# In which I pit Nice Guys **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 16, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131 "2004-11-16T21:34:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/281 "2004-11-22T22:47:20Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Until you start amending XXX until it fits damn near every person who has ever not been exactlywhat you want another human being to be. 🙂 GAAAAH! Someone acting like an asshole, and you telling them off for it, is NOT amending every person who doesn’t fit exactly what you want. Will you PUHlease try to read the posts. Then, if you’re still getting “these women think all men are XXX”. Read it again. Slowly if you need to. Use the examples given. In this case XXX is men who, upon being turned down for a date, start verbally abusing the woman he just asked out. AND bitching about how every woman is the same. No where in this thread have any men been put into the category of SPNG, named by SPNGs, merely for not being the person the woman wanted to date. They have ONLY been put in that category when they THEMSELVES proclaim the constant bitchy whiny rant at the woman, and women in general, that (paraphrased) “I’m a nice guy, I desersve her more than THAT asshole, yeah that’s right, you women only date assholes don’t you, nice guys like me don’t count, you’re all such bitches” and so on. THAT, with his OWN words, is what makes a man a SPNG. Nothing more, nothing less. Where did you miss this? Because it’s the same thing we’ve been saying the whole thread, and you’ve been up, down, right and left of the point, and have twisted it to suit your veyr own anti-feminazi (for no purpose since there are none in this thread) agenda, and never gotten it. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2004, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/282 "2004-11-22T23:50:07Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > You’re not paying attention. I went on to say old geezers who get _young_ hot chicks. Nope. Here’s the entire exchange: > [@](#): > > \*Blowero: No, they’re just judged by different criterea. Height is certainly part of “looks”. > > And according to other demanding and exacting requirements, we are supposed to be tall and muscular.\* > > Yosemite: Oh, no—I don’t think the requirements for men are nearly as stringent. Think of all the old geezers or non-hot guys who have no problem getting the chicks. They exude something that attracts women, but it sure as hell ain’t good looks. > > There are not the same amount of magazines and ads and products geared towards preying on women’s insecurities about their looks. It’s not even in the same ballpark. You said “the chicks”. Period. You did not go on to use the word “hot” anywhere in that post. So do us a favor - next time you try to get all condesceding and shoot your mouth off with some “You’re not paying attention” bullshit, try and have a clue what the fuck you’re talking about, O.K.? Thank you. You need to try to understand that if you post something, and I respond to that post, you are out of line to get all snippy because of something you may or may not have added in a subsequent, entirely different post. Dumbass. > [@](#): > > And I’m talking about _physical appearance_ here, not other factors, like riches. Height IS part of ones physical appearance. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, did I say that old fat chicks can’t get men? I didn’t _say_ you did. > [@](#): > > No, I don’t believe I did. I said that old fat chicks have trouble getting young _hot_ men. Even rich fat old chicks. Some do get hot young men (like I said, that’s why the term “gigilo” was invented) but I don’t think the numbers are as high. I don’t think the numbers are that high for old fat men getting young hot women. > [@](#): > > He’s also not young. And while it’s true that you can name a _few_ older not-beautiful women who bag hot young guys, you will find many more older guys/hot young women (Harrison Ford/Clalista Flockhart and Angelina Jolie/Billy Bob come immediately to mind. I could list many more if I put my mind to it.) Harrison Ford is a major, major sex symbol. You’re surprised that a woman would be attracted to him? WTF? Why do you keep talking about how old or young men are. Are you not understanding what I’m saying? You seem to be laboring under the misconception that I _didn’t_ already say that age is not as important a criterea for women as it is for men. Your avenue of argument here is pointless. > [@](#): > > Sheesh, why are you wasting my time with this? I already conceded a long time ago that shorter men have a harder time of it than shorter women. Then why are you wasting my time? I said that men _are_ judged by their looks, but that what aspects of “looks” are considered important is _different_ than it is for women. HEIGHT is the more important aspect in this case. You would seem to be agreeing with me, yet you refuse to concede the point. > [@](#): > > Tall is an appearance, but aggressive, making money and being dominant are not phsyical attributes. I’m talking about _physical appearance_ here. Visual. Physical. Not how much money a person makes. O.K., I’ll stick with height and size, then. > [@](#): > > And you think these outnumber (or even equal) the ones directed at women? Are you kidding? I didn’t say they _outnumbered_ the ads directed at women. Please keep your strawmen to yourself. > [@](#): > > And with men, age and thinness _is_ important, but height isn’t. So? An overweight, not terribly young man can still bag a hot chick as long as he’s not too short. Compare that to a tall or short woman. She might bag a hot guy—but she’d better not be not-terribly-young or overweight. What on Earth is your point? > [@](#): > > All I’m saying is that women are held to a stricter standard when it comes to physical appearance. You want to seriously claim that they aren’t? Fine, but a lot of us are never going to buy it, because we live in the real world. That’s not a terribly convincing argument. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/283 "2004-11-23T00:16:04Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Nope. Here’s the entire exchange: Yes, I know I left out “hot” in that post. But I _added_ in my [very next post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5520238&postcount=205) and I repeated “hot” several times after that. I also made it clear that I wasn’t talking about not-hot chicks getting not-hot guys. Remember my mention of looking at people in the shopping mall? Plenty of non-hot people pairing up there. So I really did put in an effort to make it clear that I really meant “HOT” but you are ignoring it. > [@](#): > > You need to try to understand that if you post something, and I respond to that post, you are out of line to get all snippy because of something you may or may not have added in a subsequent, entirely different post. Dumbass. You need to read all my posts, where I further **EXPLAIN WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT** , before you start calling _me_ a dumbass. It’s not my problem that you refuse to read the whole damned thread. > [@](#): > > Height IS part of ones physical appearance. Please copy and paste where I said it wasn’t. I’ve been conceding, from the git-go, that it was indeed a physical aspect. > [@](#): > > I don’t think the numbers are that high for old fat men getting young hot women. I’d guess that they’re much higher than fat old women getting hot young men. > [@](#): > > Harrison Ford is a major, major sex symbol. You’re surprised that a woman would be attracted to him? WTF? I think you’ve just proven my point. He’s considered a major sex symbol, because _older_ men (as well as _younger_ men) are attractive to hot young women, and most women. But the same is often not the case with older women, especially those who look their age (and say what you will, Ford looks to at least be in his mid-50s). How many 60+ actresses or women that _look_ like they are at least in the mid-50s are “major sex symbols”? Susan Sarandon still has some staying power, but I don’t think she’d be called a _major_ sex symbol. I also think she doesn’t look her real age, not even close to it. > [@](#): > > Why do you keep talking about how old or young men are. Are you not understanding what I’m saying? I’m talking about the “wiggle room” of standards. Men have more “wiggle room” over all. They get the short end (heh) if they are short, but they still have an acceptable chance of being considered _attractive by women_ if they are older, or are fat, while the same cannot be said for women. Men do not give women that same “wiggle room.” Ideally, she should be young and thin. Old fat chicks may be seen as “acceptable” to old (and maybe fat) guys, but rarely are they considered _attractive_, let alone _acceptable_, by young hot guys or any younger guy. > [@](#): > > Then why are you wasting my time? I said that men _are_ judged by their looks, but that what aspects of “looks” are considered important is _different_ than it is for women. HEIGHT is the more important aspect in this case. You would seem to be agreeing with me, yet you refuse to concede the point. I refuse to concede that overall, men are judged _just as harshly_ for their appearance, as women are. They are judged differently, I’ve never disputed that, and they are judged more harshly for non-physical things (like their pocketbook) but when it comes to physical appearance? It takes more effort for women to “measure up.” > [@](#): > > What on Earth is your point? **Aeschines** had no trouble following my point, as he says here: > [@Aeschines](#): > > Yosemite, you are correct and I’m surprised this is even controversial. In terms of “looks management,” women have it tougher than men, end of story. He sums it up in one sentence. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/284 "2004-11-23T00:24:14Z")
I should probably explain this sentence more: “Old fat chicks may be seen as “acceptable” to old (and maybe fat) guys” I meant “old and fat” not “old _or_ fat.” I’d also like to point out that many personal ads have fat guys who specifically are looking for a thin or at least non-fat woman. I know that these ads are not proof of how all men feel overall. But just like some women specify in their ads that they only want tall guys, these fat ugly guys are saying that they want thin women. Even if they themselves are fat and perhaps also ugly. (Not saying that they don’t have a right to have a preference or anything, but I do see some irony there.) ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/285 "2004-11-23T00:59:37Z")
> [@](#): > > **CanvasShoes** said: > The difference IS, they were disagreeing with things we’d actually SAID. Not with their own personal through the filter of “everyone’s a feminazi” filter imaginations of what others said. My opinion of you is that you’re a feminazi. That is unlikely to change. > [@](#): > > This is similar to every other thread in which you’ve unnecessarily rushed to the defense of men. You’re all about the accusations of extreme feminism, but no proof. Maybe that’s because you seem to argue against any defense of men. > [@](#): > > **SusanStoHelit** said: > catsix, do you have no filters for deciding with whom you associate? Yeah. I wouldn’t hang out with you, because I find you to be a nitpicky bore. > [@](#): > > they have the unquestioned right to my time, just because they want it and feel victimized by someone who looked like me? They deserve better than the sanctimonious ‘Better luck when you get self-esteem.’ > [@](#): > > They have ONLY been put in that category when they THEMSELVES proclaim the constant bitchy whiny rant at the woman, and women in general, that (paraphrased) “I’m a nice guy, I desersve her more than THAT asshole, yeah that’s right, you women only date assholes don’t you, nice guys like me don’t count, you’re all such bitches” and so on. THAT, with his OWN words, is what makes a man a SPNG. Nothing more, nothing less. Couldn’t be that you automatically turn on the ‘he’s a whiny fuck tard’ if he mentions bad luck in the past, eh? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/286 "2004-11-23T01:44:03Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > No, no, not just from other women. Are you kidding me? The pressure to stay thin and young-looking is not just to impress women. It’s because men value this—_a lot_. > Old men, young men, fat men, grey-haired men, they all are considered attractive. With women? Let’s see. Young. Thin. Middle-aged, perhaps, depending on how much work she has done. But grey-haired? Fat? Pardon the pun, but fat chance. I have to disagree that men value personal appearance more than women. I had to help a freind input several thousand results for “day after” questionaires given out by an expensive and selective SF area dating service. It is true that in the original profile- women tended to rate “physical attractiveness” not very high. But in the “day after” poll- one of the questions was “why not another date”- and there, women went for “unattractive looks” by a rate of 2 to 1 over men. Women care about looks more than men- altho it is true that enough wealth will overcome that. Men do have an advantage in age- no doubt-. Generally, women are willing to date an older man (same poll) 4 to 1 over men willing to date an older woman. But then- that cuts both ways- Women are more likely to scorn a younger man. Thin? Not so at all. I don’t like thin women, and few men that I know do. “Medically & unhealthily obese” is often a deal breaker, sure. But a LOT of men like “zaftig” or “rubenesque” women. Grey haired isn’t so bad for guys, yes. But bald hurts- a LOT. And hair dye is cheap and safe. So- a woman can be “zaftig” or “rubenesque” and still get plenty of men. (I admit that here a large bust is an important plus). Men can get away with a few extra pounds, but not “obese” either. Grey hair is more attractive on men than women- but women can & do dye. But not much can be done for the balding man… without spending scads. Woemn also have many ways to look hotter- without resorting to surgery= corsets, high heels, push-up bras, etc. The problem here on this thread is that the Op and her supporters keep using the term “nice guy” even tho we have all explained that they are using it completely wrong. They they just dig themselves deeper by blaming the bad terminology on the “SPNG”. themselves. No- “girls” YOU chose to come here and use the term “nice guy” to refer to loser stalkers. No “loser stalkers” came here and used that term to apply to themselves. None of them forced you to use a term that is completely and utterly WRONG. But you keep trying to justify it. You can’t. “Nice guys”- even those guys that\* say\* they are “nice guys” don’t act that way. It just seems to be a justification to go back to the “bad boys”. Denial. ---
**Author:** ![SusanStoHelit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@SusanStoHelit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SusanStoHelit)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/287 "2004-11-23T02:07:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The problem here on this thread is that the Op and her supporters keep using the term “nice guy” even tho we have all explained that they are using it completely wrong. They they just dig themselves deeper by blaming the bad terminology on the “SPNG”. themselves. No- “girls” YOU chose to come here and use the term “nice guy” to refer to loser stalkers. No “loser stalkers” came here and used that term to apply to themselves. None of them forced you to use a term that is completely and utterly WRONG. But you keep trying to justify it. You can’t. “Nice guys”- even those guys that say they are “nice guys” don’t act that way. > > It just seems to be a justification to go back to the “bad boys”. Denial. Are you honestly saying that SPNGs don’t exist just because they don’t identify themselves as such on these boards? That it is something I and all of my girlfriends just made up in some bizzaro group hallucination? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/288 "2004-11-23T02:15:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Woemn also have many ways to look hotter- without resorting to surgery= corsets, high heels, push-up bras, etc. And the surgery is pretty much a non-factor in the man’s mind. Bill Maher really did say it best when he was talking about boob jobs. If women ever understood the male mind, they’d never get implants. It’s not about big or small, it’s about old and new. Have I seen them yet? If not, then I want to. That’s pretty much it. I’m convinced that the majority of unfair standards for women are kept in place by women. Sluts is one example. Men generally don’t care, unless they’re uptight or overly religious. Makeup? Men almost invariably don’t care. Push-up bra? Yes, men notice. Men notice breasts on every woman that they haven’t seen naked. Women should give themselves a break and stop trying to discover the secret to making men think they’re beautiful. Every super-hot chick on the planet has at least one guy who is or was sick of her. That’s just the way it is. Back to the OP, I know exactly the type of guy the OP is ranting about, and agree with her completely. This doesn’t suggest that I have any opinion about women; this is a rant about a type of man. Isn’t that allowed? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/289 "2004-11-23T02:27:15Z")
> [@SusanStoHelit](#): > > Are you honestly saying that SPNGs don’t exist just because they don’t identify themselves as such on these boards? That it is something I and all of my girlfriends just made up in some bizzaro group hallucination? :dubious: Not exactly. But just because someone completely and utterly mislabels themselves OUTSIDE this board (and so far, I have seen no dircet proof that this group of men do so label themselves)- that doesn’t mean you have to go along with it. Two wrongs do not make a right. In fact- the place where that lable was used is in a link the OP supplied- which was NOT written by a “nice guy”- or even a 'guy" AFAIK. I don’t doubt that such men exist- it’s the stupid foolish and utterly WRONG label I disagree with. Calingl them “loser pseudo-stalkers” and you wouldn’t have a tenth the arguments here. Most of the arguments have about the extremely poor label- which you insist upon defending. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/290 "2004-11-23T02:28:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I have to disagree that men value personal appearance more than women. I had to help a freind input several thousand results for “day after” questionaires given out by an expensive and selective SF area dating service. I’m sure that was true, for an expensive dating service in SF. It’s also more true for parts of Los Angeles, where I was born and raised. People—both male and female—_are_ more looks conscious in some areas. But this proves nothing about the rest of the country. Having lived in Los Angeles most of my life and then moving out of state, I can tell you, I notice the difference in attitude. > [@](#): > > Thin? Not so at all. I don’t like thin women, and few men that I know do. “Medically & unhealthily obese” is often a deal breaker, sure. But a LOT of men like “zaftig” or “rubenesque” women. Well, I don’t have a problem with short bald guys (one of my favorite actors is short and bald, and I think he’s a total hottie), and some other women I know don’t have problems with them either. So what does that prove? That all women don’t have a problem with shortness or baldness? Obviously not. > [@](#): > > But bald hurts- a LOT. Well, _I_ don’t have a problem with baldness . . . 😉 (See what if I mean? So what if I don’t have a problem if many other women do?) > [@](#): > > So- a woman can be “zaftig” or “rubenesque” and still get plenty of men. A little more curvy? Yes, perhaps. But I’m sorry, I’m just not buying that fat chicks can get guys as easily as thin chicks. > [@](#): > > (I admit that here a large bust is an important plus). Yes, and plastic surgery is the only thing that will fix that, and some men don’t like fake boobs. And a boob job is, I suspect, a far more drastic procedure than getting hair plugs. > [@](#): > > Men can get away with a few extra pounds, but not “obese” either. It depends on what you call “obese.” Have you seen Tom Berenger’s latest film? The man has a pretty big belly. Yet he’s still B-movie leading man material. NO WAY could a woman with a comparable amount of extra poundage be considered equally as hot. > [@](#): > > But not much can be done for the balding man… without spending scads. Well, I’m not trying to diminish the baldness issue, because I know it is an issue, but Bruce Willis, Sean Connery, Patrick Stewart, Mitch Pilleggi (Skinner from X-Files—another favorite of mine) are doing okay sans hair. I don’t think it’s quite as bleak as some may think. Also, the current trend is for guys to just shave their head. (Vin Diesel, anyone?) > [@](#): > > Woemn also have many ways to look hotter- without resorting to surgery= corsets, high heels, push-up bras, etc. Yes, **Aeschines** commented on something about that, and I also mentioned it. > [@](#): > > The problem here on this thread is that the Op and her supporters keep using the term “nice guy” even tho we have all explained that they are using it completely wrong. No, I think they are using it correctly. “Nice Guy” is different from “nice guy” in this thread, and many people have taken pains to point out the difference. > [@](#): > > No- “girls” YOU chose to come here and use the term “nice guy” to refer to loser stalkers. They don’t call “nice guys” loser stalkers. I’m not sure they’re calling Nice Guys “loser stalkers” either, but if one is a “loser stalker,” it’s the Nice Guys, not the “nice guys.” > [@](#): > > It just seems to be a justification to go back to the “bad boys”. Denial. Sheesh. I am confident that CanvasShoes will cover this better than I will, but I’ll add my two cents. For one thing, it’s quite possible to reject Nice Guys without _ever_, not even _once_ gone out with a “bad boy.” In fact, it’s quite possible to reject Nice Guys and _only_ date “nice guys.” And another thing: “Denial” about what? As if they have to _explain_ or _justify_ their dating choices to you? **If** they date “bad boys” (which I don’t see anyone here admitting to), then that still is nobody else’s business and their own choice. If, however, they whine and bitch about how all guys are bad, or that they don’t understand why they keep picking “bad boys” when we see that they are routinely rejecting “nice guys” (note: not Nice Guys, who nobody should feel obliged to accept), then that would be different. But that’s not what I see happening here. But if you had really read the thread, you might have figured that out already. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/291 "2004-11-23T02:28:38Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > And the surgery is pretty much a non-factor in the man’s mind. Bill Maher really did say it best when he was talking about boob jobs. If women ever understood the male mind, they’d never get implants. It’s not about big or small, it’s about old and new. Have I seen them yet? If not, then I want to. That’s pretty much it. Not so. I don’t have any problem with modest "boob jobs’- especially those that simply seek to rebuild what was lost. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/292 "2004-11-23T02:46:26Z")
Okay, **catsix** , here’s a question for you. Now, you’re happily attached, as you said, right? Let’s say someone you work with comes up to you and asks you for a date. When you turn him down, saying, “I’m sorry, but I’m already seeing someone,” he replies, “Oh, yeah, of course you wouldn’t want to go out with me, you’re probably seeing some asshole already. I guess I’m not good enough for you, since I’m just a nice guy,” sneering. Now how would YOU classify this guy? In my experience with the “Nice Guy[sub]TM[/sub]”, this guy made me feel like shit for not catering to his every whim, and then whined that he never got dates because he was a “Nice Guy” and “Nice guys finish last.” Should I have gone out with him, even though I was in no way attracted to him? I should have just hooked up with him out of pity? Should I let someone guilt me into having sex with him, because if I turn him down that makes me a “feminazi bitch?” I’m so sorry that you seem to hate your own gender so much that you see any slight criticism or acknowledgment that men aren’t perfect as threats. But that’s your problem, so stop shitting all over everyone else’s threads. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/293 "2004-11-23T02:48:29Z")
I wondered why this thread got to 6 pages., then I saw that **catsix** was participating. explanation received. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/294 "2004-11-23T02:53:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Not so. I don’t have any problem with modest "boob jobs’- especially those that simply seek to rebuild what was lost. Neither do I, but I also don’t see the problem with _not_ getting implants. Reconstructive surgery is an obvious exception, so obvious as to be irrelevant. I guess I don’t really see any relevance of your reply to my post at all. ---
**Author:** ![SusanStoHelit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@SusanStoHelit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SusanStoHelit)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/295 "2004-11-23T02:58:57Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Not exactly. But just because someone completely and utterly mislabels themselves OUTSIDE this board (and so far, I have seen no dircet proof that this group of men do so label themselves)- that doesn’t mean you have to go along with it. Two wrongs do not make a right. > > In fact- the place where that lable was used is in a link the OP supplied- which was NOT written by a “nice guy”- or even a 'guy" AFAIK. > > I don’t doubt that such men exist- it’s the stupid foolish and utterly WRONG label I disagree with. Calingl them “loser pseudo-stalkers” and you wouldn’t have a tenth the arguments here. Most of the arguments have about the extremely poor label- which you insist upon defending. Now this is interesting- I’ve polled my guy friends IRL and most of them have never heard of a SPNG. However, I have never met a woman over 16 (other than **Catsix** who isn’t aware of this type, by whatever name. My guess is that SPNG represent themselves differently to men, which wouldn’t be a big suprise, but I’d be interested to know what they say to you all. ---
**Author:** ![SusanStoHelit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@SusanStoHelit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SusanStoHelit)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/296 "2004-11-23T03:10:45Z")
> [@](#): > > n fact- the place where that lable was used is in a link the OP supplied- which was NOT written by a “nice guy”- or even a 'guy" AFAIK. That article was only one of [many](http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/ng.shtml), some of which were written by [guys](http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/realniceguys.shtml) [who](http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/misogyny.shtml) [get](http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/yourarticle.shtml) [it](http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/predicate.shtml). ---
**Author:** ![cmason32](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@cmason32](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmason32)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/297 "2004-11-23T03:44:02Z")
I always tell my gf that I’m going to throw her into the dumpster. She loves me. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/298 "2004-11-23T04:13:58Z")
Quote: CanvasShoes said: The difference IS, they were disagreeing with things we’d actually SAID. Not with their own personal through the filter of “everyone’s a feminazi” filter imaginations of what others said. > [@](#): > > My opinion of you is that you’re a feminazi. That is unlikely to change. Your opinion of me personally has what to do with the OP, or the several others who’ve been telling you the same thing I have? Or the fact that you’ve taken what people have actually said, twisted it around in your head, then come back to the thread and argued the made up insult against men that exists only in your mind, and no here in this thread? Your opinion that I’m a feminazi (whatever that is) is based on what? Quote:shoes This is similar to every other thread in which you’ve unnecessarily rushed to the defense of men. You’re all about the accusations of extreme feminism, but no proof. > [@](#): > > Maybe that’s because you seem to argue against any defense of men. No, I’m not arguing against defense of MEN at all. I’m arguing against fanatical, frantic DESPERATE, unnecessary defense of men where none is warranted or deserved. As in this case. A man, who verbally berates and abuses another for merely turning him down for a date neither needs, nor deserves defense. I notice that once again you’ve conveniently ignored my examples of this OP on the female side. That of Golddiggers. Quote:shoes They have ONLY been put in that category when they THEMSELVES proclaim the constant bitchy whiny rant at the woman, and women in general, that (paraphrased) “I’m a nice guy, I desersve her more than THAT asshole, yeah that’s right, you women only date assholes don’t you, nice guys like me don’t count, you’re all such bitches” and so on. THAT, with his OWN words, is what makes a man a SPNG. Nothing more, nothing less. > [@](#): > > Couldn’t be that you automatically turn on the ‘he’s a whiny fuck tard’ if he mentions bad luck in the past, eh? Sigh…No, it couldn’t be, because like every other woman in this thread, I’m basing my assessment of him as a Self Proclaimed Nice Guy, on his OWN words and actions. That of bitching out the woman he’s with, for the actions of some women in his past. If the man is merely whiny, then he’s merely whiny. Still a reason he’s going to get told “no thank you” by a few women, but not by itself putting him in asshole territory. But what gets a man told “no thank you” is not the OP. What makes him an asshole/SPNG is. The whininess was just an additional problem with the man in the OP, but it was NOT what made him an SPNG, his OWN words of “I"m a nice guy, women all only date assholes”, and then going on to spend most of the date, bitching and insulting all women WHILE ON A DATE with a women who was NOT in fact dating anyone but HIMSELF, THAT is what makes him both an SPNG and a prime asshole. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/299 "2004-11-23T04:42:17Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The problem here on this thread is that the Op and her supporters keep using the term “nice guy” even tho we have all explained that they are using it completely wrong. They they just dig themselves deeper by **blaming the bad terminology on the “SPNG”. themselves**. No- “girls” YOU chose to come here and use the term “nice guy” to refer to loser stalkers. No “loser stalkers” came here and used that term to apply to themselves. None of them forced you to use a term that is completely and utterly WRONG. But you keep trying to justify it. You can’t. “Nice guys”- even those guys that\* say\* they are “nice guys” don’t act that way. > > It just seems to be a justification to go back to the “bad boys”. Denial. Good grief. First of all, where did we even remotely suggest that ALL nice guys who say they’re nice guys do this? Second. We never expected a “loser stalker” (if that’s the term for this group of men that you prefer) to come in here. But out IN THE REAL WORLD, that IS what they do, AND it is what they say about themselves. They very clearly say “I’m a nice guy” before, during or after, or all three when they rip into us for not agreeing to date them. There is NOTHING wrong with a genuine nice guy. We all like them. They’re not included in the pitting against the types the OP is describing. Period. But just what do you think the SP part of the SPNG means? It means self proclaimed. As in, at some point during their bitching the woman out for not dating them, they SAY to her, “i’m a nice guy”. How does equal us “blaming the terminology on them”? What would you like us to say to describe the sort of person we’re talking about (oh right, “loser stalker” Okay, JUST for you, we’ll do that. Not for cat though, because then she’d come raging to the defense of loser stalkers and find some reason why it’s all OUR fault that he’s that way, and if he was just Luuuved and understood, and if we would just expand our parameters and date loser stalkers then we wouldn’t be acting like feminazies anymore). Saying “you know, he’s one of those guys that, when you tell him no thank you for a date, he starts into the whole yelling at you about how he’s a nice guy, and why don’t girls ever date nice guys anymore, NOOO they only date asholes…” is a little lengthy to use every time. FTR, the OP and her so-called supporters didn’t make this up. The SPNG is a well-known term to describe this sort of person. JUST like the term “golddigger” is well-known in describing women who marry for money only. Or the term “gangster” is used to describe adolescents who make a life of crime their lifestyle. In using those terms, everyone understands that the speaker is talking about a specific subset of the class in which they exist. In those cases, women and adolescents. And everyone understands that no one is using “golddigger” to diss women who merely like nice things. Or gangster to diss teens who are really only “having fun”. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131/300 "2004-11-23T04:58:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I don’t doubt that such men exist- it’s the stupid foolish and utterly WRONG label I disagree with. Calingl them “loser pseudo-stalkers” and you wouldn’t have a tenth the arguments here. Most of the arguments have about the extremely poor label- which you insist upon defending. No, we’re not “defeinding” the label. We’re explaining that they themselves coined the phrase, and we’re just using it. No one, especially not cat, came in here and said "you know? I know that these guys do indeed exist and are assholes, but it’s not fair to the real nice guys to appropriate THEIR label, let’s call these fake nice guys something else, say “loser stalker guy”. You’d get little or no opposition had it been couched in those terms. But that’s not what’s been happening here. People have come in and denied that this type even exists. Or if they do, that what they’re doing, that of blaming the woman for his previous problems with women and in an abusive accusatory way, is actually wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-nice-guys/275131.md?page=16)