Discussion:
"Why Good Girls Always Want the Bad Boys"
(too old to reply)
Pumpkinhead
2004-07-21 13:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Have a read of this cowshit.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/love/content.jsp?file=love/fun/badboys.jsp

"All of human history - and thus, our genetic programming -- rewards those
brave enough to take risks. The cowardly caveman died in his lonely cavern,
while the brave one ventured out and survived."

Or got killed.

"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by the
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."

o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.

"Women love to play relationship therapist (just listen in on a conversation
with our girlfriends if you need proof). In order to achieve this, we need
to find a jerk to lie down on our couch. We love the idea of being the woman
who solves this mysterious man's problems and turns him into our own Prince
Charming."

This can explain why women don't like me. I don't have any problems!

The following paragraph seems true though.

"With bad boys, we know what to expect. We'll try to change them, it won't
work, and we'll be left heartbroken. But, it will be entirely not our fault.
Whereas if we date Mr. Nice Guy and doesn't work out, we're going to have to
take some ownership of the failure. Some women are just more comfortable
playing the victim."

Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for their
bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
Darkfalz
2004-07-21 13:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
"With bad boys, we know what to expect. We'll try to change them, it won't
work, and we'll be left heartbroken. But, it will be entirely not our fault.
Whereas if we date Mr. Nice Guy and doesn't work out, we're going to have to
take some ownership of the failure. Some women are just more comfortable
playing the victim."
Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for their
bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
She did, but with no indication she thinks theres anything WRONG with it.

Women want to have their cake and eat it too. They think they have have the
right to go for a good looking womaniser and still have him be faithful and
treat her right. They know he WON'T, but that's not the point. They feel
enTITled to it. This is why it's still HIS fault and not hers when he does
exactly what she knew he would do all along.

Cunts.
helen~
2004-08-08 20:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darkfalz
Women want to have their cake
pie ... i like pie better
Post by Darkfalz
Cunts.
cocks...

h
ci+
2004-08-10 09:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by helen~
Post by Darkfalz
Women want to have their cake
pie ... i like pie better
Post by Darkfalz
Cunts.
cocks...
h
ooohh. you may be ready to use instructions to get to my doorstep... :>
--
A Gollum wearing a (precious) cock-Ring is a terrible sight to behold.
Batroc Z Leaper
2004-07-21 14:17:17 UTC
Permalink
In article <OCuLc.438$***@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, pumpkin_head060877
@hotmail.com (Pumpkinhead) says...
Post by Pumpkinhead
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by the
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
Evolution doesn't care if you survive, only if you reproduce. We all
die anyway. The easiest way to survive is to lead a boring life, but
you won't get much poon that way.
Pumpkinhead
2004-07-21 15:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
@hotmail.com (Pumpkinhead) says...
Post by Pumpkinhead
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by the
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
Evolution doesn't care if you survive, only if you reproduce. We all
die anyway. The easiest way to survive is to lead a boring life, but
you won't get much poon that way.
Why do we have the expression "Survival of the fittest." and not
"Reproduction of the fittest."? Someone with a higher chance of survival is
obviously going to have a higher chance of reproduction. The most
significant event that can prevent reproduction, after all, is death.
Sklenge
2004-07-21 15:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
@hotmail.com (Pumpkinhead) says...
Post by Pumpkinhead
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by
the
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Post by Pumpkinhead
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
Evolution doesn't care if you survive, only if you reproduce. We all
die anyway. The easiest way to survive is to lead a boring life, but
you won't get much poon that way.
Why do we have the expression "Survival of the fittest." and not
"Reproduction of the fittest."? Someone with a higher chance of survival is
obviously going to have a higher chance of reproduction. The most
significant event that can prevent reproduction, after all, is death.
Not any more though with women harvesting sperm from their dead husbands
nowadays. I think we all moved on from the caves some time ago.
Pumpkinhead
2004-07-21 18:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sklenge
Post by Pumpkinhead
Why do we have the expression "Survival of the fittest." and not
"Reproduction of the fittest."? Someone with a higher chance of survival is
obviously going to have a higher chance of reproduction. The most
significant event that can prevent reproduction, after all, is death.
Not any more though with women harvesting sperm from their dead husbands
nowadays. I think we all moved on from the caves some time ago.
It's more like "survival of the most attractive" these days.
ci+
2004-07-24 04:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Sklenge
Post by Pumpkinhead
Why do we have the expression "Survival of the fittest." and not
"Reproduction of the fittest."? Someone with a higher chance of
survival is
Post by Sklenge
Post by Pumpkinhead
obviously going to have a higher chance of reproduction. The most
significant event that can prevent reproduction, after all, is death.
survival fo the fastest
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Sklenge
Not any more though with women harvesting sperm from their dead husbands
nowadays. I think we all moved on from the caves some time ago.
probably leading to a very low % of births
Post by Pumpkinhead
It's more like "survival of the most attractive" these days.
--
Inure yourself to my loppily eidted posts or goo vuvk yu,self
Bob
2004-07-21 15:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
@hotmail.com (Pumpkinhead) says...
Post by Pumpkinhead
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by
the
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Post by Pumpkinhead
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
Evolution doesn't care if you survive, only if you reproduce. We all
die anyway. The easiest way to survive is to lead a boring life, but
you won't get much poon that way.
Why do we have the expression "Survival of the fittest." and not
"Reproduction of the fittest."? Someone with a higher chance of survival is
obviously going to have a higher chance of reproduction. The most
significant event that can prevent reproduction, after all, is death.
Not only do you have to survive long enough to reproduce, but for
evolution, your children also have to survive.

Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
mickey
2004-07-21 16:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
@hotmail.com (Pumpkinhead) says...
Post by Pumpkinhead
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by
the
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Post by Pumpkinhead
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
Evolution doesn't care if you survive, only if you reproduce. We all
die anyway. The easiest way to survive is to lead a boring life, but
you won't get much poon that way.
Why do we have the expression "Survival of the fittest." and not
"Reproduction of the fittest."? Someone with a higher chance of survival is
obviously going to have a higher chance of reproduction. The most
significant event that can prevent reproduction, after all, is death.
"survival of the fittest" is a tautology when it comes to evolution. If
it survives, it is fit. And there is nothing "obvious" about the second
part. Plenty of people die in the 40s leaving behind a bunch of kids
while there are those who live to 90 without any. You seem to just like
extracting the most comfortable meaning from all the data given.

-M
Ivan Marsh
2004-07-21 17:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
@hotmail.com (Pumpkinhead) says...
Post by Pumpkinhead
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by
the
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Post by Pumpkinhead
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about
taking risks.
Evolution doesn't care if you survive, only if you reproduce. We all
die anyway. The easiest way to survive is to lead a boring life, but
you won't get much poon that way.
Why do we have the expression "Survival of the fittest." and not
"Reproduction of the fittest."? Someone with a higher chance of
survival is obviously going to have a higher chance of reproduction.
The most significant event that can prevent reproduction, after all, is
death.
"survival of the fittest" is a tautology when it comes to evolution. If it
survives, it is fit. And there is nothing "obvious" about the second part.
Plenty of people die in the 40s leaving behind a bunch of kids while there
are those who live to 90 without any. You seem to just like extracting the
most comfortable meaning from all the data given.
"Survival of the fittest" refers to a species, not an individual when
you're talking about evolution.
--
i.m.
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
The Babaloughesian
2004-07-21 20:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
@hotmail.com (Pumpkinhead) says...
Post by Pumpkinhead
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by
the
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Post by Pumpkinhead
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
Evolution doesn't care if you survive, only if you reproduce. We all
die anyway. The easiest way to survive is to lead a boring life, but
you won't get much poon that way.
Why do we have the expression "Survival of the fittest." and not
"Reproduction of the fittest."?
It would be redundant to say "reproduction of the fittest", because in
biology, the definition of the word "fitness" has a lot to do with
reproduction. Look it up on some page about evolution (one with .edu in the
URL, not some fucking article on Netscape spewing hyper-simplistic
soundbites. I don't know what sort of idiot would expect to learn something
substantial about biology from an article in Netscape Love & Personals.)
Post by Pumpkinhead
Someone with a higher chance of survival is
obviously going to have a higher chance of reproduction.
While it is true that death prevents reproduction, survival is not enough to
guarantee reproduction. You need to have more going for you than simply
being alive in order to get laid. For example, you need to be willing to
risk rejection. Avoiding things that could kill you is worthless if it
means you spend your life as a shut in and select yourself out of the gene
pool.
Post by Pumpkinhead
The most
significant event that can prevent reproduction, after all, is death.
No, death is just the most final. The most significant event that can
prevent reproduction is being born without/failing to develop any traits
that are attractive to potential mates. This is more significant because it
prevents any reproduction at all, whereas it is possible for somebody to
reproduce and then get themselves killed later, perhaps leaving some "nice
guy" to raise his kids for him.
Eerieness of the Short-Distance Rodent
2004-07-21 14:59:07 UTC
Permalink
"Pumpkinhead" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in news:OCuLc.438$***@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net:

*snipping out a bunch of stuff I didn't read*
Post by Pumpkinhead
Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for
their bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
Maybe people who blame others for their problems are happier.
--
"You meet an old lesbian and suddenly it's all sorcery and witchcraft."
(Kiss Me, Kill Me.)
Byzantine
2004-07-21 21:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eerieness of the Short-Distance Rodent
*snipping out a bunch of stuff I didn't read*
Post by Pumpkinhead
Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for
their bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
Maybe people who blame others for their problems are happier.
Actually the term "Survival of the fittest" was coined by an economist
and not Darwin as most people think and he was talking about why some
people are poor and some rich, though it does apply to the notion of
risk takers it probably applies more to intellect than physical
prowess.

I actually disagree with the notion that women want bad boys, I think
some women want bad boys some women want nerds and some women want
stable guys. Mostly though I think women want good looking men no
matter what personality type they are into.

The fact that many women are control freaks and brow beaters would
mean that they wouldn't want a "bad boy" as they could not control him
and that would just piss them off.

A good girl probably wants a good guy, a rebel probably wants a rebel
and control freak wants a slave.

Men however like a nice selection of women (all well built of course)
because variety is the spice of life.
Bernd Jendrissek
2004-07-22 05:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byzantine
Post by Eerieness of the Short-Distance Rodent
Post by Pumpkinhead
Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for
their bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
Maybe people who blame others for their problems are happier.
[...]
Post by Byzantine
I actually disagree with the notion that women want bad boys,
I actually disagree with the notion of gravity.
Post by Byzantine
I think some women want bad boys some women want nerds and some women
want stable guys. Mostly though I think women want good looking men no
matter what personality type they are into.
You're confusing "want" (a cognitive state) with "are attracted to" (a
state of the limbic system).

It takes huge mental effort to override what your limbic system says, to
reprogram it, to browbeat it into making you wet/hard for that nice guy
or the ugly girl.
Post by Byzantine
The fact that many women are control freaks and brow beaters would
mean that they wouldn't want a "bad boy" as they could not control him
and that would just piss them off.
They don't "want" a bad boy, just like you don't "want" a mansion. Just
think of all that grass to cut every weekend!

Bad boys still make control freak women wet, and you'll still happily
take those keys to the mansion.
Post by Byzantine
Men however like a nice selection of women (all well built of course)
because variety is the spice of life.
You claim that women are all different, and yet you universalize what
men want? (You're applying one meaning of "want" to women, and another
to men.)

- --
"IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." - unknown
GoddessBaybee
2004-07-22 21:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
It takes huge mental effort to override what your limbic system says, to
reprogram it, to browbeat it into making you wet/hard for that
nice guy or the ugly girl.
um.....you seem to be confusing 'nice' with 'ugly'.
what's up with that?

It is sadly true that nice can't always make up for ugly.
But it aint all hopeless cuz nice does seem to go along way with some people.

A nice guy aint at a disadvantage.
An ugly guy is.
A shy guy is.

A good looking, outgoing, confident guy who also happens to be nice will find
tons of women who are hot for him.
An ugly, shy guy who happens to be nice will have more trouble, but it aint
exactly hopeless.

Hopeless is an ugly, shy guy who aint even nice.


Baybee
The Babaloughesian
2004-07-22 22:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by GoddessBaybee
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
It takes huge mental effort to override what your limbic system says, to
reprogram it, to browbeat it into making you wet/hard for that
nice guy or the ugly girl.
um.....you seem to be confusing 'nice' with 'ugly'.
what's up with that?
Nice means sexually undesirable.
Nice means sexually undesirable.
Nice means sexually undesirable.
Nice means sexually undesirable.
Nice means sexually undesirable.
Nice means sexually undesirable.
Nice means sexually undesirable.
Nice means sexually undesirable.
Nice means sexually undesirable.
Nice means sexually undesirable.
Nice means sexually undesirable.
Post by GoddessBaybee
It is sadly true that nice can't always make up for ugly.
But it aint all hopeless cuz nice does seem to go along way with some people.
A nice guy aint at a disadvantage.
An ugly guy is.
A shy guy is.
A good looking, outgoing, confident guy who also happens to be nice will find
tons of women who are hot for him.
An ugly, shy guy who happens to be nice will have more trouble, but it aint
exactly hopeless.
Hopeless is an ugly, shy guy who aint even nice.
Baybee
The Babaloughesian
2004-07-22 22:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by GoddessBaybee
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
It takes huge mental effort to override what your limbic system says, to
reprogram it, to browbeat it into making you wet/hard for that
nice guy or the ugly girl.
um.....you seem to be confusing 'nice' with 'ugly'.
what's up with that?
They are analogous.
Post by GoddessBaybee
It is sadly true that nice can't always make up for ugly.
But it aint all hopeless cuz nice does seem to go along way with some people.
Have you ever been sexually attracted to someone specifically because he was
nice?
Post by GoddessBaybee
A nice guy aint at a disadvantage.
An ugly guy is.
A shy guy is.
A good looking, outgoing, confident guy who also happens to be nice
is by definition not a "nice guy". A "nice guy" is a very specific
personality type, not somebody who has various other characteristics and
"also happens to be nice".
Post by GoddessBaybee
will find
tons of women who are hot for him.
An ugly, shy guy who happens to be nice will have more trouble, but it aint
exactly hopeless.
Hopeless is an ugly, shy guy who aint even nice.
Baybee
Pumpkinhead
2004-07-23 00:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by GoddessBaybee
A good looking, outgoing, confident guy who also happens to be nice
is by definition not a "nice guy". A "nice guy" is a very specific
personality type, not somebody who has various other characteristics and
"also happens to be nice".
I don't use the term "nice guy" to describe the specific type of man you
mentioned. It doesn't seem appropriate. I'm not even sure what a "nice
guy" is.

But I do think of myself as being relatively nice and I'm also a guy.
ske
2004-07-23 07:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
says...
Post by GoddessBaybee
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
It takes huge mental effort to override what your limbic system says, to
reprogram it, to browbeat it into making you wet/hard for that
nice guy or the ugly girl.
um.....you seem to be confusing 'nice' with 'ugly'.
what's up with that?
They are analogous.
Rubbish!

Ugly does not imply nice.
Nice does not imply ugly.
Attractive does not imply not nice.

It is your perception that "nice guys" are ugly and that attractive guys
are "not nice".
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Post by GoddessBaybee
It is sadly true that nice can't always make up for ugly.
But it aint all hopeless cuz nice does seem to go along way with some
people.
Have you ever been sexually attracted to someone specifically because he was
nice?
There is more to attraction than lust resulting from physical beauty.

If you are with a person simply because they are physically attractive
it is rather unlikely the relationship will be emotionally fulfilling or
even successful for any period of time.

There is a lot more to life and relationships than sex.
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Post by GoddessBaybee
A nice guy aint at a disadvantage.
An ugly guy is.
A shy guy is.
A good looking, outgoing, confident guy who also happens to be nice
is by definition not a "nice guy". A "nice guy" is a very specific
personality type, not somebody who has various other characteristics and
"also happens to be nice".
A "nice guy" is nice regardless of other characteristics. There is no
differentiation between a guy that "happens to be nice" and a "nice
guy", they are one and the same thing. "Nice guy" is a convenient label
used by a certain type of guy complaining about not having a girlfriend
because of being "too nice".

When will "nice guy"s realise that they are using their "niceness" as an
excuse rather than a reason?

.ske
The Babaloughesian
2004-07-23 18:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ske
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
says...
Post by GoddessBaybee
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
It takes huge mental effort to override what your limbic system says, to
reprogram it, to browbeat it into making you wet/hard for that
nice guy or the ugly girl.
um.....you seem to be confusing 'nice' with 'ugly'.
what's up with that?
They are analogous.
Rubbish!
Ugly does not imply nice.
Of course. I agree.
Post by ske
Nice does not imply ugly.
Of course. I agree.
Post by ske
Attractive does not imply not nice.
Of course. I agree.
Post by ske
It is your perception that "nice guys" are ugly and that attractive guys
are "not nice".
Nope. A "nice guy" might be good looking and an attractive guy might also
happen to be nice. As far as I'm concerned, there is no correlation between
appearance and whether one is nice. But the attractive guy that just
happens to also be nice does not have the personality disorder that is "nice
guy" syndrome. This particular misinterpretation of yours is based entirely
upon your refusal to accept that when I say "nice guy" I really do mean
something entirely different than "a guy who happens to be nice". I would
appreciate it if you read through this message, for within it I shall define
what I mean when I use the term "nice guy" and where the term comes from.
Hopefully you shall then understand what I'm saying, and cease lying and
creating strawmen.
Post by ske
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Post by GoddessBaybee
It is sadly true that nice can't always make up for ugly.
But it aint all hopeless cuz nice does seem to go along way with some
people.
Have you ever been sexually attracted to someone specifically because he was
nice?
There is more to attraction than lust resulting from physical beauty.
Of course. This is a strawman.
Post by ske
If you are with a person simply because they are physically attractive
it is rather unlikely the relationship will be emotionally fulfilling or
even successful for any period of time.
Yes. Another strawman, though.
Post by ske
There is a lot more to life and relationships than sex.
Of course. But what I'm commenting on are variables which affect the
facilitation of a (non-platonic) relationship in the first place. I'm
talking about things which come into play at particular steps in a process.
There is a loose flow chart, with variables that have to be there at various
stages or else there is no relationship in the first place, much less an
emotionally satisfying, long lasting one. Some of these variables/stages
are as follows:

Stage 1) the two people have to meet in the first place. i.e. one has to
notice the other and approach them. The other one must not be frightened
away or repulsed. This, for my purposes, is a sufficient description of
"physical attraction." Physical attraction is merely a gateway to further
interaction, not a basis of ongoing interactions. As you've noted, physical
attraction ALONE does not guarantee a successful or emotionally fulfilling
relationship. It doesn't even guarantee that more than a few words are
exchanged.

Ongoing interactions (stage 2) bring other variables into play- quality of
conversation, shared interests, whether the other person is interesting or
not, "fun", etc. These could be summed up as "how each person makes the
other feel". All well and good, but at this point the interactions are
still platonic.

Hence it is an unavoidable fact that for such interactions to cross the
barrier from friendly to flirtatious (or from the beginnings/middlings of a
friendship to the beginnings of a relationship) (stage 3), there must at
SOME point occur sexual attraction, AKA lust. To clarify, if the couple is
at the point where they are so much as kissing, I'm calling that sexual
attraction, because it's basically the same fucking chemicals/emotional
processes as those involved in fucking. It isn't necessary that there be
actual sex (yet) for it to be a "relationship" under my definition, but
there do need to be feelings of the sort associated with the chemical
reactions that constitute sexual attraction.

So the reason that "nice guys" and ugly girls are analogous is that both
have trouble making it through all 3 stages and therefore have lower chances
of getting into a relationship. For an ugly girl, stages 1 and 3 are
probably barriers. A "nice guy" might have trouble staying in stage 2
without boring the other person, but what's more likely is that he'll have
trouble getting to stage 3 because the fact that there's more to attraction
than lust resulting from physical beauty is more true for women than for
men. What I mean there is that a guy is liable to feel lust at first sight,
while as I understand it, a woman might only feel it after interacting with
the guy for awhile (i.e. during stage 2). So, because "nice guy" syndrome
is basically a sort of personality disorder, it will come into play during
stage 2, blocking his access to stage 3.
Post by ske
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Post by GoddessBaybee
A nice guy aint at a disadvantage.
An ugly guy is.
A shy guy is.
A good looking, outgoing, confident guy who also happens to be nice
is by definition not a "nice guy". A "nice guy" is a very specific
personality type, not somebody who has various other characteristics and
"also happens to be nice".
A "nice guy" is nice regardless of other characteristics. There is no
differentiation between a guy that "happens to be nice" and a "nice
guy", they are one and the same thing.
Your apparent ignorance of what I mean when I use the term "nice guy" serves
only to hinder communication. Whether this ignorance is willful or
accidental I have no idea, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt,
assume the latter, and attempt to explain it. This isn't a term I just made
up on the spot, you see. The term has very real meaning to many of us, and
if you are to post on a.s.s. (even in a cross-post) and use the term "nice",
you should know it, or else you will inevitably find yourself in discussions
which will serve only to confuse and anger you.

The reason for the quotation marks around the phrase "nice guy" (I know
Bernd didn't use quotation marks, but given the context, I'm pretty sure he
was using the phrase in the same manner as "nice guy") is precisely because
there IS a differentiation between a "nice guy" and a nice guy (i.e. a guy
who happens to be nice). A "nice guy" is polite, inoffensive, and kind, but
he also has low self esteem and various related problems. Whenever somebody
defines this, the first female to read it automatically says "that's not a
nice guy" and doesn't understand why the term "nice" is used by such people.

The reason "nice guys" call themselves "nice guys" is that they first
learned the term FROM OTHER PEOPLE. Parents, particularly mothers,
predominantly, but also various other childhood authority figures. Because
childhood authority figures generally value obedience, politeness, and
inoffensiveness in a child, they praise these BEHAVIORS as "niceness",
failing to realize that some of the children they praise do not have the
INTERNAL STATE that one would necessarily call "nice" or even "healthy".
They do not have a healthy level of confidence, for example. They have
insecurity. But because an insecure child and a confident child can both
BEHAVE in a manner adults see as "nice", parents rarely if ever notice when
they are raising "nice guys" as opposed to guys who happen to be nice. So
these guys grow up thinking that they are "nice" because that is what they
have been told, and because "nice guys" tend to be unquestioning sheep, they
believe this lie that they have been told just like people often
unquestioningly accept their parents' political/religious beliefs.

Have you ever heard of a guy being rejected with the phrase "You're a nice
guy, but..."? Things which would follow the "but..." if not for the
rejector's desire to avoid hurting the guy's feelings include "...you're too
clingy", "...you have no spine", "...you're socially inept", "...you're
boring". This is the sort of person I and many others refer to when using
the term "nice guy". Again, the term is used because it was others who told
them that they are "nice" and they internalized the label. "nice" became a
central feature of these "nice guys"' self image. Hence the usage of the
term "nice guy".
Post by ske
"Nice guy" is a convenient label used by a certain type of guy complaining
about not having a girlfriend
Post by ske
because of being "too nice".
Yes, it is very convenient because it is more efficient than saying
"insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, dull, needy guy with low self
esteem who overidealizes women, has a pathologically excessive need for
approval and an obsession with saving face, is dishonest, etc.". There are
probably a number of other adjectives I could put in there too, but I can't
recall all of them at once. As you sit there in front of your computer
reading through this list, getting an idea of the specific "type" of guy
that I'm talking about and perhaps coming up with a few other descriptors of
your own that would fit his type, perhaps you'll begin to realize the
utility of using such a concise phrase, as long as everybody using it knows
what it means. I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
unofficial personality disorder. The term is rich with meaning to those of
us familiar with it, much like terms such as "sociopath" or "narcissist"
would be rich with meaning to those familiar with the concepts these words
represent.
Post by ske
When will "nice guy"s realise that they are using their "niceness" as an
excuse rather than a reason?
The day when everyone stops LYING to them by telling them that they're
"nice" when what they really mean is "unassertive", "obedient",
"unexciting", "dependent", "inoffensive", "servile", "nice (but lacking any
other positive traits at all)", "needy", "too nice". IOW, never, for many
"nice guys" have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into believing that they
really are "nice" that getting them to stop being "nice" and start being
nice is like deprogramming a cult member, except that people actually try to
deprogram cult members, but rarely does anybody try to deprogram nice guys.
Instead, they make fun of them and demonize them and try to make them feel
bad for not having deprogrammed themselves.

I'm going to make a prediction now-- if you bothered to tread through the
above post, some or all of it made sense to you on a logical level, but you
still don't *like* the idea of using the word "nice" to refer to something
"bad". To this my only response would be sorry, but that's just how it is.
That's how the term is frequently used on a.s.s. (and maybe on soc.men,
though I don't read it regularly enough to know for sure) and your desire
that people use the word to mean something else isn't going to affect the
way it is actually used. It's just going to make it more difficult for
*you* to communicate with others. Common usage bows to no individual.*
--
*a lot like a little potato man
GoddessBaybee
2004-07-28 03:38:23 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@uni-berlin.de>, The Babaloughesian says...

<snippage throughout>
Post by The Babaloughesian
Nope. A "nice guy" might be good looking and an attractive guy might also
happen to be nice. As far as I'm concerned, there is no correlation between
appearance and whether one is nice. But the attractive guy that just
happens to also be nice does not have the personality disorder that is "nice
guy" syndrome. This particular misinterpretation of yours is based entirely
upon your refusal to accept that when I say "nice guy" I really do mean
something entirely different than "a guy who happens to be nice". I would
appreciate it if you read through this message, for within it I shall define
what I mean when I use the term "nice guy" and where the term comes from.
Of course. But what I'm commenting on are variables which affect the
facilitation of a (non-platonic) relationship in the first place. I'm
talking about things which come into play at particular steps in a process.
There is a loose flow chart, with variables that have to be there at various
stages or else there is no relationship in the first place, much less an
emotionally satisfying, long lasting one. Some of these variables/stages
Stage 1) the two people have to meet in the first place. i.e. one has to
notice the other and approach them. The other one must not be frightened
away or repulsed. This, for my purposes, is a sufficient description of
"physical attraction." Physical attraction is merely a gateway to further
interaction, not a basis of ongoing interactions. As you've noted, physical
attraction ALONE does not guarantee a successful or emotionally fulfilling
relationship. It doesn't even guarantee that more than a few words are
exchanged.
Ongoing interactions (stage 2) bring other variables into play- quality of
conversation, shared interests, whether the other person is interesting or
not, "fun", etc. These could be summed up as "how each person makes the
other feel". All well and good, but at this point the interactions are
still platonic.
Hence it is an unavoidable fact that for such interactions to cross the
barrier from friendly to flirtatious (or from the beginnings/middlings of a
friendship to the beginnings of a relationship) (stage 3), there must at
SOME point occur sexual attraction, AKA lust. To clarify, if the couple is
at the point where they are so much as kissing, I'm calling that sexual
attraction, because it's basically the same fucking chemicals/emotional
processes as those involved in fucking. It isn't necessary that there be
actual sex (yet) for it to be a "relationship" under my definition, but
there do need to be feelings of the sort associated with the chemical
reactions that constitute sexual attraction.
So the reason that "nice guys" and ugly girls are analogous is that both
have trouble making it through all 3 stages and therefore have lower chances
of getting into a relationship. For an ugly girl, stages 1 and 3 are
probably barriers. A "nice guy" might have trouble staying in stage 2
without boring the other person, but what's more likely is that he'll have
trouble getting to stage 3 because the fact that there's more to attraction
than lust resulting from physical beauty is more true for women than for
men. What I mean there is that a guy is liable to feel lust at first sight,
while as I understand it, a woman might only feel it after interacting with
the guy for awhile (i.e. during stage 2). So, because "nice guy" syndrome
is basically a sort of personality disorder, it will come into play during
stage 2, blocking his access to stage 3.
Your apparent ignorance of what I mean when I use the term "nice guy" serves
only to hinder communication. Whether this ignorance is willful or
accidental I have no idea, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt,
assume the latter, and attempt to explain it. This isn't a term I just made
up on the spot, you see. The term has very real meaning to many of us, and
if you are to post on a.s.s. (even in a cross-post) and use the term "nice",
you should know it, or else you will inevitably find yourself in discussions
which will serve only to confuse and anger you.
The reason for the quotation marks around the phrase "nice guy" (I know
Bernd didn't use quotation marks, but given the context, I'm pretty sure he
was using the phrase in the same manner as "nice guy") is precisely because
there IS a differentiation between a "nice guy" and a nice guy (i.e. a guy
who happens to be nice). A "nice guy" is polite, inoffensive, and kind, but
he also has low self esteem and various related problems. Whenever somebody
defines this, the first female to read it automatically says "that's not a
nice guy" and doesn't understand why the term "nice" is used by such people.
The reason "nice guys" call themselves "nice guys" is that they first
learned the term FROM OTHER PEOPLE. Parents, particularly mothers,
predominantly, but also various other childhood authority figures. Because
childhood authority figures generally value obedience, politeness, and
inoffensiveness in a child, they praise these BEHAVIORS as "niceness",
failing to realize that some of the children they praise do not have the
INTERNAL STATE that one would necessarily call "nice" or even "healthy".
They do not have a healthy level of confidence, for example. They have
insecurity. But because an insecure child and a confident child can both
BEHAVE in a manner adults see as "nice", parents rarely if ever notice when
they are raising "nice guys" as opposed to guys who happen to be nice. So
these guys grow up thinking that they are "nice" because that is what they
have been told, and because "nice guys" tend to be unquestioning sheep, they
believe this lie that they have been told just like people often
unquestioningly accept their parents' political/religious beliefs.
Have you ever heard of a guy being rejected with the phrase "You're a nice
guy, but..."? Things which would follow the "but..." if not for the
rejector's desire to avoid hurting the guy's feelings include "...you're too
clingy", "...you have no spine", "...you're socially inept", "...you're
boring". This is the sort of person I and many others refer to when using
the term "nice guy". Again, the term is used because it was others who told
them that they are "nice" and they internalized the label. "nice" became a
central feature of these "nice guys"' self image. Hence the usage of the
term "nice guy".
it is very convenient because it is more efficient than saying
"insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, dull, needy guy with low self
esteem who overidealizes women, has a pathologically excessive need for
approval and an obsession with saving face, is dishonest, etc.". There are
probably a number of other adjectives I could put in there too, but I can't
recall all of them at once. As you sit there in front of your computer
reading through this list, getting an idea of the specific "type" of guy
that I'm talking about and perhaps coming up with a few other descriptors of
your own that would fit his type, perhaps you'll begin to realize the
utility of using such a concise phrase, as long as everybody using it knows
what it means. I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
unofficial personality disorder.
There's a problem with using the term "nice guy" to describe the sort of
personality disorder that you have detailed above.

When a guy gets rejected because of the above described personality disorder he
is getting rejected for negative traits. Negative traits that need to be
identified and worked on if the guy wants to improve his chances romantically.

He is not getting rejected for a positive trait (niceness)
When a guy tells himself he's getting rejected cuz he's a "nice guy", it puts a
positive spin on his negative traits. The problem with this is he might be able
to delude himself into thinking he is getting rejected for his positive trait
(niceness), instead of his negative traits that make up the personality disorder
that you described.

If he deludes himself into thinking women (as a group) really do view niceness
as a bad thing, he's more likely to come to the net-loony conclusion that women
are evil, worthless, cunts!

Voluminous online ranting typically then occurs, and the poor angry schmuck
doesn't even bother to look for (and try to fix) his real problem (which aint
niceness).

Either that, or he could fall prey to a net guru selling misogynistic seduction
scams for big money. Such scams might even help him a little tiny bit in a
placebo effect kinda way.... if they manage to improve his confidence,
but in the end they'll probably just fill his head with tons of mis-information.

I think it's better to focus on the real deal.
Here it is in a nutshell:

Sure girls date good looking, confident, assholes.
It happens all the time!
It's the good looking and the confident part that draws 'em in.
Usually if a girl has any self-esteem at all she'll drop him once the
asshole part becomes apparent... probably in search of a good looking,
confident, nice guy.

Unattractive, nice guys, with no confidence dont get a lot
of dates. like duh.
It's the unattractivenesses and the lack of confidence that is holding them
back. The niceness part is a plus, and the niceness part will help 'em maintain
a relationship if they ever manage to get one.
To get one they need to work on the bad stuff (like unattractivenesses and lack
of confidence) to the point where they can actually get in the game and get some
dates.


Baybee
offshore eddie
2004-07-28 08:34:49 UTC
Permalink
<snipped>
Post by The Babaloughesian
The reason for the quotation marks around the phrase "nice guy" (I know
Bernd didn't use quotation marks, but given the context, I'm pretty sure he
was using the phrase in the same manner as "nice guy") is precisely because
there IS a differentiation between a "nice guy" and a nice guy (i.e. a guy
who happens to be nice). A "nice guy" is polite, inoffensive, and kind, but
he also has low self esteem and various related problems. Whenever somebody
defines this, the first female to read it automatically says "that's not a
nice guy" and doesn't understand why the term "nice" is used by such people.
The reason "nice guys" call themselves "nice guys" is that they first
learned the term FROM OTHER PEOPLE. Parents, particularly mothers,
predominantly, but also various other childhood authority figures.
Because
Post by The Babaloughesian
childhood authority figures generally value obedience, politeness, and
inoffensiveness in a child, they praise these BEHAVIORS as "niceness",
failing to realize that some of the children they praise do not have the
INTERNAL STATE that one would necessarily call "nice" or even "healthy".
They do not have a healthy level of confidence, for example. They have
insecurity. But because an insecure child and a confident child can both
BEHAVE in a manner adults see as "nice", parents rarely if ever notice when
they are raising "nice guys" as opposed to guys who happen to be nice.
So
Post by The Babaloughesian
these guys grow up thinking that they are "nice" because that is what they
have been told, and because "nice guys" tend to be unquestioning sheep, they
believe this lie that they have been told just like people often
unquestioningly accept their parents' political/religious beliefs.
Have you ever heard of a guy being rejected with the phrase "You're a nice
guy, but..."? Things which would follow the "but..." if not for the
rejector's desire to avoid hurting the guy's feelings include "...you're too
clingy", "...you have no spine", "...you're socially inept", "...you're
boring". This is the sort of person I and many others refer to when using
the term "nice guy". Again, the term is used because it was others who told
them that they are "nice" and they internalized the label. "nice" became a
central feature of these "nice guys"' self image. Hence the usage of the
term "nice guy".
it is very convenient because it is more efficient than saying
"insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, dull, needy guy with low self
esteem who overidealizes women, has a pathologically excessive need for
approval and an obsession with saving face, is dishonest, etc.". There are
probably a number of other adjectives I could put in there too, but I can't
recall all of them at once.
I think the problem actually lies with women who obsessively focus on these
"faults" in men. Such women have a childish perception of men and love,
what I believe psychologists refer to as "ideal love," in contrast to
"realistic love." These women usually end up in therapy groups when they
hit their thirties, wondering why they're not married (or why they're
divorced). By that time the "dull guys with low self-esteem" that they
rejected have either found a mate or gone on with their lives.

It's really sad that you perpetuate this female nonsense, since it actually
represents a serious cognitive problem in women.

Contrast also this attitude from women with the feminist notion that
society/men impose the gender stereotype of aggressive, successful men.
Post by The Babaloughesian
As you sit there in front of your computer
reading through this list, getting an idea of the specific "type" of guy
that I'm talking about and perhaps coming up with a few other descriptors of
your own that would fit his type, perhaps you'll begin to realize the
utility of using such a concise phrase, as long as everybody using it knows
what it means. I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
unofficial personality disorder.
I see the type of attitude you express on the part of some women as a
cognitive impairment, one that has already been identified by the mental
health profession.
There's a problem with using the term "nice guy" to describe the sort of
personality disorder that you have detailed above.
When a guy gets rejected because of the above described personality disorder he
is getting rejected for negative traits. Negative traits that need to be
identified and worked on if the guy wants to improve his chances romantically.
That's awfully one-sided. You're leaving out the personality of the
rejector. Obviously, their values and personality determine their choices
as much or more than the personality of the rejectee.
He is not getting rejected for a positive trait (niceness)
When a guy tells himself he's getting rejected cuz he's a "nice guy", it puts a
positive spin on his negative traits. The problem with this is he might be able
to delude himself into thinking he is getting rejected for his positive trait
(niceness), instead of his negative traits that make up the personality disorder
that you described.
If he deludes himself into thinking women (as a group) really do view niceness
as a bad thing, he's more likely to come to the net-loony conclusion that women
are evil, worthless, cunts!
Or that a lot of women suffer from a cognitive problem, which, in fact, they
do. I know. I had to sit in therapy groups and listen to them whine about
not having an ideal mate (which usually led to them not having any mate).
Either accept imperfection in men or learn to like living alone. Nothing
wrong with either choice, but there is something wrong with nitpicking
potential suitors to death.
Voluminous online ranting typically then occurs, and the poor angry schmuck
doesn't even bother to look for (and try to fix) his real problem (which aint
niceness).
Sounds like his "real problem" is merely low social self-esteem. Small
potatoes when you look at women who obsess over trivial details in men and
other women, and end up driving themselves to anorexia or grotesque plastic
surgery. Get a grip, ladies.
Either that, or he could fall prey to a net guru selling misogynistic seduction
scams for big money. Such scams might even help him a little tiny bit in a
placebo effect kinda way.... if they manage to improve his confidence,
but in the end they'll probably just fill his head with tons of mis-information.
I think it's better to focus on the real deal.
Sure girls date good looking, confident, assholes.
It happens all the time!
It's the good looking and the confident part that draws 'em in.
Usually if a girl has any self-esteem at all she'll drop him once the
asshole part becomes apparent... probably in search of a good looking,
confident, nice guy.
Unattractive, nice guys, with no confidence dont get a lot
of dates. like duh.
It's the unattractivenesses and the lack of confidence that is holding them
back. The niceness part is a plus, and the niceness part will help 'em maintain
a relationship if they ever manage to get one.
To get one they need to work on the bad stuff (like unattractivenesses and lack
of confidence) to the point where they can actually get in the game and get some
dates.
Or seek out more reasonable women.
Baybee
GoddessBaybee
2004-07-31 20:38:01 UTC
Permalink
In article <JyJNc.958$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, offshore eddie
says...
Post by offshore eddie
<snippage>
Post by The Babaloughesian
The reason for the quotation marks around the phrase "nice guy" (I know
Bernd didn't use quotation marks, but given the context, I'm pretty sure
he was using the phrase in the same manner as "nice guy") is precisely
because there IS a differentiation between a "nice guy" and a nice guy
(i.e. a guy who happens to be nice). A "nice guy" is polite, inoffensive,
and kind, but he also has low self esteem and various related problems.
Whenever somebody defines this, the first female to read it automatically
says "that's not a nice guy" and doesn't understand why the term "nice" is
used by such people.
The reason "nice guys" call themselves "nice guys" is that they first
learned the term FROM OTHER PEOPLE. Parents, particularly mothers,
predominantly, but also various other childhood authority figures.
Because
childhood authority figures generally value obedience, politeness, and
inoffensiveness in a child, they praise these BEHAVIORS as "niceness",
failing to realize that some of the children they praise do not have the
INTERNAL STATE that one would necessarily call "nice" or even "healthy".
They do not have a healthy level of confidence, for example. They have
insecurity. But because an insecure child and a confident child can both
BEHAVE in a manner adults see as "nice", parents rarely if ever notice
when they are raising "nice guys" as opposed to guys who happen to be nice.
So these guys grow up thinking that they are "nice" because that is what
they have been told, and because "nice guys" tend to be unquestioning sheep,
they believe this lie that they have been told just like people often
unquestioningly accept their parents' political/religious beliefs.
Have you ever heard of a guy being rejected with the phrase "You're a
nice guy, but..."? Things which would follow the "but..." if not for the
rejector's desire to avoid hurting the guy's feelings include "...you're
too clingy", "...you have no spine", "...you're socially inept", "...you're
boring". This is the sort of person I and many others refer to when
using the term "nice guy". Again, the term is used because it was others
who told them that they are "nice" and they internalized the label. "nice"
became a central feature of these "nice guys"' self image. Hence the usage
of the term "nice guy".
it is very convenient because it is more efficient than saying
"insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, dull, needy guy with low self
esteem who overidealizes women, has a pathologically excessive need for
approval and an obsession with saving face, is dishonest, etc.". There
are probably a number of other adjectives I could put in there too, but I
can't recall all of them at once.
I think the problem actually lies with women who obsessively focus on these
"faults" in men. Such women have a childish perception of men and love,
what I believe psychologists refer to as "ideal love," in contrast to
"realistic love." These women usually end up in therapy groups when they
hit their thirties, wondering why they're not married (or why they're
divorced).
Yup, this is true, and many women (and men) have unreasonable expectations.
Avoiding women with fairy tale expectations of relationships is great advice for
normal everyday guys (the kind who can actually get some dates).

But on alt.support.shyneess the "nice guys" report that they can't get any
dates. I'm pretty sure niceness aint the real problem here.
That was the point of my earlier posting. It just aint healthy to delude
yourself into thinking niceness is your problem if your problem is really
something more along the lines of dorky appearance, shyness and lack of
confidence. Clearly Babaloughesian gets that niceness aint the real problem,
but I'm not convinced that the majority of the "nice guys" actually get it.
Post by offshore eddie
It's really sad that you perpetuate this female nonsense, since it actually
represents a serious cognitive problem in women.
Contrast also this attitude from women with the feminist notion that
society/men impose the gender stereotype of aggressive, successful men.
Post by The Babaloughesian
As you sit there in front of your computer
reading through this list, getting an idea of the specific "type" of guy
that I'm talking about and perhaps coming up with a few other descriptors
of your own that would fit his type, perhaps you'll begin to realize the
utility of using such a concise phrase, as long as everybody using it
knows what it means. I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
unofficial personality disorder.
I see the type of attitude you express on the part of some women as a
cognitive impairment, one that has already been identified by the mental
health profession.
wtf?

not dating a guy cuz you're not attracted to him or cuz he's insecure, passive,
indecisive, obsequious, and dull (Babaloughesian's definition of "nice guy
personality disorder") is not a cognitive impairment. This certainly has not
been identified as such by the mental health profession.
Post by offshore eddie
There's a problem with using the term "nice guy" to describe the sort of
personality disorder that you have detailed above.
When a guy gets rejected because of the above described personality
disorder he is getting rejected for negative traits. Negative traits that
need to be identified and worked on if the guy wants to improve his chances
romantically.
That's awfully one-sided. You're leaving out the personality of the
rejector. Obviously, their values and personality determine their choices
as much or more than the personality of the rejectee.
Okey, let's take the personality of the women into consideration.
I'm sure there might be a few women who have unusual personalities to the point
where they prefer a guy with "nice guy personality disorder" (which Babs defined
as insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, and dull). But most women just
don't like these traits much.
Therefore it's in the guy's best interest to work this out if he can.
Post by offshore eddie
He is not getting rejected for a positive trait (niceness)
When a guy tells himself he's getting rejected cuz he's a "nice guy", it
puts a positive spin on his negative traits. The problem with this is he
might be able to delude himself into thinking he is getting rejected for his
positive trait (niceness), instead of his negative traits that make up the
personality disorder that you described.
If he deludes himself into thinking women (as a group) really do view
niceness as a bad thing, he's more likely to come to the net-loony
conclusion that women are evil, worthless, cunts!
Or that a lot of women suffer from a cognitive problem, which, in fact, they
do. I know. I had to sit in therapy groups and listen to them whine about
not having an ideal mate (which usually led to them not having any mate).
huh?...why were you forced into therapy groups?
Post by offshore eddie
Either accept imperfection in men or learn to like living alone. Nothing
wrong with either choice, but there is something wrong with nitpicking
potential suitors to death.
Yup. But it aint nitpicking to prefer a guy with some confidence and who you
are at least somewhat physically attracted to. I think most of the "nice guys"
in question lack basic self-confidence and that they don't make the most of
thier physical appearance.

The problem with these guys certainly aint niceness.
Post by offshore eddie
Voluminous online ranting typically then occurs, and the poor angry
schmuck doesn't even bother to look for (and try to fix) his real problem
(which aint niceness).
Sounds like his "real problem" is merely low social self-esteem. Small
potatoes when you look at women who obsess over trivial details in men and
other women, and end up driving themselves to anorexia or grotesque plastic
surgery. Get a grip, ladies.
Women who are anorexic clearly don't have a grip. But we aint talking about
that subset of severely mentally troubled women. We're talking about regular
everyday women, who these guys interact with daily. A lot of guys on
alt.support.shyness claim to *never* get any dates at all. None of the regular
everyday women who they interact with will date 'em. I think this is probably
due to a combination of these guys not making the most of their physical
appearance and lack of confidence or that "nice guy personality disorder" that
was described above. If these guys delude themselves into thinking it's actual
niceness that's holding 'em back this won't help them.
Post by offshore eddie
Either that, or he could fall prey to a net guru selling misogynistic
seduction scams for big money. Such scams might even help him a little
tiny bit in a placebo effect kinda way.... if they manage to improve his
confidence, but in the end they'll probably just fill his head with tons of
mis-information.
I think it's better to focus on the real deal.
Sure girls date good looking, confident, assholes.
It happens all the time!
It's the good looking and the confident part that draws 'em in.
Usually if a girl has any self-esteem at all she'll drop him once the
asshole part becomes apparent... probably in search of a good looking,
confident, nice guy.
Unattractive, nice guys, with no confidence dont get a lot
of dates. like duh.
It's the unattractivenesses and the lack of confidence that is holding
them back. The niceness part is a plus, and the niceness part will help
'em maintain a relationship if they ever manage to get one.
To get one they need to work on the bad stuff (like unattractivenesses and
lack of confidence) to the point where they can actually get in the game and
get some dates.
Or seek out more reasonable women.
Again that's great advice for regular guys.
I agree, therapy group addicts who are waiting for Prince Charming to stroll in
and save 'em prolly aint great for any sort of relationship.
Guys should try to avoid 'em.

But these "nice guys" claim to chronically strike out with all women.
I think better advice for these guys would be to make the most of your physical
appearance and try to develop more self-confidence.

My advice to these guys is to forget about the latest net guru's claim that you
are doomed if you aint a jerk...that's crap. If you actually happen to truly be
truly nice (as opposed to being to shy to express the your inner crankiness)
then great. You are that much ahead of the game, when you actually start
getting dates.


Baybee
offshore eddie
2004-08-01 01:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
says...
<snipped>
I think the problem actually lies with women who obsessively focus on these
"faults" in men. Such women have a childish perception of men and love,
what I believe psychologists refer to as "ideal love," in contrast to
"realistic love." These women usually end up in therapy groups when they
hit their thirties, wondering why they're not married (or why they're
divorced).
Yup, this is true, and many women (and men) have unreasonable
expectations.
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Avoiding women with fairy tale expectations of relationships is great advice for
normal everyday guys (the kind who can actually get some dates).
But on alt.support.shyneess the "nice guys" report that they can't get any
dates. I'm pretty sure niceness aint the real problem here.
That was the point of my earlier posting. It just aint healthy to delude
yourself into thinking niceness is your problem if your problem is really
something more along the lines of dorky appearance, shyness and lack of
confidence. Clearly Babaloughesian gets that niceness aint the real problem,
but I'm not convinced that the majority of the "nice guys" actually get it.
That is probably true, but the "nice guys" also report that they don't think
these women are nice. Your line "your problem is really something more
along the lines of dorky appearance, shyness and lack of confidence"
indicates that they are correct.
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
It's really sad that you perpetuate this female nonsense, since it actually
represents a serious cognitive problem in women.
Contrast also this attitude from women with the feminist notion that
society/men impose the gender stereotype of aggressive, successful men.
Post by GoddessBaybee
Post by The Babaloughesian
As you sit there in front of your computer
reading through this list, getting an idea of the specific "type" of guy
that I'm talking about and perhaps coming up with a few other descriptors
of your own that would fit his type, perhaps you'll begin to realize the
utility of using such a concise phrase, as long as everybody using it
knows what it means. I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
unofficial personality disorder.
I see the type of attitude you express on the part of some women as a
cognitive impairment, one that has already been identified by the mental
health profession.
wtf?
not dating a guy cuz you're not attracted to him or cuz he's insecure, passive,
indecisive, obsequious, and dull (Babaloughesian's definition of "nice guy
personality disorder") is not a cognitive impairment. This certainly has not
been identified as such by the mental health profession.
I was talking about the "ideal love" impairment.
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Post by GoddessBaybee
There's a problem with using the term "nice guy" to describe the sort of
personality disorder that you have detailed above.
When a guy gets rejected because of the above described personality
disorder he is getting rejected for negative traits. Negative traits that
need to be identified and worked on if the guy wants to improve his chances
romantically.
That's awfully one-sided. You're leaving out the personality of the
rejector. Obviously, their values and personality determine their choices
as much or more than the personality of the rejectee.
Okey, let's take the personality of the women into consideration.
I'm sure there might be a few women who have unusual personalities to the point
where they prefer a guy with "nice guy personality disorder" (which Babs defined
as insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, and dull). But most women just
don't like these traits much.
Therefore it's in the guy's best interest to work this out if he can.
Yes, but they shouldn't beat themselves up about women not liking them. I
don't think what you describe as "nice guy personality disorder" represents
anything seriously wrong with them. They aren't failures as people, and
part of their rejection by the opposite sex has to do with the attitudes of
the opposite sex.
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Post by GoddessBaybee
He is not getting rejected for a positive trait (niceness)
When a guy tells himself he's getting rejected cuz he's a "nice guy", it
puts a positive spin on his negative traits. The problem with this is he
might be able to delude himself into thinking he is getting rejected for his
positive trait (niceness), instead of his negative traits that make up the
personality disorder that you described.
If he deludes himself into thinking women (as a group) really do view
niceness as a bad thing, he's more likely to come to the net-loony
conclusion that women are evil, worthless, cunts!
Or that a lot of women suffer from a cognitive problem, which, in fact, they
do. I know. I had to sit in therapy groups and listen to them whine about
not having an ideal mate (which usually led to them not having any mate).
huh?...why were you forced into therapy groups?
Either accept imperfection in men or learn to like living alone. Nothing
wrong with either choice, but there is something wrong with nitpicking
potential suitors to death.
Yup. But it aint nitpicking to prefer a guy with some confidence and who you
are at least somewhat physically attracted to. I think most of the "nice guys"
in question lack basic self-confidence and that they don't make the most of
thier physical appearance.
The problem with these guys certainly aint niceness.
Post by GoddessBaybee
Voluminous online ranting typically then occurs, and the poor angry
schmuck doesn't even bother to look for (and try to fix) his real problem
(which aint niceness).
Sounds like his "real problem" is merely low social self-esteem. Small
potatoes when you look at women who obsess over trivial details in men and
other women, and end up driving themselves to anorexia or grotesque plastic
surgery. Get a grip, ladies.
Women who are anorexic clearly don't have a grip. But we aint talking about
that subset of severely mentally troubled women. We're talking about regular
everyday women, who these guys interact with daily.
I've met a lot of women who have very picky standards. I think anorexics
and other disturbed women are victims of this extreme pickiness. Women need
to loosen up a little.
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
A lot of guys on
alt.support.shyness claim to *never* get any dates at all. None of the regular
everyday women who they interact with will date 'em. I think this is probably
due to a combination of these guys not making the most of their physical
appearance and lack of confidence or that "nice guy personality disorder" that
was described above. If these guys delude themselves into thinking it's actual
niceness that's holding 'em back this won't help them.
Post by GoddessBaybee
Either that, or he could fall prey to a net guru selling misogynistic
seduction scams for big money. Such scams might even help him a little
tiny bit in a placebo effect kinda way.... if they manage to improve his
confidence, but in the end they'll probably just fill his head with tons of
mis-information.
I think it's better to focus on the real deal.
Sure girls date good looking, confident, assholes.
It happens all the time!
It's the good looking and the confident part that draws 'em in.
Usually if a girl has any self-esteem at all she'll drop him once the
asshole part becomes apparent... probably in search of a good looking,
confident, nice guy.
Unattractive, nice guys, with no confidence dont get a lot
of dates. like duh.
It's the unattractivenesses and the lack of confidence that is holding
them back. The niceness part is a plus, and the niceness part will help
'em maintain a relationship if they ever manage to get one.
To get one they need to work on the bad stuff (like unattractivenesses and
lack of confidence) to the point where they can actually get in the game and
get some dates.
Or seek out more reasonable women.
Again that's great advice for regular guys.
I agree, therapy group addicts who are waiting for Prince Charming to stroll in
and save 'em prolly aint great for any sort of relationship.
Guys should try to avoid 'em.
But these "nice guys" claim to chronically strike out with all women.
I think better advice for these guys would be to make the most of your physical
appearance and try to develop more self-confidence.
My advice to these guys is to forget about the latest net guru's claim that you
are doomed if you aint a jerk...that's crap. If you actually happen to truly be
truly nice (as opposed to being to shy to express the your inner crankiness)
then great. You are that much ahead of the game, when you actually start
getting dates.
My advice to these guys is not to beat themselves up too much. They're
right. A lot of women aren't looking for nice guys. As you say, they are
looking for confident, good-looking, strong (and often, financially
well-off) men. That's reality.
Post by Batroc Z Leaper
Baybee
Virgo Cluster
2004-08-01 03:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by GoddessBaybee
But these "nice guys" claim to chronically strike out
with all women. I think better advice for these guys
would be to make the most of your physical appearance
and try to develop more self-confidence.
While googling through old posts earlier today (during the
very frequent breaks I took while tediously grading a stack
of test papers) I came across a guy who posted a lot back
in 1992 who in many ways reminds me of Mark Green. Here's
a post of his that's somewhat relevant to the point you're
making. Note in particular the "all or nothing" thinking that
appears throughout his post, especially in the last paragraph.

------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------

Message-ID: ***@convex.convex.com

From: Edward V. Wright (***@convex.com)
Subject: Re: physical attractiveness (traditionally a "man thing")
Newsgroups: soc.singles, alt.romance
Date: 1992-03-17 22:06:35 PST
Post by GoddessBaybee
Bullshit. Exercise is at least as much mental as physical
effort.
Yeah. No doubt this is the reason the typical NBA basketball player
is a multiple PhD instead of a college dropout.
Post by GoddessBaybee
With a little luck, you only need to meet one, so buck up :-).
Other than "no distinguishing facial characteristics" (you don't have
eyes, a nose, a mouth?),
I said "no *distinguishing* facial characteristics." I do have a nose,
mouth, eyes, etc., but none of them are unusual enough to stand out or
draw somebody's notice.
Post by GoddessBaybee
your description sounds like Everyman, an average guy.
Like the Everyman of the 1950's, maybe. The Everyman of today seems
to play several sports, spend at least an hour at the gym after work
and more more on weekends, run, lift weights...
Post by GoddessBaybee
Why are you sure it's your body that keeps romance at
bay? It could be your clothes, your personality, or sheer chance; it
could be anything.
Because this is what I've been told, consistently and repeatedly, by
dozens of women. Some typical comments are

"If you don't do something to keep in shape, you obviously don't
care very much about yourself, so why should any woman care about you?"

"You could be very attractive... if you just put on some more muscles."

"I'd love to go out with you... provided you agree to start lifting
weights and stop eating red meat."

"I can't help it. I'd feel like a lesbian dating a man like you."

Now, some people on the net have offered sophisticated arguments to
show that these women had to be lying (because women just don't care
about muscles and physical fitness). But Occam's Razor tells me that
I should believe they're telling the truth.

<Indeed, it's probably a different thing with each
Post by GoddessBaybee
person that doesn't find you appealing.
Yes, I've heard other reasons also. Among my other failings, I'm too
young, too old, not Catholic, not Jewish, and not Japanese. But well
over half the women who turned me down said it was because I was not
handsome/athletic/physically fit enough. Coincidence or pattern?
Post by GoddessBaybee
And perhaps more to the point, you're not doomed to look as you
do. You speak of appearance as some genetic constant, but it's not. You
could change your appearance _radically_ by changing the style of
clothes you wear, changing the length/cut of your hair, adding or
removing a beard. Or go for broke and change your body. Play sports,
exercise, add muscle. Or even see a plastic surgeon if there's some one
little thing you want to fix. It's all your choice - do, or do not. But
your appearance is no more fixed than your level of education.
Your overlooking one crucial factor. As I said before, I'm not interested
in finding someone who likes me because I'm physically attractive. I want
someone who is interested in me for my mind. So changing my appearance
would not increase my chances of success.

------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------

Virgo Cluster

"[12 Gruesome Collectibles] (#11) Maori tribesmen often preserved
the elaborately tattooed heads of their deceased relatives as
"auto-icons" to keep alive the memory of the dead. The heads
would be steamed several times in an oven, smoked dry, and their
hair carefully combed into a top-knot. In 1770 the British
explorer Sir Joseph Banks acquired the first specimen Maori
head ever seen in Europe, and heads suddenly became collectible
items. The Maoris quickly overcame their initial objections to
selling off the heads of their loved ones when they discovered
that British museums and private collectors were prepared to
pay generously for good quality, highly decorated specimens.
As heads became scarce, unscrupulous Maori dealers would supply
the heads of recently deceased slaves: few Europeans could tell
the difference. By this time the greedy dealers were only one
short step away from depriving living Maoris of their heads.
In 1832 the gruesome practice had reached such horrific
proportions that the head trade was finally made illegal."

<< Karl Shaw, "The Mammoth Book of Tasteless
Lists", Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1998, p. 417 >>
? Phil C
2004-08-01 04:19:20 UTC
Permalink
I am not replying to a particular post
--- The post was snipped --please go back one message to include in reply
;)

Why are women attracted to "bad boys" ?
Why do men have these "barbaric" traits?
What are they each (men and women) taught by family/society ?

I think you will find that many of the characteristics found below in the
"rules of manhood"
are somewhat lacking in a "nice guy".
That is the good news.

The bad news is WOMEN as well as men learn that these same characteristics
are desireable in men,
and are attracted to them. It is no wonder so many relationships flounder
...

I think it is true that "nice guys" don't display some of these problematic
(for good long-term relationships) characteristics, but, of course,
a degree of those characteristics is good ....there are good reasons for the
"rules of manhood".
and "good guys" are often found lacking ...
It is not a complete list of characteristics, but look at which ones fit ...
discover which may have been left out.
Like everything in life , it is a balance that is needed.

Please forgive the repeated posing if you have read it.
It is just one article, but I agree with it, and think it has help for many
.. men and women...
It seems like the one or two times I posted this, the thread stopped .
or maybe I am wrong.. I just never noticed any replies afterwards.
As a matter of fact, I just searched .. I just posted this on July 25.
The subject: "Slow News Day".
I will include it anyway...
I think it is important ... especially the part: The Way Out.
-- Phil C

===============================
===============================
Heart of a Man and The Way Out
State Press Special Publications February 2004
By Jim Mitchell and Amy Belanger

From the time we're in diapers, adults socialize us to the ways of the
family and the culture at large. What the family doesn't accomplish is
usually driven home in our teen years by conformist peer pressure, through
the powerful forces of shame, ridicule and judgment. On top of that the
mass media through movie characters, ads and icons, sets other standards
against which we judge ourselves, others and our relationships. Women and
men learn very different ways of behaving and develop very different
expectations about love, marriage and intimacy.

THE HEART OF A MAN
Male socialization teaches boys to minimize and ultimately deny feelings and
emotions that make them appear vulnerable, such as fear, sadness, grief, and
to a great extent, joy. These feelings are boxed up, put away and seldom
spoken of again in the company of other boys or men. By the time most boys
reach early manhood, they are comfortable only with feelings such as anger
and lust. Power, women, possessions, money and success take the place of any
authentic emotional life.

Boys learn to play by the rules of manhood from the older boys and men in
their lives. Such "rules" may never be actually spoken. Instead they are
learned mostly through observation and inference. Any random group of
college-aged young men asked to describe the rules on how or what it means
to be a man, will likely include:

? Don't trust other men, especially with anything personal
? Every other man is your competitor - for food, stuff, women,
employment, promotions, grades, etc.
? Don't talk about what you really think
? Don't feel..anything
? Never let them see you sweat
? Never ask for help
? Be rational
? Control is your friend
? Toughen up!: don't show sadness, fear or anything "soft".
? No mercy!
? Go it alone. It worked for Dirty Harry, Superman, John Wayne, it
will work for you!
? It's all about you (get what you want out of life; other people's
needs, feelings, desires don't matter)
And on and on..

Is it any wonder then, that men are challenged to create successful and
fulfilling relationships, no matter what their partner brings to the
relationship table.

THE HEART OF A WOMAN
Female socialization teaches girls that their value lies in nurturing
others, being vulnerable, expressing some emotions, building relationships,
and not so much in knowledge or skill. Feelings of anger, drivenness or lust
will quickly win them the label of bitch, ice-queen or whore. By the time
most girls reach early womanhood, they have learned they are most valued by
others as caretakers, and they shape their lives accordingly.

Girls learn to suppress their authentic selves as much as men, but are more
likely to suppress their skills, wisdom, strong opinions and anger as
opposed to the more vulnerable emotions. Any random group of college-aged
young women asked to describe the rules on how or what it means to be a
woman, will likely include:

? Be as beautiful as possible at all times
? Don't think for yourself - always get a second opinion because you
can't trust your own instincts and intelligence.
? Always ask for help - too much independence is a turnoff to men.
? Be emotional
? Never show confidence, surety or determination - these are uppity.
? Soften up: don't show anger, resentment or anything uncharitable.
? Aggression is the kiss of death
? Never go it alone
? It's never about you (it's selfish for you to want anything out of
life; other people's needs, feelings, desires come first..always)
And on and on..

Is it any wonder then, that women are challenged to create successful and
fulfilling relationships, notwithstanding what their partner brings to the
relationship table
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
The Way Out
So what then is the way out you ask? Go ahead, ask. Well I'll tell you.

For men the way to truly successful and fulfilling relationships lies in
recreating our relationship with ourselves first and foremost, then, from
that new place, recreating our relationships with everyone else. That means
coming to terms with my socialization as a man and the discerning the parts
of it that do not serve me or take me towards my desired life and desired
relationships. It also means doing the hard work of reclaiming the parts of
me that I abandoned as a child or young man in my desire to fit in and gain
approval. And here comes the scary part. You ready? It means dealing with
the part of me that is still a hurt, wounded, scared little boy. Except now
the boy is trapped in your adult body. You know the part I'm talking about
don't you. Yeah, you know. You never talk about that part do you? But
it's there, scratching at you from the inside every day. And you keep
trying to relate to women from that place? That is never going to work
Chachi. If you think the ole Jimmeister doesn't know what he's talking
about here, go and ask the last 2-3 women you've been involved with. See
what they say about it. Go ahead. Go! Don't be scared.

Here's what I've found in my life as a man. It is only in doing work on me
as a man, men's work, and beginning to heal myself that I discover something
really magical about myself. I have everything I need to create the kind of
relationships I want. I have, and have always had, at my disposal a full
complement of emotions to help me to connect deeply with others and to build
authentic relationships and communities. I discover an emotional range and
fluency I was certain I no longer had. I discover that as a man I am fully
capable of being fierce and loving, strong and tender, rigorous and
compassionate, tenacious and giving. I discover I feel all my feelings
and emotions, maybe for the first time since I was a child. I discover a
new strength, powerful masculine strength, in my openness, vulnerability and
tears.

In working on myself and my inner life as, a man, I make another discovery.
This one is as important, if not more so, than reclaiming my emotional life.
I see how I have spent most of my life as man projecting my boyish needs
from women on to them, rather than truly engaging them as equals in an
authentic partnership. I find that I need to reframe how I see the women in
my life, be they mother, friend, lover or spouse. Through my self
examination and discovery I withdraw and transform my projections that every
women somehow needs to be my "mother", my comforter, my nurturer, my place
of solace and refuge or my sexual fix. I see that I need to work on my
'stuff' as a man in the company of men. I can no longer expect that somehow
the women in my life can fix what ails me as a man. I learn that the real
power and my own grounded sense of self as a man comes from having
authentic, grounded, vulnerable relationships with my own gender first. It
is in men's circles that I find myself and the man I want to be and to
become. Only then I can relate to women from a place of mature masculine
energy.

To assist me in bringing all this new wisdom to life and rebalancing my
inner life I focus on Five Simple Truths:

Integrity: I create for myself a true, grounded sense of integrity. I am
who I say and I am..and you can trust that. I do what I say.. and I say
what I do. My words and actions are congruent. I choose behaviors that
will raise the trust level in my relationships, not lower it. I keep my
agreements and promises with others. When I can't keep a given agreement, I
renegotiate a new agreement before the old one expires. My integrity is
never in question.

Accountability: I am willing to account for and be responsible for the
choices I make in my life and the consequences or impact of those choices. I
stop making excuses. I stop blaming others. I give up my need to be a
victim. I finally get that I create my reality and my life. I stop blaming
others for what I've created or failed to create in my life. If I don't
like my life, I know I have to change, not expect others to change for me.

Telling the Truth: I create a practice of telling myself and others the
truth. Period. I get out of the denial, delusion and fantasy that I use to
manipulate reality and I get into the truth. I get out of the Matrix! I
practice telling myself the microscopic truth about myself and my choices.
I no longer accept half truths, partial truths, lies, deceit, manipulation
or coercion from myself or others. I always practice compassion in telling
my truth to others. I get that my truth is not THE truth, it is my truth.
I don't have to explain nor defend my truth to others. I simply have to
know and live what is my truth.

Emotional Literacy: I teach myself to feel and experience the full
expression of my emotions. Joy, sadness, fear, anger and dozens of others.
I grieve my losses. I use my feelings, as well as my brain, to help me make
decisions, large and small. I express my feelings appropriately. I
practice compassion and gratitude daily.

Mission and Purpose: I develop for myself a clear vision of the kind of
world I'd like to see it and create a mission statement for myself that
speaks to what I'm willing to do each day to bring that kind of a world into
being. I live my mission truthfully and passionately. I ask others to
support me in making a difference in my world. I support others in doing
the same when ask. I stop waiting for other to take care of or fix what is
important to me. I passionately and compassionately participate in creating
the kind of family, relationship, school, community, government, country or
world I'd most like to be a part of.

As you focus on these Five Simple Truths and manifest a bit more of each of
them each day, you will discover a whole new way of being as Man. You'll
feel a newfound sense of authentic, masculine power, grace and love. Now,
what women wouldn't want some of that?

Jim Mitchell is a Certified Full Leader in The ManKind Project, a non profit
worldwide organization dedicated to "changing the world, one man at a
time.through initiation, training, and action in the world".

[I am a member of the Mankind Project in South Africa]

www.mkp.org
Michaela
2004-08-01 22:09:35 UTC
Permalink
You left out a few groups Phil :)

FWIW while I don't see the whole male-female attraction
dynamic in quite the same light, I seem to be able to recognise
the value of what the author is saying and agree wholeheartedly.

"You are today where your thoughts have brought you; you
will be tomorrow where your thoughts take you." ~ James Allen

- Michaela
Post by ? Phil C
Why are women attracted to "bad boys" ?
Why do men have these "barbaric" traits?
What are they each (men and women) taught by family/society ?
I think you will find that many of the characteristics found below in
the "rules of manhood"
are somewhat lacking in a "nice guy".
That is the good news.
The bad news is WOMEN as well as men learn that these same
characteristics are desireable in men,
and are attracted to them. It is no wonder so many relationships
flounder ...
I think it is true that "nice guys" don't display some of these
problematic (for good long-term relationships) characteristics, but,
of course,
a degree of those characteristics is good ....there are good reasons
for the "rules of manhood".
and "good guys" are often found lacking ...
It is not a complete list of characteristics, but look at which ones
fit ... discover which may have been left out.
Like everything in life , it is a balance that is needed.
Please forgive the repeated posting if you have read it.
It is just one article, but I agree with it, and think it has help
for many .. men and women...
It seems like the one or two times I posted this, the thread stopped .
or maybe I am wrong.. I just never noticed any replies afterwards.
As a matter of fact, I just searched .. I just posted this on July 25.
The subject: "Slow News Day".
I will include it anyway...
I think it is important ... especially the part: The Way Out.
-- Phil C
===============================
===============================
Heart of a Man and The Way Out
State Press Special Publications February 2004
By Jim Mitchell and Amy Belanger
From the time we're in diapers, adults socialize us to the ways of the
family and the culture at large. What the family doesn't accomplish
is usually driven home in our teen years by conformist peer
pressure, through the powerful forces of shame, ridicule and
judgment. On top of that the mass media through movie characters,
ads and icons, sets other standards against which we judge ourselves,
others and our relationships. Women and men learn very different
ways of behaving and develop very different expectations about love,
marriage and intimacy.
THE HEART OF A MAN
Male socialization teaches boys to minimize and ultimately deny
feelings and emotions that make them appear vulnerable, such as fear,
sadness, grief, and to a great extent, joy. These feelings are boxed
up, put away and seldom spoken of again in the company of other boys
or men. By the time most boys reach early manhood, they are
comfortable only with feelings such as anger and lust. Power, women,
possessions, money and success take the place of any authentic
emotional life.
Boys learn to play by the rules of manhood from the older boys and
men in their lives. Such "rules" may never be actually spoken.
Instead they are learned mostly through observation and inference.
Any random group of college-aged young men asked to describe the
? Don't trust other men, especially with anything personal
? Every other man is your competitor - for food, stuff, women,
employment, promotions, grades, etc.
? Don't talk about what you really think
? Don't feel..anything
? Never let them see you sweat
? Never ask for help
? Be rational
? Control is your friend
? Toughen up!: don't show sadness, fear or anything "soft".
? No mercy!
? Go it alone. It worked for Dirty Harry, Superman, John
Wayne, it will work for you!
? It's all about you (get what you want out of life; other
people's needs, feelings, desires don't matter)
And on and on..
Is it any wonder then, that men are challenged to create successful
and fulfilling relationships, no matter what their partner brings to
the relationship table.
THE HEART OF A WOMAN
Female socialization teaches girls that their value lies in nurturing
others, being vulnerable, expressing some emotions, building
relationships, and not so much in knowledge or skill. Feelings of
anger, drivenness or lust will quickly win them the label of bitch,
ice-queen or whore. By the time most girls reach early womanhood,
they have learned they are most valued by others as caretakers, and
they shape their lives accordingly.
Girls learn to suppress their authentic selves as much as men, but
are more likely to suppress their skills, wisdom, strong opinions and
anger as opposed to the more vulnerable emotions. Any random group of
college-aged young women asked to describe the rules on how or what
? Be as beautiful as possible at all times
? Don't think for yourself - always get a second opinion
because you can't trust your own instincts and intelligence.
? Always ask for help - too much independence is a turnoff to
men. ? Be emotional
? Never show confidence, surety or determination - these are
uppity. ? Soften up: don't show anger, resentment or anything
uncharitable. ? Aggression is the kiss of death
? Never go it alone
? It's never about you (it's selfish for you to want anything
out of life; other people's needs, feelings, desires come
first..always)
And on and on..
Is it any wonder then, that women are challenged to create successful
and fulfilling relationships, notwithstanding what their partner
brings to the relationship table
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
The Way Out
So what then is the way out you ask? Go ahead, ask. Well I'll tell you.
For men the way to truly successful and fulfilling relationships lies
in recreating our relationship with ourselves first and foremost,
then, from that new place, recreating our relationships with everyone
else. That means coming to terms with my socialization as a man and
the discerning the parts of it that do not serve me or take me
towards my desired life and desired relationships. It also means
doing the hard work of reclaiming the parts of me that I abandoned as
a child or young man in my desire to fit in and gain approval. And
here comes the scary part. You ready? It means dealing with the part
of me that is still a hurt, wounded, scared little boy. Except now
the boy is trapped in your adult body. You know the part I'm talking
about don't you. Yeah, you know. You never talk about that part do
you? But it's there, scratching at you from the inside every day.
And you keep trying to relate to women from that place? That is
never going to work Chachi. If you think the ole Jimmeister doesn't
know what he's talking about here, go and ask the last 2-3 women
you've been involved with. See what they say about it. Go ahead.
Go! Don't be scared.
Here's what I've found in my life as a man. It is only in doing work
on me as a man, men's work, and beginning to heal myself that I
discover something really magical about myself. I have everything I
need to create the kind of relationships I want. I have, and have
always had, at my disposal a full complement of emotions to help me
to connect deeply with others and to build authentic relationships
and communities. I discover an emotional range and fluency I was
certain I no longer had. I discover that as a man I am fully capable
of being fierce and loving, strong and tender, rigorous and
compassionate, tenacious and giving. I discover I feel all my
feelings and emotions, maybe for the first time since I was a child.
I discover a new strength, powerful masculine strength, in my
openness, vulnerability and tears.
In working on myself and my inner life as, a man, I make another
discovery. This one is as important, if not more so, than reclaiming
my emotional life. I see how I have spent most of my life as man
projecting my boyish needs from women on to them, rather than truly
engaging them as equals in an authentic partnership. I find that I
need to reframe how I see the women in my life, be they mother,
friend, lover or spouse. Through my self examination and discovery I
withdraw and transform my projections that every women somehow needs
to be my "mother", my comforter, my nurturer, my place of solace and
refuge or my sexual fix. I see that I need to work on my 'stuff' as
a man in the company of men. I can no longer expect that somehow the
women in my life can fix what ails me as a man. I learn that the
real power and my own grounded sense of self as a man comes from
having authentic, grounded, vulnerable relationships with my own
gender first. It is in men's circles that I find myself and the man
I want to be and to become. Only then I can relate to women from a
place of mature masculine energy.
To assist me in bringing all this new wisdom to life and rebalancing
Integrity: I create for myself a true, grounded sense of integrity.
I am who I say and I am..and you can trust that. I do what I say..
and I say what I do. My words and actions are congruent. I choose
behaviors that will raise the trust level in my relationships, not
lower it. I keep my agreements and promises with others. When I
can't keep a given agreement, I renegotiate a new agreement before
the old one expires. My integrity is never in question.
Accountability: I am willing to account for and be responsible for
the choices I make in my life and the consequences or impact of those
choices. I stop making excuses. I stop blaming others. I give up my
need to be a victim. I finally get that I create my reality and my
life. I stop blaming others for what I've created or failed to
create in my life. If I don't like my life, I know I have to change,
not expect others to change for me.
Telling the Truth: I create a practice of telling myself and others
the truth. Period. I get out of the denial, delusion and fantasy
that I use to manipulate reality and I get into the truth. I get out
of the Matrix! I practice telling myself the microscopic truth about
myself and my choices. I no longer accept half truths, partial
truths, lies, deceit, manipulation or coercion from myself or others.
I always practice compassion in telling my truth to others. I get
that my truth is not THE truth, it is my truth. I don't have to
explain nor defend my truth to others. I simply have to know and
live what is my truth.
Emotional Literacy: I teach myself to feel and experience the full
expression of my emotions. Joy, sadness, fear, anger and dozens of
others. I grieve my losses. I use my feelings, as well as my brain,
to help me make decisions, large and small. I express my feelings
appropriately. I practice compassion and gratitude daily.
Mission and Purpose: I develop for myself a clear vision of the kind
of world I'd like to see it and create a mission statement for myself
that speaks to what I'm willing to do each day to bring that kind of
a world into being. I live my mission truthfully and passionately.
I ask others to support me in making a difference in my world. I
support others in doing the same when ask. I stop waiting for other
to take care of or fix what is important to me. I passionately and
compassionately participate in creating the kind of family,
relationship, school, community, government, country or world I'd
most like to be a part of.
As you focus on these Five Simple Truths and manifest a bit more of
each of them each day, you will discover a whole new way of being as
Man. You'll feel a newfound sense of authentic, masculine power,
grace and love. Now, what women wouldn't want some of that?
Jim Mitchell is a Certified Full Leader in The ManKind Project, a non
profit worldwide organization dedicated to "changing the world, one
man at a time.through initiation, training, and action in the world".
[I am a member of the Mankind Project in South Africa]
www.mkp.org
Geoff
2004-08-01 22:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by ? Phil C
? Don't think for yourself - always get a second opinion
because you can't trust your own instincts and intelligence.
? Always ask for help - too much independence is a turnoff to
men. ? Be emotional
? Never show confidence, surety or determination - these are
uppity. ?
I find that a lot of women deliberately and falsely display the above
when trying to attract a man. I find such false vulnerability and
helplessness repulsive.

Give me a strong confident woman who has her head together everytime!
Michaela
2004-08-02 21:58:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff
Post by ? Phil C
? Don't think for yourself - always get a second opinion
because you can't trust your own instincts and intelligence.
? Always ask for help - too much independence is a turnoff
to men. ? Be emotional
? Never show confidence, surety or determination - these are
uppity. ?
I find that a lot of women deliberately and falsely display the above
when trying to attract a man. I find such false vulnerability and
helplessness repulsive.
How do you feel about unfalse vulnerability and helplessness?
Do you believe in being compassionate?

How do you know when someone is being false and when they're
being real?

Methinks that much of the time we'll decide the former when we
don't like the person and the latter when we like them.

- Michaela
Geoff
2004-08-03 08:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by Geoff
Post by ? Phil C
? Don't think for yourself - always get a second opinion
because you can't trust your own instincts and intelligence.
? Always ask for help - too much independence is a turnoff
to men. ? Be emotional
? Never show confidence, surety or determination - these are
uppity. ?
I find that a lot of women deliberately and falsely display the above
when trying to attract a man. I find such false vulnerability and
helplessness repulsive.
How do you feel about unfalse vulnerability and helplessness?
Do you believe in being compassionate?
I have a female friend of many years who is less bright than most.
Many a time I have given my time, help and advice to her when she
needed or wanted it from me. Helping a person in need I hope amounts
to compassion.
Post by Michaela
How do you know when someone is being false and when they're
being real?
When a woman who can otherwise look after herself quite well turns on
the submission and puts on the "dumb helpless female" or the "giggly
schoolgirl" act.
Post by Michaela
Methinks that much of the time we'll decide the former when we
don't like the person and the latter when we like them.
I like people who are genuine and don't try to manipulate a situation
by falsely representing who they are. This is the crux of what I'm
trying to say here.

Geoff
Michaela
2004-08-03 21:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by Michaela
Post by Geoff
Post by ? Phil C
? Don't think for yourself - always get a second opinion
because you can't trust your own instincts and intelligence.
? Always ask for help - too much independence is a turnoff
to men. ? Be emotional
? Never show confidence, surety or determination - these
are uppity. ?
I find that a lot of women deliberately and falsely display the
above when trying to attract a man. I find such false vulnerability
and helplessness repulsive.
How do you feel about unfalse vulnerability and helplessness?
Post by Michaela
Do you believe in being compassionate?
I have a female friend of many years who is less bright than most.
Many a time I have given my time, help and advice to her when she
needed or wanted it from me. Helping a person in need I hope amounts
to compassion.
When you're "in love" with someone, it's much harder to determine
whether they are "for real" or not. Many people would prefer to
believe they aren't. Unless maybe they're just looking for fault.

I think everyone is just doing the best they can with what they've
got. And so what does it mean if someone manipulates me with
false tears? That they're not worthy of me? How loving!
Post by Michaela
Post by Michaela
How do you know when someone is being false and when they're
being real?
When a woman who can otherwise look after herself quite well turns on
the submission and puts on the "dumb helpless female" or the "giggly
schoolgirl" act.
Post by Michaela
Methinks that much of the time we'll decide the former when we
don't like the person and the latter when we like them.
O. I see I already said that.
Post by Michaela
I like people who are genuine and don't try to manipulate a situation
by falsely representing who they are. This is the crux of what I'm
trying to say here.
I see.
Post by Michaela
Geoff
- Michaela
? Phil C
2004-08-02 01:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
You left out a few groups Phil :)
ack ..
Sorry, I forgot to check the crossposting from original.
So, I guess much of this thread is in other groups (?)
... but missing the replies where people removed the crosspost groups ?
Seems like it would be confusing.

Thanks for your quotes, Michaela.
Very good sources, too :)
-- Phil C
Post by Michaela
FWIW while I don't see the whole male-female attraction
dynamic in quite the same light, I seem to be able to recognise
the value of what the author is saying and agree wholeheartedly.
"You are today where your thoughts have brought you; you
will be tomorrow where your thoughts take you." ~ James Allen
- Michaela
Post by ? Phil C
Why are women attracted to "bad boys" ?
Why do men have these "barbaric" traits?
What are they each (men and women) taught by family/society ?
I think you will find that many of the characteristics found below in
the "rules of manhood"
are somewhat lacking in a "nice guy".
That is the good news.
The bad news is WOMEN as well as men learn that these same
characteristics are desireable in men,
and are attracted to them. It is no wonder so many relationships
flounder ...
I think it is true that "nice guys" don't display some of these
problematic (for good long-term relationships) characteristics, but,
of course,
a degree of those characteristics is good ....there are good reasons
for the "rules of manhood".
and "good guys" are often found lacking ...
It is not a complete list of characteristics, but look at which ones
fit ... discover which may have been left out.
Like everything in life , it is a balance that is needed.
Please forgive the repeated posting if you have read it.
It is just one article, but I agree with it, and think it has help
for many .. men and women...
It seems like the one or two times I posted this, the thread stopped .
or maybe I am wrong.. I just never noticed any replies afterwards.
As a matter of fact, I just searched .. I just posted this on July 25.
The subject: "Slow News Day".
I will include it anyway...
I think it is important ... especially the part: The Way Out.
-- Phil C
===============================
===============================
Heart of a Man and The Way Out
State Press Special Publications February 2004
By Jim Mitchell and Amy Belanger
From the time we're in diapers, adults socialize us to the ways of the
family and the culture at large. What the family doesn't accomplish
is usually driven home in our teen years by conformist peer
pressure, through the powerful forces of shame, ridicule and
judgment. On top of that the mass media through movie characters,
ads and icons, sets other standards against which we judge ourselves,
others and our relationships. Women and men learn very different
ways of behaving and develop very different expectations about love,
marriage and intimacy.
THE HEART OF A MAN
Male socialization teaches boys to minimize and ultimately deny
feelings and emotions that make them appear vulnerable, such as fear,
sadness, grief, and to a great extent, joy. These feelings are boxed
up, put away and seldom spoken of again in the company of other boys
or men. By the time most boys reach early manhood, they are
comfortable only with feelings such as anger and lust. Power, women,
possessions, money and success take the place of any authentic
emotional life.
Boys learn to play by the rules of manhood from the older boys and
men in their lives. Such "rules" may never be actually spoken.
Instead they are learned mostly through observation and inference.
Any random group of college-aged young men asked to describe the
? Don't trust other men, especially with anything personal
? Every other man is your competitor - for food, stuff, women,
employment, promotions, grades, etc.
? Don't talk about what you really think
? Don't feel..anything
? Never let them see you sweat
? Never ask for help
? Be rational
? Control is your friend
? Toughen up!: don't show sadness, fear or anything "soft".
? No mercy!
? Go it alone. It worked for Dirty Harry, Superman, John
Wayne, it will work for you!
? It's all about you (get what you want out of life; other
people's needs, feelings, desires don't matter)
And on and on..
Is it any wonder then, that men are challenged to create successful
and fulfilling relationships, no matter what their partner brings to
the relationship table.
THE HEART OF A WOMAN
Female socialization teaches girls that their value lies in nurturing
others, being vulnerable, expressing some emotions, building
relationships, and not so much in knowledge or skill. Feelings of
anger, drivenness or lust will quickly win them the label of bitch,
ice-queen or whore. By the time most girls reach early womanhood,
they have learned they are most valued by others as caretakers, and
they shape their lives accordingly.
Girls learn to suppress their authentic selves as much as men, but
are more likely to suppress their skills, wisdom, strong opinions and
anger as opposed to the more vulnerable emotions. Any random group of
college-aged young women asked to describe the rules on how or what
? Be as beautiful as possible at all times
? Don't think for yourself - always get a second opinion
because you can't trust your own instincts and intelligence.
? Always ask for help - too much independence is a turnoff to
men. ? Be emotional
? Never show confidence, surety or determination - these are
uppity. ? Soften up: don't show anger, resentment or anything
uncharitable. ? Aggression is the kiss of death
? Never go it alone
? It's never about you (it's selfish for you to want anything
out of life; other people's needs, feelings, desires come
first..always)
And on and on..
Is it any wonder then, that women are challenged to create successful
and fulfilling relationships, notwithstanding what their partner
brings to the relationship table
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
The Way Out
So what then is the way out you ask? Go ahead, ask. Well I'll tell you.
For men the way to truly successful and fulfilling relationships lies
in recreating our relationship with ourselves first and foremost,
then, from that new place, recreating our relationships with everyone
else. That means coming to terms with my socialization as a man and
the discerning the parts of it that do not serve me or take me
towards my desired life and desired relationships. It also means
doing the hard work of reclaiming the parts of me that I abandoned as
a child or young man in my desire to fit in and gain approval. And
here comes the scary part. You ready? It means dealing with the part
of me that is still a hurt, wounded, scared little boy. Except now
the boy is trapped in your adult body. You know the part I'm talking
about don't you. Yeah, you know. You never talk about that part do
you? But it's there, scratching at you from the inside every day.
And you keep trying to relate to women from that place? That is
never going to work Chachi. If you think the ole Jimmeister doesn't
know what he's talking about here, go and ask the last 2-3 women
you've been involved with. See what they say about it. Go ahead.
Go! Don't be scared.
Here's what I've found in my life as a man. It is only in doing work
on me as a man, men's work, and beginning to heal myself that I
discover something really magical about myself. I have everything I
need to create the kind of relationships I want. I have, and have
always had, at my disposal a full complement of emotions to help me
to connect deeply with others and to build authentic relationships
and communities. I discover an emotional range and fluency I was
certain I no longer had. I discover that as a man I am fully capable
of being fierce and loving, strong and tender, rigorous and
compassionate, tenacious and giving. I discover I feel all my
feelings and emotions, maybe for the first time since I was a child.
I discover a new strength, powerful masculine strength, in my
openness, vulnerability and tears.
In working on myself and my inner life as, a man, I make another
discovery. This one is as important, if not more so, than reclaiming
my emotional life. I see how I have spent most of my life as man
projecting my boyish needs from women on to them, rather than truly
engaging them as equals in an authentic partnership. I find that I
need to reframe how I see the women in my life, be they mother,
friend, lover or spouse. Through my self examination and discovery I
withdraw and transform my projections that every women somehow needs
to be my "mother", my comforter, my nurturer, my place of solace and
refuge or my sexual fix. I see that I need to work on my 'stuff' as
a man in the company of men. I can no longer expect that somehow the
women in my life can fix what ails me as a man. I learn that the
real power and my own grounded sense of self as a man comes from
having authentic, grounded, vulnerable relationships with my own
gender first. It is in men's circles that I find myself and the man
I want to be and to become. Only then I can relate to women from a
place of mature masculine energy.
To assist me in bringing all this new wisdom to life and rebalancing
Integrity: I create for myself a true, grounded sense of integrity.
I am who I say and I am..and you can trust that. I do what I say..
and I say what I do. My words and actions are congruent. I choose
behaviors that will raise the trust level in my relationships, not
lower it. I keep my agreements and promises with others. When I
can't keep a given agreement, I renegotiate a new agreement before
the old one expires. My integrity is never in question.
Accountability: I am willing to account for and be responsible for
the choices I make in my life and the consequences or impact of those
choices. I stop making excuses. I stop blaming others. I give up my
need to be a victim. I finally get that I create my reality and my
life. I stop blaming others for what I've created or failed to
create in my life. If I don't like my life, I know I have to change,
not expect others to change for me.
Telling the Truth: I create a practice of telling myself and others
the truth. Period. I get out of the denial, delusion and fantasy
that I use to manipulate reality and I get into the truth. I get out
of the Matrix! I practice telling myself the microscopic truth about
myself and my choices. I no longer accept half truths, partial
truths, lies, deceit, manipulation or coercion from myself or others.
I always practice compassion in telling my truth to others. I get
that my truth is not THE truth, it is my truth. I don't have to
explain nor defend my truth to others. I simply have to know and
live what is my truth.
Emotional Literacy: I teach myself to feel and experience the full
expression of my emotions. Joy, sadness, fear, anger and dozens of
others. I grieve my losses. I use my feelings, as well as my brain,
to help me make decisions, large and small. I express my feelings
appropriately. I practice compassion and gratitude daily.
Mission and Purpose: I develop for myself a clear vision of the kind
of world I'd like to see it and create a mission statement for myself
that speaks to what I'm willing to do each day to bring that kind of
a world into being. I live my mission truthfully and passionately.
I ask others to support me in making a difference in my world. I
support others in doing the same when ask. I stop waiting for other
to take care of or fix what is important to me. I passionately and
compassionately participate in creating the kind of family,
relationship, school, community, government, country or world I'd
most like to be a part of.
As you focus on these Five Simple Truths and manifest a bit more of
each of them each day, you will discover a whole new way of being as
Man. You'll feel a newfound sense of authentic, masculine power,
grace and love. Now, what women wouldn't want some of that?
Jim Mitchell is a Certified Full Leader in The ManKind Project, a non
profit worldwide organization dedicated to "changing the world, one
man at a time.through initiation, training, and action in the world".
[I am a member of the Mankind Project in South Africa]
www.mkp.org
mickey
2004-08-01 05:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virgo Cluster
Post by GoddessBaybee
But these "nice guys" claim to chronically strike out
with all women. I think better advice for these guys
would be to make the most of your physical appearance
and try to develop more self-confidence.
While googling through old posts earlier today (during the
very frequent breaks I took while tediously grading a stack
of test papers) I came across a guy who posted a lot back
in 1992 who in many ways reminds me of Mark Green. Here's
a post of his that's somewhat relevant to the point you're
making. Note in particular the "all or nothing" thinking that
appears throughout his post, especially in the last paragraph.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: physical attractiveness (traditionally a "man thing")
Newsgroups: soc.singles, alt.romance
Date: 1992-03-17 22:06:35 PST
Post by GoddessBaybee
Bullshit. Exercise is at least as much mental as physical
effort.
Yeah. No doubt this is the reason the typical NBA basketball player
is a multiple PhD instead of a college dropout.
Post by GoddessBaybee
With a little luck, you only need to meet one, so buck up :-).
Other than "no distinguishing facial characteristics" (you don't have
eyes, a nose, a mouth?),
I said "no *distinguishing* facial characteristics." I do have a nose,
mouth, eyes, etc., but none of them are unusual enough to stand out or
draw somebody's notice.
Post by GoddessBaybee
your description sounds like Everyman, an average guy.
Like the Everyman of the 1950's, maybe. The Everyman of today seems
to play several sports, spend at least an hour at the gym after work
and more more on weekends, run, lift weights...
Post by GoddessBaybee
Why are you sure it's your body that keeps romance at
bay? It could be your clothes, your personality, or sheer chance; it
could be anything.
Because this is what I've been told, consistently and repeatedly, by
dozens of women. Some typical comments are
"If you don't do something to keep in shape, you obviously don't
care very much about yourself, so why should any woman care about you?"
"You could be very attractive... if you just put on some more muscles."
"I'd love to go out with you... provided you agree to start lifting
weights and stop eating red meat."
"I can't help it. I'd feel like a lesbian dating a man like you."
Now, some people on the net have offered sophisticated arguments to
show that these women had to be lying (because women just don't care
about muscles and physical fitness). But Occam's Razor tells me that
I should believe they're telling the truth.
<Indeed, it's probably a different thing with each
Post by GoddessBaybee
person that doesn't find you appealing.
Yes, I've heard other reasons also. Among my other failings, I'm too
young, too old, not Catholic, not Jewish, and not Japanese. But well
over half the women who turned me down said it was because I was not
handsome/athletic/physically fit enough. Coincidence or pattern?
Post by GoddessBaybee
And perhaps more to the point, you're not doomed to look as you
do. You speak of appearance as some genetic constant, but it's not. You
could change your appearance _radically_ by changing the style of
clothes you wear, changing the length/cut of your hair, adding or
removing a beard. Or go for broke and change your body. Play sports,
exercise, add muscle. Or even see a plastic surgeon if there's some one
little thing you want to fix. It's all your choice - do, or do not. But
your appearance is no more fixed than your level of education.
Your overlooking one crucial factor. As I said before, I'm not interested
in finding someone who likes me because I'm physically attractive. I want
someone who is interested in me for my mind. So changing my appearance
would not increase my chances of success.
I've always found this kind of people a bit intriguing. Why don't they
appreciate people who appreciate beauty? Are they too shallow for that
or something?

-M
ske
2004-07-28 15:25:34 UTC
Permalink
[more snippage]

Sorry I missed the original response from Babaloughesian but
GoddessBaybee does a very good job of explaining what (I think) I meant
at the time.
--
.ske
The Babaloughesian
2004-07-29 00:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by GoddessBaybee
There's a problem with using the term "nice guy" to describe the sort of
personality disorder that you have detailed above.
There's a problem with who specifically using it?
A***@nospamcomcast.net
2004-07-29 01:06:50 UTC
Permalink
In alt.love The Babaloughesian <***@privacy.net> wrote:

: The reason "nice guys" call themselves "nice guys" is that they first
: learned the term FROM OTHER PEOPLE.

[various and mutiple snips - I hope I haven't altered the basic idea]

: Have you ever heard of a guy being rejected with the phrase "You're a nice
: guy, but..."? Things which would follow the "but..." if not for the
: rejector's desire to avoid hurting the guy's feelings include "...you're too
: clingy", "...you have no spine", "...you're socially inept", "...you're
: boring". This is the sort of person I and many others refer to when using
: the term "nice guy". Again, the term is used because it was others who told
: them that they are "nice" and they internalized the label. "nice" became a
: central feature of these "nice guys"' self image. Hence the usage of the
: term "nice guy".

: Yes, it is very convenient because it is more efficient than saying
: "insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, dull, needy guy with low self
: esteem who overidealizes women, has a pathologically excessive need for
: approval and an obsession with saving face, is dishonest, etc.".

[snip]

: I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
: unofficial personality disorder. The term is rich with meaning to those of
: us familiar with it, much like terms such as "sociopath" or "narcissist"
: would be rich with meaning to those familiar with the concepts these words
: represent.

I concur. Long ago I came to the conclusion that "nice guys"
basically seem to believe that if they are "good" and do everything
"right" they will be loved, get their needs met, and have a problem
free life. This of course necessitates trying to elminate or hide
certain things about themselves (their mistakes, needs, emotions, etc)
and become what they believe others want them to be (generous,
helpful, peaceful, and so on).

Basically, everyone has some basic traits that sort of
describe them. Usually, guys have one or two positive traits as well
as one of two of the negative ones, but "nice guys" seem to possess a
large number of the positive traits. Such as...

Nice Guys are givers. Nice Guys fix and caretake. Nice Guys seek
approval from others. Nice Guys avoid conflict. Nice Guys believe they
must hide their perceived flaws and mistakes. Nice Guys seek the
"right" way to do things. Nice Guys repress their feelings. Nice Guys
try to be different from their fathers. Nice Guys are often more
comfortable relating to women than to men. Nice Guys have difficulty
making their needs a priority. Nice Guys often make their partner
their emotional center...

Now for the flip side - the things they try to hide...

Nice Guys are dishonest. Nice Guys are secretive. Nice Guys are
compartmentalized. Nice Guys are manipulative. Nice Guys are
controlling. Nice Guys give to get. Nice Guys are
passive-aggressive. Nice Guys are full of rage. Nice Guys have
addictive behaviors. Nice Guys have difficulty setting
boundaries. Nice Guys are frequently isolated. Nice Guys are often
attracted to people and situations that need "fixing". Nice Guys
frequently have problems in intimate relationships. Nice Guys have
issues with sexuality. Nice Guys are usually only relatively
successful.

So those are the conclusions I've come to over the years. This
from having friends that think of themselves as being "Nice Guys" who
often wonder why they aren't more successful with women. They can see
their plusses, but go to great lengths to deny and hide their flip
side.

To see some of the "negative" ones I listed, all you need to
do is look at some of the people that post to these various groups who
say that are "nice guys". You'll see them seething in hatred and
anger. Yet they say they are "nice guys". Whereas the "bad boy" isn't
angry at the world, he has fun and enjoys all that it has to offer -
whether that is the company of a woman for this week, or a fast car.

Is it any wonder that women tend to be wary of the "nice guy"?
Often they have seen what lurks beneath - at least with a normal "bad
boy" what you see is what you get... :)

Of course, I've been called everything from a player to an
asshole, but the fact is, I'm just a normal guy that loves women
although I couldn't care less what any one woman may think. I am who I
am, if they want to have fun, they can come along, if not, that's
their choice. But it is fun to have them try to change me - gives them
a challenge... ;)
Bernd Jendrissek
2004-07-29 08:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Now for the flip side - the things they try to hide...
Nice Guys are dishonest.
So are Bad Boys.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are secretive.
Bad Boys don't bother protecting you from their dark side.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are compartmentalized.
Bad Boys have only one compartment.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are manipulative.
Nice Guys are controlling.
Bad Boys hit you to get you to do what they want.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys give to get.
Bad Boys take to get.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are passive-aggressive.
Bad Boys are aggressive.

(BTW where *do* these myths come from?)
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are full of rage.
Bad Boys let out their rage on you and your friends.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys have addictive behaviors.
Bad Boys *are* addicted to drugs, sex, alcohol, violence.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys have difficulty setting boundaries.
Bad Boys stomp all over your boundaries.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are frequently isolated.
And that's our fault?
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are often attracted to people and situations that need
"fixing".
Bad Boys break you in the first place.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys frequently have problems in intimate relationships.
Because nobody will give them one.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys have issues with sexuality.
Because nobody gives them any, because they don't TAKE it.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are usually only relatively successful.
Define "successful".
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
So those are the conclusions I've come to over the years.
Conclusions? They sound more like prejudices and all-or-nothing
thinking. Probably also lots of confirmation bias.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
This from having friends that think of themselves as being "Nice Guys"
who often wonder why they aren't more successful with women. They can
see their plusses, but go to great lengths to deny and hide their flip
side.
That's true - few people like confronting their dark side. I don't
think I've *ever* met a woman prepared to do that, though - that'd just
FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE, ya know? Most people I know who are aware of their
dark side are guys forced into that self-awareness by social debugging
sessions following years of frustration.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
To see some of the "negative" ones I listed, all you need to do is look
at some of the people that post to these various groups who say that
are "nice guys". You'll see them seething in hatred and anger. Yet they
say they are "nice guys".
Like Darkfalz! (Not like me, 'cause I try not to call myself a "nice
guy" anymore - I now take it as an insult. :)
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Whereas the "bad boy" isn't angry at the world, he has fun and enjoys
all that it has to offer - whether that is the company of a woman for
this week, or a fast car.
He doesn't *need* (or rather, doesn't have the stimulus) to be angry,
since he gets everything that he wants - he just takes it, after all.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Is it any wonder that women tend to be wary of the "nice guy"? Often
they have seen what lurks beneath - at least with a normal "bad boy"
what you see is what you get... :)
True, it's wise to be suspicious of what appears to be a free lunch, but
then, are you going to recommend that women start dating convicted
rapists and guys with full-blown AIDS because of the fear of what lurks
beneath the others?
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Of course, I've been called everything from a player to an asshole,
Yes - the dividing line between DISLIKE and HORNY is said to be VERY
fine.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
but the fact is, I'm just a normal guy that loves women although I
couldn't care less what any one woman may think. I am who I am, if they
want to have fun, they can come along, if not, that's their choice. But
it is fun to have them try to change me - gives them a challenge... ;)
Yep, you sound like a "you are the prize" player to me.

- --
I've generally found that the fastest way to get the right answer on the net
is to confidently assert the answer you believe to be right; those who know
will immediately correct you, while if you just ask, often no answers arrive.
All it requires is a willingness to look bad on occasion.
- Joe Buck on ***@gcc.gnu.org
Gray Loser
2004-07-29 19:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are dishonest.
So are Bad Boys.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are secretive.
Bad Boys don't bother protecting you from their dark side.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are compartmentalized.
Bad Boys have only one compartment.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are manipulative.
Nice Guys are controlling.
Bad Boys hit you to get you to do what they want.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys give to get.
Bad Boys take to get.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are passive-aggressive.
Bad Boys are aggressive.
(BTW where *do* these myths come from?)
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are full of rage.
Bad Boys let out their rage on you and your friends.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys have addictive behaviors.
Bad Boys *are* addicted to drugs, sex, alcohol, violence.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys have difficulty setting boundaries.
Bad Boys stomp all over your boundaries.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are frequently isolated.
And that's our fault?
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are often attracted to people and situations that need
"fixing".
Bad Boys break you in the first place.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys frequently have problems in intimate relationships.
Because nobody will give them one.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys have issues with sexuality.
Because nobody gives them any, because they don't TAKE it.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are usually only relatively successful.
Define "successful".
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
So those are the conclusions I've come to over the years.
Conclusions? They sound more like prejudices and all-or-nothing
thinking. Probably also lots of confirmation bias.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
To see some of the "negative" ones I listed, all you need to do is look
at some of the people that post to these various groups who say that
are "nice guys". You'll see them seething in hatred and anger. Yet they
say they are "nice guys".
Bear in mind, many of those "nice guys" who post here are extreme
pathological cases (which is why they're Usenet celebrities). Most of
the "nice guys" I've known in real life are only vaguely aware of
their problem; they're aware of their lack of romantic success
(obviously), but try to rationalize it away using a variety of means.

Regardless, surface "niceness" doesn't mean they're not frustrated
underneath. "Nice guys" behave in a courteous, inoffensive manner
because that's what they've been taught (and they can't reconcile the
contradiction between what's apparently expected of them -- especially
when they're young and are supposed to be developing their social
skills -- and the sort of behavior that really does lead to social
success). Obviously, when it turns out they've been bamboozled and
misled, they're going to be pissed.
micky
2004-07-29 22:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Loser
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
To see some of the "negative" ones I listed, all you need to do is look
at some of the people that post to these various groups who say that
are "nice guys". You'll see them seething in hatred and anger. Yet they
say they are "nice guys".
Bear in mind, many of those "nice guys" who post here are extreme
pathological cases (which is why they're Usenet celebrities). Most of
the "nice guys" I've known in real life are only vaguely aware of
their problem; they're aware of their lack of romantic success
(obviously), but try to rationalize it away using a variety of means.
Regardless, surface "niceness" doesn't mean they're not frustrated
underneath. "Nice guys" behave in a courteous, inoffensive manner
because that's what they've been taught (and they can't reconcile the
contradiction between what's apparently expected of them -- especially
when they're young and are supposed to be developing their social
skills -- and the sort of behavior that really does lead to social
success). Obviously, when it turns out they've been bamboozled and
misled, they're going to be pissed.
Most in my opinion are already quite pissed. But appearing nice on the
surface is such a deeply ingrained behviour that it is hard to change it
even when they know it is counterproductive. e.g., Even if a shy guy
knows that he sould make eye contact while talking and its such a simple
rule it takes a while to undo the conditioning where your eyes look
everywhere except your opponent/partner in a conversation.

-M
Eerieness of the Short-Distance Rodent
2004-07-30 10:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys frequently have problems in intimate relationships.
Because nobody will give them one.
lol...
Michaela
2004-07-29 20:19:59 UTC
Permalink
I'd say that bad boys create "nice girls" but that
would take the responsibility away from the
woman, so I am struggling to counter what you're
saying...

Perhaps I want to say, bad boys in turn attract
"nice girls".

Or they bring out the "nice girl" in a girl.

Different people bring out different aspects of us.
And *that*'s the challenge!

- Michaela
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Now for the flip side - the things they try to hide...
Nice Guys are dishonest.
So are Bad Boys.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are secretive.
Bad Boys don't bother protecting you from their dark side.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are compartmentalized.
Bad Boys have only one compartment.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are manipulative.
Nice Guys are controlling.
Bad Boys hit you to get you to do what they want.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys give to get.
Bad Boys take to get.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are passive-aggressive.
Bad Boys are aggressive.
(BTW where *do* these myths come from?)
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are full of rage.
Bad Boys let out their rage on you and your friends.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys have addictive behaviors.
Bad Boys *are* addicted to drugs, sex, alcohol, violence.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys have difficulty setting boundaries.
Bad Boys stomp all over your boundaries.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are frequently isolated.
And that's our fault?
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are often attracted to people and situations that need
"fixing".
Bad Boys break you in the first place.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys frequently have problems in intimate relationships.
Because nobody will give them one.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys have issues with sexuality.
Because nobody gives them any, because they don't TAKE it.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are usually only relatively successful.
Define "successful".
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
So those are the conclusions I've come to over the years.
Conclusions? They sound more like prejudices and all-or-nothing
thinking. Probably also lots of confirmation bias.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
This from having friends that think of themselves as being "Nice
Guys" who often wonder why they aren't more successful with women.
They can see their plusses, but go to great lengths to deny and hide
their flip side.
That's true - few people like confronting their dark side. I don't
think I've *ever* met a woman prepared to do that, though - that'd just
FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE, ya know? Most people I know who are aware of their
dark side are guys forced into that self-awareness by social debugging
sessions following years of frustration.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
To see some of the "negative" ones I listed, all you need to do is
look at some of the people that post to these various groups who say
that are "nice guys". You'll see them seething in hatred and anger.
Yet they say they are "nice guys".
Like Darkfalz! (Not like me, 'cause I try not to call myself a "nice
guy" anymore - I now take it as an insult. :)
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Whereas the "bad boy" isn't angry at the world, he has fun and enjoys
all that it has to offer - whether that is the company of a woman for
this week, or a fast car.
He doesn't *need* (or rather, doesn't have the stimulus) to be angry,
since he gets everything that he wants - he just takes it, after all.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Is it any wonder that women tend to be wary of the "nice guy"? Often
they have seen what lurks beneath - at least with a normal "bad boy"
what you see is what you get... :)
True, it's wise to be suspicious of what appears to be a free lunch,
but then, are you going to recommend that women start dating convicted
rapists and guys with full-blown AIDS because of the fear of what
lurks beneath the others?
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Of course, I've been called everything from a player to an asshole,
Yes - the dividing line between DISLIKE and HORNY is said to be VERY
fine.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
but the fact is, I'm just a normal guy that loves women although I
couldn't care less what any one woman may think. I am who I am, if
they want to have fun, they can come along, if not, that's their
choice. But it is fun to have them try to change me - gives them a
challenge... ;)
Yep, you sound like a "you are the prize" player to me.
- --
I've generally found that the fastest way to get the right answer on
the net is to confidently assert the answer you believe to be right;
those who know will immediately correct you, while if you just ask,
often no answers arrive. All it requires is a willingness to look bad
on occasion.
- Joe Buck on
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFBCLmd/FmLrNfLpjMRAp5VAJ0RYknjPXPcy4T+J4IyaZqZl/igtACeIcY8
TNA2DgGUjv4CwkCkfwytZrI=
=1Gbn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Passion comes from a word that means 'to suffer'.
Michaela
2004-07-29 20:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Special crosspost for my friends in asl :)
And to asm because it's on topic in marriages too.
------------------------------------------------------------

Brilliant posts both of these.
In a word or two or three: nice guys look for approval
from others instead of just accepting or getting their
approval from themselves.

BUT

One woman's nice guy is another man's dreamboat. And
why? Because he's able to say "no" to her. It's as simple
as that.

What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?

Here's two examples that come to mind:

A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
is one. And why does she cancel on her buds? Because:

1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
have no power of their own.)

2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
who will agree with my next sentence is Ad) But that's so
not true! Boring = predictable. The girl who *doesn't* cancel
her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
to him!

***

What about a woman who sleeps with men because she's too
afraid to say "no" because she thinks he won't call her again
if she doesn't? Well guess what baby, if anything is going to
make him not call again it's you sleeping with him for that
reason. He's not stupid. A woman who sleeps with a man
because *she wants to* is being more of her authentic self
than the one doing it as a lever. People tap into each other
on many many levels and he will be able to tell.

Nine times out of ten, the authentic girl will get another call
and the girl with the luminous "take me home" sign on her
forehead will not.

Finished and klaar.

- Michaela
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Post by The Babaloughesian
The reason "nice guys" call themselves "nice guys" is that they first
learned the term FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
[various and mutiple snips - I hope I haven't altered the basic idea]
Post by The Babaloughesian
Have you ever heard of a guy being rejected with the phrase "You're
a nice guy, but..."? Things which would follow the "but..." if not
for the rejector's desire to avoid hurting the guy's feelings
include "...you're too clingy", "...you have no spine", "...you're
socially inept", "...you're boring". This is the sort of person I
and many others refer to when using the term "nice guy". Again, the
term is used because it was others who told them that they are
"nice" and they internalized the label. "nice" became a central
feature of these "nice guys"' self image. Hence the usage of the
term "nice guy".
Yes, it is very convenient because it is more efficient than saying
"insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, dull, needy guy with low
self esteem who overidealizes women, has a pathologically excessive
need for approval and an obsession with saving face, is dishonest,
etc.".
[snip]
Post by The Babaloughesian
I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
unofficial personality disorder. The term is rich with meaning to
those of us familiar with it, much like terms such as "sociopath" or
"narcissist" would be rich with meaning to those familiar with the
concepts these words represent.
I concur. Long ago I came to the conclusion that "nice guys"
basically seem to believe that if they are "good" and do everything
"right" they will be loved, get their needs met, and have a problem
free life. This of course necessitates trying to elminate or hide
certain things about themselves (their mistakes, needs, emotions, etc)
and become what they believe others want them to be (generous,
helpful, peaceful, and so on).
Basically, everyone has some basic traits that sort of
describe them. Usually, guys have one or two positive traits as well
as one of two of the negative ones, but "nice guys" seem to possess a
large number of the positive traits. Such as...
Nice Guys are givers. Nice Guys fix and caretake. Nice Guys seek
approval from others. Nice Guys avoid conflict. Nice Guys believe they
must hide their perceived flaws and mistakes. Nice Guys seek the
"right" way to do things. Nice Guys repress their feelings. Nice Guys
try to be different from their fathers. Nice Guys are often more
comfortable relating to women than to men. Nice Guys have difficulty
making their needs a priority. Nice Guys often make their partner
their emotional center...
Now for the flip side - the things they try to hide...
Nice Guys are dishonest. Nice Guys are secretive. Nice Guys are
compartmentalized. Nice Guys are manipulative. Nice Guys are
controlling. Nice Guys give to get. Nice Guys are
passive-aggressive. Nice Guys are full of rage. Nice Guys have
addictive behaviors. Nice Guys have difficulty setting
boundaries. Nice Guys are frequently isolated. Nice Guys are often
attracted to people and situations that need "fixing". Nice Guys
frequently have problems in intimate relationships. Nice Guys have
issues with sexuality. Nice Guys are usually only relatively
successful.
So those are the conclusions I've come to over the years. This
from having friends that think of themselves as being "Nice Guys" who
often wonder why they aren't more successful with women. They can see
their plusses, but go to great lengths to deny and hide their flip
side.
To see some of the "negative" ones I listed, all you need to
do is look at some of the people that post to these various groups who
say that are "nice guys". You'll see them seething in hatred and
anger. Yet they say they are "nice guys". Whereas the "bad boy" isn't
angry at the world, he has fun and enjoys all that it has to offer -
whether that is the company of a woman for this week, or a fast car.
Is it any wonder that women tend to be wary of the "nice guy"?
Often they have seen what lurks beneath - at least with a normal "bad
boy" what you see is what you get... :)
Of course, I've been called everything from a player to an
asshole, but the fact is, I'm just a normal guy that loves women
although I couldn't care less what any one woman may think. I am who I
am, if they want to have fun, they can come along, if not, that's
their choice. But it is fun to have them try to change me - gives them
a challenge... ;)
JWB
2004-07-29 20:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are dishonest. Nice Guys are secretive. Nice Guys are
compartmentalized. Nice Guys are manipulative. Nice Guys are
controlling. Nice Guys give to get. Nice Guys are
passive-aggressive......
There were a few girls in my past who had a clingy milksop "nice guy" who
hung around, and yea, the above fits. Especially manipulative and
controlling. I usually either chased the guy away or dumped the girl.
--
JWB

e-mail: jwb3333 at excite dot com
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Special crosspost for my friends in asl :)
And to asm because it's on topic in marriages too.
------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant posts both of these.
In a word or two or three: nice guys look for approval
from others instead of just accepting or getting their
approval from themselves.
BUT
One woman's nice guy is another man's dreamboat. And
why? Because he's able to say "no" to her. It's as simple
as that.
What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?
A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
have no power of their own.)
2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
who will agree with my next sentence is Ad) But that's so
not true! Boring = predictable. The girl who *doesn't* cancel
her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
to him!
***
What about a woman who sleeps with men because she's too
afraid to say "no" because she thinks he won't call her again
if she doesn't? Well guess what baby, if anything is going to
make him not call again it's you sleeping with him for that
reason. He's not stupid. A woman who sleeps with a man
because *she wants to* is being more of her authentic self
than the one doing it as a lever. People tap into each other
on many many levels and he will be able to tell.
Nine times out of ten, the authentic girl will get another call
and the girl with the luminous "take me home" sign on her
forehead will not.
Finished and klaar.
- Michaela
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Post by The Babaloughesian
The reason "nice guys" call themselves "nice guys" is that they first
learned the term FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
[various and mutiple snips - I hope I haven't altered the basic idea]
Post by The Babaloughesian
Have you ever heard of a guy being rejected with the phrase "You're
a nice guy, but..."? Things which would follow the "but..." if not
for the rejector's desire to avoid hurting the guy's feelings
include "...you're too clingy", "...you have no spine", "...you're
socially inept", "...you're boring". This is the sort of person I
and many others refer to when using the term "nice guy". Again, the
term is used because it was others who told them that they are
"nice" and they internalized the label. "nice" became a central
feature of these "nice guys"' self image. Hence the usage of the
term "nice guy".
Yes, it is very convenient because it is more efficient than saying
"insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, dull, needy guy with low
self esteem who overidealizes women, has a pathologically excessive
need for approval and an obsession with saving face, is dishonest,
etc.".
[snip]
Post by The Babaloughesian
I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
unofficial personality disorder. The term is rich with meaning to
those of us familiar with it, much like terms such as "sociopath" or
"narcissist" would be rich with meaning to those familiar with the
concepts these words represent.
I concur. Long ago I came to the conclusion that "nice guys"
basically seem to believe that if they are "good" and do everything
"right" they will be loved, get their needs met, and have a problem
free life. This of course necessitates trying to elminate or hide
certain things about themselves (their mistakes, needs, emotions, etc)
and become what they believe others want them to be (generous,
helpful, peaceful, and so on).
Basically, everyone has some basic traits that sort of
describe them. Usually, guys have one or two positive traits as well
as one of two of the negative ones, but "nice guys" seem to possess a
large number of the positive traits. Such as...
Nice Guys are givers. Nice Guys fix and caretake. Nice Guys seek
approval from others. Nice Guys avoid conflict. Nice Guys believe they
must hide their perceived flaws and mistakes. Nice Guys seek the
"right" way to do things. Nice Guys repress their feelings. Nice Guys
try to be different from their fathers. Nice Guys are often more
comfortable relating to women than to men. Nice Guys have difficulty
making their needs a priority. Nice Guys often make their partner
their emotional center...
Now for the flip side - the things they try to hide...
Nice Guys are dishonest. Nice Guys are secretive. Nice Guys are
compartmentalized. Nice Guys are manipulative. Nice Guys are
controlling. Nice Guys give to get. Nice Guys are
passive-aggressive. Nice Guys are full of rage. Nice Guys have
addictive behaviors. Nice Guys have difficulty setting
boundaries. Nice Guys are frequently isolated. Nice Guys are often
attracted to people and situations that need "fixing". Nice Guys
frequently have problems in intimate relationships. Nice Guys have
issues with sexuality. Nice Guys are usually only relatively
successful.
So those are the conclusions I've come to over the years. This
from having friends that think of themselves as being "Nice Guys" who
often wonder why they aren't more successful with women. They can see
their plusses, but go to great lengths to deny and hide their flip
side.
To see some of the "negative" ones I listed, all you need to
do is look at some of the people that post to these various groups who
say that are "nice guys". You'll see them seething in hatred and
anger. Yet they say they are "nice guys". Whereas the "bad boy" isn't
angry at the world, he has fun and enjoys all that it has to offer -
whether that is the company of a woman for this week, or a fast car.
Is it any wonder that women tend to be wary of the "nice guy"?
Often they have seen what lurks beneath - at least with a normal "bad
boy" what you see is what you get... :)
Of course, I've been called everything from a player to an
asshole, but the fact is, I'm just a normal guy that loves women
although I couldn't care less what any one woman may think. I am who I
am, if they want to have fun, they can come along, if not, that's
their choice. But it is fun to have them try to change me - gives them
a challenge... ;)
Michaela
2004-07-29 23:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Coincidentally, it's when I got to that very section that I decided
it was a keeper.

I tend to steer away from long posts, but this was different.

Good to know it's appreciated by others too.

- Michaela
Post by JWB
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Nice Guys are dishonest. Nice Guys are secretive. Nice Guys are
compartmentalized. Nice Guys are manipulative. Nice Guys are
controlling. Nice Guys give to get. Nice Guys are
passive-aggressive......
There were a few girls in my past who had a clingy milksop "nice guy"
who hung around, and yea, the above fits. Especially manipulative and
controlling. I usually either chased the guy away or dumped the girl.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Special crosspost for my friends in asl :)
And to asm because it's on topic in marriages too.
------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant posts both of these.
In a word or two or three: nice guys look for approval
from others instead of just accepting or getting their
approval from themselves.
BUT
One woman's nice guy is another man's dreamboat. And
why? Because he's able to say "no" to her. It's as simple
as that.
What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?
A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
have no power of their own.)
2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
who will agree with my next sentence is Ad) But that's so
not true! Boring = predictable. The girl who *doesn't* cancel
her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
to him!
***
What about a woman who sleeps with men because she's too
afraid to say "no" because she thinks he won't call her again
if she doesn't? Well guess what baby, if anything is going to
make him not call again it's you sleeping with him for that
reason. He's not stupid. A woman who sleeps with a man
because *she wants to* is being more of her authentic self
than the one doing it as a lever. People tap into each other
on many many levels and he will be able to tell.
Nine times out of ten, the authentic girl will get another call
and the girl with the luminous "take me home" sign on her
forehead will not.
Finished and klaar.
- Michaela
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Post by The Babaloughesian
The reason "nice guys" call themselves "nice guys" is that they
first learned the term FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
[various and mutiple snips - I hope I haven't altered the basic idea]
Post by The Babaloughesian
Have you ever heard of a guy being rejected with the phrase "You're
a nice guy, but..."? Things which would follow the "but..." if not
for the rejector's desire to avoid hurting the guy's feelings
include "...you're too clingy", "...you have no spine", "...you're
socially inept", "...you're boring". This is the sort of person I
and many others refer to when using the term "nice guy". Again,
the term is used because it was others who told them that they are
"nice" and they internalized the label. "nice" became a central
feature of these "nice guys"' self image. Hence the usage of the
term "nice guy".
Yes, it is very convenient because it is more efficient than saying
"insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, dull, needy guy with
low self esteem who overidealizes women, has a pathologically
excessive need for approval and an obsession with saving face, is
dishonest, etc.".
[snip]
Post by The Babaloughesian
I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
unofficial personality disorder. The term is rich with meaning to
those of us familiar with it, much like terms such as "sociopath"
or "narcissist" would be rich with meaning to those familiar with
the concepts these words represent.
I concur. Long ago I came to the conclusion that "nice guys"
basically seem to believe that if they are "good" and do everything
"right" they will be loved, get their needs met, and have a problem
free life. This of course necessitates trying to elminate or hide
certain things about themselves (their mistakes, needs, emotions,
etc) and become what they believe others want them to be (generous,
helpful, peaceful, and so on).
Basically, everyone has some basic traits that sort of
describe them. Usually, guys have one or two positive traits as well
as one of two of the negative ones, but "nice guys" seem to possess
a large number of the positive traits. Such as...
Nice Guys are givers. Nice Guys fix and caretake. Nice Guys seek
approval from others. Nice Guys avoid conflict. Nice Guys believe
they must hide their perceived flaws and mistakes. Nice Guys seek
the "right" way to do things. Nice Guys repress their feelings.
Nice Guys try to be different from their fathers. Nice Guys are
often more comfortable relating to women than to men. Nice Guys
have difficulty making their needs a priority. Nice Guys often make
their partner their emotional center...
Now for the flip side - the things they try to hide...
Nice Guys are dishonest. Nice Guys are secretive. Nice Guys are
compartmentalized. Nice Guys are manipulative. Nice Guys are
controlling. Nice Guys give to get. Nice Guys are
passive-aggressive. Nice Guys are full of rage. Nice Guys have
addictive behaviors. Nice Guys have difficulty setting
boundaries. Nice Guys are frequently isolated. Nice Guys are often
attracted to people and situations that need "fixing". Nice Guys
frequently have problems in intimate relationships. Nice Guys have
issues with sexuality. Nice Guys are usually only relatively
successful.
So those are the conclusions I've come to over the years. This
from having friends that think of themselves as being "Nice Guys"
who often wonder why they aren't more successful with women. They
can see their plusses, but go to great lengths to deny and hide
their flip side.
To see some of the "negative" ones I listed, all you need to
do is look at some of the people that post to these various groups
who say that are "nice guys". You'll see them seething in hatred and
anger. Yet they say they are "nice guys". Whereas the "bad boy"
isn't angry at the world, he has fun and enjoys all that it has to
offer - whether that is the company of a woman for this week, or a
fast car.
Is it any wonder that women tend to be wary of the "nice guy"?
Often they have seen what lurks beneath - at least with a normal
"bad boy" what you see is what you get... :)
Of course, I've been called everything from a player to an
asshole, but the fact is, I'm just a normal guy that loves women
although I couldn't care less what any one woman may think. I am
who I am, if they want to have fun, they can come along, if not,
that's their choice. But it is fun to have them try to change me -
gives them a challenge... ;)
--
Passion comes from a word that means 'to suffer'.
Doug Laidlaw
2004-07-30 10:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Special crosspost for my friends in asl :)
And to asm because it's on topic in marriages too.
------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant posts both of these.
In a word or two or three: nice guys look for approval
from others instead of just accepting or getting their
approval from themselves.
BUT
One woman's nice guy is another man's dreamboat. And
why? Because he's able to say "no" to her. It's as simple
as that.
What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?
A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
have no power of their own.)
2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
who will agree with my next sentence is Ad) But that's so
not true! Boring = predictable. The girl who *doesn't* cancel
her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
to him!
***
What about a woman who sleeps with men because she's too
afraid to say "no" because she thinks he won't call her again
if she doesn't? Well guess what baby, if anything is going to
make him not call again it's you sleeping with him for that
reason. He's not stupid. A woman who sleeps with a man
because *she wants to* is being more of her authentic self
than the one doing it as a lever. People tap into each other
on many many levels and he will be able to tell.
Nine times out of ten, the authentic girl will get another call
and the girl with the luminous "take me home" sign on her
forehead will not.
Finished and klaar.
- Michaela
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Post by The Babaloughesian
The reason "nice guys" call themselves "nice guys" is that they first
learned the term FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
[various and mutiple snips - I hope I haven't altered the basic idea]
Post by The Babaloughesian
Have you ever heard of a guy being rejected with the phrase "You're
a nice guy, but..."? Things which would follow the "but..." if not
for the rejector's desire to avoid hurting the guy's feelings
include "...you're too clingy", "...you have no spine", "...you're
socially inept", "...you're boring". This is the sort of person I
and many others refer to when using the term "nice guy". Again, the
term is used because it was others who told them that they are
"nice" and they internalized the label. "nice" became a central
feature of these "nice guys"' self image. Hence the usage of the
term "nice guy".
Yes, it is very convenient because it is more efficient than saying
"insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, dull, needy guy with low
self esteem who overidealizes women, has a pathologically excessive
need for approval and an obsession with saving face, is dishonest,
etc.".
[snip]
Post by The Babaloughesian
I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
unofficial personality disorder. The term is rich with meaning to
those of us familiar with it, much like terms such as "sociopath" or
"narcissist" would be rich with meaning to those familiar with the
concepts these words represent.
I concur. Long ago I came to the conclusion that "nice guys"
basically seem to believe that if they are "good" and do everything
"right" they will be loved, get their needs met, and have a problem
free life. This of course necessitates trying to elminate or hide
certain things about themselves (their mistakes, needs, emotions, etc)
and become what they believe others want them to be (generous,
helpful, peaceful, and so on).
Basically, everyone has some basic traits that sort of
describe them. Usually, guys have one or two positive traits as well
as one of two of the negative ones, but "nice guys" seem to possess a
large number of the positive traits. Such as...
Nice Guys are givers. Nice Guys fix and caretake. Nice Guys seek
approval from others. Nice Guys avoid conflict. Nice Guys believe they
must hide their perceived flaws and mistakes. Nice Guys seek the
"right" way to do things. Nice Guys repress their feelings. Nice Guys
try to be different from their fathers. Nice Guys are often more
comfortable relating to women than to men. Nice Guys have difficulty
making their needs a priority. Nice Guys often make their partner
their emotional center...
Now for the flip side - the things they try to hide...
Nice Guys are dishonest. Nice Guys are secretive. Nice Guys are
compartmentalized. Nice Guys are manipulative. Nice Guys are
controlling. Nice Guys give to get. Nice Guys are
passive-aggressive. Nice Guys are full of rage. Nice Guys have
addictive behaviors. Nice Guys have difficulty setting
boundaries. Nice Guys are frequently isolated. Nice Guys are often
attracted to people and situations that need "fixing". Nice Guys
frequently have problems in intimate relationships. Nice Guys have
issues with sexuality. Nice Guys are usually only relatively
successful.
So those are the conclusions I've come to over the years. This
from having friends that think of themselves as being "Nice Guys" who
often wonder why they aren't more successful with women. They can see
their plusses, but go to great lengths to deny and hide their flip
side.
To see some of the "negative" ones I listed, all you need to
do is look at some of the people that post to these various groups who
say that are "nice guys". You'll see them seething in hatred and
anger. Yet they say they are "nice guys". Whereas the "bad boy" isn't
angry at the world, he has fun and enjoys all that it has to offer -
whether that is the company of a woman for this week, or a fast car.
Is it any wonder that women tend to be wary of the "nice guy"?
Often they have seen what lurks beneath - at least with a normal "bad
boy" what you see is what you get... :)
Of course, I've been called everything from a player to an
asshole, but the fact is, I'm just a normal guy that loves women
although I couldn't care less what any one woman may think. I am who I
am, if they want to have fun, they can come along, if not, that's
their choice. But it is fun to have them try to change me - gives them
a challenge... ;)
Is it because they are afraid to be "bad" and get a "bad" partner who can do
it as their representative in a way? Horribly expressed, I know, and just
a thought.

Doug.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Drama is life with the dull bits cut out.
-- Alfred Hitchcock.
Michaela
2004-08-03 07:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Laidlaw
Post by Michaela
------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant posts both of these.
In a word or two or three: nice guys look for approval
from others instead of just accepting or getting their
approval from themselves.
BUT
One woman's nice guy is another man's dreamboat. And
why? Because he's able to say "no" to her. It's as simple
as that.
What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?
A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
have no power of their own.)
2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
who will agree with my next sentence is Ad) But that's so
not true! Boring = predictable. The girl who *doesn't* cancel
her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
to him!
***
What about a woman who sleeps with men because she's too
afraid to say "no" because she thinks he won't call her again
if she doesn't? Well guess what baby, if anything is going to
make him not call again it's you sleeping with him for that
reason. He's not stupid. A woman who sleeps with a man
because *she wants to* is being more of her authentic self
than the one doing it as a lever. People tap into each other
on many many levels and he will be able to tell.
Nine times out of ten, the authentic girl will get another call
and the girl with the luminous "take me home" sign on her
forehead will not.
Finished and klaar.
- Michaela
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Post by The Babaloughesian
The reason "nice guys" call themselves "nice guys" is that they first
learned the term FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
[various and mutiple snips - I hope I haven't altered the basic idea]
Post by The Babaloughesian
Have you ever heard of a guy being rejected with the phrase "You're
a nice guy, but..."? Things which would follow the "but..." if not
for the rejector's desire to avoid hurting the guy's feelings
include "...you're too clingy", "...you have no spine", "...you're
socially inept", "...you're boring". This is the sort of person I
and many others refer to when using the term "nice guy". Again, the
term is used because it was others who told them that they are
"nice" and they internalized the label. "nice" became a central
feature of these "nice guys"' self image. Hence the usage of the
term "nice guy".
Yes, it is very convenient because it is more efficient than saying
"insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, dull, needy guy with low
self esteem who overidealizes women, has a pathologically excessive
need for approval and an obsession with saving face, is dishonest,
etc.".
[snip]
Post by The Babaloughesian
I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
unofficial personality disorder. The term is rich with meaning to
those of us familiar with it, much like terms such as "sociopath" or
"narcissist" would be rich with meaning to those familiar with the
concepts these words represent.
I concur. Long ago I came to the conclusion that "nice guys"
basically seem to believe that if they are "good" and do everything
"right" they will be loved, get their needs met, and have a problem
free life. This of course necessitates trying to elminate or hide
certain things about themselves (their mistakes, needs, emotions, etc)
and become what they believe others want them to be (generous,
helpful, peaceful, and so on).
Basically, everyone has some basic traits that sort of
describe them. Usually, guys have one or two positive traits as well
as one of two of the negative ones, but "nice guys" seem to possess a
large number of the positive traits. Such as...
Nice Guys are givers. Nice Guys fix and caretake. Nice Guys seek
approval from others. Nice Guys avoid conflict. Nice Guys believe they
must hide their perceived flaws and mistakes. Nice Guys seek the
"right" way to do things. Nice Guys repress their feelings. Nice Guys
try to be different from their fathers. Nice Guys are often more
comfortable relating to women than to men. Nice Guys have difficulty
making their needs a priority. Nice Guys often make their partner
their emotional center...
Now for the flip side - the things they try to hide...
Nice Guys are dishonest. Nice Guys are secretive. Nice Guys are
compartmentalized. Nice Guys are manipulative. Nice Guys are
controlling. Nice Guys give to get. Nice Guys are
passive-aggressive. Nice Guys are full of rage. Nice Guys have
addictive behaviors. Nice Guys have difficulty setting
boundaries. Nice Guys are frequently isolated. Nice Guys are often
attracted to people and situations that need "fixing". Nice Guys
frequently have problems in intimate relationships. Nice Guys have
issues with sexuality. Nice Guys are usually only relatively
successful.
So those are the conclusions I've come to over the years. This
from having friends that think of themselves as being "Nice Guys" who
often wonder why they aren't more successful with women. They can see
their plusses, but go to great lengths to deny and hide their flip
side.
To see some of the "negative" ones I listed, all you need to
do is look at some of the people that post to these various groups who
say that are "nice guys". You'll see them seething in hatred and
anger. Yet they say they are "nice guys". Whereas the "bad boy" isn't
angry at the world, he has fun and enjoys all that it has to offer -
whether that is the company of a woman for this week, or a fast car.
Is it any wonder that women tend to be wary of the "nice guy"?
Often they have seen what lurks beneath - at least with a normal "bad
boy" what you see is what you get... :)
Of course, I've been called everything from a player to an
asshole, but the fact is, I'm just a normal guy that loves women
although I couldn't care less what any one woman may think. I am who I
am, if they want to have fun, they can come along, if not, that's
their choice. But it is fun to have them try to change me - gives them
a challenge... ;)
Is it because they are afraid to be "bad" and get a "bad" partner who can do
it as their representative in a way? Horribly expressed, I know, and just
a thought.
Doug.
Dang! I wrote a response to this and it doesn't show up on Google so I'm
not sure if you just didn't respond to me or if you missed my message.

I wrote something to the effect of "I sometimes have blocks when trying
to understand what other people are saying, so would you or someone
else please rephrase this question."

Thx

- Michaela
A***@nospamcomcast.net
2004-08-02 03:48:44 UTC
Permalink
In alt.love Michaela <michaelashouse> wrote:

: What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?

: Here's two examples that come to mind:

: A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
: my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
: is one. And why does she cancel on her buds? Because:

: 1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
: She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
: him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
: have no power of their own.)

What was it that Grocho Marx used to say? "I wouldn't want to
be in any club that wanted me as a member"? The same thing goes into
social settings, both partners have to feel that they are lucky to
have "won" the other. If one comes to feel that the they "deserve
better" than it's doomed.

: 2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
: lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
: who will agree with my next sentence is Ad)

Dang I hate being predictable... <snicker>

: But that's so not true! Boring = predictable.

Yep... Who wants the same thing day after day? Even filet
mignon gets boring if that's all you have, but mix it up a bit and
it'll go a long way...

: The girl who *doesn't* cancel
: her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
: therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
: to him!

The key is to always be somewhat unpredictable, and no matter
how well they think they know you, surprise them.

Anyway... No argument from me that you have to keep your
paramour interested and the best way to do that is to retain your
mystery.
The Babaloughesian
2004-08-02 04:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
: What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?
: A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
: my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
: 1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
: She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
: him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
: have no power of their own.)
What was it that Grocho Marx used to say? "I wouldn't want to
be in any club that wanted me as a member"? The same thing goes into
social settings, both partners have to feel that they are lucky to
have "won" the other. If one comes to feel that the they "deserve
better" than it's doomed.
: 2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
: lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
: who will agree with my next sentence is Ad)
Dang I hate being predictable... <snicker>
: But that's so not true! Boring = predictable.
Yep... Who wants the same thing day after day? Even filet
mignon gets boring if that's all you have, but mix it up a bit and
it'll go a long way...
: The girl who *doesn't* cancel
: her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
: therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
: to him!
The key is to always be somewhat unpredictable, and no matter
how well they think they know you, surprise them.
Anyway... No argument from me that you have to keep your
paramour interested and the best way to do that is to retain your
mystery.
Egads. Reason #106 why I'm never going to bother with relationships. It's
too much work to be unpredictable, go out of one's way to surprise people,
retain some "mystery" but not so much that the other person loses all
interest completely, etc. It's only because people are ruthless animals
that one has to avoid being predictable, out of necessity, just to make sure
they don't gain some sort of advantage over you. What I've always dreamed
of was being a sitcom character. Always liked how a sitcom can go years and
nothing really changes (except when it comes to NBC and their fucking "we
must end every season of every sitcom with a damn wedding" bullshit. Yes,
this is probably hyperbole, but seriously, NBC sitcoms have too many
weddings). That's how I view life a lot of the time. Like it's a sitcom,
or a soap opera. There's a cast of characters, and they've all got their
personalities, and for the most part they don't change, and I've got my
niche and I don't have to think outside of my niche, and there's not much
need for long term memory or planning. But then reality interferes and
situations change. Even on Usenet. I hate that.
--
"There's no risk in numbers, andy. They don't talk back, they don't have
"moods", and 2 + 2 always equals 4. Why can't people be more predictable?"
-Gra-Gra
audrey in velvet
2004-08-02 11:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
: What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?
: A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
: my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
: 1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
: She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
: him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
: have no power of their own.)
What was it that Grocho Marx used to say? "I wouldn't want to
be in any club that wanted me as a member"? The same thing goes into
social settings, both partners have to feel that they are lucky to
have "won" the other. If one comes to feel that the they "deserve
better" than it's doomed.
: 2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
: lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
: who will agree with my next sentence is Ad)
Dang I hate being predictable... <snicker>
: But that's so not true! Boring = predictable.
Yep... Who wants the same thing day after day? Even filet
mignon gets boring if that's all you have, but mix it up a bit and
it'll go a long way...
: The girl who *doesn't* cancel
: her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
: therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
: to him!
The key is to always be somewhat unpredictable, and no matter
how well they think they know you, surprise them.
Anyway... No argument from me that you have to keep your
paramour interested and the best way to do that is to retain your
mystery.
Egads. Reason #106 why I'm never going to bother with relationships. It's
too much work to be unpredictable, go out of one's way to surprise people,
retain some "mystery" but not so much that the other person loses all
interest completely, etc. It's only because people are ruthless animals
that one has to avoid being predictable, out of necessity, just to make sure
they don't gain some sort of advantage over you. What I've always dreamed
of was being a sitcom character. Always liked how a sitcom can go years and
nothing really changes (except when it comes to NBC and their fucking "we
must end every season of every sitcom with a damn wedding" bullshit. Yes,
this is probably hyperbole, but seriously, NBC sitcoms have too many
weddings). That's how I view life a lot of the time. Like it's a sitcom,
or a soap opera. There's a cast of characters, and they've all got their
personalities, and for the most part they don't change, and I've got my
niche and I don't have to think outside of my niche, and there's not much
need for long term memory or planning. But then reality interferes and
situations change. Even on Usenet. I hate that.
aside from your obsession with sitcoms aside, in the *real* world,
usually when one refers to *someone* as being predictable it just
means that that *predictable* person has a set of long term neuroses
and her pattern of behavior can be easily predicted by the kind of
stimuli used to instigate that predictable behavior.

usenet is just a tool for endless experiments :-)

audrey
The Babaloughesian
2004-08-02 15:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
: What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?
: A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
: my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
: 1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
: She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
: him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
: have no power of their own.)
What was it that Grocho Marx used to say? "I wouldn't want to
be in any club that wanted me as a member"? The same thing goes into
social settings, both partners have to feel that they are lucky to
have "won" the other. If one comes to feel that the they "deserve
better" than it's doomed.
: 2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
: lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
: who will agree with my next sentence is Ad)
Dang I hate being predictable... <snicker>
: But that's so not true! Boring = predictable.
Yep... Who wants the same thing day after day? Even filet
mignon gets boring if that's all you have, but mix it up a bit and
it'll go a long way...
: The girl who *doesn't* cancel
: her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
: therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
: to him!
The key is to always be somewhat unpredictable, and no matter
how well they think they know you, surprise them.
Anyway... No argument from me that you have to keep your
paramour interested and the best way to do that is to retain your
mystery.
Egads. Reason #106 why I'm never going to bother with relationships.
It's
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
too much work to be unpredictable, go out of one's way to surprise people,
retain some "mystery" but not so much that the other person loses all
interest completely, etc. It's only because people are ruthless animals
that one has to avoid being predictable, out of necessity, just to make sure
they don't gain some sort of advantage over you. What I've always dreamed
of was being a sitcom character. Always liked how a sitcom can go years and
nothing really changes (except when it comes to NBC and their fucking "we
must end every season of every sitcom with a damn wedding" bullshit.
Yes,
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
this is probably hyperbole, but seriously, NBC sitcoms have too many
weddings). That's how I view life a lot of the time. Like it's a sitcom,
or a soap opera. There's a cast of characters, and they've all got their
personalities, and for the most part they don't change, and I've got my
niche and I don't have to think outside of my niche, and there's not much
need for long term memory or planning. But then reality interferes and
situations change. Even on Usenet. I hate that.
aside from your obsession with sitcoms aside, in the *real* world,
usually when one refers to *someone* as being predictable it just
means that that *predictable* person has a set of long term neuroses
and her pattern of behavior can be easily predicted by the kind of
stimuli used to instigate that predictable behavior.
Yes. Just like sitcom characters.
audrey in velvet
2004-08-04 04:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by offshore eddie
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
: What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?
: A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
: my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
: 1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
: She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
: him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
: have no power of their own.)
What was it that Grocho Marx used to say? "I wouldn't want to
be in any club that wanted me as a member"? The same thing goes into
social settings, both partners have to feel that they are lucky to
have "won" the other. If one comes to feel that the they "deserve
better" than it's doomed.
: 2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
: lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
: who will agree with my next sentence is Ad)
Dang I hate being predictable... <snicker>
: But that's so not true! Boring = predictable.
Yep... Who wants the same thing day after day? Even filet
mignon gets boring if that's all you have, but mix it up a bit and
it'll go a long way...
: The girl who *doesn't* cancel
: her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
: therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
: to him!
The key is to always be somewhat unpredictable, and no matter
how well they think they know you, surprise them.
Anyway... No argument from me that you have to keep your
paramour interested and the best way to do that is to retain your
mystery.
Egads. Reason #106 why I'm never going to bother with relationships.
It's
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
too much work to be unpredictable, go out of one's way to surprise
people,
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
retain some "mystery" but not so much that the other person loses all
interest completely, etc. It's only because people are ruthless animals
that one has to avoid being predictable, out of necessity, just to make
sure
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
they don't gain some sort of advantage over you. What I've always
dreamed
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
of was being a sitcom character. Always liked how a sitcom can go years
and
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
nothing really changes (except when it comes to NBC and their fucking
"we
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
must end every season of every sitcom with a damn wedding" bullshit.
Yes,
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
this is probably hyperbole, but seriously, NBC sitcoms have too many
weddings). That's how I view life a lot of the time. Like it's a
sitcom,
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
or a soap opera. There's a cast of characters, and they've all got
their
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
personalities, and for the most part they don't change, and I've got my
niche and I don't have to think outside of my niche, and there's not
much
Post by audrey in velvet
Post by The Babaloughesian
need for long term memory or planning. But then reality interferes and
situations change. Even on Usenet. I hate that.
aside from your obsession with sitcoms aside, in the *real* world,
usually when one refers to *someone* as being predictable it just
means that that *predictable* person has a set of long term neuroses
and her pattern of behavior can be easily predicted by the kind of
stimuli used to instigate that predictable behavior.
Yes. Just like sitcom characters.
hmmm...you may have a point there but in sitcoms nothing gets ugly and
everybody gets married

besides a sitcom isnt the medium for experimentation.
Michaela
2004-08-02 21:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Dang I hate being predictable... <snicker>
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
But that's so not true! Boring = predictable.
Yep... Who wants the same thing day after day? Even filet
mignon gets boring if that's all you have, but mix it up a bit and
it'll go a long way...
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
The girl who *doesn't* cancel
her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
to him!
The key is to always be somewhat unpredictable, and no matter
how well they think they know you, surprise them.
Anyway... No argument from me that you have to keep your
paramour interested and the best way to do that is to retain your
mystery.
Egads. Reason #106 why I'm never going to bother with relationships.
It's too much work to be unpredictable,
So you're saying /if/ you had a relationship you'd rather "lose yourself"
in that person? You don't think boundaries are important? What about
independence?

go out of one's way to
Post by The Babaloughesian
surprise people, retain some "mystery" but not so much that the other
person loses all interest completely, etc. It's only because people
are ruthless animals that one has to avoid being predictable,
That is a one-sided pov. You're better than this.

- Michaela
The Babaloughesian
2004-08-03 01:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Dang I hate being predictable... <snicker>
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
But that's so not true! Boring = predictable.
Yep... Who wants the same thing day after day? Even filet
mignon gets boring if that's all you have, but mix it up a bit and
it'll go a long way...
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
The girl who *doesn't* cancel
her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
to him!
The key is to always be somewhat unpredictable, and no matter
how well they think they know you, surprise them.
Anyway... No argument from me that you have to keep your
paramour interested and the best way to do that is to retain your
mystery.
Egads. Reason #106 why I'm never going to bother with relationships.
It's too much work to be unpredictable,
So you're saying /if/ you had a relationship you'd rather "lose yourself"
in that person?
Perhaps so, were it feasible. But as you know it is not feasible because it
would likely lead to either the end of the relationship or the corruption of
the other party in some way and thus the changing of the relationship.
Somebody willing to be the other party in such a relationship would likely
be pathological to begin with. And therefore I would naturally not enter
into such a situation, as I know that it would likely be doomed. But the
alternative is undesirable as well, and thus Reason #106.
Post by Michaela
You don't think boundaries are important?
Of course they are important in sustaining a "healthy" relationship, because
human beings are apparently unequipped to deal with interaction without
them.
Post by Michaela
What about
independence?
I never wanted independence from my parents until it was expected of me, by
them or by others. I still have trouble wanting it in and of itself. It is
for the most part just a value I have to adopt for the sake of survival, and
my motives for surviving in the first place are shaky to begin with. This
is how I imagine it would be in other types of relationships. Having to
force myself to maintain a particular level of independence in order to meet
expectations; in order to avoid scaring the other person away or boring them
or whatever. It's like walking a tightrope. You don't hold your arms out
because you enjoy doing it. You do it because you don't want to fall.
Post by Michaela
go out of one's way to
Post by The Babaloughesian
surprise people, retain some "mystery" but not so much that the other
person loses all interest completely, etc. It's only because people
are ruthless animals that one has to avoid being predictable,
That is a one-sided pov.
It was an emotional post, not an intellectual one. It was meant to be
one-sided.
Post by Michaela
You're better than this.
I need clarification here: better at what?
Michaela
2004-08-03 07:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by Michaela
That is a one-sided pov.
It was an emotional post, not an intellectual one. It was meant to be
one-sided.
Post by Michaela
You're better than this.
I need clarification here: better at what?
LOL

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L240125F8

- Michaela
A***@nospamcomcast.net
2004-08-03 00:08:35 UTC
Permalink
In alt.love The Babaloughesian <***@privacy.net> wrote:

: <***@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:
:> In alt.love Michaela <michaelashouse> wrote:
:>
:> : The girl who *doesn't* cancel
:> : her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
:> : therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
:> : to him!
:>
:> The key is to always be somewhat unpredictable, and no matter
:> how well they think they know you, surprise them.
:>
:> Anyway... No argument from me that you have to keep your
:> paramour interested and the best way to do that is to retain your
:> mystery.

: Egads. Reason #106 why I'm never going to bother with relationships. It's
: too much work to be unpredictable, go out of one's way to surprise people,
: retain some "mystery" but not so much that the other person loses all
: interest completely, etc.

One of the things I've never understood is some people's
assumption that a relationship isn't hard work, and that after they
are in a relationship, they can relax and coast. Usually, they are the
ones that find they don't have a relationship in short order. Look at
a job - you have some people that just want to go in day after day and
do the same thing till they find their skillset is outdated and they
never took advantage of their opportunities to grow into new and
different areas when they could. Of course they will blame everyone
but themselves.

On the other hand there are people that will stay up to date
on the job, but somehow believe that once they are "in a relationship"
that's it. They see it as the "end" of the process, rather than the
beginning of another. They seem to think that once they are "in a
relationship" by some sort of magic if it's "right" it'll last - like
it's some sort of contest to see if it's "real". Usually such
relationships only last if both partners have given up and neither
really cares any longer. They stay together because doing anything
different is too much work. You can see that when two people have let
themselves go, so both are now over-weight, and don't even try to be
attractive not to each other, or anyone else. They stay together
because no one else would want either of them. Those that have options
know it, and look for the best option available to them...

: It's only because people are ruthless animals
: that one has to avoid being predictable, out of necessity, just to make sure
: they don't gain some sort of advantage over you.

Incorrect - we are able to learn and modify our behavior
because it is a "survival technique" to ensure that we adapt and grow
over time and through experience. Anyone that is predictable isn't
growing, and soon stagnates, and if one partner is growing then soon
they are beyond the other, and start to look for someone more on their
level.

Life is about continuously changing, growing, and maturing in
ways that you couldn't have thought of a few years ago. If you don't
surprise your partner then you aren't really living. It is as simple
as that.

Of course the guy/girl that gets tossed thinks it's because
the other person was "dangerous" when the truth was that they just
weren't boring...
The Babaloughesian
2004-08-03 03:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
:>
:> : The girl who *doesn't* cancel
:> : her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
:> : therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
:> : to him!
:>
:> The key is to always be somewhat unpredictable, and no matter
:> how well they think they know you, surprise them.
:>
:> Anyway... No argument from me that you have to keep your
:> paramour interested and the best way to do that is to retain your
:> mystery.
: Egads. Reason #106 why I'm never going to bother with relationships.
It's
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
: too much work to be unpredictable, go out of one's way to surprise people,
: retain some "mystery" but not so much that the other person loses all
: interest completely, etc.
One of the things I've never understood is some people's
assumption that a relationship isn't hard work, and that after they
are in a relationship, they can relax and coast.
Perhaps it starts out as wishful thinking, and then the person convinces
themselves of it and unfortunately enters into a relationship with an
unrealistic paradigm of how it's supposed to work. Inexperience would also
be a factor. Although of course everyone starts out inexperienced, what I
mean is something more like lack of experience with situations or anecdotes
that are liable to promote a work ethic; a connection, on an emotional
level, between "hard work" and "worthwhile outcome". I, for example,
certainly never developed that sort of thing in school, where the work was
easy, and having been avoidant of all peer relations throughout adolescence,
I naturally didn't develop it with regards to the realm of dealing with
other people, either. Early achievement and minimal early social
interaction might be common factors among those holding such assumptions.
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Usually, they are the
ones that find they don't have a relationship in short order. Look at
a job - you have some people that just want to go in day after day and
do the same thing
I want to do that. It'd be so much simpler than the way things work in the
real world. But it is of course not to be.

<snipped>

Very good post. You have described rather well the things that I dislike
about existence as a human being.

--
"really living" is overrated
ci+
2004-08-10 09:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
: What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?
belgian waffles?
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
: A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
: my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
: 1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
: She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
: him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
: have no power of their own.)
What was it that Grocho Marx used to say?
grocho marx? crocho marks? ehhhh, pls fix this pun...

"I wouldn't want to
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
be in any club that wanted me as a member"? The same thing goes into
social settings, both partners have to feel that they are lucky to
have "won" the other. If one comes to feel that the they "deserve
better" than it's doomed.
: 2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
: lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
: who will agree with my next sentence is Ad)
Dang I hate being predictable... <snicker>
: But that's so not true! Boring = predictable.
Yep... Who wants the same thing day after day? Even filet
mignon gets boring if that's all you have, but mix it up a bit and
it'll go a long way...
: The girl who *doesn't* cancel
: her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
: therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
: to him!
The key is to always be somewhat unpredictable, and no matter
how well they think they know you, surprise them.
Anyway... No argument from me that you have to keep your
paramour interested and the best way to do that is to retain your
mystery.
Egads. Reason #106 why I'm never going to bother with relationships.
yep
Post by The Babaloughesian
It's too much work
yep yep yep.. unless one is naturally alluring, i guess
Post by The Babaloughesian
to be unpredictable, go out of one's way to
surprise people, retain some "mystery" but not so much that the other
person loses all interest completely, etc.
then again, if you can ride it out for a few years before the effort
outweighs the benefits...
Post by The Babaloughesian
It's only because people
are ruthless animals that one has to avoid being predictable, out of
necessity, just to make sure they don't gain some sort of advantage
over you. What I've always dreamed of was being a sitcom character.
Always liked how a sitcom can go years and nothing really changes
(except when it comes to NBC and their fucking "we must end every
season of every sitcom with a damn wedding" bullshit. Yes, this is
probably hyperbole, but seriously, NBC sitcoms have too many
weddings).
there's also that infamoose 'yumpin da shark' deal... something like
lesbi-ann bed death, i suppose.. :>

That's how I view life a lot of the time. Like it's a
Post by The Babaloughesian
sitcom, or a soap opera. There's a cast of characters, and they've
all got their personalities, and for the most part they don't change,
and then there's pol pot...
Post by The Babaloughesian
and I've got my niche and I don't have to think outside of my niche,
and there's not much need for long term memory or planning. But then
reality interferes and situations change. Even on Usenet. I hate
that.
--
A Gollum wearing a (precious) cock-Ring is a shiny sight to behold.
ci+
2004-08-10 09:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
: But that's so not true! Boring = predictable.
true, though i've discovered that excessive novelty *also* bores (other)
ppl...
--
A Gollum wearing a (precious) cock-Ring is a terrible sight to behold.
Michaela
2004-08-10 22:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by ci+
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
But that's so not true! Boring = predictable.
true, though i've discovered that excessive novelty *also* bores
(other) ppl...
Anything be cool up to a point. And perhaps the "up to a point"
place is different for everyone depending on their perceptions and
stuff.

Ever tried putting "too" in front of a virtue (I got this from Keyes'
book "Taming Your Mind")? It immediately becomes its own
opposite -- and a vice.

Whenever anything reaches its extreme it becomes its opposite.

- Michaela
ci+
2004-08-12 05:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Whenever anything reaches its extreme it becomes its opposite.
that's too simplified a conclusion (and a generalization, so dreaded by
some ppl!). an extreme is just more extreme than less extreme.

for example. a house may be painted creamy white. then someone paints it
extremely white. it now reflects heat-inducing summer sunlight more
adequately. however the extremely/adequately white paint also causes
passerby to feel slightly blinded when near the extreme (high) level of
r4flected (plus direct) light.

another example: an engine designed etc to provide high torque will not
be as efficeint at accommodating loads that need high horsepower.


however, i won't generalize by stating that everything ak has ever
uttered is whiny nonsense. :>
--
Throw a Gollum on the barbee for me.
Michaela
2004-08-12 21:39:40 UTC
Permalink
"Michaela" in
Post by Michaela
Whenever anything reaches its extreme it becomes its opposite.
that's too simplified a conclusion (and a generalization, so dreaded
by some ppl!).
Please rephrase what you think those words meant.

an extreme is just more extreme than less extreme.

When the sun reaches its peak it goes down.
The sunny side of a mountain as opposed to the shady side
of the mountain.
The pedal of the bicycle goes up, then it goes down.
another example: an engine designed etc to provide high torque will
not be as efficeint at accommodating loads that need high horsepower.
I have no idea. Ask your pharmacist.
however, i won't generalize by stating that everything ak has ever
uttered is whiny nonsense. :>
Who's ak?

- Michaela

The Babaloughesian
2004-08-12 15:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by ci+
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
But that's so not true! Boring = predictable.
true, though i've discovered that excessive novelty *also* bores
(other) ppl...
Anything be cool up to a point. And perhaps the "up to a point"
place is different for everyone depending on their perceptions and
stuff.
Ever tried putting "too" in front of a virtue (I got this from Keyes'
book "Taming Your Mind")?
Burn it.
Post by Michaela
It immediately becomes its own
opposite -- and a vice.
Whenever anything reaches its extreme it becomes its opposite.
No. Too beautiful is not ugly. Too rich is not poor. Too happy is not
sad. Too tolerant is not intolerant. Too clean is not dirty. Too nice is
not mean. Too brave is not cowardly. Too prudent is not reckless. Too
smart is not stupid. etc. My hunch would be that every generalization or
universal statement other than this sentence and variations thereof is
massively oversimplistic.
Bernd Jendrissek
2004-08-12 18:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Babaloughesian
No. Too beautiful is not ugly. Too rich is not poor. Too happy is not
[snip]

And too nice is not jerk! Dammit!
--
"IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." - unknown
ci+
2004-08-10 09:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Yep... Who wants the same thing day after day? Even filet
mignon gets boring if that's all you have, but mix it up a bit and
it'll go a long way...
mmm... thx for the suggestion.. i've just tried this.. and you know, it
tastes great with prunes, ham, anchovies and pickle relish ... all
topping a scoop of wild cherry ice cream... :>

when i think up a name for this delight, i'll have to trademark it... or
not
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
: The girl who *doesn't* cancel
: her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
: therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
: to him!
ha! :>
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
The key is to always be somewhat unpredictable, and no matter
how well they think they know you, surprise them.
Anyway... No argument from me that you have to keep your
paramour interested and the best way to do that is to retain your
mystery. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
ok, then i'll alter my sparkling new siggy for the cause
--
A Gollum wearing a cock-Ring is an *inspirational* sight to behold.
ks
2004-08-02 13:57:34 UTC
Permalink
i can agree with the statements of bag..., ad... and mic... and what
they are saying belongs to my experience....

however i also know that life has a lot more to offer than what their
one-sided states say...

therefore i am very much in favour with the posts of offshore_eddie
and GoddesBabee, which appear in my opinion much more mature and less
reduced to one perception...

in fact, i believe that you can perceive their (bag, ad, mic...'s) for
some maybe provoking, isolating and reducing statements to represent
an 'unofficial personal disorder' of their speakers, as well ...

e.g. 'mystery' is fine, and i like it... play the game with others,
and enjoy life...

however why don't they say anything about:

'trust', and

'straightness'...

which are from my understanding more important than any real or played
'mystery'...

maybe for a girl trust is more important than hasving a so-callled bad
and/or nice guy...

and maybe for guys it's more importent to be straight than play the
mystery game?
Post by Michaela
Special crosspost for my friends in asl :)
And to asm because it's on topic in marriages too.
------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant posts both of these.
In a word or two or three: nice guys look for approval
from others instead of just accepting or getting their
approval from themselves.
BUT
One woman's nice guy is another man's dreamboat. And
why? Because he's able to say "no" to her. It's as simple
as that.
What is the female equivalent of "nice guy"?
A woman who tells a guy "Well I was going to go with
my buddies but I'll cancel them and come out with you"
1. She's so hard up for "love" she can't say "No" to him.
She loses her willpower to him. She loses her *power* to
him. (IMO no one is attracted to anyone who appears to
have no power of their own.)
2. She's afraid if she doesn't go with him that time he will
lose interest and won't call again. (I think the only person
who will agree with my next sentence is Ad) But that's so
not true! Boring = predictable. The girl who *doesn't* cancel
her girlfriends to be with him is the unpredictable and
therefore attractive one. She's the one whose mystery appeals
to him!
***
What about a woman who sleeps with men because she's too
afraid to say "no" because she thinks he won't call her again
if she doesn't? Well guess what baby, if anything is going to
make him not call again it's you sleeping with him for that
reason. He's not stupid. A woman who sleeps with a man
because *she wants to* is being more of her authentic self
than the one doing it as a lever. People tap into each other
on many many levels and he will be able to tell.
Nine times out of ten, the authentic girl will get another call
and the girl with the luminous "take me home" sign on her
forehead will not.
Finished and klaar.
- Michaela
Post by A***@nospamcomcast.net
Post by The Babaloughesian
The reason "nice guys" call themselves "nice guys" is that they first
learned the term FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
[various and mutiple snips - I hope I haven't altered the basic idea]
Post by The Babaloughesian
Have you ever heard of a guy being rejected with the phrase "You're
a nice guy, but..."? Things which would follow the "but..." if not
for the rejector's desire to avoid hurting the guy's feelings
include "...you're too clingy", "...you have no spine", "...you're
socially inept", "...you're boring". This is the sort of person I
and many others refer to when using the term "nice guy". Again, the
term is used because it was others who told them that they are
"nice" and they internalized the label. "nice" became a central
feature of these "nice guys"' self image. Hence the usage of the
term "nice guy".
Yes, it is very convenient because it is more efficient than saying
"insecure, passive, indecisive, obsequious, dull, needy guy with low
self esteem who overidealizes women, has a pathologically excessive
need for approval and an obsession with saving face, is dishonest,
etc.".
[snip]
Post by The Babaloughesian
I see the term "nice guy" as a sort of diagnosis of an
unofficial personality disorder. The term is rich with meaning to
those of us familiar with it, much like terms such as "sociopath" or
"narcissist" would be rich with meaning to those familiar with the
concepts these words represent.
I concur. Long ago I came to the conclusion that "nice guys"
basically seem to believe that if they are "good" and do everything
"right" they will be loved, get their needs met, and have a problem
free life. This of course necessitates trying to elminate or hide
certain things about themselves (their mistakes, needs, emotions, etc)
and become what they believe others want them to be (generous,
helpful, peaceful, and so on).
Basically, everyone has some basic traits that sort of
describe them. Usually, guys have one or two positive traits as well
as one of two of the negative ones, but "nice guys" seem to possess a
large number of the positive traits. Such as...
Nice Guys are givers. Nice Guys fix and caretake. Nice Guys seek
approval from others. Nice Guys avoid conflict. Nice Guys believe they
must hide their perceived flaws and mistakes. Nice Guys seek the
"right" way to do things. Nice Guys repress their feelings. Nice Guys
try to be different from their fathers. Nice Guys are often more
comfortable relating to women than to men. Nice Guys have difficulty
making their needs a priority. Nice Guys often make their partner
their emotional center...
Now for the flip side - the things they try to hide...
Nice Guys are dishonest. Nice Guys are secretive. Nice Guys are
compartmentalized. Nice Guys are manipulative. Nice Guys are
controlling. Nice Guys give to get. Nice Guys are
passive-aggressive. Nice Guys are full of rage. Nice Guys have
addictive behaviors. Nice Guys have difficulty setting
boundaries. Nice Guys are frequently isolated. Nice Guys are often
attracted to people and situations that need "fixing". Nice Guys
frequently have problems in intimate relationships. Nice Guys have
issues with sexuality. Nice Guys are usually only relatively
successful.
So those are the conclusions I've come to over the years. This
from having friends that think of themselves as being "Nice Guys" who
often wonder why they aren't more successful with women. They can see
their plusses, but go to great lengths to deny and hide their flip
side.
To see some of the "negative" ones I listed, all you need to
do is look at some of the people that post to these various groups who
say that are "nice guys". You'll see them seething in hatred and
anger. Yet they say they are "nice guys". Whereas the "bad boy" isn't
angry at the world, he has fun and enjoys all that it has to offer -
whether that is the company of a woman for this week, or a fast car.
Is it any wonder that women tend to be wary of the "nice guy"?
Often they have seen what lurks beneath - at least with a normal "bad
boy" what you see is what you get... :)
Of course, I've been called everything from a player to an
asshole, but the fact is, I'm just a normal guy that loves women
although I couldn't care less what any one woman may think. I am who I
am, if they want to have fun, they can come along, if not, that's
their choice. But it is fun to have them try to change me - gives them
a challenge... ;)
Michaela
2004-07-23 23:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by ske
There is a lot more to life and relationships than sex.
Yes. There's also usenet.

- Michaela
Heartless Pig
2004-07-24 00:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by ske
There is a lot more to life and relationships than sex.
Yes. There's also usenet.
- Michaela
With swallow women, I prefer to have sex first and relationship later.
The Babaloughesian
2004-07-24 01:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heartless Pig
Post by Michaela
Post by ske
There is a lot more to life and relationships than sex.
Yes. There's also usenet.
- Michaela
With swallow women, I prefer to have sex first and relationship later.
Does the same go for sparrow women?*

--
* a lot like a little potato man
Heartless Pig
2004-07-24 02:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by Heartless Pig
Post by Michaela
Post by ske
There is a lot more to life and relationships than sex.
Yes. There's also usenet.
- Michaela
With swallow women, I prefer to have sex first and relationship later.
Does the same go for sparrow women?*
--
* a lot like a little potato man
Let me clarify: Yes, sex is not the only thing in a relationship, yet it
is difficult to form a profound relationship because women tend to be
swallow (at least the ones I had to deal with). So you keep sex and
consider the relationship part later, as DeAngelo suggests.
ske
2004-07-26 09:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heartless Pig
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by Heartless Pig
Post by Michaela
Post by ske
There is a lot more to life and relationships than sex.
Yes. There's also usenet.
- Michaela
With swallow women, I prefer to have sex first and relationship later.
Does the same go for sparrow women?*
--
* a lot like a little potato man
Let me clarify: Yes, sex is not the only thing in a relationship, yet it
is difficult to form a profound relationship because women tend to be
swallow (at least the ones I had to deal with). So you keep sex and
consider the relationship part later, as DeAngelo suggests.
Assuming swallow == shallow:

Focusing on the physical relationship before the emotional relationship
is a very good way to deny yourself a potentially meaningful and lasting
relationship.

If you concentrate on the sex and only think about the relationship
afterwards, you objectify the other person (making them shallow). As
soon as you start encountering problems in the emotional relationship at
a later stage it becomes easier to find a new person to have sex with
than it is to deal with the problem.

It is quite easy to replace someone you are having sex with, it is
almost impossible to replace someone that you care for. In my opinion
you should not be having sex with a person that you do not care for, you
are possibly denying yourself of something very special if you do.

Fall in love first, lust second.

.ske
Michaela
2004-07-27 07:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by ske
Fall in love first, lust second.
.ske
Spoken like a true romantic.

- Michaela
ske
2004-07-27 08:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by ske
Fall in love first, lust second.
.ske
Spoken like a true romantic.
- Michaela
Spoken from experience, not romance (unfortunately).
--
.ske
Michaela
2004-07-27 23:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ske
Post by Michaela
Post by ske
Fall in love first, lust second.
.ske
Spoken like a true romantic.
- Michaela
Spoken from experience, not romance (unfortunately).
So. If falling in lust first doesn't work then falling in
love must?

Why?

- Michaela
ske
2004-07-28 05:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by ske
Post by Michaela
Post by ske
Fall in love first, lust second.
.ske
Spoken like a true romantic.
- Michaela
Spoken from experience, not romance (unfortunately).
So. If falling in lust first doesn't work then falling in
love must?
No, that would be naive.

As I (sort of) explained somewhere earlier in the thread:

"Focusing on the physical relationship before the emotional relationship
is a very good way to deny yourself a potentially meaningful and lasting
relationship."

To put it differently, acting on lust alone is unlikely to yield the
same commitment as that of an emotionally based relationship. If the
only reason you like the person is because they are "sexy", it is quite
likely you will not make much effort to keep them once you have been
physically gratified (however long that may take). My opinion, of
course, and I am not sure that was the point you were interested in...
Post by Michaela
Why?
The reciprocal of the above argument: If you are emotionally attracted
to a person (that is, you like them as a person, not just because you
find them physically attractive). Then you are more likely to (try to)
make the effort to overcome problems in the relationship because you
"care" about the person not just about the sex they provide you with.

That does not imply that the relationship is going to succeed, it just
means it has more reason to succeed than a physical relationship based
on lust. Similarly, it does not imply that a physical relationship
cannot develop into something more or be "successful".

I think the point I was trying to make was that prioritising sex over a
more balanced (emotional) relationship is not necessarily the best
approach. At least not in my experience.

Hope that made sense.
--
.ske
Bernd Jendrissek
2004-07-23 08:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by GoddessBaybee
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
It takes huge mental effort to override what your limbic system says, to
reprogram it, to browbeat it into making you wet/hard for that
nice guy or the ugly girl.
um.....you seem to be confusing 'nice' with 'ugly'.
what's up with that?
No, *your* primitive instincts (that stuff going on in your limbic
system) confuses "nice" with "low-quality" (equivalent to "ugly"). Here
is its (overgeneralized) deduction (*): in the end, everything is of the
same quality (efficient market hypothesis); the "nice guy" has a
positive trait, "nice", which "obviously" has to be offset by some
other, negative, trait - he's probably "weak" or "stupid" or "can't get
laid" (**). You can live with "bad" (as long as you survive, your genes
are happy, so they've coded for in-love hormones (oxytocin?) to pump
through your veins when with a bad boy, to recast "bad" as "good"), but
you can't live with "weak", "stupid" or "can't get laid".

(*) But talking about "reasoning" and "deduction" while discussing the
limbic system is like saying the earth "wants" to spin.

(**) "Can't get laid" is a very negative trait - you don't want those
genes in your sons. (***)

(***) Chicken-and-egg: can't-get-laid is a problem because it's a
problem. This will never happen in the next million years, but if women
suddenly collectively decided that can't-get-laid is *not* a problem, it
wouldn't be a problem anymore. Until then, it is.


I think this is one of those nice guy who can't get laid things - we
understand it very intimately, but it's a non-transferrable idea. Sort
of an anti-meme - the meme is as much afflicted by can't-get-laid as we
are ourselves. :)

OTOH, yes, I do (reluctantly) concede that, yes, it probably is all in
our minds. But if I'm gonna whine, I'd rather do it on usenet instead
of IRL where that whining would turn people off for real. Catharsis.

- --
"IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." - unknown
Michaela
2004-07-23 21:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
Bernd Jendrissek says...
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
It takes huge mental effort to override what your limbic system
says, to reprogram it, to browbeat it into making you wet/hard for
that
nice guy or the ugly girl.
um.....you seem to be confusing 'nice' with 'ugly'.
what's up with that?
I haven't been following this threadlet, but here goes anyway.
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
No, *your* primitive instincts (that stuff going on in your limbic
system) confuses "nice" with "low-quality" (equivalent to "ugly").
No. "Nice" is perceived as looking for approval (haven't you ever had
that awful feeling when someone gets too close too fast? They start
telling you their life story before you're even interested. They seem
to "click" with you but you don't "click" with them. Because either
they:
1. see something in you that they think they identify with/
or
2. they look up to you and end up trying too hard.
or
3. I'm sure ther're more ideas but I'm feeling rather flip tonight.

One girl or guy might not perceive that particualr niceness as
ingratiating behaviour and might find it charming and another
might be turned off by it. Our perceptions depend on the sum of our
experiences

bla bla

Just like one wife might be perceived as being a nag by
her husband and another wife might be perceived as standing
up for herself and knowing what she wants. It all depends
on where you're standing when you look at that thing. Um
person or their actions.

Didn't you read my post on duality? O that's right, I never
posted it here.
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
OTOH, yes, I do (reluctantly) concede that, yes, it probably is all in
our minds. But if I'm gonna whine, I'd rather do it on usenet instead
of IRL where that whining would turn people off for real. Catharsis.
Except you are giving it your energy and by doing that you
are drawing it into your life.

But you don't believe that so I'll stop now.

Bernd, did you watch Special Assignment last week?
The one about the farm killings and the women training to
protect themselves and the signs that are put out along the
road to warn or indicate all sorts of things? 'twas quite
something, wasn't it? I just wanted to share that with
someone who'd understand.

- Michaela
severesocialanxiety
2004-07-21 20:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Have a read of this cowshit.
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/love/content.jsp?file=love/fun/badboys.jsp
"All of human history - and thus, our genetic programming -- rewards those
brave enough to take risks. The cowardly caveman died in his lonely cavern,
while the brave one ventured out and survived."
Or got killed.
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by the
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
"Women love to play relationship therapist (just listen in on a conversation
with our girlfriends if you need proof). In order to achieve this, we need
to find a jerk to lie down on our couch. We love the idea of being the woman
who solves this mysterious man's problems and turns him into our own Prince
Charming."
This can explain why women don't like me. I don't have any problems!
The following paragraph seems true though.
"With bad boys, we know what to expect. We'll try to change them, it won't
work, and we'll be left heartbroken. But, it will be entirely not our fault.
Whereas if we date Mr. Nice Guy and doesn't work out, we're going to have to
take some ownership of the failure. Some women are just more comfortable
playing the victim."
Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for their
bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
there is no such thing as a bad boy. we all behave badly when we are
with a fat chick. we are all on our best behaviour with a hot chick,
even an alpha male.
females in pursuit of good genes always overreach a bit and get a guy
who is better than them and thus holds them is some contempt. in the
old days, females needed to find a stable relationship with a guy who
was their equivalent because there were few jobs for females and
almost no gov't safety net. nowadays, females have the luxury of
overreaching and getting into unstable relationships.
The Babaloughesian
2004-07-21 20:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Have a read of this cowshit.
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/love/content.jsp?file=love/fun/badboys.jsp
"All of human history - and thus, our genetic programming -- rewards those
brave enough to take risks. The cowardly caveman died in his lonely cavern,
while the brave one ventured out and survived."
Or got killed.
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by the
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength?
It does so indirectly. More direct evidence of strength would be the fact
that one has taken risks and gotten through them in one piece. Now, you
can't know if someone can get through risks if they haven't taken any to
begin with. You can't know if someone is prepared to deal with the
unexpected if they've never been tested. So the best way to know ahead of
time that someone can deal with the dangerous & risky situations that
inevitably will occur in life is to look at their willingness to face
similar situations. The more risks you avoid, the more it looks like it's
because you couldn't deal with them if you tried.
Post by Pumpkinhead
Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
No it isn't. Survival(of the organism) is about taking necessary risks and
avoiding unnecessary ones. It is impossible to avoid risks completely,
because nearly everything in life that is valuable requires one to take
risks to get it. Food, shelter, mates, you name it. Risks and
opportunities generally coincide in life. As Eric Pepke would say, this
seems so obvious that I feel self conscious pointing it out.
Pumpkinhead
2004-07-21 23:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Babaloughesian
Post by Pumpkinhead
Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
No it isn't. Survival(of the organism) is about taking necessary risks and
avoiding unnecessary ones.
In other words, choosing the least risky option. i.e. Avoiding the most
risky option.

In some situations, you have to take a risk or you will automatically put
yourself at risk of a worse fate. Here's an example. A man is on a plane
and, for some reason, it's going to crash. He has a parachute, so he has a
choice. He can skydive or he can stay on the plane. Jumping out is a risk
that he can choose to take. He can also choose to stay on the plane but
then he is automatically at more risk.

So I think what I said is true. The man on the plane should jump because
there is a risk of death involved with staying on the plane and he should
avoid that risk. Any sensible person will avoid the bigger risk.

I guess it's different to the risk involved with initiating sexual
relationships somehow. I don't want to risk being rejected and having my
confidence lowered any more. But now I'm automatically at risk of never
having children. It feels like it's something that I don't have any control
over.
Michaela
2004-07-21 22:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for
their bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
And you don't want to accept responsibility for your lack
of self approval.

Stalemate.

- Michaela

--
As long as "They did it to me" remains part of our thinking, we will
remain children. ~ Susan Jeffers
Pumpkinhead
2004-07-21 23:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by Pumpkinhead
Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for
their bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
And you don't want to accept responsibility for your lack
of self approval.
Stalemate.
I approve of myself. Women don't approve of me though.

What's that got to do with anything I said anyway?
Michaela
2004-07-22 08:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Michaela
Post by Pumpkinhead
Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for
their bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
And you don't want to accept responsibility for your lack
of self approval.
Stalemate.
I approve of myself. Women don't approve of me though.
If you approved of yourself you wouldn't say things like this:

"I don't want to risk being rejected and having my
confidence lowered any more."

You're clearly a bright guy so I have no idea why you can't
see how you are contradicting yourself!
Post by Pumpkinhead
What's that got to do with anything I said anyway?
Pot.
Kettle.
Black.

- Michaela
Bernd Jendrissek
2004-07-22 14:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by Pumpkinhead
I approve of myself. Women don't approve of me though.
"I don't want to risk being rejected and having my
confidence lowered any more."
No contradiction there.

He's not confident of *women* approving of him, and doesn't want *that*
lowered any more.

What he's showing is:
- high self-esteem
- low confidence in women's approval of him
- low meta-confidence meta-of women's approval of him: one more
rejection would lower the confidence further

Dunno, I can relate to his feeling quite well... "I like myself but
other people don't agree."

- --
I have neither the need, the time, or the inclination to put words into your
mouth. You are perfectly capable of damaging your reputation without any help
from me. --Richard Heathfield roasts a troll in comp.lang.c
The Babaloughesian
2004-07-22 20:49:43 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by Michaela
Post by Pumpkinhead
I approve of myself. Women don't approve of me though.
"I don't want to risk being rejected and having my
confidence lowered any more."
No contradiction there.
He's not confident of *women* approving of him, and doesn't want *that*
lowered any more.
Why? What would happen if it was lowered?
- high self-esteem
I don't see how the desire to maintain an apparently illusory perception of
reality can be compatible with high self esteem.
- low confidence in women's approval of him
- low meta-confidence meta-of women's approval of him: one more
rejection would lower the confidence further
Dunno, I can relate to his feeling quite well... "I like myself but
other people don't agree."
That's not the same as "I like myself but I'm afraid to risk learning
exactly how many other people don't agree."
Michaela
2004-07-22 21:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
Post by Michaela
Post by Pumpkinhead
I approve of myself. Women don't approve of me though.
"I don't want to risk being rejected and having my
confidence lowered any more."
No contradiction there.
He's not confident of *women* approving of him, and doesn't want
*that* lowered any more.
- high self-esteem
- low confidence in women's approval of him
- low meta-confidence meta-of women's approval of him: one more
rejection would lower the confidence further
Dunno, I can relate to his feeling quite well... "I like myself but
other people don't agree."
All you're doing is projecting the blame outside of yourself.

*You* create your own reality.
What you give attention to grows.
All your thoughts are about failure so fail you will.

"You are today where your thoughts have brought you; you will
be tomorrow where your thoughts take you." ~ James Allen

The past is gone. There's nothing you can do about yesterday.
Stop worrying about tomorrow.

All you have is now.
Take responsibility for your life.
For your own sake.

I try to treat my life as a dream that I can control - my thoughts
shape my tomorrow.

I'm wasting my breath here, aren't I?

- Michaela
Pumpkinhead
2004-07-22 23:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
*You* create your own reality.
What you give attention to grows.
All your thoughts are about failure so fail you will.
You have to understand that faliure is always a possible outcome. Believing
that you won't fail is not what makes you succeed.
Post by Michaela
All you have is now.
Take responsibility for your life.
For your own sake.
I take responsibility of my life. I'm not taking responsibility of women's
lives though. I can't force them to want me.
Post by Michaela
I try to treat my life as a dream that I can control - my thoughts
shape my tomorrow.
Dreams are a bit different to reality.
The Babaloughesian
2004-07-22 22:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Michaela
*You* create your own reality.
What you give attention to grows.
All your thoughts are about failure so fail you will.
You have to understand that faliure is always a possible outcome.
The reason you have to understand this is that you have to be ready to deal
with failure.
Post by Pumpkinhead
Believing
that you won't fail is not what makes you succeed.
Indeed. Being able to try again after you fail is what makes you succeed,
and believing that you won't fail leaves you unprepared to do that.
Michaela
2004-07-23 19:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Michaela
*You* create your own reality.
What you give attention to grows.
All your thoughts are about failure so fail you will.
You have to understand that faliure is always a possible outcome.
Believing that you won't fail is not what makes you succeed.
No, you don't *believe* -really believe- you will succeed.
That's why you fail.

I'm saying that your thoughts are creative. Your thoughts
create your reality. Everything you think now is going to
shape your tomorrow. You have all this power and you
misuse it. Wait. No. That's judgemental. Who am I to say
you are misusing it? Who am I to tell you to be happy?
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Michaela
All you have is now.
Take responsibility for your life.
For your own sake.
I take responsibility of my life. I'm not taking responsibility of
women's lives though. I can't force them to want me.
What do you think the words "take responsibility for your life"
mean? I ask because your response indicates you misunderstood
the words.
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Michaela
I try to treat my life as a dream that I can control - my thoughts
shape my tomorrow.
Dreams are a bit different to reality.
Have you ever thought about affirmations and whether or not
they can have an impact on your life? If not, then don't continue
reading. But if you sense that they can help you, why do you
think they can?

Might I suggest that instead of looking up articles on "why girls
want bad boys" you look into the power and creativity of thought?

"Chi is just like God....
Once you believe in it, it's
there; once you don't believe
in it, it's not there."

I know it's one heck of an unusual idea to wrap your head
around, but...

...what if it means that you have the potential to realise
everything you think you want. IMHO you have *nothing*
to lose by considering the power your thoughts have.

- Michaela
--
The appearance of things change according to the emotions
and thus we see magic and beauty in them, while the magic
and beauty are really in ourselves. ~ Kahlil Gilbran
? Phil C
2004-07-26 01:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Michaela
*You* create your own reality.
What you give attention to grows.
All your thoughts are about failure so fail you will.
You have to understand that faliure is always a possible outcome.
Believing that you won't fail is not what makes you succeed.
No, you don't *believe* -really believe- you will succeed.
That's why you fail.
I'm saying that your thoughts are creative. Your thoughts
create your reality. Everything you think now is going to
shape your tomorrow. You have all this power and you
misuse it. Wait. No. That's judgemental. Who am I to say
you are misusing it? Who am I to tell you to be happy?
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Michaela
All you have is now.
Take responsibility for your life.
For your own sake.
I take responsibility of my life. I'm not taking responsibility of
women's lives though. I can't force them to want me.
What do you think the words "take responsibility for your life"
mean? I ask because your response indicates you misunderstood
the words.
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Michaela
I try to treat my life as a dream that I can control - my thoughts
shape my tomorrow.
Dreams are a bit different to reality.
Have you ever thought about affirmations and whether or not
they can have an impact on your life? If not, then don't continue
reading. But if you sense that they can help you, why do you
think they can?
Might I suggest that instead of looking up articles on "why girls
want bad boys" you look into the power and creativity of thought?
"Chi is just like God....
Once you believe in it, it's
there; once you don't believe
in it, it's not there."
I know it's one heck of an unusual idea to wrap your head
around, but...
...what if it means that you have the potential to realise
everything you think you want. IMHO you have *nothing*
to lose by considering the power your thoughts have.
- Michaela
--
The appearance of things change according to the emotions
and thus we see magic and beauty in them, while the magic
and beauty are really in ourselves. ~ Kahlil Gilbran
This was originally posted by Bodhisattvacat:

" The philosophical prescription for happy relationships
is to have one's values and one's likes in accord.
That is, one has to like and value the same qualities,
being attracted to what he values and valuing what he is attracted to.
When this is achieved, the result is a happy relationship in which reason
and emotion are in
agreement with one another and produce beautiful outcome
The alternative is horrible, for when one is attracted to one set of
qualities but morally values another one becomes hateful to the person
he chooses on the basis of his attractions, seeking to destroy her
personality and wear her down while he is married to her."

Not perfect, but seems logical ...

How about:
The alternative is horrible, for when SHE is attracted to one set of
qualities (bad boy style) but morally values another (responsibility,
trustworthiness, concern for her well being ... actually LOVING HER ) SHE
becomes hateful to the person SHE chooses on the basis of her
attractions,seeking to destroy HIS personality and wear HIM down while SHE
is married to HIM.

... if she actually ever marries him.

Does that seem typical ?

-- Phil C
Mark Green
2004-08-10 17:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Michaela
*You* create your own reality.
What you give attention to grows.
All your thoughts are about failure so fail you will.
You have to understand that faliure is always a possible outcome.
Believing that you won't fail is not what makes you succeed.
No, you don't *believe* -really believe- you will succeed.
That's why you fail.
I'm saying that your thoughts are creative. Your thoughts
create your reality. Everything you think now is going to
shape your tomorrow. You have all this power and you
misuse it. Wait. No. That's judgemental. Who am I to say
you are misusing it? Who am I to tell you to be happy?
So let us put this into perspective.

Suppose that a man asks you out, and believes he is sure to succeed.
If you refuse him, the approach would be a failure for him.
By your logic, since he really believes he'll succeed, he must do.
Therefore (by your logic), he can't fail.
Therefore (by your logic), you can't refuse.

I doubt very much that this is what you mean to say.
Post by Michaela
Post by Pumpkinhead
I take responsibility of my life. I'm not taking responsibility of
women's lives though. I can't force them to want me.
What do you think the words "take responsibility for your life"
mean? I ask because your response indicates you misunderstood
the words.
The problem persists. The fact is that, unless you are going to
claim that women do not have free will, it will always be possible
that a man who "takes responsibility" and does everything right will
nonetheless fail. After all, he needs a woman to accept him; but if
women have free will, they can always refuse him whatever he does; and
he can't make it so that a woman can accept him, because "free will"
by definition cannot be determined by input stimulus.
Post by Michaela
"Chi is just like God....
Once you believe in it, it's
there; once you don't believe
in it, it's not there.
Even if you think that way, that's still all about ONE PERSON.
Getting accepted by women has to do with OTHER PEOPLE - the women -
who have THEIR OWN BELIEFS AND CHOICES.
Trying to apply the above to multiple people is like saying that if
you get into a fight with a martial artist who DOES believe in chi,
the fact that YOU DON'T believe in chi will make his punches or kicks
hurt less (because he's trying to use chi, but since you don't believe
in it "it's not there")
Post by Michaela
...what if it means that you have the potential to realise
everything you think you want. IMHO you have *nothing*
to lose by considering the power your thoughts have.
Unless you are arguing that his thoughts can determine another
person's behaviour, there will be no way to guarantee he has the right
potential.

("Potential in thoughts" is a thorny issue anyway.. "potential"
generally means that you could do something. If you could do
something and you don't, then you have wasted your potential.
However, thoughts are what you use to decide what to do, so it's not
clear if having "potential in thoughts" to do something is any
different to actually doing it)
Michaela
2004-08-10 22:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Green
Post by Michaela
Post by Pumpkinhead
Post by Michaela
*You* create your own reality.
What you give attention to grows.
All your thoughts are about failure so fail you will.
You have to understand that faliure is always a possible outcome.
Believing that you won't fail is not what makes you succeed.
No, you don't *believe* -really believe- you will succeed.
That's why you fail.
I'm saying that your thoughts are creative. Your thoughts
create your reality. Everything you think now is going to
shape your tomorrow. You have all this power and you
misuse it. Wait. No. That's judgemental. Who am I to say
you are misusing it? Who am I to tell you to be happy?
So let us put this into perspective.
Suppose that a man asks you out, and believes he is sure to succeed.
If you refuse him, the approach would be a failure for him.
By your logic, since he really believes he'll succeed, he must do.
Therefore (by your logic), he can't fail.
Therefore (by your logic), you can't refuse.
I doubt very much that this is what you mean to say.
No you are correct, That it is what I said.

Thanks though. You're the first person to ever hear what I was
saying when I said that.
I've said it before in my waitressing posts -- I think specifically
the ones with Babblebrook. While waitressing I began to "read"
people as a coping device so that I would know how to deal with
them, I kind of forced them into pigeonholes and "knew" how to
treat them; how to get a certain reaction out of them.

I was determined to make the most of waitressing and tried
anything to get a reaction out of people.

Only those "stronger" than me resisted and reacted differently
than what I expected. Those were the challenges. The ones
whose mystery I had to "solve".

Basically I suppose you could say I learnt how to control people
(in certain contexts/situations) by boxing/categorising them.

Of course that wasn't the only thing that brought me to this
little "sub-conclusion" to which you responded, but I'm sure
you're not interested in all that.
Post by Mark Green
Post by Michaela
Post by Pumpkinhead
I take responsibility of my life. I'm not taking responsibility of
women's lives though. I can't force them to want me.
What do you think the words "take responsibility for your life"
mean? I ask because your response indicates you misunderstood
the words.
The problem persists. The fact is that, unless you are going to
claim that women do not have free will, it will always be possible
that a man who "takes responsibility" and does everything right will
nonetheless fail.
There's that word "belief" again. It has a very special meaning.
So far as I know it's also known as faith, but I may be wrong.

It also involves energy.

***
Note: it's possibly true to say that control is negative. And you may
well be right. We can talk about that if you like.

Gotta bed now.

- Michaela
Mark Green
2004-08-11 20:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
Post by Mark Green
Post by Michaela
That's why you fail.
I'm saying that your thoughts are creative. Your thoughts
create your reality. Everything you think now is going to
shape your tomorrow. You have all this power and you
misuse it. Wait. No. That's judgemental. Who am I to say
you are misusing it? Who am I to tell you to be happy?
So let us put this into perspective.
Suppose that a man asks you out, and believes he is sure to succeed.
If you refuse him, the approach would be a failure for him.
By your logic, since he really believes he'll succeed, he must do.
Therefore (by your logic), he can't fail.
Therefore (by your logic), you can't refuse.
Basically I suppose you could say I learnt how to control people
(in certain contexts/situations) by boxing/categorising them.
So you're claiming that men need to "control" women into dating
them. Even if they do control people, the control isn't the result of
the man believing he's sure to succeed. The woman probably wouldn't
be aware of that.

All the same, your premise is still flawed. Suppose that, shock
horror, *two* men both approach you in that way, and both ask you to
leave with them. Since there's only one of you and you can't go with
both, you must turn one of them down, and thus that one must fail in
spite of believing he'd succeed.
Michaela
2004-08-12 05:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Green
Post by Michaela
Basically I suppose you could say I learnt how to control people
(in certain contexts/situations) by boxing/categorising them.
So you're claiming that men need to "control" women into dating
them.
No.

- Michaela
Mark Green
2004-08-12 10:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Green
Post by Michaela
Basically I suppose you could say I learnt how to control people
(in certain contexts/situations) by boxing/categorising them.
So you're claiming that men need to "control" women into dating
them.
No.
Then what relevance did you comments about "controlling people" have
to do with my assertion that your logic was wrong because, if it was
right, a confident man would be guaranteed dates irrespective of the
women's wishes?
KC Carter
2004-07-22 03:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Have a read of this cowshit.
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/love/content.jsp?file=love/fun/badboys.jsp
"All of human history - and thus, our genetic programming -- rewards those
brave enough to take risks. The cowardly caveman died in his lonely cavern,
while the brave one ventured out and survived."
Or got killed.
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by the
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
"Women love to play relationship therapist (just listen in on a conversation
with our girlfriends if you need proof). In order to achieve this, we need
to find a jerk to lie down on our couch. We love the idea of being the woman
who solves this mysterious man's problems and turns him into our own Prince
Charming."
This can explain why women don't like me. I don't have any problems!
The following paragraph seems true though.
"With bad boys, we know what to expect. We'll try to change them, it won't
work, and we'll be left heartbroken. But, it will be entirely not our fault.
Whereas if we date Mr. Nice Guy and doesn't work out, we're going to have to
take some ownership of the failure. Some women are just more comfortable
playing the victim."
Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for their
bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
But how can all this help us?!? There's very few guys who are truly
bad boys. I mean, I can wear Harley t-shirts and a chain wallet, but
that would be trendy, not bad.

KC
The Babaloughesian
2004-07-22 06:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by KC Carter
But how can all this help us?!? There's very few guys who are truly
bad boys. I mean, I can wear Harley t-shirts and a chain wallet, but
that would be trendy, not bad.
You'd have better luck studying and emulating the body language of bad boys,
or their tonality, or something else centered around how they act, not their
fashion accessories.
Scott Gilbert
2004-07-23 08:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Have a read of this cowshit.
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/love/content.jsp?file=love/fun/badboys.jsp
"All of human history - and thus, our genetic programming -- rewards those
brave enough to take risks. The cowardly caveman died in his lonely cavern,
while the brave one ventured out and survived."
Or got killed.
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by the
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
It's possible to survive _today_ without taking risks, but before men
created civilisation, men had to take risks simply put meat the menu
and keep themselves _off_ the menu. An inability to take risks is
under many circumstances, a risk in itself.

Take relationships for example: Absent wealth or looks in the top 5
percent of humanity, The man who has never been rejected has never had
a relationship.
Post by Pumpkinhead
"Women love to play relationship therapist (just listen in on a conversation
with our girlfriends if you need proof). In order to achieve this, we need
to find a jerk to lie down on our couch. We love the idea of being the woman
who solves this mysterious man's problems and turns him into our own Prince
Charming."
This can explain why women don't like me. I don't have any problems!
The following paragraph seems true though.
"With bad boys, we know what to expect. We'll try to change them, it won't
work, and we'll be left heartbroken. But, it will be entirely not our fault.
Whereas if we date Mr. Nice Guy and doesn't work out, we're going to have to
take some ownership of the failure. Some women are just more comfortable
playing the victim."
Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for their
bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
helen~
2004-08-08 20:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pumpkinhead
Have a read of this cowshit.
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/love/content.jsp?file=love/fun/badboys.jsp
"All of human history - and thus, our genetic programming -- rewards those
brave enough to take risks. The cowardly caveman died in his lonely cavern,
while the brave one ventured out and survived."
Or got killed.
"Sure, the "dangerous" caveman might not be as pleasant to sit with by the
fire at night, but he appealed to the cavewoman because he'd pass along
stronger genes."
o.k. It takes strength to survive. But how does risk taking indicate
strength? Survival is more about avoiding risks than it is about taking
risks.
"Women love to play relationship therapist (just listen in on a conversation
with our girlfriends if you need proof). In order to achieve this, we need
to find a jerk to lie down on our couch. We love the idea of being the woman
who solves this mysterious man's problems and turns him into our own Prince
Charming."
This can explain why women don't like me. I don't have any problems!
The following paragraph seems true though.
"With bad boys, we know what to expect. We'll try to change them, it won't
work, and we'll be left heartbroken. But, it will be entirely not our fault.
Whereas if we date Mr. Nice Guy and doesn't work out, we're going to have to
take some ownership of the failure. Some women are just more comfortable
playing the victim."
Here's my translation. Women don't want to accept responsibility for their
bad choices in men. The woman fucking admitted it!
find an opinion that prooves what you already believe - post as true of all.
truth - you failed philosophy 101 didn't ya?

h
Loading...