Nice Guys Suck

[zalfy]

How about instead of being all knit-picky about the article we interpret for ourselves and learn a thing or two from it? It's pretty obvious what the author meant to me @_@

 

[trooper6]

Excellent, now I know what to link to explain to my friends, both male and female, why I'm not interested in pursuing romance at this point in my life. Not that they ask that often, but...sometimes people wonder, because they often see me as smart, fun, outgoing, etc, when they meet me or hang out with me. Of course there's more to a person than what you see in one night

Anyway, thanks for the link, it's very interesting.

You know...this post of yours brings up another thing that chaps my hide...the assumption that everyone must be dating or they "aren't complete" are "missing out" or are in some other way damaged or to be pitied.

A person can be single and be happy, smart, fun, outgoing, with a great social life. You don't want to pursue romance at this point? That is totally cool. As long as you are content, that is what is important...not whether you are single or paired up (or in a polyamorous relationship with 10 people).

Our society, as a whole, has way too many messed up ideas about romance and sex.

 

[Pinguin]

Good article.

It basically amounts to: sure, be nice, but mainly be yourself. A nice guy who is only nice because he's after something, or because it's the way he wants to be seen - is not very nice really.

Also I completely agree, why would you be proud of being a 'nice guy', it's such a vague thing. Instead, be an awesome guy who people also say is nice.

 

[Dusty Fred]

Nailed me to the wall, it did. Still, identifying the problem is the first step towards ignoring it.

 

[trooper6]

I don't think you're that interested in my personal life, and I don't exactly rejoice at the thought of venting on a very public forum. Let's just say that I have some things to take care of before I can start loving myself, and that I'm tired of being a "Nice Guy"...(FYI that's something I realized long before reading any of this.)

I don't know you personally and don't expect you to vent on a public forum. But I'll say this: Know that I give you good thoughts across the ether. If you are on a quest to take care of yourself so you can start loving yourself, I say that you can do it. You seem to have a level of self-awareness, and that speaks well to your ability to achieve your goal of self-change. I'm a stranger, but I'm rooting for you.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Oh, so THIS is the guide to being able to date any female you could ever imagine. Thank God women are such simple creatures that the same thing works for all of them. [/sarcasm]

Yeah, I'm incredibly awkward and my current girlfriend somehow finds that to be fine. Probably because I'm NOT a supernova. A lot of people aren't. And if you try to be a supernova, you'll attract people that you don't even like. So screw being a supernova, be yourself.

I think you're kind of missing the point. When she said "be a supernova" she basically meant "be yourself". She's demonstrating that being "nice" isn't a personality, it's just a trait. A personality is the sum of what you do and how you act. You should play up what your good at and people (ones that you actually like) will be probably be a lot more attracted to you.

Here's a phenomenon that needs to go away, the perceived dichotomy of either being totally nice or a complete jerk. There's a whole gulf of people in between, you're never just one or the other. You don't need to be a center-of-attention jerk-off just to get women, and being a bit shy or awkward isn't a going to make you forever alone.

The way it was phrased it definitely seemed like she meant be a supernova as being extroverted even when you're not. Especially with the examples given. That may not be what was meant, but it's definitely how it came off.

And for the record, I agree with the whole "nice guy" thing. She's spot on, in fact. And I agree with what you said about the whole nice guy thing as well. It was just that bit at the end of the article that I found kind of disagreeable (if that's even a word).

 

[Uncreation]

Oh look: yet another article about the evil that is "nice guys". Joy! I won't even comment about this in particular. I just wish people would stop taking advice about their love life from articles on the internet. Most of them are either biased, or are only someones opinion, and are generally full of crap either way.

I only now noticed this series of articles. Does the Escapist really need this?

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Well I don't think you should ask out a person you have never had a conversation with (unless we are talking about online dating). Generally, conversations are involved first.

As for friends becoming romantic. Sure it happens...but in my experience, not that often...and usually both friends are maintaining the hots for each other the whole time, just not able to act on it at the moment. But everyone's experience on that level is different.

Anyway, to address the heteronormative presumptions about relationship dynamics in the response...I can't speak for Lara, but following much of the reading I've done on Nice Guy Syndrome, I believe that Nice Guy Syndrome is basically rooted in misogyny and sexism. It's about male privilege and entitlement to women's bodies. It is about objectifying women. Because of that, Nice Guy Syndrome is not going to work itself out the same way in same-sex relationships. In many ways, Nice Guy Syndrome is a problem of heteronormativity. It is a problem of patriarchal relationship codes. It is a problem of the predator/prey most of understanding male/female sexuality in the first place.

I don't know enough about psychology to judge the validity of that claim, but my overriding issue with her statement is that seems to insinuate that there is something insidious behind the idea of wanting to know a bit more about a person before asking them out. That not wanting to impulsively dive right in on the sole basis of physical attraction and preferring to see if you actually have some common interests or rapport/chemistry before deciding they want to try and initiate a relationship is somehow unsavoury. Even rolling with the theory that Nice Guy Syndrome is strictly a straight male state of mind, that still doesn't vindicate the assumption that it's somehow on the guy's shoulders to be the one to make the first move, neither does it account for a persons inaction stemming from a lack of knowledge or skepticism. They might refrain from asking someone out because they don't feel there is really enough to go on to really build a relationship, or they know that they're going to get turned down and that the interest is not mutual and accept this knowing that a relationship with this person is unviable, but liking the person enough to remain friends. Basically I just find it annoying that inaction is somehow seen as insidious in it's intent, that some people are going to be accussed of exhibiting 'Nice Guy' traits or manipulative behaviour for...literally not doing anything. What irritates me is this kind of statement is perpetuating the perception that coyness, reticence or passiveness are to be looked upon as symptomns for this Nice Guy Syndrome.

 

[Nickolai77]

The problem is, I don't think is I don't think being introvert (or extrovert) should be called a "personality trait". It's more a scaling on which you show the word the guy you know called "me".

Just my opinion

Well, introversion and extroversion describe a series of related personality traits. For instance usually introverts are reflectful, and this trait can lead to...say, creativity and ingenuity, but also depression and poor people skills. So your right, intra and extraversion arn't personality traits in themselves, but they relate to certain other personality traits which tend to occur on the spectrum of how expressive you are of yourself.

 

[Axyun]

I'm a nice guy to everyone, regardless of gender. My problem is that I'm so introverted that I don't really interact with a whole lot of people in general. Out of that small group of people, only a subset of them are women. And out of that set of women, there are none I feel could make a positive enough impact on my life, or I on theirs, worth the relationship hassles.

I like to think, I like to learn, I like to work on projects (extremely goal-oriented) and I like to improve on everything I do. These are things that give me true satisfaction in life.

Unfortunately, I usually find that involving people in the things I like to do only gets in the way of accomplishing said task. It's very odd because most people like working with me and think I'm some kind of cheery people-person, usually seeking me out for conversation and advice. They are always shocked to learn I can't stomach people for extended periods of time.

It's not like I'm putting up a facade either. I tell my friends when they've been bothering me either too long, too frequently, or both and tell them to chill out because I need space. Problem is I can and have gone on for months without seeking anyone out and I do not feel an ounce of loneliness, need or desire for human interaction. Then they start calling and wondering where the hell I've been. I feel like an ass because they are my friends and they deserve better but I sometimes just want to be left alone for a really long time. It's not a depressive need, either. I don't sit home and brood. I learn things, I relax, and I get shit done.

This behavioral pattern is not conducive to relationships. And I don't know why this is normal to me or how to "fix" it. Heck, I'm not even sure it's a problem. It's just different.

Actually, really thinking about it, it's not that I don't like involving other people into my hobbies, It's just that most people I know don't like to do the things I like. And the few that I know that would share a common interest tend to be like me: self-sufficient pragmatists.

 

[Spud of Doom]

This is a bit of a well-tread topic amongst dating commentary. So much so that I'm surprised so many people didn't understand the earlier mentions. Here's an old blog post talking about it:
http://divalion.livejournal.com/163615.html

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Lol, so basically if you have any sort of empathy or human compassion, women hate you because you're a nice guy.

Wow, this is so ridiculously fucked up I don't even know where to begin. Why ***** about men being assholes if this is the kind of approach you take?

No, that's a reductionist view of the dynamic. I'm not claiming to be an expert at this, but the whole nice-guy behaviour is mostly founded upon the idea that the most fundamentally important thing is not to pressure the lady at all. Which means every single thing they do is utterly passive and designed to make the woman suddenly fall in love with them when they realise that they've had that person who's been there for them all along. If you've ever read Thackery's Vanity Fair, Dobbin is like the prime example of this kind of behaviour.

They shouldn't really be called 'nice guys' so much as 'passive guys'. It's that whole "I want you but I'm going to remain a friend until you see me for the compassionate human being that I am" mentality that most women I've met despise. They don't want that crap, because there's no chemistry involved in that kind of courtship. You can be as caring and nice as you want, but if you want to date someone you have to be kind of assertive about it.

 

[Weaver]

So don't settle for being "nice". Strive for "amazing", or "unforgettable", or "the greatest man I've ever met".

So to get a date you have to be the greatest man in the world.
I may as well just give up now.

 

[Weaver]

if a man spends months trying to win a woman over, usually by being her emotional dumping ground, obviously it does not entitle him to sex..but if the woman isn't interested, why does she allow this to continue so long? obviously the woman is getting something out of this, and it's fair for her to assume the 'kindness' is given for it's own sake..at first.

but come on, it becomes pretty obvious pretty fast that the guy you friend-zoned is still interested in you and is doing all this with a heart/head filled with hope.

so yes, in this case he is a victim, his weakness is being exploited.

Here is where we are going to disagree. Most Nice Guys (TM) dishonest liars. They say, "I want to be your friend, that is why I"m being so kind to you and listening to your problems."
And the woman says, "Great, because you are in the freind-zone."

Then they have a friendship. Friends talk about each others feelings and hang out. But the Nice Guy (TM) lied to the girl about wanting to be friends just so he can hope to get into her pants...she is not leading him on, he is not the victim. He's a lying, deceiving, manipulative creep.

This assumes all men enter friendships with females just to get in their pants.

What if a guy enters a relationship and then over the course of a many months develops feelings for a girl? Can this just never happen because he's in the friend zone? is he a nice guy or a Nice Guy TM?

 

[Aureliano]

Gotta say, I think you may have the love leads being a better person thing backwards. When you're great at what you do, self-sufficient and just generally a good person to be around, love will come a'knockin'.

Love will also make you a happier, better person, but after all is said and done if and when it comes time to break up you still get to be that great person even after they're gone. Because you were already worthwhile to begin with.

Also, the reason you try dancing badly is so you learn to dance better. You wear stupid hats so people tell you your hat is stupid and you learn to dress better. You take risks, not just for the thrill, because you learn what does and doesn't work whether or not you succeed. Just in case that wasn't clear.

 

[Vert]

Quotes from the article between brackets:

[This behavior is often bundled with a fearful, passive, or insecure approach to dating and women, which shouldn't be surprising, considering that Nice Guys? are nothing if not insecure. (...) You've got to put yourself on the line. Because love only comes to those who earn it.]

Up to about this point, I was actually quite happy with your article and I think that you're spot-on; it's not hard at all for a insecure guy to believe that simply 'being there' and other similar behaviour somehow merits/qualifies them for a relationship with a girl. Love, like so many things in life, has to have an element of risk, you have to actually state your intentions at some point (although when to do so is debatable and I think you make it seem like it's strictly necessary to do so very early, which isn't necessarily true), and I like that make clear how this is distinct from being a nice guy (i.e., being a nice person).

It's starting below that I think that you start to write in a very unfortunate way, that makes your message seem something that it isn't, a real shame:

[Generally, I think being "nice" to attract a mate is overrated. (...) That's just standard practice for living in polite society. And just because people often aren't nice to each other doesn't mean that when you are, it somehow makes you more distinctive or desirable. I mean, it's like flossing. You really want to hang your hat on the fact that you floss, and other people don't? I mean, sure, you'll have nice teeth. But... what else?

A woman who tells her friends that, "well, he was nice" is damning you with faint praise, because it means she can't think of anything else to remember you by.]

Sorry, but the way you write the above makes it seem as if there's an actual problem with being nice... I mean, I understand what the message you're trying to get across is, but you've expressed yourself in an pretty bad way, which is lamentable.

If I understand you correctly, what you want to say is that simply being nice to other people doesn't make for a particularly attractive personality characteristic and that no woman/man would likely be interested in man/woman that is only 'nice' (i.e., courteous and whatnot) to them and is seen as such.

The problem is that you're creating a situation where people are reduced down to a single characteristic. No relationship between two people that isn't incredibly superficial, and let me emphasize that I'm not just talking about romantic relationships here, happens in such a way that the only thing that the one person can observe in the other is their 'niceness'. If that's somehow happening, then it's not really a relationship and more of the case of two people who very casually know each other and, in that case, what should be happening is that if one of them is interested in the other, they should simply work to get to know the other better.

So, to make sure I'm very clear about this: if A looks at B and can only think of how B is 'nice', then the clearly A and B don't really know one another yet; as long as B realizes this (and if he/she doesn't, he/she might very well be a Nice Guy (TM)) and understands that it's necessary to get to know the other person better, then what you're written above doesn't really apply.

[So don't settle for being "nice". Strive for "amazing", or "unforgettable", or "the greatest man I've ever met".]

This, again, isn't per se a bad piece of advice, just poorly expressed. As in my above comments, what you're trying to say is that a person should do more that just be 'nice' and should make some effort to impress the other as they get to know one another which is something that, as long as you're not misrepresenting yourself, I agree is pretty good advice.

It really is ok to show off some of your better characteristics, together with your not so pleasant side; that's a part of getting to know anyone better and there's nothing wrong with making sure a person you're interested in can see more of better side quickly, otherwise why would they ever think in being interested in you?

The problem is that the way you write (and see below for more), you see to imply that a guy (in particular) needs to be arrogant or proud or 'jock-like' to succeed which is, most definitely, not the advice you're trying to give; it just like that.

[Yes, be respectful, generous and kind. Be nice. But also: Do the things you do well. Don't apologize when you win.]

As per the above, this is good advice, although 'win' is a little ambiguous. ^_^

[Tell jokes in a crowd. Take the mic in Rock Band. Be the DM. See the world. Laugh loudly. Dance badly. Try the things that scare you. Wear a stupid hat.]

Again, poorly expressed. VERY poorly expressed. And I think you've misjudged your audience badly.

A introvert (and, with reasonable odds, that's the sort of person who's reading this right now) will read the above and think that what you mean is, again, that it is necessary him/her to act like an extrovert / jock / to call attention / to do things that they absolutely don't feel comfortable in doing, to have any chance with the opposite sex.

I know this isn't what you're trying to say, in fact, I think you're most likely just trying to highlight some ways that a person can showcase some of their more attractive personality characteristics and emphasizing again that you do really have to put yourself at risk if you want to establish a relationship. Again, both are sound advice.

And, again, the problem is that I think you've picked some really poor examples that probably come off, again to an introvert, as stuff that they wouldn't feel comfortable at any level in doing. That, in fact, they would need to radically change they personality to have any chance. Or, and I'm exaggerating for effect, that they have something of a personality disorder, in that they necessary steps towards finding love requires them to do stuff they find almost abhorrent.

[Share your opinions freely. Share your kindnesses even more freely. Love yourself first, and without restraint.]

Better, much better, but sandwiched between two 'misleading' parts and, quite easily, lost.

[Just burn, burn like a flame that can't go out; burn brighter and hotter than even the sun.

Fuck being a nice guy. Be a supernova instead.]

And, yeah, I've got nothing else to add to that, what I've written above applies liberally to these last lines. It sounds nothing like the message you're trying to pass.

Now, you may be asking yourself, why have I taken the time to write out such a long analyses of your writing? Because I have nothing better to do? Because I have some sort of personality disorder? Because I'm attempting to troll you really badly by spending far too much time on it?

No, it's simply because the message you're trying to get across is, essentially a good one and one that should be told more often: that you have to take risks in trying to find love, that you must be ready to be rejected, that being a Nice Guy (TM) is not healthy for yourself (or others, really), that you shouldn't be ashamed of highlighting some of your more attractive quirks, that being nice (in the literal sense of the word) is not enough, that you must seriously look at yourself and try to reason whether you're a Nice Guy (TM) or just a nice guy, and so forth.

I just think that, as an introvert, this message is almost lost in the way you write (you're far to aggressive at some points, which will make many readers go on the defensive) and that the message that comes out from a more causal reading is, instead, that: to have any chance with the opposite sex, you have to become an extrovert / jock, that you shouldn't be nice to other people, that you might have to radically change your personality / that you can't be yourself, etc.

Obviously, NOT what you intended, but it's a terrible shame, as this is the last thing that Nice Guys (TM) and nice guys/introverts need to hear; it'll either despair them (the latter) or convince them that they should stick to what they're doing (the former).

TL;DR: Lara, if I might make a suggestion: read what you've written again, quickly and without too much reflection and try to put yourself in the position of introvert, of a person who has difficulties in expressing themselves, of a nice guy, of a Nice Guy (TM); what message comes across from your article? What do you think people will take from it?