Nice Guys Suck

[Hiroshi Mishima]

Bad Boy =/= disrespectful misogynist.
If you want a misogynist you can look in the previous pages and see quite a few of the "nice guys" here think of women as enemies who are hiding something from or will 'suck you dry' if you act too nice to them.

Bad boys often are confident and open minded which are the traits a lot of women (and men) find attractive.

Like Lara said, you can be an insignificant wimp who complains about women loving guys who disrespect them on online forums or you can get out of the house, meet new people, take the chance of getting hurt and be a happier person for it.

Somehow I still think you're missing the point. In fact, you're just making it worse. I certainly didn't complain that some women love guys who didn't respect them, I questioned on it. You must be projecting or trying to establish yourself as a guy who doesn't respect people since that definitely seems to be where you're going.

Lemme add that I ALSO didn't say anything about women being enemies, either, so again I have no idea where you're getting this stuff from unless you're projecting your own issues.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Wow, definitely a hot subject. This is the first time a LoveFAQ article has hit triple-digits in comments.

So the gist of the article is that being nice has no value in dating? That a man can only enter a meaningful relationship if he has exceptional qualities to flaunt? That the only way for a man to get laid is to pretty much say from the very beginning "Hey, let's hang out so that I can try to bang you next month"? I'm calling total bullshit on that.

...

A hint to ALL women: If a nice guy approches you, just freaking go on a couple dates with him! If you don't like him, be honest and respectful. If he gets clingy and stalkerish, help him out by introducing him to some of your friends you think he might like.

Hoo boy, where to begin.

Okay, well, pardon me for overstretching my job analogy, but I just thought it up, and I'm rather enamoured of it (also, a warning, as with all analogies this one should be used for clarification, not "proof" of anything):

1. Let's start with the general and move to specifics. First
You are not entitled to a job.*
You are not entitled to a woman.

2. If you do not have any special qualities beyond "nice", you are unlikely to get a job and have, in fact, vastly reduced the number of jobs available to you (like, maybe some minimum wage customer service stuff).
If you do not have any special qualities beyond "nice", you are unlikely to get a date, and have, in fact, vastly reduced the number of women who could possibly be interested in you (basically just the blandly polite who also have nothing else to offer).

3. If doesn't matter how many applications you send out (hundreds, thousands) if you're sending it to jobs you're not qualified for; you will be rejected. You'll have to stick to jobs you're actually qualified to do, which are very few because you offer nothing beyond the bare minimum of value to anyone (you don't get to be a CEO by possessing nothing beyond "nice").
It doesn't matter how many women you ask out (hundreds, thousands) if you they are, in fact, too good for you. Why should a funny, charming, pretty girl with an excellent education settle for a nice lump?)

4. Almost anyone can outcompete you for that job because almost anyone is better qualified for it.
A woman is going to choose almost any guy over you because almost any guy is more attractive (not just in physical terms) than you.

5. While your circumstances may be unfortunate, it's still not the company's fault that you lack essential things like education, experience, and special skills, and it's up to you to obtain those things, not up to the company to feel sorry for you and give you a job anyway.
Again, it's not the woman's fault that you can only offer the bare minimum step above total asshole (I mean, way to shoot for the moon with that goal). It's also not her responsibility to take pity on poor you and date you anyway.

6. When applying to a job, it's up to you to demonstrate value. The company isn't psychic.
When asking a woman out, it's up to you to demonstrate value. The woman isn't psychic, and it's not her fault for not seeing how you're such a nice guy deep down inside, no really.

7. So you fear rejection? Not the company's problem, and the fact that it stops you from ever applying to the company is not the company's fault.
Not the woman's fault you fear rejection, and it's not their job to help you get over it or their job to accept you anyway for fear of hurting your feelings. Also not their fault if they pick someone else over you because that person actually asked (have you considered that the other guy also fears rejection but was brave enough to take it on the chin anyway?).

8. Companies don't like desperation.
Ditto women.

9. No company is going to knowingly hire someone who acts in a manipulative, stalkerish, delusional, fanatical, deceptive manner, no matter how "nice" he claims he is on the inside and how much he says it's the fault of other companies.
Man, ditto women. It doesn't matter that you say "I'm totally not like that on the inside, really!" If you act like a stalker, hey presto you're a stalker.

10. Just to sum up: Companies don't owe you a job. Women don't owe you a date.

Now to drop the analogy before it snaps from being overused and overstretched.

Now, going back to your first paragraph, I think it's quite telling that you seem to feel the only reason to enter into a long-term romantic relationship is to have sex. Anyway, if all you want is sex, you can, indeed, enter relationships purely for that, or simply have a one-night stand although, again, honesty is key here. But if you are actually interested in a long-term romantic relationship then, no, "let's hang out so I can bang you later" would never actually cross your lips because that's not why you're dating. So yeah, that's total bullshit. And it's your bullshit since I don't recall this article ever proposing that. That seems to be purely your interpretation of the reason people enter into long-term romantic relationships.

And now to the last paragraph--What the hell is wrong with you? You are not entitled to a woman's affections! And you give no reason for why any woman would ever want to enter a relationship. You're a self-professed clingy, misogynistic stalker! That is not the other party's fault, and they are absolutely right to reject you. If you want to date a woman, clean up your act first. They don't owe you a couple dates (I love that you demand not one, but a couple!) just because you want a date. That sentence also flies in the face of your second one since the honest and respectful thing to do is to reject you and someone like you straight away. And introducing a stalker to your friends is a terrible, terrible thing to do.


*I hope I'm not blowing anyone's mind here.

 

[Ophenix]

Lemme add that I ALSO didn't say anything about women being enemies, either, so again I have no idea where you're getting this stuff from unless you're projecting your own issues.

I didn't think you said some women were enemies but some of the Nice Guys(TM) here did just a page ago.

It's nice that everyone is showering you with praises, Lara. Unfortunately, it's completely unwarranted.

...

Women take. That's what they do. If a man doesn't demand some give AND take up front, then a woman will suck him dry.

It must be nice for introverted women to not have to be told to change their entire personality or die alone.

(This one is my faiv, its like a QQ to God asking him to patch society)

Like I said earlier, I don't do women, but I did date a few Nice Guys(tm) and even got an inflammatory email after that telling me I should "date dumb gym rats since I obviously don't know quality when I see it." Needless to say I got it from a guy whose back looked like a carpet, was steadily developing a beer gut and had over 40 board games in his trunk "just in case". And I can promise you he went home and called his BFF telling her gays just like muscular guys who will sleep with them and dump them but no one wants a nice guy like him...

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Like Lara said, you can be an insignificant wimp who complains about women loving guys who disrespect them on online forums or you can get out of the house, meet new people, take the chance of getting hurt and be a happier person for it.

How the hell do I become a happier person by bagging a woman who loves me because I disrespect her?

You know, I've read this whole article through grimacing without realizing that it isn't even about nice guys. The author creates a type of guy, gives that group of guys the name "Nice Guys" and proceeds to criticize them. Why even use those two words when they have nothing to do with what you mean by them? Why not use the title "Love FAQ: Miserable Sulking Passive-Aggressive Manipulating Guys Suck"?

Because then you'd be lucky to even get one reader.

Here's an exercise for the reader - try to read the article imagining a nice guy who doesn't have any of the traits Lara mentions. You'll find it's pretty damn easy to do. Nice is just nice - not all those added personality bonuses that Lara links together with being nice.

Out of curiosity, where did you get "be disrespectful to women" from " you can get out of the house, meet new people, take the chance of getting hurt and be a happier person for it"?

Also, the Nice Guy is not the article writer's neologism. You can google it for more information. She actually describes in this article what the difference is between a Nice Guy and being nice. I guess you were too busy clenching your teeth to notice . The reason they are called "Nice Guy" in this article is because that's what they call themselves as an excuse to hide their wimpy, misogynistic, cowardly, dishonest behaviour and because anyone who does manage to enter a healthy relationship with the Nice Guys' object of choice or who is capable of leaving the house and meeting people in an honest way automatically becomes an Asshole Who Disrespects Women. Hope this cleared things up!

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Like Lara said, you can be an insignificant wimp who complains about women loving guys who disrespect them on online forums or you can get out of the house, meet new people, take the chance of getting hurt and be a happier person for it.

How the hell do I become a happier person by bagging a woman who loves me because I disrespect her?

You know, I've read this whole article through grimacing without realizing that it isn't even about nice guys. The author creates a type of guy, gives that group of guys the name "Nice Guys" and proceeds to criticize them. Why even use those two words when they have nothing to do with what you mean by them? Why not use the title "Love FAQ: Miserable Sulking Passive-Aggressive Manipulating Guys Suck"?

Because then you'd be lucky to even get one reader.

Here's an exercise for the reader - try to read the article imagining a nice guy who doesn't have any of the traits Lara mentions. You'll find it's pretty damn easy to do. Nice is just nice - not all those added personality bonuses that Lara links together with being nice.

Out of curiosity, where did you get "be disrespectful to women" from " you can get out of the house, meet new people, take the chance of getting hurt and be a happier person for it"?

Also, the Nice Guy is not the article writer's neologism. You can google it for more information. She actually describes in this article what the difference is between a Nice Guy and being nice. I guess you were too busy clenching your teeth to notice . The reason they are called "Nice Guy" in this article is because that's what they call themselves as an excuse to hide their wimpy, misogynistic, cowardly, dishonest behaviour and because anyone who does manage to enter a healthy relationship with the Nice Guys' object of choice or who is capable of leaving the house and meeting people in an honest way automatically becomes an Asshole. Hope this cleared things up!

It did indeed, though I still think the use of the words Nice Guys was a sneaky and unnecessary way to attract readers' attention on this site, considering the article is about something completely different.

 

[Cephei Mordred]

As I said in my first post on the thread, don't love me because I'm beautiful. If a woman doesn't love me when I'm weak and worthless, why should I believe her feelings are sincere when I do become more valuable and productive?

Love with conditions is not really love, is it?

So much this... The women who expect men to be some kind of rockstar (and the reverse is true also) are the same as the ill touted Nice Guy because they have unrealistic expectations. 'Be amazing or I won't give you the time of day.' vs 'I gave you presents why won't you like me?' Aren't they equally as noxious?

Well, one is deceptive, and the other isn't, so it's not actually quite the same. Also, might I add that it's a bit much to expect unconditional love while being a worthless human being? Talk about unrealistic expectations, not to mention an entitlement complex. Lay off the Bronte, CM

[quoteOkay, Kirby, that was uncalled for.

To say that I have to be of value in order to receive love is the same is saying that I have to justify my existence on earth to others.

To say that it's 'entitled' of me to actually believe in unconditional love, which necessitates actually being unconditional and not contingent on being awesome or great, is simply ridiculous.

I considered writing a full response to this, but I think Athinira covered it pretty well. Adding anything else would likely be redundant on my part. Let me know though if there is anything you would still like me to clarify that you feel Athinira did not discuss or that you feel pertains particularly to my comments.

Well, at least Athinira didn't outright use the slur 'entitled.'

Seriously, what the heck?

 

[KirbyKrackle]

As I said in my first post on the thread, don't love me because I'm beautiful. If a woman doesn't love me when I'm weak and worthless, why should I believe her feelings are sincere when I do become more valuable and productive?

Love with conditions is not really love, is it?

So much this... The women who expect men to be some kind of rockstar (and the reverse is true also) are the same as the ill touted Nice Guy because they have unrealistic expectations. 'Be amazing or I won't give you the time of day.' vs 'I gave you presents why won't you like me?' Aren't they equally as noxious?

Well, one is deceptive, and the other isn't, so it's not actually quite the same. Also, might I add that it's a bit much to expect unconditional love while being a worthless human being? Talk about unrealistic expectations, not to mention an entitlement complex. Lay off the Bronte, CM

[quoteOkay, Kirby, that was uncalled for.

To say that I have to be of value in order to receive love is the same is saying that I have to justify my existence on earth to others.

To say that it's 'entitled' of me to actually believe in unconditional love, which necessitates actually being unconditional and not contingent on being awesome or great, is simply ridiculous.

I considered writing a full response to this, but I think Athinira covered it pretty well. Adding anything else would likely be redundant on my part. Let me know though if there is anything you would still like me to clarify that you feel Athinira did not discuss or that you feel pertains particularly to my comments.

Well, at least Athinira didn't outright use the slur 'entitled.'

Seriously, what the heck?

Oh, well as far as I'm concerned, thinking that you're owed the privilege of unconditional love without doing anything to earn it is pretty damned entitled. I mean, if you're of a particular religion you want to believe God loves you unconditionally, sure, go for it, but from other people, here on earth? Nope, that's you acting entitled, plain and simple.

 

[DracoSuave]

You know, I've read this whole article through grimacing without realizing that it isn't even about nice guys.

I highly doubt you did read the whole article without realizing it.

The entire first fucking page consists of nothing but comparing actually nice guys to Nice Guys(tm) outlining the differences and how they are not the same.

The entire first page.

All of it.

The letter was calling her out for refering to Nice Guys in the past. The entire article was about her clearing up the misconception between a nice guy and a Nice Guy. She didn't write ANYTHING ELSE.

The fact that people walk away from it 'reading' the article and claiming the article is being misleading or somehow NOT about this astonishes me. I am absolutely dumbfounded. The ONLY two ways I can actually see someone walking away from it with that conclusion is if they're either not reading the article, or strictly ignoring any part that doesn't offend them.

oddly the clarification doesn't feel any less insulting and still amounts to : girls don't want nice guys, you're better off being a jerk than being yourself.

I don't think he missed anything. I got the same feeling by the time I finished reading page 2. I THOUGHT she was saying that too on page 1, but by page 2 it felt like the same insulting "nice guys are losers" stuff all over again.

You should try reading what people say, not what your persecution complexes compel you to hear. Read words on the screen, not voices in your head. Cause you're being delusional.

The article is explaning being nice is expected, it's the baseline. It's not saying 'be a jerk' it's saying that 'If all you have is being nice, that's not good enough.' She then goes on to try to remind you that people have qualities, interests, and quirks that set themselves apart. The truly nice guy isn't just nice... he's also got talents that make him well rounded. Perhaps he's funny. Perhaps he likes that thing she likes, and has common ground. Perhaps he knows the right thing to say to make someone smile. Perhaps he's a really good cook. Perhaps he doesn't have talent but he has courage and explores new experiences anyways.

None of those things involve being a jerk. Not a single thing she said was 'be a jerk.' What she's saying is 'Be awesome.' Being nice is only a PART of being awesome. You need to be more; you need to be a man.

As I said in my first post on the thread, don't love me because I'm beautiful. If a woman doesn't love me when I'm weak and worthless, why should I believe her feelings are sincere when I do become more valuable and productive?

Love with conditions is not really love, is it?

So much this... The women who expect men to be some kind of rockstar (and the reverse is true also) are the same as the ill touted Nice Guy because they have unrealistic expectations. 'Be amazing or I won't give you the time of day.' vs 'I gave you presents why won't you like me?' Aren't they equally as noxious?

Well, one is deceptive, and the other isn't, so it's not actually quite the same. Also, might I add that it's a bit much to expect unconditional love while being a worthless human being? Talk about unrealistic expectations, not to mention an entitlement complex. Lay off the Bronte, CM

[quoteOkay, Kirby, that was uncalled for.

To say that I have to be of value in order to receive love is the same is saying that I have to justify my existence on earth to others.

To say that it's 'entitled' of me to actually believe in unconditional love, which necessitates actually being unconditional and not contingent on being awesome or great, is simply ridiculous.

I considered writing a full response to this, but I think Athinira covered it pretty well. Adding anything else would likely be redundant on my part. Let me know though if there is anything you would still like me to clarify that you feel Athinira did not discuss or that you feel pertains particularly to my comments.

Well, at least Athinira didn't outright use the slur 'entitled.'

Seriously, what the heck?

Oh, well as far as I'm concerned, thinking that you're owed the privilege of unconditional love without doing anything to earn it is pretty damned entitled. I mean, if you're of a particular religion you want to believe God loves you unconditionally, sure, go for it, but from other people, here on earth? Nope, that's you acting entitled, plain and simple.

Seriously, this. Entitled isn't a frikken slur. No one is owed anything. Unconditional love doesn't just HAPPEN. That's an unrealistic expectation, and borderline insane.

You EARN unconditional love. It's hard fought. It's not something you just dole out one day thinking 'man, unconditional love is great!' Because love isn't that fucking easy.

 

[ElectrifiedSorcerer]

Okay, so I'd like to clarify the 'Why don't girls date nice guys' meme. I'd like to explain that, while it's an unpleasant and probably inaccurate generalization, it has not been addressed by Lara.

For the most part, the 'why don't girls date nice guys' meme is brought up when a really nice girl is seen dating an inconsiderate douche who does not treat her well.

After seeing this phenomenon often, we might remark: 'Well this isn't an isolated case. I've seen it more than once.' We (unfairly) assume that it's not a case of some nice girls falling for some unpleasant guys. No, we start to think maybe - just maybe - it's not a coincidence that they're all bell-ends. Maybe that's what attracts the girls. Because they're really annoying people. And no, they didn't wear a funny hat or sing in Rock Band or do something extravagant. They were just obnoxious tools

Hence the 'women don't date nice guys' meme. Once again, it's a stereotype and an ugly one at that. Women aren't stupid and they're not all dating morons. And maybe we pass judgement on a girl's boyfriend without knowing the full story. But sometimes you'll see a smart, attractive and interesting girl going out with a loud, annoying ass. And you won't think, 'God, she should date me, I deserve sex because I listen'. You'll think, 'I just wish she'd stop dating losers. For her own sake'

Lara addressed the idea of 'nice guys' and so did Belle Du Jour on her blog, but they both missed the point. They both go into this tangent about real nice vs fake nice (which is not really just an overlong way of saying some people are only outwardly nice). As for that line of reasoning, it's incredibly cynical. Sometimes a guy is just shy. He doesn't have a twisted mind that demands sex in exchange for basic decency; he's just shy. And you can't exactly call niceness a duplicitous way of getting things. That's more a discussion of kindness itself. Can we judge any act as being kind? If we try hard enough, can't we find fault with any kind action?

Niceness shouldn't be taken lightly. Yes, being nice is a basic social requirement - in an ideal world. Here on planet Earth, you may be surprised at how many people are bastards, especially where dating is concerned. So if you're a good person, that should count for something. More than a hat, at least.

 

[Cephei Mordred]

Okay, wait...really?

How in the world are "unconditional" and "earned" anything but the exact opposite?

And yes it is a slur, I use it all the time against Nice Guy(tms).

 

[DracoSuave]

Okay, wait...really?

How in the world are "unconditional" and "earned" anything but the exact opposite?

And yes it is a slur, I use it all the time against Nice Guy(tms).

Because unconditional love still requires trust, friendship, honesty, and a lot of other traits that you simply cannot find by looking at someone across a room. These are things that have to be shown, displayed over a long period of time, before love blossoms from conditional to unconditional.

Love does not -start- unconditional. Attraction does not -start- unconditional.

To believe love can start unconditional means that who you are when they meet you is unimportant. They're not in love with -you- because who you are is meaningless, they're only in love with what you represent.

And that, good sir, is not love. That's infatuation.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Not to mention that while love may exist, unconditional love is a foolish romantic (and Romantic) fantasy that doesn't exist, and you will only harm yourself and others by believing in it.

EDIT: Although I thought I should add that what DracoSuave wrote about love needing to be earned is still correct without the "unconditional" tacked on.

 

[geekRAGE]

Thank you for posting the article I really enjoyed the read. Some of the responses were pretty insightful too.

 

[geekRAGE]

Wow, definitely a hot subject. This is the first time a LoveFAQ article has hit triple-digits in comments.

So the gist of the article is that being nice has no value in dating? That a man can only enter a meaningful relationship if he has exceptional qualities to flaunt? That the only way for a man to get laid is to pretty much say from the very beginning "Hey, let's hang out so that I can try to bang you next month"? I'm calling total bullshit on that.

...

A hint to ALL women: If a nice guy approches you, just freaking go on a couple dates with him! If you don't like him, be honest and respectful. If he gets clingy and stalkerish, help him out by introducing him to some of your friends you think he might like.

Hoo boy, where to begin.

Okay, well, pardon me for overstretching my job analogy, but I just thought it up, and I'm rather enamoured of it (also, a warning, as with all analogies this one should be used for clarification, not "proof" of anything):

1. Let's start with the general and move to specifics. First
You are not entitled to a job.*
You are not entitled to a woman.

2. If you do not have any special qualities beyond "nice", you are unlikely to get a job and have, in fact, vastly reduced the number of jobs available to you (like, maybe some minimum wage customer service stuff).
If you do not have any special qualities beyond "nice", you are unlikely to get a date, and have, in fact, vastly reduced the number of women who could possibly be interested in you (basically just the blandly polite who also have nothing else to offer).

3. If doesn't matter how many applications you send out (hundreds, thousands) if you're sending it to jobs you're not qualified for; you will be rejected. You'll have to stick to jobs you're actually qualified to do, which are very few because you offer nothing beyond the bare minimum of value to anyone (you don't get to be a CEO by possessing nothing beyond "nice").
It doesn't matter how many women you ask out (hundreds, thousands) if you they are, in fact, too good for you. Why should a funny, charming, pretty girl with an excellent education settle for a nice lump?)

4. Almost anyone can outcompete you for that job because almost anyone is better qualified for it.
A woman is going to choose almost any guy over you because almost any guy is more attractive (not just in physical terms) than you.

5. While your circumstances may be unfortunate, it's still not the company's fault that you lack essential things like education, experience, and special skills, and it's up to you to obtain those things, not up to the company to feel sorry for you and give you a job anyway.
Again, it's not the woman's fault that you can only offer the bare minimum step above total asshole (I mean, way to shoot for the moon with that goal). It's also not her responsibility to take pity on poor you and date you anyway.

6. When applying to a job, it's up to you to demonstrate value. The company isn't psychic.
When asking a woman out, it's up to you to demonstrate value. The woman isn't psychic, and it's not her fault for not seeing how you're such a nice guy deep down inside, no really.

7. So you fear rejection? Not the company's problem, and the fact that it stops you from ever applying to the company is not the company's fault.
Not the woman's fault you fear rejection, and it's not their job to help you get over it or their job to accept you anyway for fear of hurting your feelings. Also not their fault if they pick someone else over you because that person actually asked (have you considered that the other guy also fears rejection but was brave enough to take it on the chin anyway?).

8. Companies don't like desperation.
Ditto women.

9. No company is going to knowingly hire someone who acts in a manipulative, stalkerish, delusional, fanatical, deceptive manner, no matter how "nice" he claims he is on the inside and how much he says it's the fault of other companies.
Man, ditto women. It doesn't matter that you say "I'm totally not like that on the inside, really!" If you act like a stalker, hey presto you're a stalker.

10. Just to sum up: Companies don't owe you a job. Women don't owe you a date.

Now to drop the analogy before it snaps from being overused and overstretched.

Now, going back to your first paragraph, I think it's quite telling that you seem to feel the only reason to enter into a long-term romantic relationship is to have sex. Anyway, if all you want is sex, you can, indeed, enter relationships purely for that, or simply have a one-night stand although, again, honesty is key here. But if you are actually interested in a long-term romantic relationship then, no, "let's hang out so I can bang you later" would never actually cross your lips because that's not why you're dating. So yeah, that's total bullshit. And it's your bullshit since I don't recall this article ever proposing that. That seems to be purely your interpretation of the reason people enter into long-term romantic relationships.

And now to the last paragraph--What the hell is wrong with you? You are not entitled to a woman's affections! And you give no reason for why any woman would ever want to enter a relationship. You're a self-professed clingy, misogynistic stalker! That is not the other party's fault, and they are absolutely right to reject you. If you want to date a woman, clean up your act first. They don't owe you a couple dates (I love that you demand not one, but a couple!) just because you want a date. That sentence also flies in the face of your second one since the honest and respectful thing to do is to reject you and someone like you straight away. And introducing a stalker to your friends is a terrible, terrible thing to do.


*I hope I'm not blowing anyone's mind here.

Just a simple thumbs up for this response

 

[KaiusCormere]

(This one is my faiv, its like a QQ to God asking him to patch society)

Whatever dude. I don't like society, yeah. Why should I?

 

[Togs]

So much whining in this thread, kinda demonstrates LoveFAQS point rather well if you ask me.

It must be nice for introverted women to not have to be told to change their entire personality or die alone.

The personality change you mention isnt as drastic as you make it, its a simple function of growing up.