Let's start with a few critical points:
1. The quintessential "nice guy" is NOT a gentleman. At least, being a nice guy doesn't automatically qualify you as a gentleman, nor does being a gentleman mean you'll necessarily be branded a "nice guy" (which is, almost by default, a derogatory term in the eyes of many).
2. The old-fashioned definition of the word "gentleman" is inaccurate these days, so we can't use it in modern discussions regarding attraction, personality, etc.
3. It matters not which regime holds sway in which country, or which groups or organizations or movements are burning up the internet. All women - women who like men, I mean - on the face of the earth will always appreciate a man for being a man. Always and forever, and for the very same reasons a man will always appreciate a woman for being a woman.
The world is full of bitter, disenfranchised, even helpless and hopeless individuals in the love department. Now, such people have existed since the dawn of time but up until recently, all those individuals were older. They'd gone through their fair share of heartache and they have damn good reason to be bitter. Unfortunately, it appears we're looking at a reversal: Whereas before, the youth were the starry-eyed, optimism-fueled, hopeful, dreamers of dreams, a frighteningly large percentage now seem to be extremely cynical, skeptical, even hostile when it comes to this subject.
One of the big reasons is because the world has changed so much, and we have to stop talking about attraction and courtship with outdated definitions. The old-fashioned gentleman is dead and yes, the epitome of the gentleman from the '40s and '50s would have difficulty getting women today. But the principles don't have to change; merely the approach and execution.
It's all about balance, as I've said many times before. Want success with women? It isn't all about deference and courtesy and sweet nothings in the ear of the fair lady. It's not about striving to be Cary Grant in "An Affair to Remember." At the same time, pulling a complete 180 is equally ineffective; the rebel, the womanizing booze-hound, the arrogant bounder who sees women as nothing but sexual objects, the "Mad Men" clone...nah, that might get you sex with some very dim women but that's about it.
Balance tells us the modern gentleman is a refined, supremely effective blend of old-fashioned charm and new-age sensitivity. It's knowing men and women are equal but not the same, it's holding a door without backing down in every argument, it's being driven in life (from a professional and personal perspective) and being understanding and sentimental at times. We've supposedly progressed but many - especially women - will agree that we've lost some of the niceties, some of the beautiful little things that comprised the classic man. I don't mean to discount all the progress, however. That would be a critical mistake.
For example, women really have come a long way and the modern gentleman acknowledges it and appreciates it. He knows there's a line in the sand between manly man and something bordering on animal. In "The River of No Return," there are two wonderfully contrasting scenes almost back to back: In the first, after the travelers got soaked on the raft, the character played by Marilyn Monroe is freezing. She's wrapped up in a blanket and shivering but they can't risk a fire (for fear of Indians, I believe). So Mitchum simply orders her to lie down and he starts vigorously rubbing (over the blanket) to get circulation back. He does the same thing with her bare legs. He doesn't ask; he tells her because he knows she needs to get warm and he knows how to do it. But there isn't anything even remotely sexual about how he does it, which is plain to Monroe's character.
The next scene, Mitchum really forces himself on her in the forest. She's resisting his kisses the whole way and though nothing happens (and there's no indication he would've actually gone so far as to rape her), it's clear that she was saying no. To me and to many people today, that would be seen as crossing the line and I would have to agree. It was a step too far. Now, my idea of the modern gentleman would be a happy medium of this guy...get what I mean?
Now, what's interesting is to see the progression and evolving of romantic male and female characters down through time in all forms of fiction (I'm sticking with movies as my classical fiction references will probably be even more obscure and less identifiable). For instance, in "Breakfast at Tiffany's," we see more of the psychology of the woman. Audrey Hepburn's character of Holly Golightly (still one of the best names in all of literature; yes, this was a book by Truman Capote before it was a film) is complex, and the romantic male figure - played by a very young George Peppard - finally gets her by exposing her own faults, by basically telling her she'll never get what she wants because she keeps getting in the way. Great speech at the end there outside the taxi.
The point is, we should've reached the point where we can present the world with the most perfect version of a gentleman. If we've really progressed, and if we acknowledge the pros and cons of the past and present, shouldn't we be able to craft a man who walks a number of fine lines? And shouldn't that man be able to appeal to just about any woman on earth? Even if she's not attracted to him, you can bet a woman will at least appreciate this modern gentleman and will, at the bare minimum, give him a little smile. Why? Because humanity doesn't get anywhere without learning from its mistakes but to discount the past entirely, simply because we hadn't evolved enough in the rights and equality department, is equally foolish.
The modern gentleman is a heady mix of old and new, a manly man with a soft spot, a nice guy with a rebellious streak, a lover of women with a penchant for sex and good buddies, a supporter and a doer...in short a man among men, past, present and future. ;)
Most Helpful Opinions