In Should Bad Boys Win, the question arose of whether the legendary "nice guys" who finish last, are actually nice. Several commenters proposed that "nice guys" feel entitled to sex, and are liars. It does appear to me that many older and more bitter nerds do feel entitled to something. This sounds like a turn-off; but according to the seduction community and other repositories of male wisdom such as Richard Feynman, one of the main effective strategies for attracting women is learning to
The "nice guys" myth that is promulgated among feminists these days is just crap they got from a rapist who attempted to murder his girlfriend (Hugo Schwartz) and openly admits it and now claims to be a feminist absolutely devoid of empathy or otherwise (a sociopath, like most feminists).
Feminists live in a fantasy world where they construct nonsense theories that seem to resemble reality that have nothing to do with reality. For example, if a guy is rejected and unhappy about it, he has an "entitlement" complex. He, instead, should be celebrating his rejection. If he's not, he ought to be attacked by swarms of feminists who shame him for daring to step outside of his apparent caste boundary.
Third wave feminists are idiots, they always have been idiots and they always will be idiots. Fortunately for them, they'll nearly always be a large sycophantic male population who sees them as an effective ground to nurture sexual relationships, and will capitulate to destroy potentially competing males whom provide the slightest bit of discomfort to a female.
A large portion of feminist theory is just dumb assertions based on how annoyed they are that they're not married to a prototypical alpha male with a fair amount of cash, which they feel entitled to have. Another portion of the feminists are lesbians who, obviously, would be quite annoyed that males keep making passes at them in life when they have no interest in the male sex - though I'm not sure such a condition qualifies as grounds for an elaborate cult construction - they seem to think it fits them quite well.
Feminist theory (at least the contemporary kind) is nearly devoid of all actual research, evidence, science, or otherwise. It doesn't bend to those things, like all religious cults, it is based on pseudoscience and dogma that insists it rejects reality and substitutes dogma whenever it is convenient. Fortunately, there will always be enough males out there who otherwise, for whatever reason, feel guilty about sexual attraction. Just like the church, the feminist regime capitalizes on this for the purpose of imposing their religion on everyone else.
You have a point there... ;-)
Are men significantly more likely to be interesting?
It might be easier to find women interesting if women were interesting.
Exceptions are rare.
The whole concept of bias is nonsense without evolutionary psychology.Anyway, women are boring and stupid and not worth dealing with to have sex with. I went from nerd to outright misanthrope well before I finish highschool, and haven't had any reason to change. I don't understand the God damn appeal of moralizing twattery, value subjectivity is so obvious that I can't be bothered to argue with these half-wits who project their atheistic theology as 'moral philosophy'.
In response to your claim that being perused puts women in a position of power (and not to comment on the rest of your ideas):
It is certainly true that being pursued causes you to be rejected less often than if you are perusing, but I think that it is probably false that it causes you to end up with a more beneficial mate than you would have otherwise. If you consider the delayed acceptance algorithm for the stable marriage problem, the stable matching produced is *optimal* from the male perspective (i.e. each male is paired with the best possible mate (in his opinion) that he could have been paired with in any stable matching), and *pessimal* from the female perspective. This suggests that being on the side actively looking for mates rather than passively accepting/rejecting proposals provides a huge advantage in outcome.
Oh, ow, this post hurts, because of how true it rings. I mean - ow - I don't even have any objections to it or anything to add. It's just true, about as true as it gets.
(I have long ago given up on these pursuits.)
The root of discontent is hunger.
Lust at its base is a hunger for a biological need. In all societies the control of one's base lusts is considered to be a good and desirable trait. It is this pursuit that underlies any sort of self-improvement regime such as contemplation, meditation, prayer, martial arts and other esoteric disciplines.
The base of politeness is the lie that we are not hungry. For the most part except at the immediate rest-digest satiation point after satisfying a hunger, we live in a perpetual state of hunger. We are constantly making a cost-benefit analysis regarding whether or not we continue to allow the body to feed off of its own stored resources, or to seek external resources to replenish the resources that have been filled. We have an internal neurological mechanism that kicks in long before starvation that tells us that we are hungry.
Now think back onto some meals that you've had. Think of a time when you at slowly and relaxed because you were unconcerned, you weren't very hungry, you didn't need to gorge yourself. Food was available so you ate a little, but you weren't nearing the threshold where hunger takes over and you needed to start pursuing food. Now think back to a time where you were ravenous. Think about how you swallowed without chewing properly on a couple of bites. Think about how loudly you may have eaten, how quickly you may have eaten.
If lust is a hunger, then women want to be approached by someone who is mildly hungry who is seeking that fulfillment, but who is not nearing the ravenous point. They do not want someone to make love to them when they are ravenous, it is likely to be quick and painful. (there are of course exceptions to this general rule) Women recognize that they are on the menu, they recognize that sexual exchange is a market-place just as men do. They simply want to be savored and enjoyed, and at the same time want to savor and enjoy their lover.
The lying comes in because we tell each other that we are not hungry when we are. We are in a constant state of hunger to some degree or another. It's just that we control it by either being below the threshold of immediate need, or by force of will if beyond that threshold. There is an underlying game that underpins this. The ability to play this game shows a level of sophistication on the part of the player. This seeking of status is innate to the hunt for sexual primacy. People want to copulate with those who are at a similar level of competency regarding the etiquette game.
Civilization exists at a perpendicular to the unsharpened edge of any blade. This is why proper place settings are important. The knife goes on the right facing the plate. On the right because most people are right handed, and facing the plate because it prioritizes the person closest to you and places them at a perpendicular to the unsharpened edge of the knife. Dinner knives are meant to cut flesh and human beings are made of flesh. We are constantly surrounded by people bearing flesh cutting instruments.
The etiquette game sublimates the carnal by necessity. It is what separates making love from rape, and what allows us to wield deadly weapons within a foot of someone else's vital organs. It is not lying to omit the fact that a steak knife is deadly, even though it most certainly is, but it is polite.
The ideal combination for a male mate throughout history has been one who knows how to kill with a knife, but also knows how not to show it in polite company. It is the essence of this etiquette that nerds so often overlook, that they are so often dull and uncomprehending of. How does one press an advance without insisting upon the outcome? How does one operate after a successfully pressed advance? How can one be both predatory and non-threatening all at once? It is an art, not a science.
My mom used to tell me no one would ever love me, so I already felt like damaged goods. When I was in college, I met someone nice, and started pursuing her. I was always honest with her. I was persistent, and we eventually agreed to start a relationship. Really! Then she cheated on me a week later, while I was on a business trip. She said she would stop, and then she did it again, and said she didn't owe me any explanations. After some time in denial/cognitive dissonance, I told her I didn't want to talk to her anymore, and we didn't talk for years.
I know I can't blame myself for how somebody else acted. But it still hurt. It was especially rough near the end. She didn't even acknowledge that she had agreed to be with me, thereby denying the possibility of a "real" breakup -- it wasn't a "real" relationship anyway. She told me it was my fault that I believed her. She told me she never had sex with me because she never got the sense that I would leave her if she didn't. She couldn't explain why that was supposed to be a bad thing. She told me she felt like she had been taking advantage of me. She had and I felt used.
So what, I'm a "nice guy"? I loved her, and tried to show her my best side. She strung me along because it was convenient, and because she liked the attention. I was just exhausted by the end of it all, and I still don't feel so great.
Actually, we met a few months ago, after I told her I met someone at the pub. She got jealous, acted bitchy, and touched my penis. Call me crazy, but maybe she wants to use sex to control me, despite being engaged, and wanting to be "just friends". Even she realizes it's messed up. She told me she was worried I wouldn't want to talk to her anymore, again.
Seriously, what the fuck. Am I really supposed to be the bad guy for being the "nice guy"? Is needing someone to trust and love really so bad?
You do make the rules because the male must court you. He can't expect that you will court him. This isn't rocket science, but it looks as thought i'm going to have to break it down for you:
See, women don't typically approach men. Get it? If women do not approach men, then men have two, and only two, options. These options are as follows:
Option A: Die alone, a virgin, unmarried, unloved, ignored, never experience a meaningful relationship with a woman, cold, numb, inhuman, tossed aside, emasculated, branded a "loser," praying for death rather than live a life of unbearable loneliness, regret, and bitterness (that is of course unless you are particularly disturbed, in which case you can shoot up your community college and spread your misery).
Option B: Approach women.
Are you beginning to understand the reality of the opposite sex yet?
Is it still fuzzy? Maybe you need me to connect the dots further. See, because most men are forced to choose option B, that means that most women can count on being approached. If it is true that you can count on being approached, you have two options. They are as follows:
Option A: Wait to be approached.
Option B: Apporach men.
Whose options do you think are better? Now, because most women can count on being approached due to the highly unattractive nature of the male option A, women get to play judge and jury. See, you're like an employer sitting comfortably behind a desk and screening applicants. You're in the position of power, not I. Therefore, it's *your rules* that apply. I don't get to decide what you expect of me anymore than a job applicant gets to decide what his potential employer requires in an applicant.
You're the egg; the prize. Men who jostle and compete for your attention are like the millions of sperm struggling to swim up the birth canal, all but one who is doomed. Do you get it yet?
Are you beginning to appreciate the reality of the opposite sex? I realize that women give it very little thought - after all, it's women who are victimized by a cold, superficial, and dysfunctional male dominated society with all its harsh and unrealistic expectations of women. Women meekly scamper about a social wasteland making every effort to please men whose affection is required to validate their existence, while men, of course, highfive their frat bro douchebag buddies and reduce women to sex objects for fun. It couldn't be possible that men tailor their behavior to conform with women's expectations, that's crazy talk. Men aren't lonely, they don't require intimate contact with the opposite sex or social validation or human warmth. They're all just looking to get laid, right?
It's funny how many studies have shown that males have a more difficult time adjusting to college life in their freshmen years. Plug "lonely college male" into google. Or, if you really want some laughs, plug "loneliness male suicide" into google. It is to laugh! Why do you think more men tend to abuse alcohol, report feelings of worthlessness, loneliness, and difficulty making friends than their female counter parts? Surely it couldn't be women's fault. It's not as if women have expectations of men, it's not as if women require anything of men, it's not as if women demand wit, intelligence, confidence, good looks, strength, and all the rest of the bullshit. Nothing is ever women's fault. Women are passive victims subject to the whims of a hostile and cruel male universe. Maybe the reason 4 times as many men commit suicide than women is the effects of testosterone? Surely it's mens' own fault. Maybe if they were more in touch with their feelings, eh?
Imagine if i suggested that male expectations of women had nothing to do with female anorexia that we hear so much about on the latest oprah special about girls and self esteem? Oh, how about this: what if i suggested that female anorexia was the result of too much estrogen? Or that women starve themselves because they're too irrational and emotional, being women and all. Haha! Wouldn't we all have a good laugh!
And admit it. Even now, your gut turns in disgust. How unattractive is it for a male to whine, or to suggest some victimized status. Doesn't that make you want to puke? Isn't that so unnattractive to a woman? Competent, rugged, self reliant, and confident men only. Human beings need not apply. Most women don't want human beings, they want a cartoon 2 dimensional notion of masculinity, or at least we think that's what they want, nobody can really tell for sure. And women sure as fuck aren't saying. What a shame it's my job to figure out what you want when you don't even know. But don't worry about it, given your comfy position as the persued, rather than the persuer, you can float along on a fluffy cloud of ignorance until your knight in shining armor whisks you away and takes care of everything. Don't worry your pretty little head. Men will provide. That's what we're here for, remember?
StevePolychronopoulisAugust 30, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Reply
Regarding the thread topic and the discussion thereof…..is it really any wonder that society is ‘run’ by extroverted sociopaths??
This is depressing. The fact that these discussions exist is testament to how dysfunctional and inadequate the whole gender system is to meeting peoples’ emotional needs. ... I’ve stopped caring what women want, personally. I’d rather die alone than do the song and dance required of me to make them attracted to me. I suggest you do the same rather than waste another minute looking for some magical answer to your relationship woes. Apathy is freedom.
These two posts are G-O-L-D! Platinum even! Never have I seen content expressed in so few words. A truly nice guy with genuine respect for himself does not alter his personality or behavior just to get laid: He Puts Principles over P****! You need to save this one on your pc, people, for some genuinely nice guy may need saving from being the stereotypical "Nice Guy".
@frelkinsdo you have a pic?
"Apathy is freedom"
This is so 1984: "Social suicide is success!"
I didn't make these stupid rules either, and trust me, we skirts hate them more than you do. But if we don't play, you reject us despite your bold protestations, because monkeys are adapted to ruthlessly screen. Just get over the phony b*tching about the "costly signaling." I know you do actually end up doing it no matter what you say - so send the dumb roses already, ok?
This is depressing. The fact that these discussions exist is testament to how dysfunctional and inadequate the whole gender system is to meeting peoples' emotional needs. At the end of the day it's the responsibility of the guy to accept the cultural imposition of those traits that are supposed to be "male" and step out on a limb and court the female. Guys don't make these rules, women do. The fact that something as ridiculous as a "seduction community" exists reveals how incoherent women have made those rules. I've stopped caring what women want, personally. I'd rather die alone than do the song and dance required of me to make them attracted to me. I suggest you do the same rather than waste another minute looking for some magical answer to your relationship woes. Apathy is freedom.
Regarding the thread topic and the discussion thereof.....is it really any wonder that society is 'run' by extroverted sociopaths??
Panu: . You seem to have a definition that no one else here is using. We can argue "mistakenly," but "nice" seems pretty core. Hence the name.