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

Post Reply New Topic

I think anyone who has social difficulties with girls in general need to wait until they find someone who can accomodate their needs and apreciate their diversity (:
All these arguements about how girls are and how men behave and stereotyping is BS because you're all trying to catergorise the people that you will never be happy with (:

The world has over 6 billion people in it, if you want happiness, you have a lifetime to find it ^_^

im like that lil gurr in willy wonka you know what im sayin playa. im like girl gimmie dat. girl gimmie dat gimmie dat, oh! just throw it in da bag. uh huhhhh, uh huhhhhh, uh huhhhhh, just throw it in da bag. squeaky wheel gets the oil aiight

oh, yeah, human and egalitarian all the way.

I think that they both look for a partner who will solve their personal problems for them, when they should both try to solve their own problems before they go leeching on someone else. They'll be happier in the long run - both of them.



Cuddling as a prelude to sex is definitely libido related. Cuddling for the sake of affection is not. Maybe she didn't like to cuddle because it was always a prelude to sex for him, and she wanted no-obligation cuddling rather than sex-cuddling.



I hope you realize that's total BS. Most women do not require constant compliments and gifts, and in fact view constant compliments and gifts as insincere at best and an attempt to get into her pants at worst. Insincerity is the *worst* thing you can do to a relationship. I could easily shift the genders by changing 'compliments' to 'ego boosts' and 'gifts' to 'sex,' and it would be exactly what you see all the time in places where women go to complain about men.



Sure - but I'm dubious that your friend was in that category.



you were all but drooling over the woman. That doesn't mean that he was attracted as much as you are. That's not a *bad* thing at all - I'm just saying that YOUR impression of her attractiveness is not necessarily a reliable indication of how attracted HE was.



In the one anecdote you have provided, the blame for the failed relationship is entirely on the woman's shoulders for failure to emotionally reciprocate. There's also this:

and this:

So you prefer the primitive and animalistic woman over the lifeless, antisocial, consescending, etc. woman. On behalf of my gender, thank you soooo much.
Oh, and this:

and this:

Eyeaaah, you see no difference between 'treating her as an equal' and 'putting her on a pedestal and treating her like glass,' I guess.
this:

...so, of course, when you broke up it was naturally their fault every time.

Unless they're aspies, in which case they're lifeless and antisocial.

Dude, that's all just from the last three pages. Why do I even need to spell this out for you?



The fact that I have a different view of men and women than you do does not necessarily mean that I am the one making false assumptions. and which claim do you think that I made up? The one where you're bigoted against women (demonstrated above), or the one where an ex thought that I was some sort of nature goddess who could psycically commune with the trees, just because I really like being in the woods (like most other humans do)?



See above for starters. That particular guy wanted me to be some sort of misty-eyed sylph, rather than a human woman who likes nature. He thought that I could solve the problem of the lack of connection he felt in his spiritual life - raised Jewish, didn't connect to Judaism, converted to Buddhism but still wasn't a bodhisattva after three years of reading buddhist books (?!), and somehow thought that I was the connection that he wasn't getting. And if my feeling of connection in nature isn't that I'm some sort of saint, but just a human woman who likes nature just like most other humans do...? What was really amazing about this guy was that he would *argue* with me when I told him that I wasn't really some kind of spirit, as if I just didn't know my own true nature.

Another guy, from my dojo: I'm happy and lively at the dojo, I laugh when I'm training; he thinks that if he's with me he'll be happy and lively and love to train too. Which is not his personality. And god forbid that I show that I'm not necessarily happy, lively, and laughing in every other aspect of my life, too.

Another guy, from school: Intellectually compatible. Lots of good, stimulating discussions. However, since I'm a woman I must be a wild, sensual creature because all women are wild, sensual creatures.



Ah, yeah. Do you NOT see why the statement above might be a problem to women?! Do you really not see it?



I've said this a couple of times, but you're not getting it so I'll repeat it: just because a guy isn't after sex first, does not mean that he's into women for something other than egalitarian human companionship. If you treat a woman like you need her for something early in a relationship, she's going to think that you need her for something. Get it? It's not rocket science. A relationship where one party needs the other for something is by definition NOT equal.



'Cause, being a woman, I couldn't possibly have a rational problem with what you're saying...

I've never dated a self-proclaimed 'nice guy.' Nice guys aren't the only ones who set up pedestals; they're the ones who have their pedestal ready before they even meet you. I have, however, seen friends and family members get involved with 'nice guys' and they generally ended up wrapping their lives around these men in order to accommodate their needs, until they got into such a knot that they realized that they had to get out. Does judgment based on experience = prejudice? Ok, maybe I'm prejudiced by your definition of the word.



If I think that the term for 'Nice Girls' who fit the same psychological profile as 'Nice Guys' is 'codependent.' b*****s are more the equivalent of as*holes.



I see color. I guess red, green, and blue all look black to someone who thinks in monochrome.
I have indeed read your posts carefully, and my best guess is that you're honestly clueless about how you're coming across.

Last edited by LKL on 20 Jul 2010, 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

One thing that has just occurred to me is that for all the arguing about whether women want jerks or nice guys, men have their own issues with deciding what kind of woman they want, especially when it comes to the woman's sexuality. Given the massive volumes of porn that feature sluts getting gangbanged, it appears that a lot of men fantasize about promiscuous women. On the other hand, men can get quite upset when their girlfriends sleep with other men, often to the point of oppressing women with all kinds of laws designed to constrain their sexuality. Men can't make up their minds over whether they want an easy slut or a chaste "Madonna".

not to mention all of the porn that depicts women 'enjoying' degrading, violent sex.

Or, for that matter, all of the stuff in everyday tv shows and movies that depicts women enjoying being degraded and put down in non-sexual ways by their SOs.

This.

Attraction isn't a choice. If you're the type who compliments her all the time, buying her things, being the wuss, you'll scare her off. Instead, you want to create attraction by understanding the way women instinctively operate. A woman doesn't want a wuss bag, and never has. It's not manipulative or inhuman, it's biology and psychology.

Obviously. I just noticed you seem to be looking down on the kind of men who do tend to "leech" on someone else for emotional support, while ignoring the fact that this occurs among both genders.

I would also like to point out that it's quite hard for these people to alter their behavior because sometimes these people don't see any way at all to "solve their own problems before they go leeching on someone else".

Further, I would like to add that it's perfectly possible to be emotionally needy and clingy while at the same time respecting the other. One doesn't exclude the other.



Actually, it was the other way around. He was the one who wanted to spend time just cuddling, while she seemed to regard it as nothing but extended foreplay. That's what bothered him.

Again your prejudice shows, since you seem to immediately assume it's the woman who needed no-obligation cuddling instead of the guy.



Both men and women seem to need a certain amount of self-confirmation in a relationship, regardless of whether they're insecure or not. Women tend to feel this self-confirmation when a man shows he thinks about her (eg. by unexpectingly buying her something) or giving her a subtle compliment whereas men tend to feel this self-confirmation when a woman strokes his ego or gives him any sort of physical attention (this could be sex but also no-obligation cuddling or even holding hands).

I'm not suggesting that women should use sex as a weapon or that men should use buying gifts as a way to please their partner, however any man will experience a lack of affection when his partner doesn't show him enough physical attention and any woman will experience a lack of affection if she feels her partner isn't thinking about her enough. The amount of attention required from one's partner is most definitely related to the amount of insecurity one feels, though, but it seems quite absurd to claim that only insecure people feel this need.



I'm pretty sure he is in that category, actually... and so is my girlfriend (who can judge from the female perspective).



No I'm not. Besides, I have a girlfriend.



You're just looking for excuses to ignore the facts and pretend the whole problem between him and his ex was him not being attracted to her.



First of all, in the case of my anecdote I actually blame HIM for not being open about his emotions and allowing things to go bad between them without even telling her exactly how he's feeling. I can understand that many men don't easily share their emotions, but if you allow your relationship to wither away because you cannot speak about your emotions there is something seriously wrong. Sure she should have shown him some more emotional reciprocicity, but if that's something that doesn't come naturally to her and he doesn't tell her how much he needs that, there is no way she can be held accountable for what happened between them.

Further, the quote I gave you is just my explaining the difference between the way men generallise idolise women and the way women generally idealise men because you seem to mix them up. By no means did I wish to suggest that ALL men idolise women that way or that ALL women have idealised and unrealistic expectations of their partner.



I find the average NT woman no more appealing than the typical Aspie woman. What I consider to be the perfect woman is a woman who is very openminded, who has strong relativation skills, who has a beyond average intellectual capacity, who doesn't jump to conclusions and who is capable of rational analysis of even emotionally sensitive topics, but also a woman who embraces her femininity, who enjoys to be around people, who cares about the people she's close with, who can appreciate a good party every now and then, who can appreciate a good movie, etc. Such a combination is very rare, but my current girlfriend pretty much fits that description.



That's just a fact I discovered during the last few months by discussing the issue of flirting with my best friends (a lesbian couple) as well as my girlfriend. While men can be attracted to just a woman's personality and/or appearance, women seem to be most attracted to specific behavioral traits and a lack of such behavioral traits makes it very difficult for a man to get any woman at all attracted to him.



Should I have no problem with women who look down upon men who are genuinely sensitive, vulnerable and insecure while demanding to be treated as equals? Should I not think of that as a repulsive double standard?



I never said or implied that. I had my own issues back then and those issues played a role at least as important as their issues.



I never said that Aspie women are emotionless. The lifelessness is rather an apparent lack of enjoying anything in life besides one or two things (which makes them appear uninterested and/or unhappy 95% of the time) and the antisocialness is a tendency to stick to just a handful of people and the tendency to spend not too much time even with them. Obviously not all Aspie women will have both attributes and some may be very enthousiastic social beings. This is just a general impression I have.



You're the one putting words in my mouth and misinterpreting everything I say. If you would stick to what I actually am saying instead of what your prejudice forces you to think of me, this entire discussion would probably be obselete.



I was referring to your accusing me of placing the blame for failed relationships and lack of relationships entirely on the women. That's something based on your prejudice alone.



Judaism is a pretty ****ed up culture. I would blame his bizarre irrational attitude not on him being a guy but on his Jewish background and the issues he has resulting from it.



So he gets mad at you for feeling sad or exhausted?



I'm not sure what you mean by that



Yes I do. In my country, there's a saying that goes something like this : "The most hurtful statements are statements that are true".

Do note that I never implied that ALL women are petty, ignorant, irrational, narrowminded, arrogant and shallow individuals. Both my best friend and my girlfriend are not in that category, but those are the exceptions.



Most people enter a relationship with someone they're attracted to because they need something. This something could be anything from someone to hang out with, a person to play board games with or someone to cuddle with to someone who can make them feel more complete or someone to have sex with. I don't think there are many people who would enter a relationship with someone if there is no need involved whatsoever.



Your being a woman has nothing to do with it. You're just not making any sense and seem to be judging men using hypocritical double standards.



You seem to equal "nice guy" with "insecure guy", equal "insecure" with "needy" and "clingy" and equal "needy" and "clingy" with "unmanagable" and "disrespectful". While there is definitely a link, your gross generalisations may lead to you missing out on mr. right because he's a nice guy and you immediately assume he doesn't respect you and is way too needy.



Hmmm.... Then what about nice women who aren't codependent?



I'm Aspie. How I come across doesn't always equal the message I'm trying to convey, largely because other people misinterpret what I say due to their own bias. Being a member of this forum yourself, you should be aware of that, yet you just keep throwing your own misinterpretations of what I'm saying at me.

I smell a troll.

I don't think LKL is a troll. She just seems confused...

Have you read the title of this thread? It's about 'nice guys,' not about 'codependent women.' I was attempting to stay on topic.



That's probably true, but it's still harmful to the one being leeched on.



Er, I thought you said that she didn't want to cuddle at all? Honestly, this couple is starting to seem a little fictional.



It wasn't an assumption; see above. You're the one who said that she didn't like cuddling; I was offering a potential reason for this.



I agree with the first sentence, but I think your dichotomy here is false.



Did I say that? Did I imply it? I don't remember ever saying or implying that healthy relationships don't need reinforcement.


You were providing an appreciative assessment of her physical attributes. Having a girlfriend (or a boyfriend) does not preclude recognizing physical attractiveness in other people.



No. I have offered several other possibilities about the problems in their relationship other than his lack of attraction. I am saying that him not being as attracted to her as you are is ONE possible problem that you have not considered in your monofocal analysis of his problems.



Ok, that's a more rounded look than you have heretofore presented.



I'm saying that the dichotomy is false, not that you have the wrong genders attached. Both genders sometimes idolize their partners, and both have multiple ways of doing so.


Firstly, three women do not make up 'the vast majority' of women. Just for starters, I'm guessing that they're all around the same age? Secondly, many of the factors that women in general use to pick men are similar to factors that both men and women use to pick friends. If you don't seem like you'll be a good friend, you probably won't be a good boyfriend.



These sensitive and insecure men are not asking for an equal partner. Did you not read what I said, or did you just miss the point? A woman who is looking for an equal partner is also going to reject the paternalistic bastard (not necessarily the same thing as an as*hole, by the way, though there sometimes is overlap) who wants to physically control her and lock her in the house for the rest of her life. That's being true to her own standards, not a double standard.


*snort*
honey, pulling quotes from your own writing is not 'putting words in your mouth.' It is, in fact, 'sticking exactly to what you are saying.'



You have corrected that misunderstanding wrt your friend and your own relationships, but it was based on your own writing and not on prejudice. You listed plenty of faults for them, and few or no faults for him or yourself; what else was one supposed to think? Prejudice means judging before evidence; I was judging after evidence.



I wouldn't. My first sweetheart was also Jewish, my best friend growing up was Jewish, My mother's best friend is Jewish, and my sister-in-law is Jewish. They are all still friends, and are all good, balanced people (for the record, my family is Catholic and I am an atheist).



No, he acted like I was not fulfilling my obligations towards him. Disappointment, even disgust. Sort of, 'What's wrong with you?!'



I mean that he had an idea of me that he loved, but which I could not fulfill.



Similarly hurtful are false statements that are repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
used to restrict women from careers in math, science, technology, medicine, and a whole range of other fields that have traditionally been considered the realm of males.
You know what, though? Women are just as good as men at medicine. Women are just as good at just about all of it, IF they are allowed an environment free of men like you saying, 'you can't do this as well as the men can because you're more intuitive and less rational.' It's a pernicious echo of the victorian BS that claimed that women couldn't be educated because thinking would harm their ability to reproduce by taking energy away from their uterus. And just like it's BS to say that women can't think as well as men, it's BS to say that women are worse at relationships than men.



Sorry, that doesn't exactly help your case. You have explicitly stated, twice, that women are worse than men. That's kind of the definition of misogyny, you know?



No. Most people enter a relationship because the WANT something. Want and need are not the same things. Furthermore, in good relationships both people want the same things.



Not at all; I judge women by the same standards. A clingy woman is just as bad as a clingy guy, but (as noted above), this thread is about guys. Furthermore, given that I'm being cited by multiple people here with kudos, at least a few people seem to be able to comprehend the sense that I'm making.



The term 'nice girl' brings up more of an image of an ingenue. Honestly, I think that most men and most women are 'nice' in the general, not the pathological, sense. 'Nice people,' I guess.



*snort*
being an Aspie, your first assumption when there is a misunderstanding is that *you* are not communicating well, not that *they* have bias.



Eyeeah. Being a member of this forum, I'm trying to help you see how you are coming across to the other female members of the forum. Man up and realize that maybe the problem isn't entirely mine.

I'm going to give you the last word: I have neither the time nor the energy to continue this, and based on other people's responses I'm at least getting through to some.

Not being a wuss is not necessarily the same as 'wanting her begging for YOUR approval.'

For the sake of nuance, it would not have been a bad idea to put things in perspective.



Obviously... but it's also harmful when women (or men) ignore you for most of your life and you don't have a clue why. That's often the basis of this "leeching" behavior.



She just didnt seem to care about cuddling.

And no, this couple isn't fictional, however I have to base myself on the explanation of my girlfriend (who herself was told everything by her best friend) and a guy who isn't very open about his emotions



Fair enough... I guess I should have been a bit more clear about this.



Feel free to elaborate on this. Enlighten me !



Maybe I misinterpreted you here. Since I'm accusing you of misinterpretation and putting words in my mouth, I would be hypocritical to nitpick here so I'm letting this slip. Next!



True, I guess, however you seemed to imply that I was interested in sex with her friend, which is completely inappropriate and inaccurate.



I did not consider it an option because it makes no sense based on what I've heard from both sides.



I did not feel the need to "round" my look before you started making certain assumptions.



I guess so, but I'm not familiar to any women idolising men the way I described men idolising women or vice versa. Maybe it's just my lack of experience in that area? Maybe...



That's totally wrong. In fact, my girlfriend told me that she thought of me as a potential "friend" rather than a potential lover because I lacked the flirtation behavior she expects in a man who's interested in her romantically. Had I not explicitly told her I was interested in her romantically and that I was horrible at flirting and had she not been as openminded as she is, we would probably be friends now.

I'm the kind of guy women can generally appreciate as a friend (if they're not annoyed by my talking too much) but aren't really attracted to because I simply don't know how to flirt. Think of "Chandler Bing" from "Friends".

And yes, the women I'm referring to are women between 25 and 30, but they have more life experience than most 50-year-olds so I wouldn't really bring their age into the picture.



Some men are sensitive and insecure and just need some time with you to become a bit more secure. If you aren't used to being appreciated by a woman for who you really are, it may take a relationship with such a woman to become secure.



Your quotes are correct. What you make from them is not.



Evidence of absence and absence of evidence are not the same. You don't seem to have figured that out yet.



I guess you should call yourself lucky then

I come from a Catholic family and turned away from Catholicism myself, by the way...



That's just.... weird.



I get that. I just don't get the context



My girlfriend has a doctorate in bio-engineer sciences, her best friend has a doctorate in IT, my best friend (the lesbian) is into webdevelopment, an ex-girlfriend of mine has a degree in law, I once had a crush on a physics student, etc. I would never say that women are incapable of jobs involving exact science or that rational thought and women are incompatible. Let me make that clear !



I'm just saying women are more intuitive/emotional than men. Ever heard of female intuition? It's a gift rather than a curse.



Women in general are worse then men in general, but some women are better than most men.

I'm not a mysogenist.... I'm a realist.



You don't know you want the same things until you've given it a try and the difference between wanting and needing something is pretty small.



I don't see you making any sense at all, but mea culpa, I guess.



If "nice" equals petty, ignorant, irrational, narrowminded, arrogant and shallow, I agree. Otherwise, I don't



I'm just being rational. If other people misinterpret me, that's because they are not rational



I'm aware of the fact that my debating style has its limitations, but as long as I'm not aware of any alternatives I don't know of any other way to debate such a topic.



If that makes you happy...

You sound kind of bitter. I'm not going to tell you to "get over it." I'll say this instead: You're not doing yourself a favor by holding a deep sense of bitterness towards the same people you are trying to get close to.

Don't convince yourself that anyone will "prefer to date an as*hole." You'll only become an as*hole yourself, and that's no fun. Really. It isn't.

I like REAL nice guys. Not the kind that pretend to be nice and then treat you like s**t when no one's looking. If I knew they were a douche upfront, I would have avoided them entirely.

Being nice is the first half of the equation. You also have to be interesting and not creepy. I'm just saying. D: