"Nice Guys" vs. Decent, Albeit Clueless, Men

Which completely negates any idea of placing ‘wants over needs’, and puts both parties on equal ground. To go back to the examples from an earlier post, it’s not rare for one person to demand/request/insist/etc that the other person cut contact with an ex- because the new partner wants it, but to phras

The second is that people you have ‘some sort of relationship’ also don’t automatically have a legitimate interest in what you’re doing. Deciding that you’re going to stay in contact with the ex- you left on good terms even if someone you started dating doesn’t want you to is not being a jerk, for example. Neither is telling someone you’re dating or married to ‘I go out to the bar with the boys on Tuesday, I’m not stopping that just because you decided to tell me to’ (to use an example from another thread on here). Or dating a black person if you have racist parents who object to you mixing blood like that. But in all of them you’re putting your own wants and needs ahead of someone who’s in a relationship with you.

It can be incredibly healthy or incredibly unhealthy, but it’s important to remember that people can have wants that align, or don’t conflict - the idea either he gets what he wants or she gets what she wants with no middle ground is common (especially in the ‘nice guy’ mindset) but doesn’t match reality and leads to flawed analysis. One of the problems nice guys run into

No one ever literally gets what he/she wants all the time, obviously, so I’m taking the phrase as figurative above, but I want to point out that ‘all or nothing’ thinking is generally not healthy, especially in a relationship. I make a point of deliberately avoiding such phrasing

I may be off base here, but I often felt that part of my trouble with dating when I lived in the rural south was refusing to be either dominant or a doormat. I’m not saying all women there in the eighties were like that, it seemed to be the case in the small sample size I encountered.
[/quote]

I think the problem is that you probably never had a good model for taking the middle ground. You don’t normally see other people when they have a serious talk and sort out issues in a healthy way, because sane people don’t usually have those conversations with an audience. You only see other couples when they agree on something (or defer to talk about it later), or when they’re the ‘lets have a big shouting match in front of the guests’ type of people. So if you don’t luck into a relationship where it works, have someone teach you about it, do couples therapy, read books about it, etc., you don’t have any idea that there’s anything but dominant or doormat, or any idea how to be anything but the extremes. And if you don’t know how to find the middle ground, then someone who’s used to trying to find it will find you either being overbearing or wimpy when they’re expecting give and take.

There’s definitely things that change with age - from what I’ve read, generally women feel their dating peak is 18-25, while men have a better time dating in the late 20s to 30s. In case you’re wondering how that works with an equal population, men tend to find women around 20 most attractive at all ages, while women tend to find men their age and a bit older most attractive, so women tend to date older while men look for younger. (here’s a graph from OKC illustrating it, and it’s turned up in more rigorous studies At what age do members of the opposite sex look best to men and women - Imgur ) .

OTOH, it can also be that you simply hit a point in your life where “I’m sick of being alone” overcame “It’s scary and uncomfortable meeting new people”. That’s pretty much what happened for me, though at late 30s instead of late 20s.

Nice Guys™ did not self-define themselves and become a “thing”, but rather were defined first on the Heartless Bitches International website, and the notion went viral from there.

(If you have a different etymological history, by all means post your alternative account, but I read it there when HBI was brand new and dialup modems were all the rage).

Anyway, that means that your understanding (and mine) of what a Nice Guy™ actually is is our interpretation of the HBI women’s reaction to them as a phenomenon that they encountered over & over.

•The whininess is directly cited, so we know we’re talking about guys who are whining, and what they are whining about is that they aren’t getting selected as sex partners / boyfriends despite being “nice guys” (their description of themselves, at this point). What isn’t obvious, or knowable, is whether such guys were always whiny guys acting like sex should be the payoff for them being nice guys or if they only eventually got to that point after a long period of being “ncie guys”.

• The HBI piece definitely rips them a new one on just how “nice” they actually are. But the author at that point was reacting to the recurrent theme of guys whining about the situation, so consider the author annoyed. At any rate, I’m sure some of these Nice Guys™ were not very nice in the warm human considerate sense, but at the same time I suspect some actually were like that, caring and compassionate human beings who were considerate of the feelings of others at least up until they themselves became frustrated and began to whine about it all.

• Let’s be explicit. “Nice”, when coupled up with the whiny refrain “but sex and boyfriend-hood don’t happen for us nice guys”, has a strong connotation of “is not sexually aggressive in a frontally overt, pushy, demanding way”. In contrast, the connotation for many of you folks participating in this thread is that Nice Guys™ are, in fact, sexually pushy and demanding, which would mean that the Nice Guys™ are lying. Yeah. Step back with me. The guys in question are, at this point, whining. They’re frustrated. I suggested above that some of them got to this point rather than whininess and sexual entitlement being intrinsic attitudes fo theirs. So along with the whining comes a clumsy and angrily contemptuous attempt to behave like… Non-Nice Guys™, let’s call them, or at least to behave the way the Nice Guys™ perceive or believe the Non-Nice Guys™ to behave. Because, as they are whinily observing, “when we try to be nice we get left out and other guys get the girls”.

• So if we can assume that for each such Nice Guy™ there was a time before he began to whine about the situation, we can also probaby assume he was at that time trying to behave as he defines “nice”, even if during the later whiny-period he no longer does so. And I’ve said “nice” means, among other things, not being sexually overt / aggressive. We do live in a world where we’re all made aware that girls get tired of boys being “only after one thing”, get tired of being treated as a sexual commodity and all that, so it does sort of have something to do with being caring and considerate and so on. But…

•It’s also a gendered thing. To be sexual as a girl in this society, you can be reactive and responsive. Some women have even told us that to be other than reactive and responsive, to take initiative, to make sexual things happen of their own accord, caused social problems for them, that’s how embedded the idea is that guys initiate sexual overtures and women consent or withhold consent, do a turndown or flirt and play with the idea once it’s in the air. No, of course that’s not the only scenario in which sex (or relationships) can occur between male and female folks, but it’s normative. Oh, and the “way” that the girls are being, in this normative scenario, is described as “nice”. It differentiates them from girls who are called other things for being other than reactive and responsive.

Within the carefully delimited parameters of THIS understanding of who the Nice Guys™ are, I’m one of them. This was me.
I will totally testify that hell yeah, I didn’t get any action and that I am entirely familiar with the whiny feelings. I took a different turn, scarcely dabbling my toes into the angry & retaliatory “well FINE then I’ll just act like those NonNice Guys and SEE HOW YOU LIKE IT” shit—just enough to discover that sure enough, even done in an almost contemptuous fashion due to my anger, it created the flirtatious interplay that I’d seen the girls doing with the other boys.

Sorry, accidentally hit ‘submit’ on a half-finished reply, please ignore that last one.

Sounds like the dark ages haven’t faded away and these “women” have too high of standards. If its cookie cutter, hunk next door type you want then what you’re looking for is an affair with the creep you don’t want to date. Stop searching for absolutely perfect and settle for some flaws.

I think you “needed” more “quotation marks” for full “effect.”

Which completely negates any idea of placing ‘wants over needs’, and puts both parties on equal ground. To go back to the examples from an earlier post, it’s not rare for one person to demand/request/insist/etc that the other person cut contact with an ex- because the new partner wants it, but to phrase it as that they ‘need’ it to feel secure, or to confirm that they’re important, or something like that. I don’t think ‘want vs need’ is actually a useful way to discuss differing goals/desires/objectives, it feeds into the mess of false dichotomies, catastrophic thinking, and other mental traps that nice guys get stuck in all the time.

It can be incredibly healthy or incredibly unhealthy, you have to look at what both people are getting. The most healthy relationships involve each person getting what they want most of the time, but it’s easy to look at it from the outside and think only one person gets what they want.

People can have wants that align, or don’t conflict - the idea either he gets what he wants or she gets what she wants with no middle ground is common (especially in the ‘nice guy’ mindset) but doesn’t match reality and leads to flawed analysis. There’s a set of people, that includes a lot of nice/‘nice’ guys, that tend see ‘he got what he wanted’ and add ‘so clearly she didn’t’ even if the relationship is actually a healthy one that works for both people. It’s also common to assume that people’s goals align with social norms - for example, if someone is in an open or poly relationship, the assumption is that it’s something only the guy wanted and the girl just accepted to avoid a breakup.

No one ever literally gets what he/she wants all the time, obviously, so I’m taking the phrase as figurative above, but I want to point out that ‘all or nothing’ thinking is generally not healthy, especially in a relationship. I make a point of deliberately avoiding that phrasing in relationships because it’s easily refutable (‘we did what you wanted last weekend!’) and it leads to catastrophic thinking and exaggerating minor issues.

I think the problem is that you probably never had a good model for taking the middle ground. You don’t normally see other people when they have a serious talk and sort out issues in a healthy way, because sane people don’t usually have those conversations with an audience. You only see other couples when they agree on something (or defer to talk about it later), or when they’re the ‘lets have a big shouting match in front of the guests’ type of people. So if you don’t luck into a relationship where it works, have someone teach you about it, do couples therapy, read books about it, etc., you don’t have any idea that there’s anything but dominant or doormat, or any idea how to be anything but the extremes. And if you don’t know how to find the middle ground, then someone who’s used to trying to find it will find you either being overbearing or wimpy when they’re expecting give and take.

There’s definitely things that change with age - from what I’ve read, generally women feel their dating peak is 18-25, while men have a better time dating in the late 20s to 30s. In case you’re wondering how that works with an equal population, men tend to find women around 20 most attractive at all ages, while women tend to find men their age and a bit older most attractive, the 18-25 women are dating a bigger interested pool than 18-25 men, which then switches when men get over 25. (here’s a graph from OKC illustrating it, and it’s turned up in more rigorous studies At what age do members of the opposite sex look best to men and women - Imgur ) .

OTOH, it can also be that you simply hit a point in your life where “I’m sick of being alone” overcame “It’s scary and uncomfortable meeting new people”. That’s pretty much what happened for me, though at late 30s instead of late 20s.

I first ran into the term when I was in college in the early 90s, both in person and online. I could probably find the term being used frequently on Usenet before the WWW existed (and definitely before the WWW became popular), but google groups doesn’t seem to search it’s archives well anymore and I’m not going to put a whole lot of effort into tracking it down.

The Wikipedia page on the term mentions a published article on the topic from 1995, and the phrase “Nice Guys finish last” was coined in 1947 and was definitely used in the context of relationships fairly shortly after that, so the contention that a website from the 2000s, like HBI, intially defined the term is pretty clearly not true.

Everyone ‘got to the point’ of whatever they are by some means. Coming up with an excuse for why you’re pushy and demanding doesn’t negate that you are, in fact, pushy and demanding. This is especially true when the thing you’re using as an excuse is mostly your own fault.

Applicable to anyone who, in fact, is pushy and demanding, yes. But do a reread. I’m saying that some X % of the folks identified as Nice Guys™ have rarely been pushy and demanding.

I’m not, and I have not tended to be. I attempted the NonNice Guys™ behavior (in annoyed whiny mode) once, circa Summer of 1979, didn’t do much real damage, will post a vivid blow for blow description if you wish to review my behavior for condemnation-worthy attributes.

We aren’t at all on the same page here. I made neither an excuse nor an acknowledgment of being at fault; I was providing a sociological explanation. An explanation for something is not an excuse if something is blame-worthy. It does, however, often shed some light on what the entire situation actually is.

Dating and relationships, more than any other part of human society, is an arena where there is a huge amount of stereotyping and confirmation bias.

Nice guys see just enough women who like jerks to conclude that women like jerks.

Women see just enough “nice guys” who are whiny to conclude that nice guys are whiny.

Society sees just enough jerks who are confident, strong, suave or charming to conclude that jerks are confident, strong, suave or charming.

Etc. etc.

I love how you demonstrate stereotyping and generalizations and confirmation bias while claiming how common they are.

We’re dealing with such small sample sizes here (one, in my case; I’ve never had friends who stood out as consistently having trouble getting dates). Even if we compiled all the anecdotes from the hundreds of replies on this thread, it would still be a small sample size. There have certainly been a lot of interesting points made. For instance, did the whiney/bitter nice guys only get that way after years of continuous rejections? Probably the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. Also, this is an issue where it’s very hard not to generalize.

Is this the first time one of these threads started by someone who is not currently experiencing lack of dating success? It’s the first one I remember, but I’ve only been on the board a few years. One thing I find frustrating is that I don’t feel like I have any useful advice to give to insecure, socially awkward folks out there. If I could go back to my late teens knowing what I know now I’m not sure I’d fare any better. Self improvement is good, but there’s still luck involved.

You said, and I quoted, that some of these guys got to the point of being sexually pushy and demanding because of their frustration, and not because whining and sexual entitlement are part of their base nature. But if someone is pushy and demanding, then they are pushy and demanding, regardless of whether you consider it an intrinsic attribute or a development as a result of experiences. Also if someone is pushy and demanding now, it’s still perfectly reasonable to say that they are, regardless of whether they’ve only been that way for a small percent of their life. (If you didn’t mean to refer to the same behavior with ‘pushy and demanding’ and ‘whininess and sexual entitlement’, then just say that, we don’t need to go back and forth if they are disconnected concepts).

What I see is that you were disputing characterization of people as X with the argument ‘well they’re X NOW, but it’s not intrinsic, or (in the last post) not something they’ve done most of their lives’. I don’t believe in the ‘intrinsic attributes’ vs ‘reaction to lifelong experiences’ distinction anyway. It’s impossible to determine, and useless in practice - if someone is being pushy and demanding, that’s what I’m going to react to now, whether it’s their base personality or a personality trait they developed over time.
Same thing with the ‘rarity’ argument, the fact that they weren’t an X kind of person for most of their life doesn’t change that they are Xy now.

I think you’re missing his point, which is that some Nice Guys are not pushy and demanding, and even some of the ones who are P&D only got that way as a result of their dating problem. From both of which it follows that the dating problems that Nice Guys have is not solely the result of them being P&D.

Yeah, Pantastic, I understand that point…

A person who is racing through the street screaming and attacking people may be a badly rattled soldier just sent home with a PTSD diagnosis, or it may be a frustrated spoiled-brat shithead who is angry because someone dared to not treat him deferentially. It’s an attack either way. Knowing what made them that way, or having a sense of whether they’ve always been more or less like this or if instead this is anomalous behavior doesn’t alter the fact that this is a violent person who is attacking.

But it actually does have possible implications for how you choose to intervene.

And how you think of a person is actually an intervention; people in your environment are not unaffected by how you think of someone, because you will speak of them, you will harbor and express an attitude.

No, how you think of a person is an interaction. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by ‘is actually an intervention’, but I’m pretty sure it goes way beyond what any stranger has a right to expect from me. I don’t have any obligation to somehow fix every random stranger that passes through my life, and I don’t even have the ability to do it. You can spell out exactly what you mean by ‘is actually an intervention’ and perhaps my opinion will be different, but I suspect it’s along the lines as guys who think that a woman who answers an OLD PM or goes on one date act is obligated to act as a freelance therapist and sort out their problems (we’ve seen that in this thread). I think this actually points to a toxic attitude, but I’d like to hear exactly what you mean before passing judgement.

Also, it looks like there is blame-shifting going on in that paragraph. If you’re pushy and demanding (or whatever negative behavior) to me or my friends, then me talking honestly about what you did, or expressing an attitude to you because of your actions is entirely on you. I don’t accept that I have any obligation to ‘intervene’ in some way to help you save face or solve your issues. This is especially true since offering any kind of constructive criticism is typically met with a brick wall, defensiveness, or open hostility.

You are misconstruing and confusing issues. Nobody blames men for homely women and nobody blames women for mens’ inability to get a clue. The issue here is “why do men interpret misdirection in a more literal fashion?”

One can see that, in a romantic situation, people will want to believe the object of desire as being more truthful than not; i.e., how can X be a liar since I am so enamored of them? No, it’s not that they are unattractive geeks/nerds/losers, tho they are certainly not excluded. They have asked a simple question, and, using rose colored glasses, have chosen to believe their beloved, rather than placing them in the category of mere mortals, who would cast off their suits with a lie.