Cock blocking?

Post Reply New Topic

You misunderstood the context of what I was saying. You acted as if I said "nice guys finish last, so I am justified in the tantrums I threw". But I didn't say it at all. What I said was: "here is some phenomenon I was puzzled about -- the phenomenon of nice guys finishing last -- so could it be that what you said about higher standard is an explanation of that phenomenon".

And I realize that things are not absolute. If it was as absolute as it sounds, I would have landed girls each time I threw tantrums, and then I wouldn't be here complaining. So the complete picture is that, in some aspects, being nice is a good thing, and in other aspects its a bad thing. The aspects where its good are self explanatory so nobody comments on them. The aspects in which its bad are surprising -- hence they draw attention.

Anyway, what I am puzzled about is why are there any aspects of being a nice guy that are bad? And thats why I am thinking, could it be that what you said about higher standards is relevant here? If not, what is your theory?

I mean, as a scientist, I can't ignore what I see. I see it, I want to explain it -- regardless of what my own behavior will be.

Being submissive is sometimes confused with being nice.
Being submissive is not good.
Bing nice is good as long as you don't ignore your own needs or dignity.
Assertiveness is considered the right balance.

Well, the thing is that I am not throwing tantrums 24/7. Rather I throw a tantrum once, then I get ostracized for it, and all this time I am ostracized I am a nice guy.

Let me give you an example. So there was a girl I had long distance relationship with and, from some point, she started playing video games every time we were supposed to be skyping. I was the one who had to sit there and wait for her and she just kept goofing off with some guy in that game she was playing. Then, eventually, she told me that actually she did it on purpose because, two weeks "before" she started playing those games, I made some insulting comments to her in order to get out my anger at teh girl that broke up with me right before she started dating me. But she didn't react right away, because she felt like by reacting she would give me what I want, so instead she withdrew later in order to protect herself from me in case I throw another tantrum.

So who was closer to the nice person here? Me, who just threw tantrum a long time ago and totally forgot about it, or her who kept goofing off and playing video games? That, plus also when I threw tantrum I apologized. But she didn't apologize for playing video games, she kept sticking to it.

When I think of a nice guy I think of someone who has good intentions but too weak to do anything. When I did something in the past that I regret it puts me in this position. My past behavior doesn't reflect my current intentions. My current intentions is to undo it -- which I seem "too weak" to do -- due to that girl being "stronger than me".

And incidentally if we were to go back to the question I asked in this post, if you look strictly at the situation with giving me a ride, I was the one acting like a nice guy (being too shy to say what I actually want) and those guys acting like jerks by having that conversation in front of me. I don't even *know* if it had anything to do with my tantrums those other days. Unlike that girl I dated -- they didn't come out and tell me that. At the same time, I "do" know they were talking about me in the third person in front of me -- which is certainly isn't nice -- and then pushed the idea of taking me in their car -- which is not nice either. Now, is it "possible" it had something to do with my tantrums? Well, if that girl playing video games had to do with tantrums -- which I never would of guessed if she didn't tell me -- then everything is possible. But I still don't "know" it. In any case, its a really interesting food for thought in terms of niceness. In some sense I am nicer than those guys since I regret my tantrums yet they don't regret their behavior.

Even though the two things aren't the same, they do have "something" in common. Being submissive means allowing others to have their way. Most people want to have their way. So you are allowing them to have what they want. Now, giving people what they want is nice, isn't it.

The thing you need to add to the model is called boundaries.
You are or aren't "nice" to people depending on how much it costs you.

Well, having boundaries isn't very nice. If you take most of the time when I felt hurt by the rejection, the girls that rejected me were saying that they were just keeping their boundaries -- yet that is the exact way they hurt me.

I don't know enough context in which it was said to evaluate what they meant.

No, I don't think so. I think they just offered you a ride.

If you cussed out at me over f-book, I would block you and yes, this is how boundaries work. You don't allow behaviors you find unacceptable and I find cussing at me or throwing adult tantrums at me unacceptable.

I think it's possible QFT that you are not grasping how your behaviour affects others.
Submission is annulling yourself, your needs, for another's benefit, this is usually giving in at your own personal detriment. This is not considered a good thing by psychologists, who claim that awareness of your own likes and dislikes and determining your own personal boundaries is paramount to our mental and emotional well being.
If someone upsets me, it makes an imprint on my mind, like it is stored in my "hard disk" and it surfaces again when I interact with them the next time. So if you were to have a tantrum in my presence, or that was directed at me, it would leave a warning imprint in my mind that would surface the next time we met, sending me a subliminal warning to beware of you.

Now, if you would say to me "I'm sorry for last time we met, I had a meltdown/tantrum because I'm autistic, it was nothing personal," then I for one one would put it behind me. If not, I would avoid you because people like to be treated well.
I just broke up with a guy who could not respect my boundaries or even his own. I got tired of submitting. People don't have to give you lifts, they don't owe you anything. Respect cannot be demanded only earned. Why don't you try asking more questions and then you will understand the dynamic of the interaction more. Memorize phrases of gratitude and flattery. Even if it's insincere at least you won't antagonise people unintentionally. If someone "cussed" me I would also block them, how is that not clear?

I believe:

If one seeks to adhere to a "higher standard," people who have similar "higher standards" will respond to you.

I mean....more in terms of how you conduct yourself, and how you express disagreement....rather than academic accomplishments. And how direct you are (but in a diplomatic way). And how you are straightforward, rather than a game-player.

You can express vociferous disagreement without insulting the person, or throwing a tantrum. You can say that you don't agree with an idea, or an action---and make it known that you don't agree. You can say, "I really don't agree with so and so."

There are some people who don't mind tantrum-throwers, and arrogant sorts in general. Either they are arrogant themselves, or they will seek to "change you." Women who are arrogant, and only seek to change you, are not what you want (unless, of course, you are into this sort of thing. If you are into this sort of thing, it's 'you make your bed. Now you must lie in it').

I know it won't be good for me; but it would be good for the girl I date Hence the question: why wouldn't the girl want to date a nice guy if dating him is in her best interest?

Now, what seems to be a common sense is this: "yes, being a nice guy will help me get a girl -- but it wouldn't be in my best interest since I would sacrifice too much of other things". Yet this isn't how it works in reality. In reality, being a nice guy would stand in a way of getting a girl, too, and thats what I don't get.



Actually, I told that girl I had Asperger from the outset, long before I had tantrums. The way it started was that she told me that herself and her friend are studying to be speech therapists. My answer to that was "I have Asperger Syndrome; now, as speech therapists, would you be able to tell that I have it". Their answer was no -- but probably they were just trying to be nice. So then I went on to complain about my social problems and why nobody talks to me. Now, one of them continued to hang around with me while the other one didn't. So the one that continued to hang around was the one that ended up becoming my punching bag since I assumed she knows this whole context.

In any case, its interesting that you said in your case telling about Asperger helps, because my impression seems to be the opposite. I remember few conversations (not with that girl, but with other people) where I asked why don't people talk to me and they answered was that they aren't sure how to talk to someone with Asperger and I was like why not treat me like normal.

Now, thats what I was hearing the past couple of decades. But if I were to go back to the 90-s then it was different. Back in the 90-s when I said I had Asperger I was told one of those three things: "what is that", "you don't look autistic to me", "its not an excuse". I realize that those answers also imply that telling about it doesn't "help", but the good thing is that it didn't hurt either -- in contrast to right now when it does. Sometimes I wonder why did I have better time in socializing back in the 90-s. I guess three things come to mind:

1. One is that I wasn't bitter, which means

a) Since in the 90-s I didn't care what people think I never threw any tantrums at all. When people got mad at me, I would laugh. Now, purposely making people mad as a joke and laughing about it isn't good either -- but maybe its better than throwing tantrums?
b)In the 90-s I asked questions about them, while right now I constantly talk about myself. Well, my questions about other people were rather rude and nousy and everyone were irritated with me (which was one of the things that would make me laugh) but maybe its better than what I am doing now -- which is constantly talking about myself all the time.
c) In the 90-s I approached people in order to ask then aforementioned annoying questions. On the other hand right now I never approach anyone: I wait for others to approach me since I want self validation in this form, and then get frustrated when nobody does
d) In the 90-s I smiled a lot, while right now people tell me I don't ever smile.

2. In the 90s I was much younger and people treat younger people differently.

3. Back in the 90s Asperger was unheard of, while right now everyone knows what it is, so they are judging me by my label.

I really wonder whether or not 3 (the one about the fact that people never heard of Asperger) is part of the reason. If so, then people are opposite to you: with you knowledge about Asperger helps, with them it does the opposite.



I think you didn't read carefully enough what I wrote. I didn't say that anyone "refused" to give me a lift. I said the opposite: that I had two offers of a lift instead of just one.

Or are you saying that the girl refused to give me a lift at the time when I couldn't hear her -- as in I stepped away somewhere and she said to those guys "hey would you please give him a lift instead of me" -- and then when I came back she "pretended" as if she still wanted to give me a lift in order for me not to be mad at her? Is this what you think has happened?



I thought I am asking them now.

Are you basically saying that there are two groups of women, one likes the guys that are mature and the other likes the ones that are immature. So I have to be either fully-mature to get women from one group or fully-immature to get women from the other group; but if I am neither of the two then I won't get women from either group and stay single. Since I have Ph.D. I can't be fully-immature, so I have to shoot for being fully mature?

Because it isn't. Dating a doormat is not in her best interest and probably most women intuitively know it.
And don't fall into the "either a doormat or a jerk" concept because a healthy person is neither.

Why isn't dating a doormat (of any gender) good? Because not caring for your own needs makes you chronically unhappy and living with someone chronically unhappy is horrible. Sooner or later the denied needs will surface in completely uncontrolled forms, as bouts, drama, tantrums, passive agression, sometimes mental illness...

There is the plane oxygen mask analogy: you first put on your mask and then you can help others. Otherwise everybody suffocates because you will be unable to really help without your own mask.
So, you first care for your own mental health, your own fundamental needs that make you functional. Then, you can care for others.

You win this badge:

It’s better to find a woman who has the values expressed by Magz and Teach.

Women who are capable of transcending stereotypes and games.

While I don't feel typical as a person/woman, I don't have a feeling of being isolated with this kind of values.
Basic respect for fellow human beings may be rare on dating sites but I don't find it rare in my everyday life.