Good point. Also dating websites feel an awful lot like sifting CVs.
Maybe we're all missing a trick here and a totally transactional relationship is the healthiest way forward? You could sit down with your special lady at the kitchen table and discuss annual KPIs versus remuneration:
"The first objective of refurbishing the living room went well, although we did have to spend a lot of time checking through charity shops to find an affordable 2 person sofa which severely impacted on my ability to realise my second goal of repairing the fence. Winter arrived and it was unrealistic to get that completed and watch the first and second seasons of Breaking Bad on Netflix."
"Once again 2013 posed a significant challenge and your efforts in acquiring the dark green, 2 seater were admirable, darling, but I'm afraid in this economic climate 7 sessions of sweaty rimming are simply unsustainable. In recognition of your efforts, however, we have been able to increase your package by 4 instances of bag-piping."
It all seems marvelously structured and civilised, doesn't it? Oh MAN! We could set up forms and have a filing cabinet in the bedroom! We could all have relationships certified to ISO:9001 standard!
Couldn't agree more with the first part, but that holds true for men just the same. The 'nice guy' stereotype is really an example of men who aren't forthright with the truth. The stereotypical "nice guy" is either manipulative or oblivious and either of these traits can be hard to deal with, in courtship, but also just in general. They don't take no for an answer.
(if anyone wants to see the worst example of this you'll ever see, just google "denko", which was of a guy asking for love advice while behaving like.... well there's nothing quite like denko guy. It puts the lotion on its skin is mild in comparison.)
The second part is not true though. Despite the stereotype, being nice is a positive trait.
It has parts of all these: generosity, friendlyness, positivity. It's good to be a nice man. Maybe this is the same difference as between wise guy and wise man.
The same applies to guys, although the rules of attraction for guys are different.
The qualities that you spoke off are needed for a good companionship, marriage, dating, etc. People are confusing qualities for sex/atraction with qualities for relationships.
Qualities for attraction are marketing for the product, they improve the chance of being tried. Qualities for relationship improve the chance with staying with that person.
I used to think I was a "nice guy" until I found out the label doesn't really describe me.
I'm nice for the sake of being nice, I go out of my way to treat people courteously, and I expect nothing for it. It's not just girls either. I try to be nice just in general, to everyone, on principle. I did romantisize chivalry heavily in my early teens, but that's a long time ago, and working in the service industry has really cemented the need to be nice. Who knows, they may have had to put up with shit all day too, and you just might make their day.
I'm also an introverted aspie with a deepseated fear of rejection, so I'm not exactly putting myself out there, which is why I'm not getting much.
Oh and I've absolutely been friendzoned... which usually involves me falling for a female friend and it not being reciprocated. Hurts, but such is life.
Oh and I know I've been mistaken for a creep sometimes too, because that's what girls associate with guys being nice.
The Nice Guy stereotype refers to guys who are under the impression that being generally polite and civil towards women is some kind of huge point in their favour rather than merely a baseline standard for being a generally okay person.
Yes, they exist. They can be found in the various echo chambers of the internet asking one another why, in spite of their undeniable and nondescript niceness, they are still getting less sex than guys with looks, charisma, self-confident, huge penises, socially outgoing natures, conversational skills, interesting vocations, charming senses of humour and/or finely honed cunnilingus techniques.
That said, I suspect they're not quite as common as the internet would have you believe. Then again, I haven't exactly been keeping a tally.
I've known a few "nice guy" types, and they're awful, entitled, emotionally immature, manchildren. I think emotionally immature is the key problem with such people. Their insistence to treat women as a different species is also baffling.
Also, we have to remember that when a "nice guy" calls another male a 'jerk', it's probably more to do with their sense of rivalry with that male than anything.
There is no "women". They are all different and nobody has a license to speak for 52% of earth's population.
There is a "nice guy" trap, where a guy thinks he's being nice, but he's really being manipulative.
This doesn't mean that being nice is a bad thing, it only means that being nice and then expecting something in return isn't really all that nice.
In Muhammad Ali's words: "If you are annoyed that after you hold a door open, the person walking through doesn't say "thank you", you weren't really holding open the door."
Personally, I try to be good guy, but I'm sure there are plenty who would call me an asshole. These things are really in the eye of the beholder.
For further reading, this website might help: http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/comments6.shtml
You know someone earlier made a good point if you are getting your view and opinion of a nice guy from some blog then you are doing yourself and others a huge disservice. That reductionist nonsense is really not going to help anyone but just provide confirmation bias for people. Heartlessbitches is a rant fest of random that can make the MRA blush so again its is doing a great disservice to get info about from any of those two blogospheres.
Sure it's a rant fest, no less than this forum and no different than you with your reductionist nonsense.
I added the link because at some time in the past it helped me understand why 'nice guy' is a negative term to some people and it might be interesting to other people. It was a bonus. And like all sources, I expect people here to approach it with a healthy skepticism.
The interesting part is that it the link I provided is a dialogue of sorts (no censoring) and their tone and layout is imho a funny gimmick.
But you sir or madam, are the one doing us a disservice, me personally when you assume that I am simply echoing someone else's views wothout scrutiny and this forum and its discourse as a whole when you address a single source in my post rather than the brunt of my message.
You are free to do so, but it's especially funny that you criticize me for echoing other's opinions. If I had a mirror, I'd give you one.
The point is that those blog of an extreme opinion of it like its an absolute term and definition when in actuality its is a bit more complex than they give it. I went to heartlessbitches a while back to get their nice guy definition but as seen more sides to the story I found heartlessbitches to why to simple even if the attempt is at comedy which is miss more than it is hit half the time. For after a while that website was the opposite of any sort of "manosphere" blog ranting about "sluts" or any other negative female stereotype. I was not criticizing you for echo someone elses opinion but linking to a blog which in their attempts to simplify this make it more muddled. Just because non censored doesn't make it any less bias in fact probably makes it more so.
Now if want a discussion without witty retort about mirrors then all you had to was ask "nicely". Ok terrible joke aside you said that doing something nice and expecting something in return is not nice which I agree with you but lets take at that. Interaction in general as a "transactional" in nature not in a you did this now you owe me kind of way but say interaction with your buddies and you get a feeling of euphoria while around them you all do.
So I think these "nice guys" god how I hate that I have to put in quotations are doing things with malicious intent. Even ones with malicious intent I would cut that down to horrible miscommunication and things getting lost in translation and the ones who are the evil stereotype people love to rag on gets even smaller. So to me this whole thing is sensationalist as best and so vague it can be attached haphazardly to anything.
My motto is that being nice is the baseline standard to being a tolerable human being to talk with. Period. If your only being nice to get into someone's vagina/dick then you are not a nice person but a failed manipulative pick up artist, and a complete tool. I don't date people who are simply 'nice' to me. I date people who are not only nice, but understand where I'm coming from, respect my opinions, share various interests, and are tolerable to be around.
You can't accomplish that if you only care for the person simply so you can rock them in bed, and most people will see through your bluff and ditch you in 2 seconds.
I must say I find it quite hard to understand what you're really saying.
Of course one blog does not have the definitive answer to everything and the fact that they embrace their bias makes them genuine, in a way.
How does non-censorship lead to more bias? That's the strangest thing I've read in a while.
In your last paragraph, you seem to want to protect nice guys from the accountability of 'malicious intent'. I think it's a fairly even spread between obliviousness and manipulativeness, but really, does intent matter that much? Just because my lovely retarded brother doesn't have the capacity for introspection, doesn't mean he isn't being a dick once in a whlie.
If he would then tell me "You should be nice to me, because I'm a nice guy", well, I wouldn't appreciate it very much.
ps. I liked your joke. It wasn't terrible. It was [em]nice[/em].
A non censored rant is just going off your emotions, views of the situation and experiences so while it my be honest that doesn't take bias went away.
I am not trying to protect nice guys I not trying to protect anybody from accountability. Like I said I like a lot stuff is miscommunication and lost translation than lack of introspection. I think this has anything to do with obliviousness or trying to manipulate because shit happens. I can see your example with your retard brother was way more hyperbole than needed. I mean know your not but to say all these nice guys are retarded is a bit much and everyone has their social slip ups
Like I said I'm not trying to protect anybody if so then are you protecting let say the ladies in this situation for their obliviousness or who were maybe being manipulative themselves for all we know where is that accountability?
I think there is too much of this trying to find fault sometimes its the guys fault, maybe as blasphemous as is sound the gals at fault, maybe both are at fault or stuff happens.
Really I still its more so of a lot of miscommunication and throwing manipulation and accountability around when we are just making assumptions about a stereotype with nothing concrete I just can't cosign to that. Do this nice guy with malicious intent exist of course just not in enough numbers to warrant such long discussion and social commentary. Which unfortunately have too dive into to say my piece on the matter.
Really, the only solution is to be a complete **** to everyone. If you're just nice without expecting anything in return women will think you're trying to get in their pants. It's best to just be an abrasive dick at all times. Solves the problem.
Really, the only solution is to be a complete **** to everyone. If you're just nice without expecting anything in return women will think you're trying to get in their pants. It's best to just be an abrasive dick at all times. Solves the problem.
Ah yes, the perpetual stereotype of the "nice guy"; aka, "Beta Male Creep/Closet-asshole".
I subscribe to the philosophy that everyone is an asshole (overtly or covertly) in some way until proven otherwise.
Which includes "nice guys" (and gals; they can play the fake-interest game too). I've met them and heard more than my share of them; they definitely exist.
Which isn't to say that there aren't legitimately decent people out there, but I don't subscribe to a strictly Darwinian interpretation of behavior (the usual "Aggressive man = strong man! Nice man = angry loser!") because in life, it doesn't exactly work that way; sometimes the nice guy(gal) is legitimately nice, and some times the raging cocksure asshole is in fact an asshole.
Thus, I find it difficult to pass any sort of preliminary judgment based on stereotypes alone.
An asshole is an asshole. A creep is a creep.
Oh and I've absolutely been friendzoned... which usually involves me falling for a female friend and it not being reciprocated. Hurts, but such is life.
First of all, I think that everybody who unironically uses the word "friendzone" shouls be chased out of the village by torch-wielding mobs.
I have many friends of the opposite gender. All of them are interesting, many of them are attractive, some of them I could see myself falling for (full disclosure: I am engaged). But NOT ONCE IN MY LIFE did I find the company of attractive, interesting women to be anything less than a blessing. The idea that people would actually complain about lovely people enjoying their company is so incomprehensible to me to be positively alien.
Aw come on man, you're just being mean to the guy who's lamenting the fact that he fell for a female friend of his, and she didn't feel the same way. Seriously, how's having emotions worthy of being chased out of the village by a lynch mob?
He doesn't even act all self-entitled about it, he's pretty "Well, that's life, accept and move on." No need to break out the tar and feather just because he used a word you don't like. What should he have done? Crossed a name off the list and move to the next one like nothing happened? He's perfectly entitled to feeling sad for a bit, then saying "C'est la vie" and going on his merry way.
Also, you want the women whom you like to reciprocate? Ask them the hell out. Work for it.
Not true. They associate creepiness with blokes who are nice to them and expect something in return.I hold the door for everybody, not just attractive members of the opposite sex.I help old ladies with heavy luggage, and stand up on the train for people who seem like they need to sit down more than I do. And I don't expect anything in return - except feeling good about myself afterward.
That's nice. But, it would also appear that you're mean to people who lament romantic rejection in a completely human, non-assholeish way...
If people perceive you as a genuinely kind and caring person, then NOBODY will think you a creep. However, if you are only and constantly super nice to Michelle from biolgy class...
Since "people" aren't hanging around you all the time, they can't exactly know how you're behaving when they're not around. If Michelle from biology class takes a different bus to school, she'll never see you stand up for someone you think needs your seat. Or help a nice old lady with her bags at your local store if she lives on the other side of town. Luckily, she also didn't see this post.
See, you've said you hold open doors and help ladies with luggage but...well, I just have your word for that. On the other hand, I've just seen you be mean to a person for no good reason.
Dude you are so way off. You go off on a guy who liked his best friend but she didn't like him, he got sad and moved on and he is the bad guy here.
Also that brain fart about how women are not "prizes to be won" yet you go on a diatribe for guys to work out, get a nice car, a college degree, do "interesting" thing to deserve the attention of women. You expect guys to respect the agency of women and that they are human beings which is makes perfect sense then tell them they have make themselves "deserving" of their attention while mocking guys who go out their way to get women. All I got out of that was ladies are interesting by default guys make yourself something which is just asinine
I going to leave out the jock stereotype explanation and your friendzone hate because the whole thing of treat women like human beings but work for their attention who is the one treating women as a different species here?
Also you want to call people narcissist then on about your numerous attractive female friends, and how you help old ladies and stand up on the train for people and expect nothing in return but flaunt that on a forum like you got something to prove.
While we are at it I am going to use the term friendzone unironically and weight for mob to come the fire and pitchforks will make for good illumination.
I think people are getting to caught up with the "being nice is baseline" train of thought. They're missing part of the reason why "nice guys" expect success with "being nice". They look and see that other guys are jerks. They hurt women, they cheat on them, they talk down to them etc. They aren't going "I'm so nice, sleep with me" they're going "I'm not an asshole like other guys who will just hurt you". And of course there's also that parallel line of thought "There's something wrong with most women because they keep going out with 'jerks' and not 'nice guys' like me."
Of course that's just a misreading by these fellows. Where they see cheating jerks, women might see something else. Confidence, good looks, social status (you better fucking bet that social status plays into EVERYONES thinking when it comes to relationships in general), material wealth, personality, interests, and so on and so forth. You've got two different views on the same person/people which find different parts of a person most important.
And so, coupled with their less "alpha"/type A/confident/outgoing nature, a more passive, less obvious approach is taken. You're probably talking about the same kind of people who like to talk about "the friendzone". So these guys treat girls nicely and that's means something to them, because they see other guys as jerks and also perhaps because treating someone kindly is actually going out of your way. These guys may very well have been on the social fringe for a while and so doesn't get much attention. Acknowledging that someone's there, let alone complimenting them and acting friendly towards them, is a big deal. Thus comes the idea that being good also doesn't mean you're a jerk but that you deserve a bit of nicety in kind.
Hell, on a sidenote, "being nice and decent" isn't really baseline so much for human interaction as apathetic acknowledgement is. Not saying it's right or wrong, but most people hardly bother to look each other in the eye or say "hello" in areas where they will see a hundred or if not more people in a single day. You wouldn't get anything done if you interacted with everyone you walked by. But now i'm going off on a rant and out to end it before I lead off to another tangent. I'm sure my rambling is already unorganized enough.
Couldn't agree more with the first part, but that holds true for men just the same. The 'nice guy' stereotype is really an example of men who aren't forthright with the truth. The stereotypical "nice guy" is either manipulative or oblivious and either of these traits can be hard to deal with, in courtship, but also just in general. They don't take no for an answer.
This is an excellent example of term confusion or semantics or whatever you care to call it. Are we talking about a "nice guy" attempting to pick up a girl at a bar and refusing to take several well-placed hints? Or are we talking about a "nice guy" who has given months of his free time to a girl who strung him along with the rationalization that "his feelings are his problem, I'm not to blame if he suddenly gets all butthurt over my lack of mutual interest"?
(if anyone wants to see the worst example of this you'll ever see, just google "denko", which was of a guy asking for love advice while behaving like.... well there's nothing quite like denko guy. It puts the lotion on its skin is mild in comparison.)
For every "denko" (or whatever, haven't watched it, already know what it is), isn't there probably a horribly manipulative gal who selfishly uses men for affection and resources while knowing full well a) how he feels about her, and b) she doesn't return those feelings in the slightest? What kind of a "friend" treats another human being that way? In my mind, someone who ignores my feelings or thinks of them as "my problem" isn't my friend. He/she is a user.
I am a nice person. To everyone. I open/hold doors, I help lift things, I lend rides, etc. I don't do these things with expectations other than courtesy and, sometimes, friendship. But I had to learn the hard way that some women will take advantage of my behavior. They will put out a lot of interest indicators in order to secure even more time, money, affection, what have you. Then, just short of taking things to the next level, they will hit you with "let's just be friends". Think about the power of that statement. It's an outright rejection, but one meant to prevent the seamless escape of the now emotionally hurt party. If I pack up shop and bolt, suddenly I'm the shallow asshole - even if the girl in question did nothing but lead me on and use me for months on end. This is the sort of behavior that can only flourish when the social conventions allow them to. Otherwise, men would just freak the fuck out.
As others have said, the social conditioning is such that men think "nice" works and women think "let him down easy (or not at all)" is kind. We all know these things to be observably false. The one bit that sticks in my craw, as a man, is the fact that both of these social conventions actually serve women. Reinforcing "nice guy" behavior as a solid means to a desired end produces untold quantities of tangible benefit for women on a very daily basis. The mirrored convention of "let him down easy", rather than countering and solving the former convention, actually furthers it. The man is lead to believe he's doing right by showering her with affection and resources, and the woman is encouraged to enable that behavior by intentionally not setting him straight. It's a very real "double whammy" for guys, which is why I think this particular topic generates such strong emotions.
you better fucking bet that social status plays into EVERYONES thinking when it comes to relationships in general
This bit from the last post... it's okay to say "every woman" instead of everyone. Men, generally speaking, don't care about social status. Men aren't lining up to sleep with powerful women or rich women - at least not for the women themselves. Men aren't physically attracted to wealthy, middle-aged female politicians. Not if they can do "better", anyways, and in this case... yeah, "better" means more physically attractive. Male and female triggers for arousal are just very different, and pretending otherwise is to deny basic biology. The cute checkout girl at Walmart could potentially marry a millionaire. The cute checkout guy might get a fling or two, but he won't generate nearly the same interest among nearly the same pool of opposite sex partners.
Which is to say: if a gal is dating a Warlmart cashier, she tells her friends "he's cute, but...". If a guy is dating a Warlmart cashier, he tells his friends "she's cut, and that butt..."
This bit from the last post... it's okay to say "every woman" instead of everyone. Men, generally speaking, don't care about social status. Men aren't lining up to sleep with powerful women or rich women - at least not for the women themselves. Men aren't physically attracted to wealthy, middle-aged female politicians. Not if they can do "better", anyways, and in this case... yeah, "better" means more physically attractive. Male and female triggers for arousal are just very different, and pretending otherwise is to deny basic biology. The cute checkout girl at Walmart could potentially marry a millionaire. The cute checkout guy might get a fling or two, but he won't generate nearly the same interest among nearly the same pool of opposite sex partners.
Which is to say: if a gal is dating a Warlmart cashier, she tells her friends "he's cute, but...". If a guy is dating a Warlmart cashier, he tells his friends "she's cut, and that butt..."
Men take into account social status just as much as women do. And I'm not talking about dating and romance, I'm talking about ALL relationships. Social status holds a lot of influence over people, even if they don't want to admit it. Guys don't just want to hook up with a popular girl because of her looks, they also what it for the "glory" of dating her. Same reason why the same guy would hesitate to date an attractive girl who is a social pariah. And while you'll hear more about young women marrying/dating old men, it's becoming more common to see young guys marrying/dating older women. Ever heard of a "cougar"? The large difference is numbers is probably due more to the smaller number of women in the same positions (power/wealth/influence/independence) as men then the fact that guys don't want an older woman with money.
As for arousal triggers, you'd be surprised just how much they're based on "conditioned responses" then by pure biology. Example: being "thin" is considered more attractive then not for women nowadays. In western culture at least. If you go back several centuries or hell, just take a ride to certain other cultures in the world today and you'll find that it's the opposite. Why? Simple changes in cultural norms based on traditions and environmental influences.
No, you are a "nice guy". I was wondering why you were sounding so defensive, but here it becomes clear.
If you had no expectation other than courtesy or friendship, then "let's just be friends" wouldn't really hurt you that badly.
And if you do decide pack up shop and bolt, why would you care that that makes you a shallow asshole in her eyes?
You may feel that she lead you on, but the reality is that you lead her on in at least equal amounts, pretending to be interested in friendship, while you were really interested romantically.
PS. you said men don't care about social status. Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.
And I can call you a white knight for placing every drop of blame onto men when they get a metaphorical kick in the balls and my assumption of you would be quite accurate. What do you gain from labeling anyone with a different opinion from yours that isn't female as a 'nice guy'? Will you and yours think of me a 'nice guy' because I believe both men and women are entitled to their feelings as well as entitled to act or not act on them? I wouldn't blame someone for wanting to distance themselves from a a friend that would happen to be an unrequitable romantic interest for a period of time, maybe even break the friendship up if the emotional anguish affects them badly enough. I believe that's okay, because why should someone have to emotionally torture themselves so a friendship can continue living? That, to me, is as selfish as wanting an unrequited love (lust, like-like, etc.) to reciprocate those feelings, even if they feel nothing for the one crushing on them.
You may feel that she lead you on, but the reality is that you lead her on in at least equal amounts, pretending to be interested in friendship, while you were really interested romantically.
It's possible for romantic and/or sexual feelings to blossom inside a friendship, intentional or not, but oftentimes not. I will not say that there isn't a such thing as leading someone on with a friendship with the intention of using the other for their own personal gain, whether it be sex, commodities, favors, etc. Yes, such things happen and both men and women who do such things, in my opinion, are not the kind of people I would rescue were their lives in danger, for they will live to take advantage of another being in the worst possible ways, deserving or not.
PS. you said men don't care about social status. Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.
Of course men care about social status. Many prefer to get it from their own merits instead of leeching it from someone with an already high social status. But I know there exists a subsection of men that would lick the boots of an influential figure if the payoff involved elevating themselves to figures of high social status, with the potential perks it would entail.
Doing a good deed to guarantee a romantic payoff - bad. Doing a good deed to show you care for them greatly with the hope they may someday reciprocate those feelings - good.
That right there is the problem. Cut that shit out and don't encourage it.
They do that shit because they think it's going to lead to them reciprocating those feelings. That's not a good thing, it's fucking retarded.
Eventually people get sick of hoping, and get fed-up with the results.
I don't think many "nice guys" think it's a guarantee but they're hoping that's what it leads to and just like everyone else in the universe, when shit doesn't go their way they get upset.
This is crux of the issue, doing something hoping to receive something in return and both examples you've presented are disingenuous at best.
To elaborate more on the topic, (and I can only speak from my own experience and observations)that these "nice guys" fool themselves into believing that they really want a relationship, but as someone already stated most people don't really know what they want. This is the method they think is the best way to get there, because they don't know any other way to do it or are too scared of alternatives. Most of it just stems for a lack of knowledge of how to approach this sort of thing.
I know that this applied to me, and it certainly seems to be case for many others that I've seen and read about.
But the problem is perpetuated by what I quoted above and more here:
EeveeElectro said:
No, I shouldn't have said 'maybe' to him but up until that point I didn't want to lose him as a friend and felt too bad turning him down
Right there the guy is being fairly honest about his intentions (or maybe i can just see it because it seems like something I would've said back then)
But then you say maybe, which while understandable doesn't help anyone, it only perpetuates the problem because that guy is still hoping, and for nothing.
These people do not want to be your friend, no they are not the exception and will not stay friends so just stop.
All the while, they think they "are not like other guys" until somebody shakes the foundations upon which these are based they will never know anything else.
They don't understand that just because someone gives you the "pants feelings" that it doesn't always work both ways and they perceive any mixed signals as a reciprocation of them, because people believe what they want to believe.
Hell, I really wish that the girl I was a "nice guy" to had just told me straight up with complete disregard for my feelings that it was never going to happen.
Of course she didn't know what I wanted because I never made it clear until I came out and spoke the words much later on.
All I really learned from the whole experience is that I just need to be honest with people if I am to even hope for the same in return.
And even here, the problem persists - I'm doing it out of a selfish desire to be afforded the same in return, but this is the only reason I do it.
I rationalise it as asking for equality but it really comes from a purely selfish desire to get something I want when you break it down.
[sub]Guess I can see why people thought Kant was a madman. Virtue for virtues sake alone doesn't seem possible.[/sub]
I don't know if this sense of entitlement has pervaded other generations as much as it has our generation but it doesn't seem like.
I wish I could just lay the blame at someones feet and say "it's all YOUR fault. YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU" but the truth of it is that it's neither persons fault.
It's just something that happens to people when growing up and they just don't understand it all or know how to deal with it, so naturally people vent about it and it ends up on the interwebs. Some people learn from the experience and some don't I guess.
I've gone off on a really big tangent here and focused far too much on the morality of the deeds done rather than what OP was asking for, but I hope I've shed some light on something.. Somwhere in there.
I think this applies somewhat to the "nice guy" scenario - http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/
"Let's say that the person you love the most has just been shot. He or she is lying in the street, bleeding and screaming. A guy rushes up and says, "Step aside." He looks over your loved one's bullet wound and pulls out a pocket knife -- he's going to operate right there in the street.
"OK, which one is the injured one?"
You ask, "Are you a doctor?"
The guy says, "No."
You say, "But you know what you're doing, right? You're an old Army medic, or ..."
At this point the guy becomes annoyed. He tells you that he is a nice guy, he is honest, he is always on time. He tells you that he is a great son to his mother and has a rich life full of fulfilling hobbies, and he boasts that he never uses foul language.
Confused, you say, "How does any of that fucking matter when my [wife/husband/best friend/parent] is lying here bleeding! I need somebody who knows how to operate on bullet wounds! Can you do that or not?!?"
Now the man becomes agitated -- why are you being shallow and selfish? Do you not care about any of his other good qualities? Didn't you just hear him say that he always remembers his girlfriend's birthday? In light of all of the good things he does, does it really matter if he knows how to perform surgery?
In that panicked moment, you will take your bloody hands and shake him by the shoulders, screaming, "Yes, I'm saying that none of that other shit matters, because in this specific situation, I just need somebody who can stop the bleeding, you crazy fucking asshole.""
Except swap out "injury" and "ability to stop the bleeding" with "need to find a capable mate able to exercise influence/power and protect their mutual offspring" and "can demonstrate both the motivation and the capability to do this" respectively.
The girl isn't *just* looking for someone "nice". That's good enough for a neighbour or a random person on the street. She's looking for someone who can do more than what is effectively begging for sex. Ie, you need to be able to stand up for yourself (self-respect - i.e. you don't pressure her for sex, revealing weakness as a result), influence other people, provide for a family reliably, at least when she needs support and be honest and interested in her.
The girl isn't *just* looking for someone "nice". That's good enough for a neighbour or a random person on the street. She's looking for someone who can do more than what is effectively begging for sex. Ie, you need to be able to stand up for yourself (self-respect - i.e. you don't pressure her for sex, revealing weakness as a result), influence other people, provide for a family reliably, at least when she needs support and be honest and interested in her.
On that one, though, where is the line between "influencing" other people and "manipulating" them? It looks like the same thing under a different label, getting people to do something you want them to do, with a lesser regard to whether or not they wanted to do it.
Oh, and pulling a pocket knife for a bullet wound is a terrible analogy. Trying to drag the bullet out is literally the worst thing you can do, and everyone can stop the bleeding (including the guy who "needs a doctor"; hope he did call 911 at least), assuming they did some basic first aid course. So in that scenario, not only is the "nice guy" a complete and utter moron who has no clue what he's doing, the guy screaming at him is also a loser because he's apparently failing to do something pretty much everyone should be able to do but sees it as more fitting to waste time on some random fool than actually doing something about the bleeding.
I actually quite liked the article for how cynical it is, mind, but Cracked isn't a site I'd opt to take life advice from ^^
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
