Nice Guys and Love, what's your take on the issue

Post Reply New Topic

MikeH106: you're right in that sensitive and wimpy don't always correlate. I'm a sensitive guy but definitely not wimpy.

Thing is, you're looking at this through the lense of being good or moral. As I said, morality doesn't play into mate selection. It generally doesn't. People are attracted to other people for a wide variety of reasons, but there's a very good reason why women are attracted, especially when they're younger, to as*holes: they have the balls to be themselves and be masculine. It's not an especially sophisticated way of looking at things, but it is what it is. Women want powerful genes to be spread down generation after generation. And as*holes give off the whiff that they can not only protect a woman, but help her bear children that will have robust genes. You cannot deny the power of nature when it comes to who we sleep with and why. It may not make sense in 2009, but it is what it is.

Also, you know why those women are attracted to as*holes who "don't care?" Because women don't want to be a caregiver to a little boy when they're looking for a guy to be with and mate with. You cannot deny nature: women crave security of all kinds -- physical, emotional, financial, et al -- in men. They want a guy to stand on his own two feet and not need her all the time.

Women don't respect ultra-nice guys. They're essentially penises in a glass jar -- a woman will break the jar only in case of an emergency (thank you Chris Rock for that reference).

A few points:

It does sometimes.



So it's only a trait that follows from being mean -- at least occasionally -- that they're attracted to. Their actual cruelty might even reduce their attractiveness.



Not necessarily powerful genes, but survivable genes.



However, an 'as*hole' must consider than in choosing to be an as*hole, he might be accepting the possibility in principle that others will choose to be as*holes against him, thereby endangering the woman.

This is part of a philosophical subject called deontological ethics.



Someone has to care, right?



How ironic that the men who need women would be the most rejected by them. I certainly hope we are not that sadistic a species.



Unquantified statement. You could mean either some or all women (in this case, obviously some).

I really don't want them to end up hurting people.

(Edit: I was going to express a deep loathing about something, but I realized I didn't word it exactly the way I wanted to.)

Even in cultures where religion has a strong role, there has to be some degree of attraction on a more visceral level. Whether a man or woman's moral compass acts as an impetus for attraction -- i.e. he is a law-abiding, non-drug taking man, therefore she is attracted to his clean living lifestyle and vice-versa -- is virtually impossible to quantify or determine where morality as a source of attraction ends and physical/mental attractiveness starts. You may be correct in saying it happens sometimes, but it's very hard to determine. Most people can't really tell why they're attracted to certain people in the first place.




Not true at all. People are attracted to other people for reasons above just being an as*hole. Most women don't want to date as*holes, very true. Yet considering that most men barely understand the ability to find a common ground between as*hole and wimpy, it makes sense that women would choose an as*hole over a wimpy boy. They're looking for guys who have masculine qualities. Very few guys have the ability to find the common ground between being nice and being a dick. A lot of women settle over time on the presumption, further to this, that they can "change" a man who is an as*hole. Too bad they're kidding themselves.





Possibly, but how do you explain then why women go after these men? You're being far too cerebral about this. I can cite off the top of my head so many examples of when women go after bad boy types -- rock stars, arms dealers, criminals, corporate CEOs (hey, they're not nice people usually), celebrities, et al. All you have to do is go to a nightclub in a major city in the West and see this theory at work.

No offense man, but people don't act rationally when they make choices about their prospective mates quite often.






Not all the time, sure, but I'd hardly call that sadism. Sadism is willfully inflicting pain on someone else for the victimizer's pleasure. This is just nature at work and how our societies encourage competition among males (and females) based on superficial, short-term thrills. I don't think the vast majority of women who reject nice guys are enjoying doing it. They're just being morally neutral when it comes to the act -- it's largely unconscious and highly instinctual when someone picks someone else they're into.






I should have been more clear: a lot of women don't respect ultra-nice guys as prospective mates by and large. Unfortunately, one thing I've learned is that the more physically attractive a person -- male or female -- is, the less likely they'll be into you on the basis of your personality until you reach a certain threshold on both ends of the spectrum of attractiveness. Ultra-hot women -- I'm talking models, actresses, et all -- are often single and lonely, I've found, because no man approaches them and whenever they approach men, they get a sense from the men they're already intimidated.

Thats a bit like saying all women are liars and hypocrites.

Which is blunt and sad and all ecompassing but true.

No.

"I don't believe there are any nice guys."

Expresses a person's belief, without being specifically disparaging.

"All women are liars and hypocrites."

An assertion of fact, directly stating an negative connotation and being insulting to women.

The difference is hopefully much clearer now, as the latter is a violation of site policy.


M.

I just want to reiterate that being nice is not the same as being wimpy. And I wrote an entire essay refuting an argument that bigger men are objectively more valuable than smaller men.

One fact that I want to alert women to is that it can be literally excruciating to be single, and to avoid becoming torturers, we might have to legalize painless suicide.

It's bad enough if you don't like 'wimpy' men, but even worse if you make them stay alive to retch on the streets. How do you think that makes them feel? These are your babies we're talking about. Would you make your baby throw up after breastfeeding him?

If our culture remains sexually selective, then voluntary euthanasia might be the way to go. You're hearing this from someone who has never had a girlfriend himself.

You may want to consider rewording this, because it sounds like you're saying women are at fault, and somehow obligated to give men (even the "wimpy" ones) the relationships and security they desire.

Like it or not, women are in fact allowed to make their own decisions on this kind of thing. They certainly don't deserve a guilt trip for anyone's personal inability to create successful relationships.

Excuse me, but did I say that? No. In fact, I recommended voluntary euthanasia. I hope you'll read my posts more carefully, and for the record, yes, I'm mad.

Why am I mad? Maybe because a girl pushed me in sixth grade. Maybe because I looked at my face in the mirror in a nightmare and woke with a wrenched heart feeling like I could kill myself by vomiting. Maybe because I dreamed of people singing 'Nobody love you' to the tune of 'We Are the Champions.' Maybe because I retched for two years myself.

Do you know what retching is? It's when you vomit without actually tossing anything up. It doesn't mean 'wretch,' or 'being wretched.' It refers to a vomiting spasm. When did I retch the worst? When men were sadistic, and women made rejecting and unsympathetic remarks. It wasn't merely the food I ate or my failure to take antacids (I tried them for a week and they didn't work) -- I was retching at Happy Bunnies.

With the stronger sex in its rush for power, we might wonder whether women were actually conditioned to be mean to their babies. Let me explain what I mean by this. In the process of becoming evil, the men in power could deliberately select only women who displayed certain traits ('hating the losers,' for example), leaving the fairer, more loving women to die without children. Were it not for these men, women today might actually act more like women.

We must therefore be careful to distinguish two notions: the socially selected female and the female as such. What did the job of females in the game of genetic recombination turn out to be? That's right: protecting and nursing their children. In some sense, this is what makes women who they are, and it makes them beautiful. The socially selected female, on the other hand, may be the one who delights in baby-burping poor virgins into a world of despair and madness.

Do you want to know how I'm feeling right now? Empty. I'm considering suicide.

What would scare me about suicide is the reality of the pain before my actual death. How painful would it be to choke on water? To have a hole shot through the center of your brain? To be hanged, to overdose, to suffocate? Wouldn't it be easier for the government to just allow us to use a needle?

Sorry, girls. I watched Beavis scream on the bus, I watched the guy yelling near the baby monitor, but I had no idea that my life as a virgin until now would be a Travis Walton experience.

(And no, I don't want that needle.)

If nice guys finish last then I'll say that only the good die young!

In some ways, I find it hard to believe that this stereotype is even real. There is something about a woman disliking a nice man that I find so utterly repulsive, so distasteful and infuriating, so wrong on so many scales, so shattering of my good conscience and desire not to inflict harm, that I simply can't think it real.

Could men be spreading this stereotype so that other men will buy into it and become misogynists? I'm sure women wouldn't want that.

We all get angry sometimes and perhaps even feel violent. But it doesn't mean we should sanctify pain.

MikeH106, no offense, but this theory sounds incomplete at best. It's a fallacy-driven argument you're describing here that uses quasi-sociological theory mixed with some pop psychology. I don't know if you're being ironic or deliberately misdirecting the argument, but I'm not really sure if mixing your anger over being a virgin with a half-baked theory is going to explain your problems with women.

First off, there is no "stronger sex" as you put it. There may be deep-seeded patriarchal tendencies in many societies across the globe, but that has nothing to do with "strength" as a generic, singular term. Gender relations is a vastly complex, diverse area of study that can't be reduced to simple definitions of "stronger sex." Besides, what does "strength" even mean here? Are we talking physical? Emotional? What?

Second, women are not "conditioned" to be mean to their children anymore than men are "conditioned" to be violent to each other. It's a Fallacy of Accident to say that because Subject A (Men in power are aggressive) and Subject B (women are subjugated to this power structure) fit that the outcome is C: women will treat their babies the same way that they are treated by men. That makes no logical sense at all. It's a generalization, and more pointedly, kind of sexist. This whole idea ignores women's liberation movements, equality movements and women in power. People select mates for a wide variety of reasons -- they do not seek out traits for their mates that automatically equate to rational ends, i.e. a man picks a woman or vice-versa because they have the ability to be good in business, thus be cruel sometimes.

Third, this whole sentence is strange and wrong-headed: "leaving the fairer, more loving women to die without children. Were it not for these men, women today might actually act more like women."

Huh? Last time I checked, women of all kinds, powerful, attractive, unattractive, poor, whatever, have children of all kinds, and they love their children too. Not every "socially selected" female is cruel to their children anymore than a less socially selected female is cruel to their children. Women are vastly more complex and diverse than this.. And saying "women today might actually act more like women?" Um, what are you talking about? Are you saying that there's only way to be a woman and that the best version of them is the one that corresponds to how you want them to be? Fantasies aside, I think you need to talk to women more than theorize.

Fourthly....

"We must therefore be careful to distinguish two notions: the socially selected female and the female as such. What did the job of females in the game of genetic recombination turn out to be? That's right: protecting and nursing their children. In some sense, this is what makes women who they are, and it makes them beautiful. The socially selected female, on the other hand, may be the one who delights in baby-burping poor virgins into a world of despair and madness. "

*shakes head* Projecting much? Using your own personal circumstances to generalize is a really lazy way to think, Mike. Besides, who is to say that "protecting and nursing" children isn't done by "socially selected" females? Who are you to say that?




Mike -- listen to me here. It is not a question of a woman "disliking a nice man." Most well-adjusted women really like nice guys. But nice guys with no confidence, charisma or ability to converse in a give-and-take sort of way are a huge turn-off. That's not being cruel -- that's seeing women as full human beings first. You can be nice and giving but not a push-over either. And believe me: most women don't want to date men who are overtly mean or misogynists. But they do want men who say what they think and are comfortable in their own skin. If you are weak and overly deferential to her, why should she respect you? She won't, because she doesn't feel comfortable or sure that you're capable of taking care of things or being protective sometimes, too.

I'm not trying to be cruel to you here, but your arguments are intellectually unsound. You really need to get out of your head and talk to women as human beings, not as theoretical structures.

Mikeh106:

Although I've been reading the board for quite a while, this is my first post. . . so forgive me if I'm being too personal.

I've noticed your mentioning ending your life in quite a few posts. This really saddens me. You seem very articulate and well-educated, and seem like a truly kind person.

I'm especially bothered by your words (quoted below) below:

"Do you want to know how I'm feeling right now? Empty. I'm considering suicide.

What would scare me about suicide is the reality of the pain before my actual death. How painful would it be to choke on water? To have a hole shot through the center of your brain? To be hanged, to overdose, to suffocate?"

I've got to ask: Do you have parents? Siblings? People in your life who care about you? Don't you feel that they would be devastated if you were to end your life? (My father committed suicide, and the thought of it has depressed me for years. I've always wondered what I could have done to prevent it. )

Consider this, please: Your family's emotional pain caused by your ending your life could very possibly devastate them for the rest of their lives. What this act might do to the people who love you should be scarier than the reality of the pain of the actual deed.

PLEASE talk to someone (family, friends, health professionals, even posters on this and other boards) before you seriously consider such an act. Take it from one who knows: As painful as suicide might be to those who commit the act, the pain it causes those whom they leave behind can be far greater.

I'll be fair, here. Men might not have to be the stronger sex. Women might dominate us one day. (That might be pretty fun, actually... sorry. )

When I call men the 'stronger sex,' I'm referring in part to the fact that testosterone causes muscle growth and also to the fact that men have always seemed power-obsessed to me, while women have always seemed the more careful and nurturing sex. After all, only women breastfeed, so it would make sense if they evolved to become the kind of people who are good at it.



But it would be a Fallacy of the Straw Man to say that I actually made such a claim. If you will read my post again, I wrote:

"With the stronger sex in its rush for power, we might wonder whether women were actually conditioned to be mean to their babies. Let me explain what I mean by this. In the process of becoming evil, the men in power could deliberately select only women who displayed certain traits ('hating the losers,' for example), leaving the fairer, more loving women to die without children. Were it not for these men, women today might actually act more like women."

Notice how I've phrased my statements in the hypothetical mood. I try to be careful about this when I speculate and I hope you will respect my fairness.

Further, the causality of women's hatred of nice men in this model is based not on a mere three-step logical inference, but on the theory of natural selection itself. It would basically mean that powerful, dominating men played the role of Adolf Hitler in trying to create a 'master race' of loser-hating cheerleaders by throwing the nicer women into the 'furnace' of social rejection.

That possibility might bother you, and yes, it bothers me. I think that in our predatory, greed-obsessed culture we need to take a step back and try to remember what it is that makes us happy.



I said fairer, more loving women, which is a relative judgment that gives me some leeway in the group I'm talking about, and I did not intend to communicate that there would be no nice women left (as there certainly seem to be). I will be more accurate and say that women of the past might have been nicer than women of the present.



I made that statement partly as a result of my frustration in dealing with women. You have to remember, I've never been granted the gift of a girlfriend, I've been pushed, lied to, called a freak, cursed at, walked away from, and beat up and sung to in nightmares, and now I've been hearing voices.

I really just want to be a benefactor for them -- if that would mean anything at all -- but I can't do it if they beat me over the head when I'm nice and laugh when I'm violent. It creates a psychology.

Nevertheless, I try.



Again, notice the hypothetical mood of my statements. I want you to be respectful of this.



I hope so.



Then my God, why not let them commit suicide?

One thing I have noticed is that most women are b*****s. At least it's the case with American women - most are spoiled, narcissitic b*****s who think no guy is good enough for them - but then they like a guy who's in good shape, really outgoing that treats them like crap and see nice guys as at best friends - then wonder why no guy treats them right. I think it has a lot to do with how they are raised here - ie the "princess syndrome."

In response to Caliane, thank you for your concern. I appreciate every drop of sympathy I get in this cruel world.

The only member of my family who truly respects me is my father. He has seemed silly and irresponsible in a lot of ways, but he is a kind man, one of the kindest I've ever met, and it hurts me so deeply to see him ridiculed. It's hard enough to stay alive for him with all the sadistic as*holes in the world.

Totally agree with you on that.