The Cure for Nice Guy Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

I think this whole "nice guy" thing is so terrible. It seems like a lot of misogynists like this term. And a lot of people think they are "nice" who aren't.

Some people just view each other as friends, men or women. No one is attracted to every member of the opposite sex or same sex.

If you want to wait for marriage to have sex, that's fine. But it's not for everyone. You don't have wait until marriage to not view sex as something one is entitled to. One thing I don't like about this "nice guys" meme, is that guys who are mean and controlling use it to justify being a mean jerk. Most people prefer nice people, but a lot of people who identify as "nice guys" are mean jerks that a lot of women don't want to be with.

People should never pressure anyone into sex or a relationship that they don't want. It's not a nice guy thing to do to pressure and be controlling. And someone you like not liking you back doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you or them. It just means that you're not compatible, and that's fine. Nobody is attractive to everyone.

I like the part of the story where you played starcraft.

Ayup.. people that treat women with love and respect are the misogynists. Chivalry? Very anti-woman!

"An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous,
but one whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked." proverbs 29:27

It's crazy how much this thread seems to confirm the bible, if you're going ot be loved by this world you're not going not be loved by him.

But you know what? I'm never going to change no matter how much you hate me, I have something much better than this worlds affection, and that's also what most other nice guys have, and why they should never change no matter how much life hurts them.

Most people have many unconscious thoughts. Become more conscious & present and control your own thoughts. Learn to do it. Read books about it i.e. The Power of Now and A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle. Use meditation techniques etc. It's entirely possible to become more present and less unconscious in your thinking.

If thoughts are causing you depression/anxiety then you know they're fundamentally faulty and need to be changed. Work on learning how to change them.

By acknowledging that the thoughts are faulty and then replacing them with sound thoughts - consciously catching them, intentionally changing them.

By pure will alone it's possible, but guidance is definitely good. Read some books. Read "Feeling Good," by Dr. David Burns & utilize some CBT techniques.

It's difficult to misinterpret help if it's communicated effectively. That's why a lot of this sort of help has been put into writing in books. If you're open to learning it, it's there to be learned and difficult to deny or misinterpret. If you don't learn anything from it, read it again.

No. Thoughts are thoughts. People can learn to control them. There's no outside framework that limits your thoughts or your ability to control them.

No. One ability to control their thoughts isn't predetermined by what you understand. Everyone has the ability to learn to control their thoughts much better than they do by learning the same knowledge and utilizing the same techniques.

Further to this, sometimes outside influences to change/control thoughts - i.e. chemical influences. A couple of years ago I had horrible thoughts. Turned out to be caused by salicylate acid sensitivity and I had to detox the acids. Doing so improved my thoughts immensely. But just like learning to control your thoughts, I had to be open to the possibility that there was something I could do to change/improve my thoughts and then just keep learning and trying until I figured out what it was and how to do it vs. accepting horrible thoughts as my status quo. Where there's a will there's a way, if people want to be more in control of their thoughts and emotions there are multiple ways to improve. They just have to keep learning, keep trying, keep practicing & never give up and resign themselves to the unconscious control of automatic negative thoughts that limit their ability to enjoy life.

I don't know where I commented on love and respect. Or chivarly. So I'm a little bit confused.

But I think that love and respect is great. I think being a nice guy is great. Just not controlling or entitled. Or assuming that there's a problem if someone doesn't find you attractive. One woman finding a guy unattractive only speaks for the experience of one woman.

As for chivalry, that's a complicated matter. On the one hand, yes, chivalry is sexist. And on the other hand, yes, women should certainly be treated with respect, just not for chivalrous reasons.

And also on the other hand is the assumption that men who treat women with love and respect are doing so for chivalrous reasons. Like the MRAs who call men "white knights" for simply treating women with the love and respect they deserve, and as being equal to men. As if a man would only treat women with respect and as equals, or be against the misogynistic and unequal attacks on many women, without having sexual ulterior reasons for feeling and doing so. As if a man wouldn't respect and treat a woman with respect without wanting to have sex with her. Which is also kind of sexist, that a man is being chivalrous or cares what a woman finds attractive when being respectful to women.

But respecting women and being chivalrous are not the same thing. Respecting women is great. Being chivalrous is not.
But again I don't understand how we got onto this topic since I didn't say anything about it. Not having sex until marriage is not the same as respecting women or not. Some people want to be virgins and some people don't. Some people want to wait until marriage for sex, and some don't. Where one is overstepping their bounds is when, for instance, people slut shame women for having sex outside of marriage or having multiple partners. Or when people pressure women into sex with the "nice guy" guilting sort of thing. After all, no one is entitled to sex, whether you're married, or anything at all. Sex is supposed to be a mutual thing. So is attraction.

Sex or marriage or attraction or anything has nothing to do with you being "too nice". I'm sure it is a part of what people find attractive. And some people are masochists and sadists and so forth, and some people like different kinds of personality types. But a woman who really doesn't like "nice guys", and actually guys who are nice, is not an example of all women. All women and men like different things.

I don't understand where Christianity or religion play a part in this. Or chivalry. Women should definitely be respected. Though I don't think you have to be religious to respect women. And I know it's a bit of a stereotype of autistic people to be really into and in love with logic. And atheist. But I'm afraid I'm not very religious. So I don't get the whole Bible or Christianity argument. I understand if you're Christian and I don't care that much whether it's logical or illogical to believe in God. But I don't think that religion needs to come into this argument. And I think that you can respect women whether you're religious or not. :/ Or whether you wait until marriage for sex or not.

Sex, like anything personal. Is a personal decision. And everyone should be respected for their personal tastes and decisions.
And this really isn't the place to promote religion. And I mean that in the most respectful way I can.

All I ask is that people respect women's autonomy and that they are different. Some women are into nice guys, and some aren't. And that they shouldn't be pressured into being sexual or not sexual. Nor should anyone.

I have no religion in me, yet I believe strongly in chivalry in the modern conception of the term. During medieval days "chivalry" involved ritualized courtship.

Goldfish21, I will read your stuff but will you read what I have to say here.

http://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.c ... /attitude/
http://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.c ... urs-truly/

If my logic is fallacious in anyway will you or anyone else show me?


What I do not understand is this. What is the fundamental basis and reasoning for this extreme internal locus of control people have? What is the underlying logic to this? How exactly is one in complete control of his life? How is this true in all cases? What are the premises that support this conclusion?

How do I have control over my life if one does not live in a vacuum? I am bound not only by the laws of society and the social veneer I am bound by the laws of time and space?

In detail, what is the extent of one's control?

Why is it unacceptable to blame any external entities no matter the circumstance? What is the logic that makes internal locus of control absolute?

You said "No. One ability to control their thoughts isn't predetermined by what you understand. Everyone has the ability to learn to control their thoughts much better than they do by learning the same knowledge and utilizing the same techniques. "

Why is the answer no? If a person doesn't know he can control his thoughts, doesn't even know thoughts are controllable and doesn't even know he has faulty thoughts then how can one truthfully change or control his thoughts at all? If one is dealing in a set of unknown, unknowns then how can one truthfully act upon anything he does not even know that he doesn't even know?

If one thinks he is doing good but the outcome turns out to be evil according to others then what exactly is good and what is evil? How can one do good for himself and others and avoid evil if one knows not what good and evil are? If one is ignorant about different then how does one truthfully control his thoughts in an absolute way as claimed? The nice guy believes he is doing good but is he not ignorant as to what good is?

So how does one always have control of all thoughts possible if one is ignorant of many matters at hand? I don't follow your train of thought and I am very confused.

Is it possible that the root of all evil including nice guy syndrome is ignorance meaning ignorance of virtue and how to relate and treat each other in a virtuous manner?

In math, there is more than one base numbered system. Most people only know about the base 10 number system. In the base 2 number system 1 + 1 <> 2.

Within the confines of regular mathematics x/0 is undefined but in calculus using limits you can do certain things which enable one to divide by 0. Metaphorically, My point is one's thinking is only as free as the subset and constraints allow him to be.

You said that misogynists tend to like to use the term nice guy', which is what prompted my response, I feel like many people in this thread are trying to paint nice guys as something that they're not, a guy that's nice to women just because he's looking for sex will soon show his true colors, and eventually he comes to understand that the thing that most humans love isn't niceness, it's power. Fastest way to get sex? Pay for it, and in some relationships the exchange isn't as frank, but it's there on some level or another.

Nice guys have nothing to gain by being nice, but they'd have everything to gain by shedding it off, so they shouldn't be confused with jerks or the less savory types, I mentioned the bible because this a very common point that it makes, people that are nice and good are going to be undermined becuase they're detested by the world, this is where the hatred for 'nice guys' is coming from in this thread, they're being painted as people only concerned with sex, all the while they're the sole ones going without sex, for the simple reason that they don't define a relationship as sex.

If you say so, man. I'm just telling you what I've experienced each and every time. I've never seen a case where (especially a guy) was direct and it had paid off. Being direct is mistaken as being desperate. Everything is backwards these days. Nice is mean, mean is nice, smart is stupid.

This is tangential, but I seem to remember someone mentioning, possibly in this thread that he knew a bunch of man-children who were in relationships. A lot of people like to pretend like this doesn't happen, but it does. I know of one particularly standout example, a 24-year-old man who throws a tantrum whenever somebody so much as asks him a question. This same guy tells sob stories all the time and is just generally dickish. I mean, if he was in a movie, he'd be the main villain of it for sure. However, this particular "man" gets women who have their own place, a good job, and are pleasant to be around. No real baggage. No real drama. He can usually keep them for a couple years or more, too, which defies all logic. Before you ask, no, he doesn't put on a veneer of being nice. He treats everyone like utter s**t. But you'd have to be crazy to deny that this crap happens. It happens. People are human, but by god, are they stupid. They like drama, which is why guys like this get picked over anybody else. It happens the same way with men. They'll usually pick the most drama-ridden woman.

My solution for the whole dating game was just to drop out of it. I feel better for having done so.

Last edited by CynicalWaffle on 15 May 2014, 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

^^^i think this would classify as a cry-wank.

What the heck is a cry-wank?

Urban Dictionary: cry-wank

I like it to. I wasn't about to let her "no" ruin my good day. My opinion, don't let any woman or man, culture, belief, or someone else's agenda ruin your good day. For me, it was a cathartic relief. If someone's agenda is going to ruin your good day then why let it ruin your good day. I took control of the situation and my actions. This is my cure for nice guy syndrome.

I actually won a few levels.

My cure is f**k it, Who cares?

Instead of making ad-hominem attacks how about refute his argument. Where is his fallacy?

Don't completely drop out of it but put it on the lowest of your totem pole and just enjoy life. Screw all this BS. I was lucky to find a lovely wife. I won't guarantee you will find anyone or not find anyone. It could happen. Just simply enjoy your life and quit worrying about stupid BS.

Am I missing something here? Did you just classify all nice guys, and possibly any Christian as self-loathing masturbators? Or just the guy who stated his point?