Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   In My Humble Opinion (IMHO) (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Do 'nice guys' ever find women who will accept them? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=793789)

GlowingDarkness 05-23-2016 04:06 PM

Do 'nice guys' ever find women who will accept them?
 
Just to clarify, I'm not a nice guy and neither is this about me. This has been interesting to me since I've been seeing it online on YouTube and other sites.

Apparently a good number of women don't like "nice guys" because lets be honest. Most of them whether it be due to biology or social conditioning are attracted to males who are confident. A sense of protection is what they go for. Even if it is completely false. Nice guys are often mistaken for being shy and unable to defend women from threats (Note: This isn't my opinion. It's just what I've read from evolutionary psychology)

But then I think that I as an open minded and deep thinker judging people by evolution is silly. Sure a lot of women might go for the traditional role, but people are individuals. And there are all types of women in the world who would date and marry nice guys. Hope is not lost for them

Thoughts?

Velocity 05-23-2016 04:19 PM

Well, my dad is pretty much the embodiment of a nice guy, and he found my mom who accepts him. And I know a lot of acquaintances - nice guy men - who have girlfriends or are married.

So, anecdotally, yes, it can happen.

Anaamika 05-23-2016 04:24 PM

I think my guy is a pretty nice guy, though not a 'nice guy'. I mean, he's not a misogynist, like so many 'nice guys' are if you just scratch the surface a little, but he's not really a fighter, he's respectful and courteous and a gentleman, he spoils me and pretty much lets me have my way in most things because he loves me.

We both bring our strengths to the table. When he feels strongly about something, really strongly, then we generally do it his way. He is fiscally savvy and very sensible, but if there's fighting to be done (not physical, that's childish anyway) I am usually the one to do it. Like if I need to return something, or complain about customer service. He is extremely reserved and I am the social one.

Small Hen 05-23-2016 04:30 PM

Sure. Almost all people end up with someone, at least for a while.

But from your description of nice guy, the quotation marks are not needed. You're asking if kind, soft-spoken men ever end up with women. All the time. "Nice guy" implies the kind of person who does all sorts of things for a woman in the hopes that he'll punch in the proper sequence to make her legs spring open. They're ironic quotes, there's nothing nice about it.

But even most "nice guys" end up with women too. Some grow out of it, and some find a women who's willing to be treated like a sex vending machine in hopes of getting a husband.

I'm generalizing, I know.

CCitizen 05-23-2016 04:34 PM

Most men who have money can find a woman. Even most antifeminist men who have money will find a woman. PUAs are generally antifeminist and yet they find many women.

I am not looking for female friends until I will have a salary like $50K/year -- which I will never have.

CalMeacham 05-23-2016 04:38 PM

Different people mean different things by "Nice Guy". To some, it's become a put-down.


But I'm a "Nice Guy" by the definitions we used to use, and I've been married to Pepper Mill for 23 years now, so I guess it can happen.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-23-2016 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalMeacham (Post 19352025)
Different people mean different things by "Nice Guy". To some, it's become a put-down.


But I'm a "Nice Guy" by the definitions we used to use, and I've been married to Pepper Mill for 23 years now, so I guess it can happen.

There's actually a huge difference between a nice guy and a "Nice Guy". If you're actually just a nice person, then your chances of finding a life long partner is very high.

Self described "Nice Guys" are the ones other people dislike, because they're not really nice people. They're whiny and feel entitled to have sex with any woman they treat in a way they consider nice.

Understandably, it may be difficult to determine if you're a nice person of a "Nice Guy". "Nice Guys" tend to have a lot of anger toward women, but in my experience it's very rare they have any awareness of how entitled and unpleasant they appear to others. But my point is, I don't believe it's really a simple matter of people having different definitions, so much as some people sorely lacking self awareness.

At any rate, both types definitely find women that will accept them. Being a thoughtful conscientious person is one of the best traits anyone can bring to a relationship, so of course bona fide nice guys get women. On the other hand, plenty of women wind up with entitled assholes, so tons of "Nice Guys" get women too. They may be the butt of a lot of jokes, but it's silly to think they never wind up in relationships.

pidgeon92 05-23-2016 05:08 PM

My husband is a nice guy. He's polite and respectful of others; kind and decent in a way I've found few people I've met to be.

Emiliana 05-23-2016 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlowingDarkness (Post 19351923)
Just to clarify, I'm not a nice guy and neither is this about me. This has been interesting to me since I've been seeing it online on YouTube and other sites.

Apparently a good number of women don't like "nice guys" because lets be honest. Most of them whether it be due to biology or social conditioning are attracted to males who are confident. A sense of protection is what they go for. Even if it is completely false. Nice guys are often mistaken for being shy and unable to defend women from threats (Note: This isn't my opinion. It's just what I've read from evolutionary psychology)

But then I think that I as an open minded and deep thinker judging people by evolution is silly. Sure a lot of women might go for the traditional role, but people are individuals. And there are all types of women in the world who would date and marry nice guys. Hope is not lost for them

Thoughts?

Yes. Nice guys don't get the sex they are owed because women go for bad boys. I've seen it on the internet too.

drachillix 05-23-2016 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19352077)
Self described "Nice Guys" are the ones other people dislike, because they're not really nice people. They're whiny and feel entitled to have sex with any woman they treat in a way they consider nice.

IME as you imply, they often do not realize it. Many people seem to imply that "they are just being nice to get sex" when its more a dysfunctional perception of what women want. People call them entitled when more often than not they are confused. People are attributing to malice what is more accurately ignorance. Plenty of "Nice Guys" really do want relationships.

They are just going through a checklist like this:
I am clean and nicely dressed
I give her flowers
Take her nice places
Tell her how wonderful she is

She doesn't want to go out with me anymore, why have advances been rebuffed, why does she not want a relationship with me?

The problem is that they are looking at the lack of a relationship as a problem and are seeking the parts and tools to solve the problem.

They see other guys doing these things and don't realize that there is more to it because the details are not something we share with the world its how you relate when you are alone with them that makes the difference.

Its nowhere near as simple, and they dont realize that the checklist (clean, flowers, dinner, etc_ is just the admission to the game. The rest is how you play.

I blame TV for making it look too easy.

astro 05-23-2016 05:34 PM

If the "nice guy" has spine and common sense sure, no problem, but too often being a self professed "nice guy" is code for

"I bought you dinner and drinks.... so please, please fuck me"
"I'll do anything you want for some affection"
"I'm socially clueless and will probably embarrass you"

Any man who actually says (out loud) "I'm a nice guy" to a woman he is considering is either an incipient sociopath on the make or someone excusing their social awkwardness by being overly solicitous and fawning. Women desiring long(er) term relationships normally want caring and competence in one package. A man who will not set limits is a man who not be respected.

Having said this there is a point - Why You’re Not Married - where women may re-consider their options, but that's on a case by case basis. If you are not completely socially hapless and have decent hygiene and are not hideous after the age of 30 or so single women are often a lot more flexible in their parameters.

P-man 05-23-2016 05:47 PM

I'm soft spoken, have trouble picking up signals, and have always tried to treat all people with respect. It took a while, but I found someone (or she found me) and we've been married for almost 20 years.

monstro 05-23-2016 05:53 PM

A key bit of advice to the OP and anyone else who is open to receiving it:

Guys who are truly kind and respectful don't have to say they are nice. "Niceness" should just go without saying. Telling a woman that you're a nice guy is basically telling her she'd be wise to stay away from you. That's how widespread the Nice Guy meme is. So please come up with a different way of describing yourself.

I don't know why guys seems to think "niceness" is unattractive. 'Cuz it is not. But like any other trait, it is insufficient all by itself. I don't know why this is so puzzling to people.

astro 05-23-2016 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19352233)
A key bit of advice to the OP and anyone else who is open to receiving it:

Guys who are truly kind and respectful don't have to say they are nice. "Niceness" should just go without saying. Telling a woman that you're a nice guy is basically telling her she'd be wise to stay away from you. That's how widespread the Nice Guy meme is. So please come up with a different way of describing yourself.

I don't know why guys seems to think "niceness" is unattractive. 'Cuz it is not. But like any other trait, it is insufficient all by itself. I don't know why this is so puzzling to people.

It's puzzling because that other guy gets all the action he can handle and I don't see what's so great about him other than his sense of humor, confidence, muscles, financial success, vagina pleasing penis, and being a snappy dresser.

panache45 05-23-2016 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlowingDarkness (Post 19351923)
. . . I as an open minded and deep thinker . . .

:D

Spice Weasel 05-23-2016 08:08 PM

Well, you're starting off on the right foot by questioning what you've read of evolutionary psychology, because evolutionary psychology is, at least based on the ''research'' I've seen, shit science. A favorite kind of shit science misogynists like to use to prop up their poor treatment of women.

Anyhow, define 'protection.' There is nowhere I feel safer than in my husband's arms. He is 5'7'' and 140 lbs. I have a wedding photo of his then teenage sister sweeping him into her arms and carrying him and spinning him along the ground in celebration. Maybe not your stereotypical definition of masculine, but he's a compassionate badass. Gentle, kind to everyone, almost always reasonable, so calm in a crisis.

The day he first kissed me, i was 19 and I had a panic attack. i had severe PTSD at the time. We had just hooked up and I broke up with him, sobbing, ''Sorry, I can't do this.'' He wasn't angry. I swear to fucking God, he drove an hour and half to see me, bought me flowers, everything, and here I am rejecting him and sobbing like a child. He pulled me into his arms and said, ''It's okay. I just want what's best for you.'' He stayed with me the entire night, expecting nothing.

It wasn't a one-shot miracle moment, either. That's his standard MO at all times. Compassion, understanding, acceptance. Compassion, understanding, acceptance. Over and over. Never fails.

I'm sure some ladies dig the assholes. As for me, I'll keep my nice guy.

Don't Panic 05-23-2016 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19352233)
So please come up with a different way of describing yourself.

Hey, cut us nice guys some slack. "Creepy, potentially rapey, socially inept, not to mention smelly" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Nava 05-23-2016 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19352077)
Self described "Nice Guys" are the ones other people dislike, because they're not really nice people. They're whiny and feel entitled to have sex with any woman they treat in a way they consider nice.

And one has already posted to this thread. (I'm not naming names! Ow!)




Most of the guys I know are pretty nice, and most are partnered. One of my cousins used to work as a bouncer; he's large enough that even without "puffing up" most dudes would take a look and suddenly sober up*. He may have a mean bone someplace, but I've known him since he was born and I've never seen him be anything but kind. Even as a little kid, being mistreated by another of a similar size would be more likely to leave him confused than trigger a tantrum. He's the kind of guy who'll be very polite while immobilizing an asshole and taking him outside. He's also married, with a daughter.

* Anecdote told at his wedding by a short, small, built former coworker "we'd tell troublemakers 'dude, do I need to call Mike? he does karate' and they'd blow raspberries and we'd call Mike and they'd go 'aaaaaaaah!' and suddenly remember their manners, and then later they'd ask us 'and he does karate?' 'yeap' 'what does he need karate for?'"

Ambivalid 05-23-2016 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nava (Post 19352656)
And one has already posted to this thread. (I'm not naming names! Ow!)

Um, the one who admitted to being a "Nice Guy", maybe? :p

Nava 05-23-2016 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalid (Post 19352667)
Um, the one who admitted to being a "Nice Guy", maybe? :p

No, the one who thinks that the only thing women may want from him is his money.

Ambivalid 05-23-2016 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nava (Post 19352680)
No, the one who indicated that he doesn't think he can find a woman unless he pays for her.

Ah, ok. But he's not a "Nice Guy". He's a cyborg. Its even in his name. :D

CCitizen 05-23-2016 09:08 PM

Again, they are discussing me. As a rule, most men earning >30K/y can find a girlfriend. Most men earning >60K/y can find a girlfriend even if they are very antifeminist.

I am not a "nice guy" -- I am not looking for female friends.

Robot Arm 05-23-2016 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalid (Post 19352690)
Ah, ok. But he's not a "Nice Guy". He's a cyborg. Its even in his name. :D

Oh sure, blame the cyborgs.

Ambivalid 05-23-2016 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCitizen (Post 19352697)
Again, they are discussing me. As a rule, most men earning >30K/y can find a girlfriend. Most men earning >60K/y can find a girlfriend even if they are very antifeminist.

This is totally absurd. Totally and utterly.

CCitizen 05-23-2016 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalid (Post 19352719)
This is totally absurd. Totally and utterly.

Most prominent anti feminists do have wives or long time partners.

Spice Weasel 05-23-2016 09:22 PM

I mean, can we state the obvious here? Nice guys often end up with nice girls. I don't mean ''nice'' in the euphemistic way but in the sense that you are compassionate, considerate of others, and yeah maybe a little shy.

That seems to hold pretty consistently across the board for all the fantastic men I know. There are very few couples I'm friends with where one is an obvious dick. People tend to attract people like themselves.

So sure, if your goal in life is to get a girlfriend who values money above all else, knock yourself out becoming rich and powerful. For some people that's not even a bad thing, because they will find someone who embraces the thing they value most -- money -- and it can be a good match. Just recognize a lot of people value a lot of different things other than money and if you truly and openly embrace your own values you will probably attract a partner who values those same things.

Ambivalid 05-23-2016 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCitizen (Post 19352721)
Most prominent anti feminists do have wives or long time partners.

Oops. I feel kinda silly. I misread that post. Apologies.

Grrr! 05-23-2016 09:24 PM

I made it very clear to my GF in the beginning stages of our relationship: If the shit ever goes down, don't expect me to go full on Chuck Norris defending your honor. I will grab you hand and we're running as fast as we can.

We laughed, and she still manages to keep me around. So I assume she accepts me in my supposed "Unmanlyness".

CCitizen 05-23-2016 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambivalid (Post 19352730)
Oops. I feel kinda silly. I misread that post. Apologies.

Everything is OK. Not having money means not having many types of relationships -- I had recently quit my relationship with my therapist. In many ways, romantic partnership as well as therapeutic partnership does have financial side.

RealityChuck 05-23-2016 09:26 PM

All the women I've had relationships though I was a nice guy. They liked that I treated them like human beings, and took an interest in what they had to say.

octopus 05-23-2016 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCitizen (Post 19352737)
Everything is OK. Not having money means not having many types of relationships -- I had recently quit my relationship with my therapist. In many ways, romantic partnership as well as therapeutic partnership does have financial side.

Unless you are living out of a shopping buggy finances aren't keeping you single.

I've not had trouble even when I was dirt poor. Flexing the pecs make them swoon. And taking at least a weekly shower.

Spice Weasel 05-23-2016 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 19352892)
Unless you are living out of a shopping buggy finances aren't keeping you single.

I've not had trouble even when I was dirt poor. Flexing the pecs make them swoon. And taking at least a weekly shower.

Um. I must commend you on your user name, Sir. I am a fan of cephalopods.

CCitizen 05-23-2016 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 19352892)
Unless you are living out of a shopping buggy finances aren't keeping you single.

I guess dating for Autistic people is another topic. I do not date. I do not drive.

HoneyBadgerDC 05-23-2016 10:37 PM

One of my red flags when dating is if a woman doesn't seem to value a man being nice. I also expect a woman to be nice. I have no problem sticking up for a woman in any situation but I have no respect for women who don't try to avoid these situations.

Count Blucher 05-23-2016 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlowingDarkness (Post 19351923)
Thoughts?

You stay down now, Mr. Swedish Champion Sorry, wrong thread.

Nope. This subject is about played-out.

Velocity 05-23-2016 10:58 PM

From my observation, there's also a religious demographic: Christian women are significantly more likely than non-Christian women to go for nice guys. In fact this may be true of religious vs. non-religious women in general.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-23-2016 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19352233)
I don't know why guys seems to think "niceness" is unattractive. 'Cuz it is not. But like any other trait, it is insufficient all by itself. I don't know why this is so puzzling to people.

I think it's partially a stage of life issue. "Nice guy" syndrome is especially prevalent among teenage to early twenties men. "Nice guys" go hand in hand with the "girls only date JERKS because they're stupid" idea. The thing is, they're not completely wrong.

A lot of young people of both sexes are pretty terrible at picking good partners. What "Nice guys" really fail at is turning the lens on themselves. I've never met a "nice guy" willing to seriously consider that they're not pursing the type of women who appreciates kind, thoughtful partners. In fact, "Nice guys" are usually super desperate and open to pursuing any women who'll pay them any attention. Yet, somehow it's only women don't appreciate traits like niceness.

Pantastic 05-24-2016 12:59 AM

There isn't any contradiction between actually being nice and being confident, and actually being nice gives women a sense of protection. The whole 'nice guys' complaint has a whole lot of fallacies behind it. If a guy is actually nice and not attracting women, he's probably not making a real effort (most of the 'assholes' who score a lot also get rejected more times in a month than the nice guy does in his life) or is socializing badly in some way. Neither of those are actually a direct result of being 'nice'. And a huge chunk of the people who call themselves 'nice guys' are actually not nice at all, and view women as a sort of video game where you keep putting in niceness tokens until you win a sexing (or loving or whatever).

You should read this page to get a good deconstruction of the nice guy fallacies: http://www.heartless-bitches.com/ran...eguys/ng.shtml

Evolutionary psychology is a great steaming pile of crap, it's just people tossing out pseudo-scientific babble to support their existing prejudices. I've never seen the kind of evo-psych that supports 'nice guy' complaints supported by any real research or critical thinking. The most common failure of critical thinking is taking some 20th century social conventions and 'proving' that they must have come from evolution because reasons, and never addressing why people didn't behave that way through the rest of recorded history. And Youtube comments are a swirling cesspool of broken people, it's a terrible place to get ideas from.

Dr. Strangelove 05-24-2016 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19352233)
I don't know why guys seems to think "niceness" is unattractive. 'Cuz it is not. But like any other trait, it is insufficient all by itself. I don't know why this is so puzzling to people.

Could be that "nice guys" are differentially attracted to damaged women--i.e., ones in a series of dysfunctional relationships. The nice guys think they can swoop in and fix things just by being nice, which of course they can't. So almost by definition, the women they are attracted to won't return the affections, because the women are attracted to abusive men.

Nava 05-24-2016 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove (Post 19353162)
Could be that "nice guys" are differentially attracted to damaged women--i.e., ones in a series of dysfunctional relationships.

Nah, they're attracted to all kinds except the kind that's stronger than them in any fashion.

Dr. Strangelove 05-24-2016 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nava (Post 19353274)
Nah, they're attracted to all kinds except the kind that's stronger than them in any fashion.

Maybe, but I thought a key part of the stereotype was that they're always the shoulder to cry on, etc. They have to put those "nice guy" skills to use in some fashion. Otherwise, you're just talking about general-purpose creeps.

txst16 05-24-2016 04:29 AM

A better question...
 
If the sense of protection is solely a females basis on choice of mate then consider these thoughts ...
1. Has she considered the alternative?... dogs are great security.
2. Is she looking for a GOOD guy or a NICE guy or a STRONG guy?... there is a definite difference in each individually.
3. The males aware of this evolutionary truth are better searching for the female needing protection?
4. If she is looking for protection then how NICE a guy is matters none; thats a sacrifice one makes in this particular situation... most likely she will go for the ass hole who is just as likely the wimp as a nice guy having been passed by.
Even so, an ass hole that turns out to be a wuss was most likely chosen over a nice guy fit to serve these protection needs (this is shown by Hollywood in decades of romantic films).
5. Many NICE people are just as mean at times as those who are more often so.

If the intention here is to seek out a female mate its best to be the person you want to be or the person they want you to be. Ask yourself what life you want and what significance does this choice place over any/all life goals... Go from there.

Velocity 05-24-2016 04:32 AM

Help me understand something: If evolutionary physiology is real, why isn't evolutionary psychology? Do only bodies evolve but not brains/minds?

Don't Panic 05-24-2016 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nava (Post 19353274)
Nah, they're attracted to all kinds except the kind that's stronger than them in any fashion.

Heck, scratch even that qualification, in my experience. They're simply attracted to all kinds, same as everyone else.

The frankly preposterous notion that there must be something "wrong" or "damaged" about the girls/women these guys are attracted to is basically just blaming the victim. Which, apparently, is always tempting, but doesn't have anything to do with reality.

Spice Weasel 05-24-2016 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19353304)
Help me understand something: If evolutionary physiology is real, why isn't evolutionary psychology? Do only bodies evolve but not brains/minds?

The problem with evo psych is the poor methodology. It usually starts with some observation about modern-day human behavior that is factual, for example, women tend to prefer the color pink. It then attributes an evolutionary cause to that observation to the absolute exclusion of all other possible factors. Women like pink because we once played the gatherer role and needed to attend to reddish colors in nature (see: berries.)

Let us completely ignore the fact that pink used to be associated with boys more than girls as recently as the 1800s. Let us completely negate any possible explanation for this observation other than an evolutionary one. Let us then conclude that any existing inequalities between genders exist because it's natural and good and anybody who wants to correct them is just railing against the inevitable essential differences between men and women.

That is why it's shit science.

DrFidelius 05-24-2016 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19353304)
Help me understand something: If evolutionary physiology is real, why isn't evolutionary psychology? Do only bodies evolve but not brains/minds?

Evolutionary psychology is (at this time and in the usage in consideration in this thread and similar discussions) is a series of Just-So stories concocted to explain a current (real or perceived) social situation.

It is self-serving bullshit.

Pantastic 05-24-2016 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19353304)
Help me understand something: If evolutionary physiology is real, why isn't evolutionary psychology? Do only bodies evolve but not brains/minds?

There is some real science behind the evolution of human minds, and some serious scientific investigation into how much of modern human behavior can be traced back to evolutionary factors, but the "evolutionary psychology" that you see in youtube comments, from 'nice guys', or from PUAs/MRAs is sorely lacking things like controlled studies and peer reviewed papers. On examination, it ends up being just some guy making up a story to justify something that he thinks is true, then other people quoting him like it's respectable, or someone going to a real research paper and treating as complete proven fact an out of context conclusion or aside that's bounded by many conditional statements in the original.

Like I said before, one thing that is very telling is that evopsych explanations often assert that a 20th century American behavior is a result of evolutionary pressure in pre-history, but utterly fail to explain why other times and other cultural backgrounds produce different behavior.

DigitalC 05-24-2016 10:32 AM

"Nice" is what you say about someone (or yourself) when you have absolutely nothing else to say. It is the equivalent of looking at a car and going "well, at least it runs". You can be nice and have a girlfriend or wife, as long as it isn't the only thing you have going for you.

Shodan 05-24-2016 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19353319)
Heck, scratch even that qualification, in my experience. They're simply attracted to all kinds, same as everyone else.

I think your experience is correct, and that is part of the reason why Nice Guys don't get anywhere.

They aren't attracted to any particular woman - they are desperate for anyone. And desperation is one of the least attractive qualities imaginable to women (or men, I suppose).

"Nobody else will go out with me, so I asked you" is NOT calculated to melt the feminine heart.

Regards,
Shodan

Velocity 05-24-2016 02:41 PM

We need clarification: Are nice guys getting successful because of being nice, or in spite of being nice?

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-24-2016 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19354444)
We need clarification: Are nice guys getting successful because of being nice, or in spite of being nice?

It's like DigitalC said. There are plenty of traits comparable to "nice" that at least some women find very attractive - kind, considerate, compassionate. Men like that can find a great partner if, like Shodan said, they have some standards and are pursuing the right kind of woman for them.

Then on the other hand, there are guys who are "nice" because they're bland and there's nothing else of note to say about them. If you're being described as nice because nobody can think of anything else to call you, you're going to have to succeed with women in spite of yourself.

Don't Panic 05-24-2016 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19354444)
We need clarification: Are nice guys getting successful because of being nice, or in spite of being nice?

Actually nice guys are having success because they're also normal human beings. I'm not actually sure if their niceness is the most important factor in that success, one way or the other.

"Nice" guys are having some success, now and then, inexplicably, in spite of being desperate, rapey and smelly.

DrFidelius 05-24-2016 03:18 PM

Faking being nice is a nasty thing. Women can tell.

Spice Weasel 05-24-2016 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrFidelius (Post 19354570)
Faking being nice is a nasty thing. Women can tell.

We have one of these in my writer's group. He hits on me in front of everybody else and generally acts like he's there to pick up women. He practically falls all over himself to pull out chairs and hold open doors. His writing has potential but it is very, very shallow and female characters are either nonexistent or pathetic caricatures.

Last session, he made a comment about one of the female characters in another writer's story: ''If it were me, I'd smack that bitch and dump her ass.''

The he looked directly at me with an expression bordering on panic and said, ''Uh, not physically.''

:dubious:

The worst thing about these guys is that they truly think they are nice. They think just because they may not have any ill intent means they are incapable of doing douchebag things. The best sort of people, IME, are the ones willing to honestly examine their own behavior for traces of dickery. These guys don't. They are perpetual victims of innocent misunderstandings and other people overreacting.

Don't Panic 05-24-2016 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrFidelius (Post 19354570)
Faking being nice is a nasty thing. Women can tell.

Well, sometimes they can tell. Sometimes they can't tell, but they get clued in when the "nice" guy throws a tantrum and demands the sex he thought he was "buying" from said women. Sometimes the "nice" guy doesn't throw the tantrum, and instead goes home and sulks, and the women can never tell. But they still don't particularly want to hump the "nice" guy. 'Cause why would they? He's not particularly attractive.

Jackmannii 05-24-2016 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astro (Post 19352181)
Any man who actually says (out loud) "I'm a nice guy" to a woman he is considering is either an incipient sociopath on the make or someone excusing their social awkwardness by being overly solicitous and fawning.

Or maybe they're just boring and/or unattractive.

Sociopaths don't seem to cover for their sociopathy by proclaiming how nice they are. And many of them attract lots of women (a poster child is Ted Bundy, who did quite well before and after achieving notoriety, including having a gaggle of women giggling at his Florida murder trial).

I never got anywhere with Mrs. J. until I got my "Born To Raise Hell" tattoo and served a prison stretch for littering (and creating a nuisance).

Don't Panic 05-24-2016 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 19354774)
Or maybe they're just boring and/or unattractive.

It's a complex situation.

On the one hand, you have the sort who are faking nice, but really just want some nookie. But, in many cases, I suppose the "nice" guys really are nice. Or, well, nice enough. They're just still completely unfuckable for completely unrelated reasons. There are people in the world, on the internet, and, to be blunt, in this thread (not mentioning names), that I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't even fuck with Donald Trump's dick, completely regardless of whether they're being nice or total assholes. Niceness doesn't even enter into it.

The problem is that these guys tend to suffer from any combination of related delusions. Let's see if we can sum this up:

1) They imagine that the fact that they're being nice means that the world owes them sex. This is the big one, I suppose.
2) They think that the fact that they're nice should somehow compensate for their otherwise horrid personalities and/or physiognomies.
3) For some reason, they decide that the problem must be the niceness itself, not said personalities and/or physiognomies.
4) The fault somehow lies with everyone else - the women who don't appreciate the niceness, and all other men, who are obviously assholes - instead of themselves.

The human capacity for obliviousness and self-delusion in this matter can be quite baffling and intriguing indeed.

AHunter3 05-24-2016 08:39 PM

I've tentatively identified as a "nice guy", quotation marks and all. As in, yeah, one of the guys who go on record complaining that women in general don't want "nice guys" and go out with the other kind of guys.

(It's complicated because it was never a bunch of Nice Guys™ who came forth and self-identified in this fashion; it was women, most specifically heartless bitches international, who wrote a screed about nice guys, which then went viral So for me to identify as a Nice Guy™ means I think I'm among the guys that the author of the heartless bitches piece was writing about).

Anyway, yeah.

Most women would like to be with male-bodied people who are men, who embody certain characteristics that we can designate as masculine, manly. Which isn't how I am at all. And for the record, I'm not angry and bitter about the majority of women having that preference. I just didn't like being left out in the cold, as it were.

There are several general categories of women who kind of like to be with guys like me, in other words good territory for me and guys like me to go a-flirting:

• masculine dykey females who (despite stereotypes to the contrary) aren't into other female-bodied people by preference, even if they generally tend to like women as people a lot.

• sexually active women who have been labeled sluts and similar terms, who have had sufficient time and opportunity to sow their wild oats and bang all the random cute guys and all that, who are kind of ready to be with someone who will love them and appreciate them and who don't have some kind of judgmental issue about who they've been with.

• feminist women who have a strong distaste for patriarchally scripted gender-specific courting and dating roles and would like to play with someone who doesn't do them either.


(cf — Chasing Amy, The Rose)

AHunter3 05-24-2016 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19354901)
1) They imagine that the fact that they're being nice means that the world owes them sex. This is the big one, I suppose.

Some probably do. Some of us are a lot like nice girls who expect that if they are good company and are amenable to getting involved with a guy, there will indeed be guys who will want all that including sex, and those guys will make themselves available on that level, for them (the nice girls) to consider and choose from. Think about it.


Quote:

2) They think that the fact that they're nice should somehow compensate for their otherwise horrid personalities and/or physiognomies.
Yeesh. Not all of us have horrible personalities. Well, not unless your personality-expectation of guys is that they should be manly and stuff. We don't all look horribe either.

Quote:

3) For some reason, they decide that the problem must be the niceness itself, not said personalities and/or physiognomies.
See above.

Quote:

4) The fault somehow lies with everyone else - the women who don't appreciate the niceness, and all other men, who are obviously assholes - instead of themselves.
*Wince* Point taken. If I am right about "who we are", and that I am one of these nice guys and all that, ... it takes awhile to figure out that one is a peculiarly different person, and before understanding this there can be bitterness towards the normal folks, both the normal women (who don't appreciate nice guys) and the typical men (who aren't nice guys). I did. I admit it. I got over it.

Don't Panic 05-24-2016 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19355378)
Yeesh. Not all of us have horrible personalities. Well, not unless your personality-expectation of guys is that they should be manly and stuff. We don't all look horribe either.

Fair enough. I'm being a jerk, partly for attempted comedic effect. Point is: If you (general you, which at times includes me) can't get laid, being nice, of all things, may not be the number one reason. Or, indeed, a reason.

P-man 05-24-2016 08:55 PM

We had the long thread (which I started) about the problems genuinely nice, but socially inept, guys. My conclusion was that being a decent person doesn't preclude us finding female companionship, but it isn't enough. Even being decent and nice looking may not be enough. Some of us just never learned to flirt or read signals. I was lucky enough to meet someone who was both willing to make the first move and highly compatible with me. The bottom line is that being nice doesn't keep us from finding someone, but by itself it's not necessarily enough.

Stringbean 05-24-2016 08:58 PM

There is one difference between a nice guy and a "nice guy":

The nice guy isn't afraid to make a move early on.

AHunter3 05-24-2016 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19355391)
Fair enough. I'm being a jerk, partly for attempted comedic effect. Point is: If you (general you, which at times includes me) can't get laid, being nice, of all things, may not be the number one reason. Or, indeed, a reason.

Yeah, true enough. But I'm asking to you seriously consider the proposition that what we (in general -- "society") consider sexy in a male-bodied person is different from what we in general consider sexy in a female-bodied person. And that a lot of the characteristics bundled in the latter overlap with what might be described as "nice", and fewer of them overlapping with the former. Especially if some of what "niceness" means is lack of sexual pushiness, sexual aggression, attempting to do stuff to actually make sex happen. (And yeah, that's what the Nice Guys™ are often referring to when they talk about it and about girls/women preferring the other kind of guys. the Bad Boys™, if you will).

Which means in general we aren't so wrong about the observation. We do live in a world of gendered expectations.

The world expects it to work like this: boy meets girl, boy attempts to make sex happen if girl is cute, girl attempts to strike a balance between rejecting the guy outright and spreading her legs outright if boy is cute, slowing things down so as to allow proximity and time a chance to let feelings develop. So she can have boyfriend.

There's no point of entry in that scripted scenario for nice boys.

AHunter3 05-24-2016 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean (Post 19355399)
There is one difference between a nice guy and a "nice guy":

The nice guy isn't afraid to make a move early on.

^^^^ yeah, that.

Or, to rephrase it with different value judgments, a no-quotation-marks nice guy is sexually forward and makes moves and stuff. Which is not an expectaton of nice GIRLS, you may notice.

octopus 05-24-2016 09:05 PM

Why do people over complicate women? Ask yourself what it is you want in a relationship and think about how you can provide what a woman might want in a relationship and act accordingly.

I knew what I didn't want and that was sufficient to narrow down what I did want. Showering and the ability to sincerely listen, and pecs that flex, did the rest. And what is a "nice" guy? Someone who is superficially courteous?

spamforbrains 05-24-2016 09:19 PM

Quote:

And what is a "nice" guy? Someone who is superficially courteous?
Apparently it's short hand for sexually aggressive jerks with few social skills who don't think women are actual people and who go around blaming women for running away in terror from them. Kind of "players" but without any social skills to hide their misogyny.

Not REAL nice guys. Most women like real nice guys, even if they are slightly socially inept. Particularly if they have pecs.

AHunter3 05-24-2016 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamforbrains (Post 19355445)
Apparently it's short hand for sexually aggressive jerks with few social skills who don't think women are actual people and who go around blaming women for running away in terror from them. Kind of "players" but without any social skills to hide their misogyny.

Not REAL nice guys. Most women like real nice guys, even if they are slightly socially inept. Particularly if they have pecs.

My extrapolation from the behaviors and quotes attributed to Nice Guys is that they are NOT sexually aggressive guys until they get pissed off and start complaining that girls / women don't like nice guys. The complaining tends to coincide with some really klutzy and unsophisticated attempts at sexual aggression, combined with anger and bad attitude towards the women they're trying this behavior with.

Once again, the identification of Nice Guys wasn't from the inside (people creating a social movement of Nice Guys and explaining their agenda) but instead from the outside (women describing the phenomenon of Nice Guys as they experienced them). I think some extrapolation isn't unreasonable here.

Wesley Clark 05-24-2016 09:37 PM

I thought this was interesting on the subject of nice guys.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31...e-romanceless/

Quote:

I will have to use virginity statistics as a proxy for the harder-to-measure romancelessness statistics, but these are bad enough. In high school each extra IQ point above average increases chances of male virginity by about 3%. 35% of MIT grad students have never had sex, compared to only 20% of average nineteen year old men. Compared with virgins, men with more sexual experience are likely to drink more alcohol, attend church less, and have a criminal history. A Dr. Beaver (nominative determinism again!) was able to predict number of sexual partners pretty well using a scale with such delightful items as “have you been in a gang”, “have you used a weapon in a fight”, et cetera. An analysis of the psychometric Big Five consistently find that high levels of disagreeableness predict high sexual success in both men and women.

If you’re smart, don’t drink much, stay out of fights, display a friendly personality, and have no criminal history – then you are the population most at risk of being miserable and alone. “At risk” doesn’t mean “for sure”, any more than every single smoker gets lung cancer and every single nonsmoker lives to a ripe old age – but your odds get worse. In other words, everything that “nice guys” complain of is pretty darned accurate. But that shouldn’t be too hard to guess…

spamforbrains 05-24-2016 09:39 PM

Quote:

Once again, the identification of Nice Guys wasn't from the inside (people creating a social movement of Nice Guys and explaining their agenda) but instead from the outside (women describing the phenomenon of Nice Guys as they experienced them).
I believe you have that backwards. These men self-described themselves as "Nice guys." I don't think very many women are aware of this label. I personally had never heard of it before reading this board. Women just call these guys "jerks."

And they are sexually aggressive- they think if they do x, y, and z the woman OWES them sex. That is a lot more sexually aggressive than some guy making a pass and getting turned down and calmly accepting being turned down. Women don't mind guys that ask and then accept rejection-that's not aggressive, it's just communication. It's the guys who EXPECT it or who won't take NO for an answer that are being aggressive.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-24-2016 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19355456)
My extrapolation from the behaviors and quotes attributed to Nice Guys is that they are NOT sexually aggressive guys until they get pissed off and start complaining that girls / women don't like nice guys. The complaining tends to coincide with some really klutzy and unsophisticated attempts at sexual aggression, combined with anger and bad attitude towards the women they're trying this behavior with.

Once again, the identification of Nice Guys wasn't from the inside (people creating a social movement of Nice Guys and explaining their agenda) but instead from the outside (women describing the phenomenon of Nice Guys as they experienced them). I think some extrapolation isn't unreasonable here.

They're sexually passive-aggressive. They're bitter and resentful of women for not having sex with them, even though ironically if they were just more direct and assertive they'd have a lot more romantic success.

I've always felt a hallmark of "nice guy" syndrome is clinging to a particular woman after there's long since clearly been no chance of anything romantic happening. That's where the aggressive resentment comes in. Romantic rejection is a normal part of life for people, but most of us move on to another partner instead of being angry that any given one won't fuck us.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-24-2016 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19355355)
Most women would like to be with male-bodied people who are men, who embody certain characteristics that we can designate as masculine, manly. Which isn't how I am at all. And for the record, I'm not angry and bitter about the majority of women having that preference. I just didn't like being left out in the cold, as it were.

In reality, most people appeal to a pretty limited range of their preferred sex. I'm not saying you're wrong for looking at yourself and saying you're not most women's type. But if you think most men are widely appealing to most women, I'd say you're mistaken. It's not a binary your type vs. all other men thing. It's your type vs. a whole bunch of different types of men.

Pantastic 05-24-2016 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19355355)
(It's complicated because it was never a bunch of Nice Guys™ who came forth and self-identified in this fashion; it was women, most specifically heartless bitches international, who wrote a screed about nice guys, which then went viral So for me to identify as a Nice Guy™ means I think I'm among the guys that the author of the heartless bitches piece was writing about).

I first heard about 'Nice Guys never get the girl' growing up in the 80s, and went through a stretch of identifying as one before coming to my senses in the early 90s. The term was circulating at least a decade before there even was a web, and at least two decades before the website. The concept is much older than you think, and while it probably gained popularity from the site, it's NOT a recent invention. And yes, 'nice guys' self-identify, HBI didn't come up with the term or even attach it to people.

Also, have you read the site in question? Because they make it really clear that the people they're talking about are not actually nice at all, and I don't understand why anyone would want to self-identify as the whiny, sexist, manipulative, unkind person they describe.

Quote:

• feminist women who have a strong distaste for patriarchally scripted gender-specific courting and dating roles and would like to play with someone who doesn't do them either.
FYI Feminist women don't generally like the kind of guys identified as "nice guys" on the HBI site, because such guys are extremely sexist. I think you have a disconnect going on somewhere.

AHunter3 05-24-2016 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamforbrains (Post 19355488)
I believe you have that backwards. These men self-described themselves as "Nice guys." I don't think very many women are aware of this label. I personally had never heard of it before reading this board. Women just call these guys "jerks."

And they are sexually aggressive- they think if they do x, y, and z the woman OWES them sex. That is a lot more sexually aggressive than some guy making a pass and getting turned down and calmly accepting being turned down. Women don't mind guys that ask and then accept rejection-that's not aggressive, it's just communication. It's the guys who EXPECT it or who won't take NO for an answer that are being aggressive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19355505)
They're sexually passive-aggressive. They're bitter and resentful of women for not having sex with them, even though ironically if they were just more direct and assertive they'd have a lot more romantic success.

I've always felt a hallmark of "nice guy" syndrome is clinging to a particular woman after there's long since clearly been no chance of anything romantic happening. That's where the aggressive resentment comes in. Romantic rejection is a normal part of life for people, but most of us move on to another partner instead of being angry that any given one won't fuck us.



This is all a lot like feminist women saying "When you folks go on and on about 'bitches', I'm pretty sure you're talking about people like me". I mean, I'm doing that. I'm recognizing myself (in a distorted way, but it fits) in the core elements of the description.

Of course people can deny the identification. "Oh no, I actually did NOT mean willful unapologetic assertive women who don't take shit. I specifically meant the type of women who deliberately hurt people or who deliberately thwart other people because they enjoy doing so". Or "What I mean by Nice Guys is not-very-nice guys who say they're nice but act like sex is their just reward for god-only-knows-what".

We're all playing with something akin to an archetype here.

I can't prove you really mean guys like me any more than I can prove that you're seizing on the worst negative characteristics that we sometimes exhibit and refuse to see anything valid in the attitudes and statements that are attributed to us.


But fuckit. You're talking about me. You are. The stereotype you're pushing around is a negative caricature of me.

Velocity 05-24-2016 10:20 PM

Let's back out and look at the issue from more of a macro perspective - that is, let's examine the "Nice guys finish last" issue not merely from a romance/relationship angle:


I once read an anecdote about how Prince Harry, during childhood, once finished last in a "race" with other children - the race was that the children were to be blindfolded and make their way through a maze/obstacle course. The reason that Prince Harry finished last was because he was the only blindfolded child who didn't cheat by peeking.


There is also the well-documented phenomenon about how, in the office workplace, it is often people who step up and boldly promote themselves - even if a bit arrogantly or in a self-centered way - who will rise up the career ladder. The dutiful, quiet, humble, type who sits in the cubicle, doesn't make themselves heard, and doesn't promote themselves, isn't likely to become a CEO or even rise up far much on the company ladder.


In other words, there is a certain logic to the notion that "Nice guys finish last." If anything, circumstances logically make it so that nice guys will finish last. Someone who doesn't cheat by peeking while blindfolded will, obviously, progress through an obstacle maze slower than someone who does, to use the Prince Harry example.

Don't Panic 05-24-2016 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19355505)
They're sexually passive-aggressive.

Hah! I was just about to post that. Spot on, I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19355413)
But I'm asking to you seriously consider the proposition that what we (in general -- "society") consider sexy in a male-bodied person is different from what we in general consider sexy in a female-bodied person. And that a lot of the characteristics bundled in the latter overlap with what might be described as "nice", and fewer of them overlapping with the former. Especially if some of what "niceness" means is lack of sexual pushiness, sexual aggression, attempting to do stuff to actually make sex happen. (And yeah, that's what the Nice Guys™ are often referring to when they talk about it and about girls/women preferring the other kind of guys. the Bad Boys™, if you will).

Which means in general we aren't so wrong about the observation. We do live in a world of gendered expectations.

The world expects it to work like this: boy meets girl, boy attempts to make sex happen if girl is cute, girl attempts to strike a balance between rejecting the guy outright and spreading her legs outright if boy is cute, slowing things down so as to allow proximity and time a chance to let feelings develop. So she can have boyfriend.

There's no point of entry in that scripted scenario for nice boys.

Look, sure. Problem is, what you're doing here is going about the whole thing bass-ackwards, if meeting a nice girls to ride bikes with is what you want. I won't even respond to your argument, I'll just cut to the chase instead, because I think I know what's actually going on: You're trying to logic women into having sex with you, and when the logic doesn't produce results, you're being all mopey about it.

That whole approach needs nuking from orbit. I mean, wholesale. Attraction works on the caveman level. This stuff is hard coded. It does not benefit from overthinking. There's nothing less attractive than presenting someone with a theory and a power point presentation detailing why they should date you.

Just... be a person, in the world. Yes, maybe we do need to man up a bit, and be a bit more assertive and up front. Sucks to be us, I guess. In an ideal universe, we shouldn't have to. But we're probably stuck with this one.

Moriarty 05-24-2016 11:05 PM

I think that there is another nice guy besides the "I do nice things and therefore deserve sex" nice guy. There is also the guy who thinks that being polite and respectful means not making sexual advances or being flirtatious.

Absolutely, a man should respect a woman's right to say no. But it took me a while to understand that many women on a date do want the man to try something.

And a lot of women do like it when a man tries to charm them. The key is to respect their right to disengage from the conversation or the situation, not to avoid pursuing them altogether.

But some guys don't get that. They give off a disinterested vibe, meeting smiles with a blank look, and women lose interest and move on. Or, at least, that was me for a long time, well before I stumbled into a happy marriage.

AHunter3 05-24-2016 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19355597)
Problem is, what you're doing here is going about the whole thing bass-ackwards, if meeting a nice girls to ride bikes with is what you want. I won't even respond to your argument, I'll just cut to the chase instead, because I think I know what's actually going on: You're trying to logic women into having sex with you

No.

I am not and historically have not tended to exert any more effort to get women to have sex with me than I perceived them to be expending in an attempt to get me to have sex with them. I wanted it to be equal in that regard. Part snobbery and part hatred for the way it feels to be told I'm making a sexual nuisance of myself, but whatever you wanna call it, that's how it is and has been.

Like other Nice Boys™ there came a time in my life when I observed that Nice GIRLS were choosing from among boys who were expending more effort than they were to make sex happen; the nice girls were negotiating with those boys to get some sense that the boys really liked them as people, and weren't just approaching them for sex, but it was always starting with the boy-person making some expression of sexual interest.


Quote:

That whole approach needs nuking from orbit. I mean, wholesale. Attraction works on the caveman level. This stuff is hard coded.
I accept that. But I'm one of the outlying points. Not all male-bodied people are distributed in the exact same space. Nor are all the female-bodied people. Instead it is like a scatter-plot. The boys IN GENERAL are more of what we call "masculine" and that includes a certain tendency towards taking sexual initiative. The girls IN GENERAL are in a direction we call "feminine". I'm one of the outlying points. I'm not a caveman. I'm more of a cavewoman, albeit a male-bodied cavewoman.


Quote:

It does not benefit from overthinking. There's nothing less attractive than presenting someone with a theory and a power point presentation detailing why they should date you.
You don't have to approach girls with a powerpoint presentation because you, and they, can go with the socially endorsed gendered expectations and, by doing so, y'all don't need to have a discussion beforehand.

I do. So do some of the female-bodied people who inhabit this world.

Yes I went through a bitter and vindictive phase, I admit it, I did. The only thing I can say in my defense THERE is that in my case it did not last long. But yeah.

On the other SIDE of that anger I discovered how to find women who ALSO aren't going to hook up in any meaningful way without having exactly the kind of intellectual discussion you dismiss as unnecessary and counterproductive.

Radical feminists amongst them.


Quote:

Just... be a person, in the world. Yes, maybe we do need to man up a bit
Nope. Thank god. I'm not a man. Never wanted to be one. I think I'd rather be dead.

Quote:

and be a bit more assertive and up front
Never more than 49% of the way across the sexual-initiative bridge for me. I only play with certain women. I'm not attractive in a meangful significant way to most of the others. Good thing it's a diverse world and that I figured out what I needed to look for.

Quote:

Sucks to be us, I guess. In an ideal universe, we shouldn't have to. But we're probably stuck with this one.
Speak for yourself :) :) :)

Don't Panic 05-25-2016 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19355705)
I am not and historically have not tended to exert any more effort to get women to have sex with me than I perceived them to be expending in an attempt to get me to have sex with them. I wanted it to be equal in that regard. Part snobbery and part hatred for the way it feels to be told I'm making a sexual nuisance of myself, but whatever you wanna call it, that's how it is and has been.

Look... oh, how can I explain this? I need to sort out my thoughts a bit. Bear with me for a moment.

First of all, I'm happy for you if you're doing good. Maybe you, in particular, don't need to hear any of this. If you've found something that works for you. great. But I just want to use your post to illustrate a general point.

Right there, by saying what you're saying in your post, you're coming across as sexually passive-aggressive.

You say that you don't want to be a nuisance, but just by bringing up the subject, you're expressing interest in sexual matters. The end result is that you risk sounding like a stereotypical Jewish mother. "Oh no, I don't want to be a burden. You guys all go out on dates. I'll just sit here in the dark. Don't worry about me." It's like you're trying to guilt trip women into wanting to have sex with you. It's not a great look.

Also: If you're being too non-assertive, but still giving off a vaguely sexual vibe, it's creepy. You go out of your way to not say or do anything explicitly sexual, but then, in a backwards sort of way, consciously or sub-consciously, expect women to respond sexually to that. So you go around waiting for that response, and get ever more frustrated when you don't get it.

Like it or not: That right there is pretending to be nice, to get nookie. People do pick up on it. I know you're maintaining plausible deniability, you can say no, I'm just sitting here minding my own business, but people do pick up on it.

A major light bulb moment for me was when I realized just how downright threatening such an over-the-top non-threatening approach can come across, paradoxical as it sounds. There are women out there who probably still look over their shoulder, avoid dark parking lots, and have invested in pepper spray just in case, after meeting me. Not because I made any kind of explicit sexual advance towards them, but because I was being creepy. I was nice, polite, and maintaining plausible deniability at all times. But there was something going on. I was always sending out extremely vague and rather bizarre sexual signals. People do pick up on it.

The problem is that there's a dishonesty about it. I'm not being nice just because I'm nice. There's some hidden agenda. It's not enough for them to confront me about it. And if they were to confront me, I would of course deny everything. But there is something there. And women can't read my mind. They notice the dishonesty, but they don't know how deep it goes, or what lurks in those depths.

I know that I'm no threat to them. I'm a nice boy. I just want to be their friend and maybe engage in some horizontal tango on occasion. That's a fairly normal set of wants, right? If they don't happen to be into that, I'm no danger. I won't sexually assault them or anything. Heck, I couldn't sexually assault a fly. Never have, never will. But they don't know that. For all they know, I might be a serial killer.

Frankly, someone who is bluntly sexually aggressive is probably preferable to that for most women, by most metrics, even if they don't like that person. Well, as long as said person backs off at a reasonable point after being rejected. If there's an angry rhino in the room, at least you know what you're dealing with. It won't sneak up on you. You can take out your gun and shoot it in your head. There's something respectable about that. But if there's some kind of slithery creature hiding in your shoe, that's different. The creature may know that it's actually a kitten. But the owner of the shoe can't tell. It could be a scorpion.

Don't Panic 05-25-2016 07:47 AM

Actually, a couple more things:

I think it's incredibly difficult for non-assertive "nice guys" to realize that they can be anything other than victims. Most likely, they've felt like the butt of the joke that is society and the world for their entire lives. Maybe they were bullied in school. Hence, everyone else must be to blame. All women, and all other men.

You guys are calling it misogyny, but I don't actually think it's that at all: It's general misanthropy. It's the ingrained attitude that other people, normal people, are the bad guys, the bullies, by default. It comes from a lifetime of being on the defensive.

For a "nice guy", to come to the understanding that they themselves are the bad guys in the situation, that they're the ones (passive-aggressively) doing the bullying this time, is a major leap. When you've always felt like a doormat, it's very hard to see that you can come across as threatening, aggressive (or, again, passive-aggressive), or predatory.

And it's so unbelievably frustrating. How can it be my fault?! Not only are everyone either ignoring me or walking all over me, but now you're saying it's all my fault?! Man, it's tough. And it feels unfair. Because the only thing that "nice guys" really want is to be loved. They just really, really want to be loved.

But, yeah, "nice guys": It is your fault. You're the problem here. You, the weak, spineless one, is being predatory. The other people, the strong, confident ones, are your victims. Take a long, good look in that mirror. Think about it for a while. It's a terrible thing, I know. But you need to face it.

How can this be possible? The thing is: You're not actually weak. That's the misunderstanding. When relating to women, you, just by being a man, is in the stronger position. At least to some extent, in a certain way. Or, even if it's not factually true that you are, there is at least something deep and ingrained in the lizard brains of both men and women still whispering it.

And because of that, you're a potential threat. Your first job is to diffuse that threat. It's not actually true that you have to be "protective" for women to like you, or at least not to any extreme degree, beyond normal human levels. But you do have to prove that you're safe. "Nice guys" are often doing the opposite.

So, yeah, maybe that's an insight for you: You're not actually weak. Now take that, stuff it in your pipe, and see if you can do something with it.

Shodan 05-25-2016 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop
They're sexually passive-aggressive.

This +1. Nicely put.

Regards,
Shodan

Don't Panic 05-25-2016 08:16 AM

BTW, AHunter3, another thing:

This:
Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19355355)
females

and this:
Quote:

female-bodied people
are not examples of well-chosen words. You're objectifying. Yes, I know you're also doing it with men, so it's an equal opportunity thing. But people don't notice it when you do it with men. They do notice it like all get out when you do it with women.

Women are just people, dude. (So are men, BTW.) "Females" is a word that sets off all kinds of alarm bells. Mine sure went off. You're risking some very heavy inadvertent well-poisoning here.

Don't Panic 05-25-2016 08:41 AM

And...
Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19355705)
Radical feminists amongst them.

Look, I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to say here. But I can't help feeling that you're missing some point. There's no particular reason to think that radical feminists prefer weak men. It's just... it's just not what feminism is about. It doesn't work that way. And I can't help feeling like you're insulting feminists by putting it like that.

Feminists are just people. People are just people. You seem to be categorizing, classifying, applying logic, being all Spock-like about it. But people are just people.

Ludovic 05-25-2016 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19356146)
Yes, I know you're also doing it with men, so it's an equal opportunity thing. But people don't notice it when you do it with men. They do notice it like all get out when you do it with women.

Women are just people, dude. (So are men, BTW.) "Females" is a word that sets off all kinds of alarm bells. Mine sure went off.

Last week is one of the rare times I heard an actual example of annoying mainstream political correctness. NPR was comparing men and women for some reason in a job, let's say engineers, and said "woman [engineers] did so-and-so", which first of all is annoying because most other examples of nouns-as-adjectives when applied to groups are seen as essentializing if not outright offensive, but that would be okay if they were consistent. But the piece went on to compare them to "male [engineers]" :smack:.

A bizarre overreaction to the use of "females" as a noun, which is indeed annoying in itself.

Don't Panic 05-25-2016 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ludovic (Post 19356215)
A bizarre overreaction to the use of "females" as a noun, which is indeed annoying in itself.

Not sure what your criticism is here. I was just pointing out the reaction one might get when using the word as the above poster did. I'm perfectly happy to give said poster the benefit of the doubt concerning his intended meaning. I'm just saying it's a red flag. And if you're walking around carrying a red flag, there might be angry bulls in your near future.

If someone wants to make it their mission to reform the noun "females", be my guest. If they also, say, want to walk around with a sign saying "misogynist" on their foreheads, because they like the look of the sign and the nice font it's written in, that's their call, too. But they'll probably draw some funny looks.

If someone was casually throwing around racial slurs, I would probably alert them to that, too.

AHunter3 05-25-2016 10:10 AM

*shrugs* You've said extremely little that I'm in agreement with, Martian Bigfoot. I don't feel like doing one of those line by line thingies, so instead I'll confine my replies to things you've said that I don't entirely disagree with —

Quote:

general misanthropy. It's the ingrained attitude that other people, normal people, are the bad guys, the bullies, by default.

I am guilty of a kind of haughty smug superior attitude towards "normal" males, yeah. I understand it in myself, it's partly compensation for everyone's silly assumption that I'm jealous of them, wish to be like them but in some peculiar fashion am unable to manifest as they do. It's also partly a kind of chauvinism: "Eww, why would you want to be like that? I'm not like that! You are doing it all wrong!"

Anyway... I don't think I'm an objectively better person than conventional males. Not when I stop to think about it and stuff. I may even have some form of the passive-aggressive nastiness you're accusing me of, although I don't think it makes me worse than other people, just a different specific form of selfishness.


Oh, I am going to reply to one other thing even though it's part of the total disagreement stuff: I use "male" and "female" to refer to people (either in the aggregate or singularly) I am identifying by their sexual morphology. It's different from gender. Gender is identity. This is sex. Sometimes I am making generalizations about people who are peniled, and who have the other physiological accoutrements associated with penis-ownership; I use female reciprocally to refer to people who are envaginated and have the other associated morphology that tends to accompany possession of a vagina. If I had meant "women" I would have said "women. If I had meant "men" I would have said "men". The generalizations I was making were at the sex, not gender level; I was sort of saying that male-bodied people tend to be men and boys, breaking down what "men" and "boys" actually means in personality and behavioral terms.

There's not a damn thing wrong with using those terms. I shall continue to do so, and I shall laugh at anyone who deigns to find them offensive.

Pábitel 05-25-2016 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCitizen (Post 19352907)
I guess dating for Autistic people is another topic. I do not date. I do not drive.

Hey, HFA here and I celebrate my 25th Wedding anniversary next year.
I've also never been on a date in my life.
I'm also a nice guy.
It can happen.

Pábitel 05-25-2016 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19352966)
A lot of young people of both sexes are pretty terrible at picking good partners.

I've brought this up before. There have been studies done where they ask women one of two questions. One is, "What do you look for in someone you would want to date." The other is, "What traits are important for you in a life partner." When the data is compiled there is not a single item that appears in the top 10 of both lists. Then people wonder why they never date anyone that they end up wanting to marry.

I don't remember what the age range of the respondents was, so this may indeed be something we grow out of.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-25-2016 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19355573)
Let's back out and look at the issue from more of a macro perspective - that is, let's examine the "Nice guys finish last" issue not merely from a romance/relationship angle:


I once read an anecdote about how Prince Harry, during childhood, once finished last in a "race" with other children - the race was that the children were to be blindfolded and make their way through a maze/obstacle course. The reason that Prince Harry finished last was because he was the only blindfolded child who didn't cheat by peeking.


There is also the well-documented phenomenon about how, in the office workplace, it is often people who step up and boldly promote themselves - even if a bit arrogantly or in a self-centered way - who will rise up the career ladder. The dutiful, quiet, humble, type who sits in the cubicle, doesn't make themselves heard, and doesn't promote themselves, isn't likely to become a CEO or even rise up far much on the company ladder.


In other words, there is a certain logic to the notion that "Nice guys finish last." If anything, circumstances logically make it so that nice guys will finish last. Someone who doesn't cheat by peeking while blindfolded will, obviously, progress through an obstacle maze slower than someone who does, to use the Prince Harry example.

I often gravitate to these types of threads precisely because I have always been the type of person you're describing, and I feel the need to jump in and point out it's never been the hindrance a lot of people (men) insist it is.

I recall around the time I hit 30 being really proud to realize I've been living my life the way that comes naturally to me long enough that I could officially declare it a successful life strategy.

That is, I certainly got off to a good start, but at 22 or 25, who is to say it wasn't just luck and being honest, humble, generous and kind to others was holding me back.

After a dozen years of adulthood, to say nothing of my childhood, this strategy has been wildly successful and I felt confident sticking with it.

I can certainly see the appeal of blaming one's failures and setbacks on being just too good of a person, but I'm sorry to say it's definitely not in the case in my life.

Pábitel 05-25-2016 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19356107)
You guys are calling it misogyny, but I don't actually think it's that at all: It's general misanthropy. It's the ingrained attitude that other people, normal people, are the bad guys, the bullies, by default. It comes from a lifetime of being on the defensive.

I can relate to this. I guess I would self identify as a misanthrope because it has been my experience that, at least our society, and perhaps humanity in general, only tolerates a certain deviation from the norm. And it's weird because there is a sort of uncanny valley effect going on here. There is a certain distance an individual can deviate from normal and it's OK. But if you cross that line then watch out. But there is another line that if you cross that you are OK again. The truly eccentric get a pass and the "normal" folk get a pass, but if you fall in that gap in between then you are on your own.
Unfortunately I have inhabited that gap most of my life. I've gotten used to the fact that I make others uncomfortable and find it best to mostly just keep to myself because of that. There are a few individuals who either also inhabit the gap or who for whatever reason have chosen to associate with me regardless, but humanity and I are largely in mutual agreement that we don't like each other.

AHunter3 05-25-2016 12:21 PM

That's a very interesting way of thinking about it, Pábitel. Yeah, now that I think of it, I've seen that "uncanny valley" reaction towards some people where more unusual people get a pass. Now I'm going to have to think back on situations to see where else this may have applicability.

Don't Panic 05-25-2016 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pábitel (Post 19356708)
And it's weird because there is a sort of uncanny valley effect going on here. There is a certain distance an individual can deviate from normal and it's OK. But if you cross that line then watch out. But there is another line that if you cross that you are OK again. The truly eccentric get a pass and the "normal" folk get a pass, but if you fall in that gap in between then you are on your own.

Huh. That's actually a very good observation.

So, pro tip to people who fail at being normal: Stop trying, and just go full out weirdo. Well, if that's actually easier to do. Maybe it isn't.

octopus 05-25-2016 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19356107)
Actually, a couple more things:

I think it's incredibly difficult for non-assertive "nice guys" to realize that they can be anything other than victims. Most likely, they've felt like the butt of the joke that is society and the world for their entire lives. Maybe they were bullied in school. Hence, everyone else must be to blame. All women, and all other men.

You guys are calling it misogyny, but I don't actually think it's that at all: It's general misanthropy. It's the ingrained attitude that other people, normal people, are the bad guys, the bullies, by default. It comes from a lifetime of being on the defensive.

For a "nice guy", to come to the understanding that they themselves are the bad guys in the situation, that they're the ones (passive-aggressively) doing the bullying this time, is a major leap. When you've always felt like a doormat, it's very hard to see that you can come across as threatening, aggressive (or, again, passive-aggressive), or predatory.

And it's so unbelievably frustrating. How can it be my fault?! Not only are everyone either ignoring me or walking all over me, but now you're saying it's all my fault?! Man, it's tough. And it feels unfair. Because the only thing that "nice guys" really want is to be loved. They just really, really want to be loved.

But, yeah, "nice guys": It is your fault. You're the problem here. You, the weak, spineless one, is being predatory. The other people, the strong, confident ones, are your victims. Take a long, good look in that mirror. Think about it for a while. It's a terrible thing, I know. But you need to face it.

How can this be possible? The thing is: You're not actually weak. That's the misunderstanding. When relating to women, you, just by being a man, is in the stronger position. At least to some extent, in a certain way. Or, even if it's not factually true that you are, there is at least something deep and ingrained in the lizard brains of both men and women still whispering it.

And because of that, you're a potential threat. Your first job is to diffuse that threat. It's not actually true that you have to be "protective" for women to like you, or at least not to any extreme degree, beyond normal human levels. But you do have to prove that you're safe. "Nice guys" are often doing the opposite.

So, yeah, maybe that's an insight for you: You're not actually weak. Now take that, stuff it in your pipe, and see if you can do something with it.

Hmm. This is a bit combative in my opinion. I don't see anything wrong with people being confused by adopting traits that those they desire claim they desire and then getting terrible responses for their efforts. No, I am not saying people are entitled to other people but if they are conditioned to believe that by acting like x,y,z that the chances of mate selection increase and than they act x,y,z with no chance it can be frustrating to those who aren't wise to human nature.

AHunter3, the great secret to life is that people aren't honest with what they want even with themselves. People want to think highly about themselves and will verbally or internally lie to themselves about what they really want or desire. Now, of course that's not all people at all times.

For myself when I was looking for a long term partner and not just sexual interaction I had a set of criteria I wanted that prospective partner to follow. All the criteria were signals that the person was fit for me for a long term relationship. My wife and I have now been together over 20 years. So I think it worked. The criteria I was looking for were intellectual, disciplined, pretty, loyal, someone who wasn't partying or drinking, fiscally responsible, had a picture of St. Reagan on her wall, played Dungeons & Dragons etc. That excludes a lot of people. Sadly, that excludes a lot of nice girls. That excludes all guys.

Now I was honest with myself. I really did value those traits and I really wanted those traits. I valued stability very highly because I came from a rough childhood that had very little stability. I wanted stability and I wanted to provide stability for my family because I know how bad it is to be without it. I wasn't just saying these things in order to convince myself I was somehow more virtuous than those who weren't saying those things.

Now my traits are not perfect. I can be aggressive. I can be nasty. I'm big and loud. I don't tolerate attempts to be bullied and I've been in many fights. Even as an adult. I believe in two tits for every tat to discourage future tats. In some ways that's attractive to women. Not all women. Some women. It's weird but understandable when you look at life as if we live in a jungle. Which we do. It's just a transformed jungle.

Anyways, enough about me. What do you want? Write it down. Now, who are you? Not who you are to get something but who are you? Write that down.

There will be a set of women who want what you are. There will be a set of women who have what you want. What's the intersection of those sets? How do you identify those women to see that there may be a realistic chance of a relationship? MY strategy was to identify activities that signaled traits with a strong correlation.

Of course this was all 20+ years ago. So this may be fossilized and irrelevant.

It is puzzling how this would be today if I had to find someone new. I'd probably have to watch one of those pick up artists shows and work on my peacocking. Get me a fancy hat, some wild pants, some red and green shoes, maybe a white van. I wonder if all that would work. I probably would have to go to Nevada and pay for companionship:(

octopus 05-25-2016 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19356769)
That's a very interesting way of thinking about it, Pábitel. Yeah, now that I think of it, I've seen that "uncanny valley" reaction towards some people where more unusual people get a pass. Now I'm going to have to think back on situations to see where else this may have applicability.

I think it comes down to the appearance of total cluelessness vs choosing to be different.

Don't Panic 05-25-2016 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 19356825)
I don't see anything wrong with people being confused by adopting traits that those they desire claim they desire and then getting terrible responses for their efforts.

Of course. I agree. There's nothing wrong with that. But "nice" guys aren't doing that. Or at least not beyond the first five minutes. After that, something entirely different is going on.

'Cause "nice" guys are quickly enough clued in to the fact that assertive men get the ladies. There's no actual confusion about that. The "nice" guys have made that observation time and again. That's their main complaint. They then classify these men as assholes, and then blame the women for wanting assholes. At that point, they are no longer being "nice" in the belief that it actually makes them desirable. They're being "nice" in the stubborn insistence that it should make them desirable.

If you hear "nice" guys continually complaining that women say that they like nice, but actually go for assholes, then they are either a) shifting blame to the women and playing the victim, which apparently is more interesting than getting actual results, to some people, for some reason, or b) attempting to logic women into bed. "Aha! You say you like nice guys. I'm nice. Ergo, you must go to bed with me in order to maintain logical consistency. You don't want to be logically inconsistent, do you? Here, have a look at this power point presentation where I explain this in detail."

AHunter3 05-25-2016 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19356922)
... "nice" guys are quickly enough clued in to the fact that assertive men get the ladies. There's no actual confusion about that.

Not really— you're just not aware of our existence until that point in our lives where we decide that it isn't our imagination, isn't just how lots of people say it is, but actually does constitute a trend.

Boyo Jim 05-25-2016 01:33 PM

By "accept" do you mean "fuck"? Yeah, it happens. Not to me, but I've heard stories.

octopus 05-25-2016 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19356922)
Of course. I agree. There's nothing wrong with that. But "nice" guys aren't doing that. Or at least not beyond the first five minutes. After that, something entirely different is going on.

'Cause "nice" guys are quickly enough clued in to the fact that assertive men get the ladies. There's no actual confusion about that. The "nice" guys have made that observation time and again. That's their main complaint. They then classify these men as assholes, and then blame the women for wanting assholes. At that point, they are no longer being "nice" in the belief that it actually makes them desirable. They're being "nice" in the stubborn insistence that it should make them desirable.

If you hear "nice" guys continually complaining that women say that they like nice, but actually go for assholes, then they are either a) shifting blame to the women and playing the victim, which apparently is more interesting than getting actual results, to some people, for some reason, or b) attempting to logic women into bed. "Aha! You say you like nice guys. I'm nice. Ergo, you must go to bed with me in order to maintain logical consistency. You don't want to be logically inconsistent, do you? Here, have a look at this power point presentation where I explain this in detail."

Yeah I can see that. And it also may be that "nice" guys aren't interested in the kind of women who are interested in "nice" guys. There are a lot of lonely women who are ignored why don't the nice guys ask one of these ladies out?

Don't Panic 05-25-2016 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 19357516)
And it also may be that "nice" guys aren't interested in the kind of women who are interested in "nice" guys.

Look, no women are interested in "nice" guys (or, well, maybe there are some extreme masochists out there, the Bell is curve is pretty wide, but not beyond that). If a woman hooks up with a "nice" guy, she either doesn't notice that he's a "nice" guy, or he isn't operating as a "nice" guy at the time. It's not necessarily a 24/7 type of behavior. People are multifaceted.

But, again, women are interested in actually nice guys.

Don't Panic 05-25-2016 05:24 PM

BTW, this thing I posted earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19356107)
It's not actually true that you have to be "protective" for women to like you, or at least not to any extreme degree, beyond normal human levels. But you do have to prove that you're safe. "Nice guys" are often doing the opposite.

is also why all complaints from "nice" guys about how awful and cruel women can be sounds like so much whiny garbage. How does the saying go? Men worry about being rejected. Women worry about being murdered. And it's true.

When it comes to the capacity for women to hurt men versus vice versa, there is just no damned contest. You were rejected? You had your heart broken? Aw, poor you, Watch me play the world's smallest violin. Were you raped, killed and left in an alley? Didn't think so.

Most men are harmless. But the slightest hint that you might not be will scare women off. For good reasons.

Jackmannii 05-25-2016 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 19355417)
Why do people over complicate women?

In my experience, it's impossible to do this. :)

Voyager 05-25-2016 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moriarty (Post 19355679)
I think that there is another nice guy besides the "I do nice things and therefore deserve sex" nice guy. There is also the guy who thinks that being polite and respectful means not making sexual advances or being flirtatious.

Absolutely, a man should respect a woman's right to say no. But it took me a while to understand that many women on a date do want the man to try something.

I more or less agree with this. I don't get how women can think that guys who hit on women feel entitled to sex any less than "nice guys" do. But the "nice guys" seem to feel that the woman should realize their interest and do something about it. The nastiness comes when she goes out with someone who really has done something to show he is interested.
From the self-narration of "nice guys" around here, and from some observation, the fear of offense begins long before sexual advances, more like going out as something more than buddies. Women don't seem to really comprehend the fear involved for some men. They seem to think that politely asking for a date will cause her to banish him forever. My wife certainly thinks that it is easier for men than women.
I think it was a bit easier when I was in high school, since there wasn't a lot of just hanging out, so if you wanted to see a girl after class you pretty much had to ask her out. if the concept of friend zone existed back then, I never heard of it.

wonky 05-25-2016 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19356107)
You guys are calling it misogyny, but I don't actually think it's that at all: It's general misanthropy.

I think this is a really important point. The archetypal "nice guy" insults other men constantly by claiming that you can't be both "nice" and successful with women. And of course he insults women all the time.

P-man 05-25-2016 06:42 PM

I'd say that the only thing that guarantees romantic success is confidence. Being a nice person certainly doesn't hurt, but it's not enough by itself. Looking good and being in shape helps, but it's not enough either. Women always told me I had the second two qualities, but no one ever told me they liked how confident I was. If they had, they would have been lying. Once I was an adult I didn't blame anyone but myself. Quite possibly if I hadn't been in the right place at the right time I'd be the most pathetic person on this board.

HoneyBadgerDC 05-25-2016 06:51 PM

I don't know about the nice guy thing but I do know I would rather establish that feelings are mutual whatever they happened to be before I advance to next levels. When I was younger and doing the ba thing it was pretty much a given that if you left the bar together you were going to get laid. When I got older and started doing the internet dating thing it became a lot more complicated. Some ladies really wanted relationships and would get their feeling hurt if they gave it up thinking you were falling for them. I was perfectly fine with a few dates before any sex.

monstro 05-25-2016 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsgoddess (Post 19357845)
I think this is a really important point. The archetypal "nice guy" insults other men constantly by claiming that you can't be both "nice" and successful with women. And of course he insults women all the time.

Exactly. It puts everyone on the defense.

If you're a guy who has a SO and/or you've never had a problem getting a date, then you must be some kind of "bad boy" or stereotypical macho man. Your name might as well be Chad.

If you're a woman who admits she is attracted to guys with some swagger, social competency, and certain physical attributes, then you must be superficial and probably think your shit don't stink.

monstro 05-25-2016 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark (Post 19355480)
I thought this was interesting on the subject of nice guys.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31...e-romanceless/

Quote:

I will have to use virginity statistics as a proxy for the harder-to-measure romancelessness statistics, but these are bad enough. In high school each extra IQ point above average increases chances of male virginity by about 3%. 35% of MIT grad students have never had sex, compared to only 20% of average nineteen year old men. Compared with virgins, men with more sexual experience are likely to drink more alcohol, attend church less, and have a criminal history. A Dr. Beaver (nominative determinism again!) was able to predict number of sexual partners pretty well using a scale with such delightful items as “have you been in a gang”, “have you used a weapon in a fight”, et cetera. An analysis of the psychometric Big Five consistently find that high levels of disagreeableness predict high sexual success in both men and women.

If you’re smart, don’t drink much, stay out of fights, display a friendly personality, and have no criminal history – then you are the population most at risk of being miserable and alone. “At risk” doesn’t mean “for sure”, any more than every single smoker gets lung cancer and every single nonsmoker lives to a ripe old age – but your odds get worse. In other words, everything that “nice guys” complain of is pretty darned accurate. But that shouldn’t be too hard to guess…
I'm not curious enough to actually wade through that blog entry to follow the source. But I am curious enough to wonder if this Dr. Beaver asked his subjects how frequently they 1) socialize and 2) approach women. I'm gonna take a wild-ass guess and wager that Choir Boys are less likely to put themselves out there than Bad Boys.

I'm also gonna guess that Bad Boys tend to have more non-sexual relationships for the same reason. If you're spending every weekend (barring Sunday's church service) studying for your exams, chances are your friend circle is much smaller than the guy's who spends his weekend hanging out at the beach with his bros. Does that mean that men don't like "nice guys"? Or is just that everyone likes people who are more extroverted?

Voyager 05-25-2016 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsgoddess (Post 19357845)
I think this is a really important point. The archetypal "nice guy" insults other men constantly by claiming that you can't be both "nice" and successful with women. And of course he insults women all the time.

Does he insult women during the friends without benefits stage, or only after the woman has the nerve to not read his mind and jump on him?

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-25-2016 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voyager (Post 19357822)
From the self-narration of "nice guys" around here, and from some observation, the fear of offense begins long before sexual advances, more like going out as something more than buddies. Women don't seem to really comprehend the fear involved for some men. They seem to think that politely asking for a date will cause her to banish him forever.

I've noticed this with some men too. I honestly don't really understand where it comes from, but it is pretty extreme and unfortunately common. I've had a lot of conversations with fellow men that goes like this:

Nice Guy: I met a girl at the gym and I'm interested in her. What do you think I should do?

Fuzzy Dunlop: Why don't invite her to have dinner with you?

Nice Guy: Wooooooah! Are you serious? Don't you think that's coming on too strong??

Fuzzy Dunlop: :confused: On the contrary, I think it's literally just about the least you could do and still clearly convey your romantic interest. When I said dinner did you hear finger her in the locker room? :(

spamforbrains 05-26-2016 12:06 AM

Quote:

Also, have you read the site in question? Because they make it really clear that the people they're talking about are not actually nice at all, and I don't understand why anyone would want to self-identify as the whiny, sexist, manipulative, unkind person they describe.
Uh yeah, this. I wanted some brain-bleach after learning about "nice guys." I'm not at all surprised they have no success with women. They are the OPPOSITE of nice. I've met men like this (never realized they had a name before) but they are what we used to call jerks. It has nothing to do with sex, they are jerks in all aspects of their lives. They don't know how to relate to people. I don't know what name is being used to describe "nice guys" who happen to be women these days, but I'm sure there is something. Probably a name far more accurate than "nice."

Velocity 05-26-2016 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19358264)
I've noticed this with some men too. I honestly don't really understand where it comes from, but it is pretty extreme and unfortunately common. I've had a lot of conversations with fellow men that goes like this:

Nice Guy: I met a girl at the gym and I'm interested in her. What do you think I should do?

Fuzzy Dunlop: Why don't invite her to have dinner with you?

Nice Guy: Wooooooah! Are you serious? Don't you think that's coming on too strong??

Fuzzy Dunlop: :confused: On the contrary, I think it's literally just about the least you could do and still clearly convey your romantic interest. When I said dinner did you hear finger her in the locker room? :(


You have just hit on something I've been theorizing for a while:

Nice guys have been conditioned into believing that women, on a fundamental level, don't like and don't want attention from men.

(Which isn't an unreasonable belief for them to arrive at, considering that many women do indeed complain about getting unwanted attention from men. Women usually want to be pursued by men that they like, and don't want to be pursued by men that they don't like - and even then, women usually only want to be pursued at certain times and circumstances - but a nice guy can easily conclude that women don't want to be pursued by men, at all, ever, period.)


So what does this mean? This means that a nice guy will, on a fundamental level, believe that approaching a woman requires subterfuge and subtlety - why? Because he is trying to get her to do something she doesn't want - namely, get into a relationship with him. Thus he fears "blowing his cover" - namely, making his intentions known.

This is the same attitude that some salesmen have - they believe that their potential customers would say "No" if they ask directly, so they have to do all sorts of leading-in with indirect questions and chitchat before they can slowly lure their customer into buying the product.

I would not be surprised one bit if it turns out that successful salesmen are the salesmen who believe that the customers want the product that they have to sell, and the unsuccessful salesmen are the ones who assume that the potential customers don't want it and that they have to find a way to get the balking, unwilling, customer to buy in.

Don't Panic 05-26-2016 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19358589)
Nice guys have been conditioned into believing that women, on a fundamental level, don't like and don't want attention from men.

Maybe, but I don't really think so. I mean, "nice guys" aren't stupid. They know that other men are having success by being assertive. They also know that other people are pairing off left, right and center, seemingly without any effort involved by either party.

But "nice guys" have a fundamentally low opinion of themselves. They believe, on a fundamental level, that women don't like and don't want attention from them in particular. Hence the perceived need to "trick" women into liking them.

Again, there isn't any confusion on this matter: "Nice guys" don't think they're doing what everyone else are doing, or what is expected or wanted of them. They certainly don't actually believe sneakiness and subterfuge is what women want. I mean, that doesn't even make any sense. They know that they're playing a game, and they know damned well that there's dishonesty involved on their own part.

What they do think is wanted of them, as you say, is for them to simply leave women the hell alone. But that's about them, specifically. I don't think they believe it applies to the world.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-26-2016 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19358589)
You have just hit on something I've been theorizing for a while:

Nice guys have been conditioned into believing that women, on a fundamental level, don't like and don't want attention from men.

(Which isn't an unreasonable belief for them to arrive at, considering that many women do indeed complain about getting unwanted attention from men. Women usually want to be pursued by men that they like, and don't want to be pursued by men that they don't like - and even then, women usually only want to be pursued at certain times and circumstances - but a nice guy can easily conclude that women don't want to be pursued by men, at all, ever, period.)


So what does this mean? This means that a nice guy will, on a fundamental level, believe that approaching a woman requires subterfuge and subtlety - why? Because he is trying to get her to do something she doesn't want - namely, get into a relationship with him. Thus he fears "blowing his cover" - namely, making his intentions known.

This is the same attitude that some salesmen have - they believe that their potential customers would say "No" if they ask directly, so they have to do all sorts of leading-in with indirect questions and chitchat before they can slowly lure their customer into buying the product.

I would not be surprised one bit if it turns out that successful salesmen are the salesmen who believe that the customers want the product that they have to sell, and the unsuccessful salesmen are the ones who assume that the potential customers don't want it and that they have to find a way to get the balking, unwilling, customer to buy in.

Thanks. I do agree with you that this cognitive mistake is a big part of Nice Guy's problems. It's not the part that makes other people dislike them so intensely or that causes us to call them misogynists, but I do believe it's a root cause of their romantic failure.

You might be right about the subterfuge and subtlety, but from my perspective it's always struck me as a man who has stagnated in a very primitive stage of emotional/romantic development. I say that because it reminds me very much of my approach to girls when I was first developing an interest in them - late elementary school or early middle school. It seemed like everyone was very coy about their romantic interests in those days. Most of us just grew out of it at a very young age.

A common trait I've noticed in Nice Guys is that they're extraordinarily lacking in self-awareness. To the extent that if you point out that other people may be seeing them very different than they see themselves, they'll angrily insist you are dead wrong. I think that plays a role in them seeing that women don't like men who won't take no for an answer, or who pursue them by making crude or sexual comments, and concluding that they can't even ask for a simple date. In truth, most Nice Guys couldn't possibly be that persistent in the face of rejection or sexually suggestive even if they tried to. But Instead they do nothing for weeks or months until the passive aggressive feelings boil over and they reveal themselves to secretly be jerks, angry that the target of their affection wasn't able to infer their interest.

Nava 05-26-2016 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moriarty (Post 19355679)
I think that there is another nice guy besides the "I do nice things and therefore deserve sex" nice guy. There is also the guy who thinks that being polite and respectful means not making sexual advances or being flirtatious.

Absolutely, a man should respect a woman's right to say no. But it took me a while to understand that many women on a date do want the man to try something.

One of the guys I... dated, if that's the right word (I mean, can you call it dating when one of the parties isn't sure if it's dates or bananas?), would
* insist on imposing these old-fashioned notions of etiquette on everything, for example freaking out if I ever happened to move so I was closer to the edge of the sidewalk than he was (dude, that there's tarmac, not mud!),
* jump away if I tried to touch him (uh, ok, so... he wants to be just friends?)
* seemed to want to be alone, yet if we were alone would keep his distance like a gay monk in the best little whorehouse in Texas, (juuuust friends, ok then I guess)
* and then managed to royally piss me off when, after a few weeks of that, he grabbed me, stuck his tongue in my ear and whispered "I am so dying to try that bed of yours" (an alabaster vase! where is an alabaster vase when you need one!)

He managed to combine too slow and too fast, and treating solidly-built me like I was some sort of china doll with that oh so delicate proposition. He wasn't a bad guy but sweet Jesus I sure do hope he'll have learned something since!

AHunter3 05-27-2016 11:12 AM

I want to reply to more of what Martian Bigfoot wrote. He made me so mad I almost couldn't see straight, and I still don't care for the hostility and contempt I feel from his posts, but...

he's right about a couple things

and I owe a couple apologies so I'd like to make them at this point.

•as Martian Bigfoot explains, being indirect (he says "passive-aggressive") is not necessarily a more pleasant behavior to be on the receiving end of than the most direct and bluntly overt sexual aggression mode. and yes, I have made statements that imply otherwise, and so have Nice Guys™ in general. We do often make claims and otherwise behave as if our way of expressing sexuality is, well, "nicer", i.e., more admirable, better, however you want to express that. Yeah, OK -- he's right, that is bullshit.


and at least indirectly connected to that,

• we have also behaved and made statements to the effect that we think we are nicer people as a consequence of this "nicer" way of being sexual; we have blatantly presented ourselves as goody two-shoes characters who are just better people and we have been pretty damn hostile towards conventional mainstream sexually aggressive guys (Bad Boys™) and also towards the Nice Girls™ who prefer them to us. And, well, that's bullshit too.


Let's have this conversation, if you're willing to let me say "I'm sorry" and start over?

We're not better than anyone else and our way of being sexual isn't better than other people's either. Are we really not at all good people though, not as good, is our way of being sexual truly horrid and disgusting?

I don't think all of us are bad people. I try not to be.

This way of being sexual, that I've described, and which you've heard also described here in less compimentary terms? It's how I am. OK, maybe it's not morally superior and so forth, but it's what fits my character and personality. That's largely true of Nice Girls™, too. They get identified as such, defined as such, primarily by their approach to sexuality, as do their opposite number the Bad Girls™.


So, finally, there's the bit about us bringing up the subject. As Martian Bigfoot says, just by bringing it up (to complain that we get left out in the cold and that girls aren't picking us up and stuff) we're expressing interest in sexual matters. Here, I suspect, is where a lot of people would say "Oh, but you so-called Nice Guys™ are not just like the Nice Girls™, because THEY aren't bringing up the subject and practically demanding that someone come on to them in order to make the world fair". Right? Yeah, well, they don't have to, they do not generally need to bring it up in order for people to understand the kind of behaviors and scenarios they're likely to respond to.

But although we do have reason and need for expressing this stuff, explaining our existence, it is still true that, tactically speaking, it is counterproductive to us to make these public statements and to express these sentiments. Why? Well, because although there aren't too many female-bodied people going around taking the more bluntly sexually aggressive role towards guys and thus reversing the conventional flow of operations, there are some, but they like to feel like it was their idea, that they are making it happen. Walking around wearing shirts that say things like "Properly Chaste Until Chased Properly" makes a great political statement but it isn't going to get you pounced upon.

What we need to become skilled at is flirting — inoccuously enough that it doesn't really get noticed except by someone who was sort of looking for it, unintrusive and unobtrusive, formulated in such a way that no one is going to feel squirmy and creeped out, experiencing it as sexual pressure. Stuff that's easy to ignore for someone who doesn't find the signal alluring.

It's what works.

The Nice Guys you've heard about are mainly described from the outside, and the occasion of the described encounters are mostly us in Whine Mode, complaining about how being the way we are is very frustrating and things seem unfair to us.

We have said hateful things about normative traditional guys, and that's wrong. But please try to understand that their way of being in the world has been held out in front of us as the model we were suppsoed to emulate and aspire to, and that gets old, as does the attitude and expectation that we consider ourselves substandard when compared to guys like that. But yeah, understanding why we do it doesn't make it right. I don't want to be like you, you who are guys like that -- but I'm sorry I've been hostile about it. And yeah, it's been mutual, but after all I'm asking you guys to stop with the hostilities, so I need to do so as well.

2ManyTacos 05-27-2016 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19358589)
You have just hit on something I've been theorizing for a while:

Nice guys have been conditioned into believing that women, on a fundamental level, don't like and don't want attention from men.

(Which isn't an unreasonable belief for them to arrive at, considering that many women do indeed complain about getting unwanted attention from men. Women usually want to be pursued by men that they like, and don't want to be pursued by men that they don't like - and even then, women usually only want to be pursued at certain times and circumstances - but a nice guy can easily conclude that women don't want to be pursued by men, at all, ever, period.)


This is me, me, oh so much me. Fuck, I need to get over this belief.

Now, I have been told by family members - so it may or may not be true - that I actually get interested looks from women all the time; I'm just too busy/foolish to look up and recognize it. In my case, there's no telling when I can ACTIVELY address this problem, however, because I am SO damn busy with university/work that takes up literally ALL of my time seven days a week. I also can't really pursue any women I go to school with because I live fifty miles away and most of them live either (a) down there or (b) up to fifty miles away in the OTHER direction.

FWIW, I once had a woman I was interested in call me a "nice person;" I knew right then that my chances with her were shot. YMMV of course.

Pantastic 05-27-2016 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19361925)
We have said hateful things about normative traditional guys, and that's wrong. But please try to understand...

An actually nice person who realizes they're doing wrong tries to STOP DOING WRONG. Full Stop. No buts, no asking for understanding. And definitely no bargaining or blame shifting. This is a prime example of what people mean when they say that Nice Guys aren't actually nice people - you're trying to say that you're so nice it is part of the correct term for yourself, but you say hateful things about people. And they're not just 'I was angry so I said some BS off the cuff', you've made it clear that this simmering resentment is a constant, core feature of your personality.

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19361925)
What we need to become skilled at is flirting — inoccuously enough that it doesn't really get noticed except by someone who was sort of looking for it, unintrusive and unobtrusive, formulated in such a way that no one is going to feel squirmy and creeped out, experiencing it as sexual pressure. Stuff that's easy to ignore for someone who doesn't find the signal alluring.

It's what works.

NO!

Dear God, and I even though I had you on board for a while there.

Sorry. I'm really on your case, aren't I? I apologize. Really, I'm very, very sorry. But I feel like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall. Please, stay with me for a moment.

Look, the first part of your post was wonderful. That was proper insight and understanding. It almost brought a tear to my eye. No, I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it. It was literally moving.

But then this is your conclusion? What you're describing there is still standard "nice guy" behavior! It's the same thing, in practice, that you've been doing all along. It comes from the same place. It's all about hedging, being covert, maintaining plausible deniability. Maybe the intention is flipped around now, but the behavior, and the reaction we'll get, is exactly the same.

(Yes, I said "we". What, do you think I read about this shit in a book? This is about me, as much as it is about you.)

Quote:

inoccuously enough that it doesn't really get noticed except by someone who was sort of looking for it, unintrusive and unobtrusive
This slithery, slimy stuff, this hyper-subtle, coy, "unintrusive and unobtrusive" crap an is exactly why we creep people out. Can you seriously not see it?

Quote:

Stuff that's easy to ignore for someone who doesn't find the signal alluring.
You know what that is? That there is cowardly as shit. People who flirt successfully aren't actually all that coy about it. Certainly not compared to us. People are actually supposed to notice. There is risk-taking involved. It is putting yourself out there.

It's not about being able to slither right back into your shell when the girl notices what you're doing, and pretend that you were just minding your own business all along. Again, that is exactly what makes us come across as creepy.

Cowardly is not a good look. Scared doesn't turn anyone on. We need to grow some balls. Tiny, wrinkly, pathetic ones may be the best we can do. But we can't walk around like goddamned eunuchs when we're flirting. That's the highway right back to "nice guy" again.

*catches breath*

Anyway. I think we're half way there now.

What we actually need to learn is to be more honest. Or at least that's one thing.

Another thing I want to talk about (or maybe it's all part of the same thing): One problem I've had with being a "nice guy", and one that has been harmful to me, is about always being "on". Whenever I've been around someone I've liked, every interaction, every conversation, everything I say or do has tended to become part of the "nice guy program", Everything becomes instrumental: It's always about saying the right thing, doing the right things, in order to, as someone put it earlier, eventually make her legs spring open.

That's something I've been trying to get away from, and I've come to realize just how much mental energy it has drained from me in the past. Another thing is that it actually stops me from being able to really care about, or care for, the other person. Everything become about me.

I've tried to change that. Now, if I decide to flirt, I bloody well flirt. I take the risk. And if I decide not to, I don't. I stop second-guessing myself. I stop constantly worrying about projecting the right image while also simultaneously maintaining plausible deniability.

I try to either shit, or get off the pot. Not just sit and strain forever. And this is something that has been a massive relief for me in recent times, in my life. The best part of it? I can actually see other the person now. My dick isn't constantly blocking my view.

monstro 05-27-2016 12:44 PM

Are "Nice Guys" more passive in their play because they don't want to come across as jerks?

Or are they afraid of rejection?

Or is it both?

I can certainly understand both positions. Not all women want "male" attention, so guys do need to appreciate that direct propositioning may not be welcomed. And there is no rulebook that can help you figure out when you should be assertive and when you shouldn't.

And of course rejection hurts. Why wouldn't it?

But what advice would "Nice Guys" have folks give them that doesn't come across as accusatory or shaming? I guess that's the part I struggle with.

I once had a very negative experience with a Nice Guy. He befriended me, but never once let me know that he had feelings for me. And then when it became clear I wasn't going to make the first step, he became enraged--scaring the shit out of me--forever ruining our friendship. I've revisited this experience many times in my head, and for the life of me, I don't know what I did wrong other than being nice to him. Should I have given him a cold shoulder from the very beginning? I don't know.

Even when I was terrified of him, I was sad for him because it was clear his life was one of constant frustration. But I really don't know how that is my responsibility or the responsibility of anyone else. Knowing that he meant well and that he was fundamentally "good" doesn't make me any less wary of "Nice Guys". I don't think it's just a coincidence that I keep guys from befriending me now. I'm friendly towards them, but I don't want a re-play of what happened before. I don't know what that makes me. "Mean Woman", maybe?

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19361925)
Stuff that's easy to ignore for someone who doesn't find the signal alluring.

Christ, I'm not actually done yet...

It's not bloody easy to ignore! You know what is easy to ignore? A guy who is upfront, someone you can say a clear yes or no to, and who, if it's "no", drops the fucking subject and gets on with his life. The next day, you can forget about him. Heck, even if he works at your office, you can forget about that interaction, as long as he's not a dick in general.

What is not easy to ignore is the guy who is constantly breathing down your neck, but when you turn around, he has had the time to run off and hide behind the nearest tree. And then he may, or may not, be following you home, and hiding in the bushes. You're not entirely sure.

That shit is pretty much exactly the opposite of easy to ignore. Whatever you call that behavior, "easy to ignore" is just completely backwards.

You want to come across as not showing sexual interest? Don't show sexual interest. Or do it properly, and then leave it the fuck alone the rest of the time.

AHunter3 05-27-2016 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19362181)
Are "Nice Guys" more passive in their play because they don't want to come across as jerks?

Or are they afraid of rejection?

Or is it both?

A little of both, plus a lot of a factor you don't seem to be getting: some of us just don't mesh with the aggressive-overt role, it isn't how we are. Not only do we not wish to come across as jerks, we're also snobbish and do not wish to beg for sex.


I just said I don't see this as a "genuinely nicer" way of being in the world, or being sexual, than any other. But I don't see it as bad or wrongful either.


And by the way, if it is wrong, it is wrong for anyone and everyone regardless of sex.

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19362181)
Are "Nice Guys" more passive in their play because they don't want to come across as jerks?

Or are they afraid of rejection?

Oh, it's fear of rejection.

Well, it's also not wanting to come across as jerks, but only in the secondary sense that coming across as jerks might get them rejected.

Which, BTW, is understandable. One thing they don't tell you at player-school, is that rejection fucking sucks. Dear God, it's awful. "The worst thing that can happen is that you'll get rejected." Yeah? You make it sound easy. You failed to mention that it's completely soul-crushing. Frankly, I'd rather have my balls crushed in a revolving door any day of the week.

So, yeah, there is that. That's one problem I haven't sorted out yet. I have no idea how other people deal with it. At the moment, I just suck it up when it happens. But yeah, it's not good. I hope it gets better eventually, or I will have to rethink this "up front" stuff at least somewhat.

So... sticking a pin in that particular subject. May need some work.

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19362262)
them

Sorry, I need to say "us". The cat is out of the bag.

Grrr! 05-27-2016 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19362262)
Oh, it's fear of rejection.

Well, it's also not wanting to come across as jerks, but only in the secondary sense that coming across as jerks might get them rejected.

Which, BTW, is understandable. One thing they don't tell you at player-school, is that rejection fucking sucks. Dear God, it's awful. "The worst thing that can happen is that you'll get rejected." Yeah? You make it sound easy. You failed to mention that it's completely soul-crushing. Frankly, I'd rather have my balls crushed in a revolving door any day of the week.

So, yeah, there is that. That's one problem I haven't sorted out yet. I have no idea how other people deal with it. At the moment, I just suck it up when it happens. But yeah, it's not good. I hope it gets better eventually, or I will have to rethink this "up front" stuff at least somewhat.

So... sticking a pin in that particular subject. May need some work.

For me, rejection is easy. The more you've been rejected, the easier it gets. Plus you also have the satisfaction of knowing you had the balls to put yourself out there. And you no longer have to drive yourself crazy wondering what could have been.

That's the problem with NGs. They're so afraid of rejection they avoid it at all costs. Unfortunately, the down side to this is they never grow a thick skin towards rejection. So yeah, I think it would behoove some guys to grow a pair and just put yourself out there.

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19362181)
I've revisited this experience many times in my head, and for the life of me, I don't know what I did wrong other than being nice to him.

You didn't do anything wrong. Why on earth would you assume that you were to blame?

Anyway, you weren't. It's not your fault.

monstro 05-27-2016 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19362210)
A little of both, plus a lot of a factor you don't seem to be getting: some of us just don't mesh with the aggressive-overt role, it isn't how we are. Not only do we not wish to come across as jerks, we're also snobbish and do not wish to beg for sex.


I just said I don't see this as a "genuinely nicer" way of being in the world, or being sexual, than any other. But I don't see it as bad or wrongful either.


And by the way, if it is wrong, it is wrong for anyone and everyone regardless of sex.

Do you think telling someone, "I'm about to confess to something. I really like you. A lot. Would you like to go on a date some time?" is "aggressive-overt?

Because as someone who doesn't like when men approach me, I think this is 100% okay.

I think there is a big zone between "passive" and "aggressive." Expressing your intentions honestly but in a diplomatic, respectful way is NEVER aggressive. It may be inappropriate for the time and place. Doesn't mean you won't rub SOMEONE the wrong way. But that doesn't make you the "bad guy" in the interaction. It just makes you someone who is confident enough to say what you mean.

I really don't know how to respond to your last two comments, since I haven't labeled anything as "bad" or "wrong". But I will say that if you aren't getting the results you want to get, then your approach isn't working. That doesn't make it objectively bad, but perhaps bad for whatever you're aiming for. It's really up to you to decide whether it's worth it to modify your interpersonal style so you can get what you want. Personally, I think being the person you want to be is worth a lot more than nookie and all the heartache that comes with it. But I realize that's an unpopular position.

monstro 05-27-2016 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19362348)
You didn't do anything wrong. Why on earth would you assume that you were to blame?

Anyway, you weren't. It's not your fault.


Intellectually, I know I'm not to blame.

But whenever this topic comes up, I flashback to that guy in my past. He fit the Nice Guy stereotype so well that it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

I think he assumed that I was more socially and emotionally competent than he was, and so OF COURSE I would intuit that he had feelings for me and pick up the ball for him. When really, I am just as inept, but perhaps better at faking. So I do kinda blame myself for not having been the type of woman who can pick up "signals". He was certainly throwing them out because others noticed them (but didn't think to clue a sista in).

It would have made things weird for me if he had asked me out on a date and confessed his feelings, since we were coworkers and I don't like rejecting people. But it would have been a tolerable awkwardness that would have faded quickly, especially when compared to the weirdness I felt when he called me evil and heartless.

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19362181)
But what advice would "Nice Guys" have folks give them that doesn't come across as accusatory or shaming?

They don't want advice, they want to get laid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19362446)
evil and heartless.

Of course you were evil and heartless. You didn't fuck him. Now you have to feel guilty, and fuck him out of sympathy.

Yeah, it is that ugly. These people are that ugly. It really, really isn't your fault. You can't spray for that kind of thing. How could you possibly?

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-27-2016 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19362210)
A little of both, plus a lot of a factor you don't seem to be getting: some of us just don't mesh with the aggressive-overt role, it isn't how we are. Not only do we not wish to come across as jerks, we're also snobbish and do not wish to beg for sex.

I don't even really understand where this is coming from, but I've never begged for sex. I guess it's a pretty private thing so I wouldn't really know if any other men I know have to beg for sex, but I'm definitely not following why you would assume we do.

Pantastic 05-27-2016 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19362262)
Which, BTW, is understandable. One thing they don't tell you at player-school, is that rejection fucking sucks. Dear God, it's awful. "The worst thing that can happen is that you'll get rejected." Yeah? You make it sound easy. You failed to mention that it's completely soul-crushing. Frankly, I'd rather have my balls crushed in a revolving door any day of the week.

If you have that level of worry about rejection, you need to see a therapist. Having your balls crushed in a revolving door is the kind of injury that would leave extreme pain for weeks, probably require some therapy to learn to walk again, and would forver impair your sexual functioning. Going to a therapist and getting some anxiety meds, talking about your issues and/or getting some things to work on is much simpler and less expensive than the treatment you'd need to do for what you say you'd rather have happen. Those 'assholes' who get laid all the time typically get rejected more often in a weekend than you have your entire life, they are just better adjusted and don't dwell on it.

Or you can just be bitter and blame women and 'assholes' for the serious psychological issues in your head that you refuse to treat, that seems to be the standard Nice Guy plan.

Pantastic 05-27-2016 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19362210)
Not only do we not wish to come across as jerks, we're also snobbish and do not wish to beg for sex.

I just said I don't see this as a "genuinely nicer" way of being in the world,

When you characterize guys who are actually successfully socially interacting of begging for sex, it's pretty obvious that you think there is something wrong with what they do.

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pantastic (Post 19362560)
If you have that level of worry about rejection, you need to see a therapist. Having your balls crushed in a revolving door is the kind of injury that would leave extreme pain for weeks, probably require some therapy to learn to walk again, and would forver impair your sexual functioning.

Um... well, I didn't mean it literally. If we're being strictly factual here, I would obviously rather be rejected a bazillion times over, by everyone I've ever met including all the kittens, before I put my actual balls anywhere in the general proximity of the business end of an actual revolving door. I'm not totally crazy.

It was just, you know, exaggeration for attempted comedic effect. My apologies if that wasn't clear.

But, yeah, I don't find rejection to be a picnic.

Quote:

Or you can just be bitter and blame women and 'assholes' for the serious psychological issues in your head that you refuse to treat, that seems to be the standard Nice Guy plan.
Um, not to get all defensive here, but dude, context? Have you read my other contributions to this thread, at all?

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-27-2016 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19362181)
Are "Nice Guys" more passive in their play because they don't want to come across as jerks?

Or are they afraid of rejection?

Or is it both?

My experience with frustrated Nice Guys is that they're profoundly bad at predicting how other people see them. I'm not really sure why - I don't think it's clear why that would intrinsically go along with the rest of the Nice Guy pathology. It's just something I've observed to be nearly universally true when talking to them.

So I'd say they probably do have wildly inaccurate ideas about what would be perceived as being a jerk.

That works both ways, by the way. They're overly passive because they have the incorrect notion that a respectful romantic gesture will be perceived as jerky, but then they'll turn around and be as freakish as the guy you mentioned, oblivious to how they're being perceived.

AHunter3 05-27-2016 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19362354)
Do you think telling someone, "I'm about to confess to something. I really like you. A lot. Would you like to go on a date some time?" is "aggressive-overt?

Because as someone who doesn't like when men approach me, I think this is 100% okay.

I think there is a big zone between "passive" and "aggressive." Expressing your intentions honestly but in a diplomatic, respectful way is NEVER aggressive. It may be inappropriate for the time and place. Doesn't mean you won't rub SOMEONE the wrong way. But that doesn't make you the "bad guy" in the interaction. It just makes you someone who is confident enough to say what you mean.

I really don't know how to respond to your last two comments, since I haven't labeled anything as "bad" or "wrong". But I will say that if you aren't getting the results you want to get, then your approach isn't working.

In my case, I am getting the results I want so my approach IS working. But let's do a rewind. There was time when things were not working for me. The conventional wisdom of the time was that I should... let's see, how was it expressed upthread? "man up and be assertive". But that would not have been good advice for me.

Quote:

Personally, I think being the person you want to be is worth a lot more than nookie and all the heartache that comes with it. But I realize that's an unpopular position.
Not with me :) I agree completely.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19362537)
I don't even really understand where this is coming from, but I've never begged for sex. I guess it's a pretty private thing so I wouldn't really know if any other men I know have to beg for sex, but I'm definitely not following why you would assume we do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pantastic (Post 19362567)
When you characterize guys who are actually successfully socially interacting of begging for sex, it's pretty obvious that you think there is something wrong with what they do.

Hmm, complicated. If a girl from the high school you attended had engaged in the behavior that, when you engage in it, or that successfully socially interacting guys engage in it, is not "begging for sex" when they do it, would she be seen, either in her own eyes or in the opinions of other people attending that same high school, as "begging for sex"?

There is behavior that I am already now on record as saying it is not morally wrong behavior per se, that it is not "less good behavior"... but it is not right for me. It would make me feel as if I were begging for sex, and also in the process making a bothersome nuisance of myself, and because it would make me feel that way, it is wrong behavior for me. That same behavior is likely to be behavior that I welcome with gladness when it is manifested by women, for reasons that should appear obvious at this point. So I do not mean to be condemning the behavior itself as "begging for sex" or anything of the sort.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-27-2016 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19362644)
Hmm, complicated. If a girl from the high school you attended had engaged in the behavior that, when you engage in it, or that successfully socially interacting guys engage in it, is not "begging for sex" when they do it, would she be seen, either in her own eyes or in the opinions of other people attending that same high school, as "begging for sex"?

I think I'm meeting you way more than halfway parsing that sentence, but I'll answer no, it would not. Are you very young by any chance? I'll grant you that high school boys are a lot more likely to beg for sex than any grown man is. I'm not quite sure why you bring up high school.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19362644)
There is behavior that I am already now on record as saying it is not morally wrong behavior per se, that it is not "less good behavior"... but it is not right for me. It would make me feel as if I were begging for sex, and also in the process making a bothersome nuisance of myself, and because it would make me feel that way, it is wrong behavior for me. That same behavior is likely to be behavior that I welcome with gladness when it is manifested by women, for reasons that should appear obvious at this point. So I do not mean to be condemning the behavior itself as "begging for sex" or anything of the sort.

I don't doubt that you already described this behavior, but since I don't believe it was specifically in the context of how it constitutes begging for sex, could you give us maybe 3 examples?

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19362181)
Are "Nice Guys" more passive in their play because they don't want to come across as jerks?

Or are they afraid of rejection?

Or is it both?

Actually, one more thing on this:

It's not just fear of rejection. It's also the calculated chance of rejection. Which is probably, in many cases, correctly estimated at very close to or equivalent to 100%. I mean, let's be honest: In many cases, "nice guys" never have a chance with the women they want in the first place.

The problem is that this estimate is then combined with the belief that a certain kind of consistent "nice guy" type behavior will improve the odds, over time, until the legs of the woman in question magically spring open. Which is the part that is deluded six ways from Sunday.

This is relevant to something that was touched upon earlier. As mentioned early in the thread, "nice guys" will persist in their, um, pursuit, for lack of a better word, even with women they actually don't have a snowball's chance in Haiti of actually getting anywhere with. And they know the odds, they've done the math, and the math checks out. At that point, the sane thing to do would be to abandon the project. But they think that by doing X, Y and Z long enough, the odds will change.

I suppose this is part of the whole Nice Guy Complex of Horror: In part because of this, they can be really, really crap at picking the right women to crush on.

wonky 05-27-2016 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19362446)
I think he assumed that I was more socially and emotionally competent than he was, and so OF COURSE I would intuit that he had feelings for me and pick up the ball for him. When really, I am just as inept, but perhaps better at faking. So I do kinda blame myself for not having been the type of woman who can pick up "signals". He was certainly throwing them out because others noticed them (but didn't think to clue a sista in).

It wouldn't have helped if you were clued in. What could you have done? Avoid him? Heartless bitch! Rejected him without a move? Heartless conceited bitch! Gone on as it was? You saw how that worked out.

Pantastic 05-27-2016 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19362644)
Hmm, complicated. If a girl from the high school you attended had engaged in the behavior that, when you engage in it, or that successfully socially interacting guys engage in it, is not "begging for sex" when they do it, would she be seen, either in her own eyes or in the opinions of other people attending that same high school, as "begging for sex"?

I've been out of high school longer than the WWW has existed, so I don't base anything in my life around what some high schooler from the last millennium might have thought about whether an activity is socially acceptable for which gender. Even with less of a gap, if you're not still in high school, why do you give a crap what high schoolers think about social activities? That's not a rhetorical question, is there any reason that the hypothetical opinions of some kids back at the start of the 90s are relevant to anything happening now?

(From what I've seen, an obsession with High School is pretty common among Nice Guys and a lot of other people who don't do well dating. And it's not a healthy thing at all.)

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pantastic (Post 19362869)
(From what I've seen, an obsession with High School is pretty common among Nice Guys and a lot of other people who don't do well dating. And it's not a healthy thing at all.)

Well, when it's the last time you had any action, you gotta work with the reference points you have.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-27-2016 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19362931)
Well, when it's the last time you had any action, you gotta work with the reference points you have.

I'm not totally sure if you're joking or serious, but just in case you're serious that is definitely not wise or prudent. If you want to be successful you need to figure out what is expected of you at your current age and behave accordingly.

If a man were married at 18 and divorced 30 years later, would you try to date like a teenager did in the mid 80s, or would you awkwardly figure out how middle aged divorcees date in 2016? The latter is the correct answer.

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19363004)
I'm not totally sure if you're joking or serious, but just in case you're serious that is definitely not wise or prudent.

You're nut sure? WFT? First it was Pantastic upthread, and now you? What is this, "take MB's obvious jokes at face value" week? I don't recall normally having this problem.

Yes, I'm joking! I'm joking!

BTW, here's a rule of thumb: If in doubt, I'm joking.

P-man 05-27-2016 05:19 PM

Is it fair to say that there are many reasons people of all genders can have problems attracting romantic partners?
In my case it was mostly extreme social anxiety and inability to read signals. I misread signal both ways, thinking there was interest when there wasn't and not seeing it when there was. When there was interest on my part I'm sure I usually looked like a deer in the headlights. Attractive, huh? I'm not a bad looking guy, but not good looking enough to make up for that. When my wife and I met it happened so fast I didn't have time to think about it.

The idea of thinking I'm owed sex is foreign to me. I guess there are "what's wrong with them" Nice Guys and "what's wrong with me" nice guys. I certainly identified as one of the latter. I'm not saying I always treated people with as much respect as I should have. I'm sure I fell short sometimes. I definitely got to the "what's the point of even trying" stage. Within a year of getting there I was married. Of course being a good spouse and parent carries a whole new set of challenges; definitely harder, but also fulilling.

monstro 05-27-2016 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsgoddess (Post 19362757)
It wouldn't have helped if you were clued in. What could you have done? Avoid him? Heartless bitch! Rejected him without a move? Heartless conceited bitch! Gone on as it was? You saw how that worked out.

You're probably right, but I guess this is what I'm trying to figure out: Is the problem completely self-inflicted? Or do social norms really make it difficult for Nice Guys?

And if there is even just a teeny sliver truth in the latter, what can be done about it?

I know that the glib answer is that it's the Nice Guys don't want anything to be done except for women to start saying "yes" to their non-advances. But I'm guessing a lot of guys just want women to be more assertive with their own sexuality and stop waiting for the man do all the work. I don't think this is going to happen on a widespread basis any time soon. But is it an unreasonable desire?

AHunter has helped me understand just a little bit better. I think that if I were a guy, I'd resent the idea that I must be the one who initiates or else I'm less of a man. I'd understand intellectually that them's the rules, but it would still engender a certain bitterness in me and perhaps a desire to rally against the rules and those who perpetuate them.

Perhaps as gender roles continue to evolve, passive guys won't be at such a disadvantage and it will be those more assertive guys who start being all bitchy and moany. I don't know. Maybe I'm overthinking things.

Johnny Ace 05-27-2016 06:03 PM

I have trouble resenting what exists by nature. It's not going to change anytime soon. You deal with it and adapt.

It's really not rocket science. There are successful methods, and if you want to succeed, you figure out what they are in some way and make appropriate changes. Otherwise you can rationalize it all you want, but you're still not getting any, or having a chance at finding a real relationship.

P-man 05-27-2016 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19363091)
You're probably right, but I guess this is what I'm trying to figure out: Is the problem completely self-inflicted? Or do social norms really make it difficult for Nice Guys?

And if there is even just a teeny sliver truth in the latter, what can be done about it?

I know that the glib answer is that it's the Nice Guys don't want anything to be done except for women to start saying "yes" to their non-advances. But I'm guessing a lot of guys just want women to be more assertive with their own sexuality and stop waiting for the man do all the work. I don't think this is going to happen on a widespread basis any time soon. But is it an unreasonable desire?

AHunter has helped me understand just a little bit better. I think that if I were a guy, I'd resent the idea that I must be the one who initiates or else I'm less of a man. I'd understand intellectually that them's the rules, but it would still engender a certain bitterness in me and perhaps a desire to rally against the rules and those who perpetuate them.

Perhaps as gender roles continue to evolve, passive guys won't be at such a disadvantage and it will be those more assertive guys who start being all bitchy and moany. I don't know. Maybe I'm overthinking things.

If a woman hadn't initiated something with me many years ago I might be a whiney, dateless old man. I always thought it was unfair that I was expected to make the first move, but life ain't always fair. Also, how many women who are willing to make the first move are going to make it with a guy who has no confidence? In my experience, the number was one. Lucky for me, that was enougn. I'm sure it helped that we were both established career wise and looking to get married and settle down.

Our kids both experience social anxiety, and are getting therapy to help them deal with it. I grew up in an era when most parents wouldn't think of making sure their kids got help for that kind of thing.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-27-2016 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19363041)
You're nut sure? WFT? First it was Pantastic upthread, and now you? What is this, "take MB's obvious jokes at face value" week? I don't recall normally having this problem.

Yes, I'm joking! I'm joking!

BTW, here's a rule of thumb: If in doubt, I'm joking.

Well now that you've admitted to being a secret Nice Guy, we all have to assume you're pretty clueless when it comes to women.

Seriously though, you've made plenty of really smart posts in this thread, but what you posted as a joke is not at all out of line with things unhappy men have posted on Internet discussion forums.

For example: just a couple hours ago AHunter3 brought up high school girls, which started this whole digression. I agree with Pantastic. Maybe AHunter3 happens to be 19 years old. We don't know. But barring that it strikes me as truly strange to even bring up what anyone would think of a high school girl.

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19363219)
Maybe AHunter3 happens to be 19 years old. We don't know.

Good grief, I sure hope not. I've been tearing him a new asshole for days now. I don't like to think that I've been picking on someone that much smaller than my own size.

Even if it is for his own good, dammit.

wonky 05-27-2016 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19363091)
AHunter has helped me understand just a little bit better. I think that if I were a guy, I'd resent the idea that I must be the one who initiates or else I'm less of a man. I'd understand intellectually that them's the rules, but it would still engender a certain bitterness in me and perhaps a desire to rally against the rules and those who perpetuate them.

Perhaps as gender roles continue to evolve, passive guys won't be at such a disadvantage and it will be those more assertive guys who start being all bitchy and moany. I don't know. Maybe I'm overthinking things.

I think passive people are at a disadvantage, and always have been. If you're waiting for someone else to make moves, some of the people who never make moves are people you wish would, and vice versa. Tends to be true in any other pursuit as well.

But yes, I do think some of the very strict boundaries are falling apart. Some of that has to do with younger people simply not dating the same way.

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-man (Post 19363050)
The idea of thinking I'm owed sex is foreign to me. I guess there are "what's wrong with them" Nice Guys and "what's wrong with me" nice guys. I certainly identified as one of the latter. I'm not saying I always treated people with as much respect as I should have. I'm sure I fell short sometimes.

Jeez, dude... you're only human. We all fall short sometimes.

You don't sound like a "nice guy", in the sense we're using the term (as in manipulative, passive-aggressive with occasional sudden forays into downright aggressive, whiny, misanthropic ... did I forget anything? ... and not actually nice). You just sound like a timid, you know, actually nice guy. This isn't really about beating up on all timid, shy guys. I mean, most of them could probably use some manning up, the little twits, but I don't hate them, in general. ;)

As for the "owed sex" thing, when it comes to "nice guys" (just to make a general comment on that, since you happened to mention it)... it can be a bit indirect. The "nice guy" probably hasn't formulated the sentence "I am owed sex" in his mind. If you ask him straight up: "Do you feel that you are owed sex?", he'll probably vehemently deny it, and even believe his own denial.

But when you go off the deep end, and call someone evil and heartless (and I have called a couple of people similar things, and worse, in a loud and angry voice), simply because they didn't fuck you... that's thinking you're owed sex. Or at least that's the only reasonable interpretation, as far as I can tell.

And yes, it is about the fucking. I'm sure the "nice guy" would love to have a deep and meaningful relationship with his lady friend, as well. He's a deep thinker and a sensitive chap. But the fucking part is very important, so she'd better make sure to do that first, and not forget. And if the fucking is all he gets, yeah, he'll settle just fine for that, no problemo.

Velocity 05-27-2016 08:36 PM

It's too bad that "Nice" guys have completely poisoned this type of topic and discussion on the Internet.

There are many genuinely nice guys who, for some reason - be they autistic, shy, nervous, had a harsh upbringing, had some trauma, are socially inept, physically unattractive, etc. - who genuinely have difficulty in the area of romance or relationships. They're not misogynist, entitled, or undercover Elliot Rodgers.


But because of "nice" guys who are all of those malicious/negative attributes, this results in many genuinely nice guys getting smeared and viciously attacked on the Internet. I'm sure many genuinely nice guys ask for such advice on the Internet and then unexpectedly get hammered by people who think they're one of the repulsive "nice" guys.


It's really quite unfortunate. The discussion is thoroughly poisoned.

Don't Panic 05-27-2016 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19363455)
It's really quite unfortunate. The discussion is thoroughly poisoned.

This is true. Or the discussion is at least confused. We really need to make it clear that we're talking about two very different things.

OK, let's look at terminology. How about we start with nuking the terms "nice guy" (in quotes), Nice Guy (capitalized), Nice Guy TM (trademark sign), etc, and just replace those with "shithead"? Then, we'll reserve the term nice guy for actually nice guys?

'Cause I'm noticing that I'm having a hard time being precise here.

lazybratsche 05-27-2016 09:46 PM

I don't have anything to contribute to this thread, but I want to thank y'all for the discussion. Despite the, ah, drive by OP, and the usual direction this conversation goes on the internets, everyone in this thread has managed to have a civil and insightful discussion of the topic.

I'm personally drawn to discussions of the "Nice Guy" phenomenon because I recognize some of those tendencies in myself, and I wonder how I managed to avoid that fate. (Working hypothesis: while I'm a socially awkward and terminally clueless nerd, I have an excess of confidence, and in my social circles in college there were plenty of direct and assertive women.) And now I am beginning to worry about how to raise kids without them either becoming "Nice Guys" or the subjects of their unwanted attention...

Robot Arm 05-27-2016 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19363455)
It's too bad that "Nice" guys have completely poisoned this type of topic and discussion on the Internet.

There are many genuinely nice guys who, for some reason - be they autistic, shy, nervous, had a harsh upbringing, had some trauma, are socially inept, physically unattractive, etc. - who genuinely have difficulty in the area of romance or relationships. They're not misogynist, entitled, or undercover Elliot Rodgers.


But because of "nice" guys who are all of those malicious/negative attributes, this results in many genuinely nice guys getting smeared and viciously attacked on the Internet. I'm sure many genuinely nice guys ask for such advice on the Internet and then unexpectedly get hammered by people who think they're one of the repulsive "nice" guys.


It's really quite unfortunate. The discussion is thoroughly poisoned.

I've been reading this thread, but have been wary of joining in. I hope I'm not one of the "nice guys"; don't believe that I am. Still, it's hard to look for advice or sympathy without fearing you'll be accused of being whiny and entitled.

P-man 05-27-2016 10:36 PM

Maybe self-proclaimed nice guy? I never used the term for myself; it was used by women who a) weren't interested in dating, b) broke up with me, or c) were female friends who told me there were lots of women who would love to date me. It was confusing, and I was led to believe that I had some fatal flaw(s) that made me virtually undatable. Obviously it wasn't true, since I've been married for a long time. I'm sure I'm overly sympathetic to guys who post in this forum about their woes with dating. In the words of Bill Clinton, I feel their pain. It's easy to say "this is sabatoging your attempts at finding a relationship; knock it off". There are some of us who feel, or have felt, paralyzed. In my case there's the fear that my sons have inherited it. When I hear my 15 year old say that he doesn't think anyone likes him (and I always had friends, just no romance) all the old feelings come rushing back. I know that I can't protect my sons from the pain I experienced. All I can do is help them find the tools, to avoid it. Both are involved in a study on teen anxiety that involves cognitive therapy, so hopefully that will help. Also, they get $ for it. It's all pretty danged complicated.

Martini Enfield 05-28-2016 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19358589)
You have just hit on something I've been theorizing for a while:

Nice guys have been conditioned into believing that women, on a fundamental level, don't like and don't want attention from men.

(Which isn't an unreasonable belief for them to arrive at, considering that many women do indeed complain about getting unwanted attention from men. Women usually want to be pursued by men that they like, and don't want to be pursued by men that they don't like - and even then, women usually only want to be pursued at certain times and circumstances - but a nice guy can easily conclude that women don't want to be pursued by men, at all, ever, period.)


So what does this mean? This means that a nice guy will, on a fundamental level, believe that approaching a woman requires subterfuge and subtlety - why? Because he is trying to get her to do something she doesn't want - namely, get into a relationship with him. Thus he fears "blowing his cover" - namely, making his intentions known.

For what it's worth, I think this is an excellent observation generally and hits home to the heart of how a not insignificant number of guys think.

Like being a hipster, few people will readily admit to being a Nice Guy™, but I think most people (myself included) have at least one person in their social circle who absolutely is.

There's a not insignificant number of guys out there who seem to think that getting women to like them and do naked things with them works like levelling up in a video game - Quest objective: Say something nice about her outfit without her thinking you're being a weirdo - and if they earn enough SexP, it's super excellent sexy glorious fun time.

Windmills do not work that way, as we all know, for reasons I trust are self-evident enough not to require further elaboration.

But I think you'll find most guys - even Nice Guys™- have, at some point, mustered up the courage to ask out a girl they liked, only to not only be rejected, but metaphorically shot down in flames, possibly even with a derisive element of "How very dare you, an unworthy peasant, deign to suggest such a thing!"

While most folks would, after naturally feeling a bit hurt by that, simply go "OK, well she's not interested. Chalk that one up to experience and move on", I can totally understand how a Nice Guy™ would intepret that experience - or, more awfully, multiple such experiences - as "Women are not interested in guys unless they are not me", leading to a dysfunctional worldview.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-28-2016 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19363490)
This is true. Or the discussion is at least confused. We really need to make it clear that we're talking about two very different things.

OK, let's look at terminology. How about we start with nuking the terms "nice guy" (in quotes), Nice Guy (capitalized), Nice Guy TM (trademark sign), etc, and just replace those with "shithead"? Then, we'll reserve the term nice guy for actually nice guys?

'Cause I'm noticing that I'm having a hard time being precise here.

The trouble with "shithead" is that there are lots of types of men who could equally be described as shitheads (even if we limit the scope to dating / attitudes about romance) and yet have a completely different pathology than "Nice Guys" tm. I also think there's not as much daylight between what you're calling shitheads and the more innocent nice guys you're talking about. It's a really valid point that not everyone feels entitled to sex and resentful of women, but I believe those that do started out from a similar place.

Further, I'm a nice guy myself and I never had this type of problem dating. That's the number 1 reason I like posting in this type of thread. I feel the need to be a voice saying, No, you really don't need to compromise on the person you are naturally to appeal to women.

If you want a single word to describe guys who relate to the Nice Guy problem but don't have the passive aggressive resentment issues, I think timid guy is a better fit than nice guy. It's comforting to think that one's problems are all about being too nice, but for people who want to get better, instead of getting resentful, I think it's important to accept that niceness isn't really the problem.

wonky 05-28-2016 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19363490)
OK, let's look at terminology. How about we start with nuking the terms "nice guy" (in quotes), Nice Guy (capitalized), Nice Guy TM (trademark sign), etc, and just replace those with "shithead"? Then, we'll reserve the term nice guy for actually nice guys?

'Cause I'm noticing that I'm having a hard time being precise here.

I know you're joking (don't scold me!) but the point of "nice guy" is that many of the people we're talking about don't think they are doing something wrong. If they identified themselves as "shitheads" and then said "I'm such a shithead, why don't women like me!" we'd have had exactly one of these threads. It's the very fact that men who are falling into this trap cannot identify their behavior as something that exacerbates the issue.

In typing that, I realize that I, and many of us, could do better to be sure we are calling out behavior and not person. I think it's P-Man who has mentioned a couple of times that h fell into more of the self-blame category (I am unlovable and unloved), where some other men might fall into the blame women or blame other men category (I'm great. Those other people suck). Neither are true. Falling into patterns of behavior that are counter-productive or destructive doesn't mean someone is unworthy of affection, and it also doesn't mean that other people are wrong for finding it off-putting.

monstro 05-28-2016 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsgoddess (Post 19364129)
I know you're joking (don't scold me!) but the point of "nice guy" is that many of the people we're talking about don't think they are doing something wrong. If they identified themselves as "shitheads" and then said "I'm such a shithead, why don't women like me!" we'd have had exactly one of these threads. It's the very fact that men who are falling into this trap cannot identify their behavior as something that exacerbates the issue.

In typing that, I realize that I, and many of us, could do better to be sure we are calling out behavior and not person. I think it's P-Man who has mentioned a couple of times that h fell into more of the self-blame category (I am unlovable and unloved), where some other men might fall into the blame women or blame other men category (I'm great. Those other people suck). Neither are true. Falling into patterns of behavior that are counter-productive or destructive doesn't mean someone is unworthy of affection, and it also doesn't mean that other people are wrong for finding it off-putting.

I agree with this.

How does it help a guy whose approach to women isn't working to call him a "shithead"? I mean, yeah, call the guy who literally stalks and creeps a "shithead" all you want. But a guy who secretly crushes on a girl and becomes privately frustrated when she doesn't respond isn't a shithead. He's just doing it wrong.

I like Fuzzy's "timid guy" much better. Because that nails down what the problem is for the nice guys we're talking about here. The guys who flip out on women who dare to turn down their advances but still call themselves "nice"---those guys are shitty. But I don't think those are the "nice guys" we've been talking about. Or am I missing something?

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstro (Post 19364157)
How does it help a guy whose approach to women isn't working to call him a "shithead"?

Yeah, sorry, that did come out a bit wrong.

It may not be obvious, BTW, but I've really been dealing with my own particular demons in this thread. I needed to work through some stuff and beat up on myself a bit. Well, in a "tear myself down, and build myself up" sort of way. Or maybe write out and think through the tearing down and building up I've already been doing. Sorry if I've been lashing out and taking it out on others. (Wait. Isn't that a "nice guy" thing to do, when you think about it? That would explain it! ;))

This has been quite a therapeutic thread for me! Apologies for the collateral damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsgoddess (Post 19364129)
In typing that, I realize that I, and many of us, could do better to be sure we are calling out behavior and not person.

Absolutely!

I certainly think it's about behavior, not person, and I think it's behavior that is entirely curable. Hence the "drill sergeant" posture I've kind of been adopting at times in this thread. If I come across as a harsh, it's partly because, well, sometimes it feels like it takes quite a lot of noise to get through to some people. I can certainly have a very thick skull. Call it "tough love", I guess.

Although I'm not saying that I've worked out the most optimal proportions of honey, vinegar, carrots and sticks for my recipe.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martini Enfield (Post 19363912)
Like being a hipster, few people will readily admit to being a Nice Guy™ [...]

BTW, as a potential subject for another thread: Unlike "nice guys", hipsters are fine! People need to stop beating up on hipsters.

Hipsters are mostly nice, intelligent young people with positive, progressive values, good taste in music, and great fashion sense. I love hipsters. If everyone was a hipster, the world would be just fine. Hipsters should be proud of being hipsters.

Thank you, hijack over. (Do not respond to this post!) I now return you to your regularly scheduled "nice guy" thread.

AHunter3 05-28-2016 02:19 PM

One of the persistent assumptions in this thread that really pisses me off is the notion (sometimes stated bluntly, sometimes hinted at indirectly) that we all just want sex, that getting sex is the purpose of the behavior, and that what makes it creepy is that the behavior masks that (or tries to), that what we have here is people who want sex but pretending that their interests involve something else.

Thanks — every time I run into that, it feels like a cup of raw sewage has been flung into my face.

Look, if I only cared about sex, I would be forthright and honest about it. I might or might not develop an attitude towards girls and women who were not interested in just plain old sex for its own sake, but whether I did or I did not, I would have learned how to find the women whose interests are indeed along those same lines.

But no.

Those girls and women that I just mentioned, the ones who aren't particularly interested in sex by itself, sex for its own sake? Their reaction, when approached in that fashion, when expressed kindly and without exasperation and indignation, often amounts to "I'm not that kind of girl. I would have to get to know you better first". Feel free to raise your hand and call bullshit on that if you don't recognize that as a behavior-pattern. No hands? Good, let's move on.

I'm like that. Therefore I'm all about "I want to get to know you better (first)", except that typically speaking, over the course of my lifetime and especially as a younger person back in the day, the "first" part remained unspoken, in parentheses, because I had not first been propositioned by the girl so I did not need to say "I'm not that kind of boy" and the getting to know you better therefore did not get expressed as something that I wanted to happen before we considered the sex part.

People have asked why I brought up the "high school" stuff. Because my most classic Nice Guy™ behavioral moments were back when I was younger, back then. Who I am has not changed, but I haven't spent the intervening decades whining that it isn't fair that nice boys get passed over by nice girls in favor of bad boys.

That does not mean it isn't partly true though. The observed phenomenon exists. And not because Nice Guys are shits who deserve nothing better, and not because Nice Guys are too timid or not assertive enough or not direct and honest enough, and also (while I'm at it) not because Nice Girls are dishonest about what they want or aren't really very nice or any of that hostile shit that Nice Guys have accused them of. Nope, none of that.

The observed phenomenon exists because the sexual dating and courting script calls for the boy-person to make an overt sexual advance, to which the girl-person replies "I'm not that kind of girl, I'd have to get to know you better first", and so the two of them date some, they fool around some, and perhaps proximity and time cause them to become emotionally involved and they become boyfriend and girlfriend, or perhaps proximity and time cause them to get horny enough to overcome reluctances and concerns about reputation and, to express it in the sexist vernacular, he scores.

The observed phenomenon exists because that script is a sexist script and doesn't fit very well for male-bodied people who aren't really very boyish, whose priorities aren't typical boy-priorities, whose personality isn't right for the role of boy in that little pageant.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-28-2016 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19364558)
The observed phenomenon exists because the sexual dating and courting script calls for the boy-person to make an overt sexual advance, to which the girl-person replies "I'm not that kind of girl, I'd have to get to know you better first", and so the two of them date some, they fool around some, and perhaps proximity and time cause them to become emotionally involved and they become boyfriend and girlfriend, or perhaps proximity and time cause them to get horny enough to overcome reluctances and concerns about reputation and, to express it in the sexist vernacular, he scores.

The observed phenomenon exists because that script is a sexist script and doesn't fit very well for male-bodied people who aren't really very boyish, whose priorities aren't typical boy-priorities, whose personality isn't right for the role of boy in that little pageant.

This isn't how a single one of my courtships or sexual encounters have gone down. Not even in high school!

Acsenray 05-28-2016 03:31 PM

What does the OP mean by "nice guy"?

1. The kind of "nice guy" who makes no effort to meet people or be attractive and is just a misogynist who blames women for not liking him?

2. The kind of "nice guy" who resents that women who are far more attractive than he is doesn't go for him and ignores the women who are more his equal in attractiveness?

3. "Nice" as in "not an asshole." The thing is, not being an asshole is really not enough to make you attractive to someone.

This article by Cracked's David Wong is something every "nice guy" should read — http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-...better-person/

To sum up, if you want to attract someone, you have to do or become something that makes you attractive—what are your skills? What can you do to give another person something she needs in life?

Are you handsome? Are you rich? Do you dress stylishly? Can you play music or make art? Do you cook? Are you good at fixing things? Are you entertaining? Are you charming? Are you smart? Do you have a future? Are you fun to be around?

You don't need to be all these things, or any specific one of these things, but, as David Wong says in that article, you need to bring something to the table. And you need to be aware of what kind of girl will be attracted to what you bring to the table. If you want a fashion model, you have to be able to compete with the kind of men that fashion models have access to.

Also, as he says, a person who does little more than consume what other people produce—whether it's video games or movies or TV—isn't bringing much to the table.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-28-2016 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3
The observed phenomenon exists because the sexual dating and courting script calls for the boy-person to make an overt sexual advance, to which the girl-person replies "I'm not that kind of girl, I'd have to get to know you better first", and so the two of them date some, they fool around some, and perhaps proximity and time cause them to become emotionally involved and they become boyfriend and girlfriend, or perhaps proximity and time cause them to get horny enough to overcome reluctances and concerns about reputation and, to express it in the sexist vernacular, he scores.

The observed phenomenon exists because that script is a sexist script and doesn't fit very well for male-bodied people who aren't really very boyish, whose priorities aren't typical boy-priorities, whose personality isn't right for the role of boy in that little pageant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19364617)
This isn't how a single one of my courtships or sexual encounters have gone down. Not even in high school!

Here's how all my "sexual dating and courting" has gone. I meet a woman. I ask her on date. We have a good time. Usually on date 2 - 4 we mutually decide to have sex with each other. Neither of us act like it's the 1950s. Nor do we describe each other as boys and girls because we're both adults.

Sometimes one of us call it off at any point we decide that's the right call. It sucks for the other person but we get over it.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19364558)
sex by itself, sex for its own sake

Right. So you're not interested in "sex by itself, sex for its own sake".

You're interested in sex as a way to achieve a deeper emotional and spiritual connection. As a path to love and understanding.

I am, too. Sex for its own sake does nothing for me. It's not about tab A into slot B. I don't want to have sex with just anyone. It has to be someone who does it for me on a mental, emotional or spiritual level. Or at least someone with a good sense of humor.

But so fucking what? Is the difference really that important? We're still interested in sex.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acsenray (Post 19364689)
To sum up, if you want to attract someone, you have to do or become something that makes you attractive

Right. You wouldn't think this would be rocket science. But to some people it apparently is.

Newsflash: You catch fish with bait. Stop dangling your empty hooks, fellas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19364558)
The observed phenomenon exists because the sexual dating and courting script calls for the boy-person to make an overt sexual advance, to which the girl-person replies "I'm not that kind of girl, I'd have to get to know you better first" [...]

I'll join the choir and say that not a single relationship I've had, pursued or sniffed at follows this pattern.

AHunter3, you seem to believe that you live in a world where women are all shy wallflowers who sit around and wait for a prince to sweep them off their feet, and who, when he does, still have to do a coy song and dance of "hard to get".

Now, I don't know where you live, but I'll assume for the sake of discussion that it's in a modern Western society.

If that is the case, then your assumptions on this matter constitute just about the biggest and smelliest pile of total deluded bullcrap that I have ever seen. You're so wrong that "wrong" doesn't begin to describe it. I think I'll have to go fetch my dictionary before I can begin telling you how wrong you are.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19364837)
But so fucking what? Is the difference really that important? We're still interested in sex.

BTW, I should add to this, because it's important:

And there's nothing wrong with that!
It's just a matter of how one goes about it.

Icerigger 05-28-2016 06:39 PM

I have always felt the best match for a nice shy clueless guy would be a nice shy clueless girl, so do nice shy clueless girls exist?

Velocity 05-28-2016 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icerigger (Post 19364937)
I have always felt the best match for a shy clueless guy would be a shy clueless girl, do shy clueless girls exist?

Most absolutely yes.

Acsenray 05-28-2016 06:48 PM

The "shy" and the "clueless" parts often interfere with search and engagement on both sides.

Robot Arm 05-28-2016 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19364558)
The observed phenomenon exists because the sexual dating and courting script calls for the boy-person to make an overt sexual advance, to which the girl-person replies "I'm not that kind of girl, I'd have to get to know you better first"[...]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19364883)
I'll join the choir and say that not a single relationship I've had, pursued or sniffed at follows this pattern.

That has kind of been the advice in this thread, though, hasn't it; be bold, make your intentions clear, don't wait around and expect her to read your mind?

But then, if I took all the advice in these sorts of threads it would add up to: Be bold, I met my wife when she came on to me, you'll find someone when you stop looking, don't judge women on their looks, you're not handsome enough, just be yourself, and fake it until you make it. What could be simpler than that?

And people wonder why some of us don't figure it out.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365101)
And people wonder why some of us don't figure it out.

It may sound strange and illogical, but it actually makes a lot more sense in the practical context that is called "outside". The reason some people aren't figuring it is because they're treating it like reading a manual on bicycle repair without ever having ridden a bicycle, seen a bicycle, or heard of a thing called a "wheel".

Look, just go interact with people. It'll make more sense with some hands-on experience. It's not actually contradictory, it just seems like it.

Acsenray 05-28-2016 08:56 PM

Strangely enough, I have read some articles suggesting that online dating is actually making it harder for people to get together because it creates the impression that if you hold out for a little bit longer, you really can find someone that fits every single one of your likes in every minute way.

But yes the key really is to really interact with people. Be interested in them, genuinely interested, not just learning to fake interest.

Have things you are interested in and be able to do things that make you interesting.

Learn to care about other people beyond their most superficial characteristics.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acsenray (Post 19365122)
Strangely enough, I have read some articles suggesting that online dating is actually making it harder for people to get together because it creates the impression that if you hold out for a little bit longer, you really can find someone that fits every single one of your likes in every minute way.

Also, even you do somehow manage to conjure up someone who checks all the boxes, and fits all the preferences and requirements that you punched into the form... it may turn out that you don't really like them all that much.

Then, instead, you end up hooking up with someone who only fits a very small percentage of your stated preferences. And it's fine, because they happen to be pretty awesome.

Again, makes no sense on paper, actually makes perfect sense if you try it in practice.

Robot Arm 05-28-2016 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19365108)
Look, just go interact with people. It'll make more sense with some hands-on experience. It's not actually contradictory, it just seems like it.

The advice is contradictory, but then so is the world, sometimes. I don't doubt that all of those things have worked for somebody, somewhere. I'm sure they've all failed for someone, too.

As for interacting with people, I do, and have done for decades. It's more complicated than that; it must be. Not everybody does the same things in the same way and gets the same results.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365143)
Not everybody does the same things in the same way and gets the same results.

Well, no kidding? That's sort of the point. The world is a complex place. We're not writing a "guide to universal happiness in two easy steps" manual. We're just talking, thinking, experimenting, and looking for patterns. And there are patterns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365143)
As for interacting with people, I do, and have done for decades.

Well... then I'm not really sure where your confusion is coming from. You should already know this.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-28-2016 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19365132)
Also, even you do somehow manage to conjure up someone who checks all the boxes, and fits all the preferences and requirements that you punched into the form... it may turn out that you don't really like them all that much.

Plus, if you hold out waiting for the perfect woman to come along, assuming you ever manage to meet her, you risk finding out she's waiting for the perfect man. You're better off dating someone you like who likes you back.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-28-2016 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365101)
But then, if I took all the advice in these sorts of threads it would add up to: Be bold, I met my wife when she came on to me, you'll find someone when you stop looking, don't judge women on their looks, you're not handsome enough, just be yourself, and fake it until you make it. What could be simpler than that?

And people wonder why some of us don't figure it out.

Do you expect everyone on the Straight Dope to get together privately and coordinate all our advice so that it's internally consistent? If you want advice to follow, you can either pick one person whose advice makes sense and follow that, or you can take on the challenge of coalescing potentially contradictory advice from multiple people.

If you pick one person and the advice is still confusing and contradictory then you must've picked the wrong person. If you want to consider what everyone is saying then yeah, it's not going to all make sense at once.

My take on it - waiting for an aggressive woman to come on to you can work but it's risky and could involve a lot of waiting. You'll also be inexperienced and run the risk of ruining things when the opportunity finally comes along. So, it's great that it worked for some people but it strikes me as way too passive an approach to something as important as your romantic life.

Just being yourself and faking it are both too extreme for "Nice Guys". You need to find a middle of the road path. Actually stop being timid, by asking real women out on dates. Don't change nothing and don't pretend you can fake it. Changing nothing is basically the "my wife picked me up and carried me across the threshold approach" which isn't bad it's just passive and risky, and faking it sounds more like the Pick Up Artist approach. Nobody wants to be a Pick Up Artist.

I don't really understand what you're getting at with the pair about being being ugly and not judging women by their looks. The advice I recall reading was about being realistic about the women you pursue, and although I concede that the post was primarily about looks, I think it applies to at least some men much more generally than only physical attractiveness.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365143)
The advice is contradictory, but then so is the world, sometimes. I don't doubt that all of those things have worked for somebody, somewhere. I'm sure they've all failed for someone, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19364801)
Here's how all my "sexual dating and courting" has gone. [...]

Here's how mine have gone: Weird shit happened. Then more weird shit happened. Then some other weird shit happened. Very little of it was exactly what I expected to happen.

Maybe it's because I'm not a theoretical sort of guy, but I do have to get my hands dirty to understand any of it. I do notice patterns. Usually, three notable incidents of something weird constitutes a pattern that makes sense to me.

My career as a "nice guy", since we're on that subject, involved three major episodes, plus some amount of low-level stuff.

No, this is by no means the extent of my romantic history. Between these unfortunate episodes, I've had several relationships where "nice guy" behavior never became an issue at all. The circumstances were different. The "nice guy" stuff is just one thing I have to figure out, in a way that makes sense to me in particular. There's lots of other stuff out there, too. Very different stuff, that is weird in different ways.

Ever so often, I think that I have life, the universe and everything all figured out. Then something happens, and I go "wait, it can be like that?" Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I expect that to continue.

Then I go on the internet and talk to y'all about it.

I currently have a couple of main concerns: One is not hurting other people if I can avoid it. "Nice guy" behavior is an example of something that can hurt other people. If "nice guys" were just a danger to themselves, this kind of behavior in my own life and elsewhere wouldn't get me so worked up.

But another concern is not being so afraid of hurting other people that I just sit whimpering in a corner. 'Cause that can't be right, either. And, as it turns out, that can be harmful, too.

There's a Churchill quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchill
You will make all kinds of mistakes; but as long as you are generous and true and also fierce you cannot hurt the world or even seriously distress her.

I get the generous part. I get the true part. Anyway, those are pretty blah. But "fierce" doesn't seem to fit. That's what makes the quote interesting.

I think it means something like: The world does stand up to, and will benefit from, some kicking around, as long as you kick it in the right way. I'm trying to figure out how to kick it in the right way.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 10:33 PM

Too late for edit:

Now, I understand that Churchill is talking about geopolitics, more than dating. But that quote still sticks with me.

Robot Arm 05-28-2016 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19365148)
Well... then I'm not really sure where your confusion is coming from. You should already know this.

You're the one who said "just go interact with people", as if that leads to some inevitable epiphany. It doesn't, or at least it hasn't so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19365213)
Do you expect everyone on the Straight Dope to get together privately and coordinate all our advice so that it's internally consistent? If you want advice to follow, you can either pick one person whose advice makes sense and follow that, or you can take on the challenge of coalescing potentially contradictory advice from multiple people.

No, I don't expect all the advice to to be coordinated and consistent, but the fact that there are so many different approaches, each one sincerely offered and successful at one time or another, is, perhaps, one way of explaining the issue that some people face.

Quote:

My take on it - waiting for an aggressive woman to come on to you can work but it's risky and could involve a lot of waiting. You'll also be inexperienced and run the risk of ruining things when the opportunity finally comes along. So, it's great that it worked for some people but it strikes me as way too passive an approach to something as important as your romantic life.
Agreed, and I'm not just waiting. Not that I'd turn down the right offer, either.

I do occasionally read in threads like these about someone who is told, after the fact, about someone who was blatantly flirting with them. There was a thread about being a "crushee" just a couple days ago. Either it's never happened to me, or the people who'd notice and tell me are as blind as I am.

Quote:

Just being yourself and faking it are both too extreme for "Nice Guys". You need to find a middle of the road path. Actually stop being timid, by asking real women out on dates. Don't change nothing and don't pretend you can fake it. Changing nothing is basically the "my wife picked me up and carried me across the threshold approach" which isn't bad it's just passive and risky, and faking it sounds more like the Pick Up Artist approach. Nobody wants to be a Pick Up Artist.
There'a story I've told here a time or two; apologies to those who've heard it before, but I think it's relevant.

There was a woman I worked with some years ago; didn't know her terribly well, but was developing a bit of a crush. I'd always felt a bit overlooked and ignored in romantic matters, so I decided that wasn't going to happen again. I was going to ask her out, unmistakably, and whatever the answer was I'd deal with it. This being mid-February, I got her some flowers, gave them to her on Valentine's Day, and invited her to a play the following week. She said yes, and I was quite happy. Two days later she sent me an e-mail asking if I could get another ticket to the play so she could bring a date.

I'll admit that's probably my most extreme example, but where do you go from that? What bit of wisdom was I supposed to pick up from that human interaction? Folks in this thread have talked about learning to put up with rejection, but it's another thing to be dismissed, to be so far under the radar that you're not even noticed.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365303)
I'll admit that's probably my most extreme example, but where do you go from that? What bit of wisdom was I supposed to pick up from that human interaction?

Maybe nothing at all. Sometimes, weird shit is weird, and that's where it stops.

As I said, for me, something (well, a variation on that something) usually has to happen three times before I pick up something from it.

If you've got one tree, well, that's a tree. Hang around and see if there may be a forest going on. There may or may not be.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365303)
You're the one who said "just go interact with people", as if that leads to some inevitable epiphany. It doesn't, or at least it hasn't so far.

It hasn't for me, either. Well, not one big one that fixes everything. But it has led to some micro-epiphanies of local relevance.

So... that's where I'm at.

I did say that advice can seem contradictory, but isn't necessarily, and that this will become apparent in a practical context. And I'm sticking to that.

Here's something I've said that looks contradictory:

a) For a man, being more assertive will lead to more romantic success.
b) Women in our society, often, aren't wallflowers. They are also assertive. They don't sit around waiting to be picked up by assertive men.

Apparent paradox: If b is true, surely a isn't necessary?

Solution to apparent paradox:

The kind of guy even an assertive woman finds attractive, is often (nothing is always the case, so it's just a rule of thumb) a man that is also assertive.

in this case, luckily for me, the issue is simple enough to be explained right away. But even this will make more sense in a practical context. It... looks different, plays different, makes more sense, in the world than on the page.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-28-2016 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365303)
There was a woman I worked with some years ago; didn't know her terribly well, but was developing a bit of a crush. I'd always felt a bit overlooked and ignored in romantic matters, so I decided that wasn't going to happen again. I was going to ask her out, unmistakably, and whatever the answer was I'd deal with it. This being mid-February, I got her some flowers, gave them to her on Valentine's Day, and invited her to a play the following week. She said yes, and I was quite happy. Two days later she sent me an e-mail asking if I could get another ticket to the play so she could bring a date.

I'll admit that's probably my most extreme example, but where do you go from that? What bit of wisdom was I supposed to pick up from that human interaction? Folks in this thread have talked about learning to put up with rejection, but it's another thing to be dismissed, to be so far under the radar that you're not even noticed.

That's a really rough example. Sorry to hear about that.

Did this women seem like a typical woman? Any indication she was on the spectrum or was completely incapable of reading social cues?

Because barring that, it seems pretty clear to me that she was completely aware of your romantic intentions and asking to bring a date was her way of rejecting you. So I don't mean to minimize your pain from the rejection, but if you want to understand what you were supposed to learn from it, it was: Most women are really loathe to reject men in a very direct way. It's partly because they're nice people and they don't want to hurt men. It's party because it's personally uncomfortable and being so oblique about it is easier on them.

To be honest though, when people say to get out there and learn the ropes, we're kind of hoping you get a little bit further than immediate rejection. The further you can get the better opportunities there are to learn about women and dating. When they say no from the get go there's only so much you can learn.

Don't Panic 05-28-2016 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19365342)
It's partly because they're nice people and they don't want to hurt men.

Interestingly, this kind of makes them "nice" rather than nice. ;) Well, not really, there isn't malicious intent. But it does confuse the fuck out of clueless men, which is rarely if ever beneficial.

There is another lesson from that: When you interact with people, and weird shit happens, sometimes it's not because you're clueless. You may be doing fine. Maybe they're clueless. Maybe she was looking to set up a threesome, and didn't have a clue how to do it.

Which, at the risk of sounding like a broken record here, is another reason to gather more data before drawing conclusions. It's really hard to draw a chart from one data point. You can speculate. But that's about it.

BTW:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365303)
I do occasionally read in threads like these about someone who is told, after the fact, about someone who was blatantly flirting with them. There was a thread about being a "crushee" just a couple days ago. Either it's never happened to me, or the people who'd notice and tell me are as blind as I am.

If you read the thread more closely, you'll notice that much of the "blatant" flirting under discussion was in fact flying so far under the radar, and was so well camouflaged, that it would make a stealth fighter blush.

"How could I not notice? She was speaking in code and ignoring me completely! I was so blind."

Um, you didn't notice because, as far as I can tell, it was impossible to notice unless you were psychic. OK, not every example in that thread is like that, but much of it is.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-29-2016 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19365367)
Interestingly, this kind of makes them "nice" rather than nice. ;) Well, not really, there isn't malicious intent. But it does confuse the fuck out of clueless men, which is rarely if ever beneficial.

There is another lesson from that: When you interact with people, and weird shit happens, sometimes it's not because you're clueless. You may be doing fine. Maybe they're clueless. Maybe she was looking to set up a threesome, and didn't have a clue how to do it.

Which, at the risk of sounding like a broken record here, is another reason to gather more data before drawing conclusions. It's really hard to draw a chart from one data point. You can speculate. But that's about it.

I hated this exact type of behavior when I was single. I was rejected by a couple women who were direct and clear, and I really appreciated it. Usually it was very confusing from my point of view.

On the other hand, resenting women for it, or failing to understand it, or misinterpreting it, or complaining about it to your friends about it, doesn't help any.

Don't Panic 05-29-2016 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19365380)
On the other hand, resenting women for it, or failing to understand it, or misinterpreting it, or complaining about it to your friends about it, doesn't help any.

It doesn't.

I've certainly come to realize that I can only work constructively with my own bullshit. I can improve me. Other people's bullshit is... well, it's kind of their problem. I can't fix that. And bitching about it, while sometimes cathartic, doesn't help any.

(Although I can tear certain posters called AHunter3 new assholes on message boards, in an attempt to fix their bullshit, if I think they have it coming. Hey, I'm no stoic. Or perfectly consistent. But I do claim a case of apples and oranges here.)

However, I do notice other people's bullshit, see patterns, take notes, and find ways to navigate it. It is something that needs understanding, too.

Interpreting it right and understanding it is key.

And I think it can be a good thing to at least recognize that the problem isn't always me, even if the results get wonky. I tend to take the blame for everything, intuitively. But in Robot Arm's example, I can't see that he did anything wrong. He did everything that he was supposed to do. The result was wonky, but that can happen.

Robot Arm 05-29-2016 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19365342)
That's a really rough example. Sorry to hear about that.

Did this women seem like a typical woman? Any indication she was on the spectrum or was completely incapable of reading social cues?

Not at all. We're still friends, in fact (we play Words With Friends, it's my turn). We live on opposite coasts now so I haven't seen her in ages. She dated a couple different guys after that, been married about 17 years now.
Quote:

Because barring that, it seems pretty clear to me that she was completely aware of your romantic intentions and asking to bring a date was her way of rejecting you. So I don't mean to minimize your pain from the rejection, but if you want to understand what you were supposed to learn from it, it was: Most women are really loathe to reject men in a very direct way. It's partly because they're nice people and they don't want to hurt men. It's party because it's personally uncomfortable and being so oblique about it is easier on them.
I asked her about that a couple years after the fact. She didn't even seem to remember it clearly, but said it wasn't a roundabout rejection. I believe her.

Suppose you're right, though; when do you think she figured it out? Did she know instantly that I was asking her out, and the e-mail thing was pre-planned, or did she figure it out in the intervening two days and this was her kind way of getting out of it? If it's the latter then that's pretty much the same as if she was sincere; I went totally unnoticed when it mattered.

Quote:

To be honest though, when people say to get out there and learn the ropes, we're kind of hoping you get a little bit further than immediate rejection. The further you can get the better opportunities there are to learn about women and dating. When they say no from the get go there's only so much you can learn.
I'm not learning much, I guess. Haven't noticed any particular patterns revealing themselves. Each attempt is a new and unique foray into the world of frustration.

Don't Panic 05-29-2016 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365401)
Haven't noticed any particular patterns revealing themselves. Each attempt is a new and unique foray into the world of frustration.

You know, I honestly find that hard to believe. I mean, maybe I should take your word for it. But you don't think you're exaggerating? Or not getting enough data? How often do you, for instance, ask people out? If it's once in a blue moon, it's too rarely. How many relationships have you been in? If it's two or fewer, you're not supposed to understand anything yet.

P-man 05-29-2016 12:29 AM

So many posts in these threads sound like me twenty something years ago. It looks like things haven't changed. The problem I see is that if a person has problems finding romance early on there's the risk of inexperience making it even harder. That certainly happened to me. It would be easy for me to say "keep putting yourself out there" or "just be patient", but the fact is that it was mostly dumb luck that I'm where I am today. Would I be alone if I hadn't gone to the party where my wife and I met? Impossible to know, obviously. In my case, I grew up somewhere I was far from the norm. When I moved, I had more success getting dates but my inexperience hurt. Relationships take work, and having little experience with them at, say, 30, makes it very difficult. When my wife and I met she had been in a relationship most of the time sice she was 16 (she was 28 at the time). I was almost 31, and had been in a relationship for less than a year (two of about 5 months each, 8 years apart). I went over 3 years without a date at one point, and around 6 years without sex. There's a learning curve, and falling further and further behind can hurt. To those of you who are now where I was, there is hope. To those who are tired of hearing others complain about how hard it is to find romance, remember that what is merely difficult for most can seem damn near impossible for some of us. In my case it would probably be fair to say it was a disability. There are no accommodations for those of us with that kind of disability, and I don't think there should be. Just as some people with learning disabilities had that one teacher who refused to let them fall through the cracks, some of us with social disabilities found someone who saw something in us that no one else had. I wish I could figure out a way to get decent, kind people who would give anything not to be alone together. There should be a Nobel prize r anyone who could do that.

Robot Arm 05-29-2016 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot (Post 19365367)
If you read the thread more closely, you'll notice that much of the "blatant" flirting under discussion was in fact flying so far under the radar, and was so well camouflaged, that it would make a stealth fighter blush.

"How could I not notice? She was speaking in code and ignoring me completely! I was so blind."

Um, you didn't notice because, as far as I can tell, it was impossible to notice unless you were psychic. OK, not every example in that thread is like that, but much of it is.

Much of it was undetectable, yes, but I'm thinking specifically of those cases where the flirting was noticed by someone other than the intended recipient, and brought to their attention afterwards. I've occasionally wondered if I'm oblivious to that kind of thing, or whether it just never happens to me.

I should say that my social life isn't the complete wasteland I may be making it out to be. I went out with someone about 18 months ago and was having a fantastic time. I'm not sure how sincere her reasons were for ending it. I certainly didn't see it coming.

P-man 05-29-2016 12:46 AM

Robot Arm, probably not seeing a breakup coming is a lot like not being able to read signals that someone is interested. The woman I dated before I met my wife said she was giving signals she wanted to end it, but it would have been less painful if it would have happened more quickly. Of course I didn't notice the signals that she wanted to date me either.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-29-2016 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365401)
Not at all. We're still friends, in fact (we play Words With Friends, it's my turn). We live on opposite coasts now so I haven't seen her in ages. She dated a couple different guys after that, been married about 17 years now.I asked her about that a couple years after the fact. She didn't even seem to remember it clearly, but said it wasn't a roundabout rejection. I believe her.

I've always had an amazing memory and I have a difficult time assessing other people's crappy memories. I'm often completely nonplussed by what other people manage to forget. So if you really think she didn't even remember it, maybe you're right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365401)
Suppose you're right, though; when do you think she figured it out? Did she know instantly that I was asking her out, and the e-mail thing was pre-planned, or did she figure it out in the intervening two days and this was her kind way of getting out of it? If it's the latter then that's pretty much the same as if she was sincere; I went totally unnoticed when it mattered.

Supposing I'm right, I'd say she instantly understood your intentions. Flowers on Valentine's Day are not a friendly gesture. If you invited her out on a date in isolation I'd be willing to leave open the possibility that she misunderstood, but coupled with the flowers on Valentine's day I say it's completely implausible.

It's really impossible to say though. She could've known instantly and felt uncomfortable while she was agreeing. She could've been so bewildered by the unexpected overture that she wasn't thinking straight. She could've been really oblivious and a girlfriend needed to point out that it was obviously a date.

It's even remotely possible she really didn't understand that it was supposed to be a date.

Like Martian Bigfoot says, you can't go into this assuming you're the only one who is bad at it, or who is confused or confusing, or anything at all.

In fact, what I think you should take away from that whole nightmare is that a man buying a woman flowers on Valentine's day and inviting her on a date is completely crystal clear that it's a romantic overture. If she honestly didn't know, it's her issue not yours. You should feel confident that any woman would understand your intention and respond accordingly.

Personally I think the flowers were too much for someone you're not actually romantically involved with, but that's not really the point.

I'd love to hear from any woman doper who can honestly say a reasonable woman would've failed to understand your intention. I mean, I can think of scenarios where she wouldn't. If she was 30 years your senior and interpreted it as a thoughtful gesture. If she was married and thought it was an awkward crush and you had no intention of her taking it seriously. But an age appropriate single woman? She should have known what you had in mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365401)
I'm not learning much, I guess. Haven't noticed any particular patterns revealing themselves. Each attempt is a new and unique foray into the world of frustration.

Have you had any success? What are your top 3 romantic experiences in terms of longevity and intimacy?

Robot Arm 05-29-2016 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-man (Post 19365406)
I wish I could figure out a way to get decent, kind people who would give anything not to be alone together. There should be a Nobel prize r anyone who could do that.

There's more to it than that. There has to be. This is not Musical Chairs, I won't just grab the nearest single woman so I'm not one of those lonely souls still standing when the music stops. The relationship is a means, not an end; a chance at some sort of inspiration (to receive and to give) that we just can't do for ourselves. I'd rather be alone than as a couple making each other miserable. It matters.

Crack that nut and you really would deserve a Nobel Prize.

Don't Panic 05-29-2016 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365401)
Suppose you're right, though; when do you think she figured it out?

Look, there's no way to know. But if she didn't know you were asking her out when you a) gave her flowers on b) Valentine's day and c) blatantly asked her out, there's not much you can do. Even if if you went totally unnoticed, she should still have noticed the floating flowers that invisible you were carrying, and the disembodied voice asking her out.

Why are you dwelling on this, anyway?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365401)
I went out with someone about 18 months ago and was having a fantastic time.

Heck, dwell on this instead. (And yes, that part, not the rest of that paragraph.) Maybe I'm less of a masochist than you, but that's what I would be dwelling on.

See, there you have success. (Even if there was a horrible breakup involved, it's still success. Horrible, sudden breakups kind of go with the territory. They seems to be a normal thing even for... you know, normal people. Plus, otherwise, everyone would end up married to the first person they ever dated.)

See if you can understand and maybe even replicate that one. It's more productive.

P-man 05-29-2016 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365439)
There's more to it than that. There has to be. This is not Musical Chairs, I won't just grab the nearest single woman so I'm not one of those lonely souls still standing when the music stops. The relationship is a means, not an end; a chance at some sort of inspiration (to receive and to give) that we just can't do for ourselves. I'd rather be alone than as a couple making each other miserable. It matters.

Crack that nut and you really would deserve a Nobel Prize.

If it were that easy, I have to believe someone would have done it already. The reason people remain alone are myriad, and there are no simple solutions.

I don't think I've brought this up in the whopping buttload of "nice guy" threads; how many of you guys were constantly told how sweet you were? I heard it all the time, to the point where I interpreted it as "you're pleasant enough to be around, but I would't want to date you." Early in our relationship I still flinched when I heard it from my wife. It's too bad when words that should be complements take on that kind of connotation. I got so tired of hearing "you're so sweet, I know you'll find somebody." Yeah, I did, but it got really old hearing it year after year from well-intentioned people. Maybe it's better than "face it, nobody in their right mind would want to be in a relationship with you."

Don't Panic 05-29-2016 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365439)
This is not Musical Chairs

That's funny. In another thread, I actually compared this stuff directly to Musical Chairs. I was being a bit cynical, but still: If you look at people around you, it's shockingly random who they end up with. If you think everyone else are holding out for the Perfect Man/Woman, that's dead wrong.

Not moralizing or giving advice here. It's just an observation. Other people's success isn't always as Hollywood-esque as you think. Most people really do seem to settle down and have kids with the person who happened to stand next to them when the music stopped.

Not saying you should. But people do do it. That doesn't mean that those aren't happy or successful relationships. They are. Or, well, they can be. People don't tend to make each other miserable. Or, well, actually they do. Life's the opposite of a picnic. But... well, I guess you know what I mean.

My relationships so far have been very random. You kind of have to go with the flow on this.

BTW:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 19365435)
Personally I think the flowers were too much for someone you're not actually romantically involved with, but that's not really the point.

Seconding this. You might want to nix the flowers.

octopus 05-29-2016 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 19362210)
A little of both, plus a lot of a factor you don't seem to be getting: some of us just don't mesh with the aggressive-overt role, it isn't how we are. Not only do we not wish to come across as jerks, we're also snobbish and do not wish to beg for sex.


I just said I don't see this as a "genuinely nicer" way of being in the world, or being sexual, than any other. But I don't see it as bad or wrongful either.


And by the way, if it is wrong, it is wrong for anyone and everyone regardless of sex.

Hmm. I think if you keep the level of opening to level below this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa4y1QgTU58 you won't be perceived by most as overly aggressive.

Now let's talk about me! I hate rejection. I dread rejection. It puts a pit in my stomach to approach a woman that I'm interested in. Speaking in the past since I'm married. But even today if I had to it would be hard as hell.

Now that's how I'm wired. Those aspects of my emotions are how I am. I hate rejection. But if you value a relationship and you are willing to look at this completely rationally approaching someone you are interested in is at least a chance of forming a relationship. Hoping for them to approach after a decent interval is practically the same low chance as you approaching and getting rejected. So you might as well approach and make the first move.

Now I don't know about all this nice guy nonsense to be honest. I don't know if I really know what's in anyone else's head so I try not to assign motive to these folks like that. I think some of what people are calling nice guys may be legitimate frustration at a world that preaches sex/gender based equivalency yet such preaching hasn't been universally adopted in the date-o-sphere. In other words, there are still influences from traditional gender roles and that may tough for some. Furthermore, some people take other people with what they claim to like at face value.

Think about it, who's 100% honest about sex and attraction? I don't know anyone who is. So some men get confused when they hear that women like a particular set of traits than see women going out with men who exhibit an opposite set.

This topic is beginning to make me wonder about the existence of "nice gals." Do they exist?

Velocity 05-29-2016 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 19365465)
This topic is beginning to make me wonder about the existence of "nice gals." Do they exist?

There's a thread: What is the women's equivalent of the "nice guy" problem?

octopus 05-29-2016 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 19365469)

Thanks for the link.

Don't Panic 05-29-2016 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 19365439)
This is not Musical Chairs, I won't just grab the nearest single woman so I'm not one of those lonely souls still standing when the music stops.

BTW:

I'm not accusing you in particular of this, but "holding out for the Perfect Person" must surely be up there somewhere on the list of excuses for just not having the ballsack to approach people.

I've done it.

"Why don't you talk to her?" "Nah, her boobs are too big."
"What about her?" "Nah, her boobs are too small."
"The one in the corner?" "Her boobs are an ideal size, but the left one has a tattoo on it. So no."
"That one?" "She has a very tiny personality flaw."
"That other one?" "She once spelled 'perseverance' wrong."
"How about the one over there?" "I don't much care for her favorite composer. Look, I'm waiting for the Perfect Person! I'm not desperate!"

Bull. Fucking. Shit.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.