I didn’t say that they do; I said “the common impression” that they do.
No; I’m talking about complaints that “he beats his wife” or “she married a convicted murderer”, not “he makes mean jokes”.
Ah for Pete’s sake, a personality feature or flaw is not a “syndrome”. If you want to be more assertive then practice communicating your wants and needs, but don’t make trouble for yourself by identifying with faulty premises and bad logic.
I don’t watch enough Springer to have encountered such claims. Regardless, if a woman who married an actual abusive criminal wanted to be with the self described nice guy who feels superior to his rival, she would do so. If she rejects a nice guy in favor of a criminal it says very little about both her and the nice guy. Seriously, if a woman actually prefers being beaten than dating a nice guy, the nice guy isn’t quite the catch he thinks he is.
Hey, for years people have said that I’m a nasty, mean, child hating cuss. Finally now the good of that will be understood!
God Bless you and JohnClay always!:):)
I never watch him or anything like him. I had to search for “springer show” to even recall the guy’s name.
Or, she’s a seriously screwed up individual. If her choice in men is between some self described nice guy she doesn’t like and a man who beats her, the rational choice is neither, not “go with the guy who hits me”.
Sure, you’re right, but if you’re seriously claiming this phenomenon is anything but a rarity or television trope I’m going to ask for evidence. Self-proclaimed nice guys who are routinely passed over in favor of criminals ought to reevaluate their tendency to glom onto masochistic women and reevaluate their own sense of self-worth.
Again, I’m talking about perception, not the actual statistics of such behavior. Lots of rare things are perceived as common.
Well, I guess I’m clear. I’ve never tried to present myself as being “Nice.” I like to think I am a “good” man, even if I am aloof, unapproachable, and condescending.
But why are you talking about this now? You’re just married or getting married, right? So you’re off the market?
There are two types of “nice guys”. At least two types that seem to be discussed here.
The Sleezeball - This guy is superficially nice, polite and accommodating. This is all an act so he can ingratiate himself with people. He’s the guy who gets a little too “touchy feely” with the female coworker who maybe drank a bit too much at happy hour. Or the “shoulder to cry on” when you and your girlfriend get into a fight. He often gives off a creepy vibe because his “niceness” is disingenuous. It’s all a self serving act.
The Doormat - This is the guy who thinks if he does everything right and pleases everyone, good things will happen. Of course that never works. People are selfish and will take advantage of his good nature.
So, if I am understanding this correctly, this Dr. Glover has labelled a certain variety of asshole “the Nice Guy” and has written books about how these assholes act like assholes?
I wonder if we could say the “whiny entitled internet” “Nice Guy” could be said not necessarily have that much “darker” sexual secrets but to feel guiltier about them even if they are not that terrible.
As Troppus indicates, if to the contrary he is comfortable with his inclinations, is not out to use people but to share with them, and just knows the proper time and place to bring them up after establishing communication and trust, he should not have that problem.
And what about the nice guy who is actually, you know, nice without being a victim? Or is this some masculine version of the infamous Madonna/Whore dichotomy, where men can only be predators or victims?
Looks to be, along with probably some confirmation/selection bias.
i.e:
Not notable when an obvious asshole is nasty
Not notable when a genuinely nice person is quietly nice
Very notable when someone who appeared to be nice, turns out to be a self-serving asshole - Quick! Write a book!
It seems pussy is like the God of the Calvinists; bestowing salvation according to its own mysterious criteria and not as a reward for good works alone.
This is what a Nice Guy is: someone who thinks that if they dispense enough of the proper friendship tokens into a woman, they are automatically entitled to pussy. And he gets upset when he doesn’t get it and says he is in the “friend zone”.
This is what a nice guy is: a good man, who doesn’t tell people he’s a nice guy and doesn’t whine (overly much) and knows women are people, too.
Now yes, there are women who will take advantage of this fact. They will have their men running up and down to serve them in the hopes she will one day put out. They are jerks, but it’s human nature. That doesn’t make them any less doormats.
I hate the term “friend zone”. There is nothing wrong with being friends with a woman, and if you think that, there is something wrong with you. If you are hanging out with a woman you’d like to bone and she is not into you, do your self-esteem a favor and get out of there. Tell her, if possible, before you go. And then find someone else.
That’s what this guy is talking about.
I haven’t encountered any women who suffer this dichotomy. Men receive the “predator” after exhibiting predatory behavior; it’s not the default. When women have been startled by predatory behavior, their first instinct is to seek help from the nearest strong human, and that hero is usually a man. Plus, I’ve discounted the extreme example presented by the OP no less than four times in this very thread:
This has been discussed to death, but no reason we can’t refresh it for the purpose of this thread. Whiney, entitled men who compare themselves to rivals in such a way that paints themselves in a favorable light and while painting successful rivals in a negative light aren’t nice. And women probably don’t see them as nice guys. The condition of not having a girlfriend does not magically render one nice. The condition of lamenting one’s girlfriendless state makes one bitter. The condition of degrading women for their choice in partners makes one misogynistic. The condition of criticizing perceived flaws in others in an attempt to elevate one’s own sense of self-worth is petty and deluded. The kind of guy who is guilty of the above conditions isn’t nice. He’s embittered and locked in a self-destructive cycle sure to end in frustration.
My bet is on this one. A couple of our popular religions and some questionable parenting styles attach a lot of shame to sexuality that isn’t conducive to a positive self-worth. Having an interest in sex is as natural as having an interest in food, and it’s a waste of time to attempt to dissect and defend the human sex drive. It’s a shame that anyone has to subject themselves to such rigorous indictment in order to justify their own sexual nature.
Being a decent human being should be the default for either gender, not something to demand back-patting (or a romantic partner) over. So when someone turns that into the main feature of a “but whyyyy don’t I have someone to love?!” lament, it should raise questions.
Maybe this shit just exists in the self-perpetuating world of pop psychology claptrap, while out in the real world men behave as gentlemen with no regard to nice vs "Nice; and women enjoy sex and make perfectly loving mothers to the eventual result of that instinct, with no regard to the “madonna/whore complex.”
Maybe?
They don’t write books or do talk shows about normal, well adjusted men who both treat people with and demand to be treated with respect.