But since I’m the guy, apparently I’m not allowed to bring them up first because that makes me awkward and clingy. So what you’re saying is that I need to let the girl determine the timetable for our relationship.
It seems like a lot of y’all are talking past each other in this thread. The women here are not complaining about guys who are actually nice. When you get down to it, that’s what they want, and the reason that some end up with assholes is that the assholes are good at pretending to be nice.
What they are complaining about is exactly what was laid out in the article linked to in the OP. He whines a lot about how women go for assholes and not him, even though he’s “such a nice guy”. He feels that because he’s “such a nice guy”, he deservers whatever woman he wants, who is invariably the most attractive woman he can find. He’s not interested in her, though–he’s only interested in having her. Everything he does is calculated for his own benefit, no matter what it looks. He pays for everything because he thinks that means that his date owes him love, or sex, or whatever it is he’s after. If she doesn’t give it to him, he reminds of all the “nice” things he’s done for her.
If you’re like that, then yes, no one wants to be near you. If you’re not, you’re not what they’re complaining about, so why get bent out of shape?
Yes! Except when you shouldn’t.
No matter what people might say, there are no hard and fast rules for dating. You have to just keep stumbling through situations, learn what you can, and get better over the long-term. All in all, it’s a pretty horrendous process, except for when it’s wonderful.
Not quite.
I’m sure we’ve all experienced that panicky feeling when someone discloses way, way, way too much information. People are most comfortable when their self-disclosure levels are matched by other people. If she’s telling you about her favorite movies and talking about her pets, it’s not the time to blurt out every insecurity you have. If you want to take the lead in self-disclosure, think baby steps. Disclose something slightly more personal than she has, and pay attention to her reaction.
No quacks here: generalizations are bad, especially when you paint entire sexes with the same brush. I completely agree with Lilairen’s statement that problems come up when folks try to create models.
You don’t have to use the word “all” for it to be implied, buttmunch.
(Ok, maybe you don’t deserve the “buttmunch” part. It just seemed right. Sorry. But not sorry enough to delete it. 
)
No, they still stand as highly inaccurate. And insulting (to both sexes). And faithless, somehow. (That’s faith in the human race, not in any og or ogs.)
Maybe the vast majority of women that you have known. It is a special kind of arrogance to assume that the relatively few women whose true motivations you have been privvy to represent “the vast majority” of women in general.
Oh, the old “I’m not surprised that a woman would lie” canard. Give me a fucking break. :rolleyes:
I know my posts are kinda long, but at the end of post #83 – you know, just two posts before you reply to me? – I make it pretty clear that I’m a chick.
Jesus, I’d hate to meet the bitch who left you so jaded. . .
I meant “you” in the generic sense. Basically, any guy here complaining or who believes that women only like assholes, that women are only interested in rich guys, or big macho he-men. (THAT comment was more directed Aeschines).
However, here you said:
I don’t think any of us said that we’re attracted to big loud braggarts, and I don’t think that many women think this, either.
And this:
Was indeed fucking insulting.
You really need to look at why you want a girlfriend. I mean really think about it.
Is it just because you are lonely, and you hope a girlfriend will solve that? It won’t. Relationships don’t really solve your problems. You’ll just be lonely with someone else.
I found that I spend so much time reading, doing homework, playing guitar, working out, painting, etc… and I value my solitude so much that I don’t really want a relationship.
Of course, now I have girls gravitating towards me. Precisely the girls I used to dream about; smart, creative, intellectual, and very pretty. So I spend time with them, making them feel we have something, then when I start feeling it is taking too much of my time I ditch them.
Come to think of it, this probably won’t help much - you can get girls easily if you are indifferent, but if you are indifferent you will only hurt them when you ditch them. A no win situation I guess.
This whole thread is about the model or generalization of the “Nice Guy.” Do you agree that this generalization or model is useful?
When used properly, generalizations are good science and good philosophy. “Don’t make generalizations” is nothing more than uninformed folk philosophy.
A generalization is, ipso facto, stating that a significant portion of the population in question is exhibiting a characteristic. Hence, to say that “all” is implied is simply incorrect. To argue against a generalization by saying “You’re saying all” is about the bluntest straw-man instrument available.
Lemme guess: You believe in blank-slate feminist cognitive science: Men and women are the same except for the sizes and shapes of their bodies.
If so, boolshit.
If you do recognize the fact of mental and behavioral sex differences, then you’re free to tell me which claims of mine you find incorrect. What I’m saying here is so commonsensical as to be uncontroversial to those who do not hold to the blank slate theory.
In any case, even if my individual claims are weak, my overall approach is still superior to the folk-wisdom prattling going on here about the Battle of the Sexes: Discover and describe the fundamental psychosocial factors at work.
Again, I am not even trying to say anything original. I’ve seen it, guys I know have experienced, and guys, I should think, would be basically in agreement about what I’ve said here. Not to mention the fact that there have been actual scientific studies about what motivates men and women when choosing partners (I am not claiming them as cites; I am saying, however, that that is the kind of information we should be paying attention to).
It has nothing to do with “lying.” I’m saying that women, as evidenced in this very thread, are often supremely uninsightful when it comes to their own introspections concerning their motives. If you disagree with what I’ve said, that’s one thing; if you are unaware of the fact that what I’m saying is considered common sense among a large proportion of the male population, then that is the kind of lack of insight (in this case about external reality) that I am criticizing.
At one point in time my wife (Japanese woman) just took it as a given that I had, oh, 40 grand in the bank because, you know, I wanted to get married. Her whole attitude was, What are you going to do for me? And this was after I had struggled to go Japan (after scrimping and saving for a year) and found a decent job. How heavy your wallet, suitor? It was blatant. But loved each other and worked through that misconception of hers. Feminism has done both males and females good in the US. Try Japan, where you’ll find the most self-centered, pampered, and insulated-from-reality gals on the planet. It is the feminine dark side writ large.
How about when you have dinner with a gal, and she just assumes that the guy is going to pay–doesn’t even bring it up. Oh, and then forgets to say “thanks.” It’s happened to me, it’s happened to one of my best friends. It happened to me with someone I got fairly serious with; I didn’t dump her, didn’t really get pissed off, but I did think, “Hmm.”
I am not “jaded.” I realize that both sexes have some pretty nasty tendencies which are not always the same vices.
Yep, I see little insight from the women in this thread. I do see a lack of interest/concern as to what guys have experienced on the other side, and I do see some pretty piss-poor attitudes (“my prettiness”).
Ah. Well, that statement of mine is true only insofar as I have observed multiple cases of it occuring. That is anecdotal, yes, which is why I do not, and would not, claim that either of those things are true of “womanhood” as a whole. Neither do I attribute those traits to any specifc woman whom I have not personally observed exhibiting them, largely because it would be fucking stupid to do so, and I am not fucking stupid. It is here, however, that I must agree with Aeschines, not so much in the specific generalization that he has made, but in his later meta-point that generalization and prejudice are not inherently the same thing. I do not believe that my statements constituted generalizing, but somebody using a more relaxed definition of “generalization” might. Under that definition, though, a generalization has the capacity to be an entirely harmless entity, being nothing more than a hypothesis based on inductive reasoning of observations that need not be (and in this case, most decidedly are not being) applied to real-life interactions. It is when you allow your inductive generalizations about Gropu X to affect the way you interact with individual members of X that you become prejudiced. Coincidentally, it’s also when you become an asshole. I am conscious of that line, and will never allow myself to cross it, nor even tread its edge.
Oh, and there’s a severe miscommunication going on in regard to this line:
The point there was twofold. The first part lies in my concrete belief that true self-confidence cannot be projected, whereas Fuckingcockery certainly can, and is often misinterpreted (by people of both genders) as a variant of self-confidence, when it is in fact anything but. The second part, as I indirectly explained in my response to Misnomer, is that anybody who claims to be able to read people’s personalities based on “vibes” – be they male or female – is either lying or deluded. John Edwards thinks he can talk to the dead. People think they can tell the difference between confident people and assholes. Same deal. I did not intend to imply that this particular trait was something unique to women, or something that all women exhibit. I was merely pointing out that anybody who would make such a claim is either confused or full of shit. My use of “women” as the subject of the sentence was chosen with regard to the specific topic at hand, but it certainly needn’t have been so.
Jesus, no wonder some of you can’t get a date.
Yeah, so many sympathetic women here who really seem interested in understanding how men think and feel.
No wonder some of you are called “bitches”–and worse.
Well. That was an odd, and somewhat ominous, thing to say.
Female people: I don’t hold you responsible for things not working out when they don’t. It’s not about blame-casting.
We male folks are allowed to complain about the situation. The script, the scenario, the little role-play dance that you either participate in (despite its dehumanizing aspects) or risk not connecting, at least not often and not without complex alternative stuff.]
If it helps, think of it as our equivalent of feminist sexual politics. Yeah, seriously, I kid you not, the whole “pissed off nice guys” thing is very very much the male equiv of women complaining about the sexual double standard.
I would now, (with a genuine shoe-on-other-foot giggle), ask you to stop trying to be problem-solvers for individual whining nice guys. We don’t want you to be problem-solvers and tell us what might work for us. We want, instead, for you to hear us, to get it. That this is our side of the “it isn’t fair” story.
C’mon, hear in our complaints possible echoes of things that you yourselves have observed about how the sex roles for courting and flirting and sex and dating are constructed, and the gender-specificity and stereotypical reductionism of it, and how much it sucks.
It’s not about you being the bad guys. Uh, bad gals, whatever. It’s not about blame. Blame patriarchy if that helps.
OH, and btw: there’s nothing wrong with whining per se, when it’s appropriate, and therefore nothing wrong with guys doing it. Whining is a legitimate emotional communications.
Waaah.
And I, not being a dummy but with a know-it-all’s need to make all the connections he can, saw it was both an analogy and referred to Real Life Things. Things which recommend that you
The flaw in most dating situations is that you need to know two things about a person before that first date: “Can I stand being around this person for several consecutive hours?” and “Is he likely to be an axe murderer?” Both can be answered by following your preferred route.
This, however, can result in the sort of misunderstandings Susan’s date might have suffered. If you are going on a date with a guy you know socially he may think that he has “tested out” of the first date or two and is considered a potential suitor. This means you two are playing at two very different levels of seriousness.
Hwah? 
*…I try to contemplate the context in which this statement was made, and I find nothing…
…I try to interpret the reason for the obvious underlying sarcasm inherent in this statement, and I draw a blank…
…I try to determine at whom this statement might have been directed, and whether the issue of whether or not it even has a specific target is relevant to begin with, and I come up short on both counts…
…my trademark penchant for verbosity fails me, and I am left with but two choices…*
- Hwah?
or
- …whatever. :rolleyes:
Out of sincere respect for Guinastasia, I have chosen to go with option one. So…Guin…hwah?
Really, Roland. I see a thread about flawed guys, not that I disagree that guys exist who have these flaws (or that they’re annoying). So not to invalidate what’s being said about that (nor have I done so), but it’s all about as cool as a guy starting a thread about “needy, butt-ugly chicks, and how we can’t stand them.”
Then, are the women in here saying anything sympathetic about such pathetic men? Nah, just more gasoline on the fire.
Pretty sad.
Well, as I said in one of my earlier posts (read: rants) to this thread, I see it less as the fault of any individual person, woman or man, and more as an inherent problem in the societal mindset that affects the way our thought patterns about this sort of thing develop. Though I’ve made, to my recollection, three major points in this thread, this is the cogent philosophy outlined by those points:
A system by which others are judged not on the truth of their inner character, but by the oxymoronic and fabricated entity that is their projection thereof – and furthermore placing a negative connotation on candid public expression of a self-doubt that is as inherent to the human condition as emotion and logic themselves – will result in a cyclic process by which personal insecurities are hidden from public view to be replaced with a facade of self-assuredness and are therefore unlikely to ever be conquered or accepted, and which, in encouraging dormancy and concealment of these qualities, will (in a time frame that varies from individual to individual, but nonetheless inevitably) cause them to manifest in the opposite extreme, effectively reducing the subconscious self-perception of the average individual to a wad of uncertain, unstable, unconfident, insecure mush.* The only that varies, at that point, is how well and for how long that mush remains hidden from the world…and from ourselves.
You can’t blame women for something like that, Aeschines. That’s no more fair than the prejudices you claim they hold against us.
I would ask nothing more than that each individual here, of his or her own accord, consider what I’ve said here, and consider the possibility of its validity. I know it may come off at first as high-handed pretentious twaddle, but I honestly believe that it is an existing societal construct that affects human interaction on a daily basis. I also believe it is wrong and, ultimately, evil. That does not mean I believe that everybody who operates under it is evil – for that to be the case, each of these individuals would have to A) acknowledge it, B) accept its truth, and C) continue to consciously act in accordance with it regardless. I don’t think most of us do that. Really, I doubt if anybody, aside from borderline sociopaths, does that. It’s an easy thing to acknowledge, once you understand it, but it is a deceptively difficult thing to come to terms with in regard to all the implications it makes about every single action we take every day that involves another human being.
Am I making any sense to anyone?
*Wow, all that in one sentence…and I think it’s even grammatically correct. Sweet.
I am a bit new here; am I missing the point of a pitting? If you want sympathy, I don’t think this is the place to get it. If you want to whine about female double standards, feel free to start your own thread.
That said, I do feel sorry for these Nice Guys. They seem trapped in a no-win situation by a combination of their behaviors and women’s reactions to these behaviors. If a Nice Guy friend of mine ever expressed to me a sincere desire to do something about his problem, I would be happy to go on a practice date with him, give insight in to female mind (however poor Aeschines thinks my insight is, it can’t be worse than what he’s whipped up in his own head), or whatever was needed to un-stick him.
However, it is hard to be sympathetic and patient with someone who blames you and your gender for all of his problems. It is even harder to want to be sympathetic and patient with a guy like that, to find a reason to care.
He= Nice Guy, not Aeschines.
Roland, I think I understand and agree up to a point. Society can’t function with everyone walking around with their guts hanging out (so to speak). When the cute guy at the coffee place asks me how I’ve been, he doesn’t really want to know. Nobody has enough mental space to care about everybody, and why reveal yourself to somebody who doesn’t care?
If you have a solution, I’d like to hear it (really).
One thing that I think that is confusing the situation is that a lot of traits that are considered “asshole” but “nice guys” arn’t actually asshole at all.
Women like sex, and sometimes that is what they are looking for. And in those cases, a girl is going to go for the guy that says “Hey, I’d like to have sex with you.” Now, we’d all like to avoid those guys that say “I’d like to have sex with you but I won’t care if you have fun at it”, but I think that difference is lost on some observers.
In any case, I find many of these nice guys arn’t straightforward with what they want from a relationship. They have all these misty-eyed ideas about a relationship but don’t actually know what they want and certainly don’t know how to articulate it to the woman they are with. If you want sex, thats okay. That doesn’t make you an asshole. If you want long walks on the beach, or someone to lick your toes, or a mother for your kids, thats okay, too. But women want to be with people who want what they want, and they are going to go for the guy that makes what he wants known. I think a lot of guys are interepreting blatantly asking for sex as “asshole”, when sometimes that is exactly what a woman is looking for.
In other words, while you are comparing your loves eyes to roses and talking about all your deep feelings, the woman may very well be wondering why you don’t just invite her back to your house to “look at your record collection”.
Women do the same thing, too, sometimes. They are vague about what they want and end up getting something else or nothing at all. But for now we are in a pit thread about nice guys, and I think it’d be good to stop the defensiveness and listen to what real women have to say about their real dating experiences and what you might learn from them.