# I like nice guys



## Jenikyula gone mad

Here's a shout-out to all the nice guys: you're awesome! Thank you for for not being douche-bags or jerks, thank you for respecting your sexual partners, thank you for being smart, caring, considerate, thoughtful, and not domineering. If you are a nice guy who seems to finish last, don't change, just become more confident in your awesome self. Show the world you are a confident nice guy, you'll find that people will really, really dig you. :yes

Seriously, being nice + confident is a killer combination. 

*Edit:* Umm.......yeah.

*Second edit: * Seriously, nice guys are awesome. Very much appreciated. Whether you're confident or not or whatever.


----------



## amoeba

Oh no you don't! What a liar! All women like to be treated like crap a-a-and it's true because this forum told me so!!!


----------



## EunieLuv

Jenikyula gone mad said:


> Here's a shout-out to all the nice guys: you're awesome! Thank you for for not being douche-bags or ********, thank you for respecting your sexual partners, thank you for being smart, caring, considerate, thoughtful, and not domineering. If you are a nice guy who seems to finish last, don't change, just
> become more confident in your
> awesome self. Show the world
> you are a confident nice guy,
> you'll find that people will really,
> really dig you. :yes
> 
> Seriously, being nice + confident is a killer combination.


So true!!!  :yes


----------



## nemesis1

Jenikyula gone mad said:


> Here's a shout-out to all the nice guys: you're awesome! Thank you for for not being douche-bags or ********, thank you for respecting your sexual partners, thank you for being smart, caring, considerate, thoughtful, and not domineering. If you are a nice guy who seems to finish last, don't change, just become more confident in your awesome self. Show the world you are a confident nice guy, you'll find that people will really, really dig you. :yes
> 
> *Seriously, being nice + confident is a killer combination*.


The problem is that the vast majority of us nice guys on here have little or no confidence.......so yeah, great post.


----------



## Jenikyula gone mad

nemesis1 said:


> The problem is that the vast majority of us nice guys on here have little or no confidence.......so yeah, great post.


Low confidence? That's your problem. Get some. :roll


----------



## b23d

The low confidence is pretty much what defines "nice guys." I always find it funny that there are plenty of nice guys who are consistently in relationships but they wouldn't be labeled "nice guys" because they have confidence.

This is why being a "nice guy" in the sense of relationships is bad. You can be a nice guy with confidence too, but without the need to label yourself as such.


----------



## Rixy

Thank you


----------



## nemesis1

Jenikyula gone mad said:


> Low confidence? That's your problem. Get some. :roll


Ok, i'll just snap my fingers and get some confidence, because its as easy as that isnt it?

Again, great post. :roll


----------



## GunnyHighway

Too bad it doesn't seem like that's the generally accepted thing. Thanks though, nice to see someone appreciates a nice guy.

As well, great lyrics in your signature Jenikyula. Gnarls Barkley is a great duo.


----------



## nothing to fear

Agree 100%.


----------



## Chris2012

nemesis1 said:


> Ok, i'll just snap my fingers and get some confidence, because its as easy as that isnt it?
> 
> Again, great post. :roll


Well, there's a problem. You're not actually nice. (not you personally, but in general)

Most nice guys are guys with no confidence who let people walk all over them. They show respect to overcompensate and to try to somehow make people like them. If there were confidence, would you really be nice? (rhetorical)

Same is true for all of "us."


----------



## VC132

Jenikyula gone mad said:


> Low confidence? That's your problem. Get some. :roll


i think 'low confidence' is a quality the majority of us here share.

this is a forum for social anxiety afterall.


----------



## BetaBoy90

It's just.... not enough.....


----------



## anomalous

VC132 said:


> i think 'low confidence' is a quality the majority of us here share.
> 
> this is an forum for social anxiety afterall.


dingdingdingdingding

Social anxiety and low social confidence are almost inexorably linked.

So every girl who comes to SAS saying "I like nice guys, I just want them to have confidence" -- and there are a ton -- is basically just rubbing salt in the wound. And I don't mean that in the sense that they shouldn't say it if it's true; in fact, I'd prefer they do.

But I'm puzzled as to why they think it will be of any comfort to any guy who's found his way to this site in the first place.


----------



## nemesis1

anomalous said:


> dingdingdingdingding
> 
> Social anxiety and low social confidence are almost inexorably linked.
> 
> So every girl who comes to SAS saying "I like nice guys, I just want them to have confidence" -- and there are a ton -- is basically just rubbing salt in the wound. And I don't mean that in the sense that they shouldn't say it if it's true; in fact, I'd prefer they do.
> 
> But I'm puzzled as to why they think it will be of any comfort to any guy who's found his way to this site in the first place.


Exactly. All these sort of threads do is compound the things that we 'nice guys' already assume, i.e. women dont want guys who lack confidence and end up making us feel worse.

And telling someone who doesnt have any confidence to 'go get some confidence' is like telling someone with a brain injury to 'stop being a retard'.

So to the OP, thanks again for this thread. *sarcasm*


----------



## CopadoMexicano

I think fear is the root of the problem for nice guys. imo


----------



## Recipe For Disaster

Chris2012 said:


> Well, there's a problem. You're not actually nice. (not you personally, but in general)
> 
> Most nice guys are guys with no confidence who let people walk all over them. They show respect to overcompensate and to try to somehow make people like them. If there were confidence, would you really be nice? (rhetorical)
> 
> Same is true for all of "us."


exactly. i think part of why i tend to be so nice and polite and respectful is because i don't know how else to act. my reluctance to bother anyone else is linked to low self esteem.


----------



## b23d

I don't think this thread is bad, I think OP had very good intentions and am glad she made the thread letting other people know that they are appreciated!

This isn't rubbing salt in the wounds, it's giving support to those who need it.


----------



## nemesis1

b23d said:


> I don't think this thread is bad, I think OP had very good intentions and am glad she made the thread letting other people know that they are appreciated!
> 
> This isn't rubbing salt in the wounds, it's giving support to those who need it.


Actually i thought the original post was good, until she felt the need to pop the 'c' word in at the end.


----------



## b23d

Yeah, I can see why you think that. But I like to see myself as striving to get out of my low self-esteem, low confidence self. I know there's a good person who could potentially find a great person to be with in there somewhere (and who could, and used to, have a lot of great friends), and I think that's true for just about everyone else who shares these problems.

I believe OP does as well, and just wanted to show people that they're good, appreciated people who can overcome SA/can find others who are more understanding of these issues.


----------



## anomalous

nemesis1 said:


> Actually i thought the original post was good, until she felt the need to pop the 'c' word in at the end.


Yeah, and just to reiterate, I'm (personally) not claiming there was anything wrong with her starting this thread. Instead, my claim is that it puts forth a rather depressing message for most guys on SAS, which likely is not what she intended for it to be.

But sometimes the truth hurts, and it needs to be told. So I do respect her for her honesty.


----------



## Emanresu

You mean women don't like being down-trodden and treated awful? They don't enjoy it when you don't call back, or sleep with their sisters? Hmmmm

/takes notes


----------



## soft ground

Thank you, Jenikyula! A very positive and encouraging post I say! 

I don't see what for all the controversy.

It's true that you can't simply "get some confidence" with the snap of a finger, but to compare a lack of confidence with brain damage? Viewing confidence in that way is self-crippling. Confidence is something one has to build towards, something that must be cultivated. If you view it as a gene which you either have or don't have, then how will you ever be motivated to attempt to attain it? A lack of confidence is not a disease or a malignant tumor, and having confidence does not require some divine blessing. It's within your reach, unless you believe it isn't.


----------



## strugglingforhope

I've always understood nice(sensitive) guys as being the polar opposite of confident guys , a guy is anywhere on the spectrum between ultra sensitive and ultra confident, faking one or the other. I think it's easier to fake being sensitive, but if you were a girl which would you rather the guy be faking?


----------



## shynesshellasucks

I don't think being nice is the issue, but low self confidence is the issue like you said. 

Having low self confidence is the product of being unattractive. Most, if not all, SA guys struggle with social skills, most have very little friends and no life to speak of, some may also be physically unattractive, and maybe they don't have much going for them, etc. All of these unattractive things add up and produces no confidence. Having all these unattractive traits may also justify low self confidence. Nobody IRL is perfect, but most SA guys need to bring themselves up to, at least, an average guy's level. 

One of the most important traits a guy must possess is social skills. If a guy has poor social skills that are way out of the norm, don't expect him to have confidence, and certainly don't be surprised if he can't get a girlfriend either. If a guy is good looking, he has it way easier.


----------



## disarmonia mundi

Rule of thumb: don't listen to women when it comes to hearing what women really want.


----------



## fingertips

disarmonia mundi said:


> Rule of thumb: don't listen to women when it comes to hearing what women really want.


yeah, the duplicitous cows don't go for nice guys like us. too busy being irrational and deceitful, i guess.


----------



## Zuzu

The real ones anyhow...not the Fakers hiding behind a nice guy mask.


----------



## heroin

disarmonia mundi said:


> Rule of thumb: don't listen to women when it comes to hearing what women really want.


Indeed. See what they do instead. Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## heroin

joinmartin said:


> anomalous, the original post in no way puts forward any kind of depressing message for "most" guys on SAS. What you've basically done is read it and gone: "I am confident I lack confidence and can't get confidence. I am confident this person's message means this and is depressing because i am confident that most men on SAS are so called nice guys and I'm Confident that they can't get more confidence". You're confident in your own view of yourself, your own map of the world, your own negative beliefs, your own depression....so the confidence is all over the place. For you, the battle seems to be using it for something positive.


To be fair, confidence in a certain philosophy does not translate into confidence in approaching women. They're two entirely different and unrelated things. So it's not a matter of using your confidence for something positive or negative.

When most of the nice guy types say they lack confidence, what they mean is that they lack confidence in their ability to approach women or to maintain a healthy romantic relationship, etc. Whether they have confidence in other areas is quite irrelevant to that.


----------



## bezoomny

The men here are such drama queens, jeeze.


----------



## Same Difference

Jenikyula gone mad said:


> If you are a nice guy who seems to finish last, *don't change*


You mean I'm perfect and awesome just the way I am? Aww, that's so sweet of you to say.



Jenikyula gone mad said:


> just become more confident


Err, someone's losing ground here.



Jenikyula gone mad said:


> Show the world you are a confident nice guy, you'll find that people will really, really dig you.


Does anyone else find this entire post deliciously ironic? The OP claims to "like" nice guys, but she quickly restricts her preference to_ confident_ nice guys by the end. Ah, I see what you did there. Sneaky, sneaky! I, too, love ugly girls, so long as they're beautiful. When you blatantly contradict yourself in the span of a single post, you can't expect people not to feel confused.

This goes back to a previous post about not trusting women to tell you what women want. If you were really attracted to "respecting, caring, considerate" etc. men, this forum would cease to exist. I think you realized halfway through that you were being dishonest, so you quickly backpedaled and added "confident" to your list, as if those previous qualities you mentioned were meaningless without confidence (and you would be right).

Actually, I'm not sensing any sexual vibes coming from your post. It's all so sterile and genderless. I think you might appreciate a nice guy's friendship and understanding, but you feel no attraction towards him because his insecurities remind you of your own. In the long run you will almost always seek the more domineering male who can make up for your weaknesses and fill the gap in your soul. Feeling emotionally unsatisfied with that relationship, you'll invariably turn to the nice guy for comfort, to complain about how men suck, except for him, and that he deserves a good girlfriend eventually, except that this is never her or any other woman he might encounter. Actually, I feel like you're speaking down to me.


----------



## nemesis1

From the tone of her post, i get the impression that the OP is one of those girls that regularly gets guys approaching her, and/or has no problems finding partners, getting into relationships....etc, so she feels she has a right to patronize other people who are not so lucky by telling us what we should or shouldnt have.....

There seems to be a lot of women on here like this, infact there seems to be a lot of women like this in general unfortunately.


----------



## LatchKeyKid

This is one of those threads that reappears periodically and with an absurd consistency. Parsing through the replies here, unsurprising that much of the male population of SAS is maladroit with women.



Same Difference said:


> Does anyone else find this entire post deliciously ironic? The OP claims to "like" nice guys, but she quickly restricts her preference to_ confident_ nice guys by the end. Ah, I see what you did there. Sneaky, sneaky! I, too, love ugly girls, so long as they're beautiful. When you blatantly contradict yourself in the span of a single post, you can't expect people not to feel confused.


There is no contradiction. Confidence can express itself in various ways.

By and large, men are attracted to beautiful women. By and large, women are attracted to confident men. (This is simplified and not universally true, but bear with me for the sake of argument.) You wouldn't fault a man for being attracted to physical beauty, would you? By the same token, you simply can't fault a woman for being attracted to confidence. Jenikyula was being neither sneaky nor disingenuous; she finds confidence attractive and she has written as much. Deal with it.



Same Difference said:


> This goes back to a previous post about not trusting women to tell you what women want. If you were really attracted to "respecting, caring, considerate" etc. men, this forum would cease to exist. I think you realized halfway through that you were being dishonest, so you quickly backpedaled and added "confident" to your list, as if those previous qualities you mentioned were meaningless without confidence (and you would be right).


That the men on this forum generally have low self-esteem does not automatically make them all "respecting, caring, considerate". SAS has its share of a$sholes and its share of genuinely good guys. Confidence, as a trait, is not that closely linked with how "nice" or "good" a person is.



Same Difference said:


> Actually, I'm not sensing any sexual vibes coming from your post. It's all so sterile and genderless. I think you might appreciate a nice guy's friendship and understanding, but you feel no attraction towards him because his insecurities remind you of your own. In the long run you will almost always seek the more domineering male who can make up for your weaknesses and fill the gap in your soul. Feeling emotionally unsatisfied with that relationship, you'll invariably turn to the nice guy for comfort, to complain about how men suck, except for him, and that he deserves a good girlfriend eventually, except that this is never her or any other woman he might encounter. Actually, I feel like you're speaking down to us.


If you think you're a "nice guy", as I suspect you do, look over this paragraph again. You're revealing a bitterness, insecurity and nastiness which is going to turn off every woman you meet.


----------



## sean88

Jenikyula gone mad said:


> Here's a shout-out to all the nice guys: you're awesome! Thank you for for not being douche-bags or jerks, thank you for respecting your sexual partners, thank you for being smart, caring, considerate, thoughtful, and not domineering. If you are a nice guy who seems to finish last, don't change, just become more confident in your awesome self. Show the world you are a confident nice guy, you'll find that people will really, really dig you. :yes
> 
> Seriously, being nice + confident is a killer combination.


Yay for nice guys! :]

Lemme just say the same except for women! Haha. ^_^


----------



## Same Difference

LatchKeyKid said:


> If you think you're a "nice guy", as I suspect you do, look over this paragraph again. You're revealing a bitterness, insecurity and nastiness which is going to turn off every woman you meet.


This is an online forum, buddy. I don't feel obliged to be nice to any of you because you're nothing to me except letters on a computer screen. So don't make assumptions about what I am in real life.


----------



## au Lait

disarmonia mundi said:


> Rule of thumb: don't listen to women when it comes to hearing what women really want.


----------



## rockyraccoon

I think the girl (the original poster) was right in her assertion about nice guys. I for one lack confidence like most guys on the board, but I think her message was that us SA guys need to build confidence. Don't take her message as insulting. We have to think positive. Think of her message as a form of motivation to try to build up your confidence. That is the common deomoninator between us SA people: we need to build up confidence. And by the way, some girls like shy guys simply because generally we are more honest (I know girls love honesty, how I know this I don't know, I just do) and like some of the other posters said we are not wearing a mask. Therefore, our shy introverted personality is a true, honest reflection of who we are.


----------



## percyblueraincoat

heroin said:


> To be fair, confidence in a certain philosophy does not translate into confidence in approaching women. They're two entirely different and unrelated things. So it's not a matter of using your confidence for something positive or negative.
> 
> When most of the nice guy types say they lack confidence, what they mean is that they lack confidence in their ability to approach women or to maintain a healthy romantic relationship, etc. Whether they have confidence in other areas is quite irrelevant to that.


How are they two different things? How are they two un related things? It is about using your confidence for the positive or the negative. "Confidence" is not one thing for starters and neither is "confidence for approaching women". It's not like you go: "oh, I will now go and inject myself with confidence for approaching women". It's not a static thing and it will mean different things for different people.

And how do you automatically know what "most" of these "nice guys" mean when they say they lack confidence?

Again with the ability mindset. Whether they have confidence in other areas is certainly not irrelevant to whether they feel they can approach a woman, maintain a healthy relationship (whatever that means. Erm...you're in a relationship with someone which means a partnership is going on so it's more about the two people working together then it is about the man's ability to do this or that).

If you lack confidence in one area of your life you can move the confidence you have in another area of your life over and use it.

What prevents that is clinging to the idea that confidence can only come from competency.

So, a guy who lacks confidence in his so called "ability" to approach women may think:

"I have not shown to myself that I can approach women and get the results I want that are inside my own control. Because I believe that I have to show to myself that I can do it before I feel confident enough to do it I will forever be stuck in the loop where I feel I can't be confident enough to do it because I haven't done it before".

If you have faith in yourself in one area of your life, you can approach women in the same manner you'd do that thing you have confidence in. It's called "doing it in the manner of..."

When I want to approach a woman and I'm nervous, I think back to all those times when I've been confident in myself and the things I've been doing. Doesn't matter what it is. Doing this creates a confident state.

Confidence of any philosophy and in anything can translate into confidence approaching women.

It's not a matter of confidence in an ability. Ability is not the issue. If you drive, you can become afraid of driving and lack confidence in driving. Why? You clearly have the ability to do it and have shown through competency that you can do it? So why can you become afraid and lack confidence in it?

The confidence is in the self not in the action. The confidence from the self prompts the self to do the action. If I feel confident in myself, and granted this is just my personal experience but I have seen this work for others too, I will approach more people than if I do not feel confident in myself. That's my faith in myself. Not my faith in any ability.

You can know you can act and sing and still get stage fright.


----------



## Rixy

Heh. One simple compliment stirs up an emotional ****storm. Why am I not surprised?


----------



## VanDamMan

There does seem to be a double standard that many women don't see. 

The OP probably meant it to inspire, however its really the equivalent of "I like guys without SA".

If a guy said "I only date women who are confident".......it sounds a bit strange.


----------



## BetaBoy90

I like nice guys too, easy lunch money for me! Muahahaha


----------



## au Lait

VanDamMan said:


> There does seem to be a double standard that many women don't see.
> 
> The OP probably meant it to inspire, however its really the equivalent of "I like guys without SA".
> 
> If a guy said "I only date women who are confident".......it sounds a bit strange.


How so? 
There are a lot of guys who prefer women that are confident. I've never really dated a guy who thought it was totally awesome that I'm shy. In fact, usually they would end up getting frustrated with me because they would want to go do super social things like parties or w/e, which I never wanted to do because of SA/lack of confidence. I went on a few dates with a guy who stopped talking to me randomly, then later I found out that he was telling everyone that I had "no personality"...I'm pretty sure it's obvious from my posts here that I do, in fact, have a personality. It's just that it's not that easy for me to show it to people in real life due to not being a confident, in-your-face person, which I guess was what that guy was looking for. So yeah, the point of this anecdote is that the no-confidence thing does affect women. /cool story, me

I personally am not bothered if a guy has no confidence. How can I demand something of someone else that I don't even posses myself?


----------



## anomalous

au Lait said:


> I personally am not bothered if a guy has no confidence. How can I demand something of someone else that I don't even posses myself?


You're a rare breed, then, even amongst the SA community here.

I'd ask you to marry me, but I'm pretty sure you've already got at least 10 other propositions after making that post.


----------



## rockyraccoon

au Lait said:


> How so?
> 
> I personally am not bothered if a guy has no confidence. How can I demand something of someone else that I don't even posses myself?


 That's a truly genuine statement.:cuddle


----------



## rockyraccoon

Rixy said:


> Heh. One simple compliment stirs up an emotional ****storm. Why am I not surprised?


 Yeah I agree.


----------



## Emanresu

VanDamMan said:


> There does seem to be a double standard that many women don't see.
> 
> The OP probably meant it to inspire, however its really the equivalent of "I like guys without SA".
> 
> If a guy said "I only date women who are confident".......it sounds a bit strange.


Because we're guys and will date a pop-tart when it comes down to it.
I would anyways, mmmm pop-tarts.


----------



## VanDamMan

au Lait said:


> How so?
> There are a lot of guys who prefer women that are confident. I've never really dated a guy who thought it was totally awesome that I'm shy. In fact, usually they would end up getting frustrated with me because they would want to go do super social things like parties or w/e, which I never wanted to do because of SA/lack of confidence. I went on a few dates with a guy who stopped talking to me randomly, then later I found out that he was telling everyone that I had "no personality"...I'm pretty sure it's obvious from my posts here that I do, in fact, have a personality. It's just that it's not that easy for me to show it to people in real life due to not being a confident, in-your-face person, which I guess was what that guy was looking for. So yeah, the point of this anecdote is that the no-confidence thing does affect women. /cool story, me
> 
> I personally am not bothered if a guy has no confidence. How can I demand something of someone else that I don't even posses myself?


At least you went on the date. Most women in my experience, if you don't immediately pass the litmus confidence test, won't even see you to the dating stage.

Confidence is attractive for both sexes. But it is absolutely necessary for guys.


> Because we're guys and will date a pop-tart when it comes down to it.
> I would anyways, mmmm pop-tarts.


 There is some truth to this. But next question is why?



> The women I met wanted a man to be confident. They wanted in many ways to defer to him. I could feel that on many dates, the unspoken desire to be held up and led, whether in conversation or even in physical space, and at times it made me feel quite small in my costume, like a young man must feel when he's just coming of age and he's suddenly expected to carry the world under his arm like a football.


Here is something from Norah Vincents book about living life as a guy.


----------



## leonardess

^ is it? is it really? ok, this is just one anecdotal story, but my SO is NOT confident with women when it comes to asking them out and so on. But then neither am I all that confident with men I"m interested in, which explains why we met on a dating site. 

so, confidence is NOT absolutely compulsory for ALL men. I find it hard to believe that the fella I'm seeing is the ONLY man out there for whom it was not necessary to get a date, albeit it was just me.


----------



## VanDamMan

I usually talk in generalities. There are always exceptions to every rule.


----------



## leonardess

^ I enjoy kicking these cans back and forth with you. 

so, how many exceptions must we ignore, before we begin to accept that perhaps the rule can be different for each one of us?


----------



## BetaBoy90

leonardess said:


> ^ I enjoy kicking these cans back and forth with you.
> 
> so, how many exceptions must we ignore, before we begin to accept that perhaps the rule can be different for each one of us?


Us non-generalists must just accept the fact that most people believe generalizations are the true.... Oooooh, that felt good! :wink


----------



## leonardess

^ it was good for me too.


----------



## BetaBoy90

leonardess said:


> ^ it was good for me too.


I knew it would, I can read your character profile makeup from a mile away


----------



## leonardess

I hope I am that transparent.


----------



## BetaBoy90

leonardess said:


> I hope I am that transparent.


Yeah, considering what Reality Shows have taught us that there are only 16 different types of people at most, and then when you factor in that 8 of those people are men and also 1 of the women was black, it was really quite simple to figure out everything I now assume I know about you


----------



## leonardess

^ well, that tears it. I am in over my head. I haven't watched any reality shows since 2003. I'm officially old.


----------



## BetaBoy90

Heh, yeah I watch Big Brother so I'm quite up to date with anything and everything worth knowing. With that said I generalize alot too, so not only am I a generalizer but I'm also a hypocritizer, which is the long version for the word hypocrit


----------



## leonardess

^tsk tsk, dropping your e's so wantonly. makes one wonder what else you are dropping??


----------



## heroin

joinmartin said:


> How are they two different things? How are they two un related things? It is about using your confidence for the positive or the negative. "Confidence" is not one thing for starters and neither is "confidence for approaching women". It's not like you go: "oh, I will now go and inject myself with confidence for approaching women". It's not a static thing and it will mean different things for different people.


They are different things because you don't have a trait called confidence that you can choose to apply to one thing or another in your life. You can be supremely confident that you can do your job well, yet still lack confidence to approach women.

Or, take the case of the videogame nerd. He can be very confident in his ability to "pwn n00bs" in multiplayer videogames, yet have no confidence whatsoever to approach women. This can be observed in the sizeable videogame nerd population, thereby providing you with an example of the phenomenon.

Yes, confidence is not a static thing and it can be built. I am not disputing that. But it's quite rare that it can be transferred from one area of your life to another. And certainly not possible in the case of transferring it from negative views of romance to approaching women.



joinmartin said:


> And how do you automatically know what "most" of these "nice guys" mean when they say they lack confidence?


Personal experience. Observation. If you dispute it, we could start a poll to ask all the self-proclaimed nice guys on here what they mean by lacking confidence. I suspect my assertion would hold true.



joinmartin said:


> Again with the ability mindset. Whether they have confidence in other areas is certainly not irrelevant to whether they feel they can approach a woman, maintain a healthy relationship (whatever that means. Erm...you're in a relationship with someone which means a partnership is going on so it's more about the two people working together then it is about the man's ability to do this or that).


Confidence in maintaining a healthy relationship means being confident enough to do their part in the "working together" that you mention.



joinmartin said:


> If you lack confidence in one area of your life you can move the confidence you have in another area of your life over and use it.


No you cannot. I am confident of my ability to make computer programmes, or of communicating in five different languages. I see no way at all in which I could transfer that confidence to approaching women. The two skills are as alike as chalk and cheese.

Just saying you can do it doesn't make it so. And there are plenty of people who demonstrate that. Plenty of people who are confident of communicating well online, or holding down jobs, or achieving things in their lives that they can be proud of, and yet lack the confidence required to socialize with other people or approach women.



joinmartin said:


> What prevents that is clinging to the idea that confidence can only come from competency.


It doesn't come from competency, but it can certainly be bolstered by it. If you've been successful at a certain activity in the past, it certainly boosts your confidence to be successful at it again.

Of course, you need to start somewhere. Nobody is born knowing how to do stuff. That doesn't mean that they can just use the confidence accumulated in other areas and apply it to new activities. Someone's confidence in balancing accounts can in no way be transferred to jumping out of planes to skydive.



joinmartin said:


> So, a guy who lacks confidence in his so called "ability" to approach women may think:
> 
> "I have not shown to myself that I can approach women and get the results I want that are inside my own control. Because I believe that I have to show to myself that I can do it before I feel confident enough to do it I will forever be stuck in the loop where I feel I can't be confident enough to do it because I haven't done it before".


Approaching women is a kind of social and emotional interaction. Apart from the physical appearance, you basically make an offer of companionship. If you have had success with similar offers in the past, for example, making close friends, etc. it builds your confidence in your ability to provide at least some kind of companionship that people find desirable. It makes you feel confident that people like being around you, at least.

If you do not feel confident in offering any kind of companionship and you are not confident of your physical appearance being able to attract someone of the opposite sex (may not be true, but you think so), you basically have little to offer in a romantic partnership. Therefore, the lack of confidence.



joinmartin said:


> If you have faith in yourself in one area of your life, you can approach women in the same manner you'd do that thing you have confidence in. It's called "doing it in the manner of..."


Okay, how do you skydive in the manner of balancing your accounts?



joinmartin said:


> When I want to approach a woman and I'm nervous, I think back to all those times when I've been confident in myself and the things I've been doing. Doesn't matter what it is. Doing this creates a confident state.


Maybe it works for you. It certainly does not for me.



joinmartin said:


> It's not a matter of confidence in an ability. Ability is not the issue. If you drive, you can become afraid of driving and lack confidence in driving. Why? You clearly have the ability to do it and have shown through competency that you can do it? So why can you become afraid and lack confidence in it?


Ability is no guarantee of confidence, but it can certainly bolster it. If I am able to drive, it is very likely that I'd be confident of doing so. Lack of confidence in driving despite having the ability is a relatively rare occurrence.



joinmartin said:


> You can know you can act and sing and still get stage fright.


The ability there is not acting or singing, but the ability to deliver a public performance. Someone who is able to deliver a public performance is far less likely to get stage fright than someone lacking that ability. Of course, you can cultivate the ability. But until you do it, you (generally) would be more prone to stage fright than someone who has already built that ability.


----------



## BetaBoy90

hypocrite*


----------



## leonardess

^ ha, just now saw that.


----------



## leonardess

VanDamMan said:


> I usually talk in generalities. There are always exceptions to every rule.


okay, I'll just kick the can around myself.

I'm not trying to pick scabs or anything, but how confident do you consider yourself to be? If I rememer rightly, you're married? and since you are here, you're a shy person? even on this forum, there is a thread title asking something like "how can so many of you have bfs/gfs" or something.

just walking around the city where I used to live, I saw plenty of people coupled up and married. I find it hard to believe that each and every one of those people are the epitome of confidence.


----------



## VanDamMan

leonardess said:


> okay, I'll just kick the can around myself.
> 
> I'm not trying to pick scabs or anything, but how confident do you consider yourself to be? If I rememer rightly, you're married? and since you are here, you're a shy person? even on this forum, there is a thread title asking something like "how can so many of you have bfs/gfs" or something.
> 
> just walking around the city where I used to live, I saw plenty of people coupled up and married. I find it hard to believe that each and every one of those people are the epitome of confidence.


I didn't respond cause I thought the subject kind of passed. I don't mind responding though.

In the past, in the beginning trying to figure the female/male dynamic, I was a normal honest, nice, unconfident guy. However I was walked upon by most women and never given the time of day. It wasn't until I started faking confidence that I started getting attention from women(I faked it by acting like a jerk but that is a different conversation). I've seen similar results from friends as well.

There are some mature women with character like yourself that can look past the superficial to see a true person. But from my own observations from life is that you are in the minority.

I suggest reading the norah vincent book I reference earlier back. She really spotlights a lot of male culture that is unknown to most women.


----------



## bsd3355

Jenikyula gone mad said:


> Here's a shout-out to all the nice guys: you're awesome! Thank you for for not being douche-bags or jerks, thank you for respecting your sexual partners, thank you for being smart, caring, considerate, thoughtful, and not domineering. If you are a nice guy who seems to finish last, don't change, just become more confident in your awesome self. Show the world you are a confident nice guy, you'll find that people will really, really dig you. :yes
> 
> Seriously, being nice + confident is a killer combination.


People who see otherwise should grow up a little. You can be a nice guy and respected by having confidence in yourself and you abilities. The word "nice" doesn't equate to being a pushover ya nimrods!

I'm a nice guy. If you treat me badly I'll either be nasty right back or more likely ignore you and move on and exclude you from my life because your a waste of my time, energy and ambitions. Most guys who are jerks for the heck of it are put in that category..they usually are the scum of them earth and are seen and treated that way.

Stop complicating things. A woman who likes someone to treat her badly has issues she needs to deal with. It isn't more complicated than that. You want evidence of "nice" guy and girl couples? Look around you!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, so you talked to them briefly and you think they are both nice...oh look, it's that NICE guy with his girlfriend...oh, wait a minute...this must mean he goes home and beats her and only treats her nicely infront of people... because girls ONLY like *******s.... (give me a break)

Just because a woman doesn't like you doesn't mean she won't date the next guy standing by you for reasons BEYOND a bad attitude. The truth may hurt you more than what you think now...the truth may be that your not good enough looking, your ignorant, shy, blah blah blah... the list can go on. Saying that all women are the same is like saying all men are the same, and if you think that to be the case then your blind.

That logic is dumber than dumb.


----------



## bsd3355

Back on this again...

Furthermore, maybe it isn't beyond madness to assume that there are more scumbags on planet earth than you previously thought? Am I a negative person? No. Not everyone can be good. 

So what makes a scumbag in my opinion? Selfishness is a normal thing to a degree but to disregard those who are less fortunate than you and whom deserve it is something entirely different. There are other scumbags who put themselves in that position though, and for them they do not necessarily deserve redemption in terms of support or kindness because they will not change.

Why do I bring this up? I mainly felt like discussing this because while you are beating yourself up (the insecure ones) over whether or not there are any "good" people out there and why you feel inadequate, just realize that it isn't a fictional plot of mine to say that some people are selfish beyond any good for others, and to reconcile yourself with indifference toward those people is a way of taking care of your wellbeing. Yes, while many good people are out there, there are also a lot of insecure, selfish, lowlife scumbags who would soon use and abuse you before giving you a helping hand, so take that into consideration when you complain about "all the bad people".

You can chose to be a scumbag-lowlife if you want to because you have this hunch that it attracts women, but what you may also be attracting is all that negative energy people have against lowlifes and put the spotlight on you; dubbing you that title. You don't have to be anyone but yourself to attract the opposite sex.

What really matters may hurt more than what one "attitude" will entail. Once again, what really may be the case is that your not good looking enough, not smart enough, not tall enough, not rich or poor enough, not educated enough, not old/young enough, not the same ethnicity, not the same or opposite sex, don't have big legs, don't have three eyes, don't have a purple wallet, don't drive a used crown victoria with a hanging spotlight off the side, don't eat puppies...... the truth is, there are millions of reasons dependent upon the INDIVISUAL. It is dangerous to assume that everyone is the same. To an extreme example, it was dangerous that Hitler "assumed" that a certain background was more superior than the rest. These things are based on assumptions, when really people are unique and may or may not share the same views as you.

I've seen pretty ugly guys with really hot girlfriends. I've seen good looking guys with not so good looking girls. I've seen fat people with skinny people. I've seen blacks with whites. I've seen paraplegics with happy marriages with those who are not handicapped. I've seen old men marry young women and vise versa. I've seen nice girls and guys with "bad" girls and guys. I've known people who met through jail. I've known people who met off the internet. I've known people who literally do nothing, and those who do everything, and find someone. I've seen those never be married nor have children. My point is, it depends on the indivisual. So let me ask you something then, explain that logic to me. Stop being blind.

So what is the fuss about all this "bad boy" crap? Well, for starters, in the not so distance past (50 years, etc) none of this "alpha male" BS was even considered. Heck, from what I understand in the 50's it was about a man be chivalrous, etc, and what people don't seem to understand is that people as a species evolve—what was exciting and accepted then may of worked for that time but what is happening now may not. In more depth, what was happening then can still happen now and vise versa. There is no set rule or boundary because people are individuals and different. It is amazing to think how an idea that most likely sprouted up from advertising or from someone else's ignorance fueled by insecurity has caught fire among the population, and such instance is this notion of how women react to men and vise versa, as if we are robotics programmed to behave and react certain ways without concern of our upbringing and past. If you fall victim to a notion of pin-point certainty of rigidness concerning how people react and are then your most likely not looking at the whole picture or are yourself ignorant of the fact.

Remember, people don't like you for their reasons. A woman doesn't have to like you because you think your "good" enough. Life ain't fair. Deal with it and stop being neonnazis (not literally, but yeah). 

Still want to argue? That's fine, but all you have to do is open your eyes and look around you. People are attracted to beauty, sure, but what happens to beauty when you get older? When you reach a certain age where beauty deteriorates, will you be so concerned about getting a "hot chick" 20-30 years younger than you? I say this because you may not always think the same way you do now and what changes that is time. Nothing is set in stone and not everyone is thinking the way you are.

Another thing to consider is this: while it may seem like women are this way because of what you've seen from others around you, realize that you may be looking at those who are in the same boat. People who conjugate to these forums are less likely to find relationships for a variety of reasons. However, if you were to join another forum about happy married people discussing their happy marriages then you'd be on the other side of the fence thinking, "Oh, the opposite sex is great and we love each other, and people are so nice, etc". Your looking at a view from a certain group of individuals with alike perspectives and are surrounded by those who are in your same boat which strengthens your beliefs. A healthy alternative to open your eyes is to join a forum or group of people who are in the opposite boat than you and then you can see that not everyone is the same. The world was meant to be changing and different. Some of us will never find a relationship, ever, and why is that strange? The world isn't meant to be all the same. Maybe it just seems strange because it is happening to you? Really, someone has to be different, and different is good. It just so happens to be you. Deal with it and stop thinking one way because a GROUP of people think that way—you are putting more attention to that than the other evidences out there! It is a strong belief in you because you just so happen to be that person without a relationship and with certain experiences, but so are those who share your strong beliefs. Oh no, "the world is just that way"—look outside the f'n box!


----------



## uhhhbrandon

Are there "nice" girls? I'm working on my confidence, but why can't you just accept me the way I am. Not the way I will or could be.


----------



## CopadoMexicano

Ive never seen a gorgeous or incredibly attractive girl with an ugly guy and all these oversimplified ideas. neither have i seen a very good looking guy with a good looking girl. Im going to be nice and good looking because maybe someday ill have that gorgeous wife.


----------



## heroin

uhhhbrandon said:


> Are there "nice" girls? I'm working on my confidence, but why can't you just accept me the way I am. Not the way I will or could be.


From what I understand, in general (hah!) confidence is something that leads to women being attracted to you. Lack of confidence leads to being turned off. So if you have no confidence, it's very likely that you won't be found attractive.

In a nutshell, the way you are is not attractive.


----------



## uhhhbrandon

heroin said:


> From what I understand, in general (hah!) confidence is something that leads to women being attracted to you. Lack of confidence leads to being turned off. So if you have no confidence, it's very likely that you won't be found attractive.
> 
> In a nutshell, the way you are is not attractive.


Then, I'm hideous! lol


----------



## bsd3355

MavenMI6Agent009 said:


> Ive never seen a gorgeous or incredibly attractive girl with an ugly guy and all these oversimplified ideas. neither have i seen a very good looking guy with a good looking girl. Im going to be nice and good looking because maybe someday ill have that gorgeous wife.


I have. Different tastes I suppose. I know a couple with an, I guess to say politely, "average" looking guy and a pretty cute girlfriend. I could show you picture on Facebook. Heck, I'm even in them if ya don't believe me.


----------



## bsd3355

heroin said:


> From what I understand, in general (hah!) confidence is something that leads to women being attracted to you. Lack of confidence leads to being turned off. So if you have no confidence, it's very likely that you won't be found attractive.
> 
> In a nutshell, the way you are is not attractive.


Confidence is a good thing to have and an attractive trait, but I do believe it is more complex than that. People tend to want the whole package deal more often than not, and the package deal varies from person to person and is also influenced by tastes and objectives.

I will be honest though, these are the MAIN things I've seen influence couples coming together:

1) Physical attraction
2) Chemistry (similar beliefs, goals, ambitions, ATTITUDE (typically good behavior), etc)
3) Religious beliefs

Really, #2 probably plays the biggest role throughout the entire duration of any relationship. Somethings such as religion are also knockout punches. I could of dated a girl I really, really, really liked but she was way too religious for me.


----------



## heroin

bwidger85 said:


> Confidence is a good thing to have and an attractive trait, but I do believe it is more complex than that. People tend to want the whole package deal more often than not, and the package deal varies from person to person and is also influenced by tastes and objectives.


The impression I get is that confidence is a pretty big part of the whole package, and it can make or break someone's attraction to you, i.e. lack of confidence is a dealbreaker more often than not.



bwidger85 said:


> Somethings such as religion are also knockout punches. I could of dated a girl I really, really, really liked but she was way too religious for me.


I don't think I'd have much problem with religion. Sure I'm an atheist, but I'm not phobic of religious places or events. My family is quite religious and I participate with them in plenty of religious stuff. I just don't believe. No problem with sitting in a church. It's boring but if someone needs the company, I don't really mind so much.


----------



## anomalous

VanDamMan said:


> In the past, in the beginning trying to figure the female/male dynamic, I was a normal honest, nice, unconfident guy. However I was walked upon by most women and never given the time of day. It wasn't until I started faking confidence that I started getting attention from women(I faked it by acting like a jerk but that is a different conversation). I've seen similar results from friends as well.


This matches extremely well with my experiences and observations.

I've seen a fairly consistent pattern with friends I've had over the years: when we first become friends, they're awkward, nerdy "nice guys" like me who embrace their nature as such. Then they get tired of being left out and looked down upon by everyone else and start faking it -- sometimes very poorly.

Even faking it poorly usually does wonders for attracting both male and female attention and companionship.


----------



## PickleNose

Well, I guess the real issue here is that most "nice" people aren't as nice as they seem. They're usually just polite. And generally, people are polite because they don't know you well enough to be impolite.

You ever notice that sometimes you meet people who seem so nice? And probably those were the people you decided to spend some time getting to know. And then when you get to know them, you start to see more and more of the blemishes they don't show just anyone. 

Anyway, I think this is why some females are down on "nice guys". You could call it "getting burned". People often get really upset when you don't get quite what was promised in the ad. When it comes to dating and relationships, first impressions are kind of like our advertisements. You meet someone new and you're exceptionally friendly - You might not be doing it consciously but you're probably being a little bit deceptive. Some people see this as being phony. Females often have to deal with massive numbers of men approaching them. I can see why many of them just want the guy to be himself. Truth in advertising.

In other words, everyone has undesirable traits and characteristics tucked away somewhere inside them even if they aren't immediately apparent. Smart women know this after they deal with enough men who were wily enough to conceal their warts well enough to make an amazing first impression. Unfortunately, if there's one think most women hate, it's dishonesty.


----------



## house bound

they have to be confidant as well ? whats wrong with just being nice ?


----------



## house bound

same difference said:


> you mean i'm perfect and awesome just the way i am? Aww, that's so sweet of you to say.
> 
> Err, someone's losing ground here.
> 
> Does anyone else find this entire post deliciously ironic? The op claims to "like" nice guys, but she quickly restricts her preference to_ confident_ nice guys by the end. Ah, i see what you did there. Sneaky, sneaky! I, too, love ugly girls, so long as they're beautiful. When you blatantly contradict yourself in the span of a single post, you can't expect people not to feel confused.
> 
> This goes back to a previous post about not trusting women to tell you what women want. If you were really attracted to "respecting, caring, considerate" etc. Men, this forum would cease to exist. I think you realized halfway through that you were being dishonest, so you quickly backpedaled and added "confident" to your list, as if those previous qualities you mentioned were meaningless without confidence (and you would be right).
> 
> Actually, i'm not sensing any sexual vibes coming from your post. It's all so sterile and genderless. I think you might appreciate a nice guy's friendship and understanding, but you feel no attraction towards him because his insecurities remind you of your own. In the long run you will almost always seek the more domineering male who can make up for your weaknesses and fill the gap in your soul. Feeling emotionally unsatisfied with that relationship, you'll invariably turn to the nice guy for comfort, to complain about how men suck, except for him, and that he deserves a good girlfriend eventually, except that this is never her or any other woman he might encounter. Actually, i feel like you're speaking down to me.


exactly !!


----------



## house bound

nemesis1 said:


> from the tone of her post, i get the impression that the op is one of those girls that regularly gets guys approaching her, and/or has no problems finding partners, getting into relationships....etc, so she feels she has a right to patronize other people who are not so lucky by telling us what we should or shouldnt have.....


 exactly!!


----------



## mcmuffinme

I love nice guys, but the key is that they have to be genuinely nice- not just acting nice to get something they want. You can tell a real nice guy from a phony pretty easily. Guys that fake their sincerity usually get fed up often and easily when they don't get the results they want from being nice (results such as acceptance from the opposite sex as if it were owed to them for being kind) and can end up blaming women in blanket generalizations. This shows to me that a guy is being nice because he wants something, and not because he is a considerate person.

I like nice guys for a very simple reason- they make me feel safe. Who wouldn't want that????

This relates to why women like men who like animals. It shows they have a heart, and will likely exercise empathy. My mom said she felt certain she wanted to be with my father when she saw him kiss his cat's head when she was over at his house. Haha, it's funny cause now she gets pissed at him for always worrying about whether all our cats are inside. My dad's as sensitive as they come.


----------



## mardy423

You're Welcome


----------



## heroin

This is how the nice guy is seen by women. Apparently nice guy's hopes for a sexual relationship are creepy and any thought of him being a sexual being is revolting.

So, there's nothing to be gained from being one. It'll never work. If you're a nice guy, change your strategy. It'll save everyone a lot of trouble.

EDIT: You know, my mum always dumps on me about how terrible other people are and how this or that thing/situation/person sucks, etc. and I usually just nod along to whatever she says. You know, the typical interaction between the "nice guy" and his dear friend.

If that doesn't give you an idea of how asexual the whole thing is (that my mother can talk to me about it), then there's no hope for you.


----------



## fingertips

heroin said:


> This is how the nice guy is seen by women. Apparently nice guy's hopes for a sexual relationship are creepy and any thought of him being a sexual being is revolting.


psst. i think you've misread this somehow.


----------



## heroin

fingertips said:


> psst. i think you've misread this somehow.


If you mean that what I take away from the article about nice guy being a creep is not actually mentioned within; of course it isn't. What I posted is my own interpretation of it. Largely due to the article mentioning that his ulteroir motives are "obvious" and transparently selfish to the general public. I assume the nice guy's female friend is among the general public.

You're free to disagree, or post something to challenge my interpretation, or ignore my views entirely.


----------



## fingertips

well i kind of assumed the thing you posted was talking about this kind of nice guy and not just guys who happen to be nice~


----------



## heroin

fingertips said:


> well i kind of assumed the thing you posted was talking about this kind of nice guy and not just guys who happen to be nice~


Probably a difference in interpretation of what a nice guy is.

So let me put it in simpler terms.

The *wrong* kind of nice guy:
If you are a nice guy who develops a friendship with a girl with a view towards later developing a romantic relationship with her, then you are a creepy little selfish twerp.

The *right *kind of nice guy:
If you identify yourself as a guy who happens to be nice and does not apply the above strategy (friendship first with the hope of a romance afterwards) to develop relationships with women then you are the right kind of nice guy.

There, does that distinction makes things clearer?

So what we can conclude is that if you make friends with a girl and waste time listening to inane babble about her tortured love life, her friends, parents, what her other best friend said and what she really meant, etc. that you should be doing this entirely out of the goodness of your heart. Especially if you're one of those without a love life of your own. And if you have any expectation of a romance developig out of this then you are the wrong kind of nice guy.

That is all I wanted to say. That don't be the nice 'guy friend' (who does all that providing an emotional cushion thing) who does that if you want to develop a relationship with the girl. It'll get you nowhere.


----------



## Nae

heroin said:


> This is how the nice guy is seen by women. Apparently nice guy's hopes for a sexual relationship are creepy and any thought of him being a sexual being is revolting.
> 
> So, there's nothing to be gained from being one. It'll never work. If you're a nice guy, change your strategy. It'll save everyone a lot of trouble.


I've seen PUA subjects get a lot of derision on these forums but this is something that is discussed and as I understand it, admittedly maybe not so well: 1) women aren't oblivious, they know if a guy is making advances. 2) women differentiate between sexuality/sexuality within a relationship/friendship. Taking these into account, It seems you need to know how to make your intentions known at the outset. It's something like a pascal wager in that even if it fails and she isn't looking for what you're desiring, you lose nothing because there's little hope for what you were desiring.


----------



## heroin

Nae said:


> Taking these into account, It seems you need to know how to make your intentions known at the outset. It's something like a pascal wager in that even if it fails and she isn't looking for what you're desiring, you lose nothing because there's little hope for what you were desiring.


Oh yes, I'm completely on board with making your intentions clear at the outset. But that means expressing romantic interest at the outset. And if the woman's reply is to be friends and see how it goes, well, it'd be best to drop the idea.


----------



## fingertips

heroin said:


> things


i didn't think it was such a controversial notion that simply listening to a person in no way entitles you to a relationship with that person.



> The *wrong* kind of nice guy:
> If you are a nice guy who develops a friendship with a girl with a view towards later developing a romantic relationship with her, then you are a creepy little selfish twerp.
> 
> The *right *kind of nice guy:
> If you identify yourself as a guy who happens to be nice and does not apply the above strategy (friendship first with the hope of a romance afterwards) to develop relationships with women then you are the right kind of nice guy.


um, yeah, kind of. i don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a relationship with a friend, but developing a friendship with the express intent of having it turn into a relationship seems pretty skeezy. treating human relationships as _strategies_ with _goals _and_ rules _sounds a bit wrong!


----------



## heroin

fingertips said:


> i didn't think it was such a controversial notion that simply listening to a person in no way entitles you to a relationship with that person.


It doesn't entitle you to anything, yes.
But it is a controversial notion because so many people are aware of the phenomenon and testify to it and complain about it.
I'm just saying that *if* you think listening to someone is going to make your chances of a romance better down the line then you are wasting your time. I didn't say it entitled them to anything.



fingertips said:


> um, yeah, kind of. i don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a relationship with a friend, but developing a friendship with the express intent of having it turn into a relationship seems pretty skeezy. treating human relationships as _strategies_ with _goals _and_ rules _sounds a bit wrong!


So what is dating? If not "getting to know" someone with the eventual _goal_ of forming a relationship with them? What about people who live together as a means of judging each other's suitability for marriage (which is the goal).

Human relationships are strategic and goal-oriented whether you wish to believe it or not.


----------



## bsd3355

Listen to joinmartin, not only does he know what he is talking about, but it is beneficial to you and will save you heartache (trust me).

Confidence does change depending on what you do and how you think. You can be insecure at one point in your life but with enough knowledge and experiences you can instill lifelong confidence in most areas, and this doesn't exclude relationships in the slightest. And really, this is what separate those who live healthy mindsets and those who don't, or those who move on in life and those who don't. It is really as simple as that.

These things are relatively simple once you understand them completely:

*There are typically the insecure ones who follow an idea rather than their heart. They lack the experiences to say otherwise, or are not open to see the full picture. I started off thinking like most guys here but have moved past that. Life can be hard but not everything in life was meant to be.

Read my blog I wrote earlier on this same subject:
Blog


----------



## anomalous

heroin said:


> Probably a difference in interpretation of what a nice guy is.
> 
> So let me put it in simpler terms.
> 
> The *wrong* kind of nice guy:
> If you are a nice guy who develops a friendship with a girl with a view towards later developing a romantic relationship with her, then you are a creepy little selfish twerp.
> 
> The *right *kind of nice guy:
> If you identify yourself as a guy who happens to be nice and does not apply the above strategy (friendship first with the hope of a romance afterwards) to develop relationships with women then you are the right kind of nice guy.
> 
> There, does that distinction makes things clearer?
> 
> So what we can conclude is that if you make friends with a girl and waste time listening to inane babble about her tortured love life, her friends, parents, what her other best friend said and what she really meant, etc. that you should be doing this entirely out of the goodness of your heart. Especially if you're one of those without a love life of your own. And if you have any expectation of a romance developig out of this then you are the wrong kind of nice guy.
> 
> That is all I wanted to say. That don't be the nice 'guy friend' (who does all that providing an emotional cushion thing) who does that if you want to develop a relationship with the girl. It'll get you nowhere.


LOL, my favorite SAS post in a long while right here. :clap

Absolutely destroys the intellectually dishonest argument a lot of women use for why "nice guys aren't really nice," etc.


----------



## Cyber Lume

Eh, let's see if I'm understanding correctly what some of you are saying here.

Nice guy = no confidence???


----------



## Paragon

What if you get to know a girl without any intents at all and /then/ realise you like her, but by then you're already kinda friends?

:/


----------



## heroin

Paragon said:


> What if you get to know a girl without any intents at all and /then/ realise you like her, but by then you're already kinda friends?
> 
> :/


The point is that you can be friends. Just never, ever the emotional cushion providing kind of friend. When you aren't that emotionally attached, you can control your crush and in time it will fade. Never get too close *as a friend*.



Cyber Lume said:


> Eh, let's see if I'm understanding correctly what some of you are saying here.
> 
> Nice guy = no confidence???


No. But the title says "I like nice guys", then the original poster's first post further limits that pool to only "confident nice guys". As it happens, many here feel that they are nice guys but without confidence. Therefore, the complaining.


----------



## strawberryjulius

fingertips said:


> well i kind of assumed the thing you posted was talking about this kind of nice guy and not just guys who happen to be nice~


I love Shakesville!

Did anyone realise a _man _wrote that? Yeah, a man. A man who is not alone. Yeah, you know? They exist yeah? Yeah.

Or I could just shoot myself now.

..Sounds like a plan!


----------



## Recipe For Disaster

mcmuffinme said:


> I love nice guys, but the key is that they have to be genuinely nice- not just acting nice to get something they want. You can tell a real nice guy from a phony pretty easily. Guys that fake their sincerity usually get fed up often and easily when they don't get the results they want from being nice (results such as acceptance from the opposite sex as if it were owed to them for being kind) and can end up blaming women in blanket generalizations. This shows to me that a guy is being nice because he wants something, and not because he is a considerate person.
> 
> I like nice guys for a very simple reason- they make me feel safe. Who wouldn't want that????
> 
> This relates to why women like men who like animals. It shows they have a heart, and will likely exercise empathy. My mom said she felt certain she wanted to be with my father when she saw him kiss his cat's head when she was over at his house. Haha, it's funny cause now she gets pissed at him for always worrying about whether all our cats are inside. My dad's as sensitive as they come.


its interesting you mention that. i have found that i am way more attracted to girls who care about animals, especially if they are vegetarian because they care about animals.


----------



## heroin

strawberryjulius said:


> Or I could just shoot myself now.
> 
> ..Sounds like a plan!


Oh man!

Trying to resist the urge...

I don't want to be banned.


----------



## fingertips

maybe the real lesson here is that niceness is an unexceptional (though admirable) human trait and not something you should base an entire identity on and that "i like nice guys" doesn't mean "niceness is the only requisite quality i look for in a guy"


----------



## au Lait

Listen to Fingertips. He's got it right. :yes

Genuinely nice guys are the kind of guys that women DO want. Real nice guys are not distinguished by the fact that they are "nice". They are all-around good people. Being nice is one of many respectable qualities that they have, and they don't expect that the world owes them a living just because they happen to understand the concept of basic human decency.

Then there are Nice Guys(tm). They are the kind of guys that women are referring to when they say things like "nice guys aren't really nice." He will ingratiate himself into a woman's life, and play the part of her best friend not because he cares, but because he thinks "if I do this for her now, then I can get what I want from her later." He believes that he is *entitled* to sex/a relationship simply because he was so ~nice~ to her. If the Nice Guy(tm) gets rejected, he does not take it well. He doesn't respect the fact that the woman is not interested in him, because he believes that he ~*deserves*~ whatever he wants from her. In his mind, the woman owes him. Basically, this type of Nice Guy's niceness comes with a price tag.

Bottom line, if someone is being nice only as a means to an end, then they are not really nice to begin with. I think the term Nice Guy(tm), in the stereotypical sense, is so confusing to a lot of people because it's actually an oxymoron. It technically refers to guys who are not actually nice, but just think they are, and use being nice as a cover for being a creep.

A lot of people don't realize that there are two kinds of nice guys, so they just hear the term "Nice Guy" and get defensive. But really, if you're a genuinely nice person then you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## anomalous

au Lait said:


> Listen to Fingertips. He's got it right. :yes
> 
> Genuinely nice guys are the kind of guys that women DO want. Real nice guys are not distinguished by the fact that they are "nice". They are all-around good people. Being nice is one of many respectable qualities that they have, and they don't expect that the world owes them a living just because they happen to understand the concept of basic human decency.
> 
> Then there are Nice Guys(tm). They are the kind of guys that women are referring to when they say things like "nice guys aren't really nice." He will ingratiate himself into a woman's life, and play the part of her best friend not because he cares, but because he thinks "if I do this for her now, then I can get what I want from her later." He believes that he is *entitled* to sex/a relationship simply because he was so ~nice~ to her. If the Nice Guy(tm) gets rejected, he does not take it well. He doesn't respect the fact that the woman is not interested in him, because he believes that he ~*deserves*~ whatever he wants from her. In his mind, the woman owes him. Basically, this type of Nice Guy's niceness comes with a price tag.
> 
> Bottom line, if someone is being nice only as a means to an end, then they are not really nice to begin with. I think the term Nice Guy(tm), in the stereotypical sense, is so confusing to a lot of people because it's actually an oxymoron. It technically refers to guys who are not actually nice, but just think they are, and use being nice as a cover for being a creep.
> 
> A lot of people don't realize that there are two kinds of nice guys, so they just hear the term "Nice Guy" and get defensive. But really, if you're a genuinely nice person then you have nothing to worry about.


No, fingertips doesn't have it right. Not by a long shot. This guy does, though.

The explanation you use is, quite frankly, pretty galling considering the hordes of genuinely nice men on SAS who haven't been so much as glanced at by a woman in years.

In fact, I don't think I can find the words to describe just how insulting this cheap, flimsy argument really is. I don't know that I've ever actually felt offended by something I read on SAS, but this thread (not just you, but others saying the same thing) has just about pulled it off.

Look, maybe a lot of nice guys just aren't attractive. Maybe there's something else missing, like excitement, or gumption, or looks. That's fine. But to turn it around on us and say "you're not really nice, because you're after basic human fulfillment" is just the ultimate knife in the wound.

Do you *really* think the truly manipulative, sociopath guy who puts on a nice act only to get sex out of a girl is representative of the majority of guys who complain that they're "nice" and get nowhere with women?

Is it not possible for a guy to be genuinely nice, and hope/expect that said niceness helps him win over a partner? I mean, that's what _everyone_ does with regard to whatever attractive traits they possess, right?

All this "Nice Guy(TM)" business is little more than a strawman. A strawman constructed to offload the blame for a guy's unattractiveness from reasons the woman is afraid she'll be judged for (looks, danger, excitement, etc.) to something more justifiable ("he's not really nice!!!!!11"). Period. Maybe in like the 5% most extreme fringe cases, the "nice guy" really is just a jerk trying to get laid. But anyone who thinks that's a rampant phenomenon is either woefully out of touch or intentionally lying to themselves for the reason I just mentioned.


----------



## bsd3355

I guess women should be more upfront about how they feel, but what does it matter? She isn't into you, move on.


----------



## VIncymon

All i will say is; thanks to the O.P. for here effort. It is easy to see the cynical side of everything. Let's just take the opening statement as a compliment, and leave it there.


----------



## au Lait

anomalous said:


> No, fingertips doesn't have it right. Not by a long shot. This guy does, though.
> 
> The explanation you use is, quite frankly, pretty galling considering the hordes of genuinely nice men on SAS who haven't been so much as glanced at by a woman in years.
> 
> In fact, I don't think I can find the words to describe just how insulting this cheap, flimsy argument really is. I don't know that I've ever actually felt offended by something I read on SAS, but this thread (not just you, but others saying the same thing) has just about pulled it off.
> 
> Look, maybe a lot of nice guys just aren't attractive. Maybe there's something else missing, like excitement, or gumption, or looks. That's fine. But to turn it around on us and say "you're not really nice, because you're after basic human fulfillment" is just the ultimate knife in the wound.
> 
> Do you *really* think the truly manipulative, sociopath guy who puts on a nice act only to get sex out of a girl is representative of the majority of guys who complain that they're "nice" and get nowhere with women?
> 
> Is it not possible for a guy to be genuinely nice, and hope/expect that said niceness helps him win over a partner? I mean, that's what _everyone_ does with regard to whatever attractive traits they possess, right?
> 
> All this "Nice Guy(TM)" business is little more than a strawman. A strawman constructed to offload the blame for a guy's unattractiveness from reasons the woman is afraid she'll be judged for (looks, danger, excitement, etc.) to something more justifiable ("he's not really nice!!!!!11"). Period. Maybe in like the 5% most extreme fringe cases, the "nice guy" really is just a jerk trying to get laid. But anyone who thinks that's a rampant phenomenon is either woefully out of touch or intentionally lying to themselves for the reason I just mentioned.


You are completely missing the point here. Why are you even bringing up physical attractiveness? Looks have nothing to do with whether or not a guy is a genuine nice guy or a Nice Guy.

To repeat.* If you are a genuinely nice person, then you have nothing to worry about. *

*There is nothing wrong with being nice.* There is nothing wrong with hoping that being a nice person helps you to find a partner. That's actually pretty normal. There is nothing wrong with befriending someone in the hopes that one day the friendship can evolve into something more. In fact, that's actually a really good way to get to know someone better and start a long term relationship, IMO. Many successful long term relationships start as a friendship first. There nothing wrong with wanting to get to know someone better because you are interested in having a relationship with them.

A "Nice Guy" is not genuinely nice. He uses friendship as a trump card, when really he couldn't care less about being the woman's actual friend. He just sees it as a means to wheedle his way into her pants/whatever he wants. He doesn't care about her. He cares about getting his way.

*It is perfectly normal to start a friendship with a person in the hopes of it turning into a relationship. But the difference is that a genuine nice guy will do so because he really cares about her, and wants to get to know her better as a person. The Nice Guy doesn't. He is just going through the motions with the end goal in mind.* He couldn't care less about the woman as an individual human being. Anyone who thinks of others that way is obviously a jerk...so I'm not really sure what you're defending here.

This not a rare phenomenon, as much as you seem to wish it was. Those who have experienced it first hand are not "woefully out of touch". Maybe the reason so many women talk about it is because they have experienced it themselves...because it's actually somewhat common?

With all due respect, couldn't it be that you don't know how many Nice Guys there are out there because you're not a woman and you've never had the displeasure of being pursued by one? I've known both genuinely nice guys and Nice Guys. There are distinct differences. One of the most obvious Nice Guys that I knew once told me that he only befriended a woman if he thought she was attractive and wanted to get close to her with the hope that she would sleep with him one day. How ****ing offensive is that? He didn't really want to be a woman's friend for any true or honest reason. He didn't care about building a friendship because he thought she was a cool person. He just hoped that it would give him an easy pass into her panties as some point. To the Nice Guy, women are not individuals, but a pawn on the chess board or prize to be won. That is pretty messed up and wrong.

*There is no such thing as being "too nice".* If someone is using being nice as an excuse as to why they can't get a partner, then they are just lying to themselves and ignoring the real reason. Most likely because the real reason isn't nearly as simple as having an abundance of a positive personality trait.


----------



## matty

fingertips said:


> maybe the real lesson here is that niceness is an unexceptional (though admirable) human trait and not something you should base an entire identity on and that "i like nice guys" doesn't mean "niceness is the only requisite quality i look for in a guy"


This is my views on the matter too. Being nice is great but you need additional qualities.

Au lait makes some good points too. But I think we all have a different opinion on what a nice guy is and that is probably the true issue here.

And nothing in this thread has been offensive unless you use being nice as a pawn to get close to women.


----------



## au Lait

matty said:


> But I think we all have a different opinion on what a nice guy is and that is probably the true issue here.


I agree with you matty. I think everyone has a different understanding of the concept. I think that maybe some people get up in arms when they hear the term "Nice Guy" because they think it's aimed at all guys who are nice, when actually it's typically meant to refer to a very specific type of person.


----------



## matty

That was easily solved.


----------



## anomalous

au Lait said:


> You are completely missing the point here. Why are you even bringing up physical attractiveness? Looks have nothing to do with whether or not a guy is a genuine nice guy or a Nice Guy.
> 
> To repeat.* If you are a genuinely nice person, then you have nothing to worry about. *
> 
> *There is nothing wrong with being nice.* There is nothing wrong with hoping that being a nice person helps you to find a partner. That's actually pretty normal. There is nothing wrong with befriending someone in the hopes that one day the friendship can evolve into something more. In fact, that's actually a really good way to get to know someone better and start a long term relationship, IMO. Many successful long term relationships start as a friendship first. There nothing wrong with wanting to get to know someone better because you are interested in having a relationship with them.
> 
> A "Nice Guy" is not genuinely nice. He uses friendship as a trump card, when really he couldn't care less about being the woman's actual friend. He just sees it as a means to wheedle his way into her pants/whatever he wants. He doesn't care about her. He cares about getting his way.
> 
> *It is perfectly normal to start a friendship with a person in the hopes of it turning into a relationship. But the difference is that a genuine nice guy will do so because he really cares about her, and wants to get to know her better as a person. The Nice Guy doesn't. He is just going through the motions with the end goal in mind.* He couldn't care less about the woman as an individual human being. Anyone who thinks of others that way is obviously a jerk...so I'm not really sure what you're defending here.
> 
> This not a rare phenomenon, as much as you seem to wish it was. Those who have experienced it first hand are not "woefully out of touch". Maybe the reason so many women talk about it is because they have experienced it themselves...because it's actually somewhat common?
> 
> With all due respect, couldn't it be that you don't know how many Nice Guys there are out there because you're not a woman and you've never had the displeasure of being pursued by one? I've known both genuinely nice guys and Nice Guys. There are distinct differences. One of the most obvious Nice Guys that I knew once told me that he only befriended a woman if he thought she was attractive and wanted to get close to her with the hope that she would sleep with him one day. How ****ing offensive is that? He didn't really want to be a woman's friend for any true or honest reason. He didn't care about building a friendship because he thought she was a cool person. He just hoped that it would give him an easy pass into her panties as some point. To the Nice Guy, women are not individuals, but a pawn on the chess board or prize to be won. That is pretty messed up and wrong.
> 
> *There is no such thing as being "too nice".* If someone is using being nice as an excuse as to why they can't get a partner, then they are just lying to themselves and ignoring the real reason. Most likely because the real reason isn't nearly as simple as having an abundance of a positive personality trait.


As matty said, I think there's a fundamental difference in the way we're each using the term, then. I agree that the example you described is vile and indefensible.

I will say this, though. I don't think the manipulative sociopath type has much of anything to do with the large majority of men on SAS who complain about how they're nice, but can't get girls. So even if you have a justifiably negative view towards men who fit your "Nice Guy(TM)" description, it's simply a whole different issue... not even in the same ballpark as what's griped about here all the time.

The fact is, aside from these calculating douches you've encountered, there are also hordes... loads... oodles of men who are genuinely nice but cannot attract women for the life of them. And most of the time, that's what we're discussing on SAS. Yet, a lot of women consistently bring this whole "they're not really nice" stuff into it. It's irrelevant at best, and offensive at worst when it's misinterpreted to apply to the docile, "loser" type of "nice guy."

The real, interesting, thought-provoking discussion deals with why so many genuinely nice guys fail to attract women. It may not be pleasant nor PC, but I think it's a much more pragmatic conversation for the board to have than simply listening to women bash men who are almost the polar opposite of most men on SAS.

Nevertheless, it looks like I was indeed misinterpreting your point in terms of what type of man you were describing, so I apologize for the tone in my last post.


----------



## heroin

au Lait said:


> There is nothing wrong with befriending someone in the hopes that one day the friendship can evolve into something more.
> 
> *It is perfectly normal to start a friendship with a person in the hopes of it turning into a relationship. But the difference is that a genuine nice guy will do so because he really cares about her, and wants to get to know her better as a person. The Nice Guy doesn't. He is just going through the motions with the end goal in mind.*


How do you know who genuinely cares and who is going through the motions?

I suppose in your view that can only be found out after a doomed romantic proposal. The one that terminates the friendship after being shot down is the bad kind and the one that continues to cling on after being shot down is the good one?

I don't know of any guys, at all who want to hang around someone who told them that they're not romance material. It seems to me that the *good nice guy* is the doormat, or a mythical phenomenon.


----------



## laura024

I agree, except I don't think nice guys have to be confident to be adored.


----------



## au Lait

anomalous said:


> As matty said, I think there's a fundamental difference in the way we're each using the term, then. I agree that the example you described is vile and indefensible.
> 
> I will say this, though. I don't think the manipulative sociopath type has much of anything to do with the large majority of men on SAS who complain about how they're nice, but can't get girls. So even if you have a justifiably negative view towards men who fit your "Nice Guy(TM)" description, it's simply a whole different issue... not even in the same ballpark as what's griped about here all the time.
> 
> The fact is, aside from these calculating douches you've encountered, there are also hordes... loads... oodles of men who are genuinely nice but cannot attract women for the life of them. And most of the time, that's what we're discussing on SAS. Yet, a lot of women consistently bring this whole "they're not really nice" stuff into it. It's irrelevant at best, and offensive at worst when it's misinterpreted to apply to the docile, "loser" type of "nice guy."
> 
> The real, interesting, thought-provoking discussion deals with why so many genuinely nice guys fail to attract women. It may not be pleasant nor PC, but I think it's a much more pragmatic conversation for the board to have than simply listening to women bash men who are almost the polar opposite of most men on SAS.
> 
> Nevertheless, it looks like I was indeed misinterpreting your point in terms of what type of man you were describing, so I apologize for the tone in my last post.


No need to apologize. I think we were both just misunderstanding each other.

I guess the only point I was trying to make, was that when women say they don't like nice guys, they are typically referring to the bad type of Nice Guy that I described in my other post, and not guys who are genuinely nice. Just want to make that clear. I don't want to come across like I'm hating on all nice guys, because that is not what I'm trying to say at all.

Many, many women DO want to date the genuine nice guys. I know I sure do. Being nice is one of the top personality traits that I appreciate and look for in a guy. If a guy is not a nice person, then I have no desire to have any kind of relationship with him.

As to why a nice guy would fail to attract a woman, there are several possible reasons why. 
One, they fall into the dreaded bad type of Nice Guy category, and may be unaware of it. The bad type of Nice Guys are not really sociopaths or crazy, they are just misguided. But they do have the potential to learn from their mistakes, change their behavior patterns, and turn into genuine nice guys.

Two, there is some other reason why they are not attracting women. In other words, the fact that they are nice is not the reason women aren't flocking to them. 
In terms of the men on SAS that you are referring to, well, I would guess that most likely their Social Anxiety is why they have trouble with the opposite sex. Social Anxiety tends to make people act socially awkward, and socially awkward people tend to have problems with all forms of platonic and romantic relationships. Also people with SA have trouble "putting themselves out there", so that can make dating hard as well. People can't sense when someone is nice, if a person is not able to show that part of their personality then how will anyone else know?

But each person is unique, so there could be any number of reasons why someone is having difficulty in the dating world. Those are just a few theories.


----------



## matty

I think some women may also be getting upset by nice guys which are actually nice, not faking it.. that try to guilt them when they wont date them. I have seen it come up time and time again. That may cover people here and why I believe in the nice guys are rarely nice saying. So in turn nice guys give themselves a bad name too. :|


----------



## au Lait

heroin said:


> How do you know who genuinely cares and who is going through the motions?
> 
> I suppose in your view that can only be found out after a doomed romantic proposal. The one that terminates the friendship after being shot down is the bad kind and the one that continues to cling on after being shot down is the good one?
> 
> I don't know of any guys, at all who want to hang around someone who told them that they're not romance material. It seems to me that the *good nice guy* is the doormat, or a mythical phenomenon.


No, it's not that cut and dry. Sometimes a genuinely good person can still maintain a friendship after they make an attempt to go further, but get rejected. Or sometimes they can feel like it's too weird after that and let the friendship die. It just depends. The bad type of Nice Guy can also stick around after, or end the friendship. The difference would just be in how they treat the woman afterwards. The bad type of Nice Guy will often take his frustration out on the woman in some way. Rather than accepting that she simply is not interested in him that way and respecting her wishes, he will often become hateful towards her, or women in general.

Some people do maintain friendships with people whom they are romantically interested in, even if they know there is no potential for it to go further. If a person values someone as a friend, then they will want to maintain that friendship. If they feel that remaining friends with them is too difficult, then they will end the friendship. It's a personal decision, based on the individual's level of comfort.

I don't see genuine nice guys, or girls for that matter, as doormats. Nor are they mythical creatures. It is possible for a person to be nice AND assertive at the same time. Being nice and being a doormat are not mutually exclusive personality traits. *******s can be doormats as well.


----------



## VanDamMan

au Lait said:


> No need to apologize. I think we were both just misunderstanding each other.
> 
> I guess the only point I was trying to make, was that when women say they don't like nice guys, they are typically referring to the bad type of Nice Guy that I described in my other post, and not guys who are genuinely nice. Just want to make that clear. I don't want to come across like I'm hating on all nice guys, because that is not what I'm trying to say at all.
> 
> Many, many women DO want to date the genuine nice guys. I know I sure do. Being nice is one of the top personality traits that I appreciate and look for in a guy. If a guy is not a nice person, then I have no desire to have any kind of relationship with him.
> 
> As to why a nice guy would fail to attract a woman, there are several possible reasons why.
> One, they fall into the dreaded bad type of Nice Guy category, and may be unaware of it. The bad type of Nice Guys are not really sociopaths or crazy, they are just misguided. But they do have the potential to learn from their mistakes, change their behavior patterns, and turn into genuine nice guys.
> 
> Two, there is some other reason why they are not attracting women. In other words, the fact that they are nice is not the reason women aren't flocking to them.
> In terms of the men on SAS that you are referring to, well, I would guess that most likely their Social Anxiety is why they have trouble with the opposite sex. Social Anxiety tends to make people act socially awkward, and socially awkward people tend to have problems with all forms of platonic and romantic relationships. Also people with SA have trouble "putting themselves out there", so that can make dating hard as well. People can't sense when someone is nice, if a person is not able to show that part of their personality then how will anyone else know?
> 
> But each person is unique, so there could be any number of reasons why someone is having difficulty in the dating world. Those are just a few theories.


It seems like you are glancing over or blinding yourself to the "nice guy" paradigm the SAS guys are trying to illustrate. I'm not trying to be quarrelsome. But I'd like to hear your opinion once can take a second and see it from someone else's view point. I think there is more to it than "predatory nice guys" and "social anxious nice people(male & female)".


----------



## au Lait

VanDamMan said:


> It seems like you are glancing over or blinding yourself to the "nice guy" paradigm the SAS guys are trying to illustrate. I'm not trying to be quarrelsome. But I'd like to hear your opinion once can take a second and see it from someone else's view point. I think there is more to it than "predatory nice guys" and "social anxious nice people(male & female)".


Of course there is more to it. Did you read my post? I said there are numerous reasons why a person could have trouble dating, and that I was only listing a few theories.

The bottom line is that people rarely get rejected simply because they are "too nice". That's like saying someone was rejected because they had good hygiene. Many people consider being nice to be a positive personality trait. Yes, there are women out there who might prefer "bad boy" types or whatever, but that is not all women.

If someone is continually getting rejected, I am more likely to believe that there is some deeper issue, which has nothing to do with how nice they are. 
It doesn't make any sense to me to blame an entire group of people for one's dating issues. There are just too many unique individuals in the world to make blanket assumptions like that. If there are women who, for some reason, get turned off by a guy being nice, then there are also women out there who specifically want to be with a nice guy, as this thread clearly illustrates.


----------



## VanDamMan

au Lait said:


> Of course there is more to it. Did you read my post? I said there are numerous reasons why a person could have trouble dating, and that I was only listing a few theories.
> 
> The bottom line is that people rarely get rejected simply because they are "too nice". That's like saying someone was rejected because they had good hygiene. Many people consider being nice to be a positive personality trait. Yes, there are women out there who might prefer "bad boy" types or whatever, but that is not all women.
> 
> If someone is continually getting rejected, I am more likely to believe that there is some deeper issue, which has nothing to do with how nice they are.
> It doesn't make any sense to me to blame an entire group of people for one's dating issues. There are just too many unique individuals in the world to make blanket assumptions like that. If there are women who, for some reason, get turned off by a guy being nice, then there are also women out there who specifically want to be with a nice guy, as this thread clearly illustrates.


I definitely agree with the deeper issues part.

I typed up a bunch of other stuff but then erased. I think it goes back to the definition of a nice guy once again. You seem to be targeting an individual trait of "nice" vs. the description which is an amalgam of traits that form the "nice guy".


----------



## Atticus

My 2 cents is that this is an interesting discussion of a sensitive topic, primarily because people have been civil (mostly :b) to each other the past few pages and that's allowed the discussion to continue.

Part of what's interesting is the way language fails us when we need it most. It seems that men and women generally define nice differently in the nice guy usage. They also appear to define confident differently. Beyond that, among men the definitions of these terms aren't uniform, and they aren't among women either. No wonder this **** gets confusing.

As a somewhat impartial observer, it seems as though the different understandings of nice guy has been explained in this latter portion of the thread. Cinfident, not so much.

I may be wrong, but I think many men hear confident and understand it to mean something bigger and badder than women typically intend. I think men envision a sort of super extrovert party guy, or a James Bond like super cool type. If that's what men on a social anxiety support forum think all women want, then no wonder they feel helpless. 

I think many women mean something more real like having an opinion or a direction in life regarding big issues like career and relationships, as well as day to day things like where to eat or what movie to see. Approaching women or responding to their approach with an attitude that says "this is who I am, no apologies, and while I hope you like me, I won't crumble if you don't". That's an attitude anyone can develop, albeit with some effort in some cases.


----------



## XxArmyofOnexX

bezoomny said:


> The men here are such drama queens, jeeze.


Thanks for the extra gasoline, fire nice and toasty. opcorn


----------



## CopadoMexicano

^^Lol that should fuel the fire huh? Ive never seen a young girl with a "nice guy" together more than friends. Lol


----------



## XxArmyofOnexX

Someone get a bucket, I think I'm about to puke from this thread...

Edit: all this genuine nice guy / pathetic "nice guy" bull**** is confusing.
I think I'll just be a jerk, much simpler...

(before you all throw tomatoes and torches at me, this is sort of sarcastic)


----------



## nothing to fear

Atticus said:


> My 2 cents is that this is an interesting discussion of a sensitive topic, primarily because people have been civil (mostly :b) to each other the past few pages and that's allowed the discussion to continue.
> 
> Part of what's interesting is the way language fails us when we need it most. It seems that men and women generally define nice differently in the nice guy usage. They also appear to define confident differently. Beyond that, among men the definitions of these terms aren't uniform, and they aren't among women either. No wonder this **** gets confusing.
> 
> As a somewhat impartial observer, it seems as though the different understandings of nice guy has been explained in this latter portion of the thread. Confident, not so much.
> 
> I may be wrong, but I think many men hear confident and understand it to mean something bigger and badder than women typically intend. I think men envision a sort of super extrovert party guy, or a James Bond like super cool type. If that's what men on a social anxiety support forum think all women want, then no wonder they feel helpless.
> 
> I think many women mean something more real like having an opinion or a direction in life regarding big issues like career and relationships, as well as day to day things like where to eat or what movie to see. Approaching women or responding to their approach with an attitude that says "this is who I am, no apologies, and while I hope you like me, I won't crumble if you don't". That's an attitude anyone can develop, albeit with some effort in some cases.


Yes I think you hit the nail on the head with the confidence part.


----------



## Rixy

Atticus said:


> My 2 cents is that this is an interesting discussion of a sensitive topic, primarily because people have been civil (mostly :b) to each other the past few pages and that's allowed the discussion to continue.
> 
> Part of what's interesting is the way language fails us when we need it most. It seems that men and women generally define nice differently in the nice guy usage. They also appear to define confident differently. Beyond that, among men the definitions of these terms aren't uniform, and they aren't among women either. No wonder this **** gets confusing.
> 
> As a somewhat impartial observer, it seems as though the different understandings of nice guy has been explained in this latter portion of the thread. Cinfident, not so much.
> 
> I may be wrong, but I think many men hear confident and understand it to mean something bigger and badder than women typically intend. I think men envision a sort of super extrovert party guy, or a James Bond like super cool type. If that's what men on a social anxiety support forum think all women want, then no wonder they feel helpless.
> 
> I think many women mean something more real like having an opinion or a direction in life regarding big issues like career and relationships, as well as day to day things like where to eat or what movie to see. Approaching women or responding to their approach with an attitude that says "this is who I am, no apologies, and while I hope you like me, I won't crumble if you don't". That's an attitude anyone can develop, albeit with some effort in some cases.


I think you described confidence quite well. Probably perfectly. I'm pretty indecisive myself to be honest. I have no idea what to do in life. I don't really have a problem with it though. I'm 18, I don't think I have to know what to do, despite people hassling me for it. If any lady sees that as lacking in confidence then...bleh. I don't care.


----------



## anomalous

Atticus said:


> As a somewhat impartial observer, it seems as though the different understandings of nice guy has been explained in this latter portion of the thread. Cinfident, not so much.
> 
> I may be wrong, but I think many men hear confident and understand it to mean something bigger and badder than women typically intend. I think men envision a sort of super extrovert party guy, or a James Bond like super cool type. If that's what men on a social anxiety support forum think all women want, then no wonder they feel helpless.
> 
> *I think many women mean something more real like having an opinion or a direction in life regarding big issues like career and relationships, as well as day to day things like where to eat or what movie to see.* Approaching women or responding to their approach with an attitude that says "this is who I am, no apologies, and while I hope you like me, I won't crumble if you don't". That's an attitude anyone can develop, albeit with some effort in some cases.


That may be what they mean on an online forum filled with bits of data from people 5,000 miles away. But in my real-life experiences, it's something a bit closer to what you described as the men's interpretation of confidence that usually yields results.


----------



## bobthebuilder

anomalous said:


> That may be what they mean on an online forum filled with bits of data from people 5,000 miles away. But in my real-life experiences, it's something a bit closer to what you described as the men's interpretation of confidence that usually yields results.


Not really. You are confusing reality with self confidence, easy mistake we all make. As she said, the confidence thing is about having direction, knowing what you want etc, the key though is that you act like you know all that stuff, even when you dont. Career for example-you may see in reality some guy has a crappy go no where job and is making no effort to move up. He doesnt see it that way, and has some delusional great dream, and exaggerates claims of making improvement. That is confidence. People in general seem to be attracted to that, despite the fact reality should tell them otherwise. But of course, that only gets your foot in the door. Eventually people will see that guy for who he is, and leave him. And he will find another sucker.

You dont HAVE to be James Bond, you just need to think you are. You dont need to be the coolest guy around (i guess defined by number of friends, style, ability to make new friends instantly), just think and act like you are. Funny thing about people-they only see the 'you' that you show them.


----------



## anomalous

bobthebuilder said:


> Not really. You are confusing reality with self confidence, easy mistake we all make. As she said, the confidence thing is about having direction, knowing what you want etc, the key though is that you act like you know all that stuff, even when you dont. Career for example-you may see in reality some guy has a crappy go no where job and is making no effort to move up. He doesnt see it that way, and has some delusional great dream, and exaggerates claims of making improvement. That is confidence. People in general seem to be attracted to that, despite the fact reality should tell them otherwise. But of course, that only gets your foot in the door. Eventually people will see that guy for who he is, and leave him. And he will find another sucker.
> 
> You dont HAVE to be James Bond, you just need to think you are. You dont need to be the coolest guy around (i guess defined by number of friends, style, ability to make new friends instantly), just think and act like you are. Funny thing about people-they only see the 'you' that you show them.


I basically agree with you here. My point still stands, though: the level of male confidence which I've observed to attract the most girls, all else being equal, is certainly beyond the threshold of what I'd consider "overconfident."

But then clearly my own standards are skewed. I'm not very confident, and take pride in what I consider to be my realism, but the large majority of people I know consider me far too self-conscious and pessimistic as a result. (I guess you could say I'm confident in my lack of confidence, but that doesn't go too far with the ladies... LOL).


----------



## Atticus

anomalous said:


> That may be what they mean on an online forum filled with bits of data from people 5,000 miles away. But in my real-life experiences, it's something a bit closer to what you described as the men's interpretation of confidence that usually yields results.


Do you want a woman something like you? I see you as bright and serious, and that's what I mean by a woman with a similar personality to yours. Do you want someone like that, and has it been your experience that women like that are (exclusively) attracted to guys who are almost caricatures?

I recognize that surface charm, even when it's a bit cartoonish, has its appeal, but are you saying that you've approached women with your kinds of interests and a similar outlook on life, and been passed over for a guy who drinks the right micro brewed beer?


----------



## Some Russian Guy

the book "no more mr. nice guy", says that nice guys are anything but nice
what's up with that ?


----------



## XxArmyofOnexX

^ The concept is that nice guys are nice to get something out of being nice, and not because they are genuinely nice. 

In other words, they're nice and expect something in return, when a true nice person is nice just because that's their personality.


----------



## Some Russian Guy

XxArmyofOnexX said:


> ^ The concept is that nice guys are nice to get something out of being nice, and not because they are genuinely nice.
> 
> In other words, they're nice and expect something in return, when a true nice person is nice just because that's their personality.


Can you give some examples of being nice ?


----------



## VanDamMan

XxArmyofOnexX said:


> ^
> 
> In other words, they're nice and expect something in return, *when a true nice person is nice just because that's their personality.*


Even truely nice people expect something in return for their niceness. They want others to be nice back at them.

Everyone expects something. Its just a question of what. Some people want niceness. Some people want gratitude. Some people want to look like a saint or be a hero. Some people want to make a favorable impression so they can date someone.


----------



## heroin

Atticus said:


> ...day to day things like where to eat or what movie to see.


There may be some truth to that. I do that out of common courtesy when I'm out with other people. If they're paying, well, I don't want to ruin their enjoyment. And if I'm paying, I want to make sure they have a good time since I am the one who invited them.
I think there was this girl interested in me, and she seemed visibly turned off when I just went along with whatever other people were having instead of holding court at a restaurant during a dinner outing with other friends.

Meh, don't really care. I'm not about to change my habits because of that. And I am ridiculously uncompromising when I want to be anyway. If someone wants to try their own amateur psychoanalysis on me from my behaviour at a dinner, they're welcome to please themselves.


----------



## XxArmyofOnexX

Some Russian Guy said:


> Can you give some examples of being nice ?


Which type? The "selfless" type? Or the "nice guy" that women especially hate because they turn out to be manipulative?


----------



## XxArmyofOnexX

VanDamMan said:


> Even truely nice people expect something in return for their niceness. They want others to be nice back at them.
> 
> Everyone expects something. Its just a question of what. Some people want niceness. Some people want gratitude. Some people want to look like a saint or be a hero. Some people want to make a favorable impression so they can date someone.


Aye, everyone expects something for themselves, even a little bit. A truly selfless person does not exist. Everybody lies too :teeth

Human nature.


----------



## Some Russian Guy

XxArmyofOnexX said:


> Which type? The "selfless" type? Or the "nice guy" that women especially hate because they turn out to be manipulative?


Well, umm... Giving flowers to a girl, taking her to the movies and paying for her, paying for her at the restaurant, giving her presents...

If I do these types of behavior, hoping that a girl will agree to have sex with me... am I a "Nice Guy" then, will she hate me ?


----------



## zebra00

it dosnt make a difference if the guy is really nice or just acting nice to get something in return women HATE them (they find it more ugly than pysical ugliness thats a known fact) and if a women tells you she hates the kind of nice guy who acts nice to get something in return but likes real nice guys she is lying shed actually rather the fake nice guy because hes not as nice as the real nice guy


----------



## strawberryjulius

Facts:

If a women tells you she likes something. She's lying.
If a dude tells you women like something. It's a fact, a known fact, in fact.

I don't even know who this guy is but he's HILARIOUS!


----------



## Selbbin

It looks to me like too many guys here equate being timid to being nice. Plenty of confident, outgoing, nice guys out there. I've seen a fair few engaged or married to family or friends and they're really nice, genuine STRONG confident individuals. Really awesome people and I always wish I was like that. Not so I could find a girl, but for me. 

So this whole, 'I have SA and I am shy therefore I am a "nice" guy' routine is in my opinion a load of Beep, and simply an excuse for timid guys and shy guys to give themselves something positive to offer. But timid and shy does NOT = nice, as evident by many guys here who I would certainly never stick in the 'nice' catagory, while many confident, self-assured guys I would. Confident guys who would help anyone, give the shirt off their back, respect women and their opinions (as many 'nice' guys here DON'T do), are brilliant with kids and are, generally, wonderful people. 

Shy does not = nice.

Confident does not = arrogant.


----------



## Selbbin

zebra00 said:


> it dosnt make a difference if the guy is really nice or just acting nice to get something in return women HATE them (they find it more ugly than pysical ugliness thats a known fact) and if a women tells you she hates the kind of nice guy who acts nice to get something in return but likes real nice guys she is lying shed actually rather the fake nice guy because hes not as nice as the real nice guy


What's a 'real' nice guy? You? :no

Seems to me you're rather bitter and making excuses. Right? :yes

Cheesecake is yummy. Let's all eat some! :clap


----------



## Rixy

strawberryjulius said:


> Facts:
> 
> If a women tells you she likes something. She's lying.
> If a dude tells you women like something. It's a fact, a known fact, in fact.
> 
> I don't even know who this guy is but he's HILARIOUS!


You're wrong, because you're a woman and now that you've said that you're clearly lying.

_If a women tells you she likes something. She's lying.
If a dude tells you women like something. It's a fact, a known fact, in fact._

See, it's right now that I've said that :yes

/Sarcasm

This thread is like a natural disaster. It's painful to read yet I keep coming back :sus


----------



## Mr Shankly

I people need to understand the difference between a good guy and a nice guy. The good guy is the guy with some self confidence, an ability to hold conversation with a girl, whose intentions are always perceived as genuine and altruistic.

The nice guy is the guy with the good intent but without the confidence to match it. He nervously blurts out compliments but they come off as leering. His attempts at being friendly come off as feigned, as creepy. Girls might hang out with him out of pity, but there's no attraction there.

Girls tend to assume that good guys are nice guys, and guys seem to be oblivious that good guys exist. Good guys don't really care and the nice guys demonise the good guys.

Thus the confusion. Maybe you do like good guys. It's just frustrating when you experience something everyday, you see hundreds of other guys in the same situation as you are, yet whenever you ask a girl about it they completely deny the existence of this problem and take offence at the insinuation. It can get a bit irritating, ya know.


----------



## Some Russian Guy

zebra00 said:


> it dosnt make a difference if the guy is really nice or just acting nice to get something in return women HATE them (they find it more ugly than pysical ugliness thats a known fact)





strawberryjulius said:


> Facts:
> 
> If a women tells you she likes something. She's lying.


_"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."_ - Joseph Goebbels

all your "ladder theory" theories are complete 100 percent BS


----------



## strawberryjulius

Rixy said:


> You're wrong, because you're a woman and now that you've said that you're clearly lying.
> 
> _If a women tells you she likes something. She's lying.
> If a dude tells you women like something. It's a fact, a known fact, in fact._
> 
> See, it's right now that I've said that :yes
> 
> /Sarcasm
> 
> This thread is like a natural disaster. It's painful to read yet I keep coming back :sus


I know, what is wrong with us. :sus But it's strangely...civil, this time around.

And you know, seriously, my dudefriend is like super duper nice. Otherwise I _wouldn't be with him! _But I'm lying, so nevermind. :teeth


----------



## nothing to fear

strawberryjulius said:


> I know, what is wrong with us. :sus But it's strangely...civil, this time around.
> *
> And you know, seriously, my dudefriend is like super duper nice. Otherwise I wouldn't be with him! *But I'm lying, so nevermind. :teeth


Quoting this again in case anyone misses it... cause it seems like every time I've made a post (in other "nice guy" threads) saying that my boyfriend is genuinely nice and I am in love with him, it is conveniently skipped and ignored by those who insist it never happens. 
(Or maybe my firsthand experience and feelings on this matter are automatically dismissed as a result of my having a vagina, breasts and such.)


----------



## Nae

Nice guy is a superfluous term at best, confusing and insulting otherwise.


----------



## Atticus

As I said earlier, this discussion of this topic has been civil. If I could only repeat one thing that's been written here, it would be that men make more out of the challenge they face with women than they need to. There are unique challenges, but they don't have to be absolute barriers.

But since I'm not limited to one comment.......

I understand the desire for women, and some men, to totally dismiss the comments men make in threads like these because some of the comments are so absolute. The whole idea that women don't know what they want, for example. The problem, though, is that the statement is too inclusive and too vague. Certainly some people, about half of whom are women, don't appear to know what they want. Or perhaps they have a hard time articulating it. When a man says a women doesn't know what she wants, that comment echos through a cultural cnayon that's been carved over several centuries and it gets magnified for some women. That's not entirely the fault of some 22 year old guy who says it, though.

The other thing I wonder about is just how comfortable any of us are with men talking about their feelings. We don't always do it in a way that invites comfort, and I think most of us adhere, at least a bit, to the stereotype that it's unmanly.

The discussion would go better if men said that they feel less of a man because they believe women find them unattractive, or don't even find them at all. That emotional state, or any that implies weakness, is an especially hard thing for a lot of men to admit to, much less state. That doesn't excuse attacks or bad behavior, but for me it places those things in a context and makes some sense out of them. 

I think shame is the unspoken emotion behind the overgeneralizations and the blaming that often goes on in these threads, and while shame is a human emotion we all experience, I suspect that women are as in the dark about men's expereince of shame or any other emotion as men are about the emotional lives of women. 

The idea that women are subtle and complex beings and that men are really just fairly smart dogs looking for food, sex, and an atta boy, is about as ****ed up and damging an idea as I can imagine, and it doesn't serve either sex. And we all seem to want to believe it, at least occasionally. I know it's a hard message to avoid, and while people will deny that the message is all that prevalent or that it influences them, my experience has been that its a tenet of a lot of people's beliefs and a vestigal idea for almost all of us, me included. 

I don't know if any of that will ring true for anyone, but it does for me, and I've wanted to write something like it in reponse to these threads for about 8 yrs. So I feel better


----------



## Kennnie

im nice........


----------



## Some Russian Guy

Kennnie said:


> im nice........


would you please define nicety ?
do you give girls flowers on any given day for know apparent reason ?


----------



## Mr Shankly

^ Are you trying to suggest that giving flowers is the definition of niceness?


Sigh.


----------



## helicon1

Atticus said:


> I don't know if any of that will ring true for anyone, but it does for me, and I've wanted to write something like it in reponse to these threads for about 8 yrs. So I feel better


A lot of what you wrote here does ring true for me as well. I'd say it goes beyond attracting women and really, what you said could be a topic in one of the other forums. I can't say that I've ever seen a topic on it in my time here but I think shame, and the idea of what it means to be a man could be an interesting one.

"Being a man" probably means slightly different things to different people. To me it doesn't necessarily mean being loud, or stereotypically "manly" though, and I think that would be true for just about all of us. Just more about being confident and secure in yourself, and strong for lack of a better term. It's a struggle with being confident and strong in the presence of SA and when we have those moments of weakness, uncertainty, or whatever that leads to the feelings of shame. Shame about not being a "real" man, or even feeling sub-human. I'm well aware that even strong confident people feel this way at times, but it's just a constant cycle of these negative thoughts and feelings that for me personally are hard to break away from. It may not be quite the same way for the women here, but I imagine they could at least understand it.


----------



## orchdorch925

nice guys finish first in my heart. As for nice, my definition is someone who respects me, doesn't lie to me, treats me with respect, doesn't make me do anything I don't want to, takes interest in my life, and is just pleasant to me. I mean, no one is nice 24/7, but if a guy is nice the majority of the time, then he's got me.


----------



## Atticus

helicon1 said:


> A lot of what you wrote here does ring true for me as well. I'd say it goes beyond attracting women and really, what you said could be a topic in one of the other forums. I can't say that I've ever seen a topic on it in my time here but I think shame, and the idea of what it means to be a man could be an interesting one.
> 
> "Being a man" probably means slightly different things to different people. To me it doesn't necessarily mean being loud, or stereotypically "manly" though, and I think that would be true for just about all of us. Just more about being confident and secure in yourself, and strong for lack of a better term. It's a struggle with being confident and strong in the presence of SA and when we have those moments of weakness, uncertainty, or whatever that leads to the feelings of shame. Shame about not being a "real" man, or even feeling sub-human. I'm well aware that even strong confident people feel this way at times, but it's just a constant cycle of these negative thoughts and feelings that for me personally are hard to break away from. It may not be quite the same way for the women here, but I imagine they could at least understand it.


I'm glad you could relate. I agree that there's a worthwhile discussion waiting to happen regarding shame, and maybe more to the point a discussion about shame among men who have SA. It's a tough subject to broach here, though.


----------



## helicon1

Atticus said:


> I'm glad you could relate. I agree that there's a worthwhile discussion waiting to happen regarding shame, and maybe more to the point a discussion about shame among men who have SA. *It's a tough subject to broach here, though*.


It would be tough as I guess it's something most guys wouldn't be comfortable discussing. I never bothered to start the discussion myself as I didn't think it would get responses. Maybe it would be worth a try in the coping section though?


----------



## Atticus

helicon1 said:


> It would be tough as I guess it's something most guys wouldn't be comfortable discussing. I never bothered to start the discussion myself as I didn't think it would get responses. Maybe it would be worth a try in the coping section though?


It does end up being a discussion about why men won't open up and discuss things. I think I'm fairly open for a man but there's a point where I shut down.

The other issue is the tone of these discussions, typically. If there's a way for a few posters to make a topic about a struggle a man has into one explicitely about how it would be so much easier if he were female, one will do it. Then a few women may respond angrily and the discussion becomes a race to see who will sink fastest.

That's awefully pessimistic, though. Maybe I'll give it a shot.


----------



## VanDamMan

Atticus said:


> As I said earlier, this discussion of this topic has been civil. If I could only repeat one thing that's been written here, it would be that men make more out of the challenge they face with women than they need to. There are unique challenges, but they don't have to be absolute barriers.
> 
> But since I'm not limited to one comment.......
> 
> I understand the desire for women, and some men, to totally dismiss the comments men make in threads like these because some of the comments are so absolute. The whole idea that women don't know what they want, for example. The problem, though, is that the statement is too inclusive and too vague. Certainly some people, about half of whom are women, don't appear to know what they want. Or perhaps they have a hard time articulating it. When a man says a women doesn't know what she wants, that comment echos through a cultural cnayon that's been carved over several centuries and it gets magnified for some women. That's not entirely the fault of some 22 year old guy who says it, though.
> 
> The other thing I wonder about is just how comfortable any of us are with men talking about their feelings. We don't always do it in a way that invites comfort, and I think most of us adhere, at least a bit, to the stereotype that it's unmanly.
> 
> The discussion would go better if men said that they feel less of a man because they believe women find them unattractive, or don't even find them at all. That emotional state, or any that implies weakness, is an especially hard thing for a lot of men to admit to, much less state. That doesn't excuse attacks or bad behavior, but for me it places those things in a context and makes some sense out of them.
> 
> I think shame is the unspoken emotion behind the overgeneralizations and the blaming that often goes on in these threads, and while shame is a human emotion we all experience, I suspect that women are as in the dark about men's expereince of shame or any other emotion as men are about the emotional lives of women.
> 
> The idea that women are subtle and complex beings and that men are really just fairly smart dogs looking for food, sex, and an atta boy, is about as ****ed up and damging an idea as I can imagine, and it doesn't serve either sex. And we all seem to want to believe it, at least occasionally. I know it's a hard message to avoid, and while people will deny that the message is all that prevalent or that it influences them, my experience has been that its a tenet of a lot of people's beliefs and a vestigal idea for almost all of us, me included.
> 
> I don't know if any of that will ring true for anyone, but it does for me, and I've wanted to write something like it in reponse to these threads for about 8 yrs. So I feel better


Well said. There is alot of emotions men have that we are culturally expected keep to ourselves. However I don't really see that fundamentally altering the many of the conclusions. I think the hurt and pain are real but so are the identified causes. Not all women do xyz. But there are some shared traits that you can make a generalization about. Men also have their faults which I think we're more than willing to acknowledging.

What I find odd is the knee jerk reaction when a "nice guy" states his complaints. There seems to be a shutting off and defensiveness rather than trying to understand the source of "nice guy" angst.


----------



## heroin

orchdorch925 said:


> nice guys finish first in my heart. As for nice, my definition is someone who respects me, doesn't lie to me, treats me with respect, doesn't make me do anything I don't want to, takes interest in my life, and is just pleasant to me. I mean, no one is nice 24/7, but if a guy is nice the majority of the time, then he's got me.


Yeah.


----------



## CopadoMexicano

im a "nice guy" not just nice but the whole label of being someone who isnt really nice and emotionally greedy.


----------



## Atticus

VanDamMan said:


> Well said. There is alot of emotions men have that we are culturally expected keep to ourselves. However I don't really see that fundamentally altering the many of the conclusions. I think the hurt and pain are real but so are the identified causes. Not all women do xyz. But there are some shared traits that you can make a generalization about. Men also have their faults which I think we're more than willing to acknowledging.
> 
> *What I find odd is the knee jerk reaction when a "nice guy" states his complaints. There seems to be a shutting off and defensiveness rather than trying to understand the source of "nice guy" angst.*


I see that too. I've probably contributed some knee jerk reactions myself, missing the pain that's underneath a hastily composed post that comes off a bit abrupt. Or a lot abrupt. I think it's one thing to say "women confuse me when they say they want a nice guy, tell me I'm one, and then go off with some other guy", as opposed to "women prefer jerks who treat them badly". That latter type of statement, more than the former, tends to set these threads on fire.


----------



## anomalous

VanDamMan said:


> What I find odd is the knee jerk reaction when a "nice guy" states his complaints. There seems to be a shutting off and defensiveness rather than trying to understand the source of "nice guy" angst.


Nailed it.

And this very particular phenomenon seems to be a one-sided thing, for the most part. When women do lay out gender-specific complaints on SAS, they're virtually never met with the same defensiveness and animosity.

It's rather disappointing how universal these knee-jerk reactions are, too. There are plenty of female posters who I regard as exceptionally intelligent and articulate overall, but on this one particular issue, they regress to elementary school playground level (not that their male "opponents" aren't doing the same, but still). I'm thinking of comments along the lines of "well, obviously my opinion doesn't mean anything because I've got a vagina!" that react exclusively to the most extreme male views, and completely neglect to address the more moderate, legitimate majority's perspective.


----------



## CopadoMexicano

Jenikyula gone mad said:


> Seriously, being nice + confident is a killer combination. .


How much confidence? :duckI have very low self esteem and no confidence but im not ugly.


----------



## nothing to fear

anomalous said:


> Nailed it.
> 
> And this very particular phenomenon seems to be a one-sided thing, for the most part. When women do lay out gender-specific complaints on SAS, they're virtually never met with the same defensiveness and animosity.
> 
> It's rather disappointing how universal these knee-jerk reactions are, too. There are plenty of female posters who I regard as exceptionally intelligent and articulate overall, but on this one particular issue, they regress to elementary school playground level (not that their male "opponents" aren't doing the same, but still). I'm thinking of comments along the lines of "well, obviously my opinion doesn't mean anything because I've got a vagina!" that react exclusively to the most extreme male views, and completely neglect to address the more moderate, legitimate majority's perspective.


Honestly I've been involved in so many discussions about this in the past (and certainly not always regarding the extremes), and it just becomes terribly repetitive and can be frustrating so I try to avoid getting into any serious discussion.
But that's SAS for you... kind of unfortunate because I've wanted to start discussions on certain topics, (e.g. most recently about creepiness and male sexuality, as I read a couple articles on it thought they were pretty insightful) but they can get out of hand too often. 
I think it's very important and would be beneficial to get a discussion going on these sorts of topics (like Atticus' suggestion) that actually offer advice or solutions, or at least helpful insight, since there are a lot of young people here who don't really have the experience or ability to learn and understand... and well, not just young people of course. But that is hard to do for most topics here...


----------



## Harpuia

It's kind of funny. I developed SAS BECAUSE of relationship problems. I asked this one girl out a while back, and instead of just saying no, she laughed at my face, walked away, and a little while later I was beat up by some of her male suitors for it. My life was hell for the next few years because of that ONE LITTLE MISTAKE I made of going for it.

So when I got older, I kind of just shied away from people entirely, mostly because my reputation was totally sunk. When I got back to the dating scene, I see that every girl I've met in online dating sites only want the total package and I learned words like "half-Asian", "engineer", and "doctorate" were serious turn-offs. When I complain about it on one of the dating sites, the only response I got was that I was a chauvinistic pig who doesn't deserve a woman because I dare say that every woman I've dated so far only wanted me if I was a buff, tall (tho I am 6'0-6'1, and people say I'm not ugly, but I know better), gambler, lawyer, or CEO who basically is just their meal ticket.

Then you take that next stage where you just shut yourself off from people ENTIRELY because now even the normal people think you are crazy at that point, and any person who pays any sort of positive attention to you will eventually hate you when they see who you really are, just like everyone else...


----------



## HannahG

I've posted this elsewhere on the site...

Personally I LOVE nice guys. 95% of the time they're the ones I fall for. They're nice, they're intelligent, and they treat people with respect. Confidence? They don't have to have much confidence as long as they don't constantly tell me about how people hate them or bash themselves non-stop - that's a total turn off.

Seriously though, a nice, intelligent man with some manners....sexy. :yes


----------



## Some Russian Guy

Nobody answered my question yet... if I give presents to girls, I mean, when I buy things with my own money for them
and treat them like a gentleman, open the door, pull out their seat,
and expect them to return the favor by offering me a passionate night of love making

does that make me a nice guy ?


----------



## strawberryjulius

I will no longer leave snarky comments then, in fact, I won't ever talk on any of these topics again. Good luck guys.


----------



## XxArmyofOnexX

Rixy said:


> This thread is like a natural disaster. It's painful to read yet I keep coming back :sus


I know right?


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding

I think there are three clear distinctions behind whether you're nice or not:

*The A Hole

*_This guy pretends to be nice, to get in the girl's pants. He is extremely confident and cocky. However, he really isn't nice at all, all he wants is sex, and when he gets it, it's game over.

_*The passive/unconfident "nice guy"

*_This guy is nice, but to a degree. He is nice to get people to like him...however, underneath it all, he isn't really nice, because he's doing it to get something in return. This type of guy is most likely to become bitter and misogynistic towards women.

_*The "Good Guy"

*_This guy is confident, assertive, and kind to people in general. He doesn't let people walk all over him. He doesn't use 'violence' as a way to impress women. He is a peaceful and content person, who genuinely likes people and doesn't try to change their views towards him through manipulation. He also has a healthy sexual outlook, and while he desires women for sex, he doesn't treat women as only sexual objects.

_From my distinction, it's the "Good Guy" that women are looking for, and it's the "A Hole" who they usually end up with.

The middle man, the passive "nice guy", usually is the one who is "just the friend" and never "the boyfriend."


----------



## matty

Great post


----------



## au Lait

anomalous said:


> And this very particular phenomenon seems to be a one-sided thing, for the most part. When women do lay out gender-specific complaints on SAS, they're virtually never met with the same defensiveness and animosity.


It's not one sided at all. And yes we do get met with those same reactions. Look at all the defensiveness from male posters in this very thread.

If I come across as "defensive" or full of "animosity" it is because the misogyny on these boards is so thick that you can cut it with a knife. Women get bullied out of threads like these by men who come in telling us how we are wrong and that we need to "understand" because "women don't know what they really want".

Just look at this thread. Full of women saying that they love nice guys, yet there are still men complaining that "women only date jerks". Many of these men have limited experience with women, yet they sill feel like they know what we "really" want better than actual real life women.
I find it ironic when people demand that others make an effort to understand them, when they don't give that same luxury in return. Understanding is a two way street.

Some of the hateful comments that are made towards women on these boards are so disgusting that I don't begrudge a singe woman who makes a "guess my opinions are invalid because I have a vagina" comment. Because you know what? There are a lot of guys on these forums who actually believe that, and have said as much.

I admit I get snarky at times. But a) that's my personality and b) it's my own coping mechanism against the messed up stuff I see posted against women on a daily basis. 
I understand what you are saying here, but maybe it's time to step back and think about the reasons that make us act so defensive in the first place.


----------



## Atticus

au Lait said:


> It's not one sided at all. And yes we do get met with those same reactions. Look at all the defensiveness from male posters in this very thread.
> 
> If I come across as "defensive" or full of "animosity" it is because the misogyny on these boards is so thick that you can cut it with a knife. Women get bullied out of threads like these by men who come in telling us how we are wrong and that we need to "understand" because "women don't know what they really want".
> 
> Just look at this thread. Full of women saying that they love nice guys, yet there are still men complaining that "women only date jerks". Many of these men have limited experience with women, yet they sill feel like they know what we "really" want better than actual real life women.
> I find it ironic when people demand that others make an effort to understand them, when they don't give that same luxury in return. Understanding is a two way street.
> 
> Some of the hateful comments that are made towards women on these boards are so disgusting that I don't begrudge a singe woman who makes a "guess my opinions are invalid because I have a vagina" comment. Because you know what? There are a lot of guys on these forums who actually believe that, and have said as much.
> 
> I admit I get snarky at times. But a) that's my personality and b) it's my own coping mechanism against the messed up stuff I see posted against women on a daily basis.
> *I understand what you are saying here, but maybe it's time to step back and think about the reasons that make us act so defensive in the first place*.


My bold. these threads are frustrating. First, because some very troubled men say some very regrettable, ugly things. But another source of my frustration is in the irony of what I bolded.

Is it even conceivable that the men who say the messed up stuff genuinely feel like those comments are justified based on what they're up against on a daily basis? I'm not saying that there is a moral equivalence here, or that I believe their ugliness is reflective of an objective reality. But if they believe it, then the snarky, discussion ending comments invalidate their feelings and feed into their unhealthy perceptions. Worse yet, they tend to shame into silence the men who are being reasonable, but who wish to avoid being painted with the same broad brush.


----------



## Harpuia

Atticus said:


> My bold. these threads are frustrating. First, because some very troubled men say some very regrettable, ugly things. But another source of my frustration is in the irony of what I bolded.
> 
> Is it even conceivable that the men who say the messed up stuff genuinely feel like those comments are justified based on what they're up against on a daily basis? I'm not saying that there is a moral equivalence here, or that I believe their ugliness is reflective of an objective reality. But if they believe it, then the snarky, discussion ending comments invalidate their feelings and feed into their unhealthy perceptions. Worse yet, they tend to shame into silence the men who are being reasonable, but who wish to avoid being painted with the same broad brush.


Pretty much.

For the most part, I notice that people who go to these SA forums are different from the rest of the pack. But in general, how women act? Hate to say it, but the generalizations that people make tend to be true about 80, 90% of the time.

But then again I live in a town where those generalizations are almost sort of forced to be made true in order to keep a reputation in this town. It isn't called "sin city" for nothin'.


----------



## VanDamMan

Atticus said:


> But another source of my frustration is in the *irony *of what I bolded.


Yep. Irony indeed. Counter-attacking perceived misogyny simply reinforces those originally perceptions to begin with.


----------



## heroin

au Lait said:


> If I come across as "defensive" or full of "animosity" it is because the misogyny on these boards is so thick that you can cut it with a knife. Women get bullied out of threads like these by men who come in telling us how we are wrong and that we need to "understand" because "women don't know what they really want".


Hardly. I've posted in these sorts of threads and always made an effort to back up what I say with reliable statistics or the opinions of a large majority of female posters on the forum, yet my posts get shot down as being "sexist" or "misogynistic", and rarely get any actual arguments against what I state. It's the standard "omg!!! generalization!!!11!" accusation instead of any reasoned counter arguments.

Which of these is "bullying" according to you? Posting actual experiences and data or accusations of misogyny?

I had a thread locked because I posted statistics about initiation of breakups and the effects of those breakups which ran counter to the forum's party line of "it's as difficult for women as it is for men".

I don't mind, it's someone else's forum and they are free to run it as they please and enforce their own opinions. But likewise I don't have a high opinion of the canned "omg misogynist" counter arguments either. Are some posts misogynistic? Yes. Are all of them so? Not at all. But they all receive the same canned response.

About the snarkiness, it is usually just generic sarcasm. I don't mind it, but it's just another dismissive argument.


----------



## Harpuia

heroin said:


> Hardly. I've posted in these sorts of threads and always made an effort to back up what I say with reliable statistics or the opinions of a large majority of female posters on the forum, yet my posts get shot down as being "sexist" or "misogynistic", and rarely get any actual arguments against what I state other than the standard "omg!!! generalization!!!11!" accusation instead of any reasoned counter arguments.
> 
> Which of these is "bullying" according to you? Posting actual experiences and data or accusations of misogyny?
> 
> I deleted a mostly jocular post (which wasn't my opinion but speculation from a scientific study), due to accusations of sexism. I had a thread locked because I posted statistics about initiation of breakups and the effects of those breakups which ran counter to the forum's party line of "it's as difficult for women as it is for men".
> 
> I don't mind, it's someone else's forum and they are free to run it as they please and enforce their own opinions. But likewise I don't have a high opinion of the canned "omg misogynist" counter arguments either. Are some posts misogynistic? Yes. Are all of them so? Not at all. But they all receive the same canned response.
> 
> About the snarkiness, it usually is just generic sarcasm. I don't mind it, but it's just another dismissive argument.


I can sort of see it from au Lait's position, where when it comes to love you shouldn't be thinking in statistics and numbers. Because after all, all it takes is one... right?

Just sayin'.


----------



## Johnny_Genome

Honestly, I think in the offline world when guys are together they tend to make generalizations about girls, and girls do they same about guys -- it's a mix of venting, bonding, and acknowledging others shared perceptions and experiences.

If you have SAD, you may not have as many friends / opportunities for these venting sessions, so I think people instead vent on here -- problem is, unlike a locker room, both genders are present, and people get upset.


----------



## ImWeird

I don't.


----------



## heroin

Harpuia said:


> I can sort of see it from au Lait's position, where when it comes to love you shouldn't be thinking in statistics and numbers. Because after all, all it takes is one... right?
> 
> Just sayin'.


Right, so you have decided that loooooove is too precious to be discussed and any negative sentiment associated with it is blatantly untrue or inherently useless.

Good going.



ImWeird said:


> I don't.


Me neither.

For the record, you (generic) are free to dislike me, hate me, think of me as misogynistic, a communist, stupid, callous, and ignore my arguments, etc. etc. with or without any rational reasons to do so. However, if you express those feelings publically, please afford me the courtesy to challenge those feelings. You may not care for my challenge, but I hope other people understand me better from the resulting discussion.


----------



## Harpuia

heroin said:


> Right, so you have decided that loooooove is too precious to be discussed and any negative sentiment associated with it is blatantly untrue or inherently useless.
> 
> Good going.


Actually, for the most part I'm on your side. I'm just trying to state her position in a way so that you can understand, some people don't see love as a way of numbers and statistics. Believe me, I know several others who tell me the same stuff every day.


----------



## heroin

Harpuia said:


> Actually, for the most part I'm on your side. I'm just trying to state her position in a way so that you can understand, some people don't see love as a way of numbers and statistics. Believe me, I know several others who tell me the same stuff every day.


Fair enough. Sorry for misreading you.


----------



## anomalous

au Lait said:


> It's not one sided at all. And yes we do get met with those same reactions. Look at all the defensiveness from male posters in this very thread.


You're misunderstanding. I'm talking specifically about SA-related complaints. So along the lines of, "my SA is particularly hard to deal with because I have a penis/vagina and have X gender role in society."

There's no question men do more of that here, but when women _have_ done it, men didn't circle like hawks in the same way women always do in threads like this.

I mean, it's an interesting disparity, if nothing else.



> If I come across as "defensive" or full of "animosity" it is because the misogyny on these boards is so thick that you can cut it with a knife. Women get bullied out of threads like these by men who come in telling us how we are wrong and that we need to "understand" because "women don't know what they really want".


I don't think there's much true misogyny on these boards. Maybe a few select guys harbor it.

As for your getting "bullied out" of threads, I'm not seeing that, either. Disagreeing firmly with your perspective is no more an example of bullying than your disagreeing with ours.



> Just look at this thread. Full of women saying that they love nice guys, yet there are still men complaining that "women only date jerks". Many of these men have limited experience with women, yet they sill feel like they know what we "really" want better than actual real life women.
> I find it ironic when people demand that others make an effort to understand them, when they don't give that same luxury in return. Understanding is a two way street.


 This thread isn't full of women saying they love nice guys. It's full of women saying they like nice guys with various qualifications, most of which are very difficult to achieve for a man with SA, by its nature. And in the sense that most SA men use the term "nice guy," many of those personality-related qualifications aren't entailed, or might even be seen as negative traits.

So it's not that anyone is accusing women of lying. It's that we disagree on the definition of "nice guy." I think we already came to that conclusion several pages back.



> Some of the hateful comments that are made towards women on these boards are so disgusting that I don't begrudge a singe woman who makes a "guess my opinions are invalid because I have a vagina" comment. Because you know what? There are a lot of guys on these forums who actually believe that, and have said as much.
> 
> I admit I get snarky at times. But a) that's my personality and b) it's my own coping mechanism against the messed up stuff I see posted against women on a daily basis.
> I understand what you are saying here, but maybe it's time to step back and think about the reasons that make us act so defensive in the first place.


Well, I suppose I should work on being more understanding of your perspective, along with many men here.

Here's something that might help us start. When you see posts that say things like:

- Women like jerks over nice guys
- Women are shallow
- SA women aren't willing to date SA guys

Do those constitute the "messed up stuff posted against women" you speak of? And if so, why, exactly, is it so offensive to you on a gut level?

I mean, I recognize that those are fairly negative comments. But it's typically quite clear that the offending man is blowing off steam due to frustration. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the implication with something like "women like jerks" is "*a lot of women* like jerks." Then various women enter the thread and take it to apply to themselves and every single vagina-having inhabitant of the planet, and the chaos begins.

I maintain what I said above about men not having this same visceral reaction when the stray woman posts something like "men are cheaters" or "men are shallow." (For example, when I read those, I think "well... yeah, a lot of 'em are," and laugh). I'm very interested in understanding why.


----------



## anomalous

heroin said:


> Hardly. I've posted in these sorts of threads and always made an effort to back up what I say with reliable statistics or the opinions of a large majority of female posters on the forum, yet my posts get shot down as being "sexist" or "misogynistic", and rarely get any actual arguments against what I state. It's the standard "omg!!! generalization!!!11!" accusation instead of any reasoned counter arguments.
> 
> Which of these is "bullying" according to you? Posting actual experiences and data or accusations of misogyny?


Militant equality-mongers don't have any use for your blasted statistics and data.

Everyone is created equal. We all suffer from SA to precisely the same degree. All women have different, completely independent tastes in men, with no clustering or trends or patterns or any such nonsense.

It's true because _they say it is_.

The ongoing thread in another subforum where the majority of SA women have said they want a confident, outgoing guy doesn't mean anything. In fact, when you post a link to it in a couple weeks after the next woman tries to claim all is equal, it will be misogyny.


----------



## percyblueraincoat

anomalous said:


> Militant equality-mongers don't have any use for your blasted statistics and data.
> 
> Everyone is created equal. We all suffer from SA to precisely the same degree. All women have different, completely independent tastes in men, with no clustering or trends or patterns or any such nonsense.
> 
> It's true because _they say it is_.
> 
> The ongoing thread in another subforum where the majority of SA women have said they want a confident, outgoing guy doesn't mean anything. In fact, when you post a link to it in a couple weeks after the next woman tries to claim all is equal, it will be misogyny.


Are all women with sa on this forum? No? Well then the majority of sa women did nothing on here. So the majority of women with sa did not get on here and say they wanted a confident, outgoing guy, did they?

Just because u interpret trends and patterns does not mean they exist or are present. Women saying they want confidence or outgoing traits in a man in no way automatically implies a trend or that they mean those traits to mean what u assume them to mean. And pointing out often ridiculous, sweeping assumptions and generalisations that ignore how subjectively we interpret things in life and ignore the individual nature of a person and how they see the world is a reasoned argument against the so called data and statistics that u, heroin and others think prove anything.

Women are allowed to say they want more than what they think of as nice when looking for a guy to date. Nice and any other traits they say they want in a guy can mean individual things to each woman. A guy with sa is not automatically in a worse position in the dating world than any other guy.


----------



## BetaBoy90

I like everyone


----------



## stranger25

au Lait said:


> It's not one sided at all. And yes we do get met with those same reactions. Look at all the defensiveness from male posters in this very thread.
> 
> If I come across as "defensive" or full of "animosity" it is because the misogyny on these boards is so thick that you can cut it with a knife. Women get bullied out of threads like these by men who come in telling us how we are wrong and that we need to "understand" because "women don't know what they really want".
> 
> Just look at this thread. Full of women saying that they love nice guys, yet there are still men complaining that "women only date jerks". Many of these men have limited experience with women, yet they sill feel like they know what we "really" want better than actual real life women.
> I find it ironic when people demand that others make an effort to understand them, when they don't give that same luxury in return. Understanding is a two way street.
> 
> Some of the hateful comments that are made towards women on these boards are so disgusting that I don't begrudge a singe woman who makes a "guess my opinions are invalid because I have a vagina" comment. Because you know what? There are a lot of guys on these forums who actually believe that, and have said as much.
> 
> I admit I get snarky at times. But a) that's my personality and b) it's my own coping mechanism against the messed up stuff I see posted against women on a daily basis.
> I understand what you are saying here, but maybe it's time to step back and think about the reasons that make us act so defensive in the first place.


actions are louder then words.


----------



## VanDamMan

joinmartin said:


> .
> 
> Women are allowed to say they want more than what they think of as nice when looking for a guy to date.


Of course they are allowed to date or not date anyone with any trait they desire. But answering a question by intentionally using different definitions is the same thing as not answering it at all. Its like asking "what is your favorite food?" and someone answers "my favorite food is water."


----------



## BeNice

Man, this nice guy stuff is confusing. I hate my username.


----------



## Selbbin

It's interesting that many men seem to think that being timid makes them nice. From what i have read, and I read a lot of these threads, many of the men would not be considered nice. just shy and timid. Lots are bitter and resentful. Jerk does not = outgoing. Lots of outgoing guys are very nice, caring, wonderful people and lots of SA sufferers are jerks. Hell, I'm a jerk. So stop equating shy and timid to being nice. 

Nice = being respectful, kind and caring. Not just timid. Plenty of self-proclaimed 'nice' guys here are not respectful at all. I can see why they don't get dates.


----------



## stranger25

Typical response I see.


----------



## Selbbin

Yep. Comes from age, wisdom, and experience. Or am I wrong? Is being timid by definition nice? Can you act like a jerk, but because you're shy class yourself as nice? Enlighten me.


----------



## VanDamMan

Selbbin said:


> It's interesting that many men seem to think that being timid makes them nice. From what i have read, and I read a lot of these threads, many of the men would not be considered nice. just shy and timid. Lots are bitter and resentful. Jerk does not = outgoing. Lots of outgoing guys are very nice, caring, wonderful people and lots of SA sufferers are jerks. Hell, I'm a jerk. So stop equating shy and timid to being nice.
> 
> Nice = being respectful, kind and caring. Not just timid. Plenty of self-proclaimed 'nice' guys here are not respectful at all. I can see why they don't get dates.


The connotations of disrespectful and timid are almost opposites. How can someone be timid and disrespectful? I don't think timid necessarily equals respectful. But I don't think you can be both timid and offensive.


----------



## bsd3355

Selbbin said:


> It's interesting that many men seem to think that being timid makes them nice. From what i have read, and I read a lot of these threads, many of the men would not be considered nice. just shy and timid. Lots are bitter and resentful. Jerk does not = outgoing. Lots of outgoing guys are very nice, caring, wonderful people and lots of SA sufferers are jerks. Hell, I'm a jerk. So stop equating shy and timid to being nice.
> 
> Nice = being respectful, kind and caring. Not just timid. Plenty of self-proclaimed 'nice' guys here are not respectful at all. I can see why they don't get dates.


:yes


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding

Selbbin said:


> It's interesting that many men seem to think that being timid makes them nice. From what i have read, and I read a lot of these threads, many of the men would not be considered nice. just shy and timid. Lots are bitter and resentful. Jerk does not = outgoing. Lots of outgoing guys are very nice, caring, wonderful people and lots of SA sufferers are jerks. Hell, I'm a jerk. So stop equating shy and timid to being nice.
> 
> Nice = being respectful, kind and caring. Not just timid. Plenty of self-proclaimed 'nice' guys here are not respectful at all. I can see why they don't get dates.


Nailed it!


----------



## anomalous

VanDamMan said:


> The connotations of disrespectful and timid are almost opposites. How can someone be timid and disrespectful? I don't think timid necessarily equals respectful. But I don't think you can be both timid and offensive.


Exactly.

And his statement that "I can see why a lot of you guys don't get dates" is quite possibly the most baseless myth on SAS. Even if we come across as disrespectful online (I take issue with that, too, but that's beside the point), we don't IRL. I'm anything but disrespectful IRL. I bet most SA guys are the same way.

Maybe some of them really are jerks once you get to know them well, but the women rejecting and ignoring them don't know that yet. (And please, spare me the "people pick up on things in mysterious ways" bull).


----------



## Harpuia

anomalous said:


> Exactly.
> 
> And his statement that "I can see why a lot of you guys don't get dates" is quite possibly the most baseless myth on SAS. Even if we come across as disrespectful online (I take issue with that, too, but that's beside the point), we don't IRL. I'm anything but disrespectful IRL. I bet most SA guys are the same way.
> 
> Maybe some of them really are jerks once you get to know them well, but the women rejecting and ignoring them don't know that yet. (And please, spare me the "people pick up on things in mysterious ways" bull).


Really the only reason I see guys here disrespectful is because they take offense to what other forums say about finding a date. Not necessarily here. I haven't been on very long obv, but as far as what I've seen, it's not as bad here as say, on an online dating forum.

The biggest I see is "gain some confidence". I'm sure it works for some people but for many of us, we can gain all the confidence in the world, but the way people reject us (if it's beyond a simple 'no') usually knocks it down like a stack of dominoes. Gain all the confidence in the world, it doesn't help when people call you a piece of... well, you get the idea.


----------



## heroin

Selbbin said:


> It's interesting that many men seem to think that being timid makes them nice.


No. Most of the discussion is about whether being the "nice guy" is worth it. Women say that their definition of nice guy is someone who is genuinely nice and is not expecting a relationship to grow out of his niceness to a woman. And I agree with that. I only draw that conclusion that in light of this, the typical nice guy strategy that so many guys apply, that listening to a woman whine about her tortured love life and hairsplitting her boyfriend's comments, is not going to work if you're expecting something romantic to grow out of it.

You either be the agony aunt out of the goodness of your own heart, else it is pointless. That is all I wanted to say. And it has been validated by the women in this thread. I readily accept that expecting something to grow out of an arrangement like that is "not being nice".



Selbbin said:


> From what i have read, and I read a lot of these threads, many of the men would not be considered nice. just shy and timid. Lots are bitter and resentful. Jerk does not = outgoing. Lots of outgoing guys are very nice, caring, wonderful people and lots of SA sufferers are jerks. Hell, I'm a jerk. So stop equating shy and timid to being nice.


Yes, shy and timid is not equal to being nice. But the discussion over that stems from the qualifier added to the original post that being nice is not enough, you ought to be confident as well. And that's what a lot of people are complaining about. That nobody really likes just nice guys, but confident/good-looking/nice-to-you-but-an-*******-to-everyone-else/etc. nice guys.

And yes, plenty of people here are not nice. Heck, I am not nice at all, and I readily admit that.



Selbbin said:


> Nice = being respectful, kind and caring. Not just timid. Plenty of self-proclaimed 'nice' guys here are not respectful at all.


Respect is earnt. Not demanded.



Selbbin said:


> I can see why they don't get dates.


I wonder if you'd make a similar comment in the threads started by women complaining about how they don't get noticed (as if someone is entitled to attention) or get dates because guys only care for looks. You could say that maybe they are just not worthy of attention and have entitlement issues.

But of course, you wouldn't say that.


----------



## Nae

heroin said:


> No. Most of the discussion is about whether being the "nice guy" is worth it. Women say that their definition of nice guy is someone who is genuinely nice and is not expecting a relationship to grow out of his niceness to a woman. And I agree with that. I only draw that conclusion that in light of this, the typical nice guy strategy that so many guys apply, that listening to a woman whine about her tortured love life and hairsplitting her boyfriend's comments, is not going to work if you're expecting something romantic to grow out of it.
> 
> You either be the agony aunt out of the goodness of your own heart, else it is pointless. That is all I wanted to say. And it has been validated by the women in this thread. I readily accept that expecting something to grow out of an arrangement like that is "not being nice".


I don't think it is understood how frustrating this can be for men, who are indoctrinated to move a relationship along while parallel advice is given of befriendment before relationship, and of not imposing oneself on the other party. It can be f*cking confusing.


----------



## heroin

Nae said:


> I don't think it is understood how frustrating this can be for men, who are indoctrinated to move a relationship along while parallel advice is given of befriendment before relationship, and of not imposing oneself on the other party. It can be f*cking confusing.


And all you need to do to see how flippantly any such concern is treated is to look at the tags on this thread.


> grow some testicles, haha nevaaaaaah!, nice guy, nice guys tm, oh god - make it stop!, y won't u btches date me, you're not nice


----------



## XxArmyofOnexX

In before a mod comes in here and crashes the little party then starts giving out infractions like candy on Halloween. That or they're already circling this thread like vultures.


----------



## Jenikyula gone mad

This thread is hilarious. I don't even know what to say.


----------



## IllusionOfHappiness

Two-hundred posts. Have we come to any sort of agreement or conclusion? 
On..whatever the discussion is here.


----------



## fingertips

tags said:


> what women want?


what men want? what hairy people want? what people with green eyes want? what people born on a tuesday want?


----------



## lonesomeboy

Be nice, but not a desperate pushover. I think thats what the OP means.


----------



## Rixy

lonesomeboy said:


> Be nice, but not a desperate pushover. I think thats what the OP means.


Your point is sensible, valid and it should wrap this thread up quite nicely. Has any kind of consensus been reached here?


----------



## bsd3355

Jenikyula gone mad said:


> This thread is hilarious. I don't even know what to say.


It is just crazy to think how many people are mismatched on something meant to be simple...


----------



## Ivan AG

lonesomeboy said:


> Be nice, but not a desperate pushover. I think thats what the OP means.


Let's finish with this statement.

This thread is making my head hurt.


----------



## nemesis1

No, what the OP was saying is that she wants nice guys with confidence.

And lacking confidence doesnt automatically make someone a 'desperate pushover'.


----------



## CopadoMexicano

nemesis1 said:


> No, what the OP was saying is that she wants nice guys with confidence.
> 
> And lacking confidence doesnt automatically make someone a 'desperate pushover'.


 I agree. How much confidence? most of us on here have low to almost none. Im a nice guy because i avoid disapproval it scares me. my looks and age are my advantage though.


----------



## heroin

Rixy said:


> Your point is sensible, valid and it should wrap this thread up quite nicely. Has any kind of consensus been reached here?


Yep.

We've decided that being the pathetic emotional cushion guy friend is useless if you want to develop a romance.

And that being nice is not enough, you must also have confidence. I am trying to find out what other qualities are absolutely essential. So far, confidence seems to be, niceness apparently is, kindness would be essential from what I've seen in other threads. What else? Attraction? Can't start a relationship if there's no attraction.

Okay, so far we've got "Attractive, confident, kind, nice guys" are desirable. And the lack of any one quality from that list is a deal-breaker. Any more qualities that are absolutely essential?

*P.S.*: Lest anyone misconstrue this post, it is made in response to the patronizing and snidey comments about whether a conclusion has been reached, which is basically a thinly veiled, passive-aggressive jibe on the long discussion in this thread and how it is ultimately pointless. Of course, no actual conclusion has been reached.


----------



## estse

Personally, I prefer fists.


----------



## emptybottle2

I really enjoy reading this and its companion trainwreck on the other subforum












heroin said:


> Okay, so far we've got *"Attractive, confident, kind, nice guys"* are desirable. And *the lack of any one quality from that list is a deal-breaker.* Any more qualities that are absolutely essential?


I know this has been brought up to death, but lots of men who lack these qualities manage to get into relationships. I'm sure you've all met some in real life. But of course they don't count, like the women here who insist that SA isn't a dealbreaker. You don't need to live up to a confident alpha bro ideal. Most geeky, socially awkward guys I've known have had girlfriends or at least been able to get dates occasionally, and there's not a big difference between their confidence levels around women and you guys' here.

I'm curious about how often you guys who get worked up on these threads have actually initiated with women. If you just stop avoiding women, continually attempt to put yourself out there socially (however awkwardly), and tolerate some rejection (as most men do), maybe you'll eventually meet someone who likes you. Accept that dates/relationships won't just fall in your lap like it does for some extroverted, highly confident people. It's a lot harder and you'll have to put in more effort and have patience, but all isn't lost for fucc's sake.


----------



## anomalous

emptybottle2 said:


> You don't need to live up to a confident alpha bro ideal. Most geeky, socially awkward guys I've known have had girlfriends or at least been able to get dates occasionally, and there's not a big difference between their confidence levels around women and you guys' here.


Your language here somewhat betrays the thrust of your post. "Geeky, socially awkward guys?" Perhaps that was just the best objective description you could come up with, but to me, it sounds like a casual put-down of the "nice guy" type that's currently under discussion. It's kinda like me telling the girls here who suffer from body image issues that even the ***-ugly fat cows I've known can get a guy if their personality is bubbly enough. (But then, pejorative descriptions of _that_ demographic just aren't acceptable, are they?)

Implicit in a lot of girls' posts here -- even the ones that purportedly reassure us SA isn't a dealbreaker -- is this mildly patronizing tone... "it's alright guys, you're not THAT bad... just work on fundamentally altering your demeanor and self-perception and we MIGHT be so kind as to acknowledge you every now and then."

Ultimately, I think this is why the argument rages on, even after a fair number of girls claim they're willing to date shy men. How many of them make it sound like a good thing or a preference, as opposed to merely not being a total dealbreaker?

Oh, and the GIF's and trainwreck comments? That's patronizing too, just FYI.


----------



## heroin

emptybottle2 said:


> I know this has been brought up to death, but lots of men who lack these qualities manage to get into relationships. I'm sure you've all met some in real life. But of course they don't count, like the women here who insist that SA isn't a dealbreaker. You don't need to live up to a confident alpha bro ideal. Most geeky, socially awkward guys I've known have had girlfriends or at least been able to get dates occasionally, and there's not a big difference between their confidence levels around women and you guys' here.
> 
> I'm curious about how often you guys who get worked up on these threads have actually initiated with women. If you just stop avoiding women, continually attempt to put yourself out there socially (however awkwardly), and tolerate some rejection (as most men do), maybe you'll eventually meet someone who likes you. Accept that dates/relationships won't just fall in your lap like it does for some extroverted, highly confident people. It's a lot harder and you'll have to put in more effort and have patience, but all isn't lost for fucc's sake.





heroin said:


> *P.S.*: Lest anyone misconstrue this post, it is made in response to the patronizing and snidey comments about whether a conclusion has been reached, which is basically a thinly veiled, passive-aggressive jibe on the long discussion in this thread and how it is ultimately pointless. Of course, no actual conclusion has been reached.


I am certainly not nice in the way most people think of as nice (i.e. always willing to help, polite, etc.) and have never been the other kind of nice guy either. I know better than to be a mug and listen to someone whine with nothing in return.

Actually on second thought, I wouldn't mind being a friend like that, provided I get the same sort of emotional support in return, i.e. constant comments about how I am so awesome and I get to cry to someone in return for matters just as trivial as they would cry over. But most guys here will agree that even that sort of friendship is a fantasy. Even with another guy, much less a girl. How many nice guy friends can cry over ordinary things to their female friend? Extremely few, if not none at all.

I'm posting here because I'm a guy and I've seen the whole "nice guy is creepy because he wants to be more than an emotional cushion" thing happen many times. I'm just curious about what is gained from being the nice, friendship before romance, whine sponge nice guy friend? A vague chance of a romance developing from it? That's all, not even similar emotional support. I'm just trying to highlight that, and hoping that some people have enough self respect to understand that. It looks like self-destructive behaviour to me.

As far as my dating life goes, it was stillborn. I am willing to be celibate and have no interest in begging someone to perform a romantic evaluation on me.


----------



## VanDamMan

emptybottle2 said:


> If you just stop avoiding women, continually attempt to put yourself out there socially (however awkwardly), and tolerate some rejection (as most men do), maybe you'll eventually meet someone who likes you. Accept that dates/relationships won't just fall in your lap like it does for some extroverted, highly confident people. It's a lot harder and you'll have to put in more effort and have patience, but all isn't lost for fucc's sake.


Nice.


----------



## Drella

Mercurochrome said:


> Personally, I prefer fists.


And how.


----------



## estse

Drella said:


> And how.


I'm timing you.


----------



## Drella

O


----------



## estse

Ⓐ


----------



## Allegory

Where are these nice guy loving females? I have yet to meet one.


----------



## shynesshellasucks

I think when most women say they love nice guys, they picture someone who while being nice is also physically attractive and someone who might also have good social skills. Being nice is just one of the many qualities that a guy might possess. If someone is ugly and socially awkward, no matter how nice or confident he is, he's not going to get laid unless he settles with someone he's not really attracted to.


----------



## estse

shynesshellasucks said:


> If someone is ugly and socially awkward, no matter how nice or confident he is, he's not going to get laid unless he settles with someone he's not really attracted to.


lol

Sorry, I just had to laugh! Just like gayer times! Beneath the guillotines!

Ⓑ


----------



## CopadoMexicano

I'm very.good looking according to some but if I'm dating a nice girl there.must be some level of physical attraction
As david deangelo said "attraction isn't a choice":


----------



## emptybottle2

anomalous said:


> Your language here somewhat betrays the thrust of your post. "Geeky, socially awkward guys?" Perhaps that was just the best objective description you could come up with, but to me, it sounds like a casual put-down of the "nice guy" type that's currently under discussion.
> ...
> 
> Ultimately, I think this is why the argument rages on, even after a fair number of girls claim they're willing to date shy men. How many of them make it sound like a good thing or a preference, as opposed to merely not being a total dealbreaker?


It wasn't meant as an objective description. The recurring discussion in this forum is that women find social awkwardness and geekiness absolutely unacceptable. So those were relevant descriptors to use when I was trying to prove otherwise.

In some cases, these guys' girlfriends probably find their shyness endearing and may even share their "geeky" interests. And to other girls, it's considered something they're willing to overlook because they like other things about the guy. There's so much more to a shy person than their shyness. So if the girl still wants to be with you, what's wrong with shyness merely _not _being a total dealbreaker, as opposed to a preference? We all know it's not considered a turn-on by the majority of the population, women and men.


----------



## Jenikyula gone mad

shynesshellasucks said:


> I think when most women say they love nice guys, they picture someone who while being nice is also physically attractive and someone who might also have good social skills. Being nice is just one of the many qualities that a guy might possess. *If someone is ugly and socially awkward, no matter how nice or confident he is, he's not going to get laid unless he settles with someone he's not really attracted to.*


You're forgetting that he might get a pity fcuk from a serious hottie.


----------



## estse

jenikyula gone mad said:


> you're forgetting that he might get a pity fcuk from a serious hottie.


Ⓒ


----------



## CopadoMexicano

Jenikyula gone mad said:


> You're forgetting that he might get a pity fcuk from a serious hottie.


 really? oh ok. ill be waiting at my door than.


----------



## anomalous

emptybottle2 said:


> It wasn't meant as an objective description. The recurring discussion in this forum is that women find social awkwardness and geekiness absolutely unacceptable. So those were relevant descriptors to use when I was trying to prove otherwise.
> 
> In some cases, these guys' girlfriends probably find their shyness endearing and may even share their "geeky" interests. And to other girls, it's considered something they're willing to overlook because they like other things about the guy. There's so much more to a shy person than their shyness.


Fair enough.



> So if the girl still wants to be with you, what's wrong with shyness merely _not _being a total dealbreaker, as opposed to a preference? We all know it's not a considered a turn-on by the majority of the population, women and men.


Well, it doesn't have to be a turn-on, but seeing it as a neutral quality at minimum would be nice. Even if a girl had a net positive opinion of me, I'd be rather uncomfortable if she considered my shyness and modesty a negative to be compensated by other positives. It's fundamental to who I am. And in all honesty, I take a certain degree of pride in it.

Furthermore, the frustration stems from the imbalance between genders on this. I'll try to illustrate as best I can. Last night I had dinner with a couple friends, and a girl I'd never met before was there with one of them. She was average-looking at best by conventional standards, but she was quite reserved and spoke eloquently when she did speak up. This immediately caught my attention and very much piqued my interest in her on a romantic level -- pending further details and getting to know her, of course. I mean, she was a lot like me -- you'd think that's a good thing, right? Based upon all I've seen in my life and read on here, most shy guys would feel the same. But this same "heightened interest in our own kind" just doesn't seem to be there with shy girls, except for a few select cases. Unsurprisingly, I found out she already had a BF by the end of the evening, despite her being even more quiet and passive (though probably a bit less awkward) than I. This is an anecdote, of course, but when you've seen it 100 times it starts seeping into your overall worldview.


----------



## percyblueraincoat

shynesshellasucks said:


> I think when most women say they love nice guys, they picture someone who while being nice is also physically attractive and someone who might also have good social skills. Being nice is just one of the many qualities that a guy might possess. If someone is ugly and socially awkward, no matter how nice or confident he is, he's not going to get laid unless he settles with someone he's not really attracted to.


But is the girl gonna think he's ugly and awkward just because you might assume he is based on what you think of as ugly and awkward. Even conventional standards aren't static. They change and move and convention isn't automatically a standard universally understood and accepted. What you have is a presupposition bout how a girl might react to a guy you've assumed is somehow unattractive and awkward as if it is a general genuine and true label.


----------



## percyblueraincoat

anomalous said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Well, it doesn't have to be a turn-on, but seeing it as a neutral quality at minimum would be nice. Even if a girl had a net positive opinion of me, I'd be rather uncomfortable if she considered my shyness and modesty a negative to be compensated by other positives. It's fundamental to who I am. And in all honesty, I take a certain degree of pride in it.
> 
> Furthermore, the frustration stems from the imbalance between genders on this. I'll try to illustrate as best I can. Last night I had dinner with a couple friends, and a girl I'd never met before was there with one of them. She was average-looking at best by conventional standards, but she was quite reserved and spoke eloquently when she did speak up. This immediately caught my interest and very much piqued my interest in her on a romantic level -- pending further details and getting to know her, of course. I mean, she was a lot like me -- you'd think that's a good thing, right? Based upon all I've seen in my life and read on here, most shy guys would feel the same. But this same "heightened interest in our own kind" just doesn't seem to be there with shy girls, except for a few select cases. Unsurprisingly, I found out she already had a BF by the end of the evening, despite her being even more quiet and passive (though probably a bit less awkward) than I. This is an anecdote, of course, but when you've seen it 100 times it starts seeping into your overall worldview.


It's fundamental to who you are? Wouldn't that be a choice to define yourself like that? This girl was not automatically what you assumed her to be. So r you automatically what you assume yourself to be?


----------



## anomalous

joinmartin said:


> It's fundamental to who you are? Wouldn't that be a choice to define yourself like that?


I don't know. I guess it's a choice to label myself as such, but not so much a choice to be that way. If someone I know well was asked to describe my personality is a few words, "quiet" or "reserved" or "modest" or "self-abasing" would probably come up. That's all I mean.



> This girl was not automatically what you assumed her to be. So r you automatically what you assume yourself to be?


I didn't assume her to be anything more than what I saw. The point is this: I saw a few traits in her that were similar to myself, and which were rather significant to who she is as a whole, and liked that. There might well be a lot of other things about her I wouldn't like, but her reserved demeanor was a great start, and in fact was the best first impression any girl could make on me in such a setting. Very few of the women in this thread or other similar ones in the past have indicated this level of interest, even if they say they're "willing to date shy guys." (Doesn't make them bad people, just pointing it out).


----------



## emptybottle2

joinmartin said:


> It's fundamental to who you are? Wouldn't that be a choice to define yourself like that?


I agree. But considering the extent to which it limits our lives, it's hard to make it stop being one of our top defining qualities.

*anomalous, *yeah, I'm not gonna pretend the gender imbalance doesn't exist. I see it in real life too. It does seem like guys are more forgiving of social ineptitude in women than vice versa.


----------



## anomalous

emptybottle2 said:


> *anomalous, *yeah, I'm not gonna pretend the gender imbalance doesn't exist. I see it in real life too. It does seem like guys are more forgiving of social ineptitude in women than vice versa.


And not just women in general, but women with SA as well. I'm not going to lie: I'm bitter and resentful that a lot of shy girls don't see shyness as a positive trait in men; that they don't want to "stick together with their own," so to speak. It's like, here I am willing to overlook a lot of shortcomings in a girl if she's quiet and reserved like me because I see it as so attractive, and yet I'm just pond scum in her eyes (WRT boyfriend potential). As I already said, I don't judge shy girls who feel that way as bad people or immoral. It's just incredibly disappointing that things have to be that way. Indescribably disappointing, actually. And really, I think that feeling is at the root of threads like this.

Nonetheless, I really appreciate your acknowledging this simple fact of life in lieu of a diatribe about "generalizations" and such. If everyone here acknowledged what you just did, there wouldn't be 10-page threads like this, because as plainly obvious and self-evident as your statement is, a *lot* of people here violently object to it -- whether explicitly or implicitly.


----------



## au Lait

Atticus said:


> My bold. these threads are frustrating. First, because some very troubled men say some very regrettable, ugly things. But another source of my frustration is in the irony of what I bolded.
> 
> Is it even conceivable that the men who say the messed up stuff genuinely feel like those comments are justified based on what they're up against on a daily basis? I'm not saying that there is a moral equivalence here, or that I believe their ugliness is reflective of an objective reality. But if they believe it, then the snarky, discussion ending comments invalidate their feelings and feed into their unhealthy perceptions. Worse yet, they tend to shame into silence the men who are being reasonable, but who wish to avoid being painted with the same broad brush.


Whoa whoa whoa...I've said some pretty snarky things but the point you bolded was actually not meant to be one of them. I was seriously asking for people to try and see how the comments that are made against women here can be hurtful....to see things from our point of view and understand why some might get defensive.

I don't recall painting anyone with a broad brush. I take issue with ideas, not people.

It sounds to me like you are trying to use the tone argument here...maybe I'm wrong?

I understand that people have dating frustrations. Dating has never been easy for me either. But I'm sorry, I'm not going to pat someone on the hand and say "there, there" when they say things that you yourself have described as regrettable and ugly.

I do agree with you, however, that threads like these are frustrating.


----------



## coeur_brise

Let's put this in another light here so to speak. the whole "nice guy versus girl" approach it's a bit like the shy people vs. non-shy people dilemma. in everyday situations, shy people get the sense that not every extrovert will like them based on the shy person's social ability to be entertaining, talkative, and confident. Some shy people sense this and they either feel sad that they're not as entertaining and outgoing as non-shy people.. or they make small attempts to come out of their shell, however hard that may be. Likewise, a fairly average guy can feel bad about not being the most confident around women, but at least he can still try. But, let's say a shy person is trying win over an extrovert, to expect extroverted people to particularly like a shy person because they possess shy qualities, is that really reasonable? it's unfair for the non-shy person since that is not what they prefer. I'm shy, but I wouldn't get mad if an extrovert didn't like me because I'm just not extrovert like them, you get what I'm saying? sorry this is such a long post, but what I really mean is that it's an expectation from men that women must like a certain something, women have to like this, have to like that and so on or else they are *****es for liking what they like.


----------



## stranger25

emptybottle2 said:


> IIt does seem like guys are more forgiving of social ineptitude in women than vice versa.


Alot more than just that. Alot more.


----------



## heroin

emptybottle2 said:


> *anomalous, *yeah, I'm not gonna pretend the gender imbalance doesn't exist. I see it in real life too. It does seem like guys are more forgiving of social ineptitude in women than vice versa.


Thank you very much for saying that. Most others wouldn't be willing to concede that.


----------



## Atticus

au Lait said:


> Whoa whoa whoa...I've said some pretty snarky things but the point you bolded was actually not meant to be one of them. I was seriously asking for people to try and see how the comments that are made against women here can be hurtful....to see things from our point of view and understand why some might get defensive.
> 
> I don't recall painting anyone with a broad brush. I take issue with ideas, not people.
> 
> It sounds to me like you are trying to use the tone argument here...maybe I'm wrong?
> 
> I understand that people have dating frustrations. Dating has never been easy for me either. But I'm sorry, I'm not going to pat someone on the hand and say "there, there" when they say things that you yourself have described as regrettable and ugly.
> 
> I do agree with you, however, that threads like these are frustrating.


They certainly are frustrating, but this one has stayed relatively calm. Most of the nasty stuff has been drive by, but the repeat contributors have treated each other decently.

Warts and all, I think this discussion is worth having. If it happened in a city park or in the staff lounge at work, I'd say all's fair. But in this context, a support board for people with social anxiety discussing an issue that defines SA for many of them, I think tone matters. I respect your right to disagree if you do, of course.


----------



## anomalous

sanria22 said:


> Let's put this in another light here so to speak. the whole "nice guy versus girl" approach it's a bit like the shy people vs. non-shy people dilemma. in everyday situations, shy people get the sense that not every extrovert will like them based on the shy person's social ability to be entertaining, talkative, and confident. Some shy people sense this and they either feel sad that they're not as entertaining and outgoing as non-shy people.. or they make small attempts to come out of their shell, however hard that may be. Likewise, a fairly average guy can feel bad about not being the most confident around women, but at least he can still try. But, let's say a shy person is trying win over an extrovert, to expect extroverted people to particularly like a shy person because they possess shy qualities, is that really reasonable? it's unfair for the non-shy person since that is not what they prefer. I'm shy, but I wouldn't get mad if an extrovert didn't like me because I'm just not extrovert like them, you get what I'm saying? sorry this is such a long post, but what I really mean is that it's an expectation from men that women must like a certain something, women have to like this, have to like that and so on or else they are *****es for liking what they like.


Wait a second. Your whole point about expecting people to like someone who shares their own level of extroversion is exactly what I've been hinting at all along! Only, we presented it in different ways.

You say it's unreasonable for a shy person to expect an extrovert to like them. Sure, I'm with you there. All else being equal, that's probably true.

Along the same lines, I say it's not unreasonable for shy men to hope (not sure if "expect" conveys the right tone) that similarly-shy women will like them. Yet, here we are. A fairly sizable contingent of SAS's women say they prefer a confident, outgoing man who will bring them out of their shell -- in effect, conveying the very expectation you called unreasonable. An even larger contingent claims they are willing to date shy men, but that it's not really a preference. On the other side of the coin, you have a relatively large percentage of SAS's men who *prefer* a shy girl, in keeping with the "rule" you proposed.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing with anything you said. I'm simply illustrating how using your logic, it's completely understandable why shy men are so frustrated by the statistics of shy girls' preferences.


----------



## heroin

MavenMI6Agent009 said:


> if I'm dating a nice girl there.must be some level of physical attraction
> As david deangelo said "attraction isn't a choice":


Probably true. But I will take the opportunity to disqualify myself from that group. I am almost never attracted to someone just because they are good looking. I had a crush on a girl who would not qualify as being conventionally good looking. To give you a picture, her waist was probably more than twice as wide as mine. But she gave me attention. Which was lovely. And I had a crush on her even though I never actually thought about her sexually.

So yeah, the large majority of guys probably put physical attraction at the top of their list of criteria, but I am not among that majority.



au Lait said:


> I don't recall painting anyone with a broad brush. I take issue with ideas, not people.





au Lait said:


> If I come across as "defensive" or full of "animosity" it is because the misogyny on these boards is so thick that you can cut it with a knife. Women get bullied out of threads like these by men who come in telling us how we are wrong and that we need to "understand" because "women don't know what they really want".


Apparently, the misogyny you feel is coming from somewhere. I don't think you'd argue that it is from the women on the board. So, is an accusation of misogyny directed towards the men an example of taking issue with an idea or with people? And is it an example of tarring people with a broad brush, or an accusation levelled against a minority of male posters (which you didn't specify in your earlier post)?

And humour me while I channel joinmartin: "How do you know what women really want any more than a man? Do you speak for all women? Does having female anatomy automatically make your opinion of what women want more legitimate than a man's? Is it fair to extend your socially constructed view of what women as a gender want to a significant majority of females?"



sanria22 said:


> sorry this is such a long post, but what I really mean is that it's an expectation from men that women must like a certain something, women have to like this, have to like that and so on or else they are *****es for liking what they like.


I don't think that at all. You're free to like what you like. You do not have to be guilted into relationships with people you don't like. There is no "shy is handsome" sentiment being pushed unlike the "big is beautiful" one.

What is being said is that this tendency to like more extroverted or confident men does leave a fair few SA afflicted or shy in general men few or no options. You are not required to feel guilty about it, but you are also not entitled to shout down their concerns.

And I have nothing vested in this discussion. I am not even in the dating arena.


----------



## malaise

I am definitely more drawn to guys who are like myself, that is, guys who are aloof, quiet, loners. Perhaps they're outwardly reserved but nevertheless you can feel something simmering underneath, and I want to know what that something is. Extroverted guys can sometimes catch my attention in a more immediate way, but it quickly fades as ultimately I could never get along with them. It's more of a fascination I guess rather than true romantic interest, like observing another species. In most cases though I am turned off by the gregarious guy who everyone thinks is cool, they bore me. The real pull comes from those I notice who are uncomfortable socially like myself, a loner, the black sheep.


----------



## Teflon

I agree with many of the posts, that confidence cant be just mustered when it is required, if it could be there would be no such thing as social anxiety. 

Further to this I believe there is a link between high anxiety and low self esteem. Im not quite sure but somehow the high levels of anxiety that cause dysfunction seem to lead to low confidence. It would be interesting to see what woud happen to a person that had the part of the brain that causes anxiety removed. Would there confidence and self esteem improve overnight?


----------



## Ambivert

You like us? I like you then.


----------



## fingertips

Teflon said:


> It would be interesting to see what woud happen to a person that had the part of the brain that causes anxiety removed. Would there confidence and self esteem improve overnight?


"When significant portions of the amygdalae are removed in a monkey, the constellation of changes in behavior that results is called the Klüver-Bucy syndrome, which is evidenced by an animal that is not afraid of anything, has extreme curiosity about everything, forgets rapidly, has a tendency to place everything in its mouth and sometimes even tries to eat solid objects, and often has a sex drive so strong that it attempts to copulate with immature animals, animals of the wrong sex, or even animals of a different species."


----------



## StevenGlansberg

fingertips said:


> "When significant portions of the amygdalae are removed in a monkey, the constellation of changes in behavior that results is called the Klüver-Bucy syndrome, which is evidenced by an animal that is not afraid of anything, has extreme curiosity about everything, forgets rapidly, has a tendency to place everything in its mouth and sometimes even tries to eat solid objects, and often has a sex drive so strong that it attempts to copulate with immature animals, animals of the wrong sex, or even animals of a different species."


Maybe just take a little off the top then...


----------



## XxArmyofOnexX

I left this thread for a while and all I can say...

*It's still here? *


----------



## melissa75

^You brought it back after 3 days :lol. Look what you've started up again.


----------



## XxArmyofOnexX

melissa75 said:


> ^You brought it back after 3 days :lol. Look what you've started up again.


Oh shi- :b

Everything shows up on the 1st page anyhow. 

I'd like to go on the record to say that this thread is both entertaining and depressing as ****.


----------



## zebra00

Jenikyula gone mad said:


> Here's a shout-out to all the nice guys: you're awesome! Thank you for for not being douche-bags or jerks, thank you for respecting your sexual partners, thank you for being smart, caring, considerate, thoughtful, and not domineering. If you are a nice guy who seems to finish last, don't change, just become more confident in your awesome self. Show the world you are a confident nice guy, you'll find that people will really, really dig you. :yes
> 
> Seriously, being nice + confident is a killer combination.
> 
> *Edit:* Umm.......yeah.
> 
> *Second edit: * Seriously, nice guys are awesome. Very much appreciated. Whether you're confident or not or whatever.


:haha


----------



## prudence

I have become more attracted to authentically "nice guys". I will admit that I did generally prefer the opposite of this because I was somewhat of a masochist. It took me some time to realize I was repeating the behavior I learned when I was younger and thus, always seemed to fall into relationships that were terrible and dramatic because this is what I was used to. My preference now is the complete opposite of what I unconsciously attracted a few years ago. Having someone that can add to my life in positive ways rather than add drama & corruption is what I wish to have now.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding

How does one become a good guy, then?

I offered my opinion. Is it strictly confidence? Looks? A little bit of both?

I need a systematic analysis on how to get into a relationship, because my "niceness" ain't working. :roll:


----------



## VanDamMan

WintersTale said:


> How does one become a good guy, then?
> 
> I offered my opinion. Is it strictly confidence? Looks? A little bit of both?
> 
> I need a systematic analysis on how to get into a relationship, because my "niceness" ain't working. :roll:


You must go to Safeway and buy some confidence. It's in aisle 4.


----------



## UNity7

If I have low confidence I am a "nice guy"
If I have confidence I have "short man syndrome"

Would anyone care to give me pointers how to rectify these two opposing points? I find walking on that knifes edge very difficult.


----------



## Colhad75

Confidence needs to be a way of being, not something that you can muster when you need it. I believe confidence can be mustered by continually talking yourself up, keep saying positive stuff about yourself and you will feel a change happening.

I do think being nice is the way to be, after all who wants to be associated with an *******. The ******** are the ones that will cheat on their partners, beat them up, rip them off, lie to them, do what they can to upset their partner. However a nice decent person will try to avoid all those things cos he/she doesn't want to hurt you cos they love you.


----------



## lucyinthesky

Nice guys are the best kind of guys


----------



## percyblueraincoat

Anxiety is itself a state. It comes and goes when it is needed. It generates and u generate it. Same thing with confidence. It's called state management. Yes, you can move confidence from one area of your life to another. Not easy but more than possible. And those who say it is not have actually done it. They moved their confidence on their knowledge of things and experiences into this present moment. Over analysis dampens the connection between faith and trust and the experiences of being human which can mean confidence gets confused with knowledge. People experience the feelings of anxiety but because they think confidence is somehow competency and or knowledge, they wait to act until they think they have enough of a certain skill or know that something will go well for them. This prevents actual experience without over analysis learning and hinders developments in the skills people want to know they have before they do anything. Massive belief feedback loop.


----------



## Amocholes

All guys are "nice guys" until you really get to know them.


----------



## Atticus

UNity7 said:


> If I have low confidence I am a "nice guy"
> If I have confidence I have "short man syndrome"
> 
> Would anyone care to give me pointers how to rectify these two opposing points? I find walking on that knifes edge very difficult.


Confidence is at its core a kind of integrity. It's believing that what you think, feel and do are OK, within reason. That's a state men and women ought to strive for, so if that's what you mean by being confident, I think it's indispensible to a healthy mind and spirit.

So if having a healthy mind and spirit leads some people with a prejudice to interpret healthy behavior as evidence of a poorly supported myth about men of a certain stature, watcha gonna do? Someone who will cling to that sloppy conclusion despite repeated evidence to the contrary isn't worth worrying about.

Other people may tend to pigeon hole people but may be flexible and subject to changing their first impressions. That you may have to get past a negative first impression you're really not responsible for with this second group, may be a responsibility you have to take on if you want some level of positive regard and engagement with them.

The third option is to focus on people who don't pre-judge, at least not based on a man's height. I'm guessing from your comment that you don't encounter many such people, so maybe a combination of options 2 and 3 is best?


----------



## watashi

Don't shoot me, but I believe that most nice guys don't have confidence. If they had they'd be jerks. Genuinely nice and confident people are very few.


----------



## Scrub-Zero

Amocholes said:


> All guys are "nice guys" until you really get to know them.


That's what i think too. Some people will be nice because they're too shy to be mean.


----------



## percyblueraincoat

watashi said:


> Don't shoot me, but I believe that most nice guys don't have confidence. If they had they'd be jerks. Genuinely nice and confident people are very few.


A jerk does not have confidence. What he has begins with an a.


----------



## kiirby

Oh, this thread again. Woo.


----------



## Jessie203

nemesis1 said:


> Exactly. All these sort of threads do is compound the things that we 'nice guys' already assume, i.e. women dont want guys who lack confidence and end up making us feel worse.
> 
> And telling someone who doesnt have any confidence to 'go get some confidence' is like telling someone with a brain injury to 'stop being a retard'.
> 
> So to the OP, thanks again for this thread. *sarcasm*


I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with you guys.
Yes niceness and confidence is optimal for men, but it's just as much optimal for women to attain. I would say I'm relatively nice but I do not always exude confidence either. So I understand how it hurts to read a thread like this and interpret it as being told that you do not measure up. In all fairness though, I do not believe the O.P meant it that way, she is just saying thank you to the men who are kind, and she also updated it mentioning nonconfident nice-men aswell. ^^ (And when I say nice, I mean actually treat all people in a proper way and don't mess with womens' minds or degrade us)


----------



## Jessie203

Amocholes said:


> All guys are "nice guys" until you really get to know them.


HAHA. So true..:teeth


----------



## krista91

So every guy here complains women don't like shy men.. Do men like shy girls then? If so, where are these men in my life? 
No really. Shy people in general are hard work. I don't think I would want to put up with me if I were someone else. So yeah.. building confidence is important imo. And opening up more..


----------



## LatchKeyKid

I read something recently on this topic which gave me new insight, so I thought I'd chime in! (I can't remember where I read it, could've been here!).

To the men of SAS, would you define a woman's overall attractiveness based on how "nice" she was? Of course not! It's is more complex than that, and the term "nice" is not that meaningful anyway. For argument's sake, let's take "nice" to mean "being a decent person and not being a *****". Firstly, this is not such a rare quality. Secondly, for most of us it's a _requirement_, a sort of baseline. Thirdly, "niceness" on its own is not really _attractive_. It's merely _nice_.

I'm single and I don't date, so I don't pretend to be an expert in these matters. That said, I'm not attracted to women merely because they're "nice" or alternatively, because they're *****y. The same goes for all of us. Niceness isn't what attraction is about.

Also, and I'm definitely paraphrasing previous posts, the spectrum of niceness to *******-ness is separate from the spectrum of low confidence to high confidence. You can be an ******* with low confidence (quite common), just as you can be a confident nice person (also pretty common).

Food for thought? :|


----------



## heroin

LatchKeyKid said:


> just as you can be a confident nice person (also pretty common).


Can you be a confident SA-sufferer though? And how common are confident SA sufferers?


----------



## CopadoMexicano

I think nemesis is right about women not "attracted" men who lack confidence. I severely lack confidence and women are turned off even if I'm very goodlooking


----------



## VanDamMan

You've got to take what you want in the world. Waiting for someone to give it to you for being "nice" is a losing proposition. At their core, all humans are selfish.


----------



## LatchKeyKid

heroin said:


> Can you be a confident SA-sufferer though? And how common are confident SA sufferers?


It's entirely possible for somebody with SA to develop confidence. It just takes a lot of work! :b

I'm going on a tangent, but facing one's fears can be a great source of confidence. I try to tell myself the following:_ I have an anxiety disorder. I accept it. It isn't my fault. I have it harder than most people. Despite this apparent handicap, I can function and succeed. I love and respect myself, and I need to be patient with myself. I am brave, strong and resilient because I can face my fears and do things anyway!_

Maybe that sounds lame, but it's from the heart, and it actually works for me.


----------



## Ivan AG

LatchKeyKid said:


> It's entirely possible for somebody with SA to develop confidence. It just takes a lot of work! :b


Yep.

Or just experience a hypomanic episode.

Too bad I can't control them.


----------



## StevenGlansberg

heroin said:


> Can you be a confident SA-sufferer though?


I think you can if you can somehow feel comfortable with your anxiety. Not sure if that makes sense...but if you could go into a situation and realize that okay my anxiety may not make this the smoothest of interactions but whatever it's not a huge deal, I still like myself, not going to beat myself up about this, etc.


----------



## Atticus

StevenGlansberg said:


> I think you can if you can somehow feel comfortable with your anxiety. Not sure if that makes sense...but if you could go into a situation and realize that okay my anxiety may not make this the smoothest of interactions but whatever it's not a huge deal, I still like myself, not going to beat myself up about this, etc.


That's very similar to what I was going to say. When people mention confidence, I think they're often thinking more along the lines that a person believes there's a good chance he'll succeed at something. In the "approaching a woman scenario" you either succeed or fail according to some people, and a confident man thinks he'll succeed, meaning getting contact info, a date, or whatever.

Confidence can be about feeling that success is likely, but with a broader definition of success. In the scenario above, success could be what's mentioned, but it could also be a failure you learn from.

I think conficence is more about detaching somewhat from the outcome. That's not an absence of caring about the outcome, but an absence of suffering if the outcome isn't what you wanted. In this case the confidence isn't in your performance or your success or failure by whatever definition, but it's in you and your ability to manage yourself. That seems pretty freeing to me.


----------



## StevenGlansberg

Atticus said:


> That's very similar to what I was going to say. When people mention confidence, I think they're often thinking more along the lines that a person believes there's a good chance he'll succeed at something. In the "approaching a woman scenario" you either succeed or fail according to some people, and a confident man thinks he'll succeed, meaning getting contact info, a date, or whatever.
> 
> Confidence can be about feeling that success is likely, but with a broader definition of success. In the scenario above, success could be what's mentioned, but it could also be a failure you learn from.
> 
> I think conficence is more about detaching somewhat from the outcome. That's not an absence of caring about the outcome, but an absence of suffering if the outcome isn't what you wanted. In this case the confidence isn't in your performance or your success or failure by whatever definition, but it's in you and your ability to manage yourself. That seems pretty freeing to me.


You'll feel better about yourself but is this the type of confidence that can be picked up by other people and make you more attractive? I'm not sure...I would hope so.


----------



## leonardess

Atticus said:


> I think conficence is more about detaching somewhat from the outcome. That's not an absence of caring about the outcome, but an absence of suffering if the outcome isn't what you wanted. In this case the confidence isn't in your performance or your success or failure by whatever definition, but it's in you and your ability to manage yourself. That seems pretty freeing to me.


at the risk of being one of those sycophantic people, I'd like to say that if the golden mean, the point where everything is drawn to perspective could be summed up in words as a concept to live by, the above would be it.


----------



## LatchKeyKid

Ivan AG said:


> Yep.
> 
> Or just experience a hypomanic episode.
> 
> Too bad I can't control them.


As it happens, I was borderline hypomanic when I wrote that. :lol


----------



## LatchKeyKid

Atticus, I really like what you wrote. A huge problem for me has been my tendency to base my self-esteem on what others think of me. I link my confidence to "outcomes", as you might put it, which are largely out of my control. _I can't control whether or not a person likes me_. It depends as much on the other person as it does on me.

Maybe you (generally) need to redefine "success" such that it's internally focused and you have more control over it. _You_ would become the source of your self-esteem, rather than some external factor you can't control. If approaching an attractive woman, regardless of the outcome, is a "success" to you, then you could build confidence even if you're rejected at every turn.



StevenGlansberg said:


> You'll feel better about yourself but is this the type of confidence that can be picked up by other people and make you more attractive? I'm not sure...I would hope so.


If you feel good about yourself, people _will_ pick up on it.


----------



## rawrsmus

The funny thing is, every girl on the planet would probably say that they agree with the first post.
But.. when it comes down to reality, it just doesn't work like that.


----------



## Ivan AG

rawrsmus said:


> The funny thing is, every girl on the planet would probably say that they agree with the first post.
> But.. when it comes down to reality, it just doesn't work like that.


So you mean to say that in fact women simply don't know their true feelings, or even perhaps that they're lying?


----------



## rawrsmus

Ivan AG said:


> So you mean to say that in fact women simply don't know their true feelings, or even perhaps that they're lying?


I don't really know, it's just that everyone say that they prefer nice guys.
When was the last time you heard a girl (18+) say that they like bad boys?

It's just something that makes you sound like a good person, just as saying you donate money and clothes to the homeless.


----------



## Ivan AG

When we go into the whole "bad boys" and "nice guys" conversation, there is the risk that people will simply get a generic label placed on them based on these characteristics.

Meaning you're either a "bad boy" or a "nice guy".

What about being confident, but retaining your nice demeanor?

Or in the case of being a mean spirited person who is described as a "bad boy" but in reality simply puts on this act to hide insecurities?


----------



## percyblueraincoat

Atticus, great words as always. My friend, Marcus of your charisma coach.com discussed this in his newsletter. He made a distinction between confidence and a type of positive indifference to the outcome. I'm not in the best of health right this second and my doctor informs me that hardly eating for days on end is a really bad idea. Who knew. Lol. But if this thread doesn't get locked, I'll post what Marcus wrote.


----------



## Milco

Ivan AG said:


> So you mean to say that in fact women simply don't know their true feelings, or even perhaps that they're lying?


Does anybody know their true feelings? All we can really do is interpret.
And when we interpret, we already know what the 'right' thing would be, so we very easily try to interpret how we're feeling in a way that fits this image - to justify our feelings to ourselves.
It takes a lot of wisdom to try to challenge that and to accept that your feelings don't always match up with your ideals.

But that's not something directed at "women". It's something most people are dealing with.
There then are some that don't care about the ideals and openly admit to just their feelings, and there are some that truely do challenge it and try to go for their ideals - whatever those ideals may be.


----------



## LatchKeyKid

Ivan AG said:


> What about being confident, but retaining your nice demeanor?
> 
> Or in the case of being a mean spirited person who is described as a "bad boy" but in reality simply puts on this act to hide insecurities?


These two scenarios seem more probable than the stereotypes being discussed in this thread.


----------



## Smallfry

Nice guys make life a lot easier to bear


----------



## Ivan AG

Smallfry said:


> Nice guys make life a lot easier to bear


 All hell breaks loose in 3, 2, 1......... The Universe just exploded after realizing it's own existence.


----------



## UNity7

Smallfry said:


> Nice guys make life a lot easier to bear


Romantic relationships are difficult so obviously when every man a female meets is a nice guy there isn't that problem because there will never be any romantic relationship between the nice guy and the female ever.

I heard this amazing proverb and I have never forgotten it, it applies to nice guys and guys in the friendzone (which are disproportionately short guys and nice guys)

"If you and a woman were trapped in a room and the only way she could get out was to have sex with you or shoot you in the head she would gladly put up with the murder charges."

A bit extreme? I thought so at first but thinking about the women who I am friends* with.... they would not hesitate to give me an early grave.

*not real friends but friendzone "friends"

I guess that is a bit of a lengthy example, but the bottom line is that nice guys obviously make life easier for women because there are no romantic relationship problems because a romantic relationship is not a possibility, ever.


----------



## Ivan AG

Who is the mastermind behind that gem?

A PUA?

I didn't realize women were capable of committing murder at any given moment if the circumstances were right, but now I know.


----------



## percyblueraincoat

Yeah, they've not thought that proverb thru. In the uk, killing someone wud get u twenty five years at least and in the USA, there's the option that you'll get killed. Also, why wud having sex with or killing the guy automatically mean she wasn't trapped in the room?

Pick up people invented the friend zone. And sometimes, if u ended up there, it's not because u didn't create enough attraction or buy six of their systems. It's cause she's just not interested in u that way.


----------



## Crystalline

UNity7 said:


> Romantic relationships are difficult so obviously when every man a female meets is a nice guy there isn't that problem because there will never be any romantic relationship between the nice guy and the female ever.
> 
> I heard this amazing proverb and I have never forgotten it, it applies to nice guys and guys in the friendzone (which are disproportionately short guys and nice guys)
> 
> "If you and a woman were trapped in a room and the only way she could get out was to have sex with you or shoot you in the head she would gladly put up with the murder charges."
> 
> A bit extreme? I thought so at first but thinking about the women who I am friends* with.... they would not hesitate to give me an early grave.
> 
> *not real friends but friendzone "friends"
> 
> I guess that is a bit of a lengthy example, but the bottom line is that nice guys obviously make life easier for women because there are no romantic relationship problems because a romantic relationship is not a possibility, ever.


Lol? I got rejected by a *genuine* nice guy (not a Nice Guy (tm)) when I asked him to commit. Where did you pull that one? Don't blame your lack of success on niceness.


----------



## watashi

joinmartin said:


> Pick up people invented the friend zone. And sometimes, if u ended up there, it's not because u didn't create enough attraction or buy six of their systems. It's cause she's just not interested in u that way.


You could always blame those women or you coould ask yourself why you keep hanging around the women that aren't interested in you.


----------



## Smallfry

> I guess that is a bit of a lengthy example, but the bottom line is that nice guys obviously make life easier for women because there are no romantic relationship problems because a romantic relationship is not a possibility, ever.


What I was trying to say is that 'niceness' the way I interpret is someone who is warmhearted, sensitive to others thoughts and feelings and doesn't need to be any other way... they don't need to proove anything. You can just connect. the fact that someone is 'nice' helps others to just be themselves it creates an opening for friendship or romance.

Never say never


----------



## Hadron92

Yeah, and I like army food...:roll


----------



## UNity7

Crystalline said:


> Lol? I got rejected by a *genuine* nice guy (not a Nice Guy (tm)) when I asked him to commit. Where did you pull that one? Don't blame your lack of success on niceness.


I finally learned to how to crack the nice guy shell and since then romantic relationships have been an actual possibility. Meaning some have actually occurred. No way am I ever being nice again, never in the rest of my life will I be a nice guy. I have enough difficulties with women being a shorter man I don't need to be a nice guy and completely obliterate my chances for a relationship


----------



## percyblueraincoat

watashi said:


> You could always blame those women or you coould ask yourself why you keep hanging around the women that aren't interested in you.


Is that directed at me or in general?


----------



## Crystalline

Smallfry said:


> What I was trying to say is that 'niceness' the way I interpret is someone who is warmhearted, sensitive to others thoughts and feelings and doesn't need to be any other way... they don't need to proove anything. You can just connect. the fact that someone is 'nice' helps others to just be themselves it creates an opening for friendship or romance.
> 
> Never say never


This is how I interpret it as well.



UNity7 said:


> I finally learned to how to crack the nice guy shell and since then romantic relationships have been an actual possibility. Meaning some have actually occurred. No way am I ever being nice again, never in the rest of my life will I be a nice guy. I have enough difficulties with women being a shorter man I don't need to be a nice guy and completely obliterate my chances for a relationship


Too many people are equating niceness with lack of confidence or being a pushover. I'd say more but this topic has been beaten to death and there are herds of guys who will continue to blindly believe whatever they want while disregarding what others have to say on the matter.


----------



## watashi

joinmartin said:


> Is that directed at me or in general?


well are you in that situation? it can apply to anyone else who is too. when you spend too much time chasing after those who don't care, you can easily overlook someone who does.


----------



## percyblueraincoat

watashi said:


> well are you in that situation? it can apply to anyone else who is too. when you spend too much time chasing after those who don't care, you can easily overlook someone who does.


With respect, I kind of resent your implications here. I may have interpreted this wrong, in which case, I stand down. But I'm not chasing anyone who doesn't care about me. I make a general comment about the friend zone and all the pua crap about it and all of a sudden I'm blaming some women or something. Go look up my posts and see if u can find me blaming women for anything. I may be in a bad mood and taking this personally but I'm not sat here complaining I'm a nice guy, can't get anywhere with women or anything like that.


----------



## Rossy

I am genuinely a nice guy


----------



## RyanJ

UNity7 said:


> I finally learned to how to crack the nice guy shell and since then romantic relationships have been an actual possibility. Meaning some have actually occurred. No way am I ever being nice again, never in the rest of my life will I be a nice guy. I have enough difficulties with women being a shorter man I don't need to be a nice guy and completely obliterate my chances for a relationship


Can you give an example of how you were nice before and how you are not nice now? How do you behave differently in similar possibly romantic situations?

Maybe people are just disagreeing about word meanings instead of matters of substance.


----------



## UNity7

Crystalline said:


> Too many people are equating niceness with lack of confidence or being a pushover. I'd say more but this topic has been beaten to death and there are herds of guys who will continue to blindly believe whatever they want while disregarding what others have to say on the matter.


I'll continue to blindly believe it now that I actually get the occasional date. Now that women don't immediately write me off into the friendzone. Don't get me wrong I get rejected a lot. I'm a short man and women have a special kind of disdain for short men. However, since I beat and drank the niceness out of myself I actually have success beyond the previous me, that me had zero dates, zero relationships.

I caught onto how women like to give their guy friends* advice** so now I have learned to completely disregard those lies from women.

*not friends
**advice that ensures being friendzoned on the spot by every female.


----------



## Crystalline

UNity7 said:


> I'll continue to blindly believe it now that I actually get the occasional date. Now that women don't immediately write me off into the friendzone. Don't get me wrong I get rejected a lot. I'm a short man and women have a special kind of disdain for short men. However, since I beat and drank the niceness out of myself I actually have success beyond the previous me, that me had zero dates, zero relationships.
> 
> I caught onto how women like to give their guy friends* advice** so now I have learned to completely disregard those lies from women.
> 
> *not friends
> **advice that ensures being friendzoned on the spot by every female.


Sorry I wasn't giving you advice, just pointing out that guys like to chalk their lack of dating skills up to being "too nice" when that never stopped the truly nice guys I know (who are almost all taken btw). As I said there's a difference between genuine niceness and "Nice Guys" (tm). The main problem is when people think the latter is the former when it really isn't. The former is what most of us are thinking of when we say someone is nice, as illustrated by that girl who posted before me.

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f26/nice-guys-finish-last-109241/index3.html#post1696167

Taking fingertips' link: http://divalion.livejournal.com/163615.html


----------



## VanDamMan

Crystalline said:


> Sorry I wasn't giving you advice, just pointing out that guys like to chalk their lack of dating skills up to being "too nice" when that never stopped the truly nice guys I know (who are almost all taken btw). As I said there's a difference between genuine niceness and "Nice Guys" (tm). The main problem is when people think the latter is the former when it really isn't. The former is what most of us are thinking of when we say someone is nice, as illustrated by that girl who posted before me.


Exempting all SA women, the problem that comes about is that the general population of women are all too happy to leech emotional support from Nice Guys(tm.) the exact same way they would with genuine nice guys. So the line between what a nice guy really is gets blurred. The only difference is woman has romantic intentions with one, but not the other. Any Niceguy(tm.) should never try to win a woman over or impress her. The Niceguy(tm.) needs to be selfish.

Although, I don't know how it is in PI.


----------



## UNity7

VanDamMan said:


> Exempting all SA women, the problem that comes about is that the general population of women are all too happy to leech emotional support from Nice Guys(tm.) the exact same way they would with genuine nice guys. So the line between what a nice guy really is gets blurred.
> 
> Although, I don't know how it is in PI.


That is exactly it! I just got so freaking tired of being nice guy because of the emotional stress it puts on you. Even though now I wouldn't qualify as nice guy(tm) or genuine nice guy my life is a lot better.

That is why I tell men to avoid their female friends* advice** because they do whatever it takes to keep him down so they have a guy they can attach all their emotional problems to and run to for support when their significant other does whatever.

*not friends
**not advice that benefits the male


----------



## Crystalline

All I can say is, if you have intentions on a woman, being her emotional crutch while she's going through boyfriends isn't the way to do it >.>

Incidentally...


----------



## ready

I think that the first poster was right about nice + confident in yourself. You can be nice without letting people walk over you. You don't have to be a douche to be confident.


----------



## ready

Crystalline said:


> All I can say is, if you have intentions on a woman, being her emotional crutch while she's going through boyfriends isn't the way to do it >.>


Yeah =/. I find that kind of behavior disgusting, its like you're acting like a weasel instead of coming out and just saying you like the girl.


----------



## VanDamMan

Crystalline said:


> All I can say is, if you have intentions on a woman, being her emotional crutch while she's going through boyfriends isn't the way to do it >.>


Agreed. But the fact the emotional crutch is used, it can be quite confusing for some guys.

Its why I think the whole notion of chivalry is absolutely absurd.

...after thinking about it a little more, I think it might be a cultural difference between men and women. Generally, guys aren't comfortable excepting things for free. We wouldn't want a friend to pay for dinner unless we could buy him dinner the next week. Out of a sense of pride, we don't take unless we are willing to give something else back. I don't think women feel stigmatized by taking things. So when we give something, and it is taken, we expect we'll see something in return.


----------



## Colhad75

Let me put another angle on this whole debate. When approaching, dating, or talking to a lady, how about just being yourself. Don't pretend to be something you're not by acting nice.


----------



## Jenikyula gone mad

counterfeit self said:


> You like us? I like you then.


Great! I like you even more now that I know you like me back. :love


----------



## Dance Sucka

I think the only problem with being an overall "nice guy" is that, in some cases, you don't necessarily think you yourself, but rather you default to this "nice guy" persona you've created for yourself. Some nice guys don't have balls, some do. Also, one problem that some nice guys have is that they feel entitled to being accepted just because they're being "nice".

The problem with being a nice guy around women is that, only for those who take it too far, you're trying to "be nice to get her." This only works logically, and doesn't exactly make you the most emotionally interesting of men out there. She will figure you out in an instant and become bored of you.


----------



## heroin

Crystalline said:


> All I can say is, if you have intentions on a woman, being her emotional crutch while she's going through boyfriends isn't the way to do it >.>


Words of wisdom.

Or rather an emotional crutch for anyone. Guys don't do it for other guys. Why do they do it for women? Because they're expecting something back. And that's a losing strategy.


----------



## The Ones

Chris2012 said:


> Well, there's a problem. You're not actually nice. (not you personally, but in general)
> 
> Most nice guys are guys with no confidence who let people walk all over them. They show respect to overcompensate and to try to somehow make people like them. If there were confidence, would you really be nice? (rhetorical)
> 
> Same is true for all of "us."


I don't necessarily agree with that response. I would like to call myself a "nice guy." However, this is not to overcompensate for anything. I morally just believe that being a douche is wrong and not the right way to treat people. So I therefore treat them with as much respect as possible (the way I would like to be treated). Being a nice person really has nothing to do with SA. I just don't understand why most people in this world are so unnecessarily mean towards others, but that's just me... To each his own i guess :]


----------



## gooeygumdrops

This whole nice guy thing is so played-out. Why don't people just focus on other things when talking to someone of the opposite sex. Instead of trying to be nice how about trying to be funny, or insightful. I don't know, something other than just being nice. Being nice is too easy. All you have to do is nod your head and agree with whatever the person is saying. Being witty, charming, or playful actually require some skill and practice but can go a long way in building relationships.


----------



## UNity7

joinmartin said:


> So, basically, you read the pua crap about how only men can possibly no what women like and women have some sort of secret conspiracy going on to keep their guy friends without a date, and u still get rejected a lot? Interesting. But it must be because you r short. But wait a minute, girls date short guys. So why isn't the rejections about the pua stuff instead?


Explain my life then. Why did I have 0 romantic relationships and 0 partners when I was a nice guy.

Explain my life then. Explain why after I was able to revamp my brain that all the sudden women do date me and women do have sex with me.

Explain how my life runs in contradiction to your analysis. Tough luck, it was long and hard working to change myself and I'm not going to let some people on an online forum try to change that when the evidence is clear.

Care to explain how I am wrong despite the evidence? You want to keep trying to tell me that I am reading "crap" that resulted in one of the most posted life changes I have ever experienced? Go ahead, you will look like a fool. Also, who the heck is pua? Since you have greater insight into my life than I do tell me how I am wrong.


----------



## Harpuia

UNity7 said:


> Explain my life then. Why did I have 0 romantic relationships and 0 partners when I was a nice guy.
> 
> Explain my life then. Explain why after I was able to revamp my brain that all the sudden women do date me and women do have sex with me.
> 
> Explain how my life runs in contradiction to your analysis. Tough luck, it was long and hard working to change myself and I'm not going to let some people on an online forum try to change that when the evidence is clear.
> 
> Care to explain how I am wrong despite the evidence? You want to keep trying to tell me that I am reading "crap" that resulted in one of the most posted life changes I have ever experienced? Go ahead, you will look like a fool. Also, who the heck is pua? Since you have greater insight into my life than I do tell me how I am wrong.


Then explain why I've been in a relationship with someone for about a month and a half. It's all about the waiting game and trying to find the person best for you. Quality over quantity is a big thing too.

And PUA - Pick up Artist.


----------



## UNity7

Harpuia said:


> Then explain why I've been in a relationship with someone for about a month and a half. It's all about the waiting game and trying to find the person best for you. Quality over quantity is a big thing too.
> 
> And PUA - Pick up Artist.


I never made a direct accusation against you. If I did quote it, then I will respond. However don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Someone made a direct accusation against my life and I want him to explain. Some one implied that I was wrong. Since he clearly knows more about my life than I do I want to hear his explanation. I want to hear his insight into my romantic relationships and I want him to tell me that I am wrong. I need a good laugh today.


----------



## Paper Samurai

UNity7 said:


> *Someone made a direct accusation against my life *and I want him to explain. Some one implied that I was wrong. Since he clearly knows more about my life than I do I want to hear his explanation. I want to hear his insight into my romantic relationships and I want him to tell me that I am wrong. I need a good laugh today.


I think you're taking the internet a little too seriously man >.>


----------



## Ivan AG

Paper Samurai said:


> I think you're taking the internet a little too seriously man >.>


The story of my life.


----------



## UNity7

Paper Samurai said:


> I think you're taking the internet a little too seriously man >.>


He thinks he knows and understands the history of my life with regards to romantic relationships better than I do. After all, I clearly must be wrong that being a nice guy led me to 0 romantic partners, right? Clearly he knows some super secret part of my life that I don't. Since he thinks that I would definitely like to hear his analysis of my romantic relationships and how I am wrong. How is that taking it too seriously? I want to know! If he has some information that will make life better I want to hear it.

If he doesn't, then he deserves to be called out on it.


----------



## Ivan AG

UNity7 said:


> He thinks he knows and understands the history of my life with regards to romantic relationships better than I do. After all, I clearly must be wrong that being a nice guy led me to 0 romantic partners, right? Clearly he knows some super secret part of my life that I don't. Since he thinks that I would definitely like to hear his analysis of my romantic relationships and how I am wrong. How is that taking it too seriously? I want to know! If he has some information that will make life better I want to hear it.
> 
> If he doesn't, then he deserves to be called out on it.


Take it easy, everyone has their own way of having success in relationships.

You've found yours so that's good, just stick with it.

Does it matter if someone questions it?

What works for you may not really be right for them, which is why there may be disagreements between the advice given in this tricky area called relationships.

Just enjoy yourself.


----------



## Dance Sucka

Check this out:

*Nice guy*
_From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia _

"Nice guy is a term in the general public discourse and in popular culture describing an adult male with friendly yet unassertive personality traits in the context of a relationship with a woman.[1] A typical "nice guy" is perceived to put the needs of others before his own, avoids confrontations, does favors, gives emotional support, and generally acts nicely towards women.[2] There is an active debate about whether the nice-guy personality profile may actually make a man less desirable to women romantically and/or sexually. Part of this debate includes speculation about possible hypocrisy among women in the dating world: that women may say they want a nice guy but won't date him or have sex with him, and rather subconsciously prefer men who are more confident and assertive but less considerate."

I think this definition rings true, and there are of course debates on whether you can mix "nice guy" traits with "more attractive" traits and still have success with women.

There's truth in all sides of the dilemma.


----------



## UNity7

Ivan AG said:


> Take it easy, everyone has their own way of having success in relationships.
> 
> You've found yours so that's good, just stick with it.
> 
> Does it matter if someone questions it?
> 
> What works for you may not really be right for them, which is why there may be disagreements between the advice given in this tricky area called relationships.
> 
> Just enjoy yourself.


When someone tells me that I am wrong with regards to my romantic relationships, yes that matters, because his completely wrong. Now I am giving the guy the benefit of the doubt and I am waiting for his explanation of how I am wrong. He obviously thinks I am following "pua crap" and that I am wrong. So I am waiting for his opinion relating to my romantic relationships.

What is wrong with me asking a person to back up their statement? What does "take it easy" have to do with me wanting to hear his analysis of my way with relationships is wrong? He clearly knows more about my life than I do, so I am interested in his opinion.

I'll tell you what is going to happen, if he responds, he will either desperately try to back track knowing that it is ridiculous to make such a radical judgement. If he doesn't respond, the silence will speak for itself. If he tries to defend his statements, well I would love to see his rationale!


----------



## Ivan AG

Suit yourself.

Still an overreaction.


----------



## Harpuia

UNity7 said:


> When someone tells me that I am wrong with regards to my romantic relationships, yes that matters, because his completely wrong. Now I am giving the guy the benefit of the doubt and I am waiting for his explanation of how I am wrong. He obviously thinks I am following "pua crap" and that I am wrong. So I am waiting for his opinion relating to my romantic relationships.
> 
> What is wrong with me asking a person to back up their statement? What does "take it easy" have to do with me wanting to hear his analysis of my way with relationships is wrong? He clearly knows more about my life than I do, so I am interested in his opinion.
> 
> I'll tell you what is going to happen, if he responds, he will either desperately try to back track knowing that it is ridiculous to make such a radical judgement. If he doesn't respond, the silence will speak for itself. If he tries to defend his statements, well I would love to see his rationale!


PUA is Pick Up Artists. A lot of "nice guys" have supposedly converted to them in order to attempt a date. They believe in stuff like alpha/beta/omega male theories, Mystery Method, etc. etc. as the only way to get a girl in America.


----------



## Ivan AG

Harpuia said:


> PUA is Pick Up Artists. A lot of "nice guys" have supposedly converted to them in order to attempt a date. They believe in stuff like alpha/beta/omega male theories, Mystery Method, etc. etc. as the only way to get a girl in America.


I do not blame any people who may turn to PUAs for help since I can relate to their desperation, but I despise the "gurus" who deliberately feed them this stuff and brainwash them, either with the intent to fill their own pockets with cash or in many bloggers' cases, gain some sort of popularity or Internet cult going that makes them famous and feeds their ego.

Many of them have been successful and Roissy's blog in particular seems to have drones of supporters who adhere to his ideology. They support him and lift him up on a pedestal.

A Stalin personality cult.


----------



## UNity7

Ivan AG said:


> Suit yourself.
> 
> Still an overreaction.


You know what you're right. Expecting an answer to a claim is a complete overreaction!

"OH NO YOU ARE OVERREACTING! HOW DARE YOU EXPECT SOMEONE TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIM!"

lol what's next?

"Excuse me, I ordered a margarita and you gave me water...."
"HOW DARE YOU OVERREACT!"

"I have evidence that aliens exist"
"Can you back up your claim?"
"YOU ARE OVERREACTING! HOW DARE YOU EXPECT ME TO ANSWER!"

I love it! Keep it up you are making my day better!


----------



## anomalous

Ivan AG said:


> Suit yourself.
> 
> Still an overreaction.


I like how you think he's overreacting, but no one on the other side of the fence is, no matter how strong their rhetoric against the "nice guy" complaint.

He's not the one who started this skirmish.


----------



## UNity7

anomalous said:


> I like how you think he's overreacting, but no one on the other side of the fence is, no matter how strong their rhetoric against the "nice guy" complaint.


Can you explain to me how expecting an answer from a claim is an overreaction? I would love to hear it! 

Unless you can't answer, for the obvious reasons.


----------



## anomalous

Dance Sucka said:


> Check this out:
> 
> *Nice guy*
> _From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia _
> 
> "Nice guy is a term in the general public discourse and in popular culture describing an adult male with friendly yet unassertive personality traits in the context of a relationship with a woman.[1] A typical "nice guy" is perceived to put the needs of others before his own, avoids confrontations, does favors, gives emotional support, and generally acts nicely towards women.[2] There is an active debate about whether the nice-guy personality profile may actually make a man less desirable to women romantically and/or sexually. Part of this debate includes speculation about possible hypocrisy among women in the dating world: that women may say they want a nice guy but won't date him or have sex with him, and rather subconsciously prefer men who are more confident and assertive but less considerate."
> 
> I think this definition rings true, and there are of course debates on whether you can mix "nice guy" traits with "more attractive" traits and still have success with women.
> 
> There's truth in all sides of the dilemma.


The last sentence of that definition sums up the entire "nice guy" point of view far more eloquently than I ever could in all my long-winded rants here.

*...and rather subconsciously prefer men who are more confident and assertive but less considerate.*

And there's the key. No one would blame a woman for desiring a man who's both highly confident and genuinely nice. But those men are exceptionally rare, by many of our accounts. I know they have been in my life. It's just the way nature shakes out. In all but a very few circumstances, women will have to choose between men who are nice but less than confident, or men who are confident but less than nice.

Our argument is that women disproportionately choose the latter when faced with that dilemma. That a girl would "love a nice guy [if he was macho and confident too]" means very little to us when we see her settling for her more realistic second-place option of an arrogant douchebag, with the genuinely nice but slightly-meek man trailing a distant third.


----------



## UNity7

Avoid the question, typical. Not unlike the political debates in American politics.

How is expecting an answer to a claim an overreaction?

Here is what is going to happen. I will ask the same question again and again and again. Will you answer? Or avoid?


----------



## anomalous

UNity7 said:


> Can you explain to me how expecting an answer from a claim is an overreaction? I would love to hear it!
> 
> Unless you can't answer, for the obvious reasons.


Hear hear. I'm on your side. I see you just joined this month -- so I'll let you in on a little secret. Your POV on the issue of relationships and women will _always_ be marginalized and denigrated by the majority here. It's a losing battle, so now is the time to weigh your priorities and decide whether talking to a wall is worth your time and effort. I've wasted far too much of my own time carrying this torch over the past few years, which is part of why I just took a three-week break from SAS.


----------



## UNity7

anomalous said:


> Hear hear. I'm on your side. I see you just joined this month -- so I'll let you in on a little secret. Your POV on the issue of relationships and women will _always_ be marginalized and denigrated by the majority here. It's a losing battle, so now is the time to weigh your priorities and decide whether talking to a wall is worth your time and effort. I've wasted far too much of my own time carrying this torch over the past few years, which is part of why I just took a three-week break from SAS.


I'm always on the marginalized side, I'm a liberal in the South, a student of science who believes in God, a man of below average stature, a person who clings to practicable relationship theory instead of hypothetical crap perpetuated by individuals who love to see me fail.

I'm use to it, which is why I always hold everyones feet to the fire. It is why I ask the same question again and again and again until the person caves and answers instead of trying desperately to spin, I am obviously not expecting a response from the initial guy who said I was a "puc" because he knows he has nothing that can disprove my success after ridding myself of nice guy symptoms and the clear failure before that.

His silence is his response, and it indicates his clear overreach with regards to judging my romantic relationship status both before and after. Ultimately that is his failure. Saying I am overreacting for expecting an answer is ridiculous, that has clearly be demonstrated. If he can't handle it, that's his problem.

If someone wants to shed some light on why expecting someone to back up their claim is an overreaction I would love to hear it!


----------



## ready

Basically what it boils down to is that women like assertive, but they like nice too. Don't go to either extreme. Be able to stand up for yourself but don't be too inconsiderate. Being with a complete pushover or a terribly aggressive person won't make a girl happy, IMO, unless they like that kind of thing. Maybe the girl had daddy issues, so she sticks with horrible guy after horrible guy. Maybe she's dominating, so she finds someone she can have power over. Most people are somewhere in the middle though, things aren't black and white. Nice guy doesn't mean pushover and "alpha male" doesn't mean a person is bad. Take the best of both. I think that's prob what girls look for.


----------



## stranger25




----------



## Johnny_Genome

I don't believe that the deciding factor is 'niceness'. If a girl rejects you and you think it's because you're a "nice guy", I think you're telling yourself the story you want to believe rather than just accepting she is not attracted to you. If you could go back in time and be "less nice" to the same girl, you'd still get the same response or worse.


----------



## GnR

ready said:


> Basically what it boils down to is that women like assertive, but they like nice too. Don't go to either extreme. Be able to stand up for yourself but don't be too inconsiderate. Being with a complete pushover or a terribly aggressive person won't make a girl happy, IMO, unless they like that kind of thing. Maybe the girl had daddy issues, so she sticks with horrible guy after horrible guy. Maybe she's dominating, so she finds someone she can have power over. Most people are somewhere in the middle though, things aren't black and white. Nice guy doesn't mean pushover and "alpha male" doesn't mean a person is bad. Take the best of both. I think that's prob what girls look for.


Pretty much exactly what I was gonna say.


----------



## Harpuia

stranger25 said:


>


Hey stranger25, this seems like an odd question to ask right now. But are you going to college? And if so, what major are you in?

Just wondering.


----------



## anomalous

Johnny_Genome said:


> I don't believe that the deciding factor is 'niceness'. If a girl rejects you and you think it's because you're a "nice guy", I think you're telling yourself the story you want to believe rather than just accepting she is not attracted to you. *If you could go back in time and be "less nice" to the same girl, you'd still get the same response or worse.*


I disagree with that as a universal premise.

Sure, there are plenty of cases where the lack of attraction is due to other reasons, but I suspect there are also many more cases out there of girls judging a guy as friend-only material *because* of his mild demeanor -- not just in spite of it. In other words, the very same guy could have presented himself as more assertive, more dominant, and more in-charge, and she would have at least given him more of a chance than she ultimately did.

UNity7 presents exactly such a case, according to his posts in this thread.

But, of course, this is one of those things for which neither of us have any concrete evidence to back up our positions. That's just the nature of this topic, which makes it very frustrating to debate. We're all basically drawing from two sources of pseudo-evidence: (1) personal experience, and (2) idealism (i.e., "girls are diverse and different so there will be some who like any given type of guy," etc.). Where the two conflict with one another, disagreements such as this arise.


----------



## Ivan AG

The terms being used are part of the problem for me.

Words and phrases like "being more dominant" and "being in charge" are vague to me.

How would you portray these characteristics if you're just casually walking down the street minding your business?

Or in my case, if you're in a classroom?

What if don't want to boss people around or act "badass" just to show some girl how "alpha" you are?

It's not in my nature to go boss people and put them down so I can impress the opposite gender.

I can understand becoming comfortable with yourself and developing confidence, but not the "dominant in charge" act I'm supposed to be putting on.


----------



## LALoner

I like nice guys and I can not lie
You other sisters can't deny
That when a guy walks in with a little bit of taste
And a smile on his face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tongue
'Cause you notice that big heart was stuffed
Deep in the shirt he's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh baby, I wanna get with you
And take your picture
My homegirls tried to warn me
But that smile you got makes me so horny
Ooh, Cheek-o'-smooth-skin
You say you wanna get in my Benz?
Well, use me, use me
'Cause you ain't that average groupie
I've seen them dancin'
To hell with romancin'
He's sweat, wet,
Got it goin' like a turbo 'Vette
I'm tired of magazines
Sayin' mean guys are the thing
Take the average shy chick and ask her that
He gotta pack much heart
So, ladies! (Yeah!) Ladies! (Yeah!)
Has your boyfriend got the heart? (Hell yeah!)
Tell 'em to hug you! (Hug you!) hug you! (Hug you!)
Hug that healthy heart!
Baby got heart!


----------



## matty

UNity7 said:


> I'm always on the marginalized side, I'm a liberal in the South, a student of science who believes in God, a man of below average stature, a person who clings to practicable relationship theory instead of hypothetical crap perpetuated by individuals who love to see me fail.
> 
> I'm use to it, which is why I always hold everyones feet to the fire. It is why I ask the same question again and again and again until the person caves and answers instead of trying desperately to spin, I am obviously not expecting a response from the initial guy who said I was a "puc" because he knows he has nothing that can disprove my success after ridding myself of nice guy symptoms and the clear failure before that.
> 
> His silence is his response, and it indicates his clear overreach with regards to judging my romantic relationship status both before and after. Ultimately that is his failure. Saying I am overreacting for expecting an answer is ridiculous, that has clearly be demonstrated. If he can't handle it, that's his problem.
> 
> If someone wants to shed some light on why expecting someone to back up their claim is an overreaction I would love to hear it!


This is rather comical. I have only read the last page which from memory is what 20 or 25 posts, without counting you have posted about overreacting 4 maybe 5 times. I dont even know what the original problem was but isnt that in itself proof that you overreact?

Are you proud that your a marginalist? do you purposely side with the marginal view or is it just a coincedence? Mainstream views may not always be right but they most definitely are not always wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, but I get the feeling your opinion is not really your own.

And this thread has been done to death, pretty sure it lost out 3 pages in.

And for my opinion on pua material. I think in the greater sense it is all a load of ****. But there is definitely pieces which are worth reading, and learning from. As with anything, read, listen or whatever then take from it what you believe to be true, and what you believe with benefit you.


----------



## ready

Ivan AG said:


> I can understand becoming comfortable with yourself and developing confidence, but not the "dominant in charge" act I'm supposed to be putting on.


I agree. I want to go as far as i need to improve myself and defend myself, not a step past the line. The people who value the dominant thing (i.e. some girls) prob don't see eye to eye with me in terms of whats important. I consider bullying others to be very low and would prefer peace over conflict.


----------



## VanDamMan

Ivan AG said:


> The terms being used are part of the problem for me.
> 
> Words and phrases like "being more dominant" and "being in charge" are vague to me.
> 
> How would you portray these characteristics if you're just casually walking down the street minding your business?
> 
> Or in my case, if you're in a classroom?
> 
> What if don't want to boss people around or act "badass" just to show some girl how "alpha" you are?
> 
> It's not in my nature to go boss people and put them down so I can impress the opposite gender.
> 
> I can understand becoming comfortable with yourself and developing confidence, but not the "dominant in charge" act I'm supposed to be putting on.


I'm not comfortable being a macho guy either. But at some point, you realize you either learn how to fake it for short periods of time, or you continue the path of frustration, horniness, and loneliness.


----------



## Ivan AG

VanDamMan said:


> I'm not comfortable being a macho guy either. But at some point, you realize you either learn how to fake it for short periods of time, or you continue the path of frustration, horniness, and loneliness.


So the only option for people with SA have is to become something they're not?

Confidence and self-esteem don't cut it anymore?

I guess "dominance" and "being in charge" are the new fad.

It comes down to "How much am I willing to betray my personal values in order to be someone else?".

I'm not about to do that, and if that means I get labeled as some weak "beta" who gets "weeded out" by nature, then so be it.

Maybe I'm horribly wrong about everything, but I'm not about to go against myself to impress the female gender.

Not worth it.


----------



## VanDamMan

Ivan AG said:


> So the only option for people with SA have is to become something they're not?
> 
> Confidence and self-esteem don't cut it anymore?
> 
> I guess "dominance" and "being in charge" are the new fad.
> 
> It comes down to "How much am I willing to betray my personal values in order to be someone else?".
> 
> I'm not about to do that, and if that means I get labeled as some weak "beta" who gets "weeded out" by nature, then so be it.


Confidence and self-esteem come from success. But with SA, most guys can't just skip straight to it. Most need to artificially fake it for a short time. When you know you can fake it successfully, you have the confidence to be yourself.

Kind of like the movie the "Karate Kid". Mr Miyagi ask Daniel why he trains karate. Daniel responds "so I don't have to fight"


----------



## Ivan AG

VanDamMan said:


> Confidence and self-esteem come from success. But with SA, most guys can't just skip straight to it. Most need to artificially fake it for a short time. When you know you can fake it successfully, you have the confidence to be yourself.
> 
> Kind of like the movie the "Karate Kid". Mr Miyagi ask Daniel why he trains karate. Daniel responds "so I don't have to fight"


Success doesn't have to involve relationships at first.

It can start from smaller events depending on your situation.

Things like speaking up at class, asking your employer for a raise, etc.

I build my confidence from these situations and then transfer it to the above mentioned.


----------



## VanDamMan

Ivan AG said:


> Success doesn't have to involve relationships at first.
> 
> It can start from smaller events depending on your situation.
> 
> Things like speaking up at class, asking your employer for a raise, etc.
> 
> I build my confidence from these situations and then transfer it to the above mentioned.


Cool. If it works for you, then do it.


----------



## anomalous

Ivan AG said:


> The terms being used are part of the problem for me.
> 
> Words and phrases like "being more dominant" and "being in charge" are vague to me.
> 
> How would you portray these characteristics if you're just casually walking down the street minding your business?
> 
> Or in my case, if you're in a classroom?
> 
> What if don't want to boss people around or act "badass" just to show some girl how "alpha" you are?
> 
> It's not in my nature to go boss people and put them down so I can impress the opposite gender.
> 
> I can understand becoming comfortable with yourself and developing confidence, but not the "dominant in charge" act I'm supposed to be putting on.


I can't speak for anyone else. But in the context of this thread, I've used those terms to describe a man who _is_ "badass" and "alpha" and "uncaring" to some extent. My entire point is that (in my opinion) a large majority of girls will accept these ostensibly-negative attributes in a man before they'll accept any significant degree of timidity or reservedness. VanDamMan and UNity both seem to have personal experiences with relationships that support this viewpoint.


----------



## Ivan AG

anomalous said:


> I can't speak for anyone else. But in the context of this thread, I've used those terms to describe a man who _is_ "badass" and "alpha" and "uncaring" to some extent. My entire point is that (in my opinion) a *large majority of girls will accept these ostensibly-negative attributes in a man before they'll accept any significant degree of timidity or reservedness.* VanDamMan and UNity both seem to have personal experiences with relationships that support this viewpoint.


I can agree with that, but how far do you go is my question?

Like I mentioned in my previous posts, I can't become a completely different personality who disregards others, puts them down, and behaves in an irrational way. It simply would not be the real me.

I have made considerable progress in developing confidence and a greater feeling of self-worth, but to do what you suggest seems impossible for me. A complete personality overhaul.

In the words of some others posters, maybe I'm not "made" by nature to be successful in socializing, but I would not want to push my friends and relatives away with a foul personality that I constructed specifically to attract the opposite gender.


----------



## anomalous

Ivan AG said:


> I can agree with that, but how far do you go is my question?
> 
> Like I mentioned in my previous posts, I can't become a completely different personality who disregards others, puts them down, and behaves in an irrational way. It simply would not be the real me.
> 
> I have made considerable progress in developing confidence and a greater feeling of self-worth, but to do what you suggest seems impossible for me. A complete personality overhaul.


Every word you said here applies to me as well.

My position is that we are essentially doomed to lifelong virginity barring some highly-unlikely encounter with a highly-unusual woman. Our other option is to fake it and hope for the best, which it seems both you and I agree is just as undesirable as virginity, if not more so.


----------



## Dance Sucka

anomalous said:


> The last sentence of that definition sums up the entire "nice guy" point of view far more eloquently than I ever could in all my long-winded rants here.
> 
> *...and rather subconsciously prefer men who are more confident and assertive but less considerate.*
> 
> And there's the key. No one would blame a woman for desiring a man who's both highly confident and genuinely nice. But those men are exceptionally rare, by many of our accounts. I know they have been in my life. It's just the way nature shakes out. In all but a very few circumstances, women will have to choose between men who are nice but less than confident, or men who are confident but less than nice.
> 
> Our argument is that women disproportionately choose the latter when faced with that dilemma. That a girl would "love a nice guy [if he was macho and confident too]" means very little to us when we see her settling for her more realistic second-place option of an arrogant douchebag, with the genuinely nice but slightly-meek man trailing a distant third.


I think that's because the jerk (in general) shows more balls and initiative than the nice guy. It's not that one or the other is better, it's that the jerk's personality gets him better results.

Imagine an encounter with the jerk and the nice guy. Who is more masculine?

In terms of archetypes, the jerk would probably have more status than the nice guy in that situation, because of who he is. That's because the nice guy archetype fears confrontation, and the jerk archetype doesn't care and asserts his reality.

People take the word "nice" in nice guy for granted. That's because the word nice has such a general meaning.


----------



## anomalous

Dance Sucka said:


> Imagine an encounter with the jerk and the nice guy. Who is more masculine?


Well, the answer is obvious, in terms of traditional roles. And personally, I agree that the jerk's conformity to said roles has a lot to do with his success.

If everyone were honest about this, there wouldn't even be a debate. But time and time again, a large number of people take issue with the idea that traditional roles and biological instincts are a large control on heterosexual attraction.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing for the "nice guy" (who lacks "balls" in your scenario) is how he goes through modern life listening to women complain incessantly when _they_ face gender-based expectations. They should be made 50% of the workforce in traditionally-male fields. They should be allowed to sleep with 10 guys a year and not be called ****s. They should be able to do anything a man does and not be derided for it. OK, fine; I'm actually all for minimizing or eliminating gender roles in a social sense, since I don't conform well to the traditional male role myself. But when _we_ (nice guys) dare stray from _our_ role, we're nothing more than a joke and a sucker in the eyes of these very women.


----------



## heroin

I was wondering. Has any guy here ever seen a high school bully have trouble getting a girlfriend?


----------



## Nae

re: changing yourself.
I've seen the argument of against doing so on here before and ignoring the dichotomy of being either 'nice' or a 'jerk', it seems idealistic.

I read an amusing writing on this subject last night that I think made some good points. NSFW language and not PC. The subject he's talking about is men lifting weights, but it could be seen as broader comments:



> Women are taught to be actresses-to "play dress-up"-because the sheer _amount_ of stuff they have to do when it's "time to be sexy" necessitates this. Conversely, men see performativity as silly at best and a form of insincerity at worst. Girls learn to adopt different vibes for different situations, and boys learn to pick a vibe and stick to it: whereas a girl learns to say "I will look like Dita von Teese at this party, like Shirley Manson at that party next week, like '80s Madonna for that dance party," etc. as needed, a guy just decides when he is fifteen or so, "I _am like_ John Lennon, so I will try to look like John Lennon, and that will be my thing _every day for the rest of my life_."
> 
> Neither of these templates is right or wrong-it is just a matter of how girls on average learn to present themselves versus how boys do. The point is, boys can benefit from considering the girls' template.
> 
> The stumbling block for guys is that we are hypervigilant about _accurately projecting our personalities_-I have to wear "A" and have haircut "B," so that anyone who sees me can plainly tell that I am XYZ type of person. But people don't actually need as much help discerning our personalities as we are inclined to believe they do. In fact, occasionally adopting a style that doesn't instantly telegraph your demographic might be socially beneficial, because it forces you to actually interact with people if you want them to know what you're like.


http://the1585.com/performativemasculinity.htm


----------



## Dance Sucka

anomalous said:


> Well, the answer is obvious, in terms of traditional roles. And personally, I agree that the jerk's conformity to said roles has a lot to do with his success.
> 
> If everyone were honest about this, there wouldn't even be a debate. But time and time again, a large number of people take issue with the idea that traditional roles and biological instincts are a large control on heterosexual attraction.
> 
> Perhaps the most frustrating thing for the "nice guy" (who lacks "balls" in your scenario) is how he goes through modern life listening to women complain incessantly when _they_ face gender-based expectations. They should be made 50% of the workforce in traditionally-male fields. They should be allowed to sleep with 10 guys a year and not be called ****s. They should be able to do anything a man does and not be derided for it. OK, fine; I'm actually all for minimizing or eliminating gender roles in a social sense, since I don't conform well to the traditional male role myself. But when _we_ (nice guys) dare stray from _our_ role, we're nothing more than a joke and a sucker in the eyes of these very women.


Why does everything have to be so genderized in our societies?

I understand that in current times, we're dealing with a primitive biological system of attraction, and it just doesn't match up with the standards and truths of today.

We're pretty much dealing with logic vs. reality here. In theory, women want a nice guy who will treat them well. In reality, they seem to form more of an emotional bond when the guy is, not necessarily a jerk, but has a higher self-image than her, a higher social status, a guy who has the balls to treat her differently than other common, everyday men do.

It's something that's hard to understand, it's so counter-intuitive, yet there is truth in it, in practice. I think we need to redefine these archetypes and clearly distinguish between what a nice guy, Alpha male, and jerk really are, and how their attitudes, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors make them who they are.

The three archetypes are all larger than life and, though there are a great deal of differences from person to person, all men fall somewhere on the spectrum, and all women have different preferences for guys across the spectrum. The possibilities and combinations are endless.


----------



## Ivan AG

Back to the "alpha/beta" PUA distinction again?

Can't we discuss this in terms that don't involve the classification of wolves in a pack?


----------



## heroin

Ivan AG said:


> Back to the "alpha/beta" PUA distinction again?
> 
> Can't we discuss this in terms that don't involve the classification of wolves in a pack?


Not just wolves. Primates too. Do you really think we're that removed biologically from primates? I think that classification does work on a subconscious level. However, I don't think it is the sole factor that's involved.


----------



## Ivan AG

heroin said:


> Not just wolves. Primates too. Do you really think we're that removed biologically from primates? I think that classification does work on a subconscious level. However,* I don't think it is the sole factor that's involved*.


It isn't and that is why it's difficult to use such language to classify humans.

It's ironic that these very terms coined by biologists in the 70's with the intention of separating human and animal relationships are now used to classify humans themselves into neat little categories where *everyone* in society falls under.

Seems like some people (not you or anyone here that I can think of) have no problem to surrender their rationality and dehumanize friends and relatives with the jargon. I've seen it before.


----------



## Dance Sucka

Ivan AG said:


> Back to the "alpha/beta" PUA distinction again?
> 
> Can't we discuss this in terms that don't involve the classification of wolves in a pack?


It's not either/or, it's a spectrum. You can simplify it if you think of alphas and betas as leaders and followers. The "cool kids" and the "groupies." Then there are those in between.

You can't deny that human and animal life more or less organizes itself that way. As humans though, we have the freedom of negotiation, something that most animals do not have.


----------



## Ivan AG

Dance Sucka said:


> It's not either/or, it's a spectrum. You can simplify it if you think of alphas and betas as leaders and followers. The "cool kids" and the "groupies." Then there are those in between.
> 
> *You can't deny that human and animal life more or less organizes itself that way*. As humans though, we have the freedom of negotiation, something that most animals do not have.


It does organize itself that way, but those terms to me are like using racial and ethnic slurs.

It's 4 AM here, so I need to go to bed.

I will answer any responses in the morning.


----------



## anomalous

heroin said:


> I was wondering. Has any guy here ever seen a high school bully have trouble getting a girlfriend?


Obvious answer is obvious.

Which is exactly why I can't stand the false equivalency some people draw between being "too nice" and being "too douchey." It's quite clear that one is far more troublesome with regard to attracting women than the other.

If you have a spectrum from 0 (doormat) to 100 (Charles Manson), and 50 is the supposed ideal for a lot of women, we all know it's far better to be a 90 than a 35.


----------



## heroin

Ivan AG said:


> It isn't and that is why it's difficult to use such language to classify humans.
> 
> It's ironic that these very terms coined by biologists in the 70's with the intention of separating human and animal relationships are now used to classify humans themselves into neat little categories where *everyone* in society falls under.
> 
> Seems like some people (not you or anyone here that I can think of) have no problem to surrender their rationality and dehumanize friends and relatives with the jargon. I've seen it before.


Sure, labelling someone with the terms is not wise. Not to mention the alpha/beta status is subject to change during someone's life.

But to deny the existence of the phenomenon and dismiss it as irrelevant isn't wise either. We don't learn anything from closing our eyes to that possibility. There is no logical reason to dismiss it and plenty of biological reasons to support it. It shouldn't be disregarded as "PUA crap" just because it makes some people uncomfortable.


----------



## VanDamMan

This has turned in a strange direction.


----------



## Dance Sucka

heroin said:


> Sure, labelling someone with the terms is not wise. Not to mention the alpha/beta status is subject to change during someone's life.





Ivan AG said:


> It does organize itself that way, but those terms to me are like using racial and ethnic slurs.


Hold on there, I don't want us to confuse identification with discrimination. How are we supposed to understand something if we don't put attributes to it? Besides calling a guy beta isn't going to hurt his feelings or anything, unless he happens to have a deep insecurity about it.

As for all the "animal kingdom" talk, don't forget that we humans are members of the animal kingdom. Whether you believe in evolution, creationism, or whatever, we are still a highly-intelligent form of animal. We have complex biological mechanisms inside of us that control both automated, unconscious responses, as well as emotional and unconscious responses. Now it's easy to argue this one because we still don't know all there is to know about ourselves, but just keep the thought in mind.



heroin said:


> It shouldn't be disregarded as "PUA crap" just because it makes some people uncomfortable.


I totally agree with this. Actually, the whole point of it is to introduce you into a new reality. Being brought into a new reality can be very discomforting.


----------



## LostPancake

heroin said:


> There is no logical reason to dismiss it and plenty of biological reasons to support it. It shouldn't be disregarded as "PUA crap" just because it makes some people uncomfortable.


Yeah, it's not PUA crap anyway, it's part of the field of evolutionary psychology. Both sexes are trying to maximize their reproductive success. Hence women (generally speaking) are more attracted to the stronger, more socially powerful men. We've gained some independence from our primitive drives, but they're still there, affecting us.

And obviously, there are variations. I know people get offended on here when you generalize, even if you say you're generalizing, and acknowledge there are differences, and say you're just talking in statistical terms.


----------



## Ivan AG

LostPancake said:


> Yeah, it's not PUA crap anyway, it's part of the field of evolutionary psychology. *Both sexes are trying to maximize their reproductive success. Hence women (generally speaking) are more attracted to the stronger, more socially powerful men*. We've gained some independence from our primitive drives, but they're still there, affecting us.
> 
> And obviously, there are variations. I know people get offended on here when you generalize, even if you say you're generalizing, and acknowledge there are differences, and say you're just talking in statistical terms.


No one is denying that, but if you look at the studies which investigate this, like David Buss on sexual preferences, I don't see any mention of the said terminology.

He simply states that women seek long term safety in relationships by looking for a mate who can provide for her and her offspring.

Can anyone post a study where the researcher uses those terms?

I would like to see that.


----------



## Ivan AG

Dance Sucka said:


> I totally agree with this. Actually, the whole point of it is to introduce you into a new reality. Being brought into a new reality can be very discomforting.


This isn't exactly grond breaking material for me.

I'm just surprised at the terminology used.

I don't recall David Buss talking about women's preference to "alpha" males in any single one of his studies.

It's about providing resources in the long term.


----------



## percyblueraincoat

anomalous said:


> Well, the answer is obvious, in terms of traditional roles. And personally, I agree that the jerk's conformity to said roles has a lot to do with his success.
> 
> If everyone were honest about this, there wouldn't even be a debate. But time and time again, a large number of people take issue with the idea that traditional roles and biological instincts are a large control on heterosexual attraction.
> 
> Perhaps the most frustrating thing for the "nice guy" (who lacks "balls" in your scenario) is how he goes through modern life listening to women complain incessantly when _they_ face gender-based expectations. They should be made 50% of the workforce in traditionally-male fields. They should be allowed to sleep with 10 guys a year and not be called ****s. They should be able to do anything a man does and not be derided for it. OK, fine; I'm actually all for minimizing or eliminating gender roles in a social sense, since I don't conform well to the traditional male role myself. But when _we_ (nice guys) dare stray from _our_ role, we're nothing more than a joke and a sucker in the eyes of these very women.


*If everyone were honest about this, there wouldn't even be a debate.*

With respect, what do you mean by this? Do you mean that if everybody agreed that what you think is some sort of truth of the universe (simply because you think it is) there wouldn't even be a debate? Are you sayinfg that, despite counters and evidence contrary to your beliefs and viewpoints, you are right regardless?

*But time and time again, a large number of people take issue with the idea that traditional roles and biological instincts are a large control on heterosexual attraction.*

They have their powers as influences. A lot of things do. But in the real world, they do not hold the full balance of control power.

*Perhaps the most frustrating thing for the "nice guy" (who lacks "balls" in your scenario) is how he goes through modern life listening to women complain incessantly when they face gender-based expectations. They should be made 50% of the workforce in traditionally-male fields. They should be allowed to sleep with 10 guys a year and not be called ****s. They should be able to do anything a man does and not be derided for it.*

Erm...with respect, even if you are a so called "guy who lacks balls" (you're doing your best to defend your own viewpoint and beliefs on here so goodness knows how you think you don't have balls) you still have the choice about whether to listen to women saying anything at all.

*OK, fine; I'm actually all for minimizing or eliminating gender roles in a social sense, since I don't conform well to the traditional male role myself. But when we (nice guys) dare stray from our role, we're nothing more than a joke and a sucker in the eyes of these very women.[/*

In the eyes of which women? Show me these women who have called you a "sucker" or a "joke" for straying outside of your role which they most likely have no idea what you're going on about. Guess placed ontop of guess ontop of assumption upon generalisation without evidence upon guess.

But, with respect and love, you will defend your belief system against my challenge. And then state that you somehow lack balls? What's that about? Stop labelling yourself. Good first step.


----------



## percyblueraincoat

LostPancake said:


> Yeah, it's not PUA crap anyway, it's part of the field of evolutionary psychology. Both sexes are trying to maximize their reproductive success. Hence women (generally speaking) are more attracted to the stronger, more socially powerful men. We've gained some independence from our primitive drives, but they're still there, affecting us.
> 
> And obviously, there are variations. I know people get offended on here when you generalize, even if you say you're generalizing, and acknowledge there are differences, and say you're just talking in statistical terms.


 *Yeah, it's not PUA crap anyway, it's part of the field of evolutionary psychology. Both sexes are trying to maximize their reproductive success. Hence women (generally speaking) are more attracted to the stronger, more socially powerful men. We've gained some independence from our primitive drives, but they're still there, affecting us. *

Evolutionary Psychology: the art of taking Darwin out of context.

There's lot of things in psychology. Like the notion that only women can get hysteria. Just because it is thought of in a field of psychology does not make it automatically true.

It is PUA Crap. Of course it's part of evolutionary psychology. That's where the PUAs got it from in the first place. We got that bit. It's PUA crap and its also evolutionary psychology CRAP to some extent too.

In this context, it seems to be taken to be the frankly ridiculously insane view that all sex is about procreation and the survival of the species.

What on earth does "socially powerful" mean anyway? Very scientific term that.

Yes, the primitive drives are still there and they have their influence. But we are human beings. And when evolutionary psychology, ironically, evolves to a phase where it's grown up, it will realise that the real world does as much to prove it wrong as it does to prove it right.

Men are meant to be maximising their reproductive potential by sleeping around. But wait, men in faithful relationships? Does not compute in our belief system based filter of the world. Does not compute. To accept and understand this we have to drop the theory for a minute and we're not willing to drop our guesswork to expand our thinking just yet because most women will sleep with the strongest, socially powerful men. Why will they do this? Because we say they will. Because we are God. Oh no, wait a woman sleeping with someone who isn't seen as "strong" or "socially powerful". And there's another. And another. Cling onto the belief system by dismissing them as flukes. Oh no, it's raining flukes. And we have to stand back and admit that our stuff suggests a lot of interesting things but proves very, very little.

Ivan AG, please do not think that you have to change yourself. You don't.


----------



## Ivan AG

heroin said:


> It shouldn't be disregarded as "PUA crap" just because it makes some people uncomfortable.


The reason it's labeled as crap and a pure mockery of human relations is because the definition of the word as it's used in the context of animal interactions is simply* not compatible* among modern humans. You can't simply transfer chimpanzee social behavior over to humans just because we are primates.

If you were living in the Stone Age, these terms may hold water to some extent.

What is an "alpha male"? The animal in a pack who reproduces with all the females. The one set of genes which are deemed superior in the animal's social group are the "alpha" genes. If this were true in human society, our entire neighborhood would share the same father and as we can see, that is not the case. We organize ourselves into families and there is no one set of "superior" genes. Everyone has a different role.

It seems to me like some people here perpetrate this viewpoint in order to confirm their own self-defeating beliefs regarding their success in the real world. It's quite easy to shrug your shoulders and say things like "Nature is against us nice guys" or "I'm doomed to remain single because Nature is weeding me out".


----------



## Ivan AG

joinmartin said:


> Ivan AG, please do not think that you have to change yourself. You don't.


Martin, I have been working on developing some sort of sense of self-worth and confidence in the past month and it seems to be having a positive impact so far, albeit some obstacles in the way.

What I can't do is revamp my whole personality in order to fit into this mould that's being created by some people here. The general gist I'm getting so far is that you have to be born with some "jerk" or "badboy" personality to truly attract women. It has to be innate rather than developed.

If this is what is being implied here, then it's a belief doomed to fail from the start.


----------



## Atticus

In a modern society, lots of men who are lacking in the traits that could be used to describe an Alpha male still have girlfriends and wives, and get to have sex with them. If we're going to talk about Alphas and Betas, we have to deal with the fact that Alphas are rare, by definition.

In some order, men can attract women by being physically attractive, by being smart, ambitious, confident, funny, and kind. From everything I've experienced or read, it can't hurt to be tall, or not short.

I think a man's looks, at least relative to a woman's, are usually the biggest deal breaker. If a woman thinks a man is significantly less attractive than the men she can typically attract to her, then no amount of "funny" or "smart" or "confident" will make a difference. If he's a bit less attractive than she might find elsewhere, then the lesser criteria might make a difference.

In the same sense, being "nice" doesn't make or break a guy's chances.
Being genuinely nice (kind) might matter if a guy is just about what a woman is already looking for.

The PUA community seems to me to be selling the idea that being confident, bordering on self absorbed, will allow a man to transcend all other limitations and get the only prize worth having (sarcasm), which is a beautiful woman. It doesn't work that way. Being genuinely self confident may allow you to put yourself out there and to attract woman who are a decent match for you, but that ain't what the PUA people are selling.

Tall, good looking men who have a lot going for them in general are often confident, because the world treats them pretty well. The confidence is often a byproduct of them being treated well, and not always the cause. The PUA folks distorts this.

The hard truth is that woman are people who can, and have every right to make choices about who they sleep with. Even though I'm in a happy relationship, I wish bland looking 53 yr old men with modest resources made all women swoon. If only to feel all noble when I let them down easily and stay true to the woman I'm with  That's not reality, though.

If a man is totally debilitated by SA, then chances are he won't find a woman. If he's physically beautiful he will get some attention, but if he can't connect at all on any other level, chances are even one night stands may not happen. You have to bring something to the table.

To the extent that my list of what a man can bring to the table is accurate, a guy with the gift of gab, but only that, will have very limited choices among women also.

*Truth # 1*, You typically end up with someone about as attractive as you are. Women may look at personality a bit more seriously than men, but it only matters on the margins. With all the emphasis on female beauty, I sometimes wonder if men's struggle to adjust to *truth #1* is at the heart of a lot of this debate.


----------



## lanzman

Atticus said:


> *Truth # 1*, You typically end up with someone about as attractive as you are. Women may look at personality a bit more seriously than men, but it only matters on the margins. With all the emphasis on female beauty, I sometimes wonder if men's struggle to adjust to *truth #1* is at the heart of a lot of this debate.


Yep, in the animal kingdom the males don't care what the female looks like. Only that they have the ability to reproduce. Not so much the case with human males. :b


----------



## CopadoMexicano

Attraction isn't a choice"david.deangelo


----------



## equiiaddict

Agree completely with the OP. Nice guys are awesome. <3 My boyfriend is one of those nice guys and he has gotten himself a serious (2+ year) relationship. Tbh, most of the nice guys I know are able to get into long lasting relationships, its the douchey ones that can't seem to stick with one person. Wonder why...
The sweethearts who are devoted to their girlfriends are truly the ones who finish first, in my opinion. A cocky jerk of a guy is _such_ a turn off to me.


----------



## heroin

Ivan AG said:


> The reason it's labeled as crap and a pure mockery of human relations is because the definition of the word as it's used in the context of animal interactions is simply* not compatible* among modern humans. You can't simply transfer chimpanzee social behavior over to humans just because we are primates.


Why can't you transfer that model of social behaviour over to humans? What disqualifies it from being transferred from one primate to another? It is clearly observable. The repulsion towards "doormat-ish" (socially subservient) behaviour is clearly expressed by most women. The male physical ideal among the majority of women is someone taller, bigger and stronger than themselves. (If you are a woman reading this, no I am not talking about you in particular but in general terms).
So why doesn't that model of primate social behaviour not apply to humans? It may not *matter* as much as it does in other primates, but it is still clearly applicable to some extent.



Ivan AG said:


> If you were living in the Stone Age, these terms may hold water to some extent.


What disqualifies them now?



Ivan AG said:


> What is an "alpha male"? The animal in a pack who reproduces with all the females. The one set of genes which are deemed superior in the animal's social group are the "alpha" genes. If this were true in human society, our entire neighborhood would share the same father and as we can see, that is not the case. We organize ourselves into families and there is no one set of "superior" genes. Everyone has a different role.


It's not one set of genes but the genes of the fittest individuals in a species. i.e. it's not like Highlander (THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!). The model is applicable to smaller social groups than just neighbourhoods, even among animals. There isn't just one alpha male for an entire forest or habitat for a species of animal.
And as I posted in another thread, 40% of the human males throughout history have descendents to the present day, compared to 80% of females. This does signify competition among the males for reproductive opportunities.

This is not applicable on the individual level, so you shouldn't fear being labelled with one status or the other. But it clearly does apply in some way to humans just as it does to other primates.

Again, I am not talking about *your* dating life, but whether the model of social hierarchy used for primates applies to an extent in humans. The evidence indicates that it clearly does.



Ivan AG said:


> It seems to me like some people here perpetrate this viewpoint in order to confirm their own self-defeating beliefs regarding their success in the real world. It's quite easy to shrug your shoulders and say things like "Nature is against us nice guys" or "I'm doomed to remain single because Nature is weeding me out".


I don't know about others, but that's not true of me. I am not making excuses for my failed dating life. I am just pointing out that the social model you dismiss as "PUA crap" is clearly applicable to some degree to humans. I am posting this more in the interest of understanding human society and reproduction than to make excuses for my dating life.

In short, yes it is applicable, but you shouldn't automatically label yourself one or the other. That status is not the only determining factor for reproductive opporunity in human society.


----------



## Ivan AG

heroin said:


> Why can't you transfer that model of social behaviour over to humans? What disqualifies it from being transferred from one primate to another? It is clearly observable. The repulsion towards "doormat-ish" (socially subservient) behaviour is clearly expressed by most women. The male physical ideal among the majority of women is someone taller, bigger and stronger than themselves. (If you are a woman reading this, no I am not talking about you in particular but in general terms).
> *So why doesn't that model of primate social behaviour not apply to humans? *It may not *matter* as much as it does in other primates, but it is still clearly applicable to some extent.


Maybe the presence of a neocortex and the ability for spacial reasoning and conscious though have something to do with it. You're looking at this from a purely biological level. Yes we may be primates, but the grey matter in people's heads are the deciding factor. People, unlike any chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, flying spaghetti monsters, etc. have the capacity to override these primitive instincts.


----------



## Ivan AG

heroin said:


> What disqualifies them now?


Cavemen used the limbic system of the brain which is the source of irrational thoughts and base emotions.

Modern man has the cerebral cortex. Refer to post 1.


----------



## Ivan AG

heroin said:


> It's not one set of genes but the genes of the fittest individuals in a species. i.e. it's not like Highlander (THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!). The model is applicable to smaller social groups than just neighbourhoods, even among animals. There isn't just one alpha male for an entire forest or habitat for a species of animal.
> 
> And as I posted in another thread, 40% of the human males throughout history have descendents to the present day, compared to 80% of females. This does signify competition among the males for reproductive opportunities.
> This is not applicable on the individual level, so you shouldn't fear being labelled with one status or the other. But it clearly does apply in some way to humans just as it does to other primates.
> Again, I am not talking about *your* dating life, but whether the model of social hierarchy used for primates applies to an extent in humans. The evidence indicates that it clearly does.


This may have been the model for social relations thousands of years ago as I mentioned in an earlier post, when cavemen practiced polygamy and where under the slavery of the limbic system. It is much more complex now that humans can actually *think* rather than just* react*. Back to my earlier post, I don't think the "alpha" label is applicable for *modern society*. Now for cavemen hunting adventures....

*If* we were to agree that "alphas" in the true sense of the word existed in modern society, I don't think the distinction would be that clear in the first place. Too many complex factors to consider. The only case for their existence I can see is that if you ascribed certain characteristics with the "alpha" label. You know, confidence, leadership (boss of a company), etc.

Now, about those stats.

Competition or just the fact that life "back in the day" was brutal? I'm not sure where the author of the study is getting these exact statistics from nor am I sure why he's simply stating it as though he has a time machine and has observed cavemen in social interactions. It seems to suit your theory nicely, but I'm not convinced by stats that reference life thousands of years ago with such certainty.


----------



## heroin

Ivan AG said:


> Cavemen used the limbic system of the brain which is the source of irrational thoughts and base emotions.


The theory about the limbic system controlling base emotion and behaviour is disputed.



Ivan AG said:


> You're looking at this from a purely biological level. Yes we may be primates, but the grey matter in people's heads are the deciding factor.


I didn't say the biology solely decides the behaviour, I just said it influences it *to a degree.*



Ivan AG said:


> People, unlike any chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, flying spaghetti monsters, etc. have the capacity to override these primitive instincts.


That is an unsupported assumption. Lots of primitive instincts can't be overridden or are extremely difficult to override. One glaring example is the instinct to reproduce. See all the complaining about finding boyfriends/girlfriends on this forum.


----------



## Ivan AG

heroin said:


> This is not applicable on the individual level, so you shouldn't fear being labelled with one status or the other. But it clearly does apply in some way to humans just as it does to other primates.
> 
> Again, I am not talking about *your* dating life, but whether the model of social hierarchy used for primates applies to an extent in humans. The evidence indicates that it clearly does.
> 
> I don't know about others, but that's not true of me. I am not making excuses for my failed dating life. I am just pointing out that the social model you dismiss as "PUA crap" is clearly applicable to some degree to humans. I am posting this more in the interest of understanding human society and reproduction than to make excuses for my dating life.
> 
> In short, yes it is applicable, but you shouldn't automatically label yourself one or the other. That status is not the only determining factor for reproductive opporunity in human society.


I didn't accuse you of making any excuses. It's just frustrating to me to see how many desperate men dash over to the seduction community and get their whole perceptions of relationships skewered by these "gurus" who tell them to *act "alpha"*,* abandon any "beta" friends who are holding you back*, and *never let a woman express her opinion unless you want to have your social status lowered*. In short, act like a complete dullard who has no other priorities in life other than to "neg" women and do 100 "cold approaches" in a day to prove how "alpha you are.

Now you tell me, is this a rational view of relationships? Are you still willing to defend the PUA community by telling me they have a shred of honesty behind the venom they teach?

I've had my fair share of encounters with them over the last years, and it's taken me all of 2010 to get my head together and get on the right track.


----------



## heroin

Ivan AG said:


> This may have been the model for social relations thousands of years ago as I mentioned in an earlier post, when cavemen practiced polygamy and where under the slavery of the limbic system. It is much more complex now that humans can actually *think* rather than just* react*. Back to my earlier post, I don't think the "alpha" label is applicable for *modern society*. Now for cavemen hunting adventures....


Yes I didn't deny that it is complex. I am just saying that biology does have influence on how humans form relations with other humans. And there is no reason to believe that "it existed back in the day, but now it's gone". We may have been able to override it to a degree with willpower or chemicals, but what reason is there to believe that it's completely gone now?



Ivan AG said:


> *If* we were to agree that "alphas" in the true sense of the word existed in modern society, I don't think the distinction would be that clear in the first place. Too many complex factors to consider. The only case for their existence I can see is that if you ascribed certain characteristics with the "alpha" label. You know, confidence, leadership (boss of a company), etc.


Dominance is what the label ascribes to the term. Social dominance, economic dominance (has control of more resources, like a gorilla and his territory), physical dominance, etc.



Ivan AG said:


> Competition or just the fact that life "back in the day" was brutal? I'm not sure where the author of the study is getting these exact statistics from nor am I sure why he's simply stating it as though he has a time machine and has observed cavemen in social interactions. It seems to suit your theory nicely, but I'm not convinced by stats that reference life thousands of years ago with such certainty.


If by "brutal" you mean violent, that is an example of the competition I am talking about. It means more competition for resources, and therefore mating opportunities. That's why people fight. To gain resources. If you mean just quality of life then those factors would affect both sexes equally, but there is a disparity.

The study was a DNA genealogical analysis.


----------



## Ivan AG

Since the quote button seems to be malfunctioning for me, I'll have to type everything out.
*
The theory about the limbic system controlling base emotion and behaviour is disputed.*

Not disproved. Don't feel like getting into a discussion about functions of brain structures throughout the history of mankind.

*I didn't say the biology solely decides the behaviour, I just said it influences it to a degree.
* 
Yes. Biology does influence us. To what extent is the topic of much debate.

*That is an unsupported assumption. Lots of primitive instincts can't be overridden or are extremely difficult to override. One glaring example is the instinct to reproduce. See all the complaining about finding boyfriends/girlfriends on this forum. *

So we can safely say humans are controlled by their biological makeup?

Is this the right impression I'm getting?


----------



## heroin

Ivan AG said:


> I didn't accuse you of making any excuses. It's just frustrating to me to see how many desperate men dash over to the seduction community and get their whole perceptions of relationships skewered by these "gurus" who tell them to *act "alpha"*,* abandon any "beta" friends who are holding you back*, and *never let a woman express her opinion unless you want to have your social status lowered*. In short, act like a complete dullard who has no other priorities in life other than to "neg" women and do 100 "cold approaches" in a day to prove how "alpha you are.
> 
> Now you tell me, is this a rational view of relationships? Are you still willing to defend the PUA community by telling me they have a shred of honesty behind the venom they teach?
> 
> I've had my fair share of encounters with them over the last years, and it's taken me all of 2010 to get my head together and get on the right track.


I'm not "defending the PUA community". In my view they're just con artists capitalizing on people's insecurities and milking money out of them.

About the desperate men who dash over, well, maybe they should use some of that neocortex that allows them to override irrational impulses and see the scammers for what they are.


----------



## heroin

Ivan AG said:


> So we can safely say humans are controlled by their biological makeup *to an extent*?


Fixed that for you.

Although the brain is a biological organ so I didn't need to add the 'to an extent' bit. But I understand what you're talking about and yes, our actions and thoughts are influenced to a degree by our biological programming.


----------



## Ivan AG

heroin said:


> Fixed that for you.


Okay, well that's nothing new. I don't think many people would argue for biological determinism or complete freedom from any sort of biological constraint.

Many times the truth lies in the middle of the whole debate, not at the radical opposites.


----------



## Ivan AG

heroin said:


> I'm not "defending the PUA community". In my view they're just con artists capitalizing on people's insecurities and milking money out of them.
> 
> About the desperate men who dash over, well, maybe *they should use some of that neocortex that allows them to override irrational impulses and see the scammers for what they are*.


Already happened for many.

That's why sites like "PUA Hate" exist.

It's a bit funny to see all the bashing going on in that forum, but on a more serious note people have been economically and mentally burned by the community.


----------



## Ivan AG

heroin said:


> If by "brutal" you mean violent, that is an example of the competition I am talking about. It means more competition for resources, and therefore mating opportunities. That's why people fight. To gain resources. *If you mean just quality of life then those factors would affect both sexes equally*, but there is a disparity.
> 
> The study was a DNA genealogical analysis.


Would they?

I though the men had to hunt wild animals and brave the elements, while the women were to stay home and take care of the children.

I don't see how women would be affected.


----------



## heroin

Ivan AG said:


> I though the men had to hunt wild animals and brave the elements.....


Gathering of resources.... to have an opportunity for reproduction....

How good are a male pauper's chances of dating?



Ivan AG said:


> I don't think many people would argue for biological determinism or complete freedom from any sort of biological constraint.


I'm not advocating for biological determinism, but for biological *influence* on a person's thoughts and actions.


----------



## Ivan AG

heroin said:


> Gathering of resources.... to have an opportunity for reproduction....
> 
> *How good are a male pauper's chances of dating*?


How does this explain people of lower class or as they're known around these parts as "chavs", having families in their late teens and early twenties?

If they're on the bottom, surely they wouldn't be reproducing according to the evolutionary model?


----------



## heroin

Ivan AG said:


> How does this explain people of lower class or as they're known around these parts as "chavs", having families in their late teens and early twenties?
> 
> If they're on the bottom, surely they wouldn't be reproducing according to the evolutionary model?


The women they reproduce with have even lesser resources than them.

I doubt a chavette would put out without at least a trip to the town centre and dinner at MaccyD's (which costs money).


----------



## Ivan AG

heroin said:


> The women they reproduce with have even lesser resources than them.
> 
> I doubt a chavette would put out without at least a trip to the town centre and dinner at MaccyD's (which costs money).


Resources are not the only issue when it comes to relationships. This forum is probably the best proof for that.

There are people on here who have a stable income, and yet have difficulty finding a partner because of SA.


----------



## heroin

Ivan AG said:


> Resources are not the only issue when it comes to relationships. This forum is probably the best proof for that.
> 
> There are people on here who have a stable income, and yet have difficulty finding a partner because of SA.


I didn't say they were the only issue. But they certainly matter quite a bit. The guys on here who have a stable income would have lower chances of dating than they do now were they broke.


----------



## Dance Sucka

Ivan AG said:


> It's just frustrating to me to see how many desperate men dash over to the seduction community and get their whole perceptions of relationships skewered by these "gurus" who tell them to *act "alpha"*, *abandon any "beta" friends who are holding you back*, and *never let a woman express her opinion unless you want to have your social status lowered*.


Who the heck told you to do any of that?


----------



## Ivan AG

Dance Sucka said:


> Who the heck told you to do any of that?


It's a bit of a long story, but to sum it up it's part of the seduction community advice.

Not all PUAs teach this to be fair, so guys like Neil Strauss and Hypnotica don't tell people to act like this. They take a more moderate approach and their teaching don't reek of misogynism.

I'm talking about some other blogs written by self-proclaimed "masters of seduction" who advice men to do everything they can to raise their status to "alpha". This means that friends who hold you back have to be dumped. This is not an exaggeration, but something I have read myself.


----------



## Dance Sucka

Oh, I guess I could see some guys taking the "male power" thing too seriously.

Personally I have met one of my best friends through seduction forums, and I know there are many good coaches and gurus out there. I pretty much disregard the bad ones I guess.

Now I'm definitely not bad with women, but whenever I see a beautiful woman I feel SA. That's probably one of the reasons I ended up here.

I don't know about all that misogynistic talk though. Take Ross Jeffries for example. He used to be a total woman-hating prick (as evidenced by sources like the Game and Ross's older books), but even he has changed himself a lot. He did have success when he was hating on women, but I don't think he was very happy.


----------



## MidnightBlu

I love nice guys. In my world, they finish first to me. I like guys with low confidence to an extent. Not into guys who'll tell me that they'll die every single day and that there's no hope for his future with me. No, I do not like that kind of low confidence.


----------



## Jenikyula gone mad

I'd love to participate in the various discussions going on in this thread that I started months ago, but I'm just too busy having lots of delicious sex with this really, really nice guy. Ah well.


----------



## LostPancake

Ivan AG said:


> No one is denying that, but if you look at the studies which investigate this, like David Buss on sexual preferences, I don't see any mention of the said terminology.
> 
> He simply states that women seek long term safety in relationships by looking for a mate who can provide for her and her offspring.
> 
> Can anyone post a study where the researcher uses those terms?
> 
> I would like to see that.


I actually took his class on evolutionary psychology last year - I wasn't talking about the terms alpha/beta male, just the concepts.

And it applies to both short term and long term mating strategies - though for the long term women are more interested in nurturing type men. eg there are studies showing that women's preference for strong jawlines / masculine features goes up around time of ovulation - that's when the short-term mating strategies have more influence. And apparently masculine features correlate with testosterone levels, and testosterone levels correlate with social rank, so it's an indirect measure of a male's rank.

And yes, it's just influence - we're not completely driven my our desires, I'm not saying that. But at least for what the pickup artists are interested in, they are probably doing the right thing, by trying to act like dominant males. Personally, they make me sick.



joinmartin said:


> Evolutionary Psychology: the art of taking Darwin out of context.


As a psychologist, I would think you would be interested in this subject - you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand just because pick up artists use/abuse it. The idea is that the brain has developed these different programs in order to solve different evolutionary problems, the biggest being survival and mating. It was actually an idea of Darwin's - "In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation." That was at the end of Origin of Species in 1859. So it's weird that it's taken nearly 150 years to finally apply the idea to the brain.

But if you're reading a lot of pick up artist stuff, I can see why you'd be turned off by the idea - I'm sure they distort it, or just use the bits geared towards short-term mating strategies.



> What on earth does "socially powerful" mean anyway? Very scientific term that.


Oh please - people with influence and power and resources. That is going to be very attractive if you're a woman because it means your offspring are going to do very well.



> Yes, the primitive drives are still there and they have their influence. But we are human beings. And when evolutionary psychology, ironically, evolves to a phase where it's grown up, it will realise that the real world does as much to prove it wrong as it does to prove it right.


Actually, as part of Buss's class, he had us read Dawkin's the Selfish Gene, which has the idea that in an effort to ensure their replication, our genes managed to create these brains that got ever bigger, until they started to be able to rebell against their genetic masters. We do have a certain amount of free will. And you can develop it, and tame the primitive desires. But in the default state, people will be driven by them and they will act in accordance with them. Especially if they're out clubbing and drunk, which is why the pick up artist stuff probably works.



> Men are meant to be maximising their reproductive potential by sleeping around. But wait, men in faithful relationships? Does not compute in our belief system based filter of the world. Does not compute.


Yes it does compute - it's part of the long-term mating strategies. It's not just about getting the best/strongest genes - you also need a mate who will stick around to help raise the offspring for a dozen odd years. So both men and women are also also looking for faithfulness in their partners. But short-term mating strategies are different.



Ivan AG said:


> What I can't do is revamp my whole personality in order to fit into this mould that's being created by some people here. The general gist I'm getting so far is that you have to be born with some "jerk" or "badboy" personality to truly attract women. It has to be innate rather than developed.


I think the main thing is to just avoid being a doormat, and you'll be fine.


----------



## leonardess

I'm busting in on the middle of all this, I'm not sure who said what, but I'd like to point out that:

the evidence now is overwhelming that in our pre-agricultural societies, polyamory and sharing and cooperation were more common among societal groups. We are more closely related to bonobos than gorillas or any other mammal you can name. a hierarchy governing any group was not as common as lack of hierarchy. lack of was far more common. After all, if you live in an area where there are plenty of trees, stones, and other natural resources for everyone to make whatever tools and weapons are necessary for survival, the concept of ownership is absent, and so there is very little motivation for dominance of anyone, except for one societal group over another that may have better hunting grounds. But so called "Alphas" and "Betas" and so on? Not likely in small groups that averaged around from as little as 20 to 150, the point at which a group ceases to be transparent, and starts to become unmanageable.

the ideas of ownership, polygamy, dominance and bureaucracy where heralded by the development of agriculture, which goes back only about 12,000 years at the most in the entirety of human (oid) history.

if you want to read these refutations of our present ideas of what's biologically "normal" for us humans, there is an excellent book Sex at Dawn, chock full of as many solid references as any work that will tell you the opposite of what it says.



heroin said:


> Yes I didn't deny that it is complex. I am just saying that biology does have influence on how humans form relations with other humans. And there is no reason to believe that "it existed back in the day, but now it's gone". We may have been able to override it to a degree with willpower or chemicals, but what reason is there to believe that it's completely gone now?
> 
> Dominance is what the label ascribes to the term. Social dominance, economic dominance (has control of more resources, like a gorilla and his territory), physical dominance, etc.
> 
> If by "brutal" you mean violent, that is an example of the competition I am talking about. It means more competition for resources, and therefore mating opportunities. That's why people fight. To gain resources. If you mean just quality of life then those factors would affect both sexes equally, but there is a disparity.
> 
> The study was a DNA genealogical analysis.


----------



## heroin

leonardess said:


> the evidence now is overwhelming that in our pre-agricultural societies, polyamory and sharing and cooperation were more common among societal groups.


I wasn't aware of that. Do you have a link to where this theory about pre-agricultural humans willingly sharing resources and embracing other kinds of polyamory than polygyny? I think the general consensus is that humans have always been territorial and the social groups they form are rigidly heirarchical. That does not fit with the view of peaceful sharing of resources.



leonardess said:


> We are more closely related to bonobos than gorillas or any other mammal you can name. a hierarchy governing any group was not as common as lack of hierarchy. lack of was far more common. After all, if you live in an area where there are plenty of trees, stones, and other natural resources for everyone to make whatever tools and weapons are necessary for survival, the concept of ownership is absent, and so there is very little motivation for dominance of anyone, except for one societal group over another that may have better hunting grounds.


Hunting grounds are territory. The claim of ownership is for resources in that territory. And since not all territories contain the same amount of resources, competition is inevitable.

Also, bonobos do have hierarchies. That view of bonobos being peaceful 'make love not war' kind of hippie apes is outdated. There is a male social hierarchy among bonobo chimps that is very much like that in other primates.



leonardess said:


> But so called "Alphas" and "Betas" and so on? Not likely in small groups that averaged around from as little as 20 to 150, the point at which a group ceases to be transparent, and starts to become unmanageable.


 Those hierarchies are observable in primate groups of similar sizes (20 to a 100 members). How is it unlikely?


leonardess said:


> the ideas of ownership, polygamy, dominance and bureaucracy where heralded by the development of agriculture, which goes back only about 12,000 years at the most in the entirety of human (oid) history.


There is definitely proof of social hierarchy and society getting more rigid and complex with the development of agriculture, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it is what gave rise to social hierarchy, polygamy or dominance. Those phenomena are observable even in hunter gatherer aboriginal populations discovered around the world who never developed agriculture.



leonardess said:


> if you want to read these refutations of our present ideas of what's biologically "normal" for us humans, there is an excellent book Sex at Dawn, chock full of as many solid references as any work that will tell you the opposite of what it says.


Thanks. Might check that out.


----------



## leonardess

^ it's all there. as much proof for as against that you;ll find. also, I screwed up with the terminology. sharing of sexual partners is what i was meaning.


----------

