xkcd explains Nice Guys in comic format December 5, 2008 Holly Nice one, Randall. Here’s the whole thing.
I think there are different kinds of “nice guys” there are just normal kids/teens etc that have normal/insecure feelings and they express themselves in now what is a stereotype and then there are those that don’t grow out of it and make a career of the type.
Being insecure is one thing, creating a rationale where you deserve sex based on some complicated state of denial is another. I 100% agree with the “Nice Guy™” stereotype as existing and being pernicious, but also that it is a bad branch of some pretty normal teen behavior (transitioning from sexually unaware to aware, and all sorts of uncomfortability with such desires etc and how that manifests with emotional attachments), so it seems to get overused. I would have added a couple of panels to the above to kind of make it more explicit.
Postscript: Instead of gaining any new insight into my sorry behavior, I will re-write my version of events into a self indulgent screenplay starring John Cusack/Zach Braff/[insert name of latest nice-guy-indie-hottie actor].
… ugh… ohhh gods, I was… a little like this when I was a teenage boy. I was always so frustrated about how girls could date older college guys instead of a nice guy like me. Ugh, I was SUCH a selfish jerk. -_- It also reminds me of the fa… jerk from Superbad, one of the most insulting movies I’d ever seen. Plus, the whole thing just feeds off of guilt, which makes for a horrible kind of relationship.
I used to be a Nice Guy, and get angry because women weren’t attracted to me even though I was so much better for them than the guys they were with. Eventually I realized that the reason women aren’t attracted to me is because I’m completely unattractive in just about every way, so now I just operate on the assumption that no one could ever want to be with me because of how horrible I am. I avoid rejection and I don’t bother anyone else. I think it works better that way.
Instead of gaining any new insight into my sorry behavior, I will re-write my version of events into a self indulgent screenplay starring John Cusack/Zach Braff/[insert name of latest nice-guy-indie-hottie actor]. Jesus. The most fucked up guy I ever dated (and, coincidentally, the one who fucked me up the most) had a serious Lloyd Dobbler complex. He even had a t-shirt with “Lloyd Dobbler” on it. After we broke up I made some mention of his sounding like a Zach Braff movie, and he was deeply offended.
Eh, as much as I agree that your capital-letters Nice Guy is worth tearing down, I do take something of an issue with the panel that says “I’m scared of rejection, so I’ve decided relationships should grow smoothly out of friendships.” Mostly because I do think that the best relationships grow out of friendships (smoothly is another issue, lol) – not that a good friend will necessarily make a good partner, or that good friends “deserve” the chance to be a partner, etc etc; I just don’t think it’s indicative of Nice Guyness to prefer relationships that spring from friendships, or that a preference for those kinds of relationships indicates a fear of rejection.
What I never got about the “nice guy” thing was the waste of time and attention that being a “nice guy” represents, plus the idea of putting one woman up on a pedestal, almost stalker-style. It’s just plain dumb. For the first part, spending time being someone’s “friend” and investing yourself in the foibles of their life, particularly to the self-sacrificing extent that “nice guy”-ness implies, is stupid if they’re not reciprocating in the way you would want. Spend your time with women who will give you what you want. It’s not really fair to the woman either, who is implicitly being set up and sought after for something they won’t provide. On the second part, again, waste of time, when a nice guy could be looking elsewhere. Plus, no one can stand on a pedestal like that forever. No one’s a plaster saint, no woman is a goddess, we’re all flawed in some way. Sooner or later, you idolize someone like that, you’ll be disappointed, and will see what kind of time you wasted, and you held them up to an unfair and unrealistic standard. “Nice guys” need to cut bait, move on.
Pseudo hipsters hate being identified as wannabes. I think the line between normal “nice guy” lower case and Nice Guy™ is whether or not you perceive sex as the reward for you following a code of behavior (that is, it is explicitly a stratagem, which makes you a disingenuous ass) or whether you have ever decided that is was appropriate for you to tell someone for their “own good” how “shallow and selfish” they are and that they are a “bad friend” because you are always “there for them” and they aren’t “there for you.” Even in my nicest of teenage years I was never a disingenuous asshole, just an average kid with essentially usual confidence issues. I did know some people that seemed to have their “you’re a bad friend” speech on speed dial. Guess what, a-holes, she’s not that into you! You can’t simultaneously love someone and treat them like shit for “their own good” to make them appreciate you.
he. i dated a scenester film student once, who i’m pretty sure was convinced that his entire life was one big indie movie. he definitely enjoyed the whole friend-to-relationship bit. and when we broke up, i’m pretty positive he tried to walk away in slow motion.
So anyone have any recommendations on how to point out to a friend they are falling into this pattern without totally offending them? In this particular case, I’m generally more fond of the guy and what he’s doing isn’t good for either of them.
fauzia- you are killing me. that is the funniest thing Ive heard all day. Hope you got some highly thought out mixtapes out of it.
Maybe it’s because I’ve worked an 11 hour day, but is this saying that all “nice guys” are just being manipulative bastards to get into a girl’s pants (eventually)? I just want to clarify this becuase, I mean, what’s wrong with someone (specifically men) being caring and senstive? I mean, if it’s for manipulation, ok, yes they are being jerks, but what if it’s just because they are shy or something? Am I missing something here?
I’m so fucking glad I grew out of that shit before actually dating. A lot of bullshit has been avoided.
Yeah, this rings a bell from my teenage years, too. Although, since the ‘friend-to-relationship’ thing never really happened, I reached the conclusion that maybe I wasn’t very good at making that transition, and decided that maybe I could go for a relationship first, and then if it didn’t work out, move to being friends. That seems to have been much more positive in general – especially after I actually put some effort into my own self-respect.
Gina, it’s specifically about guys who are “nice” with the intention of getting into someone’s pants. It’s not about being kind, or thoughtful, or sensitive, it’s about doing it with an agenda – the agenda of “If I’m nice enough, she’ll have sex with me!” My experiences with these guys is they get really really irate when it doesn’t work, and do things like say “But with everything I’ve done for you….”
Gina: Hence the difference between Nice Guys(tm) and just regular kids who have esteem issues / like relationships growing out of friendships. Look for the uppercase letters. And the creep factor.
I can understand how you can criticise the guys for being too shy to verbalize their feelings for you. And I can understand how you can criticise them for being bitter and tormenting you when you don’t date them. But I’m not sure how you can do both at the same time, at least without some really advanced doublethink.
“Nice Guys” are not immature teenagers. We should not conflate them with immature teenagers, because it gives off that “boys will be boys” meme-vibe. children are children, teens are teens, and adults are adults. A teenager is kinda supposed to be self-centered and assumption-making, and it fits in with all the other things a teenager is about. They are natural and transient. “Nice Guys” are warped adults and a whole ‘nother phenomenon.
i’m pretty positive he tried to walk away in slow motion. fauzia, comment of the year!!!! ((award duly given))
I can understand how you can criticise the guys for being too shy to verbalize their feelings for you. And I can understand how you can criticise them for being bitter and tormenting you when you don’t date them. But I’m not sure how you can do both at the same time, at least without some really advanced doublethink. So, if you’re too shy to verbalize your feelings towards somebody, that makes it OK to torment that person when they don’t date you? Charming. I sincerely hope that you were trying to say something else and just phrased it poorly.
I can understand how you can criticise the guys for being too shy to verbalize their feelings for you. And I can understand how you can criticise them for being bitter and tormenting you when you don’t date them. But I’m not sure how you can do both at the same time, at least without some really advanced doublethink. I think it’s the second that’s being critcised here. I’ve been too shy to verbalize my feelings for a guy on more than one occasion. But when that guy didn’t guess my feelings, decide he shared them, and declare his undying love for me, I didn’t get all bitter and demand to know why guys never date nice girls like me. I decided to work on my self confidence so that next time, I could say something.
“James, do you really think no guys do both?” Yes. They’re logically contradictory aren’t they? If someone is saying you’re a bitch for not sleeping with them, they’re open to criticism for lots of reasons. But you can’t criticise them for having a ‘secret’ agenda, or for not being forthcoming about their feelings. The fact they are being horrible to your face means their agenda is out in the open, and they’ve made it plain they want to bang you.
Some of the best relationships grow out of friendships. And some of them don’t. There’s nothing wrong with preferring relationships that grow out of friendships, but it’s unfair to manipulate others (as xkcd Nice Guy does) into changing their definitions of good relationships.
This comic isn’t talking about someone who’s just shy. It’s about someone who’s being manipulative. Here’s the difference: when the object of his affection ends up dating someone who actually asked her out, who does the guy blame? If he’s actually a nice guy who was just shy, he blames himself for not finding the courage to ask her out. If he’s a Nice Guy ™, he blames the girl for not appreciating him and dating “jerks” instead.
Yes. They’re logically contradictory aren’t they? If someone is saying you’re a bitch for not sleeping with them, they’re open to criticism for lots of reasons. But you can’t criticise them for having a ’secret’ agenda, or for not being forthcoming about their feelings. The fact they are being horrible to your face means their agenda is out in the open, and they’ve made it plain they want to bang you. I know the comic is only a dozen panels long, James, but use your imagination to pretend that it’s not all taking place at the same time. It’s a story — and this kind of story, about the prototypical Nice Guy, usually takes place over six months to a year. It’s a story about misguided friendship, maybe starting with a consciously “secret” agenda but maybe only half-realized in his own head, that then grows into simmering resentment and even anger as plans don’t work out the way he thought. So, FIRST it’s all reluctance to actually say he’s interested in her sexually, and masking of intentions in “friendship.” then LATER it’s “you’re such a bitch” or breakdown of the relationship as he realizes he’s not going to get what he wants. Did I really have to explain this for you to understand why it’s not a contradiction, or are you just being obtuse? Part of the reason I like this strip is that it’s easy to see how Nice Guys go all wrong. It’s easy to see how at the beginning, they might just be shy kids — or at least, it’s hard to tell the difference until you realize that somewhere in the front or the back of his head, he had expectations of sex all along. If you absolutely expect someone to have sex with you sooner or later, you’re not their friend. You’re someone who’s waiting around to try and have sex with them. And sure, many great relationships do grow out of friendship, just not fake friendships which are all about getting sex. The Nice Guy just uses that idea as an excuse.
So if someone becomes your friend and then falls in love with you and gets cut up about it all, they’re not a Nice Guy. But if they fall in love with you and then becomes your friend and gets cut up about it all, they are a Nice Guy. Is that the distinction people are trying to maintain?
Nice Guys are the ones who think they are entitled to sex or a relationship just because they’ve been friends with a girl (sometimes manipulatively or under false pretenses) or been “nice” to her. When the girls they like date guys they think are jerks they blame the girl or think she is being irrational instead of looking at what is wrong with themselves.
Jesus. The most fucked up guy I ever dated (and, coincidentally, the one who fucked me up the most) had a serious Lloyd Dobbler complex. He even had a t-shirt with “Lloyd Dobbler” on it. After we broke up I made some mention of his sounding like a Zach Braff movie, and he was deeply offended. You can include the Seth Rogan character in the latest piece of shit Kevin Smith movie. The Rogan character has no problem with Elizabeth Bank’s character being in a porn movie. So long as she only has sex with him. The movie is lame. So it’s just as much bad script as nice guy. In my twenties, I was often clueless about a woman liking me until we sucked face. This was just getting to know the girl and then ask her out. I never ask a stranger out. Who does? Plus, I am trying to figure if I am compatible with the person. I was Commitment-phobe Guy in my twenties. (Which might be a title for a future Feministe post. 😉
No. If someone falls in love with you, and pretends to be your friend for the sole purpose of manipulating you into a relationship, that is being a Nice Guy.
C’mon folks, don’t feed the troll. Part of being a Nice Guy(TM) or a Nice Guy(TM) enabler is a willful inability to see that it’s possible to have complex relationships with other human beings.
No, James. It’s when someone falls in love with you, becomes your friend in order to manipulate you into sleeping with them, and then acts like a toerag when you don’t sleep with them. Occasionally, Nice Guys of this ilk will go so far as to try to have the women in question expelled from social groups for not dating them. But they very very rarely come out and tell the woman that they’re interested in her.
If you fall in love with someone, don’t tell them, and then try to become their “friend” with the expectation that they’ll fall in love back and/or sex you up, then you are a Nice Guy. And you don’t deserve much at all for that. Congratulations, you’re 1 step closer to grasping the point! Lesson 2: Only Nice Guys expect and/or demand sex in return for “friendship.” Or in return for favors, being a shoulder to cry on, helping someone move, doing their laundry as a favor, any of the many things that friends for each other. If you don’t do that, you’re not a Nice Guy. Even someone who is too shy to ask a girl out, then becomes her friend in hopes that they’ll develop a closer relationship, and then realizes that he’s been deluded about the whole thing — as opposed to developing some kind “I deserve your love and your body” or “I can’t believe she’s going out with that other guy when I’ve been her friend for so long without ever actually asking her out” victim attitude about it — is not a Nice Guy. There are plenty of gay and lesbian Nice Guys too. Heck, there are even straight female Nice Guys. It’s just that the straight male Nice Guy is the far too common variety.
exactly. respecting someone should be the bare minimum expectation. in and of itself, it is not a reason you deserve to get laid, or get a relationship. neither is being nice. also a bare minimum expectation. Nice Guys(tm) are the ones that don’t get that.
James, do you understand that the phrase “Nice Guy” as it is used here is meant ironically, not literally? My local weekly has a column called “Love the Way we Bitch.” People can submit “bitches” online and also comment on them. Many “bitches” fall into various popular categories, one of which is the self-identified Nice Guy. The standard gist of the Nice Guy “bitch” is: “I’m such a Nice Guy, why do the ladies love The Jerks……bitches.” A commenter pointed out that of all the genuinely nice males she’d known, none had ever actually used the phrase “Nice Guy” to describe themselves……and that “Nice Guy” is a status that ought to be conferred on you by others rather than yourself. Therefore if someone often refers to themselves by this title it is probably a red flag. I have to agree.
It is also a question of honesty. It is honest to want to be friends, develop a friendship, and eventually find that the friendship has grown deeper and you want to pursue a more intimate relationship, and let the person know that your feelings are changing, and accept that person’s feelings as fine whether or not they share your feelings. It is dishonest to be interested in a sexual relationship, but pretend you want friendship, and then expect the “friendship” to develop into something deeper, and be offended when the other person can’t read your mind, and develops relationships with people who actually express interest in a relationship, and who won’t play along with your mind games. It is also a matter of how one values “niceness.” People need to be “nice” or descent, and respectful, and generally good human beings, simply because that is what good people do. If you’re only being “nice” because you think it should “earn” you something, or if you think that people owe you just because you’re being “nice” to them – you aren’t being nice at all, you’re being manipulative.
That’s an interesting observation you brought up, Rebecca. I hadn’t really tought about it like that, but that commenter is right. Those genuinely nice guys are well aware that they aren’t perfect and will thus not claim to be more than they are, for instance they won’t claim to always be nice. Whereas the Nice Guys truly think they are god’s gift to womankind or at least to their chosen one and can do no wrong when it comes to them. It’s usually a matter of who has their feet firmly planted in reality. If they do, they’re nice, if they don’t, they’re Nice Guys ™.
The way I usually distinguish the two brands of swains is this: if A falls in love with B, never lets on that he has, and she dates somebody else, and he thinks that their failure to have a romantic relationship is his fault for never saying so, he is a nice guy who needs self-confidence. If he thinks it is her fault for not reading his mind/reciprocating for their friendship with sex, he is a Nice Guy who thinks it’s the world’s job to hand him everything he desires without having to do the actual scary emotional work. (Oh, but I love XKCD)
Sometimes we hide our romantic feelings because we feel the friendship is more important… It’s not always all about trying to sleep with someone…
Sometimes we hide our romantic feelings because we feel the friendship is more important… It’s not always all about trying to sleep with someone… And that’s the point of the strip. Guys who pursue friendship that isn’t all about trying to sleep with someone = not Nice Guys. Guys who pursue friendship that is all about trying to sleep with someone = Nice Guys. That (among a few other qualifiers) is the very definition of the difference between a Nice Guy and a non-Nice Guy. Again, if you’re painfully shy and afraid of expressing your feelings and decide to pursue a sincere friendship instead, great. If you’re friends with a woman and romance arises out of that, great. This comic strip is not about you. If you’re afraid of expressing your feelings and instead decide to pursue a friendship that you hope will lead to her sleeping with you, and then when she doesn’t read your mind and come through with the lovin’ and ends up with a guy who is willing to express his feelings, you slag her off, this comic strip is about you, because you’re a Nice Guy.
I wonder, then, about relationships that start with the romantic interests clearly mentioned. For example, if one does express interest, but is turned down, but not rejected, in terms of having a romantic relationship, and then maintains a friendship, is it wrong to hope that this friendship might become a romantic relationship? Not an expectation or as an end result; just a hope.
@headbander wow. Just wow. Where do you set the boundary between “turned down” and “rejected”? An overwhelming majority of women would not see any difference between the two, or merely one of politeness, not firmness of intentions. So by itself, interpreting a polite “turn down” as an excuse to keep hanging around with hopes of more is a pretty good symptom of nice guy-ism ™. If you want more than friendship, state your case and accept the answer. If you’re okay with friendship once it’s been made clear that the other person doesn’t want more, make your peace and leave it at that. If you still have “hope”, you’re not going to be a good friend. Why is this so complicated?
If you want more than friendship, state your case and accept the answer. If you’re okay with friendship once it’s been made clear that the other person doesn’t want more, make your peace and leave it at that. If you still have “hope”, you’re not going to be a good friend. One reason why this may be confusing may be the messages/cues we get from older family members and cultural memes. I still have older relatives adamantly tell me and my older cousins that all romantic relationships start out as friendships as that was how they all chose their dates and if those dates went well, got married back in China/Taiwan during the late 1950’s/1960’s. If anything, they act quite shocked when I or an older cousin attempt to explain endlessly that things aren’t as simple in this day and age.
@exholt headbander was not talking about romantic relationships which start out as friendship (which can happen for sure): s/he (but most likely he) was talking explicitly about a relationship where he had already expressed romantic interest and still had hope despite being turned down. Not quite the same, eh?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. That cartoon doesn’t so much as imply sex, at least not to the extent everyone is describing it. “I have a crush on you” doesn’t mean “I want to get in your pants.” Even if you want to go there “you’ll give in” means more than “you’ll have sex with me”. Furthermore it is about a certain degree of self-deception (“I’ll tell myself it’s because I ‘value our friendship'”) which isn’t really manipulative, more mildly tragic. He really hasn’t caused harm to anyone except himself. I have trouble understanding why folks are labeling guys like that “assholes” with such venom. While that behavior clearly disgusts some of you, it sure isn’t a bigger problem (as if any of these things are problems) than decent girls who date really crappy guys (much to the frustration of even true ‘nice guys’).
turned down: being told they just can’t have a relationship right now because of work, but they still like you rejected: they just don’t want a relationship with you at all Anyway, those are my definitions. Is it still Nice Guy-ism?
@headbanger She’s just being polite. If she wanted to have a relationship with you, she’d make time for it, trust me. If you can’t deal with “just” being friends, then stop seeing her, otherwise it’s Nice Guy-ism for sure.
Thanks for that clarification. I’m actually a teenage girl, who went out with a teenage boy, and it was the first date for both of us. I don’t know if context is relevant in this situation, but I just thought it was interesting that it was generally assumed that I was a man.
I am always confused why this is considered a feminist issue. I doubt it’s necessary to explain why it’s problematic to pursue one thing under the pretense of another even though that’s probably a rather common human behaviour, not just one of “nice guys.” That said, there’s one aspect I’m missing in every discussion of nice guys and emotional honesty: I’ve come across a couple of nice guys (that is, those trying to get in some woman’s pants under the romantic radar) but I find it hard to believe that a) the guys were that good actors and b) the women in question were as, sorry, emotionally blind to not get what was going on. Not confronting the guy if she feels the friendship may not be built on emotional honesty because it’s convenient to have a shoulder to lean on while still having the opportunity to claim ignorance of his feelings when someone else comes along is just as wrong. I’d really love it to occasionally hear from feminists that women do behave emotionally dishonest, too. Fun comic, though.
@bad guy You’re waiting around on a feminist site for feminists to blame women for bad shit that happens to them? Don’t you have something productive to do, like watch dry paint dry some more? Your whole post assumes that women aren’t socialized to be “nice” and non-confrontational. Yes, many women may feel an undercurrent of dishonesty oozing from their nice-guy(tm) friends, but the whole shtick of a nice-guy(tm) is to use the socialization of women to be polite, considerate, etc to the maximum. They tread the line so as always to be given the benefit of the doubt. Nice Guys(tm) don’t hang around direct, confrontational women – they know to stick to the others.
@ bad guy See Holly’s post at #37: “There are plenty of gay and lesbian Nice Guys too. Heck, there are even straight female Nice Guys. It’s just that the straight male Nice Guy is the far too common variety.” Someone already did mention that women can have this behavior too.
CassieC, “You’re waiting around on a feminist site for feminists to blame women for bad shit that happens to them?” No, actually, I’m waiting around on a feminist site for feminists to acknowledge that women occasionally have some agency when it comes to emotional issues. “Don’t you have something productive to do, like watch dry paint dry some more?” LOL. No kidding, I’m doing something in that vein at the moment… “Your whole post assumes that women aren’t socialized to be “nice” and non-confrontational. Yes, many women may feel an undercurrent of dishonesty oozing from their nice-guy(tm) friends, but the whole shtick of a nice-guy(tm) is to use the socialization of women to be polite, considerate, etc to the maximum. They tread the line so as always to be given the benefit of the doubt.” I’m sorry, are you saying that it’s ok for women to be emotionally dishonest because of their socialization but not for “nice guys”? Seriously. And the entire argument assumes that men are able to emotionally control women, whether they are nice or bad guys. Even without quoting the scores of psychological literature that is attributing more empathy to women than to men that’s simply not a realisitc behavioral assumption. Moreover, I’d say it’s one that is more unfair to women (in denying their agency) than it is to nice guys.
@headbanger She’s just being polite. If she wanted to have a relationship with you, she’d make time for it, trust me. In all fairness, in high school I once gave a male friend who had expressed romantic interest in me the “right now isn’t good, it’s not you it’s me” talk in *complete honesty.* I had just gone onto some anti-depressants that depressed my libido (lol, right?), and I considered sex to be a part of what both of us would want in a romantic relationship (I certainly did!). We ended up going to colleges on opposite sides of the country, but if we had stuck around each other long enough I probably would have tried approaching him romantically at some point once I went off the medication and was ready to go beyond friendship. So, to conclude my long, boring over-share, like *anything* these are not hard-and-fast rules. Individual situations are, well, individual. In my case, though, my guy friend went and found a girl who wanted to *date* him instead of just be friends, and I was a little sad because as a teenager I thought it would be kinda nice to have him pine a bit, but then I got over it and didn’t blame him for finding a relationship that included the romance he was looking for. This is because neither of us are Nice Guy types and we made clear our intentions and circumstances, and then adjusted when the other person made an informed decision about the direction of the relationship based on the information. Simple stuff.
I’m sorry, are you saying that it’s ok for women to be emotionally dishonest because of their socialization but not for “nice guys”? Seriously. And the entire argument assumes that men are able to emotionally control women, whether they are nice or bad guys. No, the entire argument assumes that some men are emotionally astute and manipulative enough to use the way in which women are socialized to their advantage. Someone women will be uncontrollable, others will be vulnerable, most will fall somewhere in between. Some men will be perceptive and manipulative, some will be oblivious, most will fall somewhere in between. This discussion is about those men who tend towards the manipulative end of the spectrum and how they interact with those women who tend towards the vulnerable end of the spectrum. Even without quoting the scores of psychological literature that is attributing more empathy to women than to men that’s simply not a realisitc behavioral assumption. A score is twenty, which seems like an odd way to count “psychological literature.” Anyway. As something of an expert on the subject (I have pretty pieces of paper on my wall and everything) I’d like you to cite your sources. Please, use only high quality research or theoretical material that has had the opportunity to be reviewed and critiqued by peers. Oh, and don’t bother with anything using P values or traditional hypothesis testing because those kinds of measures have been shown to be statistically invalid. I should warn you, though, I have a shelf full of Alice Miller and I’m not afraid to use it.
Oh, and don’t bother with anything using P values or traditional hypothesis testing because those kinds of measures have been shown to be statistically invalid. Biologist says: …what? Is that something specific to psychology, I assume? Are there not null hypotheses or something?
Bad Guy, uhh, no, the argument is that Nice Guys are manipulative (and the most effective manipulation comes about when they have themselves partly fooled too, btw). Some women might fall for it but the really shitty behavior and entitlement comes out when women DON’T fall for it. That’s when all the whining about “women only want to date jerks,” where “jerks”=anyone but the guy in question comes out.
Something I saw in the discussion of this at Alas and now I’m seeing here (way up at #54): there is an assumption that even when a guy gives every appearance of wanting to be friends, a woman should know—if she’s not “emotionally blind”—that he’s really after romance/sex. Women really can’t generally detect these things any more than men can, I would assume, at least, I’ve been shot down only by women I’ve asked out.
Hershele – “there is an assumption that even when a guy gives every appearance of wanting to be friends, a woman should know—if she’s not “emotionally blind”—that he’s really after romance/sex.” Not quite an assumption that women can detect this better than men. But the way I understand this is that men are not more to blame for emotional dishonesty than women. IF a woman detects this (and if the talents of manipulation and emotional deception are evenly split, I think it’s reasonable to assume that they will detect this in half of the cases) AND she doesn’t confront the “nice guy” for whichever reason, presumably because he’s convenient to her emotional needs, then she’s just as guilty when the situation turns out wrong. Puppycat, I don’t really know what “entitlement” is supposed to mean in a dating disasters thread. Btw, in my experience “jerks” doesn’t equal “anyone but the guy in question” but “a guy who’s not afraid to show his romantic/sexual side.” Being a little bit “jerky” could also mean being “non-needy” and showing her that. Romantic attraction often seems to be the result of push-pull behaviour. So, yeah, I think it’s not surprising that “nice guys” would call that behaviour jerky. William, “No, the entire argument assumes that some men are emotionally astute and manipulative enough to use the way in which women are socialized to their advantage.” Sorry, how are they using their assumed emotional astuteness to their advantage when the apparent common outcome of their attempt to “nice-guy” themselves into their romantic interests pants isn’t working and leads to the assumption that “women only like jerks”. If they actually were emotionally astute they’d realize that they’d need to be romantically available and, if necessary, withdraw. “This discussion is about those men who tend towards the manipulative end of the spectrum and how they interact with those women who tend towards the vulnerable end of the spectrum.” Fair enough, but how does that change anything I said about female agency? And, moreover, again, why is this probably the only dating problem commonly discussed on feminist websites? I am slightly perplexed by that. As for the rest, seconding Bagelsan.
“That cartoon doesn’t so much as imply sex, at least not to the extent everyone is describing it.” kcxd: “You’ll give in.” As they kiss. While sitting next to each other. On a couch. wtf do you want – a stick figure version of the kama sutra? or are you just completely tone deaf to all references to romance as it is usually shown in modern moving pictures?
Mickle: “”You’ll give in.” As they kiss. While sitting next to each other. On a couch. wtf do you want – a stick figure version of the kama sutra?” I think you just have a dirty mind. Couch + kiss = man only interested in sex? I think most ‘Nice Guys’ are probably just very emotionally needy, looking for love or at least some similar variant if that isn’t possible. The ‘Nice Guy’ in the cartoon is dishonest and emotionally dysfunctional, but there is clearly more to it than just a quest for sex.
Biologist says: …what? Is that something specific to psychology, I assume? Are there not null hypotheses or something? Oh, yeah, definitely idiosyncratic to psychology. Hypothesis testing works great for physics, chemistry, and biology because you’re largely dealing with objective data and easily observable facts. On some level all of those fields boil down to math, which makes the hypothesis generated falsifiable. Psychology has the problem of not actually dealing in objective data because, as much as the APA might protest otherwise, we aren’t a science. The kinds of statistical measures that work for, and were designed to be used with, the hard sciences just don’t port particularly well to the humanities. The null hypothesis is kind of useful if you’re using it for a hypothesis that can’t actually be falsified.
“The ‘Nice Guy’ in the cartoon is dishonest and emotionally dysfunctional, but there is clearly more to it than just a quest for sex.” Perhaps. But at the bottom the Nice Guy’s quest for sex is always dishonest and emotionally dysfunctional. It relies on his misgynistic beliefs about what women owe him – especially what women owe him because they made him feel emotional in the first place. That’s not a grown man looking for a mature relationship. That’s a little boy looking for a wife mother figure.
You’re both right. The Nice Guy™ is looking for a Relationship, so identified by sex; the making love on the couch is, for him, the point when a friendship becomes “something more.”
Sorry, how are they using their assumed emotional astuteness to their advantage when the apparent common outcome of their attempt to “nice-guy” themselves into their romantic interests pants isn’t working and leads to the assumption that “women only like jerks”. They use it to find women who are vulnerable to these kinds of relationships. Just because a woman needs a friend doesn’t mean eventually she’ll be desperate enough to fuck him. When the phantasy the Nice Guy has developed fails, well, then he blames the woman. If they actually were emotionally astute they’d realize that they’d need to be romantically available and, if necessary, withdraw. You’re assuming that perceptive ability (the ability to recognize personality valences) translates into effective responses (successful manipulation, altered behavior, or withdrawal). I have a client at the moment who is quite astute, this person picks up on virtually everything. If I’m having a bad day, they know, If I’m angry, or depressed, or bored, they know. If I’m trying not to say something, they know. This individual picks up on all sorts of subtle data. The problem is that when they process this data they do not use it the way you or I would expect them to, but rather they fit it into the context of an elaborate conspiracy theory they have developed. The Nice Guy attempts to manipulate, though he doesn’t see it as manipulation. He has a phantasy about how to develop a relationship with someone who isn’t obtainable. He plays a game, bides his time, waits for “his moment.” But ultimately he isn’t a friend, he’s a guy who is running an elaborate game to get into someone’s pants. He offers the emotional intimacy of friendship with an expectation of a return. He offers it in a pointedly objectifying manner, because the relational context in which it is rooted is a scam. There are certainly some women who are complicit in this game, but they’ve been discussed to death in our society. This discussion is about the men who have largely been framed as the victims of “cockteases.” Fair enough, but how does that change anything I said about female agency? And, moreover, again, why is this probably the only dating problem commonly discussed on feminist websites? I am slightly perplexed by that. Say you go to buy a used car. You’re not a mechanic, but you do your due diligence: you check the carfax report, you look it over for any obvious problems, but eventually you have to take the salesperson’s word that the car is in good condition. The car runs great at first but, gradually, you have to keep putting oil in it. A year and a half later the alternator goes because a tiny, slow oil leak was dripping oil into it. Moreover, the mechanic explains that because of the nature of the leak, you’d have to rebuild the engine to fix the problem. If the salesperson knew about the leak and sold you the car anyway, telling you that there was nothing wrong with it, would it be an insult of your agency to hold him responsible for the consequences of his deceit? As for why this is the most commonly discussed problem, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess its because this is an issue the people posting these threads are running into. Are you asking why feminist websites aren’t addressing the kinds of problems you’re running into in the dating world? Why they don’t focus more on you? Or are you just disturbed by how much they’re discussing something that seems to make you…uncomfortable.
I think Nice Guys are manipulative and have difficulties expresing their sexuality. If you dig deeper, I think they are a bit afraid to let the animal out or maybe they even have deep-seated guilt about how their sexuality has played out in the past. Me, I just could not wait around, not getting any satisfaction while deceiving myself and her that there was something real going on. As for BadGuy — what’s a girl to say, “if you want a friend, buy a dog?” Own it dude.
“When the phantasy the Nice Guy has developed fails, well, then he blames the woman. ” Minor quibble: he then blames all women. Check out any earnest MRA site, or Feminist Critics.
“Fair enough, but how does that change anything I said about female agency? And, moreover, again, why is this probably the only dating problem commonly discussed on feminist websites?” I missed this. Why are you calling it a “dating problem” when only one half of the party is interested in dating? Talk about not getting it! The problems with Nice Guys isn’t about dating. It’s about a certain category of men who only relate to women as datable and not-datable, regardless (and that is the key) of what any women want from them. And let’s not quibble and be coy. If a man is looking at a woman in only these two categories, he’s looking at women as either those that will fuck him or those that won’t (the logical conclusion of which is Real Dolls and presidential speech writers who molest cardboard cutouts of Hillary Clinton). You really don’t even need to be a feminist to see what’s psychologically immature and unbalanced about that.
William, “The problem is that when they process this data they do not use it the way you or I would expect them to, but rather they fit it into the context of an elaborate conspiracy theory they have developed.” Fair enough. But I think we may be talking with a different set of people in mind. I’m talking about shy guys who are afraid to express themselves romantically (and probably lack any kind of emotional astuteness you assume), so they resort to the only thing they can imagine – a non-sexual intimate relationship – and you seem to be talking about low-level psychopathy. Not that these things are mutually exclusive, but I think my version is much more common – and – allows for a higher degree of responsibility of the “partner in crime”. There are certainly some women who are complicit in this game, but they’ve been discussed to death in our society. This discussion is about the men who have largely been framed as the victims of “cockteases.” Have they? Certainly not in my perception. Interesting. If the salesperson knew about the leak and sold you the car anyway, telling you that there was nothing wrong with it, would it be an insult of your agency to hold him responsible for the consequences of his deceit? I don’t think the used-car metaphor works in this case. Mostly because I don’t think the shy men I think are the majority of “nice guys” are able to perform an act to the extent that any rational external observer would believe it. Not my experience, and I’ve met a couple of guys who exhibited this behaviour. Just as it’s not my experience that they choose women who aren’t able to read them and can thus claim complete ignorance. In my experience these guys pick girls they have a crush on but are, in their minds, out of their league, so they’re afraid to make a direct romantic approach and, instead, hope that something will develop out of the emotional bond they hope to build with their romantic interest. There will clearly be women who can’t read the guys intentions, but I think that it is an insult to their agency to assume that they are completely framed by “nice guys” in all instances. As for why this is the most commonly discussed problem, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess its because this is an issue the people posting these threads are running into. Are you asking why feminist websites aren’t addressing the kinds of problems you’re running into in the dating world? Why they don’t focus more on you? Or are you just disturbed by how much they’re discussing something that seems to make you…uncomfortable. I’d wish feminist sites would be more concerned with dating and heterosexual relationships in general, not just looking at the stuff that goes wrong. In a slightly different context Naomi Wolf once wrote something like (quoting from memory) “feminism has an elaborate vocabulary to describe the sexual harm men can do to women, but almost no words to celebrate their sexuality.” Dating and relations is the most important battleground of the sexes/genders. I’m just surprised that *this* seems to be most important dating issue for feminists. On the feminist101 website it’s one of the most prominent threads and I can’t recall any other that is concerned with dating. I don’t need feminist sites to focus on my dating problems, I’m doing fine, thanks. But I’m still perplexed by this – even if “the personal is political”, why this focus on the nice guy? My personal guess is that the problem is not so much with the “nice guy” himself, though a possibly annoyance, but with the assumed theoretical ramifications of the “girls only like to date jerks” meme – which, I think, not a few feminists are afraid could be construed to mean that feminist claims to a new less macho masculinity are wrong because they are ignored by individual women – and by the fear that this interpretation of female mate choice may actually be correct.
yooohoooooo! BadGuy! Yooooooooohhhoooooooo! Some of us aren’t straight. We’re not here to give dating tips to grown men. (and again, this isn’t even about dating, but it’s very telling that this is the direction that you *insist* it go in despite what the women/feminists were talking about in the first place.)
“I don’t need feminist sites to focus on my dating problems, I’m doing fine, thanks. But I’m still perplexed by this – even if “the personal is political”, why this focus on the nice guy?” Becuase the nice guy perpetuates misogyny, only he cloaks it in self-pity. We’re not focusing on how the nice guy feels about himself. We’re focusing on how the nice guy is part and parcel of a cultural view of women that sees our bodies and our lives as a service to men and their needs. The nice guy wants us to think that his grovelling manipuation is a kindness that he is bestowing on us. We’re here to tell him he’s part of a spectrum of socialized male behavior that insists on seeing women in terms of utility and not humanity.
shorter Bad Guy’s entire set of posts: “Feminism, ur doin it wrong. Needs more talkin bout teh menz.”
Bagelsan, you’re absolutely right. I think that feminism is wrong in this respect. I do think that there needs to be more talking about and WITH men and I do believe this would benefit women including feminists as well as men. weejit, “We’re not here to give dating tips to grown men.” No, apparently feminists are just complaining when the guys don’t do it properly. That will certainly help everyone… “We’re here to tell him he’s part of a spectrum of socialized male behavior that insists on seeing women in terms of utility and not humanity.” wow. Well, I don’t know what to reply to that. Utility and not humanity? Just wow. If you approach the world with that assumption, I think that’s answering my question.
Weejit, I missed this – “Why are you calling it a “dating problem” when only one half of the party is interested in dating? Talk about not getting it!” Mere terminology issue. When one person two people are interacting and have an intimate relationship that at least one person is trying to extent to a romantic/sexual level I would call this a “dating problem” for that person (not for the other). But I agree that the term doesn’t quite capture the essence of the problem, certainly not in a narrow definition. If you have a more precise term, I’m happy to drop “dating problem” in this context.
Bad Guy: the way I understand this is that men are not more to blame for emotional dishonesty than women. Well, men are the ones being emotionally dishonest in the situation described. Randomizer If you dig deeper, I think they are a bit afraid to let the animal out or maybe they even have deep-seated guilt about how their sexuality has played out in the past. I think one cause of NGdom is a belief that women are non-sexual beings (which isn’t really an improvement over thinking sex is what women are “for”) who are, well, frightened off by sexual assertiveness and a man’s overt interest in sex. Bad Guy, later: Well, I don’t know what to reply to that. Utility and not humanity? Just wow. If you approach the world with that assumption, I think that’s answering my question. What assumption? Some men do exclude women from the “potential friend” category. That’s not an assumption, it’s a reality.
Hershele, “Some men do exclude women from the “potential friend” category. That’s not an assumption, it’s a reality.” As do some women. So what? Does that prove that there’s a “spectrum of socialized [FE]male behavior that insists on seeing [MEN] in terms of utility and not humanity”? That would be quite the assumption on my part as it is on the part of weejit. This is one of the instances where gender switching works rather well.
“Does that prove that there’s a “spectrum of socialized [FE]male behavior that insists on seeing [MEN] in terms of utility and not humanity”? ” Sure, and guys tend to call them “gold diggers”, yet I don’t see many men questioning the validity of *that* label.
weejit, I’m not questioning the validity of either label. But I’m a little confused why you would equate the emotional dishonesty of the prototypical nice guy, who is clearly after an EMOTIONAL value, and the emotional dishonesty of the prototypical “gold digger” who is probably after, well, GOLD. I don’t think it’s fair to say that men who are trying to get into a relationship with someone are seeing this person in terms of utility. Their behaviour is potentially dishonest, but I think they’re trying to use dishonesty as a utility to get to a point where they believe their love interest will see them in terms of humanity. That’s different than gold digging, in my opinion.
Bad Guy: Does that prove that there’s a “spectrum of socialized [FE]male behavior that insists on seeing [MEN] in terms of utility and not humanity”? Sure there is. Ever been to the “Relationships” section at a bookstore? Scores of variations on How to Cast the Role of “Husband” at Your Dream Wedding. And I’m certainly critical of women who buy into that, even if my blog isn’t explicitly political. Having answered that, I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I have a vague sense that the goalposts have been moved somewhere. Ok, I just checked your first comment, #54. You said that when a Nice Guy™ approaches a woman and was manipulative, it’s not so bad, because since she’s psychic (or else she’s deficient), she knows he’s being manipulative, and if she calls for it, she only has herself to blame, and if she pretends to fall for it, she’s being manipulative herself. Now you’ve somehow devolved into whining about how PHMT. Or something.
Hershele, “Or something.” Definitely. That’s it. It’s called a dialogue. Things develop, they flow, there’s no clearcut agenda. If everyone’s lucky, people learn in the process. Thanks for playing.
Bagelsan, you’re absolutely right. I think that feminism is wrong in this respect. I do think that there needs to be more talking about and WITH men and I do believe this would benefit women including feminists as well as men. and No, apparently feminists are just complaining when the guys don’t do it properly. That will certainly help everyone… Gee, I wish more women were smart like you, and could figure this out. Instead of being unreasonable and feeling, for some weird reason, like a feminist space might have something better to do than laboriously instruct purposefully befuddled dudes like yourself on how to get some. (Oh, wait, I forgot that *you* don’t need dating help, it’s just everyone *else* with a dick does. Some men may find this surprising, not to mention insulting…?) And I think by “help everyone” you are *not* referring to helping all the women who have to waste their precious time on random guys that can’t/don’t/don’t-care-to get it. I know *I* have better things to do than take on some loser as a project and raise him. If I wanted to exert lots of effort toward personally developing a guy’s emotional/mental maturity, I’d go have a baby.
I’m a little confused why you would equate the emotional dishonesty of the prototypical nice guy, who is clearly after an EMOTIONAL value, and the emotional dishonesty of the prototypical “gold digger” who is probably after, well, GOLD. Nice Guys seem to get lost quite often on their way toward “EMOTIONAL value” and frequently end up detouring into “BitterLoserLand” after failing to find the Pussyville gas station. What’s dishonest about being a “gold digger” and then digging for gold? That sounds like someone with a very accurate if somewhat cynical roadmap in life to me. (To drag this metaphor out a little further. :p)
I’m not questioning the validity of either label. But I’m a little confused why you would equate the emotional dishonesty of the prototypical nice guy, who is clearly after an EMOTIONAL value, and the emotional dishonesty of the prototypical “gold digger” who is probably after, well, GOLD. I don’t think it’s fair to say that men who are trying to get into a relationship with someone are seeing this person in terms of utility. Their behaviour is potentially dishonest, but I think they’re trying to use dishonesty as a utility to get to a point where they believe their love interest will see them in terms of humanity. That’s different than gold digging, in my opinion. What? No, the Nice Guy is not after emotional value at ALL. See how he wears her down? See how all that he does to express concern leads up to her giving in during a moment of weakness? That’s not him going after emotional value, that’s him using psychological warfare to get pussy. Is it that hard to see how that is creepy and a Not Good Thing?
That’s an interesting point, Norvegica. The Nice Guy™ is trying to induce Stockholm Syndrome, in a sense, which is not a healthy strategy for starting or maintaining a relationship.
I think nice guys get a bad reputation. People have to understand that nice guys are people too. They are going to become frustrated and annoyed about girls are dating someone that doesn’t care about them. I don’t believe that they torment the people that don’t respond to their affection. This demonizing the nice guy into a manipulative monster is far from the true. Some nice guys do behave in this way, but I don’t believe that is the majority. If peolpe feel this harshly about nice guys then simply don’t be friends with nice guys. Don’t talk to them or try to befriend them. Just leave them be and don’t try to so call reform them.
They are going to become frustrated and annoyed about girls are dating someone that doesn’t care about them. There’s a point when you go from being concerned that a girl you like is “dating someone that doesn’t care about them” into pathology. And it’s not far from the day she tells you “I’m dating someone [you don’t think cares about me]” and the day you choose to keep pursuing her “just in case” she comes to the same realization as you, breaks up with the guy who you think doesn’t care about her, and decides to date you instead. If it happens more than once, it’s well past time to start accepting, “It’s not her, it’s you.”
“the day you choose to keep pursuing her “just in case” she comes to the same realization as you” Again your back to the negative nice guy sterotype that they constanly pursue and harass the girls that they are attarcted too. There is nothing wrong with being frustrated with girls that date the so called bad boy. Even if she is not dating a bad boy the guy will still feel a strong sense of rejection. Its human nature to be frustrated with rejection. The “it’s not her, it’s you” comment feels like a cope out. It gives the idea that the girl is perfect and the nice guy is some kind of obsessive stalker. Easy to judge someone for their flaws rather than look at your own.
They are going to become frustrated and annoyed about girls are dating someone that doesn’t care about them. That’s not what’s happening. The men only “don’t care about them” in the mind of the Nice Guy™.
No, I’m not coming back to a “stereotype”. I’m coming back to the paradigm described in the cartoon. People here have repeatedly noted that they’re talking about a particular type of “nice guy”, who really isn’t so nice. The point being made is not about “hurt feelings” or “rejection”. It’s about a pathological approach to developing a romantic relationship that any sensible person would realize the girl doesn’t want. Convincing yourself, “She will eventually, I’ll wait (even as she dates a succession of guys who aren’t me, and who I don’t see as being anything like me)”, isn’t rational. Non-Pathological: “I like that girl, and I’m expressing my affections in ways short of the obvious because I’m shy. Oops – she’s dating somebody else, even though I’m pretty sure she knew I was interested. {hurt feelings; jealousy; getting over myself} I guess I’m not her type. Who knows what the future holds, but for now I need to move on and try to find happiness that doesn’t depend on a fantasy.” Pathological: “I like that girl, and I’m expressing my affections in ways short of the obvious because I’m too nice to be overt in my desire. Oops – she’s dating somebody else, even though I’m pretty sure she knew I was interested – and he’s not a nice guy. {hurt feelings; jealousy; wait for her to break up} Lather, rinse, repeat.” The problem, also, isn’t that anybody but the “nice guy” thinks the girl is perfect. It’s that the nice guy doesn’t take the step back to recognize that she’s not perfect – at least by his definition. If she were, she would already know he’s perfect for him, right? There’s a certain security in having a pseudo-relationship with somebody who, for one reason or another, is unattainable. (Many of the people who fall in love with, and even marry, people who are in prison serving life sentences fall into this category – yet that’s a difference of degree, not of kind.) But it prevents you from living your life.
That’s not what’s happening. The men only “don’t care about them” in the mind of the Nice Guy™. You ‘re assuming that all nice guys are delusion and stupid. It doesn’t take someone with a degree in psychology to realize when someone is dating a jerk. To say that it is all in their paranoid imagination is very much a cope out. Sometimes that is the case, but other times it is not.
they’re talking about a particular type of “nice guy”, who really isn’t so nice. They are several articles on the internet that believe that this “particular type” of nice guy is how most nice guys are like. In almost every article that describes the nice guy describes him as being manipulative, delusional, and obsessive. When most people think of nice guys they come to this sterotype. The cartoon is a perfect example how people think of nice guys and the negative nice guy sterotype. Someone one that thinks in pathological manner and doesn’t know how to move on. The point I’m trying to make is that is that most nice guys are not like how this cartoon describes. There is a difference between somone being pathological and someone feeling a feeling a sense of rejection.
If you are worried about defending the class of nice guys that don’t fall into the category of “manipulative, delusional, and/or obsessive”, how about defining who they are and how they’re different? You know, like I did. Because it’s absurd to defend them by trying to pretend that the not-so-nice guys don’t exist.
it’s absurd to defend them by trying to pretend that the not-so-nice guys don’t exist. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but want I’m saying is that when people think of nice guys they think of that pathological sterotype. They believe that this type of nice guy is how most nice guys are like. Yes, there are two types of nice guys. The actual nice guy and the hypocritical nice guy. However, the hypocritical nice guy is how people see most nice guys. That was the point that I was trying to make.
I’m not personally sure how the numbers break down. But I will reiterate that a genuinely, 100% nice guy who can’t let go of the fantasy that a particular woman is perfect for him even as she dates a succession of guys who aren’t him and aren’t in his estimation, anything like him, would be better served by moving on with his life.
The last few post was not meant to cause controversy. It was met to show a different perspective on the nice guy. It was meant to show rejection in the nice guy’s perspective. There has been alot internet bullying on the nice guy and I think that people should look at relationships through their eyes. My point was that there is two sides to every story.
I have had a lot of “guy friends” such as this. Never escalated into dating, though. I always had a serious “mostly-nice-guy-boyfriend” to keep me from breaking under the sexual tension of my “nice-guy-friend”. When I did try to date a nice-guy-friend years later, our relationship imploded: it was based off of the “want-but-can’t-have”. I like the mention earlier about the guilt that accompanies these relationships. I have an acquaintance right now who is (oh so young) seemingly trying to be my selfless “friend”. It’s oh so hard to avoid him and there’s no opportunity to reject him. He’s always doing these little favors for me – they are friendly but their numbers betray his intention. I wonder if I’ve ever had a guy-friend that was really just a friend… I don’t usually use so many hyphens – by the way.
I wonder if Jim is “missing” (or possibly missing) the nice guy/Nice Guy™ distinction. No, I’m not missing the distinction. I’m just acknowledging that not all nice guys are that way.
I remember watching a epsiode of “House” called No More Mr. Nice Guy, where House believes something is medically wrong with his patient because his too nice. His wife then says to another doctor that she was irritated with him because of his nativity. However, she later continues that nice guys make people irritable, because they are everything other people are not. It makes me wonder do people question a nice guy’s sincerity because they are not sincere themselves.
Didn’t Jeff deconstruct this already? http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/explainer-what-is-nice-guy.html
“Anna” said in an earlier post:</b) It’s not about being kind, or thoughtful, or sensitive, it’s about doing it with an agenda Unless I misunderstand you, you misunderstand Nice Guys. I found this forum by searching for XKCD comics specifically having to do with this issue. I run a geek-girl site dedicated to helping geeky guys get laid and STILL BE GEEKS But I don’t think ANY guy understands that it’s possible to be both, particularly “Nice Guys”. I hate Real Man, and the more “manly” they are, the more I hate them. However, even though I’m a girl geek, against my will, I am genetically programed to want to be f*cked by the worst of them. Even *I* don’t want to have sex with a wimpy, apologetic guy, because that’s not what sex IS. I LIKE geeks but I’m not sexually attracted to them. Nor is almost anyone else except homosexuals. The more guys are like girls, the more I like them personally. I’d LOVE to live in a group house with a shy, introverted guy! He’d be smart, funny, knowledgeable, curious, interesting, and speak correct English. But I would want that ONLY if there were a stupid brutish guy in the other bedroom–the bedroom he grabs me and pulls me into as I walk by. The only sex the Nice Guy would get from me is when he masturbates while holding his ear against the wall. Real Men are the ones who DESERVE the mistreatment I sexually crave. GOD I wish I were a lesbian! Then I could work for a law that they cut the balls off all the little baby boys. If women ran everything, there wouldn’t be all this… SICKNESS everywhere, and cruelty. Real Men ought to be locked up in cages as dangerous animals or thrown in trash compactors and buried in landfills with the rest of the garbage. The only problem is that then they couldn’t do the kinds of bad things they did that caused us “superior women” to get rid of them in the first place. “Like to talk to” and “desire sexually” are complex conjugates, like position and momentum, or frequency and total energy: the more you know of one, the less you have of the other. So how it is possible to be both at the same time? IT ISN’T. Guys need to learn to release their death grip on the part of their mind that wants to have brutal sex with women. That IS possible. I hope.
I don’t know about nice guys being so awful. I was the “nice girl.” Loved the boy, hoped friendship would develop into something more, wasn’t the kind of sexpot who could pick up a random guy at a party, didn’t (and still don’t) want sex without personal attachment or, yes, friendship. I got lucky: we’re now in a relationship, though I had to wait for it for two years. The fact is, not all of us — male or female — are all that into dating. It can be superficial. I might want to get to know you by talking about mutual interests, or doing things together, and I might want you to get to know me in my “off hours” when I’m not playing at being an object of desire. I might want that casual warmth that comes with being your friend as well as your girlfriend. And maybe I’m just shy. None of that is so terrible, I think.
The problem with the Nice Guy, and a good clue that he is indeed a Nice Guy and not a nice guy, is that he is going through the motions that work on women to get what he wants from women. If he actually cares enough about you to know that you have other things you want more than diamonds, chocolate, roses and teddy bears, he may even know enough about you to know that what you want from a sex partner is not him. Note, motions that work ON WOMEN. Not so much things that you as a person like, but things that all women like. He gets annoyed that he downloaded the cheat sheet to women, and pressing left up right up up square down down triangle didn’t unlock the secret pussy level. It’s got nothing to do with what she wants, it’s about what he does to get her to do what he wants, and he’s not stopping to ask if there’s a word for a woman having sex she doesn’t want to. This is part of why it’s a feminist issue, because the woman in question isn’t treated as an individual person with individual wants, interests or lusts, but as one more example of womanhood, that mysterious other, and women are all the same. He thinks he knows more about what women want than women do. When the women don’t match his beliefs, he doesn’t change his beliefs, he sets out to change the women, and right there, that is the moment of difference between a nice guy and a Nice Guy. The nice guy is the one with his ears open listening to you, the Nice Guy is the one with his mouth open telling you that you need to listen to him.