To all the girls: Why don't you like nice guys?

[Lamia]

@Priceguy

Here’s the thing: When confronted with “women like bad boys”, most women will swear to high heaven that it’s not true. Meanwhile, in the real world, a Hells Angels jacket is a free ticket to all the pussy your balls can cope with. You know it, too.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were posting from an alternate dimension. In this world all women are not irresistibly drawn to men in criminal biker gangs. I don’t think I’ve ever even met a woman who has ever been involved with a Hells Angel. Certainly none of my friends have ever dated one. I guess in your world things are different, but I don’t see why all the “nice guys” in your dimension don’t just buy biker jackets if it’s such a surefire way to obtain casual sex from multiple partners without even having to pay for it.

*No. There are exceptions to every rule, except this one.

*Oh, so there are exceptions to your rule that women are, generally, liars. Thanks.

This point has come up on the boards before in reference to people with certain political views, but it applies to any group. If ONE member of a group says one thing and ANOTHER member of a group does the other then that doesn’t make EITHER of them hypocrites. A hypocrite is an individual who says one thing and does another, not a person who says one thing while a completely different person does another.

@Polerius

You may hold that opinion, but the majority of the women filling out that survey thought he was funny.

Also, they stated that funny was the #1 thing they look for.

I’ll bet they didn’t say it was the only thing they were looking for, though. As has already been pointed out, Woody Allen has a LOT of flaws that would make him undesirable to a LOT of women. Note also that despite these flaws Allen was involved for many years with a very beautiful and famous actress. Same for Mel Brooks, another funny man not blessed with the looks of Mr. Banderas.

[Polerius]

@Priceguy

nice guys (and I use the phrase here in the outlandish sense of “guys who are nice”, not in the sense of men with the personality described by women in this thread, if those even exist in significant numbers) and maybe, just maybe, when someone decries his dating woes and wonders why he cannot attract a mate the correct answer might be “life’s not fair, I know it sucks” rather than “women don’t owe you sex, you creep”.

You’re right.

It looks like the men and women of this thread are talking about two different types of guys.

The men are talking about decent guys who don’t seem to have luck with dating, while the women are talking about a mythical creature called a Nice Guy.

I’ve known lots of guys who were single and were not having any luck dating (short-term or long-term). I did not hear a single one of them describe himself as “I’m a nice guy, why won’t women conform to my demands and date me”. They all realized it was a combination of luck and personal issues in how they looked and how they behaved that kept them from dating. I don’t know what social circles these Nice Guys inhabit.

By the way, ISTM that women in this thread getting a bit too touchy about this subject.

[Polerius]

@Lamia

I’ll bet they didn’t say it was the only thing they were looking for, though. As has already been pointed out, Woody Allen has a LOT of flaws that would make him undesirable to a LOT of women. Note also that despite these flaws Allen was involved for many years with a very beautiful and famous actress. Same for Mel Brooks, another funny man not blessed with the looks of Mr. Banderas.

Agreed. However, let’s not get hung up on the details of that specific survey.

The point I was trying to make, as I said above, is that people say one thing when they are asked what they are attracted to in the abstract (“a nice, mature, considerate guy with a good sense of humor”), but when it comes time to choose between Guy#1 and Guy#2 for sex, other things come into play (more primal things like, “does he turn me on?”, which have little to do with how nice and considerate the guy is).

[Polerius]

@lobotomyboy63

There are two issues with us humans.

1. Survival of the fittest. Women are going to go for strong males so that their offspring will be strong. Many species “peacock” or have feats of strength or whatever for the privilege to mate. Men? We make sperm our entire lives and theoretically could impregnate hundreds of women.

2. The long-term relationship. Emotional maturity, a willingness to compromise, an ability to empathize, yadda yadda yadda.

These are often incompatible.

Regarding the above, I like to use the following analogy (oversimplifies things, of course) :

You need to pick one food item that you will have to eat for the rest of your life, or at least for the next few years.

One food item is spicy and tasty (e.g. spicy fajitas), but you can’t eat it every day for the next several years because it will cause you all sorts of stomach problems.

The other food item is bland but very mild (e.g. boiled potatoes) and will not cause any stomach problems, but after a while you get sick of eating it because it is so boring.

With their heads, many people understand that they need to pick the boiled potatoes for the long-term, but if they make that choice, they soon start missing the spicy fajitas.

Some people go with the spicy fajitas, but after a while either abandon them and go for the safe choice, or their stomach becomes a wreck.

[Some people are lucky and end up with spicy potatoes ]

By the way, I should mention that the above choice (boiled potatoes vs spicy fajitas) is one that both women and men have to make. For men it’s between “wild and crazy” vs “marriage material” women. For women, it’s between “strong & macho” vs “mature and dependable” men.

Anyway, the example is vastly oversimplified and does not capture the full spectrum of issues, but I think it captures a decent amount of the issues.

[Captain_C]

This is probably late to the party, but I am amazed at how many posters are opposed to having an SO who values their happiness above their own. I mean, the moment I find an SO who would do anything I wanted if it made me happy is the day I propose marriage on the spot. Blowjobs everyday and dinner on the table when I get home I say!! (to put it crudely for dark humor’s sake. This probably isn’t the thread for strawmen, so no one fall for this one. I mean it in only the lightest of senses). In all seriousness though, what exactly is the downside of this? Posters seem to have the impression that it is a bad thing to have someone who would do anything for you, and I just am not seeing why that is so wrong.

[Polerius]

@Captain_C

This is probably late to the party, but I am amazed at how many posters are opposed to having an SO who values their happiness above their own. … Posters seem to have the impression that it is a bad thing to have someone who would do anything for you, and I just am not seeing why that is so wrong.

It just doesn’t sound like a healthy relationship.

[Influential_Panda]

@Captain_C

Posters seem to have the impression that it is a bad thing to have someone who would do anything for you, and I just am not seeing why that is so wrong.

There’s a strong need for reciprocation built into our brains. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. It makes people mighty uncomfortable being only on the receiving end.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

@Polerius

Agreed. However, let’s not get hung up on the details of that specific survey.

The point I was trying to make, as I said above, is that people say one thing when they are asked what they are attracted to in the abstract (“a nice, mature, considerate guy with a good sense of humor”), but when it comes time to choose between Guy#1 and Guy#2 for sex, other things come into play (more primal things like, “does he turn me on?”, which have little to do with how nice and considerate the guy is).

Or, possibly, Guy #1 (Woody Allen) has so many drawbacks that even if he IS the world’s funniest guy, to all women, everywhere, that no woman could even think of spending more than a couple of hours with him. Allen does not strike me as being a nice guy, or a fun companion, even if I thought that he was absolutely hilarious. His schtick, IIRC, is portraying a really neurotic guy. I do NOT want to have a neurotic companion on a desert island.

I think it’s time for me to rewatch Little Shop of Horrors, the one with Rick Moranis in it. There’s a nice, funny guy who gets the girl who was attracted to the Bad Boy.

[Robot_Arm]

@JoeSki

Wait…I’m confused. Didn’t you read through all those PUA books alongside TDN and I? You should have a PhD in Niceguyoligy by now. What happened? It’s like you’re back at square one or something. I used that advice to great effect and got myself a girfriend who I’ve been in a relationship with for about a year now.

I have a feeling I may regret asking this, but “PUA”?

[Polerius]

@Lynn_Bodoni

I do NOT want to have a neurotic companion on a desert island.

That just conjured up a funny image for me. It would be great if a talented Doper wrote a short “Woody Allen on a desert island” routine.

I can imagine a Seinfeld routine: “What is up with those coconuts? They’re not nuts and they have no coco!”

But I can’t come up with a funny Woody Allen line on a desert island.

[vandal]

@Captain_C

This is probably late to the party, but I am amazed at how many posters are opposed to having an SO who values their happiness above their own.

That’s supplication. To me, and I’m going to go out on a limb here and say to most others, that’s an unattractive quality. Knowing my partner is miserable at the expense of my own happiness is not sexy at all.

[lobotomyboy63]

[middle age hijack]

Up until about 1940, life expectancy was 40 years (I’ve heard that penicillin was largely responsible for extending it). Go back farther in time and it was even lower—IIRC at the time of Jesus Christ it was about 25. Sure, there’s variation but the urgency to mate must have been much greater—if you weren’t dog tired from working all day just to survive, I mean.

Post-menopausal women: some existed back then, but many more exist now. In the dating pool they aren’t choosing a potential father for their child…but the evolutionary strategy hangs on.

And then there’s modern society. Women no longer have to depend on a man to provide…many have their own careers, can take care of themselves just fine, and so on. I heard once that women have traditionally looked for three things in a man: someone who’s taller, older, and richer. I’ve definitely met women who are richer than me.

So what was the ax that I used to hear, something about women in their 40s and up having a better chance of finding themselves in a terrorist act than at the altar? Post-9/11 I’m not sure that’s as true as it may have been, but if it were shockingly inaccurate, nobody would pass it along as wisdom. Divorces are no longer taboo, so there are plenty of women out there, looking.

The whole thing is perplexing to me. The spin of the terrorist comment seems to imply that men won’t marry them. But maybe they don’t remarry by choice, for reasons of their own. I guess older women don’t remarry because…

1. They already had their kids.
2. The divorce was so bad they’d never marry again.
3. They embrace their careers.
4. Slim pickings…guys who can’t keep jobs, alcoholics, etc., no thanks.

But I also think it’s b/c they aren’t young any more. They aren’t that hot piece of tail that got chased back in the day. The bar of “how much attention you’re supposed to give me before I’ll consider you” was set in their younger days and they haven’t adjusted it.

I was hoping middle-age would be better than this, that the hormones (on both sides) would have cooled and by virtue of life experience, we’d be making better decisions by now. Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m 64? Yeah, right.

[/middle age hijack]

[Cazzle]

@Polerius

I’ve known lots of guys who were single and were not having any luck dating (short-term or long-term). I did not hear a single one of them describe himself as “I’m a nice guy, why won’t women conform to my demands and date me”.

That’s the thing though. The guys you’re talking about are nice guys, not Nice Guys. My personal rule of thumb: Self-confessed nice guys aren’t.

There are lots of nice guys who can’t get a girl for various reasons and I feel for them. Then there are the guys who say “I’m a Nice Guy. Why can’t I get a girl? I’ll tell you why: Women only like Bad Boys”. That second type is the type to steer clear of, for all the reasons others have laid out in this thread.

On online dating sites, any profiles that take the time to mention that they are single because they are nice guys not bad boys, and any profile that uses the word “princess” automatically put me off. It’s uncanny how often the two go hand-in-hand.

[dba_Fred]

Disclaimer: I am a Nice Guy, it’s true and I say it, just as I say I have blue eyes as that is also true.

Perhaps I’m going off on a tangent and if so, ignore this post.
One of the things that I have found as a Nice Guy is that I listen to the woman. Perhaps it is the because of the places I’ve frequented or the women I’ve interacted with, the women often tell tales of woe concerning the former guys in their lives. Guys who have used them, abused them, stolen from them, cheated on them, lied to them. I understand there must have been something good in the relationship for the woman to have entered into in and remained in for however long it was but generally the summation was he treated them badly/was a jerk. I also know I am only hearing one side of the story.

I, as a Nice Guy, have never used, abused stolen from, cheated on or lied to a woman. I understand that a woman would have no reason to believe me stating that initially and hope to demonstrate those qualities (as well as being interesting, humorous, helpful, non-pushy ect.) as time goes on and we get to know each other. In the majority of my cases, the woman (who is the engineer running the train) puts me on the Friendsville siding.

In reviewing the interactions afterwards (I don’t reflect much while the train is in motion), I end up asking the contrast question:
Why was she interested in the guy who treated her badly/was a jerk but not the Nice Guy/me who treated her right?

I’m too old to change (50+) but I can see that it was in the early stages of the interaction (2 weeks?) that if things aren’t getting warm with the woman, they probably won’t. Maybe it isn’t that women like bad boys, maybe it’s that the bad boys don’t show their true colors until later in the relationship.

Why yes, I do over-analyze and think too much, how did you guess? :smack:

[Crusoe]

@vandal

That’s supplication. To me, and I’m going to go out on a limb here and say to most others, that’s an unattractive quality. Knowing my partner is miserable at the expense of my own happiness is not sexy at all.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I want my wife to be happy, successful, to achieve what she wants to do in life, and to never have to fear for or want for anything. I’d also quite like those things for myself, and I’ve learned - well, am learning - that it’s my responsibility to be an emotional equal in our relationship, not to play the martyr. (My wife, unsurprisingly, had already worked that blindingly obvious point out way before me.)

[maggenpye]

@vandal

That’s supplication. To me, and I’m going to go out on a limb here and say to most others, that’s an unattractive quality. Knowing my partner is miserable at the expense of my own happiness is not sexy at all.

Supplication, that’s the word I’ve been searching for.

There was a saying doing the rounds a few years ago - “The trouble with being on a pedestal is, if you put one foot out of place, you fall.” It’s the madonna/whore dichotomy, where the woman is wonderful and saintly until she fails to live up to her admirer’s fantasy, then she’s a lying bitch who led the guy on. There’s seldom any middle ground. Unfortunately for Autocylus (and I know he’s since recanted his intent in the OP), the whole “Knight in Shining Armor” act (that he lists as a fault) plays on the premise that a woman is there to be rescued and must repay her rescuer with ‘her hand’. If she fails as Damsel in Distress, she becomes the Evil Witch.

The “Nice Guy” is a recognised "type"The first two definitions tend towards the ‘less than confident actually fairly nice guy’ who gets his heart stomped on. The third definition skewers the OP (yes, recanted)

He often targets a woman who is already in a relationship; misrepresenting his intentions of wanting to be her friend and having the expectation that he is owed more than friendship because he is such a good listener.

TV Tropes has an entry under DoggedNiceGuyNote the lines,

This very seldom works in Real Life. This is probably because most of the actions typical of this trope are actually disturbingly stalkerish if you think about them.

And, because some women can be just as stupid as some men, the gender neutral term on TV Tropes is “Stalker With a Crush”

This has turned out to be a very interesting thread. FWIW, I find Doormats and the partners who cheerfully wipe their feet on Doormats equally irritating, regardless of their gender especially when it’s me - having been on both sides of this one often enough to run, not walk away.

[Dangerosa]

@Captain_C

This is probably late to the party, but I am amazed at how many posters are opposed to having an SO who values their happiness above their own. I mean, the moment I find an SO who would do anything I wanted if it made me happy is the day I propose marriage on the spot. Blowjobs everyday and dinner on the table when I get home I say!! (to put it crudely for dark humor’s sake. This probably isn’t the thread for strawmen, so no one fall for this one. I mean it in only the lightest of senses). In all seriousness though, what exactly is the downside of this? Posters seem to have the impression that it is a bad thing to have someone who would do anything for you, and I just am not seeing why that is so wrong.

Because no one does that “just for the other person.” They do it for themselves - their happiness becomes making you happy. Its a huge burden. Would you really be happy with a woman who found no happiness other than dinner on the table and blowjobs - wouldn’t you wonder about her. If she gave up all her other friends and didn’t go out to a movie because you might want a beer from the fridge.

Its extreme, but there are men and women like this - who really do voluntarily give up everything to be with you and make you happy - I suppose when the person who wants that and the person who does that get together, its an ideal mix. I’ve been on the receiving end, and it isn’t all its cracked up to be. In part, because when you do dump them because you can no longer stand to have them standing over you to hand you toilet paper, they are crushed, they can’t function. A former boyfriend just stopped going to work, just stopped…for six months.

[accidentalyuppie]

@Autolycus

Well, to be fair to her, the first one was initially a friends night out, and the second one was a ‘we need to talk’ night. But yes, generally speaking that is a red flag.

OK

You described this as a relationship that ended with a break-up.

You had at best…two dates. Not even. The first one wasn’t a date and the second one was her way of making sure you knew you weren’t dating.

She was involved with someone else. You never had a real date, except in your head where she became you beloved and your everything. Then she disappointed you.

When I was your age, I must’ve dated dozens or guys once or twice then I didn’t go out with them anymore. I don’t consider them ex-boyfriends or failed relationships or much of anything.

You need to lighten up. And you’re really coming off as bitter, which is a turn-off.

Anyway, if everything you say is true…if she is truly happy with her boyfriend shouldn’t you be thrilled…that is, if you mean it when you say your greatest wish is for her to be truly happy.

And I will happily admit that I like “bad boys”, which I define as guys that really really and truly like women and often get themselves in trouble because of it.

I don’t think you like women at all, at least not as people.

[wonky]

@Captain_C

In all seriousness though, what exactly is the downside of this? Posters seem to have the impression that it is a bad thing to have someone who would do anything for you, and I just am not seeing why that is so wrong.

Lots of reasons:

Everything that thinks has different thoughts than I do, different wants and needs and dreams. If I want something that will hide all of those thoughts, those wants, those dreams, I want a slave or a bot. Real, healthy people don’t do that.

I don’t want to marry my parents. (Not that my parents would do anything for me, but way closer than I would be comfortable with from anyone else in the world.)

It’s infantilizing to have someone act as if I can’t be happy without them martyring themselves.

And the corollary: Martyrs ain’t sexy.

Someone who is focused on me already exists. Me. Having another person focused on me is boring.

It’s a power play, an attempt to guilt me into love.

[Carol_the_Impaler]

@Priceguy

That you have - well, “a legitimate complaint” isn’t quite right, nor is “a reason to be pissed”… let’s go with “something to bitch about” - and so do nice guys (and I use the phrase here in the outlandish sense of “guys who are nice”, not in the sense of men with the personality described by women in this thread, if those even exist in significant numbers) and maybe, just maybe, when someone decries his dating woes and wonders why he cannot attract a mate the correct answer might be “life’s not fair, I know it sucks” rather than “women don’t owe you sex, you creep”.

:smack: I can’t take it anymore. I’m out.