Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kronk wrote:
It sounds like you and your girlfriend are not on the same page, physically speaking. That leads to resentment and anger pretty quickly, from both sides. You should do the adult thing here and break up with her.

Agreed.

I was joking about the text thing. Sort of.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Not to mention the whole nice guy phenomenon. I read some nice long article on it, but it is in French, sadly.

I know this was posted two weeks ago... However... It may be one of your problems.

Expecting to find a balanced point of view about male/female relationship on feminist websites is pretty much like expecting to find a balanced point of view about renewable energies on Exxon's website.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I've read the ads. It's all about "sex equality", blah blah blah...

But is it really the case ?

In my book, the male equivalent of "cashier" would be "docker" or "construction worker", NOT "head of sales" or "senior manager".
For each male CEO, thousands have to work outside all year long at the back of this garbage truck or with that jackhammer. We can switch whenever you want, ladies.

Oh, that's right, they just want to be CEOs. Not plumbers. So much for the sex equality in jobs...

Yeah, there's still room for lots of improvement in our societies. But most often than not, feminists do not actually care about equality. They just want to have it all. Reading and actually believing most feminist material is just like shooting yourself in the balls. Litterally.

Women don't want nice guys. They're boring. If you don't want to be the bad one, try to be the cool one.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you want to sleep around, be single, if you want a relationship, be in a relationship.

Or be in some kind of open relationship thingy, it seems to work for some people. But then being honest about it is of adamant importance, I guess.

chaos0xomega wrote:
While its not 'normal' in the sense that its not common, its certainly very much still normal (in the sense that its not abnormal). I know more than a few (several of them quite handsome/quite sexy IMO) men and women in the same age group that have been similarly single their entire life.

Well, I have tried to find some statistics about it, but the only thing I could find was the median age of first sexual intercourse. (I search for statistics on the age of first sexual intercourse because it is much more objective the age of first romantic relationship and therefore more accurate, not because I care that much about it).
When there are more detailed statistics, they usually stop at 20 at best .

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, start a Facebook, its a good way to socialize, not directly through the internet mind you, but its a way of finding out thing about others that you might not ever know otherwise.

I have a G+ account, but nobody I know from outside of G+ uses G+ .
Maybe I should use Facebook, but I do not like that idea too much.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Also, at least for me, it strongly reminds me of BDSM type stuff, having been involved with that 'scene' (and I DONT mean the white-washed 50 shades of grey type gak) in the past, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

No cute stuff like Mighty Jill Off ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Litcheur wrote:
I know this was posted two weeks ago... However... It may be one of your problems.

No, I do not think my problem is reading feminist websites. And I am pretty sure you do not need to stop being nice to be cool. You know, by the way, I am not trying to be nice to girls, I am trying to be nice to everyone in general.

Litcheur wrote:
Expecting to find a balanced point of view about male/female relationship on feminist websites is pretty much like expecting to find a balanced point of view about renewable energies on Exxon's website.

Not really. As long as you ignore a few rabid (and irrelevant) zealots I've found that feminists tend to have very good ideas on how to have a healthy relationship, and those ideas benefit men as well. The only people who lose under those ideas are men who insist on being in charge of everything and having a nice submissive housewife.

Oh, that's right, they just want to be CEOs. Not plumbers. So much for the sex equality in jobs...

Everyone wants to be a CEO instead of a plumber, even the plumbers. And the reason nobody is fighting for women to have more representation in low-end jobs is that they aren't excluded from those jobs in the same way that they're excluded from high-end jobs.

Women don't want nice guys. They're boring.

Reading an article by its title, I see. In the context of the post you quoted "nice guys" aren't people who are genuinely nice, they're entitled guys who whine about how nice they are and how unfair it is that women won't give them sex after they put all the "niceness" tokens into the sex machine.

 Peregrine wrote:
And the reason nobody is fighting for women to have more representation in low-end jobs is that they aren't excluded from those jobs in the same way that they're excluded from high-end jobs.

False. Women in the construction industry for example have it rough. Hell, just last week I got in trouble at work because I told off a subcontractor who was running his mouth about how women have no place being plumbers and should stay in the kitchen.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Hell, just last week I got in trouble at work because I told off a subcontractor who was running his mouth about how women have no place being plumbers and should stay in the kitchen.

That makes no freaking sense, plumbers works quite often in kitchens!
Anyhow, nice move. This should have gotten you praise rather than trouble.

chaos0xomega wrote:
False. Women in the construction industry for example have it rough. Hell, just last week I got in trouble at work because I told off a subcontractor who was running his mouth about how women have no place being plumbers and should stay in the kitchen.

I'm not saying there's no sexism involved, but I think there's a difference between individual sexist s and entire industries where there's an unwritten rule that if you're a woman you're never going to rise above a certain level, no matter how qualified you are.

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh, that's right, they just want to be CEOs. Not plumbers. So much for the sex equality in jobs...

Everyone wants to be a CEO instead of a plumber, even the plumbers. And the reason nobody is fighting for women to have more representation in low-end jobs is that they aren't excluded from those jobs in the same way that they're excluded from high-end jobs.

It's pretty much the same thing everywhere, actually. If the job has strong physical requirements, the woman will probably have some trouble to "fit in", no matter her physical strenght or dedication. If you have to work with kids or anything related to pregnancy, it's the man who may have some problems.

But yeah, that's funny, when talking about "sex equality", it's not about putting women in the back of garbage trucks, and it's not about having more "male midwifes" or nannies either.

No, it's only about putting women in top-end jobs.

I'm okay with that. But stop pretending it's all about equality. Because it's not. It's about money and power for me, myself and my pals.

All inequalities are not in favor of men. If you really fought for true equality, you'd also have to fight against women sometimes. Very, very few feminists are able to do that.

 Peregrine wrote:

Women don't want nice guys. They're boring.

Reading an article by its title, I see. In the context of the post you quoted "nice guys" aren't people who are genuinely nice, they're entitled guys who whine about how nice they are and how unfair it is that women won't give them sex after they put all the "niceness" tokens into the sex machine.

As a former "male feminist", I know this kind of articles.

Pushing on the head of guys who feel that something is wrong with them and are already struggling to get a relationship? Yeahhh, that really, really sounds like a great idea.

I think the whiners are on both sides. I was a "nice guy", and now that I'm looking back, I realize that there are probably misunderstandings between guys and girls and (lots of) extrapolations, that eventually lead to that "niceness" thing. But these ideas were definitely NOT put into my brain by my father, my uncles or my buddies.

Nice guys just need to understand there's sometime a huge difference between what women truly desire and what they say about that.

I want a nice husband, a beautiful house in Suburbia, three kids, a station wagon and a cute labrador, because that's what the society expects me to say. (****yawn****)

I never even heard a woman saying she wanted a nice guy. Does that really happens?
But then again, I do not want to be nice to women, to get them to love me. I want to be nice to everyone, because I feel it is the right thing to do.
I do not expect women to love me “because I am nice”, and that is because I do not expect to love a girl “because she is nice” either.

Skipping the "women don't want real equality" tangent since it's off-topic. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to debate how selfish and evil feminism is.

Litcheur wrote:
Pushing on the head of guys who feel that something is wrong with them and are already struggling to get a relationship? Yeahhh, that really, really sounds like a great idea.

It really does sound like a great idea. "Nice guys" are entitled TFGs that need to be told that their behavior is unacceptable. Don't like it? Don't be a "nice guy".

I want a nice husband, a beautiful house in Suburbia, three kids, a station wagon and a cute labrador, because that's what the society expects me to say. (****yawn****)

My wife would call me a psychopath for this probably, but here goes:

In my experience, your average women want three things, in this order...

(a) to feel special (beautiful, smart, unique, interesting, etc)
(b) stability
(c) sexy times

Beyond just being yourself, these are the three things, assuming (c) is physically possible. Firts comes (a), then you prove you can provide (b), then comes (c).

Also, if you ask any woman who you are on friendly terms with on a date, 8 times out of 10, you'll get a date. #9 will let you down nicely, and #10 will make you feel bad about it. So with those other 8, its then up to you to do (a), prove (b), so you can later get some (c).

Just some advice from a late thirty-something who wished he knew all these earlier in life.

 jasper76 wrote:
In my experience, your average person wants three things, in this order...

Fixed that for you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
In my experience, your average person wants three things, in this order...

Fixed that for you.

Sure...was just stating it as masculine, because this thread is largely populated by guys talking about girls.

But if I think about it, I agree with you.

The average male wants stability more than sexy times? Man, I must know some real outliers.

This one's fool proof.

 Bromsy wrote:
The average male wants stability more than sexy times? Man, I must know some real outliers.

Ok, here's a deal: you can have a good job, good health, and plenty of money in the bank, and settle for porn. Or you can have a minimum-wage job, constant worrying about if you can afford to buy enough to eat this week or which of your overdue bills you should pay first, the threat of getting fired at any moment and being homeless, a nagging health issue that could be serious but not enough money to see a doctor, and all the sex you want. Your choice.

 Peregrine wrote:
Skipping the "women don't want real equality" tangent since it's off-topic. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to debate how selfish and evil feminism is.

Litcheur wrote:
Pushing on the head of guys who feel that something is wrong with them and are already struggling to get a relationship? Yeahhh, that really, really sounds like a great idea.

It really does sound like a great idea. "Nice guys" are entitled TFGs that need to be told that their behavior is unacceptable. Don't like it? Don't be a "nice guy".

In my book, telling people how to be "genuinely nice" by acting like a jerk is not an appropriate behaviour, and "nice guy" shaming is just as despicable as fat shaming. But I guess fat shaming is supposed to be really nice to overweight people because we're just trying to save our eyeballs these people from cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and so on. Don't like it ? Stop eating so much and move that fat ass.

I see nice guys more like men who are trying so hard they're doing it wrong and become frustrated because everybody else seem to get their fair amount of love, and not them.

But I may be wrong, and they may just be TFGs, just as obese people are just behemoths that need to be saved from killing themselves with burgers and hot dogs.

 Peregrine wrote:

I want a nice husband, a beautiful house in Suburbia, three kids, a station wagon and a cute labrador, because that's what the society expects me to say. (****yawn****)

I honestly can't say that I've ever heard a real woman say that. Are you sure you aren't just quoting "nice guy" cliches instead of real people?

I don't know. Are you part of these "real people" ? Because that's pretty much what you said yourself in your very last message : Stability über alles.

Problem is, Bromsy's right : people, especially young people, just don't put stability above everything else. Most people in their 20s will definitely chose an unstable but exciting life over a stable and boring one. You can have all the stability you want later. It's important when you want to settle, build a family, things like that, but it comes later.

The best way to get laid is to become a rockstar. Not an accountant.

Litcheur wrote:
Problem is, Bromsy's right : people, especially young people, just don't put stability above everything else. Most people in their 20s will definitely chose an unstable but exciting life over a stable and boring one. You can have all the stability you want later. It's important when you want to settle, build a family, things like that, but it comes later.

For most people in their 20s that I know, finding a job, or finding a better job, is one of their top priorities, certainly above things like dating, partying, and so forth, because, lets face it, none of those things matter if you cant eat, and most women (and perhaps men) don't want a partner that can't put together two nickels at the end of the week.

Well, Maslow's Hierarchy of needs tell us that Basic needs such as food, shelter, water, and reproduction (i.e Sex) come before stability.

Self-actualization- A temporary stae of being the best you at that moment.
Self-esteem- Feeling good about who you are as a person
Group- Being part of something larger than yourself
Security- Safety and stability
Basic needs- Food, water, shelter, sex, air.

Maslow's Theory is an archaic theory that has been supplanted by modern pschology.

From what I can find, any recent studies of it are just based on questionairres about what people thought was important to people at certain times in their life...not exactly hard science here.

Litcheur wrote:
In my book, telling people how to be "genuinely nice" by acting like a jerk is not an appropriate behaviour, and "nice guy" shaming is just as despicable as fat shaming.

No, it's not even close to the same thing. A fat person does not harm anyone, unless you're using a ridiculous definition of "harm" that includes having to be aware that someone you find unattractive exists. A "nice guy", on the other hand, tends to make a lot of people really uncomfortable with their creepy and inappropriate behavior.

I see nice guys more like men who are trying so hard they're doing it wrong and become frustrated because everybody else seem to get their fair amount of love, and not them.

No, they are not "trying too hard". If your belief is that women are sex machines and you're entitled to receive sex if you put in enough "niceness" tokens then you aren't a nice person. You're a manipulative sociopath who thinks that pretending to be nice will get you what you want.

I don't know. Are you part of these "real people" ? Because that's pretty much what you said yourself in your very last message : Stability über alles.

No, you missed the point there. Stability is important, but most people just take that for granted and don't bother to list it when they talk about what kind of person they want to date. The woman who says "I just want a stable income and a house" but really wants something else doesn't exist outside of stereotypes.

Problem is, Bromsy's right : people, especially young people, just don't put stability above everything else. Most people in their 20s will definitely chose an unstable but exciting life over a stable and boring one. You can have all the stability you want later. It's important when you want to settle, build a family, things like that, but it comes later.

Only because for most of those people what "unstable" means is "I might have to ask my parents for help if this goes badly", not "I'm going to be homeless and begging for food". A minimum level of stability is taken for granted, and I doubt most people would willingly give that up in exchange for a little more excitement.

The best way to get laid is to become a rockstar. Not an accountant.

Well yes, celebrities of either gender get all the sex they want. But that doesn't mean that you have to be "exciting" to some absurd extreme to get laid. You just have to be interesting, and it's a pretty low standard to meet.

 jasper76 wrote:
Maslow's Theory is an archaic theory that has been supplanted by modern pschology.

From what I can find, any recent studies of it are just based on questionairres about what people thought was important to people at certain times in their life...not exactly hard science here.

Well considering it is from 1956 or so I think the term Archaic maybe a bit much. I'm interested in what has replaced it for a broad spectrum approach to the topic.

Accordiung to Wikipedia, which is always correct, the theory dates back to 1943...probably still not "archaic" so I'll just give you that. Apparantly, Maslow's heirarchy has been largely replaced by Attachment Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory

None of this is likely to help anyone get a date, but its interesting!

Well, understanding a bit about psychology can't hurt when trying to get a date.

Thanks for the link.

Litcheur wrote:
In my book, telling people how to be "genuinely nice" by acting like a jerk is not an appropriate behaviour, and "nice guy" shaming is just as despicable as fat shaming. But I guess fat shaming is supposed to be really nice to overweight people because we're just trying to save our eyeballs these people from cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and so on. Don't like it ? Stop eating so much and move that fat ass.

I see nice guys more like men who are trying so hard they're doing it wrong and become frustrated because everybody else seem to get their fair amount of love, and not them.

But I may be wrong, and they may just be TFGs, just as obese people are just behemoths that need to be saved from killing themselves with burgers and hot dogs.

Do you know what makes the “nice guy” that much unpopular? It is not that they do not manage to seduce women. It is all about the way they deal with it.
What is the difference between me and the proverbial “nice guy” that makes it so that nobody is “shaming me” around here? It is basically that I do not blame the whole rest of the world for my problems and pretend to be a perfect angel of perfection. Really, that is what makes all the difference. Imagine some fat person that actually eats junk food all the time and do no exercise at all, yet complain all the time about how it is everyone else's fault, and not his/her own, that he/she is fat. How do you expect people to react? Certainly not the same way as when some fat person that eats junk food all the time and do no exercise at all tells how he feels bad about himself/herself for his/her lack of self-control and ask people for advice on tricks and rules to help himself/herself to get rid of his/her bad habits. The first one inspire scorn, and the second one empathy. Except for some jerks that will scorn both, of course, but hey, haters gonna hate.

 Easy E wrote:
Well, Maslow's Hierarchy of needs tell us that Basic needs such as food, shelter, water, and reproduction (i.e Sex) come before stability.

Self-actualization- A temporary stae of being the best you at that moment.
Self-esteem- Feeling good about who you are as a person
Group- Being part of something larger than yourself
Security- Safety and stability
Basic needs- Food, water, shelter, sex, air.

Never made sense to me. Seriously, what is sex doing in the same list as food and air? What the bloody hell? Go tell the Pope that he cannot survive without sex or something!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
This one's fool proof.

Not around here, man, not around here .

Alright, guys. Let's make a goal that we all ask a girl to go on a date this Friday. Change requires action, no?
So how about this, we all ask a girl(guy) on a date-if they say yes, and if the date goes swimmingly I'll send you something from my Necron army. There's some incentive to live your house.

But Friday is 'Merica Day....

 Peregrine wrote:

Litcheur wrote:
In my book, telling people how to be "genuinely nice" by acting like a jerk is not an appropriate behaviour, and "nice guy" shaming is just as despicable as fat shaming.

No, it's not even close to the same thing. A fat person does not harm anyone, unless you're using a ridiculous definition of "harm" that includes having to be aware that someone you find unattractive exists.

A "nice guy", on the other hand, tends to make a lot of people really uncomfortable with their creepy and inappropriate behavior.

White Knight + Fat Shaming. Works every time.

Obesity harms the entire society, not only obese people. The most obvious harm to society is the burden on the health system. I'm not an expert of north-american plants, but in Europ, money doesn't grow on trees: every penny you spend on these fatrolls is a penny you won't spend on the cancerous tumors of that kid.

Obese people do not only divert funds that would help to heal these children. No. Fat people gave these poor kids that cancer in the first place.
By the same process, fat people also kill baby seals.

If "Nice Guys" or smokers shaming is right, fat shaming is damn right. Or maybe most kinds of shaming are despicable, period.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Do you know what makes the “nice guy” that much unpopular? It is not that they do not manage to seduce women. It is all about the way they deal with it.

I plead guilty, I belong to that asylum with the blue ceiling and the white spotlight that moves from east to west. Most of our patients need to vent when things go south, by going ballistic, blaming the wrong person (or the entire world), banging their feet/fists/heads on walls/furniture or yelling at inert objects.

My girlfriend took my wine glass and threw it on the wall the last time her boss pissed her off. Damn, even my dog attacks innocent socks. Maybe they're all nuts. Maybe that "being frustrated" thing comes in that "being alive" stuff, and people need to vent sometimes.

You want to know what's really wrong with nice guys? They're so socially inept they don't even know anymore what is a normal behaviour and what isn't. They're so fethed up they even accept to be shamed about things like venting their frustration, or pretending this (being nice) to get that (get sex).

Guess what? These are all part of what normal people do on a regular basis. It's how basic social interactions work.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Imagine some fat person that actually eats junk food all the time and do no exercise at all, yet complain all the time about how it is everyone else's fault, and not his/her own, that he/she is fat. How do you expect people to react?

Find excuses. They're here for a reason, right? Genetics. Glandular problems. Evil corporations.

Use everything you can.
Just avoid things like "my dear, you've got so much self control you'd lose a stare duel against a peanut butter jar."

<deleted, sarcasm meter is on OFF>