No need to quote the whole damn post! The hamsters tire easily…
They are tendencies, not physical laws. BTW, I in no wise am trying to say anything original. I’m basing this on what I think are commonly observable phenomena as well as actual science. Now, I may have gotten some things wrong in there, but it’s the scientific approach that I think is key to understanding this topic.
I think the self-confidence we’re talking about here is an element of dominance-projection.
BTW, most people do end up with someone of the opposite sex if they are trying reasonably. The question is to what degree can someone acquire the mate of his/her choice. So the fact that you got girlfriends doesn’t mean that my observations are incorrect.
You were probably successful within the milieu you were operating in. In college I didn’t drink; ergo, I was not socially acceptable at parties; ergo, I could not go to parties and pick up chicks. I was a flop in that arena. But the guys who did score at such parties behaved in such a way as to succeed in that mini society: they smoked, drank, and acted “cool”; dominance and looks and whatnot (the ability to supply beer being the stand-in for wealth, perhaps) then sorted out who got the pick of whom. Now, had I had much dinero myself, I might have been able to go to such parties and transcend the sociological structure with status and bling: “Hi, I’m not into this childish drinking shit, but would you like to join me on my 40 footer on Lake Michigan this weekend?”
Agreed. All I was trying to say is that if someone is underplaying his confidence and therefore being taken for spineless, and he has a problem with that, he might consider changing. I never meant to imply that it’s right to judge a book by its cover, merely that it happens.
Well said.
Once upon a time, I was talking with my dad and mentioned that I was still seeing the guy I’d been seeing for a few months, but that things were starting to get rocky. He said, “Well, it beats being alone,” to which I replied “Sometimes.” He chuckled and nodded, knowing exactly what I meant.
What a load of crap. I hereby formally withdraw the “watch the generalizations” comment that I made to Roland, and apply it to you. All men want is beauty, which you claim is objective, but all women want are these three subjective things? Give me a break.
Not for all women, certainly not. Probably not even for most women.
Now I see where the disconnect is: I was trying to keep with passengerpigeon’s analogy, which likened the ability to flirt/date to a skill that was taught in school on a day when some people were out sick. I replied that the analogy didn’t work for me, because the ability to flirt/date is something that is learned from simply living and interacting with others – therefore, it was “taught” in every class every day for the first 12-14 years of life. No literal class or training was implied.
So if I meet someone who doesn’t particularly interest me, I’m supposed to invest significant time and effort into getting to know him better anyway? No way – and I’d never expect or want any guy to do that for me. That’s way too much work for a first date. Sure, sometimes first impressions are cruelly wrong (and don’t think I haven’t learned that the hard way), but when it comes to dating they’re often all we have to go by. Which is why I think it’s fine to try and improve our first impressions – not fake them, just at least be aware of them – even though Roland thinks it’s a waste of time. It’s also why I prefer to interact with a guy a handful of times in a casual/group setting before deciding if I’m interested enough for a first date (which doesn’t require a significant amount of interest, btw).
Of course there are more Not Quites than Rights – that’s how it works! It’s also why I’m no female Wilmer Valderrama (who seems to date everything in sight). But it doesn’t mean that every single Not Quite has to be seen as a potential Right. Right?
Oh the ol’ “generalization are bad” canard. First off, I never used the word “all,” as in “all women,” “all men,” and “all they want.” No joke, there are exceptions. There are different goals. Some guys, contrary to the majority, purposely look for a rich woman, and some women genuinely wish to dominate their partners and look for a submissive man. But the generalizations stand as highly useful.
I disagree. They are factors for the vast majority of women. Are you a guy? If so, your denying it surprises me. If not, then it doesn’t.
Now, I don’t want a deadbeat who will always be asking for a loan. I wouldn’t want to support a guy. But I don’t want “rich.” Hell, rich scares me a little. What do I need with “rich”? Dominant scares me a little too (a little is fine, but too much is annoying or icky).
As I’ve been trying to say, the “rich and dominant” don’t form a natural pair; that is, one is not dominant because he is rich. Bill Gates is rich but does not project the dominance I’m talking about.
I think the “hotness” you say you like is very likely to comprise the dominance I’m talking about here.
“Rich” might scare you because you perceive “rich” as pertaining to a completely alien social class or milieu.
Personally, I would not want to date a very rich, high-status women of the Eastern Seaboard Brahmin caste; it would scare the hell out of me, too. I am simply not born and bred to operate effectively in that society.
As for dominance; yep, you’re right, I think: there is a balance to be struck. Some women prefer more than others.
Sure, I know that’s the case in this context. Actually, I know it in every context. But as I’m guessing this thread isn’t the only case where you or women in general have complained about nice guys, don’t be surprised when the typical guy (other than me) doesn’t pick up on the nuanced distinctions between “Nice Guys” and their non-“Term of Art” counterparts.
I don’t think you’re giving the typical guy enough credit, brains-wise. Anyone with an ounce of self-awareness will be able to see the distinction.
When the “typical guy” starts wearing the skin of a wolf that he killed with his bare hands and presenting me with the carcass as a courting gift, then I’ll be worried that y’all are overcompensating.
A-fucking-men! I don’t need a guy’s rich, or domineering. And “hot” is subjective. I find Topher Grace from That '70s Show hot-and a lot of people would see him as skinny and geeky. I find Ewan McGregor and Noah Wyle hot. A lot of women see Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp as hot, and they don’t do a thing for me. It’s much more than just being “hot”-everyone has a different idea of it, and sometimes it’s just random.
I like guys who are funny, have kind of a quirky, odd sense of humor, are fun to hang out with, and who treats me like a human being. You know, someone who is a friend. See, I think it’s better to BE friends first, and then see where it goes.
Most of the guys whining about being “Nice Guys” in this thread are seriously insulting women. You seem to see women as these cold, calculating creatures who are only after your wallets. Who want to be mistreated, and who use men and aren’t smart enough to see the “true nice guy.”
Well that’s just bullshit, and quite frankly, if that’s your attitude, then I’m better off alone.
No one owes anyone else a relationship.
Anymore, I’m convinced that romance is just one big crap shoot.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I have eclectic tastes. An actor who I think is especially hot happens to be short and bald. (But he’s hot! Hot! Hot!) Short isn’t a problem, follically impaired isn’t a problem. Pudgy or fat isn’t a problem. Skinny and geeky isn’t a problem. There are hot guys who fit into all of these categories.
A quirky sense of humor, however, is essential. Another litmus test is, “Do they actually comprehend who you are, what you do?” One guy caught my interest because he actually looked through my sketchbook and was actually paying attention to it. Like, you know, he was actually interested. That wins big points.
I’m really torn about how to respond to this, as I too am a Nice Guy and you all know just how torn we are about every little thing. I see a whole lot of me in the linked definition, and I am painfully aware of my many failings – thank you, BTW, for again reminding me of a few of them.
Ok, granted, we are insecure in at least our sexual relationships with women, and perhaps our social ones as well. But we are otherwise reasonable, kindhearted, tolerant guys, on the whole. We have a lot going for us, and I would suggest we can be trained out of out insecurity. Of course, I only suggest it because to insist on it would not be very Nice.
I suggest this with your next Nice Guy: when you detect Nice Guy Behavior, you say, “Cut out that crap or I’ll dump you.”
Mr. Nice Guy will be insecure enough to believe it (becuase it will be true in a lot of cases), and try his best to pretend he has self-confidence. He might slip once in a while, but rub his nose in it enough and sooner or later you’ll both forget he was whipped into it.
Seriouly, consider the alternatives. There’s your ideal “fully mature self-confident” guys – how much of the heterosexual male population do they make up? Damn, I’m not even sure they exist except as a theoretical construct. Then there’s your redneck/jock guys, your supercompetitive domineering jerk guys, a small but measurable percentage of absolute geeks, and us.
Who 'ya gonna call? If past experience is any guide, not me.
“Your man” huh? Aren’t you the same one complaining about possessive guys?
That’s right, your dates aren’t people, they’re just drooling sacks of flesh that are meant to fawn over your “prettiness.” If a guy stares at you funny and seems a bit too awkward for your tastes, hell, shit all over them, plenty more where that came from! :rolleyes:
Why the hell would I be eating my heart out? Have a high opinion of yourself? Personally, I have enough self respect to not date a woman who displays such shallow behavior. But you don’t have to worry, you’re pretty enough to attract all the Not a Nice Guys you want.
Absolutely. This usage of “Nice Guy”[sup]TM[/sup] to refer to a passive-aggressive whiner is borrowed precisely from how the referred PAWs will sob about “girls will date brutes instead of Nice Guys”.
It also ties in with the older cliché “Nice Guys Finish Last” which is an apparent misquote, and comes from the world of competitive sports, where it meant you play to win games, not popularity contests (duh)…
The (mis?)quote of course was later transposed to the fields of politics and business, where it was well received – probably adding a twist of Machiavelli’s maxim on loved vs. feared. From there it hit the general population as a maxim about any endeavor where men are seen as “competing”. In Leo’s original statement, honest observation that a team can be good guys but still end up in last place if the others have their game on and they don’t, it’s pretty much undeniable. Similarly if recast as Machiavelli’s rule that trying first to come across as lovable, rather than as someone to be obeyed, doesn’t work. But of course the problem is it gets perverted into both an excuse for ruthless meanness in business/politics/life on the one extreme, and an excuse for defeatism and not even giving the task a sincere effort on the other.
Drat. And I felt so buff when I actually wired a junction box…
I think a lot of problems come up when folks try to create models. “Women are like this; if I do this, that, the other, then I will push all the right woman-buttons and get me one.” “Men are like this; if I do this, that, the other, then I will push all the right man-buttons and get me one.”
I’ve seen people – male and female – wind up behaving infuriated and betrayed when their button-pushee doesn’t react according to their model. They seem to think that that one was defective, they need to find a properly designed one – either that, or they need to berate the one they have into a position where it can be repaired to behave according to the model.
This is where I see the ‘Nice Guy’ fellows coming from. They put on this game, adopt the position they’re supposed to take according to the model, and it starts going weird on them when their target woman doesn’t behave according to the plan. Or when it comes across as fake, as that game rather than a genuine interaction.
There are female equivalents on this behaviour, who are only interested in guys who conform to a particular pattern and don’t recognise men who fall into a different one as potential partners. (The only piece of this pattern I’m sure about is “makes the first move”.) I suspect that a lot of the frustration that drives people into the Nice Guy role comes from this vicinity – there are enough women who have some sort of expected set-piece mating dance that the idea that a mating dance is some social intrinsic arbitrated by women is not entirely implausible, and the whole “trick” is in figuring out what it is and implementing it properly.
Anyway, I think that a large part of finding a compatible partner is in finding someone who one can interact with person-to-person. Adopting processes and approaches to finding relationships that facilitate that strike me as being more likely to work more often than using processes that don’t aim in that direction.
The model-building and finding someone to match the model process strikes me as being person-to-model with the hope that a good person/model match will make for a good person-to-person relationship. I suspect this of being errorprone, and thus increasing the random chance factor.
I sometimes suspect that I actually got a significant benefit out of being so oblivious that I have no clue how to participate in these supposed mating dances as either party, and thus have no impulse to try to bother with them.
Not to seem narcissistic here, Guin, but I gotta ask: are you including me in that statement? Because if that’s how my posts are coming off, then depending on why, one of the two of us needs to seriously re-evaluate what I’ve written.
