Look out! It's a Nice Guy! DESTROY HIM!!

Post Reply New Topic

Fine. But don't say 'you said' or 'you wrote' when it's not true.



I didn't say it's not possible. Indeed, it is completelly possible. But you have to choose. You can't have it all. You can't enjoy freedom and a special status at the same time.



Yeap. But friends and partners are not equivalent. Usually there's no requirements for friendship. At least, I don't have them, as long as I'm having a good time with this person and he/she is treating me honestly.

Partners are different. To be a partner, a man is generally required to have some attributes: self-confidence, capacity as a provider, status job, social status, some optional additional element (artistic skill, sense of humour, beauty, intelligence) and so. And the issue is: when you require something, you must offer something in exchange. Women are requiring specific attributes to date a man. It's fair to wonder what they offer in exchange.



Ok. That's right. But now let's say: you're car dealer and you're selling a product for 120% of their value. If people agree to pay this quantity, it's normal that there's a reason for it. For example: you have an amazing post-sales service. And then you can charge an additional cost.

If women have been marrying up the whole history and men agreed, that's because being a woman involved to have an additional value. You didn't have to prove your worth succeeding or whatever. Women were only supposed to look pretty (make up) and smile, and that was enough. Men were the ones that had to prove their worth, to protect and provide. But women had to accept to be locked and controlled.

Now you can think that this is unfair, and you want to compete and prove your worth as a woman and not to be controlled. And that's Ok. But then... well, then the deal has changed. You don't have this 'female status' anymore, and you must adapt to it. In the possitive side, you have freedom. In the negative one, you have to offer more... to get the same.

Women, in general, want to keep the privileges they traditionally had: marrying up, being the ones that decides house rules, and so. And here is where the deal becomes unfair. And when men start to go back.



Thanks, dude.

Well, I think this is a very important paragraph:

Of course, we can't force people to do what they don't want to do. But I think you agree with me that something there is terribly wrong.

You wonder why they don't find a partner, in your own words: 'And I dont understand as well, why its so hard for them'.

Well, the answer is they are not good enough. It looks hard, but that's the truth: they're not good enough. They to try harder, they have to be even better: learn to dance, learn to play a musical instrument, get even a better job, dress better, get a expensive car, be more interesting, be cooler, get more life/travel experiences, get a six-pack, and so.

And I think, it would be reasonable for them to wonder: all this effort, for what, exactly?

You said:



And that's wonderful. This is how things should be. You find somebody who is a very very great friend of you and have something special and it's a person who is willing to give his/her best and to work hard to create a family. That should be enough.

But it is not. And that's the problem.

Let me give an example: in my country, getting a civil-servant job is very hard. People study for years (yeap, years) to pass an examen that is specific for a kid of civil-servant job. If you don't pass, all those years are wasted. Sometimes there's one job per 100 or even 1000 people in the exam.

When a guy/girl gets the civil-servant, he/she says 'Ok, I did enough, now it's time to slow down and relax'. If you ask too much, people will wonder what they get in exchange, or they can say 'fine, I did enough, I got a good job, I brought money, I went to the bloody gym every day, I overcome my shyness, I learnt to be self-confident, I got a good car, I learnt to dance, I played in a band, I become successful, so now... now I want to sit down in the couch with some chips and beers and just don't bother me'.



That's a fair point, and you're right. Anyway, my experience is that indeed there's nice girls over 30, though not many, and they're all commited. What's your case, no surprise here. But the majority of women out there are not like that.

dang,ugly and geeky guys just can't win. if a guy was attractive or had good social skills and was nice,the same way the
so-called nice guy was,he get laid.

funny,being nice to ladies doesn't entitle you to sex,
yet ladies want the guys to ask them out,take them to dinner,
pay for their dinner,buy them flowers,do all these romantics thing for them.
so,being nice does not entitle a man to sex.
so why do women want men to do all these nice thing for them,anyways.

The whole thing about "nice guys finish last" and all that is overrated. I'm a "nice guy" according to some yet I've had women of varying attractiveness (even beautiful women) and confidence interested in me, some initiated the chat and flirting, others showed outward interest. I didn't think that was possible but it happened. That may sound like ego there but I only want to make a point.

I think the problem if you're a "geeky" or "shy" is that you either aren't in contact with a lot of people or you lack the initiative or confidence to do something about it (or skills and issues with connections if you have an ASD), but you're not completed excluded from dating or having a relationship (or whatever.. ) by some womens concencus declaring you undatable. I mean, women are capable of independent thought.

There is even such an idea that "nice girls finish last" too but I really don't think a fella is going to have an issue being attracted to a nice girl, shy girl or geek girl and decide to exclude them as a possible dating option.

It's all just a wonderful way to sell pop psychology.

When nice guys are told that they have to be nice in order to obtain a date or get a girlfriend I think I know where the issues lies. This is only a necessary condition but it is not a sufficient condition. It is a lot more than just being nice. It is a misinterpretation of the advice being given. This being a necessary condition but insufficient condition is not outwardly stated but implied.

It is a similar situation with those who graduated college but can't get a job. Kids were told they had to get a degree to go to college for all of their lives. What was told may be a necessary condition but it does not mean it is sufficient.

In the nice guy TM's mind they feel they did earn it. Therein lies the problem. Au contraire, what they didn't realize is they only met one necessary component which is insufficient. For whatever reason, they did not pick up that there were other necessary components that together would make it sufficient.

I am one of those guys who has a hard time getting a girlfriend, and yet I hate Nice Guys. Their "nice" facade notwithstanding, they are even more misogynistic than Islamic fundamentalists. Which is rather ironic when you critically examine the issue, since the main reason anyone would consider "bad boys" sexy in the first place is because of a sexist patriarchy's idealization of male dominance. The misogyny that Nice Guys champion is shooting them in the foot.

Hah! Two very similar misunderstandings that people would be much happier if they simply knew what was being implied.

Of course, being nice doesn't leave you with five-figure debt.

I believe this is the answer for both of these scenarios. I don't think it is a sense of entitlement like the feminists think. A sense of entitlement means that one believes he deserves something that is unearned. Because of misunderstanding of what was taught and said they believe they did earn these things. They have to be shown that they did not and they misunderstood.

Kjas, I think you are wrong on this. I think their anger comes from their frustration of following what they thought was right and obtaining negative results every time and wondering why and no one would tell them.

So in the end I did watch the video plus 10 pages of posts for being late but there is place for interesting discussion, and I noticed some possible misunderstandings that could use some clarification. Some have already been mentioned, but a recap could still be useful.

First of all, if we don't have an idea of what being "nice" means then we won't get anywhere. Someone mentioned nice being equals to kind, respectful and empathetic; that's one way to see things, but the meaning of "nice" that is most used in this kind of discussion is agreeable, bland, unassertive, not very confident, and generally boring. A guy who tries to please everybody around him hoping they will do the same in return, a hope that is really unsubstantiated.
Also, what entitlement means is not feeling entitled to sex right away, that would be kinda stupid, what it means is the belief that if I do nice things for someone then she is in the obligation to pay me back.

Now to the video: the lady made some fair points. I've read some feminist blogs and sites, and man they really love to spew vitriol at nice guys! And in this specific case, at men who complain about being friendzoned. And in doing so, they are grossly generalizing, thinking all guys would complain about that for the same reasons. Sure, some guys DO complain because they believe after all their work at pleasing someone they should get something in return and get angry when that doesn't happen, this is the stereotypical nice guy, but that doesn't happen all the time. There are also legitimate reasons to be bummed out by not having one's romantic aspirations reciprocated, the woman mentioned one in her video, so verbally destroying all such guys is indiscriminate, and the sarcastic style of some such bloggers gets old too Besides, although that kind of nice guys do exist, I don't believe they should be screeched at, another good point made by the video was that these bloggers lack compassion. Many such nice guys are actually rather clueless of what they're doing wrong, and something that cubedemon mentioned above, the ones who become bitter do so because they keep not getting the results they want and become frustrated and have absolutely no idea of what are they doing wrong.

Well, that is wrong too. Women are not entitled to dinner and flowers and romantic things either. And men are not entitled to sex after doing nice things.

And to generalize the above, there could be cases where women are at fault too, like the example where a woman took advantage of a nice guy and made him "her b**ch". But that doesn't justify men doing the same, it means steps should be taken from both sides.

EXTERMINATE THE NICE GUY!! ! EXTERMINATE!! ! EXTERMINATE!! !!.......

Off the cuff observation on this point: Women aren't entitled to "romantic" gestures, but it won't play well for the guy if there are four others who willingly offer them. In the early dating time frame, most people are on their best behavior and looking to impress. The first date has been compared to a job interview quite often because of this fact. You usually hear about more competition for the ladies than vice versa (correct me if I'm wrong), so it could be a simple matter of supply and demand. Unfair to men-yes, unless they move to an area where available men are a minority.

Thoughts?

Entitlement is a bad word - how many fellas who are nice to women really think that "entitles" them to anything. You don't see a fella demanding a date or anything else just because they were nice to a woman. Actually, that's a very anti-"nice guy" thing to do. It makes no sense at all. Yeah maybe they hope that will happen (which is not entitlement at all), or maybe (and more likely) they're just naturally nice and there isn't an alterier motive rather just an automatic thing that they do when they find a woman attractive, which is part of how they have been conditioned. The way people act and think is heavily impacted by mental conditioning.

an entitle man is a fat rude guy who think he deserve a female model,just because he exist
and he doesn't have to do anything.

no entitle man would ever try to be nice,or do nice things for a women.
because he doesn't beleive he should have to.

That's an interesting view - I guess there are people like that.

Yes. It's true. I have only ever gotten away with ignoring the ridiculous NT dating rules when I was much better-looking and much more attractive in other ways than my date. If we're nearly equal, there's no way it would work.

I'm surprised there is this apparent competition for the "ladies." After all, the world has more women than men, and there are more gay men than gay women. So how does it work exactly?