A good article for all you "nice guys" that you sh
Realize that doing nice things for someone, in itself will not make them fall in love with you. Attraction, and forming such bonds with someone, is a far more complex process than that and has both environmental, social, and biological components. This is summarized by the saying "you can't buy love".
While you can take certain steps to reduce the chance of being unattractive to someone (see the threads on how not to be creepy and so on), there's nothing you can do to ensure a particular woman will find you attractive. When one person is attractive to another, it's usually a combination of physical features, personality, and biology (hormones/phermones). So I can only tell you what you can do to reduce your chances of repelling women.
Here's where you are wrong. I don't know if you actually have "nice guy syndrome" but those who do frequently deem men who do not treat women as well as they think they do, as being jerks. They think if a man ever says no to a woman or demands she afford him the respect one should afford those they care about, then he is a jerk. It is not a binary thing where you are either a pushover or a Jersey Shore douchebag. You want to find that place in the middle called "mutually respectful relationship".
As a woman...and perhaps I'm the odd one out here, but I don't like to be treated as some divine being treated differently just because of my sex, when it's not relevant to certain sex based things. For example, I'm physically weaker, so it would be reasonable for a male friend or boyfriend to help me move something heavy, however a well intending man once intervened in a heated debate I was having with another man, telling him he shouldn't speak "that way" to a woman, and I found it quite insulting, as I am only physically weaker than men, not intellectually weaker. If he wanted to take sides, he should have defended my points with logic, not me as a woman with mis-placed chivalry. I really just like to be treated with the respect one should afford another person regardless of their sex. In the context of a relationship, people generally treat each other with a higher level of respect.
Perhaps an easier thing is to express your needs, such as when you're hungry, tired, not feeling well...women like to know these things and can frequently determine your boundaries based on them.
Again, this is a misconception commonly held by those with "nice guy syndrome". Do you think every man in a relationship always gives their girlfriend or woman exactly what she wants? In fact, as can be seen, men who always give women what they say they want, at any inconvenience to them, usually end up as the bitter, lonely "nice guy". A better question might be, do you think all women always know exactly what they want? No. But what men without "nice guy syndrome" have that men with it don't, is the ability to gauge when she really wants what she says she wants, or when it's negotiable.
Again, it comes back to being able to gauge boundaries, needs, limits, and so on.
There are aspects of relationships where both parties need to come to a mutual agreement, or one needs to submit to the other whether they agree or not. This is usually on important life decisions. But on more philosophical discussions, you don't always have to come out agreeing with her. People should ideally consider the point of the other before striking it down, but in the end, you can agree to disagree. If you actually hold some world views that she has a major problem with, then perhaps you two aren't actually right for each other.
Again, it comes back to being able to gauge boundaries, needs, limits, and so on.
Doesn't gauging those things require a lot of non-verbal communication? I would imagine that gauging those things would be difficult for aspies.
The funny thing is I'm not even that nice, just shy. Sometimes it bugs me when people assume shy guys are nice because not all of them are.
_________________
"The less I know about other people's affairs, the happier I am. I'm not interested in caring about people. I once worked with a guy for three years and never learned his name. The best friend I ever had. We still never talk sometimes."
For me, it has nothing to do with chivalry. I just happen to think that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I fully realize that no one, man or woman, is perfect. But together, we (meaning me and whoever would actually take me) could be just that much closer to perfect.
Again, it comes back to being able to gauge boundaries, needs, limits, and so on.
In case you didn't notice, I didn't use the dichotomy of nice guys/jerks like most people do (okay, I used "Jersey Shore douchebag" once, but not in this particular argument). Here, I said that I have to be perfect, or else women will leave for better men. I know that I have practically no value to women, whereas other men do. That's why they get women when I don't.
Yeah, I agree with this statement. Just because you don't actively do bad things doesn't mean you're a good guy. It just means that there is no benefit to being bad.
Lots of young people sacrifice thier good standing with authority in order to gain favor of thier peers. However, if your social skills are so bad your peers reject you anyway, then what's the point of making life harder by causing trouble?
I sense a lot of denial and defensiveness in the thread.
That article sounds like every guy I've dated. While they may not have been nice guys in reality, they certainly thought they were. And they made most if not all those mistakes with me too, and of course, that I reacted badly to those things was all my fault as well.
The pedestal thing has always been the most irksome. And again, when I've failed to lived up to his completely imaginary, unrealistic and narrow idea of who I'm suppose to be, I've somehow lied and deceived him. Yeah, I love that one. That was what made me break off my engagement. He was shocked and horrified to find out that I have emotional baggage that predated our relationship, especially in the "angry to suppressed rage" range. One night, he more or less told me I shouldn't be angry at this or that thing, because he thought it was inappropriate of me and because he couldn't handle the idea that I had an emotional history that didn't involved him. I told him that I'll be as angry as I need to be, and then I handed him back the ring.
I can't tell you how many guys I've dated or been friends with who essentially are looking for a woman with no baggage and no past. Just a vague ideal they can adore and not have to contend with as another fully-fledged human being with a past and a mind of her own who they have to learn to love. This pedestal thing is really just ego--an ideal takes up less space in a relationship than a full human person, and that means more room for their ego and their needs. It's also a lot safer than loving another human being.
And don't think for a second that ASD guys don't pull this kind of crap either.
This isn't what the pedistal thing means. It's the extreme humility a man has toward a woman because he's so focused on his own faults, he can't realize hers. Being "nice" is the only way he feels worthy enough to talk to her.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Nice article about Daryl Hannah |
22 Nov 2024, 6:39 pm |
Do you have a nice laugh |
16 Nov 2024, 12:53 am |
Article on Being Flaky |
11 Oct 2024, 8:56 am |
DAE notice how bad guys are made neurodivergent in media? |
06 Oct 2024, 10:54 pm |