Nice guys who have been treated badly

Post Reply New Topic

But I am not saying "I don't want to talk about it, just forget it and move on". If anything, she is the one who says "I don't want to talk about it" and I push her to talk (the reason I push her to talk is that I see she is upset; if she moved on because, in fact, she was happy then I would hapily move on with her, without ever bringing it up). Now in the process of talking, I tend to overanalyze. This means that I DO bring her side as well in my "analysis".

But Jennifer still seems to think I am "dismissing" her side. Quite possibly, she simply didn't hear me when I brought it up: because of her anger she didn't have enough patient to actually listen to what I was saying. If that is the case then ironically anger does just the opposite to what you said it does. YOu said anger helps to get stuff out, but my experience is that anger prefents the other person from wanting to talk. If anything, "overanalyzing" is what helps gets stuff out, which is precisly why I do that.

Now, the focus of what I am trying to say is this: "you are upset at me because of x; on my end I didn't know that x would hurt you, thats why you shouldn't be upset". Or "you are upset with me because of x; on my end I 'only' did x because of such and such reason and wouldn't have done it otherwise, thats why you shouldn't be upset". So in both cases my focus is to adress the issue so that she won't be upset.

Now I realize that in the process of adression the issue I might "accidentally" blame her. For example, if I take "I did x for such and such reason"-option, the "such and such reason" might involve the fact that "she" did y. But this is not my intention at all. In fact, on my end I am not upset that she did y. So even if I mention it in order to "justify myself", this by no means implies blaming her since I am not angry at her for y. In fact I would have hapily moved on on altogether if she wasn't angry.



I agree with "adressing the issues" part -- and that is exactly what I am trying to do through "overanalyzing".

I disagree, however, with "taking responsibility" part. I mean who cares who the "bad guy" is. What is important is to find out what was the mistake "that was made" and a strategy worked out on how to avoid that mistake in future. I mean look, back in the fifth grade I used to say (a+b)(c+d)=ac+bd which is obviously wrong. Well, as long as I know I was wrong and as long as I don't do it now, I don't have to "take responsibility" for hte fact that I did it in the fifth grade. And with anything more recent same thing. If I misunderstand some advanced physics concept I just learned, and then someone corrects me, I do'nt have to "take responsibility" for the fact that I was wrong. I should just remember their correction and leave it at that. What is the point of acknowledging "yes it was me who made a mistake and let us remember that on such and such day I was a bad guy". I mean that is ultimately what "taking responsibility" means.

Jennifer seems to think that a conflict is like a chess game. If I play chess and my opponent refuses to acknowledge that they lost, then this in fact means that they don't acknowledge that I won, which makes me feel worse. Well, in case of a couple we are not opponents, we are "on the same side". Jennifer probably thought that because I made such and such mistake, I can't be "trusted" of being someone "on the same side" and should be viewed as an opponent. Well, how can such an attitude possibly help a relationship? If two people are opponents, how can they possibly truly be partners? This is a contradiction in terms. On the other hand, an attitude that "we are partners, we are on the same team, and one of us made a mistake" is much better. And if we are on the same team, then the question "who" made a mistake is no longer important. The only question that is asked is "what have we learned from the mistake". For instance, in case of soccer I can say "I leanred that when opponent attacks one of us we should pass the ball to each other in such and such way". There is no reason to remember Who was the one who didn't do it in the first place.



The above quote sums up Jennifer's attitude quite accurately. What happened on my end, however, was that during the second year of our relationship I PERCEIVED it as if "she is trying to keep me from physics", "she is trying to keep me awake till 4 AM", "she is controling every move I am making" and so forth. I was operating under these perceptions. The reason I stayed with her during that second year is that she was very sick and depressed, so I felt sorry for her. Thus, I viewed it as a huge sacrifice on my part since I would have broken up if she was healty. Now, as a result of that perception, whenever I was around her it was wearing on me. Now, I put my best effort not to hurt her by "going through the motions" with doing everything I was expected to do (going to the movie with her very Tuesday night, sitting with her while she watches TV and avoiding doing physics at that time, and so forth). But down inside I got more and more worn out, so it started to "come out" in terms of my neglecting to do some "small things". And then my not doing "small things" lead her to be mad and I was then fighting with ehr as to why was she mad since my negligence wasn't intentionanl.

Now, when I finally told her this at the end of a second year of a relationship (I was keeping it from her until then) she pointed out a long list of things she did to me. And then I realized that my perception of her "controling me" was completely false. But you see, I didn't realize it was false until she pointed it out. So if somehting is red and I see it as blue, how can it be my fault? If I see it as blue, then I assume its blue, its just natural. The only area where it can possibly be my fault is the question "what should I do with the fact that it is blue". Now, in this regard my choice was quite noble: I said "despite the fact that she is so controling I will stick around anyway, because she is sick and depressed and I don't want to hurt her". Now, if I didn't make the "bad assumption" then perhaps I would have enjoyed our time together more, which means I wouldn't be worn out and would have been paying more attention to little things. But this is one thing I was unaware of. I was thinking that "as long as I don't act on my bad assumption and don't tell her what it is, there is no way it can possibly hurt her". I ddn't realize that "yes it can hurt her through the fact that I would neglect to do some little things I have no control over". This is due to lack of dating experience. Another mistake on my part was that I didn't realize that my assumption was wrong until Jennifer pionted out all the things she did to me. But again, if one simiply "sees" something as blue, most ppl won't try to analyze whether they see it "correctly" or not. So in case of Jennifer I simply assume that "thats how it is" and didn't realize that looking closely on the list of things she did would hcnage my perceptoin

Now, what I was trying to tell her was this: "past whole year I was under such and such false perception; now you finally clarified it for me and I no longer perceive you as such, so I want another chance". She DID give me "another chance" for the following 2 or 3 months (and then she broke up with me afterwords). But at the same time whenever the conflicts aroze during these 2 or 3 months she kept insisting how "she has a right to be angry" AND she kept reminding me how I was the one who was hurting her for the entire year. Now, what is the point of remembering that I am the one who hurt her? I can't undo the year -- if I could I would have most definitely undone it! So I feel bad about the last year, I sincerely wish for the consequences of htat year to go away. Yet SHE insist that I accept my "inferior status" because of that. Well what is the point of my being made "feel bad" about it? How will it ever make her feel any better? Once again, we are not opponents, we are on the same team. So one of hte teemmates was screwing up; finally they realized what mistake was. Fine, just play better. Why hold it against that teemmate that he was such a bad player and going as far as insisting he "takes responsibility" (perhaps by beating himself up) for being a bad player?



Well I told her over and over "I learned from them". Her response was "I will belive you when I see it in actions". Well how can I "show it in actions" if a relaitonship is two way street. It is very difficult to act caring when the other person doesn't trust me. Thats why I was trying to ask her to trust me enough so that I actually have an apportunity to show her the actions in question. Yet she kept insisting that I "take responsibility" for my mistake. Well how can I view myself as a "losing team" (which is the meaning of "taking responsibility") and at the same time show in actions that I love her (which means I am "on the same team" as her)? How can we both be on the same team and at the same time her being a winner and me being a loser? That is contradiction in terms.



Anger is not the same as "getting the feelings out". In case of Jennifer it is the opposite. She gets just enough out to make me feel bad and after that she refuses to talk. How is refusing to talk would get anything out?

Analyzing is a much better way of "getting feelings out" since that way we can patiently go over both sides of the story, item by item. And that is what Jennifer was refusing to do.



Thanks for suggestion. I will definitely read it since this is one of the main issues that puzzles me.



Like I say when I justify I tend to want to analyze both sides so I am not "diminishing" anything. YEt other people perceive I do just that. Others always accuse me that I "don't hear" what they say anyway, which is part of why they don't want to talk to me. On my end I hear what they said just fine, and in fact this is one of hte things I analyze. I simply include in my analysis things that went on my end as well and try to point them out too. But this doesn't change the fact that i see both sides.

If you read my other posts here, you'll see I've mentioned repeatedly that I used to have no luck at all with women. That I had literally years where I could not even get a girl to talk to me. That I've had periods lasting months where I did not speak to another person at all. That I spent the majority of my life hiding from the world, by myself, brooding about my social failures, afraid to keep trying and convinced that my continued failure reflected some fundamental and uncorrectable flaw in my character, rather than just reflecting my lack of effort.

I have all the same issues as a lot of the guys here who are complaining about their lack of success. I have very little money, I have low social status, it is obvious that I am different from normal people (and not in a good way) within minutes of meeting me. I used to be convinced that no one would, or could, ever want anything to do with me, and I had the evidence of my past lack of success to back it up.

The only thing that changed was my attitude. I started saying to myself "I know I'm going to fail, but f**k it, I'm going to try anyway." And after a little while my failures started becoming less spectactular, which gave me a willingness to keep trying. And eventually, after years of hard work (I have never said it was easy to meet women or date), I attained my goal of finding a woman I love who is capable of loving me back.

There's nothing passive-aggressive about me talking about my experience. It is not a shot at you (as if I could say anything half as harsh as the things you say about yourself). Believe it or not, I am actually trying to help. I used to be you, I get how much you are hurting, and I am trying to tell you that things can get better. I'm sorry it came across the wrong way. The things I say often do.

It must be related to having similar WP names

i did say after the apology she would likely need space - not analysis.


see needing space, above.


if your analysis ultimately blames her for your actions, i can see how that would be upsetting her even further.


yes, if you did wrong, you need to take responsibility. nobody called you a bad guy - that's all in your own head. taking responsibility doesn't mean you have to label yourself with bad words. everyone makes mistakes and it doesn't make them "bad".


if a coach didn't remember who messed up he would have trouble knowing where to put his players or remembering who needs remedial work.


with all that resentment going on (which is related to anger) it sounds like an unpleasant relationship for both of you.

sounds like she was perhaps correct in her perceptions. you managed to try to turn it around on her again, even just on the forum. that is not conducive to a healthy relationship as you are avoiding the responsibility for the impact of your actions.


it was important to remember because you didn't stop hurting her when she gave you another chance. i believe the relationship was irretrievably broken by then. too much hurt.


how did she win when she was so unhappy with you? sounds like you both lost. honestly, some relationships can't be salvaged. she didn't trust you and you felt you could not change because of that (again, blaming her for your own actions). i don't think that the relationship was in a healthy place.


it gets her anger out. perhaps she could talk after she calmed down, but from what ou were saying in your analysis i don't think her anger would go away from talking about it.


not necessarily. ultimately you need to get past the idea that you know what is best for her.


when a partner is upset, blaming them for your mistake with that analysis is counterproductive. it is guanranteed to make things worse.

"Nice guys" most of the time are just confused and frustrated because they lack self insight into their own behaviour and so can't begin the long process of working on their negative aspects and becoming a better person.

It's the same way with people who are overweight and don't believe they are overweight, there is a cognitive deficit in theory of mind and being able to see oneself as other people see you.

I don't believe it's a black and white issue, I believe on the internet it's just too easy to vent and misunderstand one another. I don't take anything on the net very seriously as an example of 'who that person is'. How you perceive someone on the net and real life are usually very different because the person is actually present in the room with you. It's just to easy for anyones ego to get the better of themselves on the net because every person takes criticism of their views too personally because without being present in person one's language is rough and unfiltered.

So when you're on the net just be sure to not take it too literally. People on the net are very loose with how they express themselves. It's too easy to just believe the net is 'reality' when the net short circuits honest interaction because of the lack of physical presence.

I think hale bopp was referring to being a mean b***h in real life too....

If a woman is truly powerful, she will attack the unkind strong, not the childlike wimpy weak

Attacking the quiet nice guys is like making fun of The Amish

Big boys and girls move on from dominating smaller others

when they get big enough and confident enough to swim with their peers - equally

Otherwise they remain out of balance, like a habitual paedophile needs power over the small....rather than equality in friendships

This sounds like a parenting instinct.

I believe that nice is a blanket term, that is highly misused.

Much like quiet, it is a term that can be applied to a number of criteria. A serial killer can be nice and quiet. So can a smart computer tech major. So can a hippie, a goth, or any other person.

Usually, though, nice guy means that you're just not physically attractive to that woman. Not because you're nice, but because you're boring.

Roman is just doing what a lot of aspies do, namely, overlay his own concepts about the world onto the unknowns so that they're no longer unknowns. A lot of aspies do that. Hell, I do it: I automatically assume someone hates me or at the very least is barely tolerant of my presence until I learn otherwise. Is it necessarily true in each and every case? No. But it saves me from a lot of disappointment and heartache in this world.

The trick is to allow for exceptions to the rule. That's why I say that no woman could possibly like me, but still remain open to the possibility that one theoretically "could"...

This is how I feel, except take the "theoretically could" part out.