Nice guys vs. Guys who are nice / Repost From Fetlife

In a group on Fetlife, I ran into this post which had the title "All the things wrong with being a nice guy." and included this odd comment

"I would like to think as a society we are advanced enough that natural selection is dead but if I were to actually say that, it would feel like lying through my teeth."

I didn't think much of that comment and said this in return:

"Huh? Were you really thinking about what you were saying, when you wrote that? Essentially, you're saying that you'd like Evolution to not only be over, but to gradually reverse, as bad traits (not being filtered out) gradually proliferate. Are you really ready and willing to throw posterity and the future of the species under the bus, just to spare yourself a little discomfort, today?

If so, are you really being very nice, at all? Or are you just being entitled? Guys who really are nice and not just trying to engage in emotional blackmail understand and accept that sometimes one has to heard the word 'no', especially when the greater good is at stake."

Having done so, I did a little venting of my own (note the name of the group), which I will repost.

What follows was actually subjected to a sort of censorship, almost instantly after being posted. One of the moderators closed the thread I had just started, preventing any discussion of what I had just written. The title of my piece was "Nice guys vs. Guys who are nice" and this is what I wrote:









Nice within reason, that is. There's a phrase that somebody used in another discussion, recently, and it's one that sometimes puts me on edge, not because it always represents a bad thing, but because I've seen its meaning hijacked so often: nice guy. What could be wrong with kindness? Nothing, probably, as long as it really is kindness, but a lot of things that really aren't kindness often are passed off as if they were the real thing.

For example, as a straight male, I know that if I find that I've been treated abusively in a relationship (and yes, that does happen), I have little to no chance of finding any meaningful level of any form of support. Having genuinely been kind to the woman who then terrorized me, what I've found is that if I make the mistake of seeking sympathy online is a good trolling, followed by self-righteousness after I express my anger over the trolling from people who will say that my anger was proof that I wasn't the nice guy I pretended to be, as if "nice guy" and "doormat" were synonymous. There is a particular type of woman who delights in initiating the trolling and a particular type of male (not somebody I'd call a man) who will then be praised as being "the real nice guy", for having chosen to enable a troll in order to improve his own political position. Offline, one can see much the same behavior, the only difference being that instead of calling the offending woman a troll, one would use a different word, one that rhymes with "itch."

No, using the victim (yes, let's use that word, "victim") of mistreatment as a stepping stone is not nice, but when the victim is male, doing so can be a highly effective way for some guy to get a lot of fawning attention from the opposite sex. Usually, not the brighter members of the opposite sex, but sexual opportunists frequently don't care much about the intelligence of the women they bed. An easy response to have to the feeling of having been violated in this manner is to start hating women, in general, and stop caring when they are mistreated. There are entire movements that seem to have grown out of that reaction, but I try to have as little to do with those, as possible. I make a point of reminding myself that male creeps exist in abundance, and that I know this to be true because I've seen them in action, and asking myself how I feel when I'm blamed for their behavior by women who refuse to understand that having a y chromosome does not give me any extra level of influence over these guys. Making a point of remembering how annoyed I was by the unfairness of being blamed for that over which I had no control (the behavior of jerks who I don't even know) puts me in the right frame of mind when I make a point of avoiding doing the same in reverse. To hold women (in general) responsible for the behavior of a few female canines would not be fair or reasonable.

The problem is that sometimes the female canines don't seem that rare. I'll discuss that in a bit, being careful to point out that appearances aren't always reality.



One thing that I sometimes do is offer my shoulder to those who need to cry on it. Sometimes, that is needed and seems to be deserved, at the time. But sometimes, some of us end wondering just how much our sympathy was deserved.

If so many of the men available to her were violent, hateful pieces of dirt that a woman couldn't find a man who would treat her well, then we will give her our sympathy gladly. If a woman finds somebody who seems wonderful, at first, but who turns out to be a monster, we will understand that problem all too well, having fallen for psychopaths, ourselves. But sometimes (in fact, quite often), the "victims" seem unwilling to take responsibility for their own well being.

The sad, simple fact is that the OP in the other discussion did raise a very good point: acting like a hyper-aggressive donkey is an effective way of drawing a lot of positive female attention. I live in a neighborhood packed with bars, and my hearing is really good, so any attempt to convince me that isn't true is going to prove as effective as an attempt to convince me that there isn't all that much water a few blocks to the east of me (I live near Lake Michigan). It's a non-starter.

I will watch woman after woman date these guys who prove how tough they are by bullying other guys, which these women seem to love. A few weeks pass, they end up getting bullied, themselves, and then, finding that doesn't seem to be as much fun, wondering why they aren't getting much sympathy from the guys whose literal, physical pain they had dismissed quite recently.

Then there is the woman who goes from abusive relationship to abusive relationship, and again, on meeting the new "gentleman", one finds that there was nothing subtle about him. He's a thug, a blatant thug. A few weeks pass, and I'll see the familiar face of somebody who wonders why I just don't to hear about it, this time.

This will usually be somebody about my age or younger, somebody who has plenty of choices. "Oh, I'd date a nice guy if I could find one, but I can't", she'll start, to which I'll say "bull...." because it is bull...., and bull.... should be called what it is. See, that's the "within reason" part. I'm one of the people I want to be nice to, and so sometimes, I'm going to set limits. I'm going to expect grown ups to act like grown ups and take responsibility for the free and truly informed choices they make.



When I look at the vicious man whose charms the "victim" could not resist, I'm frequently floored. I'll often find myself looking at somebody who looks like a walking, talking troll doll, maybe twice my age (or at least looking it), half my size, with maybe a third my IQ and I'm supposed to keep a straight face as I'm told that she seriously believes that this evolutionary reject is the best she can do. The woman in this case, by the way, is usually young (or at least youthful), with a pleasant personality (usually pleasant), beautiful ... and this is important ... intelligent. Intelligent enough to know better.

So, I find myself asked to believe that at the same time, in the same place, the same thing is both so overabundant as to be thrown away, and yet too scarce to be found. I'm speaking of the supposedly unobtainable nice, intelligent, well educated man of reasonably decent appearance. Without apology, I will put myself in that category, and note the cognitive dissonance that I'm expected to embrace.

While my self-esteem issues have, in the past (and not even very distant past) have been well developed, I can see with my own eyes that they are not reality based. I'm a PhD candidate in Mathematics from a top 20 school (never mind which one), so even if we forget the IQ test results (I came in somewhere over 200), I think I am standing on firm ground when I say that I am well educated and intelligent. I'm reasonably tall (6'3"), thin (weighing a little less than the average American man, at 190 pounds), and noticed that the women in class used to sit near me, so I would seem to be decent looking. I also haven't seen a date since my fiancee dumped me a few years ago, doing so, in part, because I found the beaver shots in porn unappealing. Really, I was valued that little.

I talk to other men who could be similarly described and I hear similar stories. Even the faculty, who are well established in their careers, some of them not much older than us (and looking like models themselves) keep on turning out to be members of the sad and lonely bachelor's club, like us; even gold digging couldn't save their dating lives (not that gold digging is a good thing). So, the alleged type of choice (nice, intelligent, well educated, attractive) is left rotting on the vine, and yet we're supposed to believe that it is unobtainable by women. Who, apparently, expect us to be intelligent and stupid at the same time.

We're not going to believe any such thing, because it's absurd, and the absurdity is more than a little bit relevant.



If younger women legitimately could not do better than they've done, then sympathy would be a thing gladly given. I won't even quarrel if the criteria for "better" are what some would term "shallow." I don't get upset when cheerleader types choose linebackers over ectomorphic math nerds, even ones who've been able to make a modest income through modeling. But when their choices can't even be defended on the grounds of "shallow" criteria, when the abusive douchebags are morbidly obese, ugly morons, there is only one conclusion to be drawn.

These women are seeking out abusive jerks. That's why they keep dating abusive jerks, and I'm sorry, but that's not a problem. That's a choice. It's a choice that I see a number of women make, and make, and keep on making, and these women fail to get my sympathy for a good reason. Now that I've been on Fetlife for a few weeks, I have the vocabulary to express that reason, quite concisely.

Because I'm not here to do another guy's aftercare for him. Seriously, I'm not. What these girls are having isn't a personal crisis, it's just the fallout from their latest scene with an inept dom (or dom like individual) and I am not in the business of cleaning up other people's messes for them for free. Why should I be?

"Nice" doesn't mean "unassertive" or "stupid" - when I'm being used by somebody who will not take responsibility for her own choices in life, and choose her playmates with at least a little care and use at least a little common sense while doing so, I have the right to notice that. That's a reasonable thing for me to say, so how do some women deal with the fact that I've said it? By being mature enough to recognize and acknowledge a valid point, one which any reasonable person in our area could confirm the validity of just by comparing the long term dateless to the bed hoppers? No. What they will do is set up a straw man. "So, you're mad because she won't sleep with you, and so you were just using your show of sympathy to get into her pants." The conclusion is nonsense, because the premise is a shameless distortion of what I said. Go back and read again, if you think otherwise. My observation was not that this woman or that woman did not find her way into my bed, so this is an attempt on the part of a speaker to change the subject before an embarrassing truth is noticed: that some women seem determined to make their own problems.

What's really annoying is that the abuse some of these women will go out seeking will then go on to become the excuse for the abuse they dish out, not to their former tormentors, but to the nice, normal guy who has the misfortune of becoming the next boyfriend, and ends up never having seen what hit him. Some masochists can turn out to be sadists, as well, inflicting misery on those who do not consent to it, after playing the role of the hopeless and uncared for damsel in distress. That's sometimes how guys like me sometimes end up getting mistreated, before discovering that there is no sympathy or aftercare for us.

Where are the genuinely nice guys, these days? Hiding. I have to say, the library has never looked so inviting. They've got new lighting in, and there is drama free peace and quiet in there. That can be nice, sometimes.



Valid points, once they are made on the Internet, and once they find their way past the manipulative responses some people love to give, seemed destined to be distorted for personal gain. Such is the case with the observation that some women evidently are looking for creeps.

That brings us to the "Nice Guy (tm)" (as I saw somebody call this sort of person in another forum), not to be confused with the guy who is nice. One who comes to mind, who I saw posting in the forums, was somebody who took the position that while he was clearly overweight, he was entitled to date thin, shapely, highly attractive women ... "bikini models", as one of his critics put it (without contradiction from the "nice guy"), but not just any bikini model would do. Even though this guy wasn't very bright, himself, he insisted that the woman he met for "romance" be intelligent and highly connected and popular - a "socialite" as somebody else summarized (a summary that the nice guy accepted). This , he felt entitled to, because he was on a diet and so "was trying and that's all that matters." OK, somebody asked, what if an overweight woman was on a diet and wanted to go out with him. Since she was trying, would he go out with her, on the basis that she was trying and that (as he had said) was all that mattered.

His position was that this was different. He wanted his highly intelligent, bikini modeling socialite today, he was entitled, he was angry that this wasn't happening, and he was ready to defend what Elliot Rodger had done (look up the 2014 Isla Vista killings), because this was what happened when women chose to be female canines.

The fact that there are only so many bikini modeling socialites (intelligent or otherwise) to be found made no impression on him. People would try to reason with him, to not avail. In this guy's mental world, everybody had the right to have a monogamous relationship with the homecoming queen in high school, and he just couldn't (or wouldn't) understand the point when somebody asked him how one girl was supposed to be faithful to several thousand guys at the same time. No, he didn't want to hear that. He wanted what he wanted when he wanted it, and there was going to be blood if he didn't get it, and if everybody else didn't get it, too.

That attitude really is one of sexual entitlement, and it is frightening, not just because it is rape-y, but because it is insane. Rage will follow, not merely because somebody isn't given something to which he isn't entitled, but because a logical impossibility is not being achieved. There is no appeasing of such a person, no way of making peace with him even through the most indefensible of means. To call him a potential rapist is to do an injustice to rapists who, however evil, at least are willing to live in the real world.

That's the kind of "nice guy" from whom I hope people would have the sense to run, and when I see somebody talking about his wish that evolution would be over, I wonder if I've run into yet another person like that. This is the reality such men seem to want to fight: that which one has to offer should tell one what one has the right to ask for in a prospective mate. Yes, there are abusive walking troll dolls with girlfriends who look like models, but that's because the girlfriends need to get a clue. Even if they live for the abuse, they could find more attractive abusers, and at some point, probably will. The troll doll's good fortune is a fluke, like the winning of a lottery ticket. Would one shoot up the inside of a 7-11 just because everybody didn't win the lottery today?

I guess the Nice Guy (tm) probably would. If one wishes to have a well educated girlfriend, one should have an education oneself, or adjust one's expectations accordingly, yet one can watch "nice" guys who dropped out of high school go insane as educated women indicate that they are looking for educated men. The better looking women tend to get better looking men. And so on. That's how life is, and there is nothing wrong with that.

The problem with the Nice Guy (tm) is that he is not really nice, at all. He's an emotional blackmailer who is trying to get women who can (and should) do better than him into settling, in order to escape the fate of being branded "shallow." I don't doubt that the pressure can be real, but it can be ignored.

Just like men, women ought to remember that as one tries to do right by the people around one, that one is one of the people around one. One should set out to do right by oneself, and that starts with the having of a few standards.









That's where my brief quasi-essay ends. I won't call it a true essay, because this is simple stuff. It's fair, it's honest, and it addresses the shortcomings I've noticed in the behavior of both genders (well, some of them), so one might think that people would be able to deal with this.

I'm proud to say that I was able to type those last few words with a straight face. My acting skills must be improving. No, of course people could not cope, and I'll get to the idiocy that followed, after the break.









This comes to us from a self-described asexual who decided to proudly display her inability to read even on an eighth grade level, as she dusted off this form letter rant. Take a look at what I wrote above and now take a look at her response:

"This is my general response.

It was way too long to read, I tried to muddle through. you seem to be under the impression that just being nice either causes people to goad you into being mean, or makes it so women don't take you seriously. Unfortunately a LOT of what you wrote smacks of entitlement that I don't even think you recognize. Being kind doesn't give you a one-way ticket to a woman's heart... it should be your default regardless of 'reward.'

This video helps a lot to tease out the difference between REALLY being a nice guy... and just being an entitled (expletitive deleted) who thinks he's a nice guy."

I left out the link to a video on Youtube, which I didn't bother to view. If the airhead wants to drop by and share that link with you, that's fine. Yes, I called her an airhead. The word fits, and like I said "nice" does not mean "doormat." This is what I wrote to her in reply.

"Hi. You're a complete idiot. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, and you show no signs at all of understanding that.

I know that you can't help being stupid. A low IQ is a condition, not a choice. You can, however, choose to recognize the reality of that condition and refrain from responding to writings which you don't understand.

I'm going to block you, now. Goodbye."

What else was there to say, other than "if you don't have the time to read a piece of writing, then you don't have the time or the right to reply to it."



Wasn't that fun? What I think was my favorite part of that was the way in which, as she complained about my alleged (and in fact, fairly non-existent) "sense of entitlement", she put one of her own on display, giving no thought to the matter.

Think about it, really think about it: When a woman wants to come up to me in a coffeehouse or somewhere else I hang out, and she wants to cry on my shoulder about her latest evil boyfriend, why do I owe it to her to listen to that? In fact, it is exactly this woman's position that I owe that, regardless of the role the supposed victim has been playing in creating her own problems. Note that this is a direct quote from something you've seen reposted in its entirety, so there can be no reasonable thought that maybe I quoted this person out of context:

"it should be your default regardless of 'reward.'"

My reply to that expression of entitlement is a simple one: NO!
and good luck to anybody pushing that ridiculous demand. I've got problems of my own to deal with, problems with which I get no assistance to speak of, I have interests that I'd like to spend more time pursuing, and to the extent allowed by my limited circumstances, I have a world to explore. All of that is far more important to me than the impulse to take care of those who won't bother to take care of themselves, and it should be.