Women need to stop whining about 'nice guys' (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
45Opinion
I think women are just way too judgmental, and make bull shit assumptions about every man who treats them with kindness
people dont appreciate kindness anymore because they think that there is some ulterior motive to an act of kindness.
Since women believe men can't do anything out of the kindness of their hearts they can't handle when someone is just 'nice' because thats the way they were raised.
i am a kind man, nice guy, but i am nice to mostly everyone. guys, girls, elderly, ugly, i am kind to my fellow human beings. just because i hold the door open and offer to help with your shopping doesn't mean i want a blow job or something...
i just think its the right thing to do.
Nice guys are like boobs to men.
Women complain about their breasts way more than men do. Men complain about "nice guys" way more than women do.
Seriously just stop.
The women in real life I remember complaining about nice guys were thought of as "bitches", because they complained about nice guys while having a very nasty attitude themselves.
Admittedly, I think we've all read too many bitter feminist blogs about nice guys and then mistakenly applied that to think that all women think the same.
Do men complain about "nice guys"? Sure "nice guys" complain about women, but other guys are presumably glad that there are "nice guys".
Women complain on here about nice guys all the time.
I actually agree with you on this 100%. A guy I was dating was a really nice guy, but he bored me because he lacked that confidence and strong attitude that I need in a man. I was always good to him, but sexually he couldn't even take control, no matter how much I asked and showed. I left him because he was too passive for me.
My current partner of 3 years, is a very dominant man towards other men and he's very confident and strong. He is a nice guy, but different to my ex. I knew him for ages but never saw him as "husband material", till he kept trying to make me see him for something different and here we are today. He takes charge in sex and he lets me do so when I want. He understands me and respects my space and isn't as clingy as my ex too.
look at the haters lol. I don't know if they're hating because you agree 100% or because you chose someone who is more suitable for your life.
your basis of your love seems shallow
the problem is that self proclaimed nice guys are not nice because they are constantly reminding people they are nice, when really if a "nice guy" was truly nice, then he would not say it, he would show it everyday and expect nothing as payback for his kindness.
Great take, yeah I hate how being told you're nice inherently has a negative stigma to it where peope automatically assume you're a doormat, pushover, lack confidence, needy, and are desperate. I just don't start shit with others unless they start shit with me.
My issue is the ones I like don't like me back and vice versa. Not trying to sound entitled, whiny, etc at all but dating shouldn't be yeah I'm seeing this girl but meh I could care less. It's just like the ones I have very little to no interest in, in the long term, are chasing after me even if I don't reach out to them and the ones I actually do like leave out of the blue even if I'm not blowing up their phone and always hitting them up.
I mean it's not like when I start dating a girl I have interest in keep seeing that I need to see her and talk to her everyday. I got my friends, hobbies, and other shit in my life too. And not to sound like women who don't like me are bitches but at the same time it's frustrating to be able to attract a lot of women initially only to have them disappear out of the blue when there's no sign or hint that they really aren't interested.
Another thing is that being traditionally nice, as in chivalrous, is something that girls do THEMSELVES now. Have you noticed that if you hold a door open for a female friend, they'll probably try to get the next one for you? They want to be equally gentleman-like, which is weird, but I guess that's "equality" for them.
I hold the next door because it's polite. It has nothing to do with trying to strike a balance anywhere. I get doors held for me, and hold doors open for both men and women. I'd feel weird if I got to a door before a friend and didn't hold it open for them. And I know a lot of people like Tha t
@RebelOfNowhere because that's how it is now.
Somebody's been hitting the Ayn Rand pretty hard. Not that that's all bad, her ideas about respecting individual rights without going all libertarian have some merit.
Anyhow, I would tend to believe that one can be both genuinely altruistic and kind as well as self interested. Caring about other people doesn't mean checking your hopes and dreams at the door. Sometimes though, folks do have to reign in their own desires for other people. That's life.
If you're alive at all, you're somewhat selfish, as I've pointed out. I've never denied that one can be somewhat selfish and somewhat altruistic. But, the question is, why should one be? I advocate 100% selfishness. If altruism is so amazing, it should be applied consistently.
First of all, I won't be shoehorned into your nomenclature, so "altruism" is going out the door. A fulfilled life includes right relationship with God and man, a good go at living morally, and happiness, which comes from the first two points. You and I are of equal importance, that means we ought to look out for one another as well as ourselves, which is perfectly possible. We can love more than one person at a time, so why not include ourselves in that? Ronald Reagan once said that "We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone", and he was right. Life has its suffering, everyone knows that, but each and every individual has the power within them to make sure that other people have a chance at living a happy, moral life too. Life is meant to be lived, by me, by you, by the man down the street. "Altruism" needn't be applied consistently because it is a means, not an end. The goal is that every individual be able to live a life full of love and friendship and devotion, everyone.
Nice guys aren't altruistic. They're expecting a reward for their nice deeds. An altruistic person wouldn't expect any reward. There is no need to dispose of altruism for selfishness.
A Nice Guy just needs to be assertive enough to make his intentions clear. You won't get what you want if you don't ask for it. There's nothing inherently selfish about this. Going for something you want through a process of appeal and bargaining isn't selfish; going for it without regard for others feelings is.
Well, as I've said, 100% altruism would necessitate suicide. 100% altruism in the domain of romance would necessitate romantic 'suicide'.
No, sacrificing others to oneself is not selfish. It's self-destructive.
No, 100% altruism, whatever that means, would not necessitate suicide. Ask your mother about that one.
I've already explained: even basic survival requires selfishness. So, yes, 100% altruism would equal suicide.
What you mean to say, I think, is that having children is altruistic. It can be, yes, and, if it is, that is wrong. Having children should be selfish: you should have children for the rational pleasure of raising them, which includes fulfilling their needs. That doesn't mean that parenting should never be stressful. Your job, for example, can be stressful sometimes, but that doesn't make it a sacrifice. Perhaps, you long for an alternative universe where values do not have to be earned.
Superb take! I'm sick and tired of women constantly 'assuming' that just because a guy is 'nice', he is automatically boring, passive and a pushover.
Let me sum this up for you...
Women are never satisfied. They only want what they for AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. the women who wish for nice guys have probably had a history or are currently dating someone they consider a "douche". IF they eventually get the "nice guy" they get bored and start craving the douche. The real problem is not the guy, its trying to satisfy an ever shifting demand.
Ayn Rand dating philosophy... interesting. But you make a few fallacies, eg assuming altruism cannot be in a man's self-interest, and that nothing short of suicide can be genuine niceness. However I agree because yes, nature has indeed made it necessary for us to assert ourselves.
ps I always thought Max Stirner got the concept of egoism nailed down much better.
Do not confuse altruism with benevolence. Benevolence is compatible with, and indeed can exist only through, selfishness.
A good relationship of any kind, even or especially a romantic/sexual relationship, is selfish. Imagine being told by one's partner, "I'm with you, not because you make me happy. In fact, you don't. I am with you as an act of charity, because you need me". That would not be a healthy relationship.
Remember that the meaning of 'altruism' is 'otherism'. It is not simply being pleasant in order to serve one's self-interest, which is benevolence. It is, rather, the neglect of the self on fundamental principle, in other words selflessness. The neglect of the self, pursued with 100% consistency, would result in death.
I see that clarifies things for me but raises a different objection since many self-professed nice guys (or nice guys that others have labeled as such) could be considered as benevolent (which if I understand correctly means they give because the act of giving pleases them).
Good question. The answer is that self-interest is objective. The self actually exists. Drinking fifty pints of beer a day, for example, is objectively bad, regardless what thoughts one may have about doing it. Of course an altruist, raised to believe in altruism as with almost everyone else, would feel 'good' in some way about doing altruistic acts. But, his feelings don't determine reality.
Hmm, with all respect this sounds like a way of rationalising the flaw in your argument.
The fact that the self exists objectively, and that therefore self-interest is objective and not consisting of the whims and feelings of the person, is actually a pretty important point, don't you think?
Well I don't agree with that because our purpose in life is subjective, and we don't just live for the purpose of survival. For benevolent men, their purpose is compassion, it makes them feel like a better person. That much is a fact.
Since it is only a human's life that makes it necessary or even possible for him to have a code of morality, morality is predicated to his life. In other words a human's life is the objective standard of his moraity. A morality of altruism contradicts itself.
I wouldn't say benevolent morality contradicts itself, it just requires man does what is necessary to survive first before he is benevolent. In fact compassion is a necessary precursor to morality, you can't have a morality that is entirely autistic. The empathy is always rooted in self -interest but a man that doesn't empathise at all is Amoral (if such a man exists).
As I say, benevolence is compatible with, and can exist only through, selfishness. Benevolence certainly doesn't contradict morality. But, altruism does, for the reason I stated.
Compassion isn't a precursor to morality. The 'precursor' to, or standard of, morality is one's life. But, certainly, compassion for innocent people serves one's self-interest. Compassion for the guilty does not, though. Again, we have an illustration of the false dichotomy pushed by the altruists: either you are compassionate to all, or you are compassionate to none.
We are agreed on benevolence then. Some philosophers also distinguish between selfishness (egotism) and self-interest (egoism) as do I. I think this is part of the problem, because we both already believe that benevolence (rational charity because it enhances one's own image of themself) compared to altruism (irrational sacrifice of self for no conceivable purpose, although I must ask what human behaviour short of insanity or self-destruction has no conceivable purpose?). With all of this in mind, my original issue was in relation to the fact you think nice guys cannot be truly altruistic, or benevolent, if that is a better term. Component would have been a preferable term over precursor. The precursor is survival, yes. But man is not truly moral until he learns to care for others. Finally, it is necessary to distinguish between benevolence and altruism because neither me nor anyone else is really advocating man sacrifices himself for everyone. Certainly not if you speak conventionally
No, I don't think that charity is as such selfish because it enhances one's self-image. That's subjectivist.
To be selfish, one must be acting in a way that one genuinely, rationally thinks is in accordance with one's self-interest.
Otherwise, one could say, "This man, who drinks twenty beers a day, tells me he thinks that it is good for him. Therefore he must be selfish", or "My son never studies, but he tells me he really does want to do well in his studies. Who am I to say he is lying?".
Sacrifice is very much the goal of conventional morality, which almost everyone supports. Who is the ultimate hero of conventional morality? Jesus, who does make the ultimate sacrifice for literally everyone else.
Why is caring for others as such necessary for morality? There is no answer to any of the claims made by altruism.
I think it is important to iron these details much more coherently and objectively (free from normative statements regarding the superiority of certain beliefs, attitudes and motivations - eg selfishness is better than altruism - because there is no objectivity in that statement).
Also I do not believe benevolence (since it seems we have agreed here on the definition) is rooted in selfishness. I believe it is self-interested behaviour, an important difference because while no behaviour is free of self-interest (nobody acts without belief it will be beneficial somehow), behaviour can be free of selfishness (eg charity).
Finally, yes it is impossible to have morality and unable to think outside the autistic mode of survival. Such a being that has not learned to empathise with behaviours materialising in genuinely benevolent behaviours is essentially a robot, not a human. It is just as robotic as mindlessly sacrificing oneself for an abstraction, eg the nation, the collective.
Those examples are of self-interest and possibly irrational selfishness (eg the alcoholic is indulging short-term pleasure, neglecting long-term gain -eg health, career, relationships).
In the present moment, they act in self-interest - the behaviour they BELIEVE will be most beneficial. That they may come to regret is inconsequential: the future is uncertain and it is impossible to determine whether ANY action is truly beneficial from that perspective. This is because it is impossible to account for all of the extraneous variables involved when making a decision.
The metaphysic for your critique of benevolence is unfounded. There's no right or wrong. If benevolence gives you a sense of purpose and fulfilment in life, it is far from irrational. It is improving your happiness.
Sharing is caring :)
Selfishness is objectively better than altruism. I've already explained why.
People do many acts that they fully acknowledge will not be beneficial. People also do acts that they know, even if they don't admit it (such as drinking too much beer) are not beneficial. That's different from the obviously true claim, which is what I think you're saying, that people do what they choose to do, and that people have their motives.
Benevolence requires selfishness, because in what sense is one being benevolent, if one doesn't even recognize the moral rectitude of other individuals' pursuits of their self-interests? But, if one recognizes that, one must recognize one's own moral rectitude in pursuing one own's self-interest, because it is right for every other person to pursue his self-interest for the exact same reason it is right for me to pursue my self-interest.
To paraphrase the message I've communicated thus far, that's a subjective statement / normative judgement. It's impossible to objectively prove that selfishness is 'superior' to benevolence/altruism/charity. This is due to a multitude of factors: idiosyncrasies; future uncertainty; extraneous variables.
If we are to get into the philosophy of it, I believe a more humane morality that includes a perspective of life enriched by one's caring towards and relationships with one's fellow humans is vastly superior. This
I maintain that you cannot have morality without the component of compassionate empathy since this is the conventionally accepted definition of morality. This does mot effect the fact that it's subjective. One can choose not to be empathetic / moral / righteous / etc. To say contrary would be to state a subjective preference for the ethics of care.
*vastly superior. The fact you point out survival is a precursor to man's purpose in life is inconsequential because man does not survive for its own sake: he survives to make his life worthwhile.
'Benevolence requires selfishness, because in what sense is one being benevolent, if one doesn't even recognize the moral rectitude of other individuals' pursuits of their self-interests?'
True benevolence listens to, appreciates and aids - rather than hinders - other men's pursuits.
' it is right for every other person to pursue his self-interest for the exact same reason it is right for me to pursue my self-interest'
Not at all. Not all motivations that stem from self-interest (in fact all motivation stems from self-interest) is good.
I already have proven that selfishness is superior to altruism.
I have also proven that benevolence and altruism are incompatible.
I have proven that people can act unselfishly. I have explained what selfishness in the true sense is.
'I already have proven that selfishness is superior to altruism.'
Only from a very reductive survival perspective, i. e. not a more wholesome morality. Also, I am defending benevolence, not altruism.
'I have also proven that benevolence and altruism are incompatible.'
I don't believe that I ever argued in contradiction to this.
'I have proven that people can act unselfishly.'
Unselfishly perhaps, but never out of self-interest.
'I have explained what selfishness in the true sense is.'
Hmm, I never saw much of a distinction between selfishness and self-interest:
Selfishness versus self-interest:
www.presspublications.com/.../7386-self-interest-vs-selfish-there-is-a-difference
Well, then, I did prove it.
You wrote "benevolence/altruism/charity", which implied equivalence.
I have already addressed the false belief that selfishness entails sacrificing others to oneself.
1. Not really, it all depends on what you mean by 'superior'. I mean, if you think just living to eat, fuck & shit is superior to the morals, ambitions and purposes we live to life, then that's fine (it's also your subjective opinion).
2. Sure I referred to those terms since you didn't really seem to be distinguishing between them in responding to my previous discussion points.
3. Don't believe I ever said this.
The definition of nice guys has been confused whit um in Spanish we call them aduladores. I dont know for sure why there isn't a distinction whit those terms, however I feel that what attracts women are guys that are genuinly nice not the ones that fake it and feel that you ow them something.
I despise both Ayn Rand and objectivism, as another user said, it's nothing but the rich trying to justify being utter bastards to those they deem to be below them. It's a disgusting philosophy, the philosophy of selfishness, and it's what's wrong with the world. When you honestly only care about helping yourself and doing what you want, you can never help people, because, helping anyone else can only ever be an unforeseen side effe of helping yourself, because you are all that matters. I'll admit, it does understand human nature, as humans are utterly selfish, capricious creatures, but, rather than trying to fix the ultimate flaw that makes humans murderous, war mongering assholes, it embraces it. I wonder, if I just killed your entire family in front of you because I felt like it, would I be the ultimate objectivist superhero? You state that altruism is not benevolence, when, in fact, people can only truly be benevolent in the name of altruism.
You contradict yourself. You say I can't help other people. But, you also say that, if I help other people, it is only in order to help myself.
In other words, you admit that being selfish would entail helping others.
Tell me. How is murder in one's self-interest? How is caprice in one's self-interest?
You clearly haven't read Ayn Rand. You've just read her critics, who probably haven't read her either. If you had read her, you would know that doing what you feel like is utterly in contradiction to true selfishness. Why? Because your emotions don't determine reality. Reality is objective.
I never said that, I said you would never help others for selfless reasons, you wouldn't help people for the sake of helping people, you would help them for personal gain and personal gain alone, thereby essentially using them, and that's what I despise about "objectivism". With this philosophy, being good and kind is only in the interest of a reward, when helping people should be the reward in itself. And, you're right, your emotions do not determine reality, which makes your determination of the value of altruism and other humans false, because it can only ever be subjective, determined by your emotions. Reality itself is objective, what we determine about it is not, however.
And, how are they in one's self interest? Simple, if someone stands in the way of your goal, and you can murder them free of repercussions, would murder not be your best option?
I understand you despise helping others as a means to helping oneself, but why? If helping others were your primary concern, why should the motive matter? But, actually, your primary concern is sacrifice.
Reality is objective. Therefore ethics are objective. If ethics were not objective, there would be no use in your attempt to debate me.
No. Murder (or any initiation of force) is never in one's self-interest. Why? Because a human's primary means of survival is his faculty of reason. The only thing that can negate the operation of the faculty of reason is force. Therefore a society fit for humans is a society from which force is extracted, in other words a society that recognizes the right to be free from initiations of force. By committing murder, you would be claiming that murder is acceptable at least when committed by you. Your problem is that, by denying other people's right not to be murdered, you would be denying your own right not to be murdered.
"Guys should get laid for doing simple favors or just for not beating women up so they don't end up like Elliot Rogers."
THIS bs Is why people don't take phony nice guys well.
For the record, Eliot Rogers wasn't a nice guy. He was mentally ill and had a huge history of problems that most everyone recognized but couldn't figure out how to treat. Are you gonna say if blacks knew their place, no Dylan Roofs would exist? Or of those dumb little kids didn't need attention so much, Sandy Hook wouldn't have been necessary?
I don't think you understand.
Elliot Rodger did in fact get female interest after he committed those murders. Those women did not fear him. He was already dead.
Yeah, once the whole world knows you, it's more likely that some other twisted person can find out about you. Like I said, my other analogies stand. Elliot Rogers didn't commit murder because he was sexless. He was sexless because he was mentally ill and has a documented history of issues far into childhood.
I would say that most people are twisted. What's your point?
He did commit murder because he was sexless.
Regardless of Elliot Rodger's mental health, the fact is, many mentally ill men get laid.
Your philosophy is pretty fucked up, dude.
Life is fucked up, welcome to the world of facts. This is reality, you can choose to be happy and living in a false reality but I'm going to keep being pissed off and loving in the reality we actually reside in.
*living
My philosophy is correct. Your philosophy is fucked up, which is why you sexually yearn for the very thing you consider immoral, which leads you to anger and confusion.
nice guy = just unattractive, ugly male who thinks that being nice will save him. The only cure to this is to miraculously increase looks attractiveness or heavily date down.
And don't buy the confidence theory. If it worked, everybody would be doing it.
Guys need to stop complaining about women "whining"
I treat women as humans capable of being rational, just like men. So, why shouldn't I call them out?
Women just need to be honest about LOOKS MATTERING MORE than confidence personality. Just a fact. I don't care how great your confidence and personality is, LOOKS trump that. These nice guys get upset because they are fed this lie about confidence and personality over and over again by so called dating "experts" "gurus" etc.
I'm gonna say your statement is bullshit. I've been told I'm cute/hot but many women but never had a relationship form from that and if the girl did want one, it was someone who I didn't like back. I mean looks do matter but no girl is gonna stay with you based on looks alone. Not saying they should either.
Your statement is bullshit. So what a woman said you were cute, Its possible that the woman was just trying to let you off easy. And LOOKS do matter because when you 1st approach someone or vice versa, LOOKS is all you have. You can't get into the door without looks so therefore LOOKS TRUMP. How are you going to get a gf/wife if you can't even get a date?
I don't hate nice guys i just don't like it when they start acting like jerks when they don't get what they want.
and that's the problem us nice guys can get past cause your holding yourself above us basically saying that you're better then we are and all it's doing is make both of us come up empty does that do any good for anybody that's what I wanna know
Its totally retarded how a nice guy could be totally handsome, and have a lot of talents and hobbies but women would still reject him just for being nice AND has to listen to her complain about nice guys for hours and are expected to just take it.
That woman's eyes look like Anakin Skywalker's eyes in Episode 3 when he turned to the dark side lol.