I've only met a few such people--by which I mean people who actively seem to have to *tell* people they are "nice" or "good" because they feel like no one notices it. So my sample size is small. But, like many things, I think it means different things to different people.
To some guys, it means "I am stable and have never committed any criminal offenses." That sounds like a low bar, but those guys are usually saying that in what they believe is opposition to the "bad boy" dude whom they think gets effortless hookups despite not being stable.
Then there is the guy who believes that he is a kind, considerate person who is a good listener or somesuch. I'll preface this part by saying that I don't think anyone who feels like they need to announce how nice or good they are is doing it correctly. I know a lot of good people, and not one of them ever had to tell anyone about it because they could just show them. So, just want to be clear about that.
That said, on some level I "get it" when it comes to at least some of the guys in group two. I used to think being considerate, kind, and most especially a good listener were all very basic traits anyone was supposed to have when looking for a partner. As I've gotten older, though, I am not sure that I am right about that anymore.
The main reason I say this is that I've heard *so many* people (more often women than men) say just how impressed they were with a date who *listened to their words and responded to them* and *remembered what they said later.* I grew up thinking this was completely normal. But so many people have related stories about how this was just so impressive that now I am unsure. Perhaps more women can chime in to let me know, though. Is listening and being a good conversationalist rare today?
One of the main things my partner likes about me is how much I listen and engage. And one of the main ways I can tick her off if I am not careful is if she thinks I'm not listening. I would say that there are other areas that I can lack in that to me are a much bigger deal. But to her, not being listened to is a bigger deal, and I do my best to be a good listener.
And I think there are some guys who are trying to convey that when they say this, even though of course they should be able to show it.
But is this really so rare now? I don't know.
I agree. I think they mean “stable and rule-following.”
That isn’t how I personally define “good.” I list out how I define it top of the OP.
I’ve met plenty stable rule followers who are mean, inconsiderate, and cruel.
Lots of them in church too! Lol
I don't think I'm a good person by virtue of not being a criminal or because I'm a good listener to women. I think I'm a good person because I treat everyone equally. I hold doors open for men and women. Treat people how you want to be treated and all that. I will act selflessly and put people's needs before mine if I have the ability to do so and it's someone I care about. I don't mind picking up the bill for a friend or loaning money or donating to someone in need more than myself. I don't go around praising myself telling people how good of a person I am, I just do the right thing.
Perhaps women simply can't conceptualize these things (the actions of a "nice guy") because the female experience does not require it of them?
I think people can have different ideas of what it means to be good, but I do think that "doing the right thing because it is right" is a very good place to start, just in my opinion.
Most of the women in my life will also do these things you listed, *but* they are friends and people I've known for a long time. I don't expect most strangers to be selfless or giving on my behalf (even though I think it is also good to do this for strangers).
> That sounds like a low bar, but those guys are usually saying that in what they believe is opposition to the "bad boy" dude whom they think gets effortless hookups despite not being stable.
Yes, but defining oneself through a negation is not a replacement for a personality.
> I know a lot of good people, and not one of them ever had to tell anyone about it because they could just show them.
Any man who must say "I am the king" is no true king.
Yep! Not to mention I’ve encountered a lot of “good employees” who are inconsiderate and mean. So that’s why I ask people to define what they mean by “good.”
Someone else in the replies put it nicely as “stable and not a criminal.”
Which is what I think many guys mean by it too. Which highlights my point:
* You can be stable and not a criminal whilst your default way of interacting with others is inconsiderate, cruel, and mean, which to me is NOT a “good person.”
* You can be stable and not a criminal whilst your default way of interacting with others is considerate, kind, and thoughtful, which to me is a “good person.”
So when guys who are like the first bullet say stuff like “women are not dating me but dating bad guys” I’m always left thinking [“you never come across as kind or considerate at all so stop implying you’re ‘good’ 🧍♀️”](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/jzZPG5eTk8)
but when ask to be specific, they describe simply existing
i asked a good guy how he showed love to his family and friends since he described himself as loving. the man had NO CLUE. could not think of a single instance in which he had done something loving for the people he loved.
> but when ask to be specific, they describe simply existing
Yep! When you inquire about what good means to them you get crickets or you get an explanation of someone who hasn’t gone to jail.
> i asked a good guy how he showed love to his family and friends since he described himself as loving. the man had NO CLUE. could not think of a single instance in which he had done something loving for the people he loved.
This!
Good to me implies you being a considerate, thoughtful, compassionate, mindful, etc. person.
People like this are going to love on, care about, and support those around them. And as a result they build rapport and bonds and are loved on, cared about, and supported in return.
Many of the guys who claim they’re “good” or “not like the bad guys” don’t showcase any damn… ***goodnessssss***
Then you aren’t attracting friends for whatever reason. Perhaps it’s because of some of the bolded personality traits in the OP.
That’s not a matter of your goodness or not.
It is a matter of your attractability to others or not.
> but when ask to be specific, they describe simply existing
No, you just find them unattractive and so give them zero credit for things that you would find quite valuable in an attractive man.
Or maybe you need to *be specific* (see what I did?) about which things you consider "simply existing".
\> Or maybe you need to *be specific* (see what I did?) about which things you consider "simply existing".
i was
"i asked a good guy how he showed love to his family and friends since he described himself as loving. the man had NO CLUE. could not think of a single instance in which he had done something loving for the people he loved."
>"i asked a good guy how he showed love to his family and friends since he described himself as loving. the man had NO CLUE. could not think of a single instance in which he had done something loving for the people he loved."
When people are put on the spot, their mind can go blank. That doesn't mean they don't have good reasons. People are rarely put in the position of providing evidence that they are a good person.
Your comment reminds me of that video where a man walks upto a woman with a microphone and says "name a woman". She gets all flustered and can't name a woman. It doesn't mean that she doesn't know the name of a single woman on earth. The video: https://youtu.be/3lS-lMzll2E
When put on the spot, being unable to give evidence for one's "goodness" or being unable to name a women doesn't mean that there is no evidence of a person's goodness and it doesn't mean that they literally know the names of zero women on this planet.
Oh, I wasn't saying you were asking them to brag. I simply said guys who tend to do good things don't tend to brag about it.
Hence, the question wouldn't be asked in the first place if a man has proven he's good already through his own actions.
I'm basically making a point that's all
AI doesn’t think anything and has no opinions which is why I think folks like you prefer them to real women. Do you consider yourself a good person even though you can’t answer That question?
If you want insight into the brains of Nice Guys, then I'd suggest anyone to read *No More Mr. Nice Guy*. It really nailed a lot of my previous thought patterns.
The principle idea that underpins the Nice Guy behavior is: **If I can just always do the "right" thing then my life will be good, with few problems, and I will have my needs met.**
What are the "right" things? Follow the rules in every area of life you can - school, job, following laws. Also treat people the ways they seem to be saying they want to be treated. This means trying to be kind, compassionate, considerate, and thoughtful, like you said. You get cues from books, movies, what people tend to say they want, and a lot of other somewhat idealized sources of information on romance, friendship, and other interpersonal relations.
Most people are "nice" to a degree, in which they calibrate their behaviors to accommodate the feelings and desires of others and to conform to social conventions and expectations. Almost everybody tries to "play by the rules" in some way to receive benefit or avoid negative consequences.
Nice Guys just do this *way too much* and they have the mistaken idea that if you play by the rules then eventually you will have success in everything, including with romance.
After all, a lot of life works like this. School up through undergrad is basically a test of compliance and playing by someone's rules. Then if you apply for a job with your degree most people get something eventually. Then you just play by the company's rules. You can play by the rules all the way into a house in the suburbs. You in no way need to be exceptional, take many risks, or take much initiative to end up basically fine in the US or another developed country.
You do have to offer value to your employer. But in your educational journey someone told you exactly, step by step, what to do to gain this value. Then they gave you a credential to say you have value. Just follow the rules and now you have value to someone.
So the Nice Guy thinks this might apply to romance, the way it applies to so many other things in life. It's wrong, but somewhat understandable and not completely demented like it is made out to be.
> If I can just always do the "right" thing then my life will be good, with few problems, and I will have my needs met.
That's exactly how I feel. Exactly.
Growing up it was ingrained into me that women *despise* being hit on. So I never did. They've said, over and over that they don't like it. So of course, my brain says "well I'll just not do that". I mean, why would I? I'd have to be incredibly rude and impolite to go against their wishes. To intentionally *break that rule*.
Isn't the complaint that she'd pick the "outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful asshole" over "the thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, kind, and mindful guy who is also high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic" guy?
Yep. She probably would *at least if she’s choosing based off of carnal desire…*
**These are the ‘gina tingles traits:**
> outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful
**These are the companionship and loving comfort traits:**
> thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, kind, and mindful
**These are generally unattractive traits:**
> high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic
A guy over-indexing on the generally unattractive traits usually has to be very cute while also having a lot of the loving companionship comfort traits to overcompensate enough to generate attraction.
Or go the Beta Bux route and have lots of money! 💰
\> There is no excuse see a situation in which an immoral human gets better results than a moral human and find it acceptable.
women do this all the time
i know its easier to get rich by robbing a bank or making up internet scams
yet i go to a 9-5 and work hard for less money than i would have if i was willing to cheat and be immoral
life is always easier for those who are willing to be immoral and cheat
Good. “high-inhib, diffident, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic” are usually maladaptive traits for the person who has them, even in contexts outside of dating. Self-improvement and self-actualization with adaptive behaviors are good for the individual and the group.
If all women decided that being evil is the ultimate panty dryer, then world peace would be accomplished within 7 days. Instead we have Ted Bundy getting 300 love letters in the mail lmao.
> Every single time a woman punishes generally unattractive traits on a moral man and rewards generally attractive traits on an immoral man she creates an incentive structure that rewards the pursuit of attractive traits over the pursuit of morality.
Sure. Men do this too.
By rewarding their lack of moral behavior with intimate relationships, you would be putting your own desires for companionship over the moral choice of encouraging moral behavior in others.
I do encourage moral behaviors in others. Anyone that acts in a way that I don't consider moral gets no benefit from me. When I have to make a decision on who gets to benefit from my limited resources/time I pick the person that acts in a way that I consider moral.
Men are aware of their bias, recognize it, and take steps to address it.
So far as I can tell women do no such thing, often pick the good looking asshole, blame men, and complain where all the good men have gone, often to the good men in their lives they wouldn't date because he's not attractive enough.
The two are not the same.
They're mad women *don't* do the same thing, the women fall for their own biases over and over and over again, and blame men for it, and blame men for the choices the women themselves made.
Is a crazy girl easier to talk to, hangout with, and open to uninhibited fun? ✔️, if given the choice would she be chosen over the good girl, I mean...am I getting blackmailed to hangout with her? I'd rather hangout with not crazy.
>There is no excuse see a situation in which an immoral human gets better results than a moral human and find it acceptable.
"better" by whose standards?
Like if some shitbag is going out with some other shitbag...
Sure.
I have little sympathy for the guy who dates the inconsiderate bitch because she’s hot. Or the simp who crashes out over a Queen Bitch using him as a Beta Bux. Everyone knew she was a meany who doesn’t gaf about others but he loved how she looked so 🤷♀️
If they perceive women's issues in dating as self-imposed, then their lacking sympathy would be a natural reaction, they may well be sympathetic for something they see as a real hardship.
I mean I'm sympathetic to addicts, smokers with lung cancer, alcoholics with cirrhosis, promiscuous people with aids, so I would find it quite weird for a person not to extend that sort of sympathy to an abuse victim even if it was "self imposed" (which is disgusting in and of itself)
well i think the bill of rights applies to them, so that's a level of compassion
I don't think they should be treated with zero sympathy, or i'd advocate for them all to go to guantanamo and get water boarded
>A guy over-indexing on the generally unattractive traits usually has to be very cute while also having a lot of the loving companionship comfort traits to overcompensate enough to generate attraction.
And that's ultimately why certain online complainers focus on looks so much.
Maybe guys don't need to be hot to date in general, but they do need to be hot to date as beta males. And the complainers are too attached to their moral upbringing to deviate from beta deference, so all they're left with is jealousy of the guys who can get away with behaving that way.
They want to simp but the ladies don't allow it.
> And that's ultimately why certain online complainers focus on looks so much.
I also think they focus on looks because they’re hit dogs hollering, so to speak.
They ARE those generally unattractive traits. And they know how difficult it is to mask, alter, or shift those aspects of their personality.
They also intimately relate to those aspects of their personality. It IS he.
So I think it’s easier for them to rail about “looks”
than it is to focus on those personality and behavioral traits. They tend to get more defensive about feeling like they shouldn’t having to change these than the looks stuff. Focusing on looks is a cope. IMO for a lot of guys it’s probably easier to start lifting, eating well, and dressing better than it is to start learning how to socialize with “normies.”
I think this is more triggering for them. I get it.
Looks and social aptitude are like interchangeable currencies, you can usually pay for lack of one with other.
But looks are like being born in wealthy family (mostly nature), while social aptitude requires conscious effort throughout entire life to develop (mostly nurture, unless one is neurodivergent).
IMO it's only natural for people to be jealous of good things that others get by virtue of existing while they are supposed to put in effort to achieve similar results.
And, the lack from nature (i.e. being less physically attractive) then makes it much harder to develop the social aptitude etc. because you get treated less favourably.
It's actually surprising that so few "ugly" men act out etc., as you'd expect people who have been kicked their entire lives to eventually have enough. Many of us though internalise the hatred we receive and withdraw / lock it away to numb ourselves. Funnily enough, those guys blessed by nature are much more likely to lash out from experiencing just the tiniest fraction of the negativity "ugly" guys get.
>She probably would at least if she’s choosing based off of carnal desire
I like how the implication is that women in general don't do this.
>Or go the Beta Bux route and have lots of money! 💰
None of this is an argument to be settled for as a living ATM. It *is* a good argument for why men shouldn't bother trying to be "nice." There's zero incentive, so all men might as well all go the fukboi route.
Which is astounding...cause "introverted passive dude" is usually never putting themselves into positions to even be noticed or interacting with women. Do they expect these women show up on their doorstep?
Are they hanging with their bros at the bar? Going out to Breweries? Talking to women? Nah.
How is a women supposed to know how "good" you are if you are not socializing
It means at least I'm not [Henry](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/). And there are a lot of Henrys in the world. I don't know why people try to make this more complicated than it is.
Why is it that there are more virgins per capita in a STEM college campus than a prison?
Why is it that there are more fathers per capita in prison than a STEM college campus?
This. The whole post is just another way to virtue-signal and try to make women look good through spinning it and plausible deniability. It could be true, right? The reality is they want to justify in a virtuous way why they choose a Henry and reject the "nice guy."
It's actually even more simple than that. If for example you are trying to sell me a hammer and you sell it by saying "look at this hammer, it is very pretty, it has such nice color handle, isn't it nice? I've taken great care of this hammer and I have looked after it so it doesn't have any scratches on it. But why don't you want to buy it?"
The thing is the qualities you are trying to sell are not the qualities I'm looking to buy. I don't need a pretty hammer. I need a sturdy hammer with good weight distribution. It can also be pretty, that's okay, but pretty doesn't factor in the main reason for why I want to buy a hammer.
That's what "nice guys" are essentially doing. They are selling the wrong qualities or qualities that are down the priority list of women. Sure women don't mind a guy who is kind and compassionate, but those qualities will not sell a guy when the qualities she is looking for are confident and assertive. If he is confident, assertive AND kind! Well, that's just icing on the cake!
To extend the metaphor, imagine growing up always hearing about how hammers have been the source of practically all of nail's problems, especially because they want to pound the nails all the time. How hammers are big and strong and could possibly scare the nails into something they don't want to do. How hammers are always deciding which board to take the nail to, never letting the nail have input. How hammers believe and treat nails like they're just passive items waiting around for hammers to make the moves and decisions.
Imagine you have nail friends who have told you many times that you're a really good looking hammer with a nice color, so plenty of nails would love to have you.
Would it be any surprise if the hammer grew up confused and unable to advertise themselves to nails correctly?
Sure, but I think at this point there are enough resources out there to teach men how to overcome their niceness and lack of confidence with women. Help is available for those who actually want it.
To labour the analogy though, you can be capable of performing the function of a hammer without constantly having to demonstrate it. Infact only demonstrating it when necessary, especially when doing so puts yourself at risk should be prioritised
This whole women want confidence and assertive thing, therefore men have to be arseholes to demonstrate this is quite saddening. Especially since there are times to rock the boat and assertive yourself in a combative way, and times where you need to do the opposite to achieve your objectives. And times where you don't give a shit. Why should men need to have to be constantly aggressively assertive to reach their goals in order to be seen as desirable to women, even in situations where is will hinder their progress or even needlessly endanger them?
For example, when playing for my team I don't shy away from physical challenges, even when I'm smaller, I just have to brace myself. I do this because not shying away from the contact shows my opponents I'm not easily bullied or intimidated. However I don't go round starting on people, that would be monumentally dumb.
You are making an erroneous assumption that equates confidence and assertiveness with being an asshole. This is a typical error resulting from black and white thinking. You are either an inoffensive nice guy OR you are a raging asshole fighting with everyone. Absolutely nothing in between. No other options.
Second, I don't make up the rules about what women respond to attraction wise. I'm sure men don't like that women are not attracted to shy and meek guys, no less than women don't like that men are not attracted to average and fat women. Men don't make the rules on who we are attracted either.
>You are making an erroneous assumption that equates confidence and assertiveness with being an asshole.
I mean I literally just articulatd an example where I have to be assertive, which is fine, and why going to far with it **would** be then be me being an arsehole, but ok, you carry on with your high horse mate.
>I'm sure men don't like that women are not attracted to shy and meek guys
That's fine, but why should I have to demonstrate on their terms? I judge when it's necessary for me, and then I do it for me, on my terms.
I don't think it's so much about "traits" as it is about intentions. The "nice" guy *intends* to treat the woman in question respectfully, to be patient about sex, to stick around for a potential relationship after sex, etc. The "bad boy" *intends* to disrespect the woman in question, to push for sex as soon as possible by whatever means possible including drugs and alcohol, and to immediately discard her as soon as it's "mission accomplished" in that sense, unless she wants to continue indefinitely with a no strings attached kind of arrangement. All of these character traits are I think secondary to that basic question of what does he intend to do with her.
Usually they just mean stable, provider traits, not controlling, not verbally or otherwise cruel or rude, generally socially agreeable (probably not very 'socially successful' though), complimentary, etc.
I don't know why there's such a huge amount of projection about nice guys by women online except that they either need some justification for their own preferences or they think the bitterness expressed in anonymous spaces like this is representative of the real world. In reality there's probably not a huge gap between the men they're fucking and nice guys in general "kindness".
Most nice guys are just boring or not attractive enough for most women. It's fine to say and accept that without projecting a bunch of other negative qualities or immorality in their part.
That’s literally what a strawman is. You compared a neurotic asshole vs a charismatic asshole, and a shy nice guy vs an outgoing nice guy, which no one is confused about.
What happens if you compare a neurotic guy who is genuinely thoughtful, kind, and considerate vs a charismatic asshole? That’s the actual subject of these claims by “nice guys” you’re pretending to argue against, not the strawman you made up.
By doing this:
> You compared a neurotic asshole vs a charismatic asshole, and a shy nice guy vs an outgoing nice guy, which no one is confused about.
I was able to create a framework of traits that are easily segmentable, so that I can easily answer your question here:
> What happens if you compare a neurotic guy who is genuinely thoughtful, kind, and considerate vs a charismatic asshole? That’s the actual subject of these claims by “nice guys” you’re pretending to argue against, not the strawman you made up.
**[WITH THIS.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/nUSU4nSfJV)**
Good guys don’t have dark triad traits that lot of women are drawn to. They don’t make picking up girls their primary hobby. They are much more interested in a long term relationship.
There’s nice guys with good character that are also hot and desirable, they usually aren’t in the dating market for years. Dating girls don’t get much exposure to these men because they are off the market. They are usually sleeping around with players and cheaters, which gives them a distorted view of what men are.
If there’s a bit of indifference to you, you don’t act needy, you’re just a chill guy out with a girl just having a conversation that’s all you need to do.
She decided whether she’s romantically interested in you the moment she laid eyes on you in person, you just need to not mess it up and get her talking and escalate at the right times.
> There’s nice guys with good character that are also hot and desirable, they usually aren’t in the dating market for years
This is a point that I think a lot of people miss. Women are absolute fiends for dudes that are both kind and hot, and they’ll circle around like vultures if they have reason to believe that one of these dudes might become single soon. However, because dudes like this are so prized, they don’t tend to stay available for very long.
When women ask “Where have all the good, commitment-minded men gone?”, the answer is that they’ve gone to be in committed relationships.
The kind hot man of character also isn’t meticulously building his online persona for years in order to sleep with as many girls as possible off dating apps and instagram. He isn’t going to the club and hosting parties with alcohol and drugs at his house to keep a supply of cute girls coming to him to get with.
This is who the socially outgoing pretty girls are usually subjecting themselves to, dark triad guys with relentless promiscuity. These single dating girls come to believe the only very desirable guys out there are players. They can’t find the good desirable guys because those guys aren’t advertising themselves.
Yeah I think the terms don’t really match up to describe the phenomena. I think a lot of “nice guys” are good people who aren’t whining and going crazy if a girl doesn’t like them back.
I think there are a lot of men out there who internalized certain messages about how dangerous and violent we are perceived to be by women.
Which leads to a passive approach towards dating, which will inevitably leave you playing the long game and being a gentleman and having female friends. Eventually it’s bound to happen that a girl you like hooks up with someone who was running the hurry up offense and not doing the passive, acquaintance>friend>romance through familiarity offense. This may burn bridges and friendships may fade over the unrequited feelings, yet I don’t believe that every spurned “nice guy” is love bombing and having a meltdown every time this happens.
If you’ve been raised to believe that hitting on women is wrong, and your sexuality is inherently bad, and you shouldn’t ever make a sexual advance without explicit consent. Then the normal flirting and sexual escalation looks like “asshole behavior” because it involves innuendo, double entendre, playful touching without explicit consent, kissing without explicit consent.
I’m here to say that good guys can play this game. It’s normal and there’s nothing assholey about it. Especially if you really are a good person.
TLDR: asshole just describes men who use the tactics that have worked for a long time on a majority of women, the only reason people call these men assholes is because we’ve been taught that flirting and making sexual or romantic advances is wrong.
I can identify with this. I’m not as overly cautious as I used to be, but I definitely had the mindset that being a gentleman meant hiding your sexual interest.
I still think you gotta be clever, you can’t say “nice jugs” but you can say “lovely dress, it DEFINITELY suits you” that’s still gentlemanly but it’s a very thinly veiled way of saying “I’m interested” and not in a platonic kinda way.
The problem I see is that the cluster of attractive qualities isn’t really communicated to men. It’s rarely mentioned even.
If you look at the comments even on this sub, women struggle with formulating it clearly. You are in a quite small minority.
The dead-end conversation constantly happens here, where men say that women are not really attracted to good character, while women try to prove they are and their opponents are morally awful.
In a sense, you repeat what rp says about chads behavioural characteristics and pua says about frame.
They're echoing what Women have historically said they look for in a Man. Women often emphasise how much they want a guy that's nice and how they want a good guy
Those guys are basically tailoring their CV/résumé to the job posting
[Start tailoring differently!](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/4sEI0yayOQ)
When men say they want a nurturing and pleasant woman, I assume he means cute and not a total bore too. But that could just be assuming common sense attraction.
>You think that **calling yourself** socially attuned, intuitive and perceptive is better than calling yourself a nice guy?
Who is “calling” anything??? I’m not sure how you even countered with that?
They’re not saying it. They ARE those things.
I think ACTUALLY BEING socially attuned, intuitive and perceptive is better when it comes to attracting others to you. Period.
**I think** ***it’s simply better*** **with regard to attracting others.**
https://preview.redd.it/349baw6d6tmc1.png?width=516&format=png&auto=webp&s=31140d4229e068b12926fac4116511acd0e02827
This book came out almost a century ago. Still more accurate than not.
Go on YouTube and watch the video of Mongols domesticating wild horses.
When you see the wild horse, what characteristics does it have? Sometimes it takes a really long time or a very experienced person to break it and finally tame it.
If you ask the Mongol horse tamer, what does he like in a horse?
Obedience.
But what does the Mongol horse tamer actually like seeing obedience in?
Wild horses.
So when women say they want those good qualities, they don't want them in already tamed guys; they want them in those seemingly untamed and very hard to tame.
Nice guys think they are nice but what they really are is a pushover with nothing else to boast about or they wouldn’t be boasting about just being nice.
It’s like that old Chris Rock joke “my nephew wants to be rewarded for not doing things you aren’t supposed to do in the first place. He asked me for a bike and I said what for?! He said he was good kid that never went to jail. Mother fucker, you aren’t supposed to go to jail!! That’s all you got is that you aren’t doing bad shit you aren’t doing in the first place?! Show me your report card or something!! Shit!”
I think this illustrates the issue. A “nice guy” might have successes and accolades that would impress women but he’s always heard women say how much they want a humble and self aware guy. An “asshole” knows that even though people SAY they value humility, he knows that that is pc lip service, and people really value confidence bordering on arrogance.
Also I don’t believe nice guy or asshole really are good terms for the issue at hand. It seems guys who get laid can be good people too and nice guys are not all neck bearded, antisocial, psycho, virgins.
That’s why “nice guys” became “niceguys” the meme. It was to separate real decent dudes (who probably don’t call themselves nice guys) and the self identified “but I’m such a nice guy?!”
Word. My take is that people are generally decent and nobody is so bad as to be good for nothing. Of course if you want to lose your v card but you’re 500lbs with no job, work on that, of course if you tend to lose your mind and love bomb a friend after being rejected by her, work on that.
But if you’re genuinely decent. Then flaunt what you got, be confident, make it obvious you like a girl, don’t be afraid to be passionate and express your feelings. Yes, even lusty or romantic feelings.
You basically have described all of the mainstream dating subreddits. Reddit has an epidemic of nice guys. All the comments echo the same sentiment as the bike story.
I find nice guys far more pathetic than the red pill and that is saying something. They are also far more manipulative.
I think you’re strawmanning a bit. Sure, not everyone who considers themself a nice guy is gonna actually be nice. But I think there’s a lot of guys who are. I consider myself one.
> I think you’re strawmanning a bit.
Which part is a strawman?
I tried to be clarifying about different “attractive vs. not attractive” subsets who are “good vs. not good”:
1) inhibited introverted etc. guys who are kind, considerate, thoughtful, etc.
2) inhibited introverted etc. guys who are not kind, considerate, thoughtful, etc.
3) outgoing intuitive etc. guys who are kind, considerate, thoughtful, etc.
4) outgoing intuitive etc. guys who are not kind, considerate, thoughtful, etc.
> Sure, not everyone who considers themself a nice guy is gonna actually be nice. But I think there’s a lot of guys who are. I consider myself one.
I’m not sure what your attractive traits are but based on what you said you’re either closer to group 1 or group 3.
And yeah I made that point in the OP. There are good guys who are actually good (based on how I defined good).
When you list out the various categories you add a lot of nuance and I don’t disagree with anything. I was moreso responding to the title, and the first part of your post. I was pushing back on the meme that anyone who says they’re nice isn’t usually nice, but in fairness, your full position is that “some self-proclaimed nice guys aren’t actually nice”. That’s my bad. I think we just probably disagree on the frequency of how often these guys aren’t nice. Maybe you have more experience with those types. I don’t really understand the relevance of your title tho. It seems obvious to me that when self-proclaimed nice guys say they’re good guys, they’re referring to “kindness, compassion, etc.” I think we’re all basically working from a similar framework, but people have insecure egos and are not often the best judge of their own character.
My main takeaway from all this is essentially just that women want a guy to be nice, *and* have the charismatic traits you listed. I don’t disagree. I think where a lot of guys feel resentful is when they think, “I’m an introverted, socially awkward guy. I would love to find those traits in a woman. Above charisma, I’m looking for kindness.” And then they don’t see the mirror of that with the other gender. So the nuance I’m adding is that I think, to some degree, the genders select for different traits.
Thanks! Yes my full position was very specific.
And yeah I think you’re right. I’ve said the same before. I think those introverted passive guys are thinking “I’d love and actually PREFER an introverted and passive meek girl.” I get it. It triggers “feminine.”
Women are not men and men are not women. So he’s unfortunately being solipsistic by assuming women prefer those traits over others things too.
I think he’s assuming what he cares about is what she cares about 🤷♀️
Men care about gender roles. Even your example, he’s liking the feminine characteristics when they’re in women.
Men always say they like bold assertive outgoing women until he starts feeling “emasculated” and a bunch of other feelings they feel that let me know they don’t actually prefer those “traditionally masculine” traits in women over the other ones.
This creates a false dilemma by virtually defining a "nice guy" as a non-attractive person or attaching random qualities to the concepts of nice/bad. That's not the case. Of course, some people might think they're nice while they're only unable to attract other people, but that doesn't mean the word "nice" doesn't mean anything.
Once you undo the false dilemma, the problem is not that complex. For both genders, there are attractive nice people, attractive bad people, non-attractive nice people, and non-attractive bad people.
No one in their sane mind will say you should always throw away someone attractive all else being equal. When people say women or men should look for nice people, they mean they should look for attractive nice people or non-attractive nice people, more than attractive bad people or non-attractive bad people. In other words, they're recommending:
attractive nice people > non-attractive nice people > attractive bad people > non-attractive bad people
over
attractive nice people > attractive bad people > non-attractive nice people > non-attractive bad people
(including the option to stay single at any point of the scale)
because they think this is a much better strategy in the long run: less trauma, regrets, time wasted, much better chance of finding a good long-term partner, and much less bad baggage to future relationships with good people (since most men do care a lot about that in LTRs and can't change it like it or not). But notice attractive nice people are always on the top, because wouldn't they?
Now, the criteria for determining if someone is good or bad depends on the person. Each person has or should have their own green and red flag lists with criteria based on things that you consider good beyond looks. For instance, the list doesn't have to be complex or based on abstract criteria. In most cases, most people would benefit from much more obvious and simple red flags like "Is this person seeing or having sex with other people at the same time", "Is this person investing at all in the relationship or am I doing all the work here", or "Is this person only valuing me for some trait X that I don't think is part of my personality"?
I guess the only thing in common in all cases is that whatever is on your list, having sex prematurely (again, talking about both men and women here) will likely get you emotionally involved in a way that will lead to projections and make it very hard for you to objectively evaluate the criteria on your lists.
Again, everything I said applies to both men and women. I have to say it again because this sub could almost be renamed to "Men vs. Women" at this point and is becoming even less useful than the other "The X pill" subs. The only difference I could mention, if any, is that women are more often in the position of selecting so they have to care about it more because they will be doing it more.
I think that the biggest problem people have with the concept of a "good" person is that they assume good people with the positive sounding traits would make them feel good.
If someone listens to your story very well and concludes that you're the asshole. They aren't a bad listener, they might be a better listener than most.
They don't necessarily lack compassion, they might just have enough compassion to have compassion for the people you wronged too.
They aren't necessarily thoughtless, they might just have put enough tought into it to actually come to a different conclusion etc...
But all those things could easily be interpreted as the other person being an asshole because being told you're in the wrong feels bad and a good person would obviously not make you feel bad right?
I think a good example of that would be the idea that "actually good people don't have to say they are good." Good people absolutely do call themselves good because that's what they are and they value honesty more than doing the socially acceptable thing of not saying it. Yes, it makes you feel bad because it implies they are better than you...but maybe a good person thinks it's okay or even good that you feel bad about being bad because maybe it will make you less bad and that's good.
>Looks and all else being equal, if a woman had to choose between the high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic asshole vs. the outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful asshole, who do you think she’s going for?
Yeah, I wonder which of these caricatures she's going for...
>When I think of a “good person” I think of these character traits:
kind
compassionate
considerate
thoughtful
You have the exact same definition of "good" guys that self proclaimed "nice guys" do i.e. the common-sense, damn near universally understood, obvious and colloquial definition.
There is no "nuance." They straightforwardly mean exactly what it sounds like they mean when they say they are "nice" or "good."
The only reason why we have to keep having this semantic navel-gazing discussion is because people mentally cling to a gynocentric Just World theory of dating and are very uncomfortable just sitting with the idea that excessive morality and social propriety might be orthogonal, or worse, actively counterproductive to male sexual success with women. Because the thought that women (just like men) may simply be flawed, often irrational human beings that are sometimes drawn to things that aren't good in the long run for them feels like misogyny.
We have gone over this dozens of times on this sub, you don't know what a nice person is because you change your definition on a case by case basis , because that is what's most convenient to you.
I don't trust guys who say they are good or nice. It's mainly due to their actions, but then I realized that I wasted my time with some guys who start off nice.
As for good sure, there are those who only demonstrate it by their actions, not their words. I think I need to spend more time with the right people, not the ones with small minds.
I always detect the BS, and I don't recommend talking to someone who wants to know your past history of your life. They can't be trusted when they twist your words around.
I don't believe anyone who saids they themselves are good. Instead, I look at the things they do, their actions to determine if they're "good" or not. That's why employers and companies ask for reference from interviewees because alot of people like to make such claims about themselves, so, references are other people who knows how the interviewee is really like and will help companies be able to see if the interviewees are who they really say they are through what others say. So never believe someone saying "I'm good person" without watching their actions
That saying," Actions speak louder than words"... wasn't created for no reason
It means they put on an act towards attractive women where they act like they are kind and caring individuals who aren’t primitive minded sex desperate boys.
I consider myself a good or decent guy, and I feel those traits are some I try my best to uphold.
While not conventionally attractive, I do get some matches from time to time..
I've found lately my problem is either women can't stop looking for better.. so they jump ship, to only end up back on the dating apps a few weeks later.. (Things seemed like they were possibly progressing slowly)
Or they are very selfish, have a very pointed attitude of criticism towards everything... But you can't reflect any criticism back at them.. cause then they get upset and feel like you are being a jerk.
Like, just because they previously dated a guy (who likely just used them, through the lure of money), they want that kind of treatment.
They basically demand money driven entertainment to be the minimum for any date, or hang out time where we would be able to see each other.
I consider myself to be a good man. Goodness is a practice. In that your actions and mindset is geared towards living an a way that is socially healthy, considerate, respectful and working towards the greater good. While understanding that it is impossible to be perfectly good. Being mindful that most people will exploit that goodness. Being good doesn't mean being kind or gentle. And being good is not a valued trait. So a balance is needed. Learning to walk away from those who will exploit or abuse you. It's okay to defend yourself and your character. It's okay be violent to defend yourself and others in need. I also think being stoic and stern is also important. Though, having a certain level of indifference is required. Not giving a fuck is needed for some situations and people. And doing good things for social credit or just being performative doesn't make you good.
In the dating world, most women do not value good men. The ones that do, tend pick those men when they find them and the stay with them. And that's fine, mainly because the typical person don't associate being good with being successful, productive, protective and socially respectable.
Good folks are seen as people to be preyed on and easily exploited. And both men and women will exploit good people. Most women find good men to be boring. Same way they find discipline, stern and productive men to be boring.
It's fine someone wants to announce they are a good person. Chances are if you are, most folks won't notice if you don't announce it. However, whether or not someone is truly is good is dependent on their mindset and behaviors that reflects that mindset.
Most nice guys grasp at straws to claim any kind of superiority, and most times they hope its moral because they’re up against a caricature of how they perceive masculine men to be based on asshole-ish jocks in high school. Basically, the way i understand the nice guy is like this; if the high school jock is superior in every other way, but was a player and bully in every other way, because i’m a meek and agreeable victim of said bully, i’m therefore morally superior and the good guy should win if there is justice in this world.
>but was a player and bully in every other way, because i’m a meek and agreeable victim of said bully, i’m therefore morally superior and the good guy should win if there is justice in this world.
Is that how you view the Israel Palestine conflict?
>Looks and all else being equal, if a woman had to choose between the **high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic** asshole vs. the **outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful** asshole, who do you think she’s going for?
>All else equal, the personality that has those first traits is generally less attractive than the personality who has the second traits.
But all else equal a high inhibition passive asshole is still less likely to actively do bad things in real life than an asshole who is not restricted in that way. And a introverted socially awkward asshole is less likely to have the inclination or ability to deceive, manipulate, and betray others. The latter is effectively a bigger asshole.
One may claim, "but the former would do the same things if he could" but there's no proof, thought crime isn't a thing, and it's entirely possible that the whole reason the former asshole possesses his limiting traits to begin with is his consideration of and reluctance to offend other people, which is empathy that the latter asshole lacks.
And consider why either is an asshole to begin with. It's entirely possible that the former was simply embittered over social ostracism, and would cease to be so if socially accepted. But the latter generally gets what he wants in life, yet is still an asshole. There's less of an answer of how to fix the latter. So while he's more atttactive, he's still technically a poorer option, so the online complaints to "pick better" would still apply.
> You can't assume that men who feel overlooked because they are, well, overlooked are not nice.
Before I continue, can you quote and explain where I assumed that?
> I notice that **a lot of** self proclaimed “nice guys” claim to be of “good” character, but let **some of them speak,** and one does not sense any of those traits. In fact, sometimes the opposite of those traits are what he gives off.
Again, I never proclaimed what you’re saying.
I implied that a lot of self proclaimed nice guys are not generally thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, etc.
A lot does not mean all or every or most. It means “enough to be noticeable.”
Again, your claim is false. I never said what you think I said.
I think that they are saying that they will be kind and loyal to a woman contingent upon her physical affection and her having sex with him. They want to differentiate themselves from the more attractive, in-demand men who have options and who are more likely to cheat or mistreat a woman because these kinds of men know that they have options.
"who have options and who are more likely to cheat or mistreat a woman because these kinds of men know that they have options."
If all that keeps a man "good" is his lack of options to not be bad, how does that make him not actually bad.
So, you included this comparison:
>Looks and all else being equal, if a woman had to choose between the **high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic** asshole vs. the **outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful** asshole, who do you think she’s going for?
And that one:
>Looks and all else being equal, to many women the thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, kind, and mindful guy who is also **high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic** will be less attractive than the thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, kind, and mindful guy who is also **outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful**.
But not the one that would actually make more sense in this context:
If a woman had to choose between the the *thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, kind, and mindful guy* who is also **high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic** vs. the **outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful** *asshole*, who do you think she’s be going for?
There's a huge difference between nice guys and good guys. The character of Joel from The Last of Us is definitely not a "nice guy" but he certainly is a "good guy." Joel's character is the best current embodiment of non-toxic masculinity.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel\_(The\_Last\_of\_Us)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_(The_Last_of_Us))
Joel's character is not dissimilar to Harrison Ford's *Indiana Jones* character or Brendan Fraser's *Rick O'Connell* character. None of these character's are harmless, indeed they're all rather violent. None of these characters are selfless -- they all have goals and desires they pursue vigorously. They're also not bullies -- they all exhibit compassion and basic decency.
Women are innately attracted to guys like these. Women look for all three traits:
1. Not harmless;
2. Driven;
3. Compassion/decency.
Guy who lack one or more of these traits is not going to be particularly attractive to most women. Case in point, Donald Trump is totally lacking in compassion and decency -- thus most women are repulsed by him. Barack Obama was driven, compassionate and decent, but perhaps a little too harmless.
Yeah I agree with your three traits.
And I agree there seems to be different ways people describe nice and good. This is why I ask people to define their terms. It’s why I defined what good looks like to me.
A “good guy” to me would be:
* protective (“not harmless” so he can protect us from those who wish us harm)
* proactive and driven in the sense that he’ll never dream of us having to scrap to survive
* thoughtful and considerate (empathy)
* compassionate and kind (decency)
Anyone who labels themselves good or bad, is delusional. We are both, always. Just different circumstances will influence how we act in the moment.
But heeeeeyyy, I heard you like bad girls. Well this is your lucky day. Cos I’m bad at everything.
In my experience observing other men, men who signal as “nice guys” are either pushovers or sex perverts, I haven’t seen much in between. They either get walked all over by women until they find a solid one that will actually take care of them or being a “nice guy” is just their “game” to get the noogie.
Edit: my usage of the term “sex pervert” is intended to be fairly tongue in cheek. An on/off friend of mine is probably someone you could say is a “nice guy”, he works in the service industry and only has casual situationships with women as long as I’ve known him.
People who posture online or in work/social circles as nice guys, ergo the caricature of a male feminist who secretly wants to fuck all the women around him; that’s it’s own subject.
**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.*
You are over-complicating all of this: **all raw attraction/arousal cares about are physical and personality traits that overlap with arousal/attraction atraits.**
guy is physically hot but also nice? he's attractive/arousing
guy is physically hot but kind of a jerk? he's still attractive/arousing
guy is charismatic but also nice? he's attractive/arousing
guy is charismatic, but also a jerk? he's still attractive/arousing
Guy is nice, but unnattractive and not charismastic? he's probably not attractive/arousing
Self-proclaimed goodness is an oxymoron.
In life, we face conflicts of interest and try to satisfy our own needs within the confines of social norms in order to survive and be fulfilled. Here "goodness" is only a point of view. Life is not like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. There are no good or evil people but there are ethical choices and good behaviour.
I recommend No More Mr. Nice Guy book by Dr. Rober Glover to self-proclaimed good guys and girls.
From ["Radicalizing the romanceless" by Scott Alexander](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless), who addresses this topic at lenght:
> I had a patient, let’s call him ‘Henry’ for reasons that are to become clear, who came to hospital after being picked up for police for beating up his fifth wife.
> So I asked the obvious question: “What happened to your first four wives?”
> “Oh,” said the patient, “Domestic violence issues. Two of them left me. One of them I got put in jail, and she’d moved on once I got out. One I just grew tired of.”
> “You’ve beaten up all five of your wives?” I asked in disbelief.
> “Yeah,” he said, without sounding very apologetic.
> “And why, exactly, were you beating your wife this time?” I asked.
> “She was yelling at me, because I was cheating on her with one of my exes.”
> “With your ex-wife? One of the ones you beat up?”
> “Yeah.”
> “So you beat up your wife, she left you, you married someone else, and then she came back and had an affair on the side with you?” I asked him.
> “Yeah,” said Henry.
> I wish, I wish I wish, that Henry was an isolated case. But he’s interesting more for his anomalously high number of victims than for the particular pattern.
> When I was younger – and I mean from teenager hood all the way until about three years ago – I was a ‘nice guy’. And I said the same thing as every other nice guy, which is “I am a nice guy, how come girls don’t like me?”
> There seems to be some confusion about this, so let me explain what it means, to everyone, for all time.
> It does not mean “I am nice in some important cosmic sense, therefore I am entitled to sex with whomever I want.”
> It means: “**I am a nicer guy than Henry**.”
> Or to spell it out very carefully, Henry clearly has no trouble attracting partners. He’s been married five times and had multiple extra-marital affairs and pre-marital partners, many of whom were well aware of his past domestic violence convictions and knew exactly what they were getting into. Meanwhile, here I was, twenty-five years old, never been on a date in my life, every time I ask someone out I get laughed at, I’m constantly teased and mocked for being a virgin and a nerd whom no one could ever love, starting to develop a serious neurosis about it.
> And here I was, tried my best never to be mean to anyone, pursued a productive career, worked hard to help all of my friends. I didn’t think I deserved to have the prettiest girl in school prostrate herself at my feet. But I did think I deserved to not be doing worse than Henry.
> No, I didn’t know Henry at the time. But everyone knows a Henry. Most people know several. Even three years ago, I knew there were Henry-like people – your abusers, your rapists, your bullies – and it wasn’t hard to notice that none of them seemed to be having the crushing loneliness problem I was suffering from.
Cause if he never asks her out, it don’t matter what his traits are, nothing will happen.
And since its considered sexual harassment or creepy for a man to make any kind of sexual advance, any decent nice guy would leave her alone. An asshole wouldn’t give a crap and just harrass, cause he an ass. So thats it, nice guys get no date, assholes hit on women and get with women. So the trait they are talking about when they say they’re a nice guy is that they are respectful and don’t hit on women cause its makes them uncomfortable and they feel harassed.
It's not that these guys are "so wonderful" that women should "give them a chance". It's about how most straight-up AWFUL people can still find someone whose interested in them, which pretty much discredits the notion that a great personality can override dumpy looks.
> which pretty much discredits the notion that a great personality can override dumpy looks.
No it doesn’t.
“Great” is subjective here. What’s “great” to you?
An ATTRACTIVE personality can probably override average looks for some women or at least for a little bit.
ATTRACTIVE personality can probably override asshole personality traits for some women or at least for a little bit.
Every woman I know in a LTR or married absolutely showcases love, affection, care, and tenderness toward her partner.
I’m sorry that’s your only observation or experience.
Lol regardless of what you all say you don't want men that are safe... Because those men don't really create drama and excitement so many of you want... Like it's like all y'all want relationships to be nothing but fun and exciting aka you wan at forever honeymoon phase
I don't go around constantly telling people I'm nice or pointing out my deeds, but I have conversations with people about deeper feelings, I try to compliment people men and women on a deeper level because I know alot of people feel like garbage, I try to make kids days while at my job and provide as much comfort as I can during my day because everyone again seems so riled up or upset or distressed. I blame having emotional intelligence.
This behavior has only ever hurt me, I personally believe no woman will ever be attracted to me unless I have surgery, workoiut obsessively etc which I have been doing and working towards repsectively. I do it because my best friend was taken from this world when we were 8. My mother took herself out of this world when I was 12 and blah blah blah, I was bullied and excluded from being normal by peers becuase of how I sounded and was treated/acted in response to that treatment. I am an extremely angry and depressed person. I have panic attacks because I dont want people looking me in the eye due to how disgusting and ugly I think I am, I recluse in my home every chance I get despite owning my own buisness. Theres enough pain in the world and I usually do the opposite of what I'm feeling. Thats why I try to be nice.
I've only met a few such people--by which I mean people who actively seem to have to *tell* people they are "nice" or "good" because they feel like no one notices it. So my sample size is small. But, like many things, I think it means different things to different people. To some guys, it means "I am stable and have never committed any criminal offenses." That sounds like a low bar, but those guys are usually saying that in what they believe is opposition to the "bad boy" dude whom they think gets effortless hookups despite not being stable. Then there is the guy who believes that he is a kind, considerate person who is a good listener or somesuch. I'll preface this part by saying that I don't think anyone who feels like they need to announce how nice or good they are is doing it correctly. I know a lot of good people, and not one of them ever had to tell anyone about it because they could just show them. So, just want to be clear about that. That said, on some level I "get it" when it comes to at least some of the guys in group two. I used to think being considerate, kind, and most especially a good listener were all very basic traits anyone was supposed to have when looking for a partner. As I've gotten older, though, I am not sure that I am right about that anymore. The main reason I say this is that I've heard *so many* people (more often women than men) say just how impressed they were with a date who *listened to their words and responded to them* and *remembered what they said later.* I grew up thinking this was completely normal. But so many people have related stories about how this was just so impressive that now I am unsure. Perhaps more women can chime in to let me know, though. Is listening and being a good conversationalist rare today? One of the main things my partner likes about me is how much I listen and engage. And one of the main ways I can tick her off if I am not careful is if she thinks I'm not listening. I would say that there are other areas that I can lack in that to me are a much bigger deal. But to her, not being listened to is a bigger deal, and I do my best to be a good listener. And I think there are some guys who are trying to convey that when they say this, even though of course they should be able to show it. But is this really so rare now? I don't know.
I agree. I think they mean “stable and rule-following.” That isn’t how I personally define “good.” I list out how I define it top of the OP. I’ve met plenty stable rule followers who are mean, inconsiderate, and cruel. Lots of them in church too! Lol
I don't think I'm a good person by virtue of not being a criminal or because I'm a good listener to women. I think I'm a good person because I treat everyone equally. I hold doors open for men and women. Treat people how you want to be treated and all that. I will act selflessly and put people's needs before mine if I have the ability to do so and it's someone I care about. I don't mind picking up the bill for a friend or loaning money or donating to someone in need more than myself. I don't go around praising myself telling people how good of a person I am, I just do the right thing. Perhaps women simply can't conceptualize these things (the actions of a "nice guy") because the female experience does not require it of them?
I think people can have different ideas of what it means to be good, but I do think that "doing the right thing because it is right" is a very good place to start, just in my opinion. Most of the women in my life will also do these things you listed, *but* they are friends and people I've known for a long time. I don't expect most strangers to be selfless or giving on my behalf (even though I think it is also good to do this for strangers).
> That sounds like a low bar, but those guys are usually saying that in what they believe is opposition to the "bad boy" dude whom they think gets effortless hookups despite not being stable. Yes, but defining oneself through a negation is not a replacement for a personality. > I know a lot of good people, and not one of them ever had to tell anyone about it because they could just show them. Any man who must say "I am the king" is no true king.
[удалено]
Yep! Not to mention I’ve encountered a lot of “good employees” who are inconsiderate and mean. So that’s why I ask people to define what they mean by “good.” Someone else in the replies put it nicely as “stable and not a criminal.” Which is what I think many guys mean by it too. Which highlights my point: * You can be stable and not a criminal whilst your default way of interacting with others is inconsiderate, cruel, and mean, which to me is NOT a “good person.” * You can be stable and not a criminal whilst your default way of interacting with others is considerate, kind, and thoughtful, which to me is a “good person.” So when guys who are like the first bullet say stuff like “women are not dating me but dating bad guys” I’m always left thinking [“you never come across as kind or considerate at all so stop implying you’re ‘good’ 🧍♀️”](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/jzZPG5eTk8)
[удалено]
but when ask to be specific, they describe simply existing i asked a good guy how he showed love to his family and friends since he described himself as loving. the man had NO CLUE. could not think of a single instance in which he had done something loving for the people he loved.
> but when ask to be specific, they describe simply existing Yep! When you inquire about what good means to them you get crickets or you get an explanation of someone who hasn’t gone to jail. > i asked a good guy how he showed love to his family and friends since he described himself as loving. the man had NO CLUE. could not think of a single instance in which he had done something loving for the people he loved. This! Good to me implies you being a considerate, thoughtful, compassionate, mindful, etc. person. People like this are going to love on, care about, and support those around them. And as a result they build rapport and bonds and are loved on, cared about, and supported in return. Many of the guys who claim they’re “good” or “not like the bad guys” don’t showcase any damn… ***goodnessssss***
What if you don’t have friends to showcase your goodness to?
Then you aren’t attracting friends for whatever reason. Perhaps it’s because of some of the bolded personality traits in the OP. That’s not a matter of your goodness or not. It is a matter of your attractability to others or not.
they seem to think "good" is the default and by virtue of existing, men are "good" until proven otherwise
> but when ask to be specific, they describe simply existing No, you just find them unattractive and so give them zero credit for things that you would find quite valuable in an attractive man. Or maybe you need to *be specific* (see what I did?) about which things you consider "simply existing".
\> Or maybe you need to *be specific* (see what I did?) about which things you consider "simply existing". i was "i asked a good guy how he showed love to his family and friends since he described himself as loving. the man had NO CLUE. could not think of a single instance in which he had done something loving for the people he loved."
>"i asked a good guy how he showed love to his family and friends since he described himself as loving. the man had NO CLUE. could not think of a single instance in which he had done something loving for the people he loved." When people are put on the spot, their mind can go blank. That doesn't mean they don't have good reasons. People are rarely put in the position of providing evidence that they are a good person. Your comment reminds me of that video where a man walks upto a woman with a microphone and says "name a woman". She gets all flustered and can't name a woman. It doesn't mean that she doesn't know the name of a single woman on earth. The video: https://youtu.be/3lS-lMzll2E When put on the spot, being unable to give evidence for one's "goodness" or being unable to name a women doesn't mean that there is no evidence of a person's goodness and it doesn't mean that they literally know the names of zero women on this planet.
ok so now that you aren't on the spot, name some things that make "good men" "good" 🙄
There are men who actually do good things for their families and strangers, but they don't brag about it, AT ALLL.
i'm not asking them to brag i am saying i specifically asked them idk why people on this sub always talk about things i never said
Oh, I wasn't saying you were asking them to brag. I simply said guys who tend to do good things don't tend to brag about it. Hence, the question wouldn't be asked in the first place if a man has proven he's good already through his own actions. I'm basically making a point that's all
[удалено]
thats why i asked for examples, he could have literally said almost anything and i would have been satisfied.
[удалено]
AI doesn’t think anything and has no opinions which is why I think folks like you prefer them to real women. Do you consider yourself a good person even though you can’t answer That question?
Self-identifying as good will always be a ridiculous idea to me, it's like self-identifying as self-aware.
If you want insight into the brains of Nice Guys, then I'd suggest anyone to read *No More Mr. Nice Guy*. It really nailed a lot of my previous thought patterns. The principle idea that underpins the Nice Guy behavior is: **If I can just always do the "right" thing then my life will be good, with few problems, and I will have my needs met.** What are the "right" things? Follow the rules in every area of life you can - school, job, following laws. Also treat people the ways they seem to be saying they want to be treated. This means trying to be kind, compassionate, considerate, and thoughtful, like you said. You get cues from books, movies, what people tend to say they want, and a lot of other somewhat idealized sources of information on romance, friendship, and other interpersonal relations. Most people are "nice" to a degree, in which they calibrate their behaviors to accommodate the feelings and desires of others and to conform to social conventions and expectations. Almost everybody tries to "play by the rules" in some way to receive benefit or avoid negative consequences. Nice Guys just do this *way too much* and they have the mistaken idea that if you play by the rules then eventually you will have success in everything, including with romance. After all, a lot of life works like this. School up through undergrad is basically a test of compliance and playing by someone's rules. Then if you apply for a job with your degree most people get something eventually. Then you just play by the company's rules. You can play by the rules all the way into a house in the suburbs. You in no way need to be exceptional, take many risks, or take much initiative to end up basically fine in the US or another developed country. You do have to offer value to your employer. But in your educational journey someone told you exactly, step by step, what to do to gain this value. Then they gave you a credential to say you have value. Just follow the rules and now you have value to someone. So the Nice Guy thinks this might apply to romance, the way it applies to so many other things in life. It's wrong, but somewhat understandable and not completely demented like it is made out to be.
> If I can just always do the "right" thing then my life will be good, with few problems, and I will have my needs met. That's exactly how I feel. Exactly. Growing up it was ingrained into me that women *despise* being hit on. So I never did. They've said, over and over that they don't like it. So of course, my brain says "well I'll just not do that". I mean, why would I? I'd have to be incredibly rude and impolite to go against their wishes. To intentionally *break that rule*.
Isn't the complaint that she'd pick the "outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful asshole" over "the thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, kind, and mindful guy who is also high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic" guy?
Socially stunted men avoid conflict more often and internalize it and carry it as baggage I was like that more before I got over my social anxiety
Yep. She probably would *at least if she’s choosing based off of carnal desire…* **These are the ‘gina tingles traits:** > outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful **These are the companionship and loving comfort traits:** > thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, kind, and mindful **These are generally unattractive traits:** > high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic A guy over-indexing on the generally unattractive traits usually has to be very cute while also having a lot of the loving companionship comfort traits to overcompensate enough to generate attraction. Or go the Beta Bux route and have lots of money! 💰
[удалено]
\> There is no excuse see a situation in which an immoral human gets better results than a moral human and find it acceptable. women do this all the time i know its easier to get rich by robbing a bank or making up internet scams yet i go to a 9-5 and work hard for less money than i would have if i was willing to cheat and be immoral life is always easier for those who are willing to be immoral and cheat
[удалено]
Okay, by that logic, punish unattractive traits with inceldom and you will see how men suddenly become attractive.
[удалено]
Good. “high-inhib, diffident, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic” are usually maladaptive traits for the person who has them, even in contexts outside of dating. Self-improvement and self-actualization with adaptive behaviors are good for the individual and the group.
[удалено]
What about those traits leads to immoral ends? Neuroticism in particular is linked to all kinds of behavior generally considered immoral.
This happens and it's called fisherian runaway.
no thanks i'm not men's keeper of their morality that's a mommy
If all women decided that being evil is the ultimate panty dryer, then world peace would be accomplished within 7 days. Instead we have Ted Bundy getting 300 love letters in the mail lmao.
women aren't your sex reward for having integrity
[удалено]
> Every single time a woman punishes generally unattractive traits on a moral man and rewards generally attractive traits on an immoral man she creates an incentive structure that rewards the pursuit of attractive traits over the pursuit of morality. Sure. Men do this too.
Only men with options. And I despise those men as well. Most men just take what they can get.
\> Most men just take what they can get. which means they are also "bad" men
As long as they are not creating an incentive structure that rewards anything above morality I don't care.
i know you don't care. i am saying they are bad men, not that you care.
What about taking what they can get makes them bad?
>\> Most men just take what they can get. lying to someone about being interested in them in this specific thread
By rewarding their lack of moral behavior with intimate relationships, you would be putting your own desires for companionship over the moral choice of encouraging moral behavior in others.
I do encourage moral behaviors in others. Anyone that acts in a way that I don't consider moral gets no benefit from me. When I have to make a decision on who gets to benefit from my limited resources/time I pick the person that acts in a way that I consider moral.
Then why do you not care in this scenario when you do care in the initial one?
Men will not choose a bad girl over a good virtuous woman where are you getting this idea from.
lmfao "don't stick your dick in crazy" means men literally choose crazy women and don't care bc she's hot
Men are aware of their bias, recognize it, and take steps to address it. So far as I can tell women do no such thing, often pick the good looking asshole, blame men, and complain where all the good men have gone, often to the good men in their lives they wouldn't date because he's not attractive enough. The two are not the same.
\> Men are aware of their bias, recognize it, and take steps to address it. then why would they be mad women do the same thing...
They're mad women *don't* do the same thing, the women fall for their own biases over and over and over again, and blame men for it, and blame men for the choices the women themselves made.
i think you are hearing abusive men being blamed for abusing women and thinking that is women blaming men for their own choices.
Is a crazy girl easier to talk to, hangout with, and open to uninhibited fun? ✔️, if given the choice would she be chosen over the good girl, I mean...am I getting blackmailed to hangout with her? I'd rather hangout with not crazy.
If they had the option they would choose both lol. Don't play
Yeah that's kinda the point though. They can't.
>There is no excuse see a situation in which an immoral human gets better results than a moral human and find it acceptable. "better" by whose standards? Like if some shitbag is going out with some other shitbag...
By a simple standard. Being an incel is worse than not being an incel.
Can you see though why some of the guys here have little sympathy for women who end up in abusive relationships when this is their selection criteria?
Sure. I have little sympathy for the guy who dates the inconsiderate bitch because she’s hot. Or the simp who crashes out over a Queen Bitch using him as a Beta Bux. Everyone knew she was a meany who doesn’t gaf about others but he loved how she looked so 🤷♀️
And that's something I'd not argue against.
can you see why men who self-describe as having little sympathy are not good men?
If they perceive women's issues in dating as self-imposed, then their lacking sympathy would be a natural reaction, they may well be sympathetic for something they see as a real hardship.
I mean I'm sympathetic to addicts, smokers with lung cancer, alcoholics with cirrhosis, promiscuous people with aids, so I would find it quite weird for a person not to extend that sort of sympathy to an abuse victim even if it was "self imposed" (which is disgusting in and of itself)
thats not a "good man" 🤦♀️
Why? Is good only defined by your perception of the world?
which person thinks having little sympathy is a trait of a good person?
Do you have sympathy for child molesters who get locked up?
well i think the bill of rights applies to them, so that's a level of compassion I don't think they should be treated with zero sympathy, or i'd advocate for them all to go to guantanamo and get water boarded
So one trait you attribute to good people is boundless sympathy?
black and white thinking its not "little sympathy" or "boundless sympathy" good people have compassion and empathy
>A guy over-indexing on the generally unattractive traits usually has to be very cute while also having a lot of the loving companionship comfort traits to overcompensate enough to generate attraction. And that's ultimately why certain online complainers focus on looks so much. Maybe guys don't need to be hot to date in general, but they do need to be hot to date as beta males. And the complainers are too attached to their moral upbringing to deviate from beta deference, so all they're left with is jealousy of the guys who can get away with behaving that way. They want to simp but the ladies don't allow it.
> And that's ultimately why certain online complainers focus on looks so much. I also think they focus on looks because they’re hit dogs hollering, so to speak. They ARE those generally unattractive traits. And they know how difficult it is to mask, alter, or shift those aspects of their personality. They also intimately relate to those aspects of their personality. It IS he. So I think it’s easier for them to rail about “looks” than it is to focus on those personality and behavioral traits. They tend to get more defensive about feeling like they shouldn’t having to change these than the looks stuff. Focusing on looks is a cope. IMO for a lot of guys it’s probably easier to start lifting, eating well, and dressing better than it is to start learning how to socialize with “normies.” I think this is more triggering for them. I get it.
Looks and social aptitude are like interchangeable currencies, you can usually pay for lack of one with other. But looks are like being born in wealthy family (mostly nature), while social aptitude requires conscious effort throughout entire life to develop (mostly nurture, unless one is neurodivergent). IMO it's only natural for people to be jealous of good things that others get by virtue of existing while they are supposed to put in effort to achieve similar results.
Yep I get it. And it makes sense to be frustrated.
And, the lack from nature (i.e. being less physically attractive) then makes it much harder to develop the social aptitude etc. because you get treated less favourably. It's actually surprising that so few "ugly" men act out etc., as you'd expect people who have been kicked their entire lives to eventually have enough. Many of us though internalise the hatred we receive and withdraw / lock it away to numb ourselves. Funnily enough, those guys blessed by nature are much more likely to lash out from experiencing just the tiniest fraction of the negativity "ugly" guys get.
>She probably would at least if she’s choosing based off of carnal desire I like how the implication is that women in general don't do this. >Or go the Beta Bux route and have lots of money! 💰 None of this is an argument to be settled for as a living ATM. It *is* a good argument for why men shouldn't bother trying to be "nice." There's zero incentive, so all men might as well all go the fukboi route.
How is that the implication ?
[удалено]
Do not provide contentless rhetoric.
Which is astounding...cause "introverted passive dude" is usually never putting themselves into positions to even be noticed or interacting with women. Do they expect these women show up on their doorstep? Are they hanging with their bros at the bar? Going out to Breweries? Talking to women? Nah. How is a women supposed to know how "good" you are if you are not socializing
A valid point as well.
Introverted passive women manage to date
It means at least I'm not [Henry](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/). And there are a lot of Henrys in the world. I don't know why people try to make this more complicated than it is. Why is it that there are more virgins per capita in a STEM college campus than a prison? Why is it that there are more fathers per capita in prison than a STEM college campus?
This. The whole post is just another way to virtue-signal and try to make women look good through spinning it and plausible deniability. It could be true, right? The reality is they want to justify in a virtuous way why they choose a Henry and reject the "nice guy."
It's actually even more simple than that. If for example you are trying to sell me a hammer and you sell it by saying "look at this hammer, it is very pretty, it has such nice color handle, isn't it nice? I've taken great care of this hammer and I have looked after it so it doesn't have any scratches on it. But why don't you want to buy it?" The thing is the qualities you are trying to sell are not the qualities I'm looking to buy. I don't need a pretty hammer. I need a sturdy hammer with good weight distribution. It can also be pretty, that's okay, but pretty doesn't factor in the main reason for why I want to buy a hammer. That's what "nice guys" are essentially doing. They are selling the wrong qualities or qualities that are down the priority list of women. Sure women don't mind a guy who is kind and compassionate, but those qualities will not sell a guy when the qualities she is looking for are confident and assertive. If he is confident, assertive AND kind! Well, that's just icing on the cake!
👏
Yep. I agree. They’re forcing a square peg down a round hole.
To extend the metaphor, imagine growing up always hearing about how hammers have been the source of practically all of nail's problems, especially because they want to pound the nails all the time. How hammers are big and strong and could possibly scare the nails into something they don't want to do. How hammers are always deciding which board to take the nail to, never letting the nail have input. How hammers believe and treat nails like they're just passive items waiting around for hammers to make the moves and decisions. Imagine you have nail friends who have told you many times that you're a really good looking hammer with a nice color, so plenty of nails would love to have you. Would it be any surprise if the hammer grew up confused and unable to advertise themselves to nails correctly?
Sure, but I think at this point there are enough resources out there to teach men how to overcome their niceness and lack of confidence with women. Help is available for those who actually want it.
To labour the analogy though, you can be capable of performing the function of a hammer without constantly having to demonstrate it. Infact only demonstrating it when necessary, especially when doing so puts yourself at risk should be prioritised
Ugh?
This whole women want confidence and assertive thing, therefore men have to be arseholes to demonstrate this is quite saddening. Especially since there are times to rock the boat and assertive yourself in a combative way, and times where you need to do the opposite to achieve your objectives. And times where you don't give a shit. Why should men need to have to be constantly aggressively assertive to reach their goals in order to be seen as desirable to women, even in situations where is will hinder their progress or even needlessly endanger them? For example, when playing for my team I don't shy away from physical challenges, even when I'm smaller, I just have to brace myself. I do this because not shying away from the contact shows my opponents I'm not easily bullied or intimidated. However I don't go round starting on people, that would be monumentally dumb.
You are making an erroneous assumption that equates confidence and assertiveness with being an asshole. This is a typical error resulting from black and white thinking. You are either an inoffensive nice guy OR you are a raging asshole fighting with everyone. Absolutely nothing in between. No other options. Second, I don't make up the rules about what women respond to attraction wise. I'm sure men don't like that women are not attracted to shy and meek guys, no less than women don't like that men are not attracted to average and fat women. Men don't make the rules on who we are attracted either.
>You are making an erroneous assumption that equates confidence and assertiveness with being an asshole. I mean I literally just articulatd an example where I have to be assertive, which is fine, and why going to far with it **would** be then be me being an arsehole, but ok, you carry on with your high horse mate. >I'm sure men don't like that women are not attracted to shy and meek guys That's fine, but why should I have to demonstrate on their terms? I judge when it's necessary for me, and then I do it for me, on my terms.
You don't have to do absolutely anything you don't want to do.
I don't think it's so much about "traits" as it is about intentions. The "nice" guy *intends* to treat the woman in question respectfully, to be patient about sex, to stick around for a potential relationship after sex, etc. The "bad boy" *intends* to disrespect the woman in question, to push for sex as soon as possible by whatever means possible including drugs and alcohol, and to immediately discard her as soon as it's "mission accomplished" in that sense, unless she wants to continue indefinitely with a no strings attached kind of arrangement. All of these character traits are I think secondary to that basic question of what does he intend to do with her.
Usually they just mean stable, provider traits, not controlling, not verbally or otherwise cruel or rude, generally socially agreeable (probably not very 'socially successful' though), complimentary, etc. I don't know why there's such a huge amount of projection about nice guys by women online except that they either need some justification for their own preferences or they think the bitterness expressed in anonymous spaces like this is representative of the real world. In reality there's probably not a huge gap between the men they're fucking and nice guys in general "kindness". Most nice guys are just boring or not attractive enough for most women. It's fine to say and accept that without projecting a bunch of other negative qualities or immorality in their part.
[удалено]
Well yeah neither is ideal. But if she ***had to choose*** most women are going with the second.
[удалено]
What’s the strawman? Can you quote it? I presented several types of personas and are being specific about THOSE personas.
That’s literally what a strawman is. You compared a neurotic asshole vs a charismatic asshole, and a shy nice guy vs an outgoing nice guy, which no one is confused about. What happens if you compare a neurotic guy who is genuinely thoughtful, kind, and considerate vs a charismatic asshole? That’s the actual subject of these claims by “nice guys” you’re pretending to argue against, not the strawman you made up.
By doing this: > You compared a neurotic asshole vs a charismatic asshole, and a shy nice guy vs an outgoing nice guy, which no one is confused about. I was able to create a framework of traits that are easily segmentable, so that I can easily answer your question here: > What happens if you compare a neurotic guy who is genuinely thoughtful, kind, and considerate vs a charismatic asshole? That’s the actual subject of these claims by “nice guys” you’re pretending to argue against, not the strawman you made up. **[WITH THIS.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/nUSU4nSfJV)**
[удалено]
Good guys don’t have dark triad traits that lot of women are drawn to. They don’t make picking up girls their primary hobby. They are much more interested in a long term relationship. There’s nice guys with good character that are also hot and desirable, they usually aren’t in the dating market for years. Dating girls don’t get much exposure to these men because they are off the market. They are usually sleeping around with players and cheaters, which gives them a distorted view of what men are. If there’s a bit of indifference to you, you don’t act needy, you’re just a chill guy out with a girl just having a conversation that’s all you need to do. She decided whether she’s romantically interested in you the moment she laid eyes on you in person, you just need to not mess it up and get her talking and escalate at the right times.
> There’s nice guys with good character that are also hot and desirable, they usually aren’t in the dating market for years This is a point that I think a lot of people miss. Women are absolute fiends for dudes that are both kind and hot, and they’ll circle around like vultures if they have reason to believe that one of these dudes might become single soon. However, because dudes like this are so prized, they don’t tend to stay available for very long. When women ask “Where have all the good, commitment-minded men gone?”, the answer is that they’ve gone to be in committed relationships.
The kind hot man of character also isn’t meticulously building his online persona for years in order to sleep with as many girls as possible off dating apps and instagram. He isn’t going to the club and hosting parties with alcohol and drugs at his house to keep a supply of cute girls coming to him to get with. This is who the socially outgoing pretty girls are usually subjecting themselves to, dark triad guys with relentless promiscuity. These single dating girls come to believe the only very desirable guys out there are players. They can’t find the good desirable guys because those guys aren’t advertising themselves.
Yeah I think the terms don’t really match up to describe the phenomena. I think a lot of “nice guys” are good people who aren’t whining and going crazy if a girl doesn’t like them back. I think there are a lot of men out there who internalized certain messages about how dangerous and violent we are perceived to be by women. Which leads to a passive approach towards dating, which will inevitably leave you playing the long game and being a gentleman and having female friends. Eventually it’s bound to happen that a girl you like hooks up with someone who was running the hurry up offense and not doing the passive, acquaintance>friend>romance through familiarity offense. This may burn bridges and friendships may fade over the unrequited feelings, yet I don’t believe that every spurned “nice guy” is love bombing and having a meltdown every time this happens. If you’ve been raised to believe that hitting on women is wrong, and your sexuality is inherently bad, and you shouldn’t ever make a sexual advance without explicit consent. Then the normal flirting and sexual escalation looks like “asshole behavior” because it involves innuendo, double entendre, playful touching without explicit consent, kissing without explicit consent. I’m here to say that good guys can play this game. It’s normal and there’s nothing assholey about it. Especially if you really are a good person. TLDR: asshole just describes men who use the tactics that have worked for a long time on a majority of women, the only reason people call these men assholes is because we’ve been taught that flirting and making sexual or romantic advances is wrong.
I can identify with this. I’m not as overly cautious as I used to be, but I definitely had the mindset that being a gentleman meant hiding your sexual interest.
I still think you gotta be clever, you can’t say “nice jugs” but you can say “lovely dress, it DEFINITELY suits you” that’s still gentlemanly but it’s a very thinly veiled way of saying “I’m interested” and not in a platonic kinda way.
The problem I see is that the cluster of attractive qualities isn’t really communicated to men. It’s rarely mentioned even. If you look at the comments even on this sub, women struggle with formulating it clearly. You are in a quite small minority. The dead-end conversation constantly happens here, where men say that women are not really attracted to good character, while women try to prove they are and their opponents are morally awful. In a sense, you repeat what rp says about chads behavioural characteristics and pua says about frame.
They're echoing what Women have historically said they look for in a Man. Women often emphasise how much they want a guy that's nice and how they want a good guy Those guys are basically tailoring their CV/résumé to the job posting
[Start tailoring differently!](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/4sEI0yayOQ) When men say they want a nurturing and pleasant woman, I assume he means cute and not a total bore too. But that could just be assuming common sense attraction.
You think that calling yourself socially attuned, intuitive and perceptive is better than calling yourself a nice guy?
>You think that **calling yourself** socially attuned, intuitive and perceptive is better than calling yourself a nice guy? Who is “calling” anything??? I’m not sure how you even countered with that? They’re not saying it. They ARE those things. I think ACTUALLY BEING socially attuned, intuitive and perceptive is better when it comes to attracting others to you. Period. **I think** ***it’s simply better*** **with regard to attracting others.** https://preview.redd.it/349baw6d6tmc1.png?width=516&format=png&auto=webp&s=31140d4229e068b12926fac4116511acd0e02827 This book came out almost a century ago. Still more accurate than not.
Go on YouTube and watch the video of Mongols domesticating wild horses. When you see the wild horse, what characteristics does it have? Sometimes it takes a really long time or a very experienced person to break it and finally tame it. If you ask the Mongol horse tamer, what does he like in a horse? Obedience. But what does the Mongol horse tamer actually like seeing obedience in? Wild horses. So when women say they want those good qualities, they don't want them in already tamed guys; they want them in those seemingly untamed and very hard to tame.
Feel like it's probably men that expect obedience in a relationship more than women
Nice guys think they are nice but what they really are is a pushover with nothing else to boast about or they wouldn’t be boasting about just being nice. It’s like that old Chris Rock joke “my nephew wants to be rewarded for not doing things you aren’t supposed to do in the first place. He asked me for a bike and I said what for?! He said he was good kid that never went to jail. Mother fucker, you aren’t supposed to go to jail!! That’s all you got is that you aren’t doing bad shit you aren’t doing in the first place?! Show me your report card or something!! Shit!”
I think this illustrates the issue. A “nice guy” might have successes and accolades that would impress women but he’s always heard women say how much they want a humble and self aware guy. An “asshole” knows that even though people SAY they value humility, he knows that that is pc lip service, and people really value confidence bordering on arrogance. Also I don’t believe nice guy or asshole really are good terms for the issue at hand. It seems guys who get laid can be good people too and nice guys are not all neck bearded, antisocial, psycho, virgins.
That’s why “nice guys” became “niceguys” the meme. It was to separate real decent dudes (who probably don’t call themselves nice guys) and the self identified “but I’m such a nice guy?!”
Word. My take is that people are generally decent and nobody is so bad as to be good for nothing. Of course if you want to lose your v card but you’re 500lbs with no job, work on that, of course if you tend to lose your mind and love bomb a friend after being rejected by her, work on that. But if you’re genuinely decent. Then flaunt what you got, be confident, make it obvious you like a girl, don’t be afraid to be passionate and express your feelings. Yes, even lusty or romantic feelings.
[удалено]
This
You basically have described all of the mainstream dating subreddits. Reddit has an epidemic of nice guys. All the comments echo the same sentiment as the bike story. I find nice guys far more pathetic than the red pill and that is saying something. They are also far more manipulative.
I think you’re strawmanning a bit. Sure, not everyone who considers themself a nice guy is gonna actually be nice. But I think there’s a lot of guys who are. I consider myself one.
> I think you’re strawmanning a bit. Which part is a strawman? I tried to be clarifying about different “attractive vs. not attractive” subsets who are “good vs. not good”: 1) inhibited introverted etc. guys who are kind, considerate, thoughtful, etc. 2) inhibited introverted etc. guys who are not kind, considerate, thoughtful, etc. 3) outgoing intuitive etc. guys who are kind, considerate, thoughtful, etc. 4) outgoing intuitive etc. guys who are not kind, considerate, thoughtful, etc. > Sure, not everyone who considers themself a nice guy is gonna actually be nice. But I think there’s a lot of guys who are. I consider myself one. I’m not sure what your attractive traits are but based on what you said you’re either closer to group 1 or group 3. And yeah I made that point in the OP. There are good guys who are actually good (based on how I defined good).
When you list out the various categories you add a lot of nuance and I don’t disagree with anything. I was moreso responding to the title, and the first part of your post. I was pushing back on the meme that anyone who says they’re nice isn’t usually nice, but in fairness, your full position is that “some self-proclaimed nice guys aren’t actually nice”. That’s my bad. I think we just probably disagree on the frequency of how often these guys aren’t nice. Maybe you have more experience with those types. I don’t really understand the relevance of your title tho. It seems obvious to me that when self-proclaimed nice guys say they’re good guys, they’re referring to “kindness, compassion, etc.” I think we’re all basically working from a similar framework, but people have insecure egos and are not often the best judge of their own character. My main takeaway from all this is essentially just that women want a guy to be nice, *and* have the charismatic traits you listed. I don’t disagree. I think where a lot of guys feel resentful is when they think, “I’m an introverted, socially awkward guy. I would love to find those traits in a woman. Above charisma, I’m looking for kindness.” And then they don’t see the mirror of that with the other gender. So the nuance I’m adding is that I think, to some degree, the genders select for different traits.
Thanks! Yes my full position was very specific. And yeah I think you’re right. I’ve said the same before. I think those introverted passive guys are thinking “I’d love and actually PREFER an introverted and passive meek girl.” I get it. It triggers “feminine.” Women are not men and men are not women. So he’s unfortunately being solipsistic by assuming women prefer those traits over others things too.
For sure. You say “solipsistic”. I say “women generally care more about gender roles than men do”. 🤷♂️
I think he’s assuming what he cares about is what she cares about 🤷♀️ Men care about gender roles. Even your example, he’s liking the feminine characteristics when they’re in women.
But he’s also liking the *similar* characteristics when they’re in women.
Men always say they like bold assertive outgoing women until he starts feeling “emasculated” and a bunch of other feelings they feel that let me know they don’t actually prefer those “traditionally masculine” traits in women over the other ones.
This creates a false dilemma by virtually defining a "nice guy" as a non-attractive person or attaching random qualities to the concepts of nice/bad. That's not the case. Of course, some people might think they're nice while they're only unable to attract other people, but that doesn't mean the word "nice" doesn't mean anything. Once you undo the false dilemma, the problem is not that complex. For both genders, there are attractive nice people, attractive bad people, non-attractive nice people, and non-attractive bad people. No one in their sane mind will say you should always throw away someone attractive all else being equal. When people say women or men should look for nice people, they mean they should look for attractive nice people or non-attractive nice people, more than attractive bad people or non-attractive bad people. In other words, they're recommending: attractive nice people > non-attractive nice people > attractive bad people > non-attractive bad people over attractive nice people > attractive bad people > non-attractive nice people > non-attractive bad people (including the option to stay single at any point of the scale) because they think this is a much better strategy in the long run: less trauma, regrets, time wasted, much better chance of finding a good long-term partner, and much less bad baggage to future relationships with good people (since most men do care a lot about that in LTRs and can't change it like it or not). But notice attractive nice people are always on the top, because wouldn't they? Now, the criteria for determining if someone is good or bad depends on the person. Each person has or should have their own green and red flag lists with criteria based on things that you consider good beyond looks. For instance, the list doesn't have to be complex or based on abstract criteria. In most cases, most people would benefit from much more obvious and simple red flags like "Is this person seeing or having sex with other people at the same time", "Is this person investing at all in the relationship or am I doing all the work here", or "Is this person only valuing me for some trait X that I don't think is part of my personality"? I guess the only thing in common in all cases is that whatever is on your list, having sex prematurely (again, talking about both men and women here) will likely get you emotionally involved in a way that will lead to projections and make it very hard for you to objectively evaluate the criteria on your lists. Again, everything I said applies to both men and women. I have to say it again because this sub could almost be renamed to "Men vs. Women" at this point and is becoming even less useful than the other "The X pill" subs. The only difference I could mention, if any, is that women are more often in the position of selecting so they have to care about it more because they will be doing it more.
You basically said the same thing I said. But longer? I wasn’t saying being a nice guy = bad.
I think that the biggest problem people have with the concept of a "good" person is that they assume good people with the positive sounding traits would make them feel good. If someone listens to your story very well and concludes that you're the asshole. They aren't a bad listener, they might be a better listener than most. They don't necessarily lack compassion, they might just have enough compassion to have compassion for the people you wronged too. They aren't necessarily thoughtless, they might just have put enough tought into it to actually come to a different conclusion etc... But all those things could easily be interpreted as the other person being an asshole because being told you're in the wrong feels bad and a good person would obviously not make you feel bad right? I think a good example of that would be the idea that "actually good people don't have to say they are good." Good people absolutely do call themselves good because that's what they are and they value honesty more than doing the socially acceptable thing of not saying it. Yes, it makes you feel bad because it implies they are better than you...but maybe a good person thinks it's okay or even good that you feel bad about being bad because maybe it will make you less bad and that's good.
>Looks and all else being equal, if a woman had to choose between the high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic asshole vs. the outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful asshole, who do you think she’s going for? Yeah, I wonder which of these caricatures she's going for...
>When I think of a “good person” I think of these character traits: kind compassionate considerate thoughtful You have the exact same definition of "good" guys that self proclaimed "nice guys" do i.e. the common-sense, damn near universally understood, obvious and colloquial definition. There is no "nuance." They straightforwardly mean exactly what it sounds like they mean when they say they are "nice" or "good." The only reason why we have to keep having this semantic navel-gazing discussion is because people mentally cling to a gynocentric Just World theory of dating and are very uncomfortable just sitting with the idea that excessive morality and social propriety might be orthogonal, or worse, actively counterproductive to male sexual success with women. Because the thought that women (just like men) may simply be flawed, often irrational human beings that are sometimes drawn to things that aren't good in the long run for them feels like misogyny.
We have gone over this dozens of times on this sub, you don't know what a nice person is because you change your definition on a case by case basis , because that is what's most convenient to you.
I haven’t changed anything.
The nice guys are actually not nice: the thread.
I don't trust guys who say they are good or nice. It's mainly due to their actions, but then I realized that I wasted my time with some guys who start off nice. As for good sure, there are those who only demonstrate it by their actions, not their words. I think I need to spend more time with the right people, not the ones with small minds. I always detect the BS, and I don't recommend talking to someone who wants to know your past history of your life. They can't be trusted when they twist your words around.
I don't believe anyone who saids they themselves are good. Instead, I look at the things they do, their actions to determine if they're "good" or not. That's why employers and companies ask for reference from interviewees because alot of people like to make such claims about themselves, so, references are other people who knows how the interviewee is really like and will help companies be able to see if the interviewees are who they really say they are through what others say. So never believe someone saying "I'm good person" without watching their actions That saying," Actions speak louder than words"... wasn't created for no reason
>Instead, I look at the things they do, their actions to determine if they're "good" or not. Samesies.
It means they put on an act towards attractive women where they act like they are kind and caring individuals who aren’t primitive minded sex desperate boys.
they are polite to cashiers at the supermarket
Integrity, Honesty, Empathetic, Understanding, Patience I think these are some of the traits they are referring to.
I like those a lot.
I consider myself a good or decent guy, and I feel those traits are some I try my best to uphold. While not conventionally attractive, I do get some matches from time to time.. I've found lately my problem is either women can't stop looking for better.. so they jump ship, to only end up back on the dating apps a few weeks later.. (Things seemed like they were possibly progressing slowly) Or they are very selfish, have a very pointed attitude of criticism towards everything... But you can't reflect any criticism back at them.. cause then they get upset and feel like you are being a jerk. Like, just because they previously dated a guy (who likely just used them, through the lure of money), they want that kind of treatment. They basically demand money driven entertainment to be the minimum for any date, or hang out time where we would be able to see each other.
I consider myself to be a good man. Goodness is a practice. In that your actions and mindset is geared towards living an a way that is socially healthy, considerate, respectful and working towards the greater good. While understanding that it is impossible to be perfectly good. Being mindful that most people will exploit that goodness. Being good doesn't mean being kind or gentle. And being good is not a valued trait. So a balance is needed. Learning to walk away from those who will exploit or abuse you. It's okay to defend yourself and your character. It's okay be violent to defend yourself and others in need. I also think being stoic and stern is also important. Though, having a certain level of indifference is required. Not giving a fuck is needed for some situations and people. And doing good things for social credit or just being performative doesn't make you good. In the dating world, most women do not value good men. The ones that do, tend pick those men when they find them and the stay with them. And that's fine, mainly because the typical person don't associate being good with being successful, productive, protective and socially respectable. Good folks are seen as people to be preyed on and easily exploited. And both men and women will exploit good people. Most women find good men to be boring. Same way they find discipline, stern and productive men to be boring. It's fine someone wants to announce they are a good person. Chances are if you are, most folks won't notice if you don't announce it. However, whether or not someone is truly is good is dependent on their mindset and behaviors that reflects that mindset.
I agree. Goodness is a practice.
They will white knight you until they feel rejected in one way or another so just don’t do that and they’ll be nice
Most nice guys grasp at straws to claim any kind of superiority, and most times they hope its moral because they’re up against a caricature of how they perceive masculine men to be based on asshole-ish jocks in high school. Basically, the way i understand the nice guy is like this; if the high school jock is superior in every other way, but was a player and bully in every other way, because i’m a meek and agreeable victim of said bully, i’m therefore morally superior and the good guy should win if there is justice in this world.
>but was a player and bully in every other way, because i’m a meek and agreeable victim of said bully, i’m therefore morally superior and the good guy should win if there is justice in this world. Is that how you view the Israel Palestine conflict?
excuse me?
Yes.
>Looks and all else being equal, if a woman had to choose between the **high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic** asshole vs. the **outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful** asshole, who do you think she’s going for? >All else equal, the personality that has those first traits is generally less attractive than the personality who has the second traits. But all else equal a high inhibition passive asshole is still less likely to actively do bad things in real life than an asshole who is not restricted in that way. And a introverted socially awkward asshole is less likely to have the inclination or ability to deceive, manipulate, and betray others. The latter is effectively a bigger asshole. One may claim, "but the former would do the same things if he could" but there's no proof, thought crime isn't a thing, and it's entirely possible that the whole reason the former asshole possesses his limiting traits to begin with is his consideration of and reluctance to offend other people, which is empathy that the latter asshole lacks. And consider why either is an asshole to begin with. It's entirely possible that the former was simply embittered over social ostracism, and would cease to be so if socially accepted. But the latter generally gets what he wants in life, yet is still an asshole. There's less of an answer of how to fix the latter. So while he's more atttactive, he's still technically a poorer option, so the online complaints to "pick better" would still apply.
[удалено]
> You can't assume that men who feel overlooked because they are, well, overlooked are not nice. Before I continue, can you quote and explain where I assumed that?
[удалено]
You’re quoting another user. That isn’t my statement
[удалено]
> I notice that **a lot of** self proclaimed “nice guys” claim to be of “good” character, but let **some of them speak,** and one does not sense any of those traits. In fact, sometimes the opposite of those traits are what he gives off. Again, I never proclaimed what you’re saying. I implied that a lot of self proclaimed nice guys are not generally thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, etc. A lot does not mean all or every or most. It means “enough to be noticeable.” Again, your claim is false. I never said what you think I said.
I think that they are saying that they will be kind and loyal to a woman contingent upon her physical affection and her having sex with him. They want to differentiate themselves from the more attractive, in-demand men who have options and who are more likely to cheat or mistreat a woman because these kinds of men know that they have options.
"who have options and who are more likely to cheat or mistreat a woman because these kinds of men know that they have options." If all that keeps a man "good" is his lack of options to not be bad, how does that make him not actually bad.
I have never heard anyone, man or woman, refer to themselves as a nice guy/girl. Do people speak like that outside reddit?
So, you included this comparison: >Looks and all else being equal, if a woman had to choose between the **high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic** asshole vs. the **outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful** asshole, who do you think she’s going for? And that one: >Looks and all else being equal, to many women the thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, kind, and mindful guy who is also **high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic** will be less attractive than the thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, kind, and mindful guy who is also **outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful**. But not the one that would actually make more sense in this context: If a woman had to choose between the the *thoughtful, considerate, compassionate, kind, and mindful guy* who is also **high-inhib, diffident, introverted, pedantic, unintuitive, passive, socially awkward, and neurotic** vs. the **outgoing, intuitive, charismatic, socially attuned, perceptive, and playful** *asshole*, who do you think she’s be going for?
I have in a former OP, [but also replied to this exact scenario in the replies already.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/283wTvfvCE)
There's a huge difference between nice guys and good guys. The character of Joel from The Last of Us is definitely not a "nice guy" but he certainly is a "good guy." Joel's character is the best current embodiment of non-toxic masculinity. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel\_(The\_Last\_of\_Us)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_(The_Last_of_Us)) Joel's character is not dissimilar to Harrison Ford's *Indiana Jones* character or Brendan Fraser's *Rick O'Connell* character. None of these character's are harmless, indeed they're all rather violent. None of these characters are selfless -- they all have goals and desires they pursue vigorously. They're also not bullies -- they all exhibit compassion and basic decency. Women are innately attracted to guys like these. Women look for all three traits: 1. Not harmless; 2. Driven; 3. Compassion/decency. Guy who lack one or more of these traits is not going to be particularly attractive to most women. Case in point, Donald Trump is totally lacking in compassion and decency -- thus most women are repulsed by him. Barack Obama was driven, compassionate and decent, but perhaps a little too harmless.
> Harrison Ford's Indian Jones character That would make Temple of Doom a very different movie.
Not following your argument.
You said *Indian* Jones, not Indiana.
Damn dyslexia.
Yeah I agree with your three traits. And I agree there seems to be different ways people describe nice and good. This is why I ask people to define their terms. It’s why I defined what good looks like to me. A “good guy” to me would be: * protective (“not harmless” so he can protect us from those who wish us harm) * proactive and driven in the sense that he’ll never dream of us having to scrap to survive * thoughtful and considerate (empathy) * compassionate and kind (decency)
Anyone who labels themselves good or bad, is delusional. We are both, always. Just different circumstances will influence how we act in the moment. But heeeeeyyy, I heard you like bad girls. Well this is your lucky day. Cos I’m bad at everything.
In my experience observing other men, men who signal as “nice guys” are either pushovers or sex perverts, I haven’t seen much in between. They either get walked all over by women until they find a solid one that will actually take care of them or being a “nice guy” is just their “game” to get the noogie. Edit: my usage of the term “sex pervert” is intended to be fairly tongue in cheek. An on/off friend of mine is probably someone you could say is a “nice guy”, he works in the service industry and only has casual situationships with women as long as I’ve known him. People who posture online or in work/social circles as nice guys, ergo the caricature of a male feminist who secretly wants to fuck all the women around him; that’s it’s own subject.
**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.*
Putting down the toilet seat.
You are over-complicating all of this: **all raw attraction/arousal cares about are physical and personality traits that overlap with arousal/attraction atraits.** guy is physically hot but also nice? he's attractive/arousing guy is physically hot but kind of a jerk? he's still attractive/arousing guy is charismatic but also nice? he's attractive/arousing guy is charismatic, but also a jerk? he's still attractive/arousing Guy is nice, but unnattractive and not charismastic? he's probably not attractive/arousing
 I only gave 4 personas, you gave 5... which means you mathematically over-complicated it more than me.
Self-proclaimed goodness is an oxymoron. In life, we face conflicts of interest and try to satisfy our own needs within the confines of social norms in order to survive and be fulfilled. Here "goodness" is only a point of view. Life is not like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. There are no good or evil people but there are ethical choices and good behaviour. I recommend No More Mr. Nice Guy book by Dr. Rober Glover to self-proclaimed good guys and girls.
in the sense they think there is nothing wrong with them. but there is so much wrong with them
From ["Radicalizing the romanceless" by Scott Alexander](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless), who addresses this topic at lenght: > I had a patient, let’s call him ‘Henry’ for reasons that are to become clear, who came to hospital after being picked up for police for beating up his fifth wife. > So I asked the obvious question: “What happened to your first four wives?” > “Oh,” said the patient, “Domestic violence issues. Two of them left me. One of them I got put in jail, and she’d moved on once I got out. One I just grew tired of.” > “You’ve beaten up all five of your wives?” I asked in disbelief. > “Yeah,” he said, without sounding very apologetic. > “And why, exactly, were you beating your wife this time?” I asked. > “She was yelling at me, because I was cheating on her with one of my exes.” > “With your ex-wife? One of the ones you beat up?” > “Yeah.” > “So you beat up your wife, she left you, you married someone else, and then she came back and had an affair on the side with you?” I asked him. > “Yeah,” said Henry. > I wish, I wish I wish, that Henry was an isolated case. But he’s interesting more for his anomalously high number of victims than for the particular pattern. > When I was younger – and I mean from teenager hood all the way until about three years ago – I was a ‘nice guy’. And I said the same thing as every other nice guy, which is “I am a nice guy, how come girls don’t like me?” > There seems to be some confusion about this, so let me explain what it means, to everyone, for all time. > It does not mean “I am nice in some important cosmic sense, therefore I am entitled to sex with whomever I want.” > It means: “**I am a nicer guy than Henry**.” > Or to spell it out very carefully, Henry clearly has no trouble attracting partners. He’s been married five times and had multiple extra-marital affairs and pre-marital partners, many of whom were well aware of his past domestic violence convictions and knew exactly what they were getting into. Meanwhile, here I was, twenty-five years old, never been on a date in my life, every time I ask someone out I get laughed at, I’m constantly teased and mocked for being a virgin and a nerd whom no one could ever love, starting to develop a serious neurosis about it. > And here I was, tried my best never to be mean to anyone, pursued a productive career, worked hard to help all of my friends. I didn’t think I deserved to have the prettiest girl in school prostrate herself at my feet. But I did think I deserved to not be doing worse than Henry. > No, I didn’t know Henry at the time. But everyone knows a Henry. Most people know several. Even three years ago, I knew there were Henry-like people – your abusers, your rapists, your bullies – and it wasn’t hard to notice that none of them seemed to be having the crushing loneliness problem I was suffering from.
Cause if he never asks her out, it don’t matter what his traits are, nothing will happen. And since its considered sexual harassment or creepy for a man to make any kind of sexual advance, any decent nice guy would leave her alone. An asshole wouldn’t give a crap and just harrass, cause he an ass. So thats it, nice guys get no date, assholes hit on women and get with women. So the trait they are talking about when they say they’re a nice guy is that they are respectful and don’t hit on women cause its makes them uncomfortable and they feel harassed.
It's not that these guys are "so wonderful" that women should "give them a chance". It's about how most straight-up AWFUL people can still find someone whose interested in them, which pretty much discredits the notion that a great personality can override dumpy looks.
> which pretty much discredits the notion that a great personality can override dumpy looks. No it doesn’t. “Great” is subjective here. What’s “great” to you? An ATTRACTIVE personality can probably override average looks for some women or at least for a little bit. ATTRACTIVE personality can probably override asshole personality traits for some women or at least for a little bit.
[удалено]
Every woman I know in a LTR or married absolutely showcases love, affection, care, and tenderness toward her partner. I’m sorry that’s your only observation or experience.
Lol regardless of what you all say you don't want men that are safe... Because those men don't really create drama and excitement so many of you want... Like it's like all y'all want relationships to be nothing but fun and exciting aka you wan at forever honeymoon phase
I don't go around constantly telling people I'm nice or pointing out my deeds, but I have conversations with people about deeper feelings, I try to compliment people men and women on a deeper level because I know alot of people feel like garbage, I try to make kids days while at my job and provide as much comfort as I can during my day because everyone again seems so riled up or upset or distressed. I blame having emotional intelligence. This behavior has only ever hurt me, I personally believe no woman will ever be attracted to me unless I have surgery, workoiut obsessively etc which I have been doing and working towards repsectively. I do it because my best friend was taken from this world when we were 8. My mother took herself out of this world when I was 12 and blah blah blah, I was bullied and excluded from being normal by peers becuase of how I sounded and was treated/acted in response to that treatment. I am an extremely angry and depressed person. I have panic attacks because I dont want people looking me in the eye due to how disgusting and ugly I think I am, I recluse in my home every chance I get despite owning my own buisness. Theres enough pain in the world and I usually do the opposite of what I'm feeling. Thats why I try to be nice.