Pseudotriton ruber ruber: Nice Guy

The evidence, a Nice Guy theme song of cynicism, entitlement, and misogyny.

For those of you not enlightened as to prr’s entertaining blend of paralogia and self-righteousness, the thread centered first around his OP questioning whether a man’s physical attractiveness affected whether or not women found him creepy. prr is of the opinion that it makes a great deal of difference, and that when a woman finds a man attractive, she is less likely to find him creepy.

Except that’s not really what it was all about. If it were, prr might have shown some interest in other viewpoints. No, prr was up in arms about a conversation two of his fellow workers had. These two women had the unmitigated gall to speak negatively about men who’d asked them out more than once! Worse, both of them had actually gone out with other men who had asked them more than once!

From here, prr extrapolates this conversation as representative not only of these two women’s character, but of all women and indeed all dealings between men and women. The rest of us women are supposed to confirm his insight and nod our heads in agreement. Anything less is a sure sign that we lack the mental faculties to keep up with his amazing cerebral gymnastics. Those who disagree with him should be pitied, as they have neither the stamina to cope with unpleasant topics or the moral fiber to be honest about them.

What.

A.

Crock.

You know, I was tempted to write a detailed proof showing him where his “logic” led him astray, but it was clear by the second page of the thread that he has far too much invested in his take on just how life, the universe, and gender relations work to allow a competing viewpoint into his head. I fear his fragile ego simply could not withstand the pressure and heat generated when a new idea is pounded into his head. Indeed, it’s fortunate that his mind is protected by a sensibility so dense, it warps light and repels subatomic particles. G-d alone knows what kind of damage would occur if the anti-matter of prr’s ignorance were to meet the matter of genuine thought. He could wipe out life on this planet.

The following is my favorite quote of the entire thread. I think it sums up prr’s disconnect with reality quite nicely:

Here we go, ladies! In prr’s world, we need to carry a bullhorn and strap a sandwich board onto our bodies so the message “I’m not interested in you” is there loud and clear. Otherwise, we’re being secretly flirtatious, and no one can blame the poor zhlub when he continues to ask us out.

But, don’t worry. He’s on our side! At least mostly! We just need to stop being such “proper” ladies and tell him what we really think the first time out. So long as it doesn’t contradict what he’s decided. Also, we can’t be mean. Or talk about it later. Or ever, ever, ever change our mind about something. Unless we go from telling him no to tell him yes. And we sure as hell better not treat him any differently than we’d treat the Brad Pitt of our dreams. Even, perhaps especially, if he asks us out after 15 seconds and then follows us around, ambushes us a few days later, and continues to hit on us.

Because he’s not creepy, and it has nothing to do with his looks. Oh, no! It’s just that he can’t read social cues. Or, apparently, English. Or hear and comprehend speech. Which is all our fault. We should be ashamed of ourselves, being so mean and secretly flirtatious to him.

I just don’t know how men like him put up with the likes of us.

I thought we weren’t allowed misleading thread titles.

Well to be fair, by the time I read to the end of the post I’d forgotten what it was about.

Not that kind of nice guy.

It dawned on me, early this morning, that he(prr) is sitting back laughing at all of us who are taking his bait. Like, maybe he is proving his OP by getting those of us who answered and didn’t like his scenario to keep arguing about it.
So he IS one of the guys in scenario of the OP being persistent. I don’t know which one…ugly or handsome. He made claims about the guys he hangs out with being too clueless to tell who is too hot for them but then said something about that they would still never “dish” them. Damn women, how dare they Dis someone who might just be clueless, have they no sympathy?!

Speaking of Sympathy…

What finally got me to stop taking the bait last night, was where he seemed to be trying to say that men were more sympathetic to women they weren’t attracted to than the women he mentioned. The men might only say, “Hey I am not THAT horny”. Like that was so nice of them. He went on to say that a guy saying that really means just that…and when he is horny enough he might take the girl up on her offer.
How is that different, and/or better than some girls in an office being royally offended and trashing some guy who couldn’t take no for an answer. I guess if the women ended the tirade with, “But if I am ever desperate and horny, I will give him a call”, he(prr) could forgive them.

So anyway…
Maybe he can post a picture of himself, and we can all decide if we want to continue to post/talk to him, or not based on how good he looks to us. :smiley: Because that is what “all” women do right? And if we say we don’t. We are just lying!
Ugh.

My thoughts exactly (the OP’s that is; I’m not sure he was putting us on) while I was reading that thread and his posts in the other one. And I’m even sort of a Nice Guy myself.

By the way, is that how you really spell “shlub”? Ignorance fought.

Valete,
Homo Bonus (not that kind of homo, har har har)

He’ll leave you alone if you give him $500.

I thought it was “schlub,” myself.

Oh, dear. I thought the meme had made its rounds.

A “Nice Guy” is anything but a man who is pleasant and agreeable. A “Nice Guy” is a man who treats women like emotional vending machines. Drop in a couple of quarters of affection, and a committed relationship should pop out. A “Nice Guy” is passive-aggressive, emotionally manipulative, and entitled. The only reason a “Nice Guy” can understand for a woman not wanting to be in a relationship with him is because she prefers to be mistreated by jerks.

It is a title which I believe describes prr to a T.

See also xkcd.

I’m happy to announce that I expend almost zero outrage or waking thought on what may or may not be a scandal on SDMB anymore. I highly recommend it.

Good-looking jerks, at that.

While reading his insane remarks I found myself thinking “Liberal had a great idea with this shitwhistle.”

To the OP, excellent points. From his overall attitude and crazy questions, I’d say that it irritates him that he believes women have all the power when it comes to flirting and/or dating. How dare they shoot this 15 second Romeo down and not even think that there could be a possibility of liking him! My favorite quote from him (a long one, sorry) is below. I am bolding the extra stupid parts.

Well all of the stalkers and rapists of the world have been given their new defense. They’re not sick fucks, they’re optimistic! They’re just trying to get a woman to step outside of her program.

Yes, I realize most men aren’t stalkers and rapists, but I still don’t think anyone - man or woman - should have to explain or defend their “No.” in a situation like that. If I am going to the grocery store, my “program” is to get what I need and leave. Apparently prr believes that because I’m out in public I am duty bound to stop and really consider the flirtation and offer of a date from any guy that approaches me. I mean, who am I to shoot him down and think that’s the end? He has a right to be heard and have me look at him from a different point of view!

Prr says he’s in a long term relationship. I hope that it goes on and on for a long, long time. Otherwise the ladies in his area are in for some of his idiotic dating beliefs and techniques. Oh I know he said he would never approach ladies like the person described in his OP, but he sure did try to twist words and move the goalposts enough to defend his 15 second hero.

In short, he’s an asshole.

Huh.

For what it’s worth, I’ll admit a somewhat persistent handsome man may have points over a somewhat persistent less handsome man, but calling that hypocritical is like accusing me of being shallow because I keep cats for pets rather than possums.

But I’m not the kind of person to keep putting a guy off before finally allowing him access to my company for a date. If someone I know pretty well asks me out to dinner, I’ll probably go. If it’s the guy from work who doesn’t wash his hair and can’t seem to find a shirt to cover his entire belly, I probably won’t (because he’ll spend the entire time talking about his level 80 warrior). If it’s the guy who always gives me a big smile and looks like a cuddly bearded Ray Stevenson, I’ll even have a cocktail.

I’ve bantered with guys like that, but it’s always been in good fun.

“Won’t you run away with me, away from all this?”
“I’m sorry, I have to wash my cat. Try me next month.”
“I pine for you!”
“I get that a lot.”

I’ve bantered like that with extremely unattractive men because – well, why not? They knew it was banter. They knew I wasn’t serious. I knew they weren’t serious or I would have stopped it right there. If it became serious, if the guy seemed to mean it, would his appearance factor into my reaction?

DUH. But so would his grooming, his comportment, his cologne, his taste in cuisine, his politics, his favorite football team, his sense of humor, his level of optimism in the world, and the position of Venus in the night sky. I can say that in all my years of dating (admittedly, it’s been a dry spell of about six years except for a recent bump) physical appearance never played much of a role. The fellow in question wore T-shirts and blue jeans, but they were clean and generally new. He has consciously terrible taste in clothing but excellent taste in music, literature, food, and humor. By the time I fell in love with him, he could have looked like, say, Steve Buscemi and I would still have been entranced.

“Give me a few minutes to talk away my face and I can seduce the Queen of France.” – Voltaire

phouka, I find it a little strange that you are against extrapolating generalizations, yet use a massive generalized definition for your so called “nice guys.”

It is a generalisation to say, “women are like <X>.” It is not a generalisation to say, “some men are like <Y>.” The former involves taking a group based on one characteristic, and ascribing it other unrelated characteristics. The second is identifying a subset based on a set of defining characteristics. It’s the difference between saying blondes are stupid and saying blondes have very light hair.

It is particularly not a generalisation to say “this person is of a specific type.” Indeed, that is the very opposite of a generalisation.

Should phouka ever accuse all men of being “Nice Guys”, then you’ll have a point. But she hasn’t.

see definition #4 under “verbs”: Dish out - definition of dish out by The Free Dictionary

Maybe it’s all rhetoric–women are just more vehement in their gossiping, a tad meaner in their critiques of men, than men are of women, mostly as our feline friend observes, through cluelessness and not caring so much. I perceive a small degree of difference, and truth to tell, this Pitting over my having raised this question is just one more tiny piece of evidence for my case there. I’m being Pitted because my OP stressed that rigorous honesty, and not self-serving back-pats, would be called for? And then daring to question how honest some self-serving respondents were truly being? This is Pit-worthy? You can’t comprehend what I mean by a “hypothetical,” and you object to my asking you to imagine two guys behaving identically except for their physical appearance, and so you raise all sorts of weird if not asinine comments about how tone of voice and manner and body odor are all metaphysically combined with good looks so the question is incapable of being answered in English? And I’m not allowed to find this total bullshit response as even slightly disingenuous? You don’t want to answer my OP as I stated it, fine, but to natter on about how “insane” the idea of a hypothetical concept is just looks funny to me. Maybe it’s just me. There were plenty of honest responses to my OP–**Even Sven ** and Diana G come to mind, for example. Others were IMO less rigorously honest. But that’s only my opinion. I could be wrong. Apparently, some of you cannot.

Guys aren’t prizes, by any means, and I’m certainly not one, but I’ve noticed that we have different virtues from women sometimes, and I was inquiring about the level of vicious gossip we indulge ourselves in. For those unacquainted with the thread in question, I heard two ladies at work trashing some guys who’d asked them out (separately, but repeatedly) and it sounded meaner than other (male) conversations I had heard and been a part of. (Ever wonder why no movies have been made entitled “MEAN BOYS”? I haven’t.) I even offered some possible reasons for this difference in degree, speculating that maybe women are more scared when approached by a stranger of the opposite sex, and reasonably so, causing them to vent with a little more force than guys do. Since few guys have actually considered that they might get raped as a result of talking to a strange woman, they might be more low-key in recounting any such encounters.

But apparently, it’s a hot button issue to discuss how the genders might differ here, and to request some level of rigorous honesty in such a discussion. I haven’t seen such defensiveness since Brooks Robinson retired. (Guy joke–ladies, you may just assume it’s hilarious. Thank you.) I failed to let derailing, hijacking, diversions, and irrelevancies pass without asking "really?’ a few times? Horrors! Off with his head!! Get over yourselves, please.

Would you like one from my stud-puppy days, or a more recent shot of me, balder, fatter, grayer?

Dead Badger, that you subscribe to “types” of people when it comes to personality, automatically means that you are
generalizing about them at least a bit. They are no longer being treated as individuals. See 3 and 6.

generalize

  1. to infer (a general principle, trend, etc.) from particular facts, statistics, or the like.
  2. to infer or form (a general principle, opinion, conclusion, etc.) from only a few facts, examples, or the like.
  3. to give a general rather than a specific or special character or form to.
  4. to make general; bring into general use or knowledge.
    –verb (used without object)
  5. to form general principles, opinions, etc.
  6. to deal, think, or speak in generalities.
  7. to make general inferences.

prr, I read your OP, and thought it was an interesting question. I thought people replied to it in an interesting way. Then you started answering those replies by suggesting that other posters were dishonest or stupid or simply unable to appreciate the issues at hand, and I started thinking, “what an asshole!”

Your response to this thread confirms that.

Daniel

Fair enough, but the crucial distinction is that prr appears to be saying that people in group A (women) are automatically in group B (, despite those groups being unrelated. phouka is saying that one specific person is in a group based on observed characteristics that define that group. She hasn’t even said that all people in that group behave the same - merely that they exhibit certain characteristics; precisely the ones that put them in the group. Categorisation is fine, as long as one draws no further inferences from the category than its definition allows.

“Dave has yellowish hair, and is therefore a blonde,” is a generalisation of sorts, but there’s nothing wrong with it; it’s just the assignment of a label to a set of observable characteristics. “Dave is a blonde, and is therefore stupid,” is a generalisation, but is insupportable. It is the arbitrary assignment of a characteristic based on a label. Certainly the former can be problematic, but usually only in combination with the latter, e.g.:

“You vote Democrat, therefore you are a liberal. You are a liberal, therefore you hate America.”

First part, label; second part, extrapolate. So far phouka has done only the former. prr is (or appears to be) doing the latter.

I think by treating all generalisations as equivalent, you are guilty of a generalisation. :slight_smile: