This bit from the last post... it's okay to say "every woman" instead of everyone. Men, generally speaking, don't care about social status. Men aren't lining up to sleep with powerful women or rich women - at least not for the women themselves. Men aren't physically attracted to wealthy, middle-aged female politicians. Not if they can do "better", anyways, and in this case... yeah, "better" means more physically attractive. Male and female triggers for arousal are just very different, and pretending otherwise is to deny basic biology. The cute checkout girl at Walmart could potentially marry a millionaire. The cute checkout guy might get a fling or two, but he won't generate nearly the same interest among nearly the same pool of opposite sex partners.
Which is to say: if a gal is dating a Warlmart cashier, she tells her friends "he's cute, but...". If a guy is dating a Warlmart cashier, he tells his friends "she's cut, and that butt..."
Men take into account social status just as much as women do. And I'm not talking about dating and romance, I'm talking about ALL relationships. Social status holds a lot of influence over people, even if they don't want to admit it. Guys don't just want to hook up with a popular girl because of her looks, they also what it for the "glory" of dating her. Same reason why the same guy would hesitate to date an attractive girl who is a social pariah. And while you'll hear more about young women marrying/dating old men, it's becoming more common to see young guys marrying/dating older women. Ever heard of a "cougar"? The large difference is numbers is probably due more to the smaller number of women in the same positions (power/wealth/influence/independence) as men then the fact that guys don't want an older woman with money.
As for arousal triggers, you'd be surprised just how much they're based on "conditioned responses" then by pure biology. Example: being "thin" is considered more attractive then not for women nowadays. In western culture at least. If you go back several centuries or hell, just take a ride to certain other cultures in the world today and you'll find that it's the opposite. Why? Simple changes in cultural norms based on traditions and environmental influences.
No, you are a "nice guy". I was wondering why you were sounding so defensive, but here it becomes clear.
If you had no expectation other than courtesy or friendship, then "let's just be friends" wouldn't really hurt you that badly.
And if you do decide pack up shop and bolt, why would you care that that makes you a shallow asshole in her eyes?
You may feel that she lead you on, but the reality is that you lead her on in at least equal amounts, pretending to be interested in friendship, while you were really interested romantically.
PS. you said men don't care about social status. Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.
And I can call you a white knight for placing every drop of blame onto men when they get a metaphorical kick in the balls and my assumption of you would be quite accurate. What do you gain from labeling anyone with a different opinion from yours that isn't female as a 'nice guy'? Will you and yours think of me a 'nice guy' because I believe both men and women are entitled to their feelings as well as entitled to act or not act on them? I wouldn't blame someone for wanting to distance themselves from a a friend that would happen to be an unrequitable romantic interest for a period of time, maybe even break the friendship up if the emotional anguish affects them badly enough. I believe that's okay, because why should someone have to emotionally torture themselves so a friendship can continue living? That, to me, is as selfish as wanting an unrequited love (lust, like-like, etc.) to reciprocate those feelings, even if they feel nothing for the one crushing on them.
You may feel that she lead you on, but the reality is that you lead her on in at least equal amounts, pretending to be interested in friendship, while you were really interested romantically.
It's possible for romantic and/or sexual feelings to blossom inside a friendship, intentional or not, but oftentimes not. I will not say that there isn't a such thing as leading someone on with a friendship with the intention of using the other for their own personal gain, whether it be sex, commodities, favors, etc. Yes, such things happen and both men and women who do such things, in my opinion, are not the kind of people I would rescue were their lives in danger, for they will live to take advantage of another being in the worst possible ways, deserving or not.
PS. you said men don't care about social status. Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.
Of course men care about social status. Many prefer to get it from their own merits instead of leeching it from someone with an already high social status. But I know there exists a subsection of men that would lick the boots of an influential figure if the payoff involved elevating themselves to figures of high social status, with the potential perks it would entail.
Doing a good deed to guarantee a romantic payoff - bad. Doing a good deed to show you care for them greatly with the hope they may someday reciprocate those feelings - good.
That right there is the problem. Cut that shit out and don't encourage it.
They do that shit because they think it's going to lead to them reciprocating those feelings. That's not a good thing, it's fucking retarded.
Eventually people get sick of hoping, and get fed-up with the results.
I don't think many "nice guys" think it's a guarantee but they're hoping that's what it leads to and just like everyone else in the universe, when shit doesn't go their way they get upset.
This is crux of the issue, doing something hoping to receive something in return and both examples you've presented are disingenuous at best.
To elaborate more on the topic, (and I can only speak from my own experience and observations)that these "nice guys" fool themselves into believing that they really want a relationship, but as someone already stated most people don't really know what they want. This is the method they think is the best way to get there, because they don't know any other way to do it or are too scared of alternatives. Most of it just stems for a lack of knowledge of how to approach this sort of thing.
I know that this applied to me, and it certainly seems to be case for many others that I've seen and read about.
But the problem is perpetuated by what I quoted above and more here:
EeveeElectro said:
No, I shouldn't have said 'maybe' to him but up until that point I didn't want to lose him as a friend and felt too bad turning him down
Right there the guy is being fairly honest about his intentions (or maybe i can just see it because it seems like something I would've said back then)
But then you say maybe, which while understandable doesn't help anyone, it only perpetuates the problem because that guy is still hoping, and for nothing.
These people do not want to be your friend, no they are not the exception and will not stay friends so just stop.
All the while, they think they "are not like other guys" until somebody shakes the foundations upon which these are based they will never know anything else.
They don't understand that just because someone gives you the "pants feelings" that it doesn't always work both ways and they perceive any mixed signals as a reciprocation of them, because people believe what they want to believe.
Hell, I really wish that the girl I was a "nice guy" to had just told me straight up with complete disregard for my feelings that it was never going to happen.
Of course she didn't know what I wanted because I never made it clear until I came out and spoke the words much later on.
All I really learned from the whole experience is that I just need to be honest with people if I am to even hope for the same in return.
And even here, the problem persists - I'm doing it out of a selfish desire to be afforded the same in return, but this is the only reason I do it.
I rationalise it as asking for equality but it really comes from a purely selfish desire to get something I want when you break it down.
[sub]Guess I can see why people thought Kant was a madman. Virtue for virtues sake alone doesn't seem possible.[/sub]
I don't know if this sense of entitlement has pervaded other generations as much as it has our generation but it doesn't seem like.
I wish I could just lay the blame at someones feet and say "it's all YOUR fault. YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU" but the truth of it is that it's neither persons fault.
It's just something that happens to people when growing up and they just don't understand it all or know how to deal with it, so naturally people vent about it and it ends up on the interwebs. Some people learn from the experience and some don't I guess.
I've gone off on a really big tangent here and focused far too much on the morality of the deeds done rather than what OP was asking for, but I hope I've shed some light on something.. Somwhere in there.
I think this applies somewhat to the "nice guy" scenario - http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/
"Let's say that the person you love the most has just been shot. He or she is lying in the street, bleeding and screaming. A guy rushes up and says, "Step aside." He looks over your loved one's bullet wound and pulls out a pocket knife -- he's going to operate right there in the street.
"OK, which one is the injured one?"
You ask, "Are you a doctor?"
The guy says, "No."
You say, "But you know what you're doing, right? You're an old Army medic, or ..."
At this point the guy becomes annoyed. He tells you that he is a nice guy, he is honest, he is always on time. He tells you that he is a great son to his mother and has a rich life full of fulfilling hobbies, and he boasts that he never uses foul language.
Confused, you say, "How does any of that fucking matter when my [wife/husband/best friend/parent] is lying here bleeding! I need somebody who knows how to operate on bullet wounds! Can you do that or not?!?"
Now the man becomes agitated -- why are you being shallow and selfish? Do you not care about any of his other good qualities? Didn't you just hear him say that he always remembers his girlfriend's birthday? In light of all of the good things he does, does it really matter if he knows how to perform surgery?
In that panicked moment, you will take your bloody hands and shake him by the shoulders, screaming, "Yes, I'm saying that none of that other shit matters, because in this specific situation, I just need somebody who can stop the bleeding, you crazy fucking asshole.""
Except swap out "injury" and "ability to stop the bleeding" with "need to find a capable mate able to exercise influence/power and protect their mutual offspring" and "can demonstrate both the motivation and the capability to do this" respectively.
The girl isn't *just* looking for someone "nice". That's good enough for a neighbour or a random person on the street. She's looking for someone who can do more than what is effectively begging for sex. Ie, you need to be able to stand up for yourself (self-respect - i.e. you don't pressure her for sex, revealing weakness as a result), influence other people, provide for a family reliably, at least when she needs support and be honest and interested in her.
The girl isn't *just* looking for someone "nice". That's good enough for a neighbour or a random person on the street. She's looking for someone who can do more than what is effectively begging for sex. Ie, you need to be able to stand up for yourself (self-respect - i.e. you don't pressure her for sex, revealing weakness as a result), influence other people, provide for a family reliably, at least when she needs support and be honest and interested in her.
On that one, though, where is the line between "influencing" other people and "manipulating" them? It looks like the same thing under a different label, getting people to do something you want them to do, with a lesser regard to whether or not they wanted to do it.
Oh, and pulling a pocket knife for a bullet wound is a terrible analogy. Trying to drag the bullet out is literally the worst thing you can do, and everyone can stop the bleeding (including the guy who "needs a doctor"; hope he did call 911 at least), assuming they did some basic first aid course. So in that scenario, not only is the "nice guy" a complete and utter moron who has no clue what he's doing, the guy screaming at him is also a loser because he's apparently failing to do something pretty much everyone should be able to do but sees it as more fitting to waste time on some random fool than actually doing something about the bleeding.
I actually quite liked the article for how cynical it is, mind, but Cracked isn't a site I'd opt to take life advice from ^^
As for arousal triggers, you'd be surprised just how much they're based on "conditioned responses" then by pure biology. Example: being "thin" is considered more attractive then not for women nowadays. In western culture at least. If you go back several centuries or hell, just take a ride to certain other cultures in the world today and you'll find that it's the opposite. Why? Simple changes in cultural norms based on traditions and environmental influences.
...I can't even... what? You're *seriously* suggesting that sexuality is purely cultural and environmental? God good man! This same crap is regurgitated by religious zealots attempting to convert homosexuals into "proper" heterosexuals.
Now I'll grant you that it may play some "influence", but let's not pretend that you can teach people sexuality, or that their sexuality would change if you just dropped them into another country. People are attracted to different things just because that's how they're wired.
Status based attraction is actually quite culturally relevant, but that's not attraction, that oppertunism. There's a difference between the two.
Your post came off a bit as defending the woman in question, even if she could have been in the wrong. That, and I've grown a little tired of the "there's a 'nice guy', let's jump his ass" mentality that been prevalent throughout this entire topic. And this topic at hand has become a fiery train wreck, with the flames being extinguished with gasoline. It could have been a misconception; alcohol and Emilie Autumn albums can do that to me.
In any case, thanks, it's a refreshing change from being called a mysoginist or overzealous mra. You don't know what I think about women so your thinking that women are safe from my criticism is woefully uninformed.
Of course I'm no mindreader, though I believe a mind is a terrible thing to read. Also, I said what I said because almost no one here is criticising the woman and how she could be as deceitful as the 'nice guy' in question.
I also didn't label him nice guy for having a different opinion, I was labeling him a nice guy, because he showered women with affection and gifts under the guise of friendship and then got prissy that she wasn't romantically interested.
Mayhaps the woman in question was a user. Why keep accepting the affection and gifts if she didn't truly want him around? Also, I see no issue in breaking off a friendship if only one person is reaping the benefits. Regardless, I highly doubt the friendship was real.
You seem to view all men / women relations as some kind of zero-sum game, which I'm guessing isn't benificial to your romantic life.
Both of us have at this point, made egregious statements concerning the mind of the other that could be false. I believe both sides of a friendship should benefit from each other in some tangible way, preferably without the whole affection and gift to sex transaction. And there's no middle finger big enough I give to romance, since I believe it's a load of crap and I refuse to participate in the meat market that is the dating game. I may be as mad as a hatter, but I know better than to go down that rabbit hole.
Eventually you do make a good point: feelings can blossom inside a friendship. This is true. Sometimes that's true. Other times it's someone like fiery trainwreck trying to have a good excuse for duplicitous behaviour. Do you really believe he showers all his friends with affection and gifts or just the girls he finds attractive?
We are in agreement; befriending for the sake of sex or gifts and favors is a disgusting thing to do. If he's giving all his friends affection and gifts, then he could be seen as generous, since the wealth is being spread around as opposed to focused on one target. Also foolish for what amounts to bribing people to talk to him; kinda like wearing a meat suit in a dog pound. If specific targets are being focused on, then I believe things could be problematic. If the woman in question don't want the gifts and affection, she could always say no and not put up with the behavior. Accepting these things, begrudgingly or not, is still deceitful. Both parties are to blame for the turn of events that happened upon them. Were both parties straightforward, time, money and energy would not be wasted. This extends not only to FieryTrainwreck, but to others as well. There would also be a hell of a lot less male/female friendships unless both parties are in agreement they want nothing to do with each other romantically or sexually.
The girl isn't *just* looking for someone "nice". That's good enough for a neighbour or a random person on the street. She's looking for someone who can do more than what is effectively begging for sex. Ie, you need to be able to stand up for yourself (self-respect - i.e. you don't pressure her for sex, revealing weakness as a result), influence other people, provide for a family reliably, at least when she needs support and be honest and interested in her.
On that one, though, where is the line between "influencing" other people and "manipulating" them? It looks like the same thing under a different label, getting people to do something you want them to do, with a lesser regard to whether or not they wanted to do it.
Oh, and pulling a pocket knife for a bullet wound is a terrible analogy. Trying to drag the bullet out is literally the worst thing you can do, and everyone can stop the bleeding (including the guy who "needs a doctor"; hope he did call 911 at least), assuming they did some basic first aid course. So in that scenario, not only is the "nice guy" a complete and utter moron who has no clue what he's doing, the guy screaming at him is also a loser because he's apparently failing to do something pretty much everyone should be able to do but sees it as more fitting to waste time on some random fool than actually doing something about the bleeding.
I actually quite liked the article for how cynical it is, mind, but Cracked isn't a site I'd opt to take life advice from ^^
You should take a read of the blog referenced in that article. While I don't think anything should be taken as gospel or even necessarily correct, I found it really made me think a bit - which is more than I can say for most of the blogs I've read.
Say away from the comments though, there are some people in there with some issues that they seem to take out on others.
As for arousal triggers, you'd be surprised just how much they're based on "conditioned responses" then by pure biology. Example: being "thin" is considered more attractive then not for women nowadays. In western culture at least. If you go back several centuries or hell, just take a ride to certain other cultures in the world today and you'll find that it's the opposite. Why? Simple changes in cultural norms based on traditions and environmental influences.
...I can't even... what? You're *seriously* suggesting that sexuality is purely cultural and environmental? God good man! This same crap is regurgitated by religious zealots attempting to convert homosexuals into "proper" heterosexuals.
Now I'll grant you that it may play some "influence", but let's not pretend that you can teach people sexuality, or that their sexuality would change if you just dropped them into another country. People are attracted to different things just because that's how they're wired.
Status based attraction is actually quite culturally relevant, but that's not attraction, that oppertunism. There's a difference between the two.
No, I'm not seriously suggesting that sexuality is purely cultural. There are certainly biological foundations to everyone's sexuality. But that's the thing: they're foundations. Simple reactions to stimuli. And you can condition those responses to happen with stimuli that normally wouldn't have that effect.
You say people are attracted to different things because that's how they're wired. Sure, I agree with you. But when was that wiring "put into place". Plenty of people would say "at birth" but I find that a load of bullshit. People don't choose their their sexuality any more than they are born with it. They "learn" it. Same with their personality. It's all shaped by conditional learning. That wiring is changed and reinforced over time by certain stimuli being associated with certain responses.
Example: foot fetishists. Sexual arousal from feet makes no biological sense. Feet have nothing to do with reproduction and are in no way a sexual characteristic (primary or secondary). Yet people can get off to just feet. How does that happen? Conditioned response.
And yes, you can change what people find sexually attractive. I know because my sexual "tastes" have certainly changed over time from pure on straight to pan/bisexual. And no it wasn't me "finding a new side of myself" or "accepting what I've been trying to suppress". It was a legit expansion of my arousal triggers. People's personalities change all the time, this is an accepted fact. Why not their sexuality? It doesn't happen instantly, but if you reinforce the neural connections enough, you'd be surprised just how different someone can act.
And no, status based attraction is indeed attraction. Some of it might be people seeing an opportunity, but plenty of it might be legitimate attraction to the social status. Same thing that drives much of the BDSM culture: arousal based on being dominate or subservient towards someone else, read: social statuses.
I went off an inaccurate interpretation of your statement when I should have clarified your meaning. Apologies.
Irony said:
There are certainly biological foundations to everyone's sexuality. But that's the thing: they're foundations. Simple reactions to stimuli. And you can condition those responses to happen with stimuli that normally wouldn't have that effect.
Are we talking about ?conditioning? as in an alteration? Or through positive reinforcement? Or something else?
Irony said:
You say people are attracted to different things because that's how they're wired. Sure, I agree with you. But when was that wiring "put into place". Plenty of people would say "at birth" but I find that a load of bullshit. People don't choose their their sexuality any more than they are born with it. They "learn" it. Same with their personality. It's all shaped by conditional learning. That wiring is changed and reinforced over time by certain stimuli being associated with certain responses.
I would wager it happens just prior and during puberty most of the time; obvious the onset of sexuality. But I?m not sure one can actually ?learn? it from beyond the experience set of circumstances. Because people are affected by similar conditions, yet react to them differently. Sexuality is as much personally biological as it is reinforced by various conditioning I suppose. Would make sense given people?s personally ability to repress natural urges.
Irony said:
Example: foot fetishists. Sexual arousal from feet makes no biological sense. Feet have nothing to do with reproduction and are in no way a sexual characteristic (primary or secondary). Yet people can get off to just feet. How does that happen? Conditioned response.
How is that possibly conditioned? Aside from rule 34, there isn?t anything beyond advertising that could even remotely condition or expose someone to the sexual nature of feet. And if advertising is all it takes, I suppose I could see where certain sexual fetishes come from. But I don?t see how society conditions the, for the lack of a better term, ?unusual? sexual preferences in the minority of the population.
Irony said:
And yes, you can change what people find sexually attractive. I know because my sexual "tastes" have certainly changed over time from pure on straight to pan/bisexual. And no it wasn't me "finding a new side of myself" or "accepting what I've been trying to suppress". It was a legit expansion of my arousal triggers. People's personalities change all the time, this is an accepted fact. Why not their sexuality? It doesn't happen instantly, but if you reinforce the neural connections enough, you'd be surprised just how different someone can act.
Again I?d say that?s a personal response. No amount of social conditioning has yet to make me interested in certain kinds of women, nor will it. Unless of course you strap me to a chair and condition me with ?therapy? for the better part of a year, then maybe I?d build the association. And of course, I?m not suggesting that we do anything of the sort to anyone.
Irony said:
And no, status based attraction is indeed attraction. Some of it might be people seeing an opportunity, but plenty of it might be legitimate attraction to the social status. Same thing that drives much of the BDSM culture: arousal based on being dominate or subservient towards someone else, read: social statuses.
Hmm? I suppose there are legitimate cases of it, although somewhat questionable. And sure, there are times when people have demonstrated their action to a specific status outside the individual holding said status. But BDSM has less to do with social status as it does a power exchange on a personal level. We can?t make the suggestion that those who engage in BDSM are aroused when their boss screams at them do to the notions of social status. Sigh? which of course reminds me that I do need to be reminded that human sexuality is overly complex to pigeon hole anyone into simplistic classifications.
You know the guys that complain about getting friendzoned because they were nice to a girl and weren't paid in sex? Yeah, those guys are real. They're assholes, and far less of them than the people that complain about the friendzone.
Personally, I will go out of my way to do something exceptionally nice or special to someone I'm attracted to. If there's a girl I like that likes similar styles of music, I'll write something for her. If she likes cooking, I'll invite her over to bake cookies or something. Will I only be nice to someone to get in their pants? Only if you surgically replaced my brain with another set of testicles.
Just be nice to people, doesn't make your day any worse (usually).
People are still linking that god-awful cracked article.
Been a while since I've seen someone lend some actual credence to that trite gibberish.
Nothing like some exagerrated analogies to make sure the sweeping generalizations hit home.
mitchell271 said:
You know the guys that complain about getting friendzoned because they were nice to a girl and weren't paid in sex? Yeah, those guys are real. They're assholes, and far less of them than the people that complain about the friendzone.
Personally, I will go out of my way to do something exceptionally nice or special to someone I'm attracted to. If there's a girl I like that likes similar styles of music, I'll write something for her. If she likes cooking, I'll invite her over to bake cookies or something. Will I only be nice to someone to get in their pants? Only if you surgically replaced my brain with another set of testicles.
Just be nice to people, doesn't make your day any worse (usually).
So I've read this article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/criticalintel/11083-The-History-And-Abuse-of-The-Fedora], which for the most part seemed interesting and believable enough.
However, one particular statement confused me, and I suppose it is something that somewhat relates to previous discussions on this subforum.
Women have largely pegged this uniform as belonging to the so-called "nice guys" that think being decent to a woman is a ticket into her bed. I'm sorry about that, but it's true. (For what it's worth, I asked two women outside the gaming community what kind of men they associate black fedoras with. Answer: Creep, avoid immediately.)
Wait, really? There is such a stereotype? Honestly, I know of many stereotypes relating to nerd culture, and I know that "normal" women tend to be less than impressed with a lot of these stereotypes. But the quoted statement, if the rest of the article hadn't been so believable, I'd just call bullshit on that. As it is, maybe there's something I don't understand, maybe somebody can shed light on this for me.
Let's start here: Somebody is a thoughtful and considerate person("nice guy"). Their attempts to sway women go along the same lines - After all, in order to win somebody's affection, isn't the most sensible approach to show them that you care about them and respect them?
Now here's the first contradiction. Such a person would not believe their actions to be a "ticket" to anybody's bed. After all, if they truly are considerate, they know full well that the other person has their own feelings and preferences. They would consider their own "being nice" simply as a way to show their own interest for that person, and then leave it to the other person to decide how much of that interest they wish to return.
Keeping that in mind, there seem to be only two possibilities:
1) Women in general dislike considerate people for some reason. But why? Even if the whole "women like jerks" stereotype applies, that stereotype is aimed at being partners. "creep, avoid" means that even acquainting yourself with such a person would be out of the question, which seems crazy to me.
2) We're not actually talking about considerate people at all, when we say "nice guys". Only, then what are we talking about? Jerks who, on the surface, display some sort of concern for the person they're trying to win over, while really being completely egotistical? Congratulations, that's like half the men on this planet, and from what I've seen during school, girls have no problem with such guys at all(as long as they're good looking, mind). Or does this really not have anything at all to do with being "nice" or not being "nice"?
As a woman I have to say I don't only look for niceness in a guy. If a guy is nice but uninteresting and / or we don't share common interests, then thanks for the niceness, but you're just not my cup of tea. Doesn't that apply to men as well?
Speaking as someone who has done alot of online dating recently, I was told quite often that I was too nice. Sometimes it would involve wanting me to be more confident or "more alpha". It was super frustrating because I didn't want to change myself or how I acted but I was not having any success. So I decided to pretend to be a jerk and portray myself as egotistical. I was shocked because it actually worked. I was having a ton of success and had amazing dates.
Unfortunately, I didnt like the person I was turning into, so now im taking a break and I deleted my profiles
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
