In which I pit Nice Guys

You’re right; I don’t care about how “men” think and feel, because I’m not going to chase fictions rather than deal with individual people.

You feel a certain way. Roland Orzabal feels a particular way. (Grabbing a recent poster at semi-random.) Various other posters to this thread feel in a variety of related ways. At the same time, there are many men who feel a wide variety of other things, and trying to build a fake-up of maleness will do all of you people – as people – a disservice.

Seriously, what’s so hard about just being yourself, talking about how you think, without trying to hide behind some false universalism? I mean, those of us women who’ve had close male friends and partners who we’ve talked to about these things aren’t going to presume that they’ve been lying to us about how they think all this time on your say-so. “How men think” is as much of a myth as “how women think”; what matters is how the person you want to interact with thinks, and presuming you know what that is on the basis of what’s in their pants doesn’t work consistently.

You’re a person, an individual, with experiences and feelings and history and thoughts. Claim that. Person-to-person is what matters. Don’t degrade yourself by becoming faceless.

See, that’s the thing. Under my M.O., you don’t reveal yourself to people who don’t care. You just don’t misrepresent yourself, either. People who meet me for the first time come away from the experience, to a man (or woman), confused as hell. What I have heard time and time again, from every single person I have ever asked, is that I am quite impossible to read. This is because I neither attempt to project my personality, nor actively attempt to hide it (which can only be accomplished by projecting a false imagine in its place). Now, if somebody shows an active interest in me (say, by striking up a sincere and in-depth conversation that leads to topics of a personal nature), I am up front and direct with that person as much as possible. There’s no need to share specific past events or personal information that would make me uncomfortable; I simply voice my feelings and/or opinions in the abstract. That’s the important part anyhow. Context can come later, once a more intimate trust has been established.

I will now give my answer to your question. Keep in mind that the following assumes that everyone involved has a near-complete understanding of themselves, their beliefs, their thought processes, and the ways in which each of these elements of the mind interact with one another. I have a process for doing that, too, but it’s FAR too complicated to get into here; that process (and the teaching thereof) is something I am willing to devote my life to, and I suspect I shall never completely finish. There’s a thread buried in MPSIMS somewhere that gives an example of what I’m talking about; if you’re interested, search for a thread started by me with “Freedom of Thought” in the title.

Now then: given the ideological standpoint that “signals” are irrelevant, we need not go out of our way to emit any. That’s step one; basically, it’s an advanced version of “be yourself”. Easy stuff. Step two is to acknowledge, and keep in conscious mind, that people are doing this. Here’s where the hard part comes in. You need to acknowledge and accept that, when you get right down to it, you really don’t know that many people, even inside your own inner circle, to any appreciable extent. As open as I am about myself and my thoughts (at least, to any who would ask me to be so), there are three people on this planet whom I believe have a workably accurate concept of who I really am. This is a hard thing to face, and it’s natural to want to deny it. It’s human nature to want to dismiss our own ignorance, and pretend that we’re capable of reading other people subliminally, and assume that we know more than we really do, because we’re just…that…good. But we aren’t. Once you have that embedded into your consciousness, you can move along to step three: getting to know people better. It’s an undisputable fact, to my mind, that people are the most important things on this planet…so treat them as such. Set some time aside to get to know those with whom you interact on a daily basis. Ask them about themselves. Find out who they are, what they believe, and how they feel. Tell them a bit about yourself, too, if they want to hear it. If you do this, you will be surprised, you will be delighted, you will be shocked, but most of all and most importantly, you will be informed. You will have a greater understanding not only of those around you, but of people as a whole. Using this, you can not only form tighter bonds with those close to you, but you develop a better sense of how to form those bonds, which has the potential to aid you in every human interaction you make for the rest of your life. The only place left to go in step four, then, is the impossible; the idealistic goal to which we must strive but which we can never truly achieve: complete human knowledge, complete human tolerance, complete human acceptance, and universal human love. Sounds nice, right? Well, we can never get there…but we can fucking well try. I believe that if any system allows us to try, it’s this one. It requires nothing more than the self-awareness and conscious action of individuals acting independently of one another to achieve its ends. It’s not communism, and it’s not a utopian society. It’s humanity…or rather, the most wonderful aspects thereof. That’s why it’s the only way we can ever even try to make something like this work. It’s the only way to ever truly end the tyrannic rule of artifical societal boundaries and standards, and the only way to fight this mindset of “let’s make do” that ultimately contributes only toward our own self-destruction.

“Gee, Roland, idealist much?” Yeah. Yeah, I am. I know I can’t achieve this complete knowledge, this complete acceptance, this complete love…but I have to try. We have to try. Because in the end, it’s all we’ve got going for us. It’s the only thing that matters, because it’s the only thing that can matter.

That’s the best I can phrase it, right now, at this stage of theoretical and philosophical development, at 2:19 in the morning, after 28 hours with no sleep. I’m still working on it. In the meantime, this is what I’ve got. Hope it helps.

Practice date? Jesus, maybe he doesn’t want his “problem” fixed. Maybe he just wants to be himself without being judged. Maybe your opinion of him and his social process is, amazingly enough, irrelevant.

I can’t figure out why you’re pitting this guy. For wasting your time? For being alive? You didn’t click, great, move on. What more do you want, an apology?

Maybe you’re trying to pit the double standards of needy, self absorbed people who proclaim to be selfless. If so, that’s hardly a nice guy thing, in fact, it’s hardly a guy thing. It’s more of an issue with the human condition.

If you open a pit thread, be prepared to be flamed back by some people. It’s my understanding that when you pit someone, the OP becomes open season to anyone who might disagree. Nothing personal. :smiley:

Just to be clear here, I am a guy, not a girl, and I used to be a Nice Guy until I decided that being able to date the people I wanted to date was not a reliable indicator of the value of my life or of my person.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m well aware that it’s really, really terrible to be a Nice Guy, and I really, really wish that there was a good way to help these people out, because then maybe somebody would’ve helped ME out. In retrospect, though, I don’t know what anybody could’ve done TO help me out, except for be nicer in turning me down and be willing to talk through my crazy ideas about things, instead of just being creeped out, and I don’t know that you can expect everybody to extend everybody else that courtesy. Well, obviously they could’ve dated me if they liked me and that might’ve helped, but the situation never came up.

Also, I think Aeschines is an idiot.

–p

If both are following this rule, nobody will ever talk.

What with all you nice people commenting, I think it is only fair to get a jackasses view on this matter.

I am a jackass - even my friends think I’m an ass and often tell me; I usually aggree. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the American tradition of ‘dating’ (we work on a casual sex basis here) but if it is anything similar to picking girls up, it’s never a question of character, spine or lack thereof - it’s about lying. OK, maybe salesmanship is closer to what I had in mind: you have the consumer (your ‘date’, hopefully) and the goods (your goods) so the rest is all about marketing (read: lying) and with experience, you can make a sale every time - be it as a ‘Nice’ or any other type of guy. IME, women are ‘easy’ by nature and either want to be lied to or have a phantasmagorically skewed image of the world. A good rule of the thumb is to treat the average women like queens and the classier women like whores but generalizing seems to be going out of fashion… I digress, though.

If someone says he’s a nice guy and he can’t understand why women aren’t gathering around him like so many flies on a pile of ecrement, that makes him a self-centered whiner, not a Nice Guy. I am a self-centered whiner by nature and match what you’ve been saying about the ‘Nice’ guys pretty much 100% but I have no trouble finding women and I am sure I would do great if I’d ever feel inclined to ‘date’ people. It’s not about character, spine or self-confidence; it’s all about the packaging.

Bingo.

OK; I won’t ask why someone who ‘fell for you’ on the second date didn’t call you again for a week.

Did you tell him to grow 4 inches and turn his eyes grey, too? I understand, though: a movie, a cup of coffee and dinner is more than enough time to see what kind of person someone is and not just the ‘date package’, however good or bad said package may be. I’m sure you’ll be much better off with a better salesman who you’ll fall for on the first date - no matter how much he cheats or lies (oh, he will).

SusanStoHelit -tell me, you gave Mr. Nice three (3) chances - one of them being a movie. How many dates (out-putting notwithstanding) do you think you’d give a 6’2" Scandinavian with a great sense of humour, sharp intellect and athletic body, with the biggest, bluest eyes and a charming smile set on a simply astounding face? Which one of us do you think you’d be better off with? (and please note that I am holding back the assholery quite a bit in this post)

Give people a chance to show their true colors; if you’re going by first impression (or third, as it were), you’re probably setting yourself up for a disaster. For the record, I used to be a really good guy who treated women with nothing but respect. My experience with women has taught me better so now I’m taking what’s owed to me and giving back a little of what I recieved.

I, for one, am having a hard time accepting that we’re even the same species. (men and women, that is)

I’m most terribly sorry for the length of this post but when I start talking about how great I am, I find it hard to stop.

I must turn the other cheek.

Er, make that an ass cheek, muthafucka!

So, you don’t think people give out clues with their attitudes, body language, facial expressions, for instance? You don’t think that it’s easier to assess someone by actually interacting with this person rather than say, talking with him on the phone or being handed a written memo? You never thought “how can (person A) not see through the blatant bullshit of (person B)”? You don’t think that some people could be significantly better at this than others? You never noticed that some people display a strong tendancy to completely misjudge other people (for instance by being completely thrilled by someone after a fisrt encounter and discovering later that it was all faked) while others, mysteriously, rarely find themselves in such a situation?
Maybe you can’t perceive “vibes”. Maybe a number of people pretend to be able to while they actually can’t. But we’re not talking about psychic abilities, here. Handling interactions with other people and being able to decrypt their “unspoken language” is part of our hardwiring, or else we couldn’t even tell when, for instance, someone is sad or pissed off. Like everything else, people are more or less gifted in this area. Apparently you aren’t. But assuming nobody else is is like saying “I can’t tell apart a tasty dish and a bland one, so nobody else can”.
Are you too surprised that a lot of people can notice someone else has a romantic interest in them, while others seem to be unable to get even the most obvious clues? Why would you assume it’s any different for people who are, or aren’t, able to tell apart a genuine attitude and a fake one?
I personnally think I’m quite clueless for the former (what people feel) and quite talented for the latter (what people are). You can think I’m deluded. But this delusion served me well until now. I don’t remember having been dissapointed in a serious way or having my trust betrayed by anyone. So, I intend to go on relying on my “psychic” talent, thank you very much.

If two people who perceive this as a rule rather than a guideline and follow it as such meet, probably so. If two people who’ve ever had a conversation in their lives meet and feel like saying something to one another, this won’t be a problem.

Heh, I made up a rule once while being on the receiving end of such a guilt trip from Mrs GSV. I declared that no past misconduct could be brought up for the purposes of a guilt trip more than three times. It was completely off the top of my head and she’s not the sort to put up with BS from anyone but I said it in a faux authoritative voice and made it a joke. She laughed, but she also stopped guilt tripping me about not being able to remember our first conversation too clearly (was drunk at the time).

Now it’s a real rule between us and applies just as much to me as her. Works for me… I can never remember anything bad she’s ever done when she gives me the last-puppy-in-the-shop look anyway.

Apologies for going off-topic by replying to a post from 2 pages back.
Having read all the thread I have to say I am slightly surprised that Homo Sapiens Sapiens has lasted this long as a species.

Maybe the problem is that some women are expecting men to speak to them in women-ese instead of learning to interpret men-ese. It does happen. There are some women out there who complain that men just don’t communicate to them, when what they actually mean is ‘Men don’t communicate to me the same way a woman would.’

I forget by now who said it, but one man here mentioned getting his girlfriend luggage because to him this was a thoughtful, practical gift that the woman could actually use, and she was quite disappointed that he didn’t get her an engagement ring. There’s something where you have to look at it and evaluate it in ‘man-ese’. Man saw that the woman was in need of something she did not have, and though ‘I will be a thoughtful guy and get this thing for her.’ In woman-ese he should’ve paid attention to her wants and bought her an engagement ring, and in man-ese he was paying attention to her needs and can’t understand why she’s disappointed.

It is not always easy for women to learn man-ese, as I’m sure most women know. By the same token, you’ve kinda got to cut a man a break if he has a tough time learning woman-ese.

Most of you, male and female alike, are worrying too much. Go out with someone and have some fun, and if it doesn’t work out, don’t sweat it.

If I was able to give advice to my teenage self, or to anyone (male or female) who was looking for some sex or love, I’d say this:

“men and women alike want, above all, to have fun, to get sex and love, and to feel good about themselves. Ignore most of the stuff said in this thread, and listen to this: if you like someone, make them laugh, show them a good time; realize they owe you nothing, and will only be with you if they are having fun doing so; make your intentions clear from the beginning, in a fun and easygoing way; and if they are not interested, take it lightly and with good humour, and go on to the next person”.

Oh, and trim your nails and brush your teeth. :slight_smile:

Well, sometimes you can, and sometimes you can’t. What I’m saying is, you get this mental image of somebody based on nonverbal signals, and then you may or may not be right. My problem is not with people doing this, per se. That’s making a generalization based on observation, which, as outlined above, is a-ok with me. The problem comes when you start making judgements about somebody you’ve never really talked to based only on that mental image. To wit:

Same deal with judging someone based on “vibes”; in that case, Group X consists of one person. You still can’t do it. You can form your impressions, and you can keep them as you see fit, but the moment you start acting on them in a prejudicial manner (by, say, rejecting the person as a viable candidate for a date without ever having said more than two words to him/her), you’re out of line. Oh, and if you meant that your mental image based on nonverbal signals seems to grow more accurate the more you talk to someone and the more you spend time around them…well, duh; that’s because you’ve talked to them more, and spent more time around them.

It wouldn’t be the SDMB if people didn’t think stuff through WAY too much.

::Buys plane ticket to Iceland::

Dude, identifying a type is the opposite of making a generalization. And have you noticed the trouble this thread has had even agreeing on the “Nice Guy” type definition? The only way the topic of this thread could be seen as a generalization would be if someone said, “I’m sick of men, they’re always Nice Guys.” Which no one has either implied or stated. And the only way the topic of this thread could be seen as a model would be if someone said, “From now on, I will approach every man with the assumption that he is a Nice Guy.” Again, hasn’t happened.

I’ve never seen or heard a generalization be used “properly.” And “uninformed folk philosophy?” Talk out your ass much?

I somehow feel compelled to borrow Lord Ashtar’s awesome sig, even though it doesn’t really support my argument: “All generalizations are wrong, including this one.” (George Carlin)

Listen, sparky, as much as I love it whenever some patronizing buttmunch thinks that he knows what I believe, if I think that generalizations are bad then why would I ever believe something like “men and women are the same?”

There is no “men and women,” only “people.” And people are very, very different. There may be thought processes and behaviours that occur more often in one sex than the other, but the minute you say “most men do xxx,” there will be two women who act the same way. And vice versa.

Even if 99% of women would not be able to fold a map if their lives depend on it, you should assume that each woman you encounter might be part of the other 1%. People must be approached as individuals, not as representatives of some warped idea of what it means to be of their sex. It goes back to Lilairen’s model thing. (These assumptions happen within the sexes, too: how many women get weird looks when the “girly girls” find out that they’re into cars? How many guys get shit because they’re into something that the “manly men” deem un-macho?)

If I’m blissfully ignorant, and going about my life with my stunning lack of insight, then you come along and point my ignorance out to me, what is a denial other than a lie? Unless you are implying that I – being a woman and all – am too stupid to recognize the “truth” even when it is spelled out for me? Either accusation is insulting and ridiculous.

I can’t tell you how useful my sig has been throughout my time here at the SDMB. I’m honored, really.

Actually, my last boyfriend fit your description perfectly (except he was Norwegian, not Scandinavian), and we were together for almost two years.

I didn’t have to “give him another chance”- that makes it sound like I did him a favor by going on a second date. Our attraction was mutual, and I wanted to be with him as much as he wanted to be with me. That’s how it should be.

However, it has already been noted on this thread and elsewhere that if you are hot and funny and tall, none of what we are talking about here applies to you.

“Falling for me” was his term- not mine. I don’t know why either.

How is it logical or intelligent to immediately consider that the option with the least statistical likelihood of being right must be the correct option when meeting a new person?

If 99% of people can’t find Canada on a map, and I just meet someone, I will bloody well assume they are unable to find Canada on a map because statistically it’s a lot more logical than believing they’re the one genius in a hundred.