Heartless Bitches International's "nice guys" article

I know, but still I want know why people ask that question.

For me it's the opposite.

I worry about sleeping with women because once that's happened, one way or another, you are unlikely to remain friends for long.

Emotions always come into it.

Not that women throwing themselves at me is a big problem for me, just that sometimes it does happen and worthwhile friendships are harder to find than sex is. WAY harder.

I think one problem with being "just friends" with someone of the opposite sex is that even if that's your intent, keeping your mind out of the gutter is easier said than done. (At least if you're male... not sure how different it is for females.) Growing up I was "just friends" with a girl, and not even very close friends... I would go sledding with her during winter times, other times I would borrow Disney movies from her, stuff like that. (No Is That What They Are Calling It Now remarks, please.) Then, around when I was going through puberty, our family and her family were going to a beach together, and the fact that she was wearing a tank top that showed how smooth her arms were gave me some rather... impure thoughts, to say the very least. I didn't bring it up, of course... and since a thunderstorm came along, it offered some ways to avoid the subject anyway. (Heh, I still recall talking about the voltages of lightning strikes that day.)

Besides, her dad got transferred to another town not long after that anyway. o.o

But even aside from that which is directly sexual, even the emotional desire to be more than friends with a female friend one has a crush on can be emotionally conflicting.

Speaking as a guy, when guys only go after women for sex, it's the sort of all-or-nothing mentality. It's a little odd to flirt with a women for a deal of time, only to find out she's not interested, then tone the relationship down to just staying friends after all that happened. Usually, between strangers in America, the social setting doesn't work like that; obviously there are exceptions to this rule.

This is completely different from befriending someone with long-term flirtation techniques in order to get to know the woman over a period of weeks/months, and then pursue a long term relationship with said woman. Here, however, it's a grab-bag of possibilites; some women will be so freaked out by the idea that they will generate a great deal of space between them and the guy that tried to ask them out, while others will simply say no, and continue on with a friendship, expecting the guy to either tone down the relationship as well or lose her as a friend.

@Josef Bugman You can use quoteblock you know dude.

Actually, I'm not sure how to. Where's the button for making a quoteblock appear in you post?

Did you read the rest of my statement?

Yes

Its a medical condition

Perhaps we're using different definitions. I thought depression simply meant "almost constant, extreme saddness, often to the point of contemplating suicide".

a bad one to be sure, but its better if you can be empathetic with the other person.

Agreed.

Just going "oh dear" is about as helpful as giving a plaster to a hemophilliac, it temporarily does something, but the wound isn't going to shut unless they are getting medical help.

I think doing something is still worth it.

I really don't know where people keep getting this from;

And I don't know how it could be interpreted in any other way, which is part of what I asked (or meant to ask, but perhaps I wasn't very clear) in my original post.

Being insecure usually has a host of personal problems associated with it. It doesn't make you a failure, but it often is not twinned with feeling happy or good. Being shy is different, I've met people who are shy but very happy and content in themselves, but being insecure (whilst not a sign of failure) is still a problem.

Agreed, but what's your point?

You just answered your own question.

No I didn't, someone can cuss like a sailor at you and still be telling you the truth, just because someone is not being diplomatic does not mean there is no validity to their statement.

But just because there is validity to their statement doesn't mean it's not offensive if the statement is delivered in a nasty manner, and again, part of the statement in this case seems to be that you're a "loser" if you're insecure.

Its a common current running through the statements on the blog (especially the "response" areas) and the xkcd comic that was brought up a bit ago.

Fair enough, but my point was about the article itself, not the comic or response areas.

There is also the fact that in general people who are "Nice" seem to want to just jump and cling on to someone,

If that's how you define "nice", I guess. I don't see how that follows from the definition of "nice" that the article seems to be using.

Calling people who are insecure, desperate for a relationship that they don't know how to deal with and behaving like its other peoples responsibility to make alterations to their life seems like a good enough reason to not consider them "innocent", "naive" maybe, but not innocent.

I would consider them "innocent" if they don't realize their behavior is hurtful. I suppose by "innocent" I meant "not intentionally harmful to others".

it just seems so pathetic to get angry about being insulted via the internet.

It's pathetic to not approve of cyberbullying, or to ask this site why they would support it? I just don't understand.

One site blog is calling out people who behave like clingy buggers and who, if in a relationship, don't actually try working on their problems a loser and somehow that isn't acceptable?

If it seems like the article can best be summed as "you're insecure, your insecurity leads you to act like a clingy bugger and not try working on your problems (weather you realize it or not), therefore you're not worth anything as a person", I'd say it's a negative behavior.

Because in general, if an "insult" is based on a generic "you", then its kind of weird to get angry about it.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Aside from that, as someone who was once hideously insecure myself (and is still a little insecure, but much better now then I was before), I identify with the people the article describes, even though I've never felt a romantic attraction or attempted to date before. Again, I only brought it up because I noticed a number of people on this site seemed to agree with it, and I was curious as to why. I wondered, first of all, is this article really as bigoted as I thought, or am I misunderstanding it? And second, if it really is what I thought, why would anyone here agree with it (sort of like asking racists why they hold racist views)?

@Morven:It strikes me that if you get upset by that article ... perhaps it's because you're one of the guys they're talking about!

Well, as stated in my above post, I've never had a romantic attraction or attempted to date before, but I can relate to the subjects of the article because I was painfully insecure for most of my life.

Relationships are not therapy, your girlfriend or hoped-for girlfriend is not your nurse or your shrink, and you need to better yourself, because as you are, you're no damn good for ANYONE in a relationship.

I agree, but I can also understand how a painfully unhappy person might be desperate for anything that could make them feel better, even if it's not fair to others. While the behavior of such people shouldn't be condoned, they deserve some sympathy and compassion, not to be called schoolyard insults like "loser".

Or perhaps you're not all that bad.

Unless I've seriously misunderstood the article, the people it describes are not "bad" at all, just misguided.

In which case, the article is not about you and you should not be offended by it.

I empathize with others and feel bad for them when they're picked on. And again, as a former victim of my own painfull insecurity, I can identify with these people anyway.

Also, do you honestly believe that, or just in this type of situation? Many people will say you shouldn't be offended by insults that aren't directed at you, but I notice many of those same people will be angry at (and refuse to vote for or watch) politicians that make racist comments or movies with racist content, for instance, even if they're not members of the race being attacked.

edited 19th Mar '11 7:11:26 PM by 411314

@vjeno:

As long as you feel threatened by that simple word "loser", you stand no chance.

Oh well. Even if I were looking for a girlfriend, I wouldn't be interested in the kind who verbally abuse others anyway.

Mark up help, see the top left of the page when you post.

Are you trying to tell me how to use quoteblocks? I still don't see a button for that.

[1]

edited 19th Mar '11 7:14:59 PM by LoveHappiness

Ahh, Dogged Nice Guy, where would we be without thee?

I remember reading that article when I first got introduced to the trope (and this site), and it doesn't seem to mesh with all the Real Life examples I've seen. I'm not convinced that it's a one-way street; most women I've known with Nice Guy suitors don't fit the pattern of obliviousness or inability to say no that the article implies. I've seen some of them get downright territorial if their "friend" gets interested in another woman (it gets downright hilarious to see three or more start competing for the same male "friend").

It's probably more societal bullshit; if the guy wants to fuck you and will never in a million years get remotely close, that means you win, right?

QFT!

No. The article is saying "You're insecure, and taking it out on me. Knock it off."

As someone who's dated (several) "Nice Guys", I feel a strong amount of sympathy for the woman who wrote the article. It's not fun telling a guy that you're leaving, it's especially not fun when said guy starts crying and threatens to kill himself because "you're my everything! I can't live without you!".

"Nice Guys", in my personal experience, are nothing more than manipulative embryonic abusers, who figured out that women are conditioned from birth to be caring and generous individuals, and they twist that for all it's worth. They make you feel like scum for leaving them. They cry and whine and threaten bodily harm to both you and themselves, because they can't imagine a life without the "girl of their dreams". For example, I had a guy threaten to knock me up and "make her mine forever" when I left him.

They need to grow up. Not only because they're irritating, but because men who cling and grasp onto the first woman to look in their direction are mostly going to attract manipulative bitches who use them. Women who twist their desperation and use it for their own personal gain, which only reinforces their crazy mindset of "I wasn't good enough for her!".

Seriously. I am never going to date a guy who dotes on me that much again. I can't handle it. It's entirely too stressful to be manipulated into a long-term relationship by someone who's too emotionally fragile to deal with the consequences of being a twit.

Wouldn't it be poetic justice for manipulative guys and manipulative girls to end up being manipulated by each other though?

That aside, I do think one ought to be careful about claiming to know someone else's intentions. Even if some guy may seem manipulative, people aren't always as they seem. How often have you been absolutely convinced of someone else's intentions, only to find out they weren't what you thought? How often have others been absolutely convinced of your intentions, only to find out it wasn't what they thought? I've seen both people who were convinced but wrong about my intentions and people whose intentions I was sure about but wrong about, and I'd like to think I speak for more than myself when I say that.

As for generalizing that to other "Nice Guys," again, the label isn't even used consistently here. Some guys really do get confused by these online discussions and get the impression that what's meant is that women find niceness unattractive... see what I said earlier in the thread. The approach the wing girls take, though it seems to have signs of pandering towards guys who claim girls prefer assholes, shows much less potential to generate confusion, and much more potential to "bridge the gap" if you will.

edited 19th Mar '11 8:46:31 PM by neoYTPism

Hold the phone. Right there. If somebody is being manipulative then their objective doesn't mean shit. Honestly, how many guys have a reasonable means behind breaking into fucking tears and saying that they're a complete failure when you start trying to discuss problems with the relationship? That's manipulation.

If those guys can't differentiate between "being a manipulative asshole" and "being a decent person" then they're idiots.

"If those guys can't differentiate between "being a manipulative asshole" and "being a decent person" then they're idiots." - DG

Who says it's about that? I was saying they were confused by online discussions about this. When people aren't even communicating on common terms, one person's use of "Nice Guy" to refer to a manipulative asshole could generate in another's mind the image of a decent person. Even after they learn about how "Nice Guy" is a code phrase used by both sides of these kinds of discussions, (and besides, even among those who use it as a code, its meaning isn't entirely consistent anyway) first impressions are hard to shake. Does that make them idiots to you?

edited 19th Mar '11 8:53:20 PM by neoYTPism

I dunno. If I were to read the first few sentences of a discussion and completely disregard anybody trying to define the term I could see the confusion. But the guys that read through it and go "I don't see the problem! Those guys were totally nice and not assholes at all!" are idiots. Actually, they'd both be idiots, because the first guy would have gotten beaten with a clue stick and come out unscathed.

You really want to assume that people define this in every online discussion of this type? See also my sidenote in the post you're responding to.

I'd feel pretty safe in assuming that the majority of women who use the term "Nice Guy" usually means "manipulative asshole who claims they're nice". Especially considering that I have never seen it defined otherwise.

Hmm, that is kind of a problem. I mean I'm glad to defend this article and others on the subject, but I thought that generally, nice guy still means Nice Guy.

Otherwise, pretty much in agreement with you.

edited 19th Mar '11 9:00:01 PM by Jordan

Context my dear Watson. If someone starts going off on someone who's a Nice Guy, and starts saying how terrible he was treating her, then it's pretty safe to assume that's not the way to be nice.

Seriously, where the heck are people seeing Nice Guys defined as decent people? ( aside from certain love-shy forums that are misogynistic to hell and back, of course.)

Ah, in that case it would be clear.

Honestly, I think that a lot of the problem comes from the whole gender stereotype of women. You know, the "You have to be thin and bubbleheaded to be hot" thing. Because those women do usually end up going for the Jerk Jock's. They're also more likely to be complete jerks themselves.

edited 19th Mar '11 9:08:20 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"Seriously, where the heck are people seeing Nice Guys defined as decent people?" - DG

False dichotomy. There are middle grounds between "manipulative, emotional-blackmailing evil scumbag" and "actually a nice guy." I've seen the phrase "nice guy" interpreted a variety of ways by each side of these conversations, and by looking at it in terms of two you're oversimplifying it.

Such oversimplification, in turn, leads to more confusion and more misunderstanding. The "Nice Guy" label's time has come. It is beyond saving and must be allowed to die.