In a similar vein, a guy who can afford it should take up horseback riding. If the shows my daughter went to (and her barn) are any indication riders at the low level at least are 95% women. And many of them have money.
Reading these what is sexy posts make me think we’re back in “somebody jump my bones” mode. Is playing guitar for someone sexier than just playing guitar? Is a discussion of Roman history with someone who is interested sexier than a lecture?
Maybe it would be best to do things kind of for the other person - in a non-threatening way of course. Just a song, not a love song until the time is right.
So, maybe put down the guitar and pick up a vacuum cleaner?
Beep. Wrong answer. For this thread.
Consider who we’re talking to here: “Nice guys”.
“Nice guys” are already vacuuming the floors all day long. Then they get pissed off when the other person doesn’t find it arousing.
My wife said she was attracted to me immediately, in a “who’s that?” sort of way. She’d never seen me perform, so that’s out. She did notice the long hair. When she found out I had a motorcycle she asked if she could have a ride. “Anytime”, I said. “How about tomorrow?” was the reply. She got my number and surprised me by calling the next day and actually showing up. It was fall, so I wasn’t dressed in a way that would show off my runner’s physique. I doubt my history degree had anything to do with it, but if we hadn’t both been librarians we never would have met.
I think, again, that you might be trying to view it as “This one time, I wore a blue shirt and I ordered spaghetti and Doris said she liked me, therefore when I want to attract a woman I should wear a blue shirt and order spaghetti and look for a woman named Doris.” (Obviously (I hope it’s obvious), I’m exaggerating.)
I think you’re using your own definition of “nice guy” at this point.
Really? I don’t think the participants in the thread so far are suffering primarily from not vacuuming enough floors. I’m not. I can vacuum your floors like a champ. And then expect you to like me. And when you don’t, I get frustrated and pissed off. Or, well, I’ve done that in the past.
Here’s my nice guy resume: Vacuuming floors. Why don’t girls like me?
Isn’t that the conversation we’ve been having? Actually, maybe that is just me. But it sounds like other men in this thread, too. I guess it’s up to everyone to decide how well it fits them.
If anyone in this thread thinks they just need to do sexy things and the chicks will go wild, I regret I’ve wasted my time.
But the question doesn’t make sense given what Robot Arm said.
I guess I appreciate the more agnostic position (“I don’t know what set of traits will help you acquire a SO”) than the prescriptive approach (“Learn the guitar, dude. Chicks totally dig the guitar.”) I know the latter isn’t your exact phrasing, but that’s how your advice came across. I thought Robot’s post was a lot more thoughtful, so I don’t really get your urge to rile him up.
I think Robot Arm deserves an award for not getting riled up at this.
None of the guys in this thread have mentioned their housekeeping abilities or said anything as mindless as “I vacuum floors! Why don’t girls like me?”
(In fact, I’d wager that more than a few guys with relationship difficulties probably only vacuum on the rare occasion when company comes over. )
I mean, I’m not saying that there aren’t guys out there who are probably thinking along these lines. But I don’t think it is at all useful to reduce all “nice guys” to this caricature.
Cuz Jebus knows…if I ever got interested in playing the “game”, I’d certainly have “doesn’t mind cleaning up the house” at the top of my criteria. It sho as hell would be higher in the list than “plays the guitar sexily*”.
[sup]*nope, you’re never going to live this down.[/sup]
Ouch. But that’s acceptable. I have no expectation of living down this entire thread.
But, look, let’s not argue. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. That’s fine.
Fine. I’m exaggerating. Besides, I don’t actually mean vacuuming literally. If you’re vacuuming in a relationship-related way, you’re probably already in a relationship, so whatever. I have nothing against vacuuming, one way or the other.
I’m talking about this:
I’m wondering what your response is to that post.
Hey Monstro, I’ll play guitar well for anybody, but I only play it sexily for my wife. Nope, I won’t tell Dopers how I do, it.
Is it okay to say: “If I do [thing], it makes it more likely that more women will like me”? As a way to improve my life and dating success? And then try to think about what the [thing] might be?
Or does that entire class of statements need nuking? I’ll nuke them, if I have to. I’m just not sure if I understand why, if that is the case.
Is doing anything at all instrumentally in order to improve my romantic life either wrong, immoral, or just doomed to failure?
Is it OK to think about the things I do, and then consider their effect on other people’s perception of me?
Is it OK to say “I happen to play the guitar, and that makes it more/less/neutral likely that some women will like me?”
Or: “I happen to donate blood, and that makes it more/less/neutral likely that some women will like me?”
Or is the problem something else?
Should I just not think about why some women like me, some don’t, and that it would be nice to increase the percentage of women that do?
From Quasimodal’s description, I get a picture of a guy with a secure job he’s obviously passionate about, who cares for his community and his physical health, and who nurtures his creative and spiritual self. I see a guy who has a number of positive qualities (much more positive than most “nice guys”, by the way). Some of them are attractive (yoga, passionate about teaching and doing good in the community). Others don’t do anything for me, and a couple are turn-offs.
But the things I find turn-offs (visiting family every week and going to church) would be attractive to someone else–especially an older woman whose tired of bros and adventure-seekers. Are they enough to make someone jump his bones? Of course not. But neither is “plays guitar sexily”. You could come up with any list to describe yourself, and it’s still going to leave a lot to the imagination.
Now the blood donor thing is a strange one to mention, but I’m guessing (hoping?) he doesn’t have this on his match.com profile.
The thing is, I’ve been following Quasimodal’s story for a while. It doesn’t seem like his problem is finding women to date–the typical “nice guy” complaint. He’s not frustrated because no one is giving him any attention. He’s frustrated because the attention doesn’t evolve into something more substantial. That’s why I’m not getting why people are beating him over the head with the standard advice given to “nice guys”.
And I really doubt he feels entitled to a relationship because of the things he listed. It’s just that he works so hard on self-improvement (probably following the kind of advice presented in this thread) and it’s not panning out.
Maybe not increase the percentage that like you as much as put yourself in a position to meet those who do. How, you say? Beats the heck out of me.
I don’t speak for jsgoddess, but I’m kinda reminded of a scene from The Hustler:
I think the idea is that it’s less about the details of exactly what activity you pursue, but that you pursue it with dedication, passion, and skill.
On the other hand, Fast Eddie is talking about how he lost all his money and got his thumbs broken, and Sarah wound up killing herself, so be careful what lessons you draw.
Well, that was more or less exactly what I said, so it’s fine for you to read it that way. It shows that you’re reading for comprehension. I’ve been saying in it about sixteen different ways for a while now. I’m just still not sure what is wrong with saying it.
Is the problem: It’s wrong, chicks don’t? So it’s simply unhelpful advice.
Is the problem: Calling women ‘chicks’? I don’t actually do that, so I want a pass on that one. Well, except for that once, just now. Sorry about that. But now I’m digressing…
Is the problem: If I’m so clueless that I don’t really see the problem, you can’t possibly explain it?
Here’s your more agnostic approach again: “I don’t know what set of traits will help you acquire an SO.” Great. But is it helpful? As advice, it amounts to: “I don’t know.” I’m at least suggesting an activity.
I know you didn’t mean it literally. But I was trying to make a point regardless.
If a guy tells me he’s nice, I don’t know what to do with that. I know way too many annoying, unattractive people who are also “nice”.
But if I were to find out that this “nice guy” keeps a spotless house and that he also cooks a mean lasagne and just loves making peanut butter cookies (complete with crisscross fork marks), suddenly I have a better picture in my head. And it’s a positive one. At the very least, I know I don’t have a manchild on my hands.
Now, a guy sounds incredibly clueless if he whines “I make great peanut butter cookies! Why can’t I get a date?”
But I don’t think he’s crazy for wondering why his domesticity isn’t more of a draw for the ladies. Because that is certainly appealing to both lazy-ass and overworked modern women like myself.
Maybe if “nice guys” bragged about their vacuum cleaning and cooking skills more, and talked less about their sensitivity and church-going, they’d get more play.
Sometimes I get the feeling that suggesting certain kinds of activities is acceptable:
That’s fine, right? Musical theater, horseback riding.
And some not:
Guitar, motorcycle riding.
Is it worth it looking for a trend or a pattern? 'Cause I do see one, tentatively.
Guitar, motorcycle, but my job is elementary school librarian (when my wife and I met I was a children’s librarian at a public library). No wonder a lot of women didn’t know what to think of me.
OK, here’s what I’ve got:
Guitar, motorcycle riding: Traditionally masculine. Not acceptable to suggest. Or at least suspect.
Musical theater, horseback riding (at least in the particular context it was mentioned in), vacuuming: Traditionally feminine. Acceptable to suggest.
The wider implications are melting my mind a little bit. You guys can probably see them already. That, combined with the rest of the thread, is leading me to a conclusion of sorts. And it’s not one I expected or came into this thread with.