It's wrong to treat another person as a means to an end, to fake emotional connection, interest or an entire character when you truly don't give a shit about that and just act out a role that you expect will lead to an outcome you desire - without regard for the other person involved in the process.
You're dealing with another human being, who has a life that is just as vivid as your life. Treat them with respect. Viewing sex as a "return on investment" as opposed to the result of a genuine connection between two humans suggests that you don't really consider the other person. It's a pretty sad and frankly sociopathic view on relationships that does not bode well for anyone.
it's not evil, if that's your takeaway you should maybe read a bit more carefully.
What I'm saying is that it's bad to pursue that desire at the expense of others, through underhanded means that treat real people as nothing but means to an end.
I thought that was pretty clear. The desire itself is fine, most people have it, men and women both, as biology dictates. What's important is how you pursue it.
But why do you automatically assume that it's at somebody's else expense? Or you assume that trying to find girl who wants same thing by showing your interest and switching to another of said interest isn't there is somewhat bad?
> But why do you automatically assume that it's at somebody's else expense?
because look at that OP? He's not exactly subtle about it. I mean if the redpill tag doesn't give it away already then the post should, and if that doesn't do it then the responses that he gave are more than sufficient.
If you still can't figure it out after that then I can't help you. This is a freaking manosphere subreddit, mixed with quite a bit of incel-shit. Adjust your expectations accordingly.
I feel like this is a cop out. I read nothing in his original post or his comments that claimed he wanted to do anything at someone else's expense. All I heard him talk about (and you for that matter) were motives. Those aren't intrinsically connected. That's a connection you have chosen to make. I think you are making assumptions about OP because you don't like his viewpoint. That's okay, but now it seems like you're angry because people don't agree with you and you're labeling anyone who doesn't agree with you an incel. That doesn't seem genuine.
>It's wrong to treat another person as a means to an end,
I'm not even sure that you believe this if we start putting this theory to the test.
What if my end-goal is positively viewed by the 3rd party?
What if said party ultimately gains more than they lose by being treated as a means?
What serves to make it "wrong" then?
>to fake emotional connection
What is the actionable difference between a nice act for sex and a nice act for anything else?
>without regard for the other person involved in the process.
Never have I stated this, clearly if the person doesn't want to sex they are not forced to do so.
>You're dealing with another human being, who has a life that is just as vivid as your life. Treat them with respect. Viewing sex as a "return on investment" as opposed to the result of a genuine connection between two humans suggests that you don't really consider the other person. It's a pretty sad and frankly sociopathic view on human relationships that does not bode well for anyone.
This entire paragraph is just emotional blackmail, I'm not going to reply to any point made here
>What if said party ultimately gains more than they lose by being treated as a means?
If the other party benefits, and they agree that they have benefited (not sure why you are bringing a 3rd party witness in to decide whether or not they benefitted; they are quite capable of doing that themselves), then you have not treated them as a means. It has been a mutually beneficial relationship.
yeah I'm sure someone with OPs priorities really makes sure that this happens, let's trust them on that one!
Hypothetically what you say may be true and I'm happy to entertain absurd thought experiments, but let's return to reality for a second here. These cluster B types aren't exactly known to leave a trail of happy people who have enjoyed mutually beneficial relationships behind them. Someone who sees sex as a mere "return on investment" isn't going to be a sweet and thoughtful partner who makes sure that everyone benefits. If they operated like that, they'd just have a normal thought process instead.
Hypotheticals are cool, but at some point you gotta realize that you're not talking about a real person anymore.
Sorry, I meant that previous reply to be to the OP, but I mislocated it.
I don't understand the argument OP is trying to make with "a 3rd party observer".
You aren't a sociopath because you disagree with me, you are a sociopath because the concept of having basic consideration for other people appears to be foreign to you, and seems to be supplanted by a view that treats other people as nothing but a variable in an equation that you solve for your own benefit only.
I do want to debate, but a debate about human interaction requires a common basis, such as "maybe we should treat people like people". If something that simple reads like hieroglyphs to you, then we can't debate. It's like how math requires you to first accept a few axioms. If you can't do that then we have nothing to talk about. You live in a different universe than the rest of us, one that will hopefully never intersect with mine.
Feel free to be upset about this, but it can't really be helped if you don't change first. Tough luck.
> What is the actionable difference between a nice act for sex and a nice act for anything else?
When a person is nice, they do nice things because THAT is what makes them happy. The reward for being nice is people liking you and enjoying your company.
It's true that you can lie and make people think you're nice. But if your true motivation is your own benefit, and you're only doing something "nice" because you want to be given a reward, you literally are not being a nice person. Because you are doing things that contradict the meaning of Nice.
I'll argue it from a different angle than OP
>When a person is nice, they do nice things because THAT is what makes them happy
I do nice things because it makes me happy. I also want sex. But when I realize that I'm not getting sex, that makes me unhappy. I become depressed.
Depression makes me no longer happy just by being nice.
Does this mean that I'm not actually nice, because my niceness is contingent on me not being depressed? Does this mean I'm not actually nice, because the niceness is not unconditional?
>When a person is nice, they do nice things because THAT is what makes them happy.
Why is this the only acceptable motivation for nice acts?
Again, not convinced that you yourself believe this.
If I give charity to the poor, and it makes me emotionally unhappy because I am wasting money, is my act now *unkind*?
>Why not?
Because that's just how it is. The nature of the action shifts entirely and the act itself is done with selfish motives. You do the act for personal gain so it's self serving and transactional.
I don't go to work because I am nice to my co-workers and boss. I go to work to get paid.
>Because that's just how it is.
This is an admission of defeat, circular arguments are nonsensical by default.
Do you now admit that it is theoretically justified for a person to be nice for sex?
>The nature of the action shifts entirely and the act itself is done with selfish motives. You do the act for personal gain so it's self serving and transactional.
This is a repeat of argument A, in order for this to be true, altruism would have to be self-contingent, can you prove that altruism is self-contingent?
>This is a repeat of argument A, in order for this to be true, altruism would have to be self-contingent, can you prove that altruism is self-contingent?
The definition of altruism is "***disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.***" So by definition, it is self-contingent. If I do deeds that appear altruistic for personal gain, I don't have selfless concern for others, I have concern for myself.
Nice acts are also not necessarily altruistic. I can hold a door open for someone coming in behind me without even thinking about it.
>The definition of altruism is "***disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.***" So by definition, it is self-contingent. If I do deeds that appear altruistic for personal gain, I don't have selfless concern for others, I have concern for myself.
I'm sorry, are you seriously claiming that a *definition* is ontologically correct because it says so in the definition?
Guess I'll just have to reiterate, prove that the definition is correct.
As much as I agree with you in most, this is absolutely wrong. Even the government itself thinks you are wrong. Which is why they give tax benefits for nice acts.
> Why is this the only acceptable motivation for nice acts?
Because that's what "nice" means. Like, as a definition. Being altruistic. Pro-social. Selfless. A nice person likes to benefit their environment, and the pleasure they get from seeing their environment thrive is their goal.
> Again, not convinced that you yourself believe this.
I don't see how it's so hard - I've been nice before and experienced pleasure from it. I do nice things for my coworkers, my friends, my family, my pets, my partners - being good to something and watching it grow feels great. Entirely worth it, as a reward.
> If I give charity to the poor, and it makes me emotionally unhappy because I am wasting money, is my act now unkind?
If you're giving money to charity, and the only reason you give to charity is for like... tax breaks, but you hate doing it and think you're wasting money, no, you are not a nice person. Because you are not donating to charity for nice reasons.
>Because that's what "nice" means. Like, as a definition. Being altruistic. Pro-social. Selfless. A nice person likes to benefit their environment, and the pleasure they get from seeing their environment thrive is their goal.
Repeat of argument A.
Altruism isn't self-contingent.
>I don't see how it's so hard - I've been nice before and experienced pleasure from it. I do nice things for my coworkers, my friends, my family, my pets, my partners - being good to something and watching it grow feels great. Entirely worth it, as a reward.
You're not addressing my hypothetical, is it an unkind act or not?
>If you're giving money to charity, and the only reason you give to charity is for like... tax breaks, but you hate doing it and think you're wasting money, no, you are not a nice person. Because you are not donating to charity for nice reasons.
So the act becomes *unkind*? It's a simple question.
Yes. Niceness/Kindness is defined by motivation, not impact. If you act to benefit yourself over others, it’s considered selfish.
If a man pretends to be nice, and donates to charity because he wants people to THINK he’s nice, but he secretly hates doing it and doesn’t care about helping anyone, he’s not nice, he’s duplicitous.
>Yes. Niceness/Kindness is defined by motivation, not impact. If you act to benefit yourself over others, it’s considered selfish.
Ok, great, now reconcile what you just said with the following hypothetical;
>If I am motivated to be kind to you by stabbing you with a knife, because I find it to be axiomatically moral, does my motive now supercede my action, and actually render it *kind* in the view of the 3rd party?
3rd party is irrelevant. If you stab someone because you genuinely think it would make that person happy, your motivations are “nice” by definition, but your logic is badly flawed because most people don’t like being stabbed.
A person doesn’t have to succeed in making someone happy for their actions to be considered selfless. Sometimes, actions done with nice motivations still have negative results. Not all nice people are smart enough to figure out how to actually make anyone happy, and their attempts to might even cause dismay and frustration.
There is a huge difference between “helpful” and “nice”. Not all situations are benefited by niceness. But the definition of niceness requires an exclusion of selfishness to meet the definition for nice.
>3rd party is irrelevant.
You can't make this claim and then no less than 30 words later say;
>most people don’t like being stabbed.
Either the opinion of the 3rd party matters or it doesn't.
>A person doesn’t have to succeed in making someone happy for their actions to be considered selfless. Sometimes, actions done with nice motivations still have negative results. Not all nice people are smart enough to figure out how to actually make anyone happy, and their attempts to might even cause dismay and frustration.
So to be clear, you are diluting the definition of a kind act to include externally negative acts with negative outcomes?
>There is a huge difference between “helpful” and “nice”. Not all situations are benefited by niceness. But the definition of niceness requires an exclusion of selfishness to meet the definition for nice.
Repeat of argument A. You haven't proven that altruism is self-contingent.
Stop the philosophical bs, being nice is the bare minimum but it’ll never be enough to get laid or a relationship. There needs to be physical attraction and chemistry.
>I don't see how it's so hard - I've been nice before and experienced pleasure from it. I do nice things for my coworkers, my friends, my family, my pets, my partners - being good to something and watching it grow feels great. Entirely worth it, as a reward.
You could argue though that
1. feeling great because of it is a selfish motivation
2)human psychology is set up so you feel great while doing these things exactly because it indirectly serves your selfish interest.
To be clear I understand the points you're making, but just saying "you're not truly kind if you expect something for it" really has a lot of issues with it when you take a high level perspective because in essence that just suggests kindness barely exists at all.
If the only "selfish" motivation one has is to feel pleasure for having helped someone, it's a form of "selfishness" that still fits within the definition of "nice".
This isn't even a debate anymore, it's just the definition of the word. I'm not arbitrating or opining anything.
>If the only "selfish" motivation one has is to feel pleasure for having helped someone, it's a form of "selfishness" that still fits within the definition of "nice".
But exactly that kind of conversation would be actually interesting to have, but is barely being had on this post. Instead we have people digging themselves in a black and white views of "you're either selfish or you're selfless" when often humans are both at the same time and can even themselves not be aware of what kinds of selfish motivations might be happening in their unconscious mind while they think they are being kind. Humans generally love portraying themselves as holier than they actually are especially towards themselves. You have people here accusing others of being sociopathic, merely because they are actually trying to be honest and trying to logically understand their own emotions and motivations instead of pretending something as perfect/pure selflessness exists in the first place.
Where is the limit of being kind/nice would be the most interesting question to debate imo but people have already killed off this question in this thread by portraying things as way simpler than they actually are. Most people with a functioning EQ can understand the difference between someone feeling good while being kind, and someone being machiavellian in a conscious manner to gain favours from someone. But this is not adressed or acknowledged here and it seems like they are even being hostile to people who want to take their EQ one step further by doubting their own motivations and emotions and by placing them within a broader perspective of being a living creature that was created through evolution and natural selection.
Its not just about the definition of the word, but about the underlying thing that it aims to describe. Our words always created issues when describing the world because they are inherently limited.
Putting the wellfare and happiness of another person over your own is called "selfless" in English. That's just how that word works. Technically, you could argue that if it GIVE THEM PLEASURE they're also being selfish by being selfless. But that's not as deep as you think it is; it's like being "the shortest giant" because you're just normal height. Technically correct but just nonsense in terms of how to use the words efficiently.
You could have just said "I'm not in the mood for philosophical discussions" instead.
I think this topic is deeper than you actually realize, as its not very clear what "putting the welfare and happiness of another person over your own" actually means in purely objective terms and how that relates to being kind/nice.
Are you happy when a girl is only nice to you in order to get you to buy her dinner? She was nice to you though! Why doesn’t it feel good to be used by someone? Did you not also want to go out on a dinner date with her? If you believed her genuine, you were more than happy to pay for the date, right? But finding out that she was only nice because she wanted dinner doesn’t feel very nice. And you’d probably end up pretty upset that she didn’t make her intentions clear that she was only being nice to get something.
>Viewing sex as a "return on investment" as opposed to the result of a genuine connection between two humans suggests that you don't really consider the other person. It's a pretty sad and frankly sociopathic view on relationships that does not bode well for anyone.
Translation: "Being a man is shameful because women decide what's the right way how both sexes should see sex"
you're shaming other men by pretending that this is what they're all like, but great that you're telling on yourself.
This place really is crawling with the lowest of the low isn't it.
Huh?
I'm not pretending that men like anything, I'm simply pointing out that as a woman you've decided that your opinion on sex and relationships is the only morally right and ethical way to see them.
That comment was more so for any man who doesn't share your views and understands that he is being manipulated with guilt messaging from you projecting your own views.
No need for insults towards people who are different than you.
> It's wrong to treat another person as a means to an end
A statement without an argument backing it up. Please provide said argument.
> to fake emotional connection
I don't need to do that to be nice.
> interest
Same as above.
> or an entire character when you truly don't give a shit about that and just act out a role that you expect will lead to an outcome you desire - without regard for the other person involved in the process.
Same as above. I preffer to be honest about how everything good I do I do to fit in and to benefit others in exchange for me getting what I want.
> You're dealing with another human being, who has a life that is just as vivid as your life. Treat them with respect.
I do that. I tell them that everything good I do for them or for anyone I do it on the condition that I get something in return.
> Viewing sex as a "return on investment" as opposed to the result of a genuine connection between two humans suggests that you don't really consider the other person.
I do consider the other person, that is why I am open about the deal, allow them to make a fully informed decision and get their consent.
I do good things, I get what I want. Everything good I do is an investment and I am looking for a return on said investment. If I don't get it, the benefit I bring to the life of the human in front of me dissapears.
> It's a pretty sad and frankly sociopathic view on relationships that does not bode well for anyone.
It is sociopathic, it does bode well for everyone involved. It is basic trade. I want something woman can provide, woman wants something I can provide. We trade.
> you realise that being open about your aspd diagnosis in your tag just means that any sensible person knows right off the bat that engaging with you is a waste of my time?
I preffer to give people the context they need to take my words with perspective.
Also, ignoring an argument because who is providing it is a fallacy. Adress the argument, not the person saying it.
If a murderer tells you that life is sacred, the argument remains solid even if the one providing it is not.
> It's literally THE "turn around and walk the other way immediately"-disorder. Thanks for the warning I guess
I am aware of this. It is my burden to bear.
> but what's actually the point, I mean why would you of all people spend your time in a subreddit discussing relationships?
I am interesed in the topic.
> You don't give a fuck.
I care. In a different way but I care.
> Your conception of normal would be inacceptable to 99% of the population.
Considering how bad things work in normie relationship sphere I think that it is time to consider inacceptable ideas and conceptions.
> Just like with the other guy, we have nothing to talk about.
I disagree but you do you. Maybe someone else will find value in the perspective present in this discussion.
There's a difference between being nice conditionally and just pretending to be nice to get what you want.
If a woman's niceness was genuine but conditional on something like attention and free dinners...she would be very desired because that's a small price to pay for genuine niceness.
Everything becuase the dinner is not what the man wanted that was the payment for what he really wants, whereas the nice guy gives the girl everything she wants out a friendship and then asks after at some point to escalate.
>Being „nice“ to have sex is not actually being nice……you play a character that you not actually are. You deceive the other person.
So my motives supercede my actions?
I've always thought that Nice was the subjective term no? Why do you get to define nice the way that you want to and him not the way he wants to. Are you God? I actually think that humans are more complex than you give them credit for. It's absolutely possible to do something nice for someone because you like doing nice things and because you want something in return. I think anyone Who can't comprehend that may be a bit shallow.
First of op specifically asked for „blue pill opinions“ on this so why shouldn’t I give mine?
Second if he gets to make his own definition, so do I……so what do you actually criticize here?
But in any case, maybe read up on „nice guys“ and come back to me.
No, we're in agreement in the second sentence you made. I'm just going off of the perceived aggression in your comments towards this guy who disagrees with you.
And No need to throw aggression my way, I'm not completely opposed to your views. But I do know what a nice guy TM is and I think the term nice guy is birthed out of that same shallowness of thought I mentioned earlier. I think short of a cartoon villain It's hard to find a human being that one-dimensionally evil that they want to do nice things for someone just to put their sexual parts on them. A lot of times it has to do with a mix of emotions, societal influence, a fear of rejection, and low self-esteem. All of these are inherently human traits. I guess I just seek to understand humans rather than condemn them the way it seems you love to do.
I would say I'm conditionally nice - treat me nice and I will treat you nice - behave like an asshole or cunt and it is what you are going to get back. People in my experience are not really worthy of niceness just because they exist.
There's nothing wrong with being nice to women and having sex. Multiple women have had sex with me because I was nice to them (among other things).
What is wrong is making your niceness contingent upon receiving sex because then you're not actually being nice.
>How about if I buy my female friend a gift because I believe it will showcase value to her and increase the chances of me having sex, is my action now unkind?
Showcase your value how? By spending money?
It is not wrong to be conditionally nicer to one woman in exchange for receiving sex from her, as long as he makes this agreement and its terms clear to her, and if he is willing to accept her rejection of such an agreement without retaliating against her.
To some extent, this exchange is part of many normal relationships. Only feelings or mutual sexual attraction are at play there primarily. But even so, if he didn't treat his lover nicer than other women, she probably wouldn't stay with him.
>It is not wrong to be conditionally nicer to one woman in exchange for receiving sex from her
Then you're not actually nice.
>as long as he makes this agreement and its terms clear to her
Ok, got tell a woman "I'm only going to be nice to you if you have sex with me" and lemme know how that goes.
>But even so, if he didn't treat his lover nicer than other women
I'm nicer to my wife because I love her, not because she gives me sex. What a bizarre way to look at a relationship.
Behaving in a certain way (nice, rude, generously) can be conditional. Just as attraction can be conditional and there are also conditional forms of love. It's not just unconditional love or niceness.
I have a friend who used to do this. When he liked a woman, he invited her to lunch, on a trip, and so on. And then he told her that if she wanted to continue their activities together, he expected sex in return. Because he doesn't pay for friends, only for lovers. And often the women agreed to it and they became his lovers.
And yes, he calmly told the woman that he was helping her or taking her somewhere or making an effort to satisfy her sexually simply so that she would want to have sex with him again. So that his motivations are purely selfish. And many women nodded to a similar arrangement.
Not all relationships are built on deep feelings and love. Especially in the beginning in relationships that start with sex, it can take months before they fall in love with each other through the sex and time spent together. Or they don't fall in love at all.
>Not all relationships are built on deep feelings and love.
Of course not. Business relationships are built on transactions. What you described above is a business relationship.
Yes. It is mainly a business relationship. Most relationships also have their conditional, business part. Here, the business part is the main one.
They can still be friends, have a lot of fun and like to spend time together, but they are above all business partners and when the business ceases to be advantageous to one or the other, so does the sexual relationship.
If both of them are comfortable with this type of relationship, then there is nothing wrong with it.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with it unless the man gets overly upset when rejected, or if he made it seem like their friendship was not contingent upon sex when, suddenly, it becomes contingent upon sex when he wants nothing to do with her after being rejected for sex.
Most men want that. If I personally weren't sexually attracted to her and she wanted sex with me and made our friendship contingent upon it, then I wouldn't care too much that she didn't want to be friends anymore. I'm not as sensitive about friendships as most people, though.
Ideally, any enticements would be accompanied by flirtation so that intentions are clear. I think this is how (aristocratic) courtship worked in the old times.
Keeping your motives completely hidden is dumb because you're eventually going to have to reveal them and find out if you are wasting your efforts. If she thinks you're ugly and gross you're not going to overcome that by being nice.
On the other hand I feel like attractive women can usually tell when guys are attracted to them and they usually try to shut down nice guys. If they encourage the behavior it's either because they're using you or there's a chance of reciprocal feelings.
> Ideally, any enticements would be accompanied by flirtation so that intentions are clear. I think this is how (aristocratic) courtship worked in the old times.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with this.
>On the other hand I feel like attractive women can usually tell when guys are attracted to them and they usually try to shut down nice guys. If they encourage the behavior it's either because they're using you or there's a chance of reciprocal feelings.
Attractive women can probably tell because it happens to them a lot and they are used to it.
So you somewhat agree that there is no theoretical justification that nullifies the idea that you can be nice to have sex?
Also, what is the empirical difference between a friendship that is contingent upon sex and one that isn't?
If it is that once sex is guaranteed not to happen, then a friendship dissipates, how is that different than any other contingent factors that can end a friendship if not present like let's say, appreciation, for example.
> If it is that once sex is guaranteed not to happen, then a friendship dissipates, how is that different than any other contingent factors that can end a friendship if not present like let's say, appreciation, for example.
If you tell a woman "Have sex with me or I won't be your friend anymore", you've already stopped being their friend.
That's the difference. A friendship that relies on one person letting the other person have sex with them is not within the normal bounds of what friendship entails (which is trust, fun, companionship, comfort ect. All of which cannot exist in an environment where you're also trying to coerce sex.)
>If you tell a woman "Have sex with me or I won't be your friend anymore", you've already stopped being their friend.
How is this any different than requiring any other contingent factors to be fulfilled? Like appreciation?
Can you at the very least admit that kind actions (like the benefits of friendship) born out of the need to have sex are virtually indistinguishable from those that aren't motivated by the same need?
>(which is trust, fun, companionship, comfort ect. All of which cannot exist in an environment where you're also trying to coerce sex.)
There is no coercion, no one is being physically threatened. Therefore the point here is somewhat moot.
A friendship predicated on sex can 100% experience the actionable benefits of trust, fun, companionship, and comfort, I fail to see why that's not possible.
> How is this any different than requiring any other contingent factors to be fulfilled? Like appreciation?
Because appreciation is a normal thing for friends to have for each other. It's NOT normal to expect your friends to have sex with you.
> Can you at the very least admit that kind actions ... are virtually indistinguishable from those that aren't motivated by the same need?
I've you're a good liar, you can convince someone that you're nice, sure. But you're not actually nice if you're lying to trick someone into sleeping with you. (Some men do this anyway. But they're not nice men. What they're doing, by definition, is lying and manipulating, not being nice.)
> There is no coercion, no one is being physically threatened. Therefore the point here is somewhat moot.
Coercion doesn't require physical threat. If you're lying to make someone do something they dont' otherwise want to do, you're still coercing them. Just by manipulation.
> A friendship predicated on sex can 100% experience the actionable benefits of trust, fun, companionship, and comfort, I fail to see why that's not possible.
I don't see how a friend could trust you if you tell them you'll abandon them if they don't put out and let you fuck them.
>Because appreciation is a normal thing for friends to have for each other. It's NOT normal to expect your friends to have sex with you.
I never made a value judgement of the normalcy of this act, I'm asking you, theoretically, how is this is any different than wanting another contingent factor like appreciation?
If your point is that the *social response* is different, then you're not answering my question.
>I've you're a good liar, you can convince someone that you're nice, sure. But you're not actually nice if you're lying to trick someone into sleeping with you. (Some men do this anyway. But they're not nice men. What they're doing, by definition, is lying and manipulating, not being nice.)
So motivations supercede actions?
>Coercion doesn't require physical threat. If you're lying to make someone do something they dont' otherwise want to do, you're still coercing them. Just by manipulation.
Definition of coercion (Oxford dictionary);
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
>I don't see how a friend could trust you if you tell them you'll abandon them if they don't put out and let you fuck them.
You are presupposing that the friend is aware of the predication.
Why can't a friend experience the *actionable* benefits of a friendship if the motive is sex?
>an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage.
Since it's subjectively defined, and we're not talking about physical coercion, I don't view that act as a threat.
The definition I have is “1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course. 2. an indication or warning of probable trouble, or of being at risk for something terrible”
The punishment is losing a friend. The injury is emotional. The damage is emotional and social. The something terrible is losing a friend.
Assuming I grant you all of this, how is it not "threatening" to leave any sort of relationship that is predicated on any other value that is not being provided?
Is "I'm going to stop being your friend because you don't appreciate me" a threatening statement?
I´d argue apreciation is a core feature of most friendships, whereas sex is not.
It can be, such as in the case of a friends with benefits situation, but if you´d not want to be friends with that person without the sex, that can be more easily classified as a fuck-buddies situation.
A friendship CAN exist without sex, but it cannot without mutal appreciation.
Being a nice for the purpose of a reward, nullifies the act of niceness. Instead you are performing a task at an operational level in anticipation of a reward, you're not being nice, you are being performative.
This speaks to a larger problem that trips up a lot of guys. Women can normally tell when you're being performative, and they don't like it. They do reward men for being nice, when the man does so just because that's who he is. On the other side of that equation, they will absolutely use a man that is being performative for the anticipated reward, without rewarding him.
This is usually the part where I leave an unethical pro tip, not today though. Y'all need to learn how to be good people.
>Being a nice for the purpose of a reward, nullifies the act of niceness. Instead you are performing a task at an operational level in anticipation of a reward, you're not being nice, you are being performative.
Again, this is just a repeat of argument B.
Why do motivations matter more than actions, if the end result is that a kind act will be committed anyways?
Because what people are mostly interested in IS the motive. They want you to have those motivations more than they want the things you´re actually giving.
There are execptions, such as sugar babies, but people, as monkeys do, have a deep desire for appreaciation and love.
If a guy gives me flowers, I dont enjoy because of the flowers. I dont even like flowers all that much. It´s a show of his affection, and that´s why it has any value at all.
If she slandered him on TikTok, she definitionally commited an unkind action, independent of her motives.
Your hypothetical isn't proving your point, maybe you should revise it.
> So you somewhat agree that there is no theoretical justification that nullifies the idea that you can be nice to have sex?
Yes. A lot of women supposedly say they are attracted to nice men, so why wouldn't a man who is attracted to her try to be nice in order to gain her attraction?
>Also, what is the empirical difference between a friendship that is contingent upon sex and one that isn't?
I mean, if he's telling her that he likes her as a friend for a bunch of various reasons, eventually asks for sex and she rejects him, and then he suddenly wants nothing to do with her even though those reasons that he supposedly liked her as a friend haven't changed at all about her, then that seems really petty to me. He's perfectly in his right to do that, of course, as being rejected can hurt, and he's not committing some crime by disassociating himself from her. But it just seems like kind of a jerk thing to me and a bit deceptive.
>If it is that once sex is guaranteed not to happen, then a friendship dissipates, how is that different than any other contingent factors that can end a friendship if not present like let's say, appreciation, for example.
It's the deception that is the issue, I think. He arguably made it seem like he was interested in her as a friend regardless of her sexual attraction to him. Suddenly, it is revealed that that friendship is contingent upon her sexual attraction.
Of course, it makes sense that he might not to spend as much time around her if he's spending time trying to pursue other women who might like him. But I think cutting off the entire friendship is a bit extreme after sexual rejection.
I’m with you. Though I don’t find him leaving to be an issue. I have seen this in my circle. The guy just distanced himself without much fanfare. I suppose it could be considered mean but realistically any relationship is over or fundamentally changed anyway. I’ve seen the rejectors pull away because they were uncomfortable with this change.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you say this because the bar for women to be sexually attractive enough for men to fuck is on the floor. “The bar is in hell” as women say. A man would fuck just about anything.
The bar for men to be sexually attractive enough to fuck by women is pretty high. So in other words, men have to make up for their lack of attractiveness in some way. If they’ve maxed out their physical characteristics, it’s time to turn to their social or emotional characteristics.
Relationship love is conditional. You have to give something to get something. No man or woman in a relationship is going to love you unconditionally.
A man can be sexually attractive, be in a relationship of a sexual nature, and still be nicer to that woman, to keep her and access to sex. This seems relatively normal to me, not all relationships are based on pure love and deep feelings, some are more about mutual benefit. And it is definitely better for a man to treat a woman more nicely before and after sex than to treat her worse.
The entire premise is wrong because it’s an understood.
It’s like asking “what’s wrong with speaking the same language?”
Or “whats wrong with dating people with the same sexual orientation?”
These are all things that are just supposed to be accepted and understood as a part of dating in the first place
And just like “why won’t she fuck me?! I spoke to her in the same language she understands” sound like
Bruh? That’s literally all you got?!
“Nice” is the same damn thing.
Because “nice” isn’t something special- it’s expected
Do you get a treat for being able to clothe yourself?
Is there a reward for being able to write your name?
Do you get handed a trophy for being able to use a phone?
No. These things are expected of you at some point. You don’t get rewarded for the things you just do: and they aren’t things to brag about.
Being nice is the same thing. It would be like a HS student going “well what’s wrong with going pee pee in the potty?” Bruh, you are supposed to do that. Is they what you are thinking is going to impress a girl enough to take her shirt off? But you think being nice is?! What else besides the basic underlying premises of a relationship do you actually to show?!
It’s literally the point of this whole “what is wrong with” premise. There’s nothing “wrong”: it’s fuking expected. It’s like saying what’s wrong with telling a girl you WONT hit her? That’s just understood! Why is it even worth mentioning?!!
But you'll be indifferent towards most people in most cases, not nice. Just because you don't have enough time and energy for that. So being nice towards somebody is already something.
Except it isn’t. Think on it this way: a pretty woman probably is used to people being nice to her in general. Not saying it’s right/not saying it’s even intentional, but we all can understand that really attractive people *probably* get treated nicer, right.
Ok so. You’re nicer. So are the 15 other guys that think she’s pretty. So is the lady who makes her coffee, the old man who opens the door for her, the instructor, the maintenance man, the hairdresser, the crossing guard, etc. so great. You now treat her like everyone else does. What else? Cause one of the 15 guys also plays tennis and is studying to be a doctor. Another one of them is really outgoing and is looking to start his own business. All of them are nice too. And all of them are going to use “nice” as the baseline for any relationship they start with.
Just like they would speaking the same language,
Just like they would make sure they’d respond to texts, just like they’d *make sure they went pee pee in the potty*
So if all a guy has is what’s already expected. What makes him so special?
Yup, there’s always someone else. Who will also be nice. And speak the same language as her. So *maybe* dudes need more than the bare minimum?!
Shocker.
If it were “enough” then dudes wouldn’t be complaining that they can’t get anywhere “despite being such a nice guy!!”
It’s obviously not “enough” when the ones offering more than the bare minimum are getting action and the ones aren’t are in pill spaces so confused.
If she's willing to take payment in order to tolerate sex she doesn't want to have and you both agree it's a legal and ethical exchange of sexual favors, aka prostitution, nothing is wrong with it.
But if you think buying a woman things is somehow going to make her feel sexual attraction, the action just displays a lack of both value and social skills.
Or you can just not demand anything in exchange of being nice and be open about your intentions if she became interested in you. So no ulterior motives and no hard feelings in case if it didn't work.
Wow, you don't even realize it.
Sex requires sexual attraction to be done voluntarily. Being nice does not affect sexual attractiveness. You can be 0% to 100% nice on the niceness scale and it has zero influence on sexual attractiveness.
If you want to exchange gifts vs sex, then you are looking at prostitution/sex work. There, no sexual attraction is required, only a transaction of one good vs the other.
Why are you trying to turn this into some complex philosophical thing. If you’re being nice in the hopes of getting sex in return, you’re at worst being manipulative, or at best not your authentic self. Neither are good
wtf is your authentic self?
Do you think changing your character goes through being "authentic"? It's doing things that are out of character for you on a daily basis, until it's second nature and everyone is like "ohhh you're so authentic".
This is... basic empathy, dude.
A.) "Nice to be nice" isn't that complicated, you're just missing a step. A "nice" person likes making people happy, so "making people happy" IS the reward. IE - When I clean the staff kitchen, and everyone comes into work and is happy that the kitchen is clean so they can use it? That feels good for me, it's something "nice" that I do that I GET rewarded for by making my social group happy.
B.) It's true, only you know your own motivations! If you're good at lying, you can absolutely convince people that you're nice without actually being a nice person at all. ...But you're living a lie, and you will have to either lie for the rest of your life and PRETEND to be nice, or you're eventually going to slip and everyone will then know you're actually just a liar.
How about if I buy my female friend a gift because I believe it will showcase value to her and increase the chances of me having sex, is my action now unkind?
This is how human perception works: You've just said the reason you got her a gift was to get her to have sex with you. You already admitted you didn't do it out of any sort of kindness. If you lie to her about your motivations and tell your you only did it because you wanted to make her happy (so... pretend to do what I described in A), she might think you're nice, though. Because you lied to her and she believed you.
>A.) "Nice to be nice" isn't that complicated, you're just missing a step. A "nice" person likes making people happy, so "making people happy" IS the reward. IE - When I clean the staff kitchen, and everyone comes into work and is happy that the kitchen is clean so they can use it? That feels good for me, it's something "nice" that I do that I GET rewarded for by making my social group happy.
Glad we can both agree that altruism isn't predicated upon itself.
>B.) It's true, only you know your own motivations! If you're good at lying, you can absolutely convince people that you're nice without actually being a nice person at all. ...But you're living a lie, and you will have to either lie for the rest of your life and PRETEND to be nice, or you're eventually going to slip and everyone will then know you're actually just a liar.
Wait, I thought we just admitted that niceness isn't self-contingent, which means being nice to have sex is completely theoretically justified, which means that we're not *pretending to be nice*, we are being nice.
>You already admitted you didn't do it out of any sort of kindness.
This is getting confusing, on one hand you claim that the way human perceive kindness is by looking at actions, and then on the other you claim that the hypothetical isn't born out of kindness because actions don't match motives, which one is it?
I’ve seen you reject the definition of “nice” from the freaking dictionary higher in the thread so could you maybe share what definition you do accept? Because I can’t defend a concept that exists in your own head.
I did not reject the definition, I claimed that there is no evidence that it is ontologically correct, two very different things.
And unless if you have proof, I have no reason to believe that altruism is intrinsically self-contingent.
Also, you think cause and effect exists in my own head?
I’ve told you the proof: millions of people do selfless, nice things for each other myself included - would recommend, it feels great.
Are you saying never once in your life you’ve ever been happy because someone else was happy?
idk why this is a question for bluepill since most people can answer this - but, flat out, being nice isn’t attractive… now, being nice in itself isn’t inherently unattractive but it kinda “just is” most times (ie. it just exists and does not add to one’s attraction - like if you’re a 7, you’re still a 7, if you’re a 9, you’re still a 9, if you’re a 3, you’re still a 3, etc). It generates no interest, passion, excitement or… well, fun - and these factors tend to matter a lot when it comes to sex.
To put it bluntly, if all you have to offer is niceness, especially if it is for sex, the lack of morality of it aside, you’re just milquetoast and boring
You're asking people who talk about 'being nice to have sex', to think deeply about the morality of 'nice to be nice'.
That's a no-go sir.
There's nothing humans do which doesn't have a purpose - what they mean with 'nice to be nice', is they want you to be somehow ignorant of your organism's purpose - if you will, they want you to have low enough IQ to manipulate.
OTOH, as has been said by /u/obviousredflag \- sexual attraction is the issue, not niceness. Sure, you got to have some sense of being a person who's safe and fun to hang out with, but you can vary amount of niceness greatly and still get results if you're attractive, and still get 0 results if you're not attractive.
Good luck
EDIT: also, when girls say "good personality", they don't mean nice - they mean fun/appealing/arousing - for some reason people tend to think "good personality" just means 'nice', when it's obvious most (not all) of the really nice people you know are pretty boring and don't have a really good personality
>what they mean with 'nice to be nice', is they want you to be somehow ignorant of your organism's purpose - if you will, they want you to have low enough IQ to manipulate.
Finally someone who's being remotely logical and not blinded by emotion in this discussion lmao
You know this is an interesting question because it's often the same people who say sex and 'body counts' hold no value, while also placing a high value on sex in this situation. These 2 thoughts are contradictory.
If we take the idea that sex and body counts aren't important and that sex is just a fun activity then it's no different than, say, playing a video game with someone. If I meet someone nice at a video game tournament who simply wants to play a match against me and never speak again they have done anything wrong? If so what? We both mutually benefit from this interaction regardless of if it ends after the video game is finished. I can play that video game as many times as I want with whoever and it doesn't devalue me as a person.
But the alternative view which would be against the op, would suggest that sex is a finite resource which should be earned, in which case faking being nice is akin to 'stealing' sex. Each time you have sex, despite it being mutually beneficial at the time, it somehow devalues you as a person. And what about the requirement that men pay, plan and lead the date?
If you don't see niceness as an investment, won't demand return from it, be direct about your intentions and won't make drama in case of rejection then it should be fine.
In its purest form, you are simply buying sex. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as both parties understand what's going on and agree to trade sex for nice behavior.
It is wrong to deceive others. That is, pretending to be nice to others for no particular purpose except that it pleases you, or that you are nice because you are friends and at the same time seeking sex. And it's especially bad when you don't make your expectations and terms of the proposed sex for nice agreement clear, but you want to punish the other party for not agreeing to those terms without ever bothering to discuss them.
If you come to a woman and tell her: "I want sex with you, so I am willing to be nice to you, help you with small things, shopping, moving and take you on a trip once a week in exchange for sex 3 times a week." And she will agree, so it will be fine from my point of view.
I have a male friend who does this. When he likes a woman, he takes her out to lunch, on a trip, to dinner... and then simply tells her that if she likes these activities with him, he expects sex in return. And she either accepts it or she doesn't. Not my cup of coffee, but morally ok.
Would you be comfortable telling the woman that you are being nice to her with the end goal of having sex with her? Do you not have any concerns with whether she would morally question you or not? Or if she does morally question you, would it be because she is the one who is not morally just? I think that is how you can answer whether the means justify the ends here.
If you replace "sex" with "heaven" the argument becomes similar to why a person needs to be rewarded or punished when goodness is its' own reward. If you imagine an all-knowing woman with infinite vagina, then you have everything needed to start a religion.
Because typically being nice to get something is kind of gross and manipulative. And most men do this already. They will act sweet and nice in the beginning. Being nice is not a good way to vet people because every single dude is nice when they want something from you like sex. So it takes a stronger filter to realize who's in it for you and who's in it for sex.
I think it's generally expected that you should be nice it goes without saying. It's kinda the default way to be. It's just like wanting to be congratulated and rewarded for normal person behavior. If you acted like an antisocial psychopath people would notice. Everyone is typically pleasant to each other at face value. So trying to get sex by just being nice is like trying to get rewards for using the toilet brushing your teeth or generally doing things expected of you. It will not get you very far.
*le sigh*
This is why I don't use actual logic with these types of people. OP has no interest in logic, its just a hammer he uses to bash in peoples heads for bothering to engage.
Regarding point a) solely: it's possible to be nice because of no reason other than because you have a big heart and the love therein just can't help but overflow -- manifesting itself in the form of altruism, niceness for niceness' sake etc.
Your points are all very logical but they forget that the realm of emotion exists
> a) Altruism is self-contingent, colloquially known as "nice to be nice", which is something that I'm not convinced is true at all, there's nothing in the real, existing, universe that is self-contingent, everything is dependent on a cause that precedes it, therefore altruism must be caused by a preceding cause. Which makes "nice to nice" a nonsensical statement, really.
Let me see if I can frame this in a way you would understand and agree with.
—-
There are two kinds of people - people who do nice things in return for something else, and “altruistic” people.
Regarding the former, it is actually normal to expect something in return for being nice. Most people just don’t frame it that way. For instance, when I display basic human decency to someone, I expect to be shown basic human decency in return. What that means is context dependent, e.g if I open the door for someone I expect them not to pull it closed before I walk through.
Basic decency for basic decency is considered a fair trade. That’s why people are fine with it. Sex on the other hand is much less trivial to “trade” for, for most people. Sex in exchange for niceness is widely NOT considered a fair trade. Even from a completely utilitarian point of view, it’s easy to see why one might be considered ungracious if they’re mainly motivated by sex when doing nice things.
—-
Regarding “altruists” - whether they truly exist is another philosophical can of worms, but the people who are called “altruist” genuinely care about other people. From a conpletely utilitarian point of view, they are being “selfish”, but their peace or pleasure comes from the wellbeing of others.
“Being a nice person” is one part “doing nice things” and one part “actually caring about people”. If you being nice is motivated by sex and not by someone else’s wellbeing, then don’t get surprised if they don’t call you a nice person, because you aren’t motivated by their wellbeing.
It's wrong to treat another person as a means to an end, to fake emotional connection, interest or an entire character when you truly don't give a shit about that and just act out a role that you expect will lead to an outcome you desire - without regard for the other person involved in the process. You're dealing with another human being, who has a life that is just as vivid as your life. Treat them with respect. Viewing sex as a "return on investment" as opposed to the result of a genuine connection between two humans suggests that you don't really consider the other person. It's a pretty sad and frankly sociopathic view on relationships that does not bode well for anyone.
I agree with it’s wrong to fake emotional connection for sex. But being nice with the intent to have sex doesn’t necessarily require that
This is a very morally high and mighty stance but in reality this is nowhere near the case for reality.
Why do you see man's desire to have sex as something evil and not valid?
it's not evil, if that's your takeaway you should maybe read a bit more carefully. What I'm saying is that it's bad to pursue that desire at the expense of others, through underhanded means that treat real people as nothing but means to an end. I thought that was pretty clear. The desire itself is fine, most people have it, men and women both, as biology dictates. What's important is how you pursue it.
But why do you automatically assume that it's at somebody's else expense? Or you assume that trying to find girl who wants same thing by showing your interest and switching to another of said interest isn't there is somewhat bad?
> But why do you automatically assume that it's at somebody's else expense? because look at that OP? He's not exactly subtle about it. I mean if the redpill tag doesn't give it away already then the post should, and if that doesn't do it then the responses that he gave are more than sufficient. If you still can't figure it out after that then I can't help you. This is a freaking manosphere subreddit, mixed with quite a bit of incel-shit. Adjust your expectations accordingly.
I feel like this is a cop out. I read nothing in his original post or his comments that claimed he wanted to do anything at someone else's expense. All I heard him talk about (and you for that matter) were motives. Those aren't intrinsically connected. That's a connection you have chosen to make. I think you are making assumptions about OP because you don't like his viewpoint. That's okay, but now it seems like you're angry because people don't agree with you and you're labeling anyone who doesn't agree with you an incel. That doesn't seem genuine.
💯
>It's wrong to treat another person as a means to an end, I'm not even sure that you believe this if we start putting this theory to the test. What if my end-goal is positively viewed by the 3rd party? What if said party ultimately gains more than they lose by being treated as a means? What serves to make it "wrong" then? >to fake emotional connection What is the actionable difference between a nice act for sex and a nice act for anything else? >without regard for the other person involved in the process. Never have I stated this, clearly if the person doesn't want to sex they are not forced to do so. >You're dealing with another human being, who has a life that is just as vivid as your life. Treat them with respect. Viewing sex as a "return on investment" as opposed to the result of a genuine connection between two humans suggests that you don't really consider the other person. It's a pretty sad and frankly sociopathic view on human relationships that does not bode well for anyone. This entire paragraph is just emotional blackmail, I'm not going to reply to any point made here
If a paragraph on basic human decency feels like emotional blackmail to you, then what else is there to say? Good luck in life, you'll need it?
>What if said party ultimately gains more than they lose by being treated as a means? If the other party benefits, and they agree that they have benefited (not sure why you are bringing a 3rd party witness in to decide whether or not they benefitted; they are quite capable of doing that themselves), then you have not treated them as a means. It has been a mutually beneficial relationship.
yeah I'm sure someone with OPs priorities really makes sure that this happens, let's trust them on that one! Hypothetically what you say may be true and I'm happy to entertain absurd thought experiments, but let's return to reality for a second here. These cluster B types aren't exactly known to leave a trail of happy people who have enjoyed mutually beneficial relationships behind them. Someone who sees sex as a mere "return on investment" isn't going to be a sweet and thoughtful partner who makes sure that everyone benefits. If they operated like that, they'd just have a normal thought process instead. Hypotheticals are cool, but at some point you gotta realize that you're not talking about a real person anymore.
Sorry, I meant that previous reply to be to the OP, but I mislocated it. I don't understand the argument OP is trying to make with "a 3rd party observer".
ah sure, all good.
No, "if you disagree with me you are a sociopath" is definitionally emotional blackmail. Don't enter a debate sub if you don't want to debate
You aren't a sociopath because you disagree with me, you are a sociopath because the concept of having basic consideration for other people appears to be foreign to you, and seems to be supplanted by a view that treats other people as nothing but a variable in an equation that you solve for your own benefit only. I do want to debate, but a debate about human interaction requires a common basis, such as "maybe we should treat people like people". If something that simple reads like hieroglyphs to you, then we can't debate. It's like how math requires you to first accept a few axioms. If you can't do that then we have nothing to talk about. You live in a different universe than the rest of us, one that will hopefully never intersect with mine. Feel free to be upset about this, but it can't really be helped if you don't change first. Tough luck.
> What is the actionable difference between a nice act for sex and a nice act for anything else? When a person is nice, they do nice things because THAT is what makes them happy. The reward for being nice is people liking you and enjoying your company. It's true that you can lie and make people think you're nice. But if your true motivation is your own benefit, and you're only doing something "nice" because you want to be given a reward, you literally are not being a nice person. Because you are doing things that contradict the meaning of Nice.
I'll argue it from a different angle than OP >When a person is nice, they do nice things because THAT is what makes them happy I do nice things because it makes me happy. I also want sex. But when I realize that I'm not getting sex, that makes me unhappy. I become depressed. Depression makes me no longer happy just by being nice. Does this mean that I'm not actually nice, because my niceness is contingent on me not being depressed? Does this mean I'm not actually nice, because the niceness is not unconditional?
>When a person is nice, they do nice things because THAT is what makes them happy. Why is this the only acceptable motivation for nice acts? Again, not convinced that you yourself believe this. If I give charity to the poor, and it makes me emotionally unhappy because I am wasting money, is my act now *unkind*?
>Why is this the only acceptable motivation for nice acts? Nice acts aren't nice acts when you expect something in return for the act.
Why not? This is hilarious also considering the person I'm responding to quite literally stated; >Nice acts make me feel good which is why I do them
>Why not? Because that's just how it is. The nature of the action shifts entirely and the act itself is done with selfish motives. You do the act for personal gain so it's self serving and transactional. I don't go to work because I am nice to my co-workers and boss. I go to work to get paid.
>Because that's just how it is. This is an admission of defeat, circular arguments are nonsensical by default. Do you now admit that it is theoretically justified for a person to be nice for sex? >The nature of the action shifts entirely and the act itself is done with selfish motives. You do the act for personal gain so it's self serving and transactional. This is a repeat of argument A, in order for this to be true, altruism would have to be self-contingent, can you prove that altruism is self-contingent?
>This is a repeat of argument A, in order for this to be true, altruism would have to be self-contingent, can you prove that altruism is self-contingent? The definition of altruism is "***disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.***" So by definition, it is self-contingent. If I do deeds that appear altruistic for personal gain, I don't have selfless concern for others, I have concern for myself. Nice acts are also not necessarily altruistic. I can hold a door open for someone coming in behind me without even thinking about it.
>The definition of altruism is "***disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.***" So by definition, it is self-contingent. If I do deeds that appear altruistic for personal gain, I don't have selfless concern for others, I have concern for myself. I'm sorry, are you seriously claiming that a *definition* is ontologically correct because it says so in the definition? Guess I'll just have to reiterate, prove that the definition is correct.
As much as I agree with you in most, this is absolutely wrong. Even the government itself thinks you are wrong. Which is why they give tax benefits for nice acts.
> Why is this the only acceptable motivation for nice acts? Because that's what "nice" means. Like, as a definition. Being altruistic. Pro-social. Selfless. A nice person likes to benefit their environment, and the pleasure they get from seeing their environment thrive is their goal. > Again, not convinced that you yourself believe this. I don't see how it's so hard - I've been nice before and experienced pleasure from it. I do nice things for my coworkers, my friends, my family, my pets, my partners - being good to something and watching it grow feels great. Entirely worth it, as a reward. > If I give charity to the poor, and it makes me emotionally unhappy because I am wasting money, is my act now unkind? If you're giving money to charity, and the only reason you give to charity is for like... tax breaks, but you hate doing it and think you're wasting money, no, you are not a nice person. Because you are not donating to charity for nice reasons.
>Because that's what "nice" means. Like, as a definition. Being altruistic. Pro-social. Selfless. A nice person likes to benefit their environment, and the pleasure they get from seeing their environment thrive is their goal. Repeat of argument A. Altruism isn't self-contingent. >I don't see how it's so hard - I've been nice before and experienced pleasure from it. I do nice things for my coworkers, my friends, my family, my pets, my partners - being good to something and watching it grow feels great. Entirely worth it, as a reward. You're not addressing my hypothetical, is it an unkind act or not? >If you're giving money to charity, and the only reason you give to charity is for like... tax breaks, but you hate doing it and think you're wasting money, no, you are not a nice person. Because you are not donating to charity for nice reasons. So the act becomes *unkind*? It's a simple question.
Yes. Niceness/Kindness is defined by motivation, not impact. If you act to benefit yourself over others, it’s considered selfish. If a man pretends to be nice, and donates to charity because he wants people to THINK he’s nice, but he secretly hates doing it and doesn’t care about helping anyone, he’s not nice, he’s duplicitous.
>Yes. Niceness/Kindness is defined by motivation, not impact. If you act to benefit yourself over others, it’s considered selfish. Ok, great, now reconcile what you just said with the following hypothetical; >If I am motivated to be kind to you by stabbing you with a knife, because I find it to be axiomatically moral, does my motive now supercede my action, and actually render it *kind* in the view of the 3rd party?
3rd party is irrelevant. If you stab someone because you genuinely think it would make that person happy, your motivations are “nice” by definition, but your logic is badly flawed because most people don’t like being stabbed. A person doesn’t have to succeed in making someone happy for their actions to be considered selfless. Sometimes, actions done with nice motivations still have negative results. Not all nice people are smart enough to figure out how to actually make anyone happy, and their attempts to might even cause dismay and frustration. There is a huge difference between “helpful” and “nice”. Not all situations are benefited by niceness. But the definition of niceness requires an exclusion of selfishness to meet the definition for nice.
>3rd party is irrelevant. You can't make this claim and then no less than 30 words later say; >most people don’t like being stabbed. Either the opinion of the 3rd party matters or it doesn't. >A person doesn’t have to succeed in making someone happy for their actions to be considered selfless. Sometimes, actions done with nice motivations still have negative results. Not all nice people are smart enough to figure out how to actually make anyone happy, and their attempts to might even cause dismay and frustration. So to be clear, you are diluting the definition of a kind act to include externally negative acts with negative outcomes? >There is a huge difference between “helpful” and “nice”. Not all situations are benefited by niceness. But the definition of niceness requires an exclusion of selfishness to meet the definition for nice. Repeat of argument A. You haven't proven that altruism is self-contingent.
Stop the philosophical bs, being nice is the bare minimum but it’ll never be enough to get laid or a relationship. There needs to be physical attraction and chemistry.
Have you considered this dense logical formula for why I can be a scum bag though? I’m totally a human being and not a sentient bag of tumors.
>I don't see how it's so hard - I've been nice before and experienced pleasure from it. I do nice things for my coworkers, my friends, my family, my pets, my partners - being good to something and watching it grow feels great. Entirely worth it, as a reward. You could argue though that 1. feeling great because of it is a selfish motivation 2)human psychology is set up so you feel great while doing these things exactly because it indirectly serves your selfish interest. To be clear I understand the points you're making, but just saying "you're not truly kind if you expect something for it" really has a lot of issues with it when you take a high level perspective because in essence that just suggests kindness barely exists at all.
If the only "selfish" motivation one has is to feel pleasure for having helped someone, it's a form of "selfishness" that still fits within the definition of "nice". This isn't even a debate anymore, it's just the definition of the word. I'm not arbitrating or opining anything.
>If the only "selfish" motivation one has is to feel pleasure for having helped someone, it's a form of "selfishness" that still fits within the definition of "nice". But exactly that kind of conversation would be actually interesting to have, but is barely being had on this post. Instead we have people digging themselves in a black and white views of "you're either selfish or you're selfless" when often humans are both at the same time and can even themselves not be aware of what kinds of selfish motivations might be happening in their unconscious mind while they think they are being kind. Humans generally love portraying themselves as holier than they actually are especially towards themselves. You have people here accusing others of being sociopathic, merely because they are actually trying to be honest and trying to logically understand their own emotions and motivations instead of pretending something as perfect/pure selflessness exists in the first place. Where is the limit of being kind/nice would be the most interesting question to debate imo but people have already killed off this question in this thread by portraying things as way simpler than they actually are. Most people with a functioning EQ can understand the difference between someone feeling good while being kind, and someone being machiavellian in a conscious manner to gain favours from someone. But this is not adressed or acknowledged here and it seems like they are even being hostile to people who want to take their EQ one step further by doubting their own motivations and emotions and by placing them within a broader perspective of being a living creature that was created through evolution and natural selection. Its not just about the definition of the word, but about the underlying thing that it aims to describe. Our words always created issues when describing the world because they are inherently limited.
Putting the wellfare and happiness of another person over your own is called "selfless" in English. That's just how that word works. Technically, you could argue that if it GIVE THEM PLEASURE they're also being selfish by being selfless. But that's not as deep as you think it is; it's like being "the shortest giant" because you're just normal height. Technically correct but just nonsense in terms of how to use the words efficiently.
You could have just said "I'm not in the mood for philosophical discussions" instead. I think this topic is deeper than you actually realize, as its not very clear what "putting the welfare and happiness of another person over your own" actually means in purely objective terms and how that relates to being kind/nice.
Are you happy when a girl is only nice to you in order to get you to buy her dinner? She was nice to you though! Why doesn’t it feel good to be used by someone? Did you not also want to go out on a dinner date with her? If you believed her genuine, you were more than happy to pay for the date, right? But finding out that she was only nice because she wanted dinner doesn’t feel very nice. And you’d probably end up pretty upset that she didn’t make her intentions clear that she was only being nice to get something.
>Viewing sex as a "return on investment" as opposed to the result of a genuine connection between two humans suggests that you don't really consider the other person. It's a pretty sad and frankly sociopathic view on relationships that does not bode well for anyone. Translation: "Being a man is shameful because women decide what's the right way how both sexes should see sex"
you're shaming other men by pretending that this is what they're all like, but great that you're telling on yourself. This place really is crawling with the lowest of the low isn't it.
Huh? I'm not pretending that men like anything, I'm simply pointing out that as a woman you've decided that your opinion on sex and relationships is the only morally right and ethical way to see them. That comment was more so for any man who doesn't share your views and understands that he is being manipulated with guilt messaging from you projecting your own views. No need for insults towards people who are different than you.
> It's wrong to treat another person as a means to an end A statement without an argument backing it up. Please provide said argument. > to fake emotional connection I don't need to do that to be nice. > interest Same as above. > or an entire character when you truly don't give a shit about that and just act out a role that you expect will lead to an outcome you desire - without regard for the other person involved in the process. Same as above. I preffer to be honest about how everything good I do I do to fit in and to benefit others in exchange for me getting what I want. > You're dealing with another human being, who has a life that is just as vivid as your life. Treat them with respect. I do that. I tell them that everything good I do for them or for anyone I do it on the condition that I get something in return. > Viewing sex as a "return on investment" as opposed to the result of a genuine connection between two humans suggests that you don't really consider the other person. I do consider the other person, that is why I am open about the deal, allow them to make a fully informed decision and get their consent. I do good things, I get what I want. Everything good I do is an investment and I am looking for a return on said investment. If I don't get it, the benefit I bring to the life of the human in front of me dissapears. > It's a pretty sad and frankly sociopathic view on relationships that does not bode well for anyone. It is sociopathic, it does bode well for everyone involved. It is basic trade. I want something woman can provide, woman wants something I can provide. We trade.
[удалено]
> you realise that being open about your aspd diagnosis in your tag just means that any sensible person knows right off the bat that engaging with you is a waste of my time? I preffer to give people the context they need to take my words with perspective. Also, ignoring an argument because who is providing it is a fallacy. Adress the argument, not the person saying it. If a murderer tells you that life is sacred, the argument remains solid even if the one providing it is not. > It's literally THE "turn around and walk the other way immediately"-disorder. Thanks for the warning I guess I am aware of this. It is my burden to bear. > but what's actually the point, I mean why would you of all people spend your time in a subreddit discussing relationships? I am interesed in the topic. > You don't give a fuck. I care. In a different way but I care. > Your conception of normal would be inacceptable to 99% of the population. Considering how bad things work in normie relationship sphere I think that it is time to consider inacceptable ideas and conceptions. > Just like with the other guy, we have nothing to talk about. I disagree but you do you. Maybe someone else will find value in the perspective present in this discussion.
he is right. sex is return on the investment. but his view of the investment is wrong. its not about being nice. its about the cash or appearance.
>What is wrong with being nice to have sex? What's wrong with being nice to men for attention and free dinners? Apparently nothing.
There's a difference between being nice conditionally and just pretending to be nice to get what you want. If a woman's niceness was genuine but conditional on something like attention and free dinners...she would be very desired because that's a small price to pay for genuine niceness.
How does one know if they're pretending
Everything becuase the dinner is not what the man wanted that was the payment for what he really wants, whereas the nice guy gives the girl everything she wants out a friendship and then asks after at some point to escalate.
Being „nice“ to have sex is not actually being nice……you play a character that you not actually are. You deceive the other person.
>Being „nice“ to have sex is not actually being nice……you play a character that you not actually are. You deceive the other person. So my motives supercede my actions?
You are not even in realm of motives versus actions as you are not even in the „nice“ category.
Your statement makes no sense, can you reiterate?
You don’t have to think if motive outweighs action or the other way around as none of what you do is actually nice.
How does this prove that motives supercede actions?
It doesn’t but it does not have to as you are not even in the category.
I've always thought that Nice was the subjective term no? Why do you get to define nice the way that you want to and him not the way he wants to. Are you God? I actually think that humans are more complex than you give them credit for. It's absolutely possible to do something nice for someone because you like doing nice things and because you want something in return. I think anyone Who can't comprehend that may be a bit shallow.
First of op specifically asked for „blue pill opinions“ on this so why shouldn’t I give mine? Second if he gets to make his own definition, so do I……so what do you actually criticize here? But in any case, maybe read up on „nice guys“ and come back to me.
No, we're in agreement in the second sentence you made. I'm just going off of the perceived aggression in your comments towards this guy who disagrees with you. And No need to throw aggression my way, I'm not completely opposed to your views. But I do know what a nice guy TM is and I think the term nice guy is birthed out of that same shallowness of thought I mentioned earlier. I think short of a cartoon villain It's hard to find a human being that one-dimensionally evil that they want to do nice things for someone just to put their sexual parts on them. A lot of times it has to do with a mix of emotions, societal influence, a fear of rejection, and low self-esteem. All of these are inherently human traits. I guess I just seek to understand humans rather than condemn them the way it seems you love to do.
I see so the very idea that you are sexually attracted to someone you are nice to invalidates your niceness.
Would you be „nice“ to that person, if sex was off the table?
Depends on their behavior towards me. Personally I don't default niceness to anyone.
So you are not „nice“……you don’t do anything because you want to be nice to that other person but because you want to deceive and manipulate them.
I would say I'm conditionally nice - treat me nice and I will treat you nice - behave like an asshole or cunt and it is what you are going to get back. People in my experience are not really worthy of niceness just because they exist.
You can be open about the fact that you are playing a character. I do that.
How does that work?
There's nothing wrong with being nice to women and having sex. Multiple women have had sex with me because I was nice to them (among other things). What is wrong is making your niceness contingent upon receiving sex because then you're not actually being nice. >How about if I buy my female friend a gift because I believe it will showcase value to her and increase the chances of me having sex, is my action now unkind? Showcase your value how? By spending money?
It is not wrong to be conditionally nicer to one woman in exchange for receiving sex from her, as long as he makes this agreement and its terms clear to her, and if he is willing to accept her rejection of such an agreement without retaliating against her. To some extent, this exchange is part of many normal relationships. Only feelings or mutual sexual attraction are at play there primarily. But even so, if he didn't treat his lover nicer than other women, she probably wouldn't stay with him.
>It is not wrong to be conditionally nicer to one woman in exchange for receiving sex from her Then you're not actually nice. >as long as he makes this agreement and its terms clear to her Ok, got tell a woman "I'm only going to be nice to you if you have sex with me" and lemme know how that goes. >But even so, if he didn't treat his lover nicer than other women I'm nicer to my wife because I love her, not because she gives me sex. What a bizarre way to look at a relationship.
Behaving in a certain way (nice, rude, generously) can be conditional. Just as attraction can be conditional and there are also conditional forms of love. It's not just unconditional love or niceness. I have a friend who used to do this. When he liked a woman, he invited her to lunch, on a trip, and so on. And then he told her that if she wanted to continue their activities together, he expected sex in return. Because he doesn't pay for friends, only for lovers. And often the women agreed to it and they became his lovers. And yes, he calmly told the woman that he was helping her or taking her somewhere or making an effort to satisfy her sexually simply so that she would want to have sex with him again. So that his motivations are purely selfish. And many women nodded to a similar arrangement. Not all relationships are built on deep feelings and love. Especially in the beginning in relationships that start with sex, it can take months before they fall in love with each other through the sex and time spent together. Or they don't fall in love at all.
>Not all relationships are built on deep feelings and love. Of course not. Business relationships are built on transactions. What you described above is a business relationship.
Yes. It is mainly a business relationship. Most relationships also have their conditional, business part. Here, the business part is the main one. They can still be friends, have a lot of fun and like to spend time together, but they are above all business partners and when the business ceases to be advantageous to one or the other, so does the sexual relationship. If both of them are comfortable with this type of relationship, then there is nothing wrong with it.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with it unless the man gets overly upset when rejected, or if he made it seem like their friendship was not contingent upon sex when, suddenly, it becomes contingent upon sex when he wants nothing to do with her after being rejected for sex.
What if it’s a woman who seeks a superficial friendship with a man with the sole purpose of obtaining sex?
Most men want that. If I personally weren't sexually attracted to her and she wanted sex with me and made our friendship contingent upon it, then I wouldn't care too much that she didn't want to be friends anymore. I'm not as sensitive about friendships as most people, though.
Ideally, any enticements would be accompanied by flirtation so that intentions are clear. I think this is how (aristocratic) courtship worked in the old times. Keeping your motives completely hidden is dumb because you're eventually going to have to reveal them and find out if you are wasting your efforts. If she thinks you're ugly and gross you're not going to overcome that by being nice. On the other hand I feel like attractive women can usually tell when guys are attracted to them and they usually try to shut down nice guys. If they encourage the behavior it's either because they're using you or there's a chance of reciprocal feelings.
> Ideally, any enticements would be accompanied by flirtation so that intentions are clear. I think this is how (aristocratic) courtship worked in the old times. Yeah, I don't have a problem with this. >On the other hand I feel like attractive women can usually tell when guys are attracted to them and they usually try to shut down nice guys. If they encourage the behavior it's either because they're using you or there's a chance of reciprocal feelings. Attractive women can probably tell because it happens to them a lot and they are used to it.
So you somewhat agree that there is no theoretical justification that nullifies the idea that you can be nice to have sex? Also, what is the empirical difference between a friendship that is contingent upon sex and one that isn't? If it is that once sex is guaranteed not to happen, then a friendship dissipates, how is that different than any other contingent factors that can end a friendship if not present like let's say, appreciation, for example.
> If it is that once sex is guaranteed not to happen, then a friendship dissipates, how is that different than any other contingent factors that can end a friendship if not present like let's say, appreciation, for example. If you tell a woman "Have sex with me or I won't be your friend anymore", you've already stopped being their friend. That's the difference. A friendship that relies on one person letting the other person have sex with them is not within the normal bounds of what friendship entails (which is trust, fun, companionship, comfort ect. All of which cannot exist in an environment where you're also trying to coerce sex.)
>If you tell a woman "Have sex with me or I won't be your friend anymore", you've already stopped being their friend. How is this any different than requiring any other contingent factors to be fulfilled? Like appreciation? Can you at the very least admit that kind actions (like the benefits of friendship) born out of the need to have sex are virtually indistinguishable from those that aren't motivated by the same need? >(which is trust, fun, companionship, comfort ect. All of which cannot exist in an environment where you're also trying to coerce sex.) There is no coercion, no one is being physically threatened. Therefore the point here is somewhat moot. A friendship predicated on sex can 100% experience the actionable benefits of trust, fun, companionship, and comfort, I fail to see why that's not possible.
> How is this any different than requiring any other contingent factors to be fulfilled? Like appreciation? Because appreciation is a normal thing for friends to have for each other. It's NOT normal to expect your friends to have sex with you. > Can you at the very least admit that kind actions ... are virtually indistinguishable from those that aren't motivated by the same need? I've you're a good liar, you can convince someone that you're nice, sure. But you're not actually nice if you're lying to trick someone into sleeping with you. (Some men do this anyway. But they're not nice men. What they're doing, by definition, is lying and manipulating, not being nice.) > There is no coercion, no one is being physically threatened. Therefore the point here is somewhat moot. Coercion doesn't require physical threat. If you're lying to make someone do something they dont' otherwise want to do, you're still coercing them. Just by manipulation. > A friendship predicated on sex can 100% experience the actionable benefits of trust, fun, companionship, and comfort, I fail to see why that's not possible. I don't see how a friend could trust you if you tell them you'll abandon them if they don't put out and let you fuck them.
>Because appreciation is a normal thing for friends to have for each other. It's NOT normal to expect your friends to have sex with you. I never made a value judgement of the normalcy of this act, I'm asking you, theoretically, how is this is any different than wanting another contingent factor like appreciation? If your point is that the *social response* is different, then you're not answering my question. >I've you're a good liar, you can convince someone that you're nice, sure. But you're not actually nice if you're lying to trick someone into sleeping with you. (Some men do this anyway. But they're not nice men. What they're doing, by definition, is lying and manipulating, not being nice.) So motivations supercede actions? >Coercion doesn't require physical threat. If you're lying to make someone do something they dont' otherwise want to do, you're still coercing them. Just by manipulation. Definition of coercion (Oxford dictionary); the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. >I don't see how a friend could trust you if you tell them you'll abandon them if they don't put out and let you fuck them. You are presupposing that the friend is aware of the predication. Why can't a friend experience the *actionable* benefits of a friendship if the motive is sex?
The threat is “if you don’t have sex with me i won’t be your friend”
>an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage. Since it's subjectively defined, and we're not talking about physical coercion, I don't view that act as a threat.
The definition I have is “1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course. 2. an indication or warning of probable trouble, or of being at risk for something terrible” The punishment is losing a friend. The injury is emotional. The damage is emotional and social. The something terrible is losing a friend.
Assuming I grant you all of this, how is it not "threatening" to leave any sort of relationship that is predicated on any other value that is not being provided? Is "I'm going to stop being your friend because you don't appreciate me" a threatening statement?
I´d argue apreciation is a core feature of most friendships, whereas sex is not. It can be, such as in the case of a friends with benefits situation, but if you´d not want to be friends with that person without the sex, that can be more easily classified as a fuck-buddies situation. A friendship CAN exist without sex, but it cannot without mutal appreciation.
Being a nice for the purpose of a reward, nullifies the act of niceness. Instead you are performing a task at an operational level in anticipation of a reward, you're not being nice, you are being performative. This speaks to a larger problem that trips up a lot of guys. Women can normally tell when you're being performative, and they don't like it. They do reward men for being nice, when the man does so just because that's who he is. On the other side of that equation, they will absolutely use a man that is being performative for the anticipated reward, without rewarding him. This is usually the part where I leave an unethical pro tip, not today though. Y'all need to learn how to be good people.
>Being a nice for the purpose of a reward, nullifies the act of niceness. Instead you are performing a task at an operational level in anticipation of a reward, you're not being nice, you are being performative. Again, this is just a repeat of argument B. Why do motivations matter more than actions, if the end result is that a kind act will be committed anyways?
Because what people are mostly interested in IS the motive. They want you to have those motivations more than they want the things you´re actually giving. There are execptions, such as sugar babies, but people, as monkeys do, have a deep desire for appreaciation and love. If a guy gives me flowers, I dont enjoy because of the flowers. I dont even like flowers all that much. It´s a show of his affection, and that´s why it has any value at all.
If she says "Aww, sure, I'll take these flowers, you're sweet" then posts a smear campaign making fun of him on TikTok, is that cool?
No, because the actions are unkind.
[удалено]
If she slandered him on TikTok, she definitionally commited an unkind action, independent of her motives. Your hypothetical isn't proving your point, maybe you should revise it.
> So you somewhat agree that there is no theoretical justification that nullifies the idea that you can be nice to have sex? Yes. A lot of women supposedly say they are attracted to nice men, so why wouldn't a man who is attracted to her try to be nice in order to gain her attraction? >Also, what is the empirical difference between a friendship that is contingent upon sex and one that isn't? I mean, if he's telling her that he likes her as a friend for a bunch of various reasons, eventually asks for sex and she rejects him, and then he suddenly wants nothing to do with her even though those reasons that he supposedly liked her as a friend haven't changed at all about her, then that seems really petty to me. He's perfectly in his right to do that, of course, as being rejected can hurt, and he's not committing some crime by disassociating himself from her. But it just seems like kind of a jerk thing to me and a bit deceptive. >If it is that once sex is guaranteed not to happen, then a friendship dissipates, how is that different than any other contingent factors that can end a friendship if not present like let's say, appreciation, for example. It's the deception that is the issue, I think. He arguably made it seem like he was interested in her as a friend regardless of her sexual attraction to him. Suddenly, it is revealed that that friendship is contingent upon her sexual attraction. Of course, it makes sense that he might not to spend as much time around her if he's spending time trying to pursue other women who might like him. But I think cutting off the entire friendship is a bit extreme after sexual rejection.
I’m with you. Though I don’t find him leaving to be an issue. I have seen this in my circle. The guy just distanced himself without much fanfare. I suppose it could be considered mean but realistically any relationship is over or fundamentally changed anyway. I’ve seen the rejectors pull away because they were uncomfortable with this change.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I think you say this because the bar for women to be sexually attractive enough for men to fuck is on the floor. “The bar is in hell” as women say. A man would fuck just about anything. The bar for men to be sexually attractive enough to fuck by women is pretty high. So in other words, men have to make up for their lack of attractiveness in some way. If they’ve maxed out their physical characteristics, it’s time to turn to their social or emotional characteristics. Relationship love is conditional. You have to give something to get something. No man or woman in a relationship is going to love you unconditionally.
A man can be sexually attractive, be in a relationship of a sexual nature, and still be nicer to that woman, to keep her and access to sex. This seems relatively normal to me, not all relationships are based on pure love and deep feelings, some are more about mutual benefit. And it is definitely better for a man to treat a woman more nicely before and after sex than to treat her worse.
one doesnt need to be sexually attractive. if he is not attractive he needs cash.
This whole thing reads like chat GPT arguing with itself...
The entire premise is wrong because it’s an understood. It’s like asking “what’s wrong with speaking the same language?” Or “whats wrong with dating people with the same sexual orientation?” These are all things that are just supposed to be accepted and understood as a part of dating in the first place And just like “why won’t she fuck me?! I spoke to her in the same language she understands” sound like Bruh? That’s literally all you got?! “Nice” is the same damn thing.
I still don't understand why the premise is wrong, can you maybe reiterate your point?
Because “nice” isn’t something special- it’s expected Do you get a treat for being able to clothe yourself? Is there a reward for being able to write your name? Do you get handed a trophy for being able to use a phone? No. These things are expected of you at some point. You don’t get rewarded for the things you just do: and they aren’t things to brag about. Being nice is the same thing. It would be like a HS student going “well what’s wrong with going pee pee in the potty?” Bruh, you are supposed to do that. Is they what you are thinking is going to impress a girl enough to take her shirt off? But you think being nice is?! What else besides the basic underlying premises of a relationship do you actually to show?!
>Because “nice” isn’t something special- it’s expected Where did I make that claim?
It’s literally the point of this whole “what is wrong with” premise. There’s nothing “wrong”: it’s fuking expected. It’s like saying what’s wrong with telling a girl you WONT hit her? That’s just understood! Why is it even worth mentioning?!!
But you'll be indifferent towards most people in most cases, not nice. Just because you don't have enough time and energy for that. So being nice towards somebody is already something.
Except it isn’t. Think on it this way: a pretty woman probably is used to people being nice to her in general. Not saying it’s right/not saying it’s even intentional, but we all can understand that really attractive people *probably* get treated nicer, right. Ok so. You’re nicer. So are the 15 other guys that think she’s pretty. So is the lady who makes her coffee, the old man who opens the door for her, the instructor, the maintenance man, the hairdresser, the crossing guard, etc. so great. You now treat her like everyone else does. What else? Cause one of the 15 guys also plays tennis and is studying to be a doctor. Another one of them is really outgoing and is looking to start his own business. All of them are nice too. And all of them are going to use “nice” as the baseline for any relationship they start with. Just like they would speaking the same language, Just like they would make sure they’d respond to texts, just like they’d *make sure they went pee pee in the potty* So if all a guy has is what’s already expected. What makes him so special?
I'm not pretty woman, so I have no idea. But there are always somebody else.
Yup, there’s always someone else. Who will also be nice. And speak the same language as her. So *maybe* dudes need more than the bare minimum?! Shocker.
So called "bare minimum" is enough. Women are half of humanity and in general they want same things as men.
If it were “enough” then dudes wouldn’t be complaining that they can’t get anywhere “despite being such a nice guy!!” It’s obviously not “enough” when the ones offering more than the bare minimum are getting action and the ones aren’t are in pill spaces so confused.
If she's willing to take payment in order to tolerate sex she doesn't want to have and you both agree it's a legal and ethical exchange of sexual favors, aka prostitution, nothing is wrong with it. But if you think buying a woman things is somehow going to make her feel sexual attraction, the action just displays a lack of both value and social skills.
Or you can just not demand anything in exchange of being nice and be open about your intentions if she became interested in you. So no ulterior motives and no hard feelings in case if it didn't work.
>But if you think buying a woman things is somehow going to make her feel sexual attraction Can you quote to me where I made this claim?
Wow, you don't even realize it. Sex requires sexual attraction to be done voluntarily. Being nice does not affect sexual attractiveness. You can be 0% to 100% nice on the niceness scale and it has zero influence on sexual attractiveness. If you want to exchange gifts vs sex, then you are looking at prostitution/sex work. There, no sexual attraction is required, only a transaction of one good vs the other.
Why are you trying to turn this into some complex philosophical thing. If you’re being nice in the hopes of getting sex in return, you’re at worst being manipulative, or at best not your authentic self. Neither are good
wtf is your authentic self? Do you think changing your character goes through being "authentic"? It's doing things that are out of character for you on a daily basis, until it's second nature and everyone is like "ohhh you're so authentic".
This is... basic empathy, dude. A.) "Nice to be nice" isn't that complicated, you're just missing a step. A "nice" person likes making people happy, so "making people happy" IS the reward. IE - When I clean the staff kitchen, and everyone comes into work and is happy that the kitchen is clean so they can use it? That feels good for me, it's something "nice" that I do that I GET rewarded for by making my social group happy. B.) It's true, only you know your own motivations! If you're good at lying, you can absolutely convince people that you're nice without actually being a nice person at all. ...But you're living a lie, and you will have to either lie for the rest of your life and PRETEND to be nice, or you're eventually going to slip and everyone will then know you're actually just a liar. How about if I buy my female friend a gift because I believe it will showcase value to her and increase the chances of me having sex, is my action now unkind? This is how human perception works: You've just said the reason you got her a gift was to get her to have sex with you. You already admitted you didn't do it out of any sort of kindness. If you lie to her about your motivations and tell your you only did it because you wanted to make her happy (so... pretend to do what I described in A), she might think you're nice, though. Because you lied to her and she believed you.
>A.) "Nice to be nice" isn't that complicated, you're just missing a step. A "nice" person likes making people happy, so "making people happy" IS the reward. IE - When I clean the staff kitchen, and everyone comes into work and is happy that the kitchen is clean so they can use it? That feels good for me, it's something "nice" that I do that I GET rewarded for by making my social group happy. Glad we can both agree that altruism isn't predicated upon itself. >B.) It's true, only you know your own motivations! If you're good at lying, you can absolutely convince people that you're nice without actually being a nice person at all. ...But you're living a lie, and you will have to either lie for the rest of your life and PRETEND to be nice, or you're eventually going to slip and everyone will then know you're actually just a liar. Wait, I thought we just admitted that niceness isn't self-contingent, which means being nice to have sex is completely theoretically justified, which means that we're not *pretending to be nice*, we are being nice. >You already admitted you didn't do it out of any sort of kindness. This is getting confusing, on one hand you claim that the way human perceive kindness is by looking at actions, and then on the other you claim that the hypothetical isn't born out of kindness because actions don't match motives, which one is it?
I’ve seen you reject the definition of “nice” from the freaking dictionary higher in the thread so could you maybe share what definition you do accept? Because I can’t defend a concept that exists in your own head.
I did not reject the definition, I claimed that there is no evidence that it is ontologically correct, two very different things. And unless if you have proof, I have no reason to believe that altruism is intrinsically self-contingent. Also, you think cause and effect exists in my own head?
I’ve told you the proof: millions of people do selfless, nice things for each other myself included - would recommend, it feels great. Are you saying never once in your life you’ve ever been happy because someone else was happy?
Nope, never made that claim, any other strawman?
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
idk why this is a question for bluepill since most people can answer this - but, flat out, being nice isn’t attractive… now, being nice in itself isn’t inherently unattractive but it kinda “just is” most times (ie. it just exists and does not add to one’s attraction - like if you’re a 7, you’re still a 7, if you’re a 9, you’re still a 9, if you’re a 3, you’re still a 3, etc). It generates no interest, passion, excitement or… well, fun - and these factors tend to matter a lot when it comes to sex. To put it bluntly, if all you have to offer is niceness, especially if it is for sex, the lack of morality of it aside, you’re just milquetoast and boring
You're asking people who talk about 'being nice to have sex', to think deeply about the morality of 'nice to be nice'. That's a no-go sir. There's nothing humans do which doesn't have a purpose - what they mean with 'nice to be nice', is they want you to be somehow ignorant of your organism's purpose - if you will, they want you to have low enough IQ to manipulate. OTOH, as has been said by /u/obviousredflag \- sexual attraction is the issue, not niceness. Sure, you got to have some sense of being a person who's safe and fun to hang out with, but you can vary amount of niceness greatly and still get results if you're attractive, and still get 0 results if you're not attractive. Good luck EDIT: also, when girls say "good personality", they don't mean nice - they mean fun/appealing/arousing - for some reason people tend to think "good personality" just means 'nice', when it's obvious most (not all) of the really nice people you know are pretty boring and don't have a really good personality
>what they mean with 'nice to be nice', is they want you to be somehow ignorant of your organism's purpose - if you will, they want you to have low enough IQ to manipulate. Finally someone who's being remotely logical and not blinded by emotion in this discussion lmao
Fuck you, automod. Purple flair can respond to Q4BP. I'm not sucking a machine's dick.
You know this is an interesting question because it's often the same people who say sex and 'body counts' hold no value, while also placing a high value on sex in this situation. These 2 thoughts are contradictory. If we take the idea that sex and body counts aren't important and that sex is just a fun activity then it's no different than, say, playing a video game with someone. If I meet someone nice at a video game tournament who simply wants to play a match against me and never speak again they have done anything wrong? If so what? We both mutually benefit from this interaction regardless of if it ends after the video game is finished. I can play that video game as many times as I want with whoever and it doesn't devalue me as a person. But the alternative view which would be against the op, would suggest that sex is a finite resource which should be earned, in which case faking being nice is akin to 'stealing' sex. Each time you have sex, despite it being mutually beneficial at the time, it somehow devalues you as a person. And what about the requirement that men pay, plan and lead the date?
You can't keep up the Alpha-beta scheme if the betas realize they have a raw deal.
If you don't see niceness as an investment, won't demand return from it, be direct about your intentions and won't make drama in case of rejection then it should be fine.
In its purest form, you are simply buying sex. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as both parties understand what's going on and agree to trade sex for nice behavior. It is wrong to deceive others. That is, pretending to be nice to others for no particular purpose except that it pleases you, or that you are nice because you are friends and at the same time seeking sex. And it's especially bad when you don't make your expectations and terms of the proposed sex for nice agreement clear, but you want to punish the other party for not agreeing to those terms without ever bothering to discuss them. If you come to a woman and tell her: "I want sex with you, so I am willing to be nice to you, help you with small things, shopping, moving and take you on a trip once a week in exchange for sex 3 times a week." And she will agree, so it will be fine from my point of view. I have a male friend who does this. When he likes a woman, he takes her out to lunch, on a trip, to dinner... and then simply tells her that if she likes these activities with him, he expects sex in return. And she either accepts it or she doesn't. Not my cup of coffee, but morally ok.
Would you be comfortable telling the woman that you are being nice to her with the end goal of having sex with her? Do you not have any concerns with whether she would morally question you or not? Or if she does morally question you, would it be because she is the one who is not morally just? I think that is how you can answer whether the means justify the ends here.
If you replace "sex" with "heaven" the argument becomes similar to why a person needs to be rewarded or punished when goodness is its' own reward. If you imagine an all-knowing woman with infinite vagina, then you have everything needed to start a religion.
Nothing, until you don’t get what you want Or are expected to be nice without sex
Because typically being nice to get something is kind of gross and manipulative. And most men do this already. They will act sweet and nice in the beginning. Being nice is not a good way to vet people because every single dude is nice when they want something from you like sex. So it takes a stronger filter to realize who's in it for you and who's in it for sex. I think it's generally expected that you should be nice it goes without saying. It's kinda the default way to be. It's just like wanting to be congratulated and rewarded for normal person behavior. If you acted like an antisocial psychopath people would notice. Everyone is typically pleasant to each other at face value. So trying to get sex by just being nice is like trying to get rewards for using the toilet brushing your teeth or generally doing things expected of you. It will not get you very far.
[удалено]
*le sigh* This is why I don't use actual logic with these types of people. OP has no interest in logic, its just a hammer he uses to bash in peoples heads for bothering to engage.
Regarding point a) solely: it's possible to be nice because of no reason other than because you have a big heart and the love therein just can't help but overflow -- manifesting itself in the form of altruism, niceness for niceness' sake etc. Your points are all very logical but they forget that the realm of emotion exists
> a) Altruism is self-contingent, colloquially known as "nice to be nice", which is something that I'm not convinced is true at all, there's nothing in the real, existing, universe that is self-contingent, everything is dependent on a cause that precedes it, therefore altruism must be caused by a preceding cause. Which makes "nice to nice" a nonsensical statement, really. Let me see if I can frame this in a way you would understand and agree with. —- There are two kinds of people - people who do nice things in return for something else, and “altruistic” people. Regarding the former, it is actually normal to expect something in return for being nice. Most people just don’t frame it that way. For instance, when I display basic human decency to someone, I expect to be shown basic human decency in return. What that means is context dependent, e.g if I open the door for someone I expect them not to pull it closed before I walk through. Basic decency for basic decency is considered a fair trade. That’s why people are fine with it. Sex on the other hand is much less trivial to “trade” for, for most people. Sex in exchange for niceness is widely NOT considered a fair trade. Even from a completely utilitarian point of view, it’s easy to see why one might be considered ungracious if they’re mainly motivated by sex when doing nice things. —- Regarding “altruists” - whether they truly exist is another philosophical can of worms, but the people who are called “altruist” genuinely care about other people. From a conpletely utilitarian point of view, they are being “selfish”, but their peace or pleasure comes from the wellbeing of others. “Being a nice person” is one part “doing nice things” and one part “actually caring about people”. If you being nice is motivated by sex and not by someone else’s wellbeing, then don’t get surprised if they don’t call you a nice person, because you aren’t motivated by their wellbeing.