This "nice guys vs jerks" nonsense has to stop.

Post Reply New Topic

Because you seem to think that it is a matter of being nice to have sex with someone; it isn't, at least for the greatest majority of people that I encountered. If someone wants to have sex with me, it is flattering - but that doesn't mean that I'm going to do so because of their needs, as it would run counter to my own needs and desires (unless the desire between my friend and I was mutual). It is NOT the same as asking for a ride to friend's house. Gads, that is rather distasteful to me.


M.

But that's just it Sunshower, for me good friends are those whom I CAN trust enough to reveal almost anything about myself to. And I seem to fall into an all-or-none pattern where I either am just very casual friends with someone, and hang out a few times for shared activities without any depth, or I feel like I really start to understand the person (and vice versa) and that's when it lasts. I'm talking about male friends mostly here, since that's mainly what I have.

The kind of feelings based on deep friendship are different from what I consider deep sexual or romantic attraction, which is much more passionate and exciting but does not need, and in fact seems to be suppressed by, the kind of mental and personal familiarity needed for real friendship. Many NTs seem to feel these together as part of "true love", an emotion that possibly due to my AS and/or my age and experience level I can totally not imagine.

So I think in some sense we feel the same way, except with me it plays out in the opposite direction. In my case, I want friends whom I can be really honest about how I feel. Once I have broken through that shell, or even feel like I'm starting to break through it, I also have the urge to experiment sexually. This explains why the closer a friend I get with a girl, the less physically attractive she needs to be in order to arouse the same interest to experiment--and the fact that I could see being sexual with someone based almost exclusively on mutual understanding. This type of sex would not be the same as I'd have with an intense crush or something, but I'm still drawn to it.

while we are on the topic of s*x....

I am speaking for myself, but it may apply to some women and maybe some men too.

sex is like taking a s**t. It is normal and natural and releves an urge. It is using another human's body to masterbate - I don't see the big whoop.

love (and even its flighty cousin, lust), on the other hand, is enhanced by physical and emotional intimancy. Because the couple cares more about pleasing each other, both are pleased. The "yin-yang symble represents this union. The result is multiple orgasms and multi-layered orgasms as well. If the couple establishes mutual trust and safety, it genders partnership accross all aspects of life. Most people forget that it needs to be constantly nurtured and fed, like a fire, and so neglected it dies - but when you got it, it definately is a big, giant whoop!!

Because the world is a much better place when people care about each other. You don’t know how that person ended up there or why they put themselves in a position of degrdation. Why would you judge and sentence her?

Men raping men is thought to be very under-reported but it does happen. If you were vulnerable, then raped – it would be alright; you deserved it after all?



That behavior maims & kills others – it is man slaughter at the very least. A drunk woman is only harming heself, self-medicating away emotional pain perhaps to the point of addiction.



I totally agree with you that drunkiness leads to bad things, but your view on the double standard appears to be uninformed – perhaps that’s ToM talking for you.

One example of the double standard is me advocating for strong, independent women (not saying you have to be one) and being called andrognous, accused of having lost my penis, a man-hater, and being told that I deserve sexism and violence. I have seen these jabs by the authors of these statements on other threads. Which way do you want it folks?

And no, unconsenual sex is NEVER acceptible. If a man does not like the way a woman is conducting herself he can arrange for assisstance (ask the bouncer or police to take her someplace safe) or just walk away - but vulnerability, chemical or physical, is no excuse for rape. Rape is an act of violence not sexual expression.


Asolutely, Zornslemma, It seems to all boil down to the superficial…..

But are you going to be part of the problem or part of the solution?

I finally got around to reading the rest of your post, and I have to say it's quite troubling. Even if they set the bar really low, they still have the final say on whom they go home with and on what terms they sleep with someone. Though they might not be picky about the partner's attractiveness, they may still insist on using protection during sex (for example). So rape doesn't suddenly stop being rape just because the woman has slept with two other guys during the same week.

Exactly!
But sex can be used as a form of currency by women(as in sexual favor trading which STILL takes place in certain social circles but thats another story ) but that means that YOU my friend have to have something to offer that a woman would actually want! If you are attractive to her than that means that sex isnt a favor, its something she will enjoy too.
That is how people work: They generally will not have sex with you UNLESS they find you SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE!
I dont know if there is any way to simplify the fact that niceness is just Not enough to offer someone if you want them to sleep with you.

There are different degrees of sexual attractiveness, though. While there are only a small portion of women I would consider real "hotties", the bar for me to have sex with a friend if she wanted it is MUCH lower--low enough that it's more likely a girl "passes" than that she doesn't. Mind you, we're talking physical attractiveness here. In terms of personality, I have already described what I would like.

So, I'm not asking a girl who thinks I'm ugly or repulsive to have sex. I am talking about that "middle ground" where a girl doesn't think I'm particularly unattractive, but yet also wouldn't consider me someone who really sticks out as being especially hot. For me, most of the female population is in this gray area.

This part here is a good answer. It shows deliberation instead of a blindly emotional decision.



And if the person's irresponsible caregiver brings them into such a setting without their control?



Offer? This conversation is getting stale. I feel like being politically incorrect. Replace every instance where I said 'wimp' with 'nice guy.'

"So what is the deal with rape then? I would think that any guy who would rape a girl is showing quite a bit of self assurance and confidence while being quite a jerk. Too bad rape is illegal, if you observe the animal kingdom it is obviously the natural way. It wouldn't be illegal if it weren't for wimps, because if we were all jerks we would've kept women subjugated. The ironic part of the wimps doing this is that they f**** themselves because with women able to choose their mates rather than having no choice in the matter the wimps responsible for those laws are the ones getting overlooked."

-GoatOnFire, September 24, 2007, in response to "The trouble is that being self assured is attractive. What you're really looking for is someone who's confident and at ease with themselves and also a fundamentally lovely human being. Failing that, jerks > wimps. Sorry."

Everyone likes something different. It's impossible to say that 'women like this' and 'men like that.' In truth, women and men all go for different things, and that goes for nice guys and bad boys.

And remember, not all women are nice themselves. Some are downright cruel, mean people, and those type of people end up either alone or with someone who's just as nasty as they are.

Also, sometimes a person can appear nice at the beginning (when you first meet them), but after a while begin showing their true colors. That's when nice women end up with an as*hole, because they fell in love with an illusion.

Yes it has to stop, but don't expect WP to do a thing.

I hope if you ever are a jury member in a rape trial, you will bother to read something like the study described here: http://www.physorg.com/news165145684.html

Here is a real case from the UK. A student got very drunk at a student bar on campus. A friend was concerned about the drunk woman's safety and asked one of the campus security guards to walk her home (a room in a student house on campus). The drunk student's memory of events is patchy. She remembers being in the corridor outside her room and the security guard has his hands inside her top. Next she remembers being on her couch and the guard having sex with her. She remembers she didn't want this. She reported the rape the next day. Of course the security guard claimed she had consented. The student said she couldn't remember consenting, and didn't think she had. She had no defensive wounds. You shouldn't expect any, because she was clearly not able to fight, and possibly not conscious part of the time.

What do you think should have been the judge's decision? If you tell me, I'll then tell you what the judge decided and why the court of appeal threw out the decision.


I have sympathy with the view that people should take responsibility for their choices. I am bothered that you seem to place responsibility mostly with the potential victim. How capable must I be to take care of myself that you would say I don't deserve what I get? I was once attacked by a bunch of guys. As far as I can work out, they attacked simply because I was there, I was not one of them, and they were bored. Did I deserve being beaten up because I couldn't fight several guys at once? As far as the Taleban is concerned, any woman who either shows more bare skin than her hands or goes out without a male relative deserves what she gets. Enough Afghan men agree with the attitude to make any place outside the home more dangerous to a woman there than the average nightclub where I live. Who is at fault if a woman is assaulted? If a gang wants your life, do you deserve what you get because you shouldn't go out if you can't take care of yourself? Some people see you as a target if you exist. You have said nothing that takes away your responsibility for being a target in that case.

Back to the original question. I don't understand why so many guys here think women like jerks. When I think of all the women I have liked whose partners I know, not one of the guys is a jerk. I can think of only two explanations for my experience being so different. I expect most men base their opinion on this matter not on a sample of all women, but on a sample of women they have found attractive. Am I part of a tiny minority of men who are attracted to another tiny minority of women who don't like jerks? That would explain why the majority male opinion in this forum differs from mine, but it doesn't fit with what the women here say. Or perhaps I have different criteria for who is a jerk.

But what else would we have to talk about?

How different are the rules in the UK to the US?

By US rules this guy would likely get convicted because it would be hard to argue that the guard didn't know that she was drunk. It is an unknown whether she consented or not, she doesn't really remember, but that doesn't matter because that doesn't give the guard reasonable doubt because if a student asked her to walk her home because she was drunk then the guard knew what kind of state she was in and the law prohibits having even consensual sex with someone whose decision making is impaired at the time. Had the guard been able to claim that he didn't know she was drunk his chances of getting off wold be better. But this case was in the UK so how did this actually go?



Yes, we were getting off topic. I'd guess the reason your experience is different is maybe because the girls you hang out with are feminists who are empowered women that may not put up with a man that asserts his masculine traits too much. Skewed sample.

I'm not judging or sentencing her, i'm saying she put herself in the position she is in so i really can't pretend to care what happened to her. You are getting far too stuck on the victim. The perpetrators have usually been victims their entire life, and no i don't feel anything for them either.


If my vulnerability was self-inflicted i would not expect people to feel sorry for me, or even pretend to care for what had happened to me. I would expect a court to sentence the perpetrator however, IF there was enough evidence.


I wouldn't dream of preventing someone from being a strong-independent women. It doesn't make it right however, just as strong-independant men are also heading in the wrong direction. The current trend seems to be let's put off having kids until we are 40 years old, once we have a career, and then we'll break up because we are both strong and independent and we refuse to give our career's up. Feminism has brough many good things to society, it's also brought many bad things as well. Love is mutual dependance, love is being defenseless to that one person, it's not wonder that the divorce rate is so high.


I never claimed is was acceptible, i merely claimed i wouldn't care if said person had put themselves in a vulnerable position. Many people have the stupid belief today that it couldn't happen to them.

Someone flirts with a man, says "no" to said man as to give themselves an ego-boost and then ends up taking said man home with them anyway.... You're showing everyone who might frequent said club a pattern of behaviour. That you will sleep with anyone who is half-attractive, if you then get yourself too drunk to say no, and you've flirted with a man, he's going to think you won't mind...

As i said, i can't feel sorry for said people... they are putting themselves in a position for this to happen to them.


Then said caregiver deserves a very long jail term and if anything were to happen i'd have to say "It's a shame what happened to...". Of course, it's all words, i'm not emotional capable of caring.


The security guard is in a position of power and care. I think i would be leaning towards convicting the security guard, and yet again i wouldn't feel sorry for said security guard, he has placed himself in a position for this to happen to him. You'd have to feel sorry for the girl as well, she seems to have taken precautionary measures.


Because nearly every relationship i have seen has been between a girl and a jerk. In all honesty the girl's themselves were just as bad as the guys they were with. But men who have never had a relationship before, will tend to see the girls in a more positive light and come to the assumption that they would be a better partner for said girl. I'm lucky that i've had a relationship before, it helps you see the truth. You wuldn't be a better partner for said girl, and you should wait around until you find a nice girl

OK, there's a difference between intentionally drinking to lower your own inhibitions, then actively leading a guy into your room/bed, and then later deciding to call it rape, vs. someone else pressuring you to drink to make you vulnerable and then forcing himself on you when you are barely conscious enough to know what's going on.

Prosecuting the former sets an ethically troublesome precedent for several reasons. First, it demands that anyone judge a potential partner's intoxication level before accepting an offer for sex. Secondly, it puts into question the entire idea of experimenting with sex under the influence of any substance, even when done voluntarily.

The latter scenario that I mentioned does not count as "asking for it" though.

The judge threw the case out of court, saying if she could not definitely remember having said she wanted no sex, then she might have consented and therefore she had no case. The court of appeal ordered a retrial because the judge had ignored very clear (and new) sentencing guidelines that had clarified the law. The guidelines established the same principle you describe. Consent must be active, and the person consenting to sex must be in a clear enough state of mind to be able to give consent. A man is not entitled to presume consent because a woman is unable to say no.

I don't know what happen at the retrial. Going by the information I have, I see this as a clear case of rape, and I hope the guard was convicted.


OK, we agree on that.


The sample may be skewed, but if the women I know are feminists, then we have different criteria for who is a feminist. None of the women I am thinking of campaigns about the position of women in society, or even discusses it much unless there is a specific event that makes it relevant. They are just sensible, normal people. I don't see that a woman refusing to share her life with a jerk has any more to do with feminism than a man refusing to share his life with the female equivalent has to do with patriarchy.


Then why care? If the male jerks absorb the population's supply of female jerks, so much the better. Just try to identify the destructive people before you fall for one of them (not always easy).


If a jerk is what she wants it's better to avoid her. If she decides to ditch the jerk, then the guys who complain about women attracted to jerks should expect these women will have learned to appreciate the non-jerk better.

I think the guys who keep complaining about women being attracted to jerks risk becoming bitter enough that they themselves turn into a kind of jerk. It is not productive.