioned herein are all personal experiences from my account.
Scenario 1
A person approaches a man to disclose an experience which made them feel hurt, invalidated, or violated. The man who enacted said emotional harm is categorically a “Good Guy”. How should he go about responding to such a disclosure?
- Do not get defensive. While it’s easy to use “Good Guy” as a deflection for emotionally harmful actions, understand that reputation, social standing, and self-perception have no place in an interaction between two people.
- Situate the specific actions which caused emotional harm. Acknowledge those actions and apologize for the negative effects it had on the other person’s wellbeing. In this situation, the more a man holds up his “Good Guy” mask, the more invalidated the other person will feel.
- Validate how the other person is feeling. Tell them that their emotional reaction is natural, warranted for the situation, and ultimately, valid.
- Re-assure this person that causing emotional harm was a regrettable act on your part, and that you never wish to make another person feel this way again.
- Walk the walk. Briefly state a realistic action plan to mitigate emotional harm in future intimate relationships, and then realize it. (for example, communicating more honestly, better understanding your own emotions, respecting the other person’s time/space/boundaries etc).
Scenario 2:
The “Good Guy” cannot accept the emotional harm their actions have caused, and subsequently, does not feel like he owes this person anything. As a result, he bypasses conversation that would address this action directly.The person who was on the receiving end of the emotional harm now has no opportunity to address it, and consequently, they want to feel validated by others that they have in fact been treated unfairly. This person then discloses to a different person about their experience with the “Good Guy”. In the context of a well-connected university sphere, this other person is also friends with the “Good Guy”. How should they respond to such a disclosure?
- Validate how this person feels.
- Understand that these experiences are intimately between the two individuals in question. Instead of jumping to your friend’s defense with the use of the “Good Guy” moniker or agreeing that your friend is “just a shitty dude” (which is also a cop out that obscures accountability), understand that this is about an intimate relationship between two people. Do not bring your own flavour to a situation that is already spicy enough on its own.
- Encourage the “Good Guy” to have a conversation with this person. Tell them that you were approached with this experience, and that, at the very least, they owe it to the person to engage in a conversation.
Scenario 3:
No one says anything, but it is known by both parties that emotional harm was caused. What do we do?
- Do not ignore the person as an admission of guilt or embarrassment. It will only work to further invalidate their experiences and feelings.
- The onus is on you to start the conversation. Do not act dumb. Do not choose laziness. Do not let your fear consume you. Reach. Out.
- Validate, validate, validate.
So, Can we Use the Term “Good Guy”?
Yes. We can use the term “Good Guy” to describe men. The issue lies when it is used specifically in the three aforementioned ways: 1) as a defense, 2) as a mechanism which elevates social standing while obscuring the need for personal growth, and 3) as a performance to attract women and invalidate our standards.
To this effect, consider the following questions:
In which scenarios do you feel the need to reaffirm that you or your friends are “good”? To what extent does the act of consistently reaffirming someone’s goodness invalidate non-good experiences with said “Good Guy”, and mask personal growth and accountability? Real talk: Is the “Good Guy” unable to cause emotional harm? More broadly, is emotional harm a negative prerequisite for “goodness”? Lastly, how can we hold the “Good Guy” accountable if he himself and his friend group do not accept that it is still possible to cause emotional harm while being “good”?
Ultimately, it’s important to think about why we are quick to describe a man as “good” in the first place. As harmless as it may seem, it creates a system in which “goodness” is an exceptional quality for a man to possess, and any form of self-actualization which approaches it is good enough. Let’s normalize being a “Good Guy”, so instead of only hearing about it, I can experience it for myself as well.
___________________________________________________________________
