::Standing up and applauding (!!!) for Lux Fiat::
Gaudere wrote:
Actually, yes, you can – if your work environment puts you near the window where the construction workers can see you, and they make obscene gestures at you, and you complain and your company doesn’t do anything about it.
Admittedly, Corporate America was a lot more skittish about sexual harassment in the early 1990s than it is now. This was partly because at the time there weren’t enough legal precedents to delineate a clear, black-and-white line between what isn’t sexual harassment and is, and partly because Anita Hill was fresh in everyone’s mind. And, yes, I was personally called on the carpet for alleged sexual harassment at no less than 2 different companies I worked for, because a couple of women in each company claimed I looked at them in a way that made them feel uncomfortable.
Dear BUMP:
Re-ojectictify women? What is that? Do you mean acknowlege that you want to have sex and that you are attracted to women and women are sexually desirable?
What is this ‘they don’t particularly like women outside of their crotches and chests’?
Well, if ‘they’ preferred men’s crotches we would be discussing another lifestyle.
If it is getting laid you want, and not marriage, then you cannot be a Nice Guy or Just Like a Brother.
Once you have passed into the like a brother category it is over.
Let me translate women into English for you. When a woman says she doesn’t want to date you because she thinks of you as a brother that means she doesn’t find you sexually attractive and she is never going to do you.
You might be used as a filler in between dry spells, but that is it.
What you do is do not take phone calls from any gal you want to bone. If you do that and listen to her complaining you become the fall back guy. You want to be thought of as hot and sexy.
You have guy friends that you do things with.
Do not spend a lot of money on a date to make an impression, it will but it will be the wrong one.
Date two or three or as many girls as you like and I would let them know you have other these other girls.
I’d say go easy on making phone calls to the gal you want to get. It makes you seem too accessable, and when you give the impression that your life is so empty you have plenty of time to kill by chatting on the phone, you lose your F. quotient.
Don’t really know what you mean by re-objectify women. Or has it occured to you that women like men because you guys have penises.
A final thought, after you and the lady have gone out on a cheap date, and you take her home, I’d say perhaps hold her elbow as you walk her to the door. Then lean in and give her a kiss, lightly, on the lips. Very erotic.
Of course, you will always be prepared and carry condoms with you, right?
Yeah, I was aware of that; it was probably a bad example. But first you have to complain and they have to refuse to move you–then it’s the company’s fault for not moving you. The company has to be involved in some way, it’s not just that some stranger can harrass you and you can then sue your company for sexual harrassment. The company is not responsible for some guy sending flowers, although if, say, you asked them to not accept anything from this guy and give it to you and they still did, you might be able to claim that they were contributing to a hostile work enviroment. However–the point is you can’t charge that guy for sexual harrassment for sending you flowers unless he works with/for you, although as I noted if he’s obsessive you could get a restraining order or something. But you simply can’t sure anyone you don’t work for/with for sexual harasssment, I believe.
AerynSun wrote:
YES! Brava! Well said. AerynSun, it’s these kinds of posts that make me want to marry you. Hello? Did you hear me? AerynSun? Why are you staring at the floor?
Gaudere wrote:
Oh! Oh, wait a minite, I get it now. I thought lindsay was saying that the guy sending flowers also worked for the same company as the women he was sending flowers to. I read more into her statement than was warranted.
Of course an outsider having flowers sent to a woman at her work could not be charged with sexual harassment. (Stalking, maybe, but not sexual harassment.)
Using the same line of thought as Lux Fist’s post, I was surprised to see that you seem to advocate the “nice guys” changing their manner of objectifying women from putting them on a pedestal, to seeing them as sex objects who aren’t respected.
I don’t particularly think that either set of men should view women as objects, but I’ll go so far as to say that the “nice guys” objectification is probably a better one- it doesn’t jerk anyone else around but themselves.
As for me, I wasn’t so much asking for a how-to, but just curious as to what you’d think the “nice guys” should do. Personally, I don’t have much trouble- the only trouble I have is that the women who go for me aren’t necessarily the ones I go for, but I’m sure that’s not uncommon.
bump, I believe lindsay finds “Nice Guys” more objectionable that “Assholes” because the Nice Guys are being dishonest. I.e. they have the same objective with women that the Assholes do, but they cover it over (to hide it from others and even from themselves) rather than just coming out and saying it.
Lux Fist?? Hey now. This is the SDMB, not the BDSM.
And tracer has nicely encapsulated in one sentence what I belabored in three paragraphs.
bump:
Maybe. Except that Nice Guys rarely trace the problem to themselves, except to proclaim bitterly that maybe they should become Assholes, and treat women like crap, 'cause that’s what the women all want anyway, even if they say differently. They’re not going to be capable of a functional relationship any more than the reviled Asshole, because they have too much artifice and resentment directed toward themselves and the women who won’t reward them for their behavior.
Understand that I’m not talking about normal decent people who don’t get dates because they’re shy. I’m talking about people who act in a certain way (note the word “act”) to get a mate. At best, their relationships are like scripted plays. At worst, they end up resenting an entire gender because their hard work isn’t paying off.
Am I the only one who realizes that lindsay is a follower of Leykis 101? 
Although I only listen to him for entertainment during my boring workday, I find his viewpoint to be quite valid, generally, regarding dating.
I think that the main point to be made here is if that they renamed the book, “The Rules”, they might as well call it “How To Be a Gold Digging C***”.
I live in Los Angeles which is, quite possibly, the capitol of deception in dating (not that it isn’t like this everywhere, but we have a lock on it here, don’t even try to compete!). I know of women who live and die by these tactics day in, day out. The people that I feel sorrier for are the men (SUCKERS) that fall for this crap.
I knew of a woman who, one night while at her apartment, I saw a copy of this book. She was a friend of a friend who we were picking up for a group night out. Her usual night was to go out (in our group), find the first man that she could dupe into buying her a drink, talk to him for a while and bring him back to my friend’s place where we gathered for an after-hours get together. I would watch these poor bastards (and there were quite a few) be ignored by her, by that time, and twittle their thumbs hoping something would happen. I knew that these poor bastards were just trying to get laid. I would shake my head in disgust knowing that this sucker has just been used…Sorry to get off on this rant.
My main point is that this book is a fallacy. If a man is going to fall in love with a woman, it doesn’t matter if he sleeps with her on the first date or the tenth date, he is going to fall in love with her for the person she is. If she is a cool person that he enjoys being with, then all of that crap about answering the phone on a certain ring, how long to stay on the phone with him, when to sleep with him, what he should buy you, etc. (ad nauseum) is irrelevant. The problem is that this book gives women with low self-esteem (and zero knowledge of how to have a successful relationship) a map to trap a man who is himself of low self-esteem and believes that the only way to get a woman is to buy her. This is truly not the way to find a happy, or healthy, relationship. One problem is that I also know of men who are extremely insecure and would fall easily for these tactics. I will admit that I was with my fiancee on our second date. Did this factor into our relationship? Of course not. We fell in love with each other because of the people we were, not because of some plan of deception that we were utilizing for the fulfillment of an extremely selfish goal. We couldn’t be happier.
Sorry, my thoughts were a lot more complete before I attempted to type this, but it’s late and I’m getting a little punchy. Anyway, I’ll be better tomorrow once I get my energy back.
Note to lindsay: Remember, your suggestions only work for a man who is in the business of getting laid. His plan is also a deception. A lot of men, nice guys included, may be looking for a bit more, but won’t find it using those tactics. As a reformed “nice guy” I will say that even though I saw women as potential long term possibilities, I still couldn’t wait until the moment I saw them naked! 
G’night folks!
You bet I am a Tom Leykis listener. I tape some of his shows so my brother can hear him.
Someone asked something and I gave my opinion on how to get laid without going broke.
Of course that stuff is pathetic. This one fellow was so desperate for anyone to have him, he would jump at the chance to buy dinners, drinks, and then wonder why he went home alone.
He was whipped. He once said that he would give people compliments and they never noticed him. Oh, yes, we did.
‘James’ was like a little puppy, so eager to please. If only we would give him a chance.
He needed the Professor’s advice more than anyone else I’ve ever known.
Don’t worry lindsay, I wasn’t contending with you, I agree with everything you said. True, I’m not the type to turn on my headlights on Fridays, but the advice dispensed by the Professor is golden for any single man in the dating world who wants to play the field. It’s good to know you’re spreading the gospel.
Omega wrote:
Well, it would be kind of weird if you two went on a second date without ever being in the same room together.
Doggone, Omega I was looking forward to flashing you.
I’ll give an “amen” to that. I am old enough (mid 30’s) to have been “in love” four times. Twice, it was with women with whom I slept on the first date. Those times, we just connected instantly and mutually.
Once it was with a woman I knew for years before we dated, and then I went out with her several times before we consummated anything. I fell for her at first encounter, but had to work a long time to win her over. The actual act of sex was great (of course), but the timing of it was not relevant to falling in love.
The fourth time, we never had sex at all. (Yes, I fell into the dreaded “friend zone”) She wound up falling for someone else. Sex would have been great, but I fell in love with her without it.
Sex is great, but neither giving it nor withholding it will cause a man to fall in love with you.
The thing that confuses me the most about “The Rules” is that while it assumes that getting a husband is the goal of every woman, it is not clear what use they think a husband is FOR. In the world that “The Rules” pretends exists (The same world that the “Venus” books believes in, and which is not all that diffferent from the world the “Cosmo Girl” lives in), women and men are so different that they can only comunicate therough a series of ritualized forms. No where in these systems is there any way for a person to be a helpmate, a confidant, a partner. Presumably, women are supposed to turn to their female friends for that sort of thing, and men to thier buddies. In this system both genders use spouses as a sort of ornament, and pershaps as a co-parent, but never as a friend.
Back in the real world, I know I have more in commen with my lover than I do with any of my girlfriends; he has more in commen with me than with any of his buddies. Yes, there are differences between us that fall along gender lines, but those are insignifigant compared to the many, many things we share.
“The Rules” and similar make sense only in a society with strictly defined gender spheres; in such societies men and women do communicate more or less through ritual and tradition. In societies like that arranged marriges work very well, because personality is not a part of the relationship–everyone understands the same set of rules and is under much social pressure to follow them.
In a society that holds a companionate marrige up as the ideal, they have no place. It is possible that the reason we are seeing these things is because certain segments of our population are in transistion between these two models of marrige. I know older couples whose marriges are more or less defined by gender conventions, and who are not friends; these days, though, we were raised and our children are raised to see friendship as the standard for a marrige. At the same time, though, mixed mesages are sent through these more gender-shpere oriented relationships. As society transists, there is a vauge feeling that there ougtht to br gender spheres, but there is no longer a commonly understood and agreed upon consensus about what those spheres ARE–thus “The Rules” and similar books looking to establish them.
To change the subject slightly, the difference between A Nice Guy and a guy who is nice–the later gets laid, the former is bitter because he only sees “Assholes” getting some–is simple. A Nice Guy is courtous, gallant, a good listner, sympathetic, and sweet–to the most attractive single girl in the room. He ignores the plain ones, the plump ones, and the attached ones because they hold no interest for him. A guy who is nice will talk to all the above women because he has motives beyond getting laid as soon as possible. This dosen’t mean he dosen’t like sex, just that he also likes other things as well, such as talking to people. Both the girls who are ignored and the ones who are singled out by the Nice Guy notice the Nice Guy’s pattern, and it is repellant.
The reason assholes get women is simple–they aren’t picky. They are back in the strictly segregated world of gender spheres, and since it is their buddies that they look to for compainonship, the personality of their woman dosen’t matter–any one that isn’t embarasing will work. By dramatically lowering his standards, he increases his odds. On the other hand, he sometimes ends up with a pyschotic woman, and dosen’t get to know her well enough to find this out until after the second child is born.
Lastly, the guys who are nice do get women, but frequently either don’t talk about it (because they are to nice to brag) or get settled into a comfortable, stable relationship early and aren’t at singles bars, so the bitter Nice Guys don’t see them. It is the asshole who is picking up women every weekend and is successful half the time that makes the Nice Guy bitter, never mind that the decent guy who lives with his girlfriend is getting laid a lot more often. The Nice Guy forgets about those.
Manda JO, as usual, you amaze me with your well thought out, intelligent posts. I’m going to do a search, find all of them, and compile a book for later generations, so they too can enjoy the wonderful things you have to say.
I’ve got a great idea for a book title which I’m sure will sell a million copies to all the bitter “Nice Guys” out there:
Men are from Mars, Women are from PLUTO!
Or “Men are from Mars, and Why Won’t the Women Visit Us There? What’s So Great About Venus? Hypocrites!”
pepperlandgirl, lemme know when you get that book together so I can buy a copy.