This is still one of the most civil Doper conversations I’ve seen on this topic. I’m not saying the bar is super high, or anything. Nonetheless.
My husband is also a truly nice guy. He was also relatively romantically inexperienced (only one long-term relationship before me) and spent much of his adulthood unhappily single. Not particularly socially awkward or clueless, but he was also not particularly suave, skilled in the art of flirting, or fearless when it came to making the first move. It took us more than a few dates before I realized he was attracted to me romantically; initiating the transition from the platonic getting-to-know-you-as-a-person phase to something hotter and heavier didn’t come very easy for him. This, plus his introversion and home body lifestyle, has probably played big a role in him staying single for so long.
But we eventually figured it out.
For guys like the OP’s sons, who are still young and impressionable about relationships, dating, and the “nature of women”, perhaps the best message to impart them is that finding a partner is both the easiest and the hardest thing in the world. It’s easy because if it was intrinsically difficult, the species would have died out a long time ago. It’s hard because people are unpredictable, choosy, and often incompatible with each other. With that said, the only thing one can do is try to the best person they can be and hope for the best. Analyzing the opposite sex and their habits in the attempt to learn about and “game” an adversarial system is the path to Nice Guy-land.
I wouldn’t quite agree with this - standards and expectations are different today than millennia ago, and people are pickier/choosier now. Plus, lots of marriages were arranged or coerced in the past.
Also, continuity of human reproduction, in theory, only needs a few men; one man can impregnate many women. So you could still have the human race carry on while many undesirable men go without a mate - in theory.
True; it’s like trying to learn how to ride a bicycle…by picking up a book and studying the Newtonian physics, center of gravity, math and science involved, etc.
Look at the animal kingdom, though. If finding mates was truly a complicated affair that required years of study and analysis to manage, most critters wouldn’t have a chance of scoring. It often amounts to being at the right place at the right time; this applies as much to the shy stallion who stumbles upon a receptive mare as it does to the shy dude who stumbles upon the online profile of a receptive woman.
We are as much animals as any other creature on this planet. Yes, society and its expectations have changed, but our biological drives remain the same as they were when we started walking upright and speaking. The economic and social gains that women have made may have resulted in them being “choosier” than decades ago. But all this means is that men who desire relationships with women can’t count on being just like their grandfathers; to be attractive, they have to have more going for them just a steady paycheck. Which, when you think about it, is a pretty low bar. Even an unemployed guy can find love if a woman is charmed by his personality and his helpfulness in the home.
This is the kind of idea that is unhealthy and unhelpful, if one puts too much stock in it. While it is true that one man may be able to impregnant dozens of women, it is also true women have always desired love, companionship, and most importantly, another set of hands to help with childrearing and feeding a household. What evolutionary incentive would there be turning away suitors willing to provide them with these things in preference for the rare Casanova whose attention is split between dozens of other women? There are none. Even in the prehistoric days, being a nice guy had ample rewards.
Perhaps because it was started by a small n NG who wants his sons to avoid the mistakes he made?
I think I have seen more posts in this thread acknowledging how complex the topic actually is. Certainly early success or lack thereof can make a difference. In my case there was also an unfortunate situation where a girl used me by pretending I was her boyfriend so her parents wouldn’t suspect she was seeing someone else they didn’t approve of. That was tough for an already insecure 15 year old.
The only generalization I’ve made about women is that they seem to lose interest more abruptly than men. That may be a generalization often made by men who don’t pick up signals, though.
I think it’s awful for someone to use another person like that. One of my life’s greatest role models was in a years-long relationship where she had all the power and control and I never felt right about it. Her excuse was, ‘‘Well, I’m being honest, so it’s okay.’’ In her mind because she was up front with him about her lack of committed feelings, it was okay to use him. I think honesty is a good start, but it wasn’t sufficient in this case. He wanted to marry her and have her children and told her so at every opportunity, and she would only say, ''Sorry, if I meet someone I really connect with, we’re history." If he’d had a shred of self-respect it would have been better, but it didn’t absolve her from taking advantage of him. Now, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say she was being purely manipulative, either – she was emotionally attached and sex complicates things. And in all fairness, he was a selfish, immature jackass literally brain-damaged alcoholic. Nevertheless witnessing that made an impression on me from a young age.
And when I learned later about a woman who had used my husband for her own gratification (not nearly as long or involved as a thing, but manipulation nonetheless) it pissed me right off.
Women, I might add, particularly young girls, aren’t exactly drowning in self-confidence either. I can’t even ever remember feeling secure in how I looked or how men perceived me. I’m still bemused by the fact that my husband is genuinely attracted to me. I’ve been with him fourteen years and it’s still just a little bit baffling. I think the idea that women don’t have to face as much rejection or insecurity or awkardness is largely a myth. The rare times I have had an obvious impact on other guys were almost always times I didn’t want the attention and the whole situation felt completely out of control. It’s a case of extremes - either wanting to be desired and not being desired, or being desired and feeling endangered because of it. Neither is a particularly great feeling.
Spice Weasel, I think my wife is conflicted regarding those she beliees mistreated me. On one hand, she doesn’t like that I was hurt. On the other hand, it made me available to her. I’ve been married to the love of my life for almost 20 years, and we have two great kids. If I had to go through the same things to get where I am now, I wouldn’t hesitate.
Ok, let’s side-step the entire “nice guys” thing (I think I need brain bleach, I hope I never meet any “nice guys”) and go back to the OP.
Due to the college I went to and my line of work I have spent a lot of time with shy, socially inept men, and well, it varies. Some of them are adorable and appeal to women and others are repulsive beyond belief. If the guy is genuinely nice and is just a bit shy he’ll do quite well with women.
When I heard (from women in no positions to date me) that I should have no trouble getting dates it set me back. That’s when I figured I must be in the “repulsive beyond belief” category. I remember hearing that when I hadn’t been on a date in almost 3 years. I don’t think it’s quite that simple. A guy (or a woman) can be genuinely nice but so terrified of rejection that he/she becomes almost undateable. I was in shape (able to run a mile in just over 5 minutes), gainfully employed, and always tried to treat everyone, regardless of gender, with respect. My insecurity and social inemptitude made it very hard to find a woman who would want to date me. Can the women who rejected me be blamed? Absolutely not. Once someone begins to suspect he/she is unloveable it’s unbelievebly tough. No, I can’t protect my sons from the pain I experienced. It’s been a hard fact to come to terms with. Like any parent, I hope they both find happiness.
Hell, I’ve always had a soft spot for socially inept men. Even a nice stutter. I do have to work harder to connect with them than the average guy, but maybe I find them less threatening.
(I should note I don’t think my husband is particularly socially awkward. He’s a giant dork but he’s a pretty extroverted, socially palatable human, probably more socially skilled than I am to be honest. So… you never know who you will end up with.)
[QUOTE=P-man]
If I had to go through the same things to get where I am now, I wouldn’t hesitate.
[/QUOTE]
I get that, in a sort of different way. The great enemy of my life has always been mental illness, but that is what brought us together. He was a psychology student attending a community mental health event for extra credit, and I was… well, I was part of the event. So he sent me this lovely e-mail about having witnessed me speaking about my own experience on the panel and how much he admired that in me, and guess what? Turns out when you have a history of mental illness it’s really fucking useful to have a partner who is a clinical psychologist. So no, I guess I wouldn’t change it either. It is so much a part of who we are.
My wife has a similar history; I’m not a psychologist, though. If I didn’t know that association doesn’t = causation I might come to the conclusion that someone must have some type of mental illness to be attracted to me Small sample size, but two of the three women I’ve had relationships with have a history of abuse (which I didn’t find out about until the relationships had gone on for a while).
It’s definitely been my experience that women, especially women actively dating (dealing with OLD and semi-blind dates) tend to view a sincere but clumsy pass as incredibly cute and a nice break from the endless stream of dick-pics and crude proposals.
That applies to virtually any character trait. But the key question is whether those people like or love them in spite of their jerkiness or because of their jerkiness.
As I’ve indicated above, I think it’s a complex matter, but that there are aspects of jerkiness (perceived strength and self-confidence) that do appeal to many women, even if they may be repelled by other aspects.
That does not logically follow.
f someone says (most) women like tall men it does not follow that most married/involved men are tall. It just means that height is an appealing aspect for many women.
I think most humans find confidence attractive, and one thing jerks tend to have is a lot of self-confidence. Personally being an asshole pretty much kills any appeal of a confident man, and I’d point to my husband as an example of a confident man that is not an asshole. But some women probably have a lower threshold for what constitutes an asshole.
One thing I have noticed is that some women (again, don’t want to overgeneralize) really seem concerned chiefly with how the man treats her in that moment and not how he treats people generally. She erroneously assumes he will continue treating her that way, when my experience has shown that the behavior is more likely to default to that man’s general treatment of humans. It is extremely easy to treat someone you are infatuated with like a goddess. It’s so easy as to be unremarkable and unimpressive. When you treat humans generally with kindness, I am way more impressed. But I don’t think all women understand that, or see that, the way I do. I have spent a lifetime watching other people make stupid relationship decisions and not really understanding the logic.
I disagree with this, both as to whether this is a good approach, and as to whether it constitutes gaming the system.
If you are looking for a job, figuring out what prospective employers are looking for and trying to make yourself fit this mold is a good idea and is not trying to game the system.
If you are running a business, figuring out what potential customers/clients are looking for and trying to make your product fit this mold is a good idea and is not trying to game the system.
If you are looking for a relationship, figuring out what potential mates are looking for and trying to make yourself fit this mold is a good idea and is not trying to game the system.
Of course, if you get it wrong - about any of these matters - you’re not helping yourself. But trying to get it right is the correct approach.
The problem is that this presupposes that everybody is looking for the same thing in a mate. I would argue that you can generalize more easily about prospective jobs than prospective mates. To imply that the whole of a gender can be understood with the aid of a few instructional materials is pretty insulting to that entire gender. Also, let’s be honest about what the PUA artist movement is – it is absolutely predicated on the notion that women, as a gender, can be gamed and manipulated into doing what men want. The premise is fundamentally flawed and misogynist as all hell.
ETA: also don’t neglect you with the face’s keyword there: adversarial system. It’s a philosophy of exploitation vs. mutual beneficience.
I would argue that it’s irrelevant whether you can generalize more easily or less easily. As long as you can generalize to any extent, then the comparison and point are valid.
Nothing I’ve said presupposes that everybody is looking for the same thing in a mate, and I can’t fathom how you might have deduced that from what I’ve written. But it seems pretty accepted by everyone in this thread that that there are some things that tend to be more or less appealing on average to women in aggregate. (There is some dispute as to what those things are, but no one has attempted to dispute the general concept - fortunately.) In light of that, someone who attempts to find out what is generally more appealing to a broader range of potential mates is going about things in the proper manner, and is not trying to game the system. They’ve doing exactly what they should be doing (assuming they’re getting it right, and are not faking anything, of course).
I’ve not mentioned anything about the PUA movement, and know very little about it (pretty much only what I’ve seen in threads like this, actually).
You seem to be taking “adversarial system” as referring to the relationships themselves being adversarial. I took it to mean the system - i.e. the competition for desirable mates - being adversarial. Which it is.
The other problem is that “the game” is not about looking for a relationship; it’s about trying to fuck as many women as possible with as little personal capital invested as possible.
There’s a bit of sleight of hand involved in talking about confidence and assertiveness as reflected by the pickup artist crowd, and then talking about how it’s a good idea to know that confidence and assertiveness are attractive when you’re trying to find someone to marry or whatever.
The references to “the game” in this thread have been references to PUAs.
You have not, but it’s certainly been a subject in this thread, namely how the ‘‘Nice Guy’’ theory is derivative of the PUA movement… so it’s not off base to interpret your response as a defense of the PUA philosophy. I take you at your word that it isn’t.