# GirlWritesWhat on Nice Guys and the Friendzone



## b0red (Dec 1, 2012)

haha i don't know... i'm a nice girl but i seem to be attracted to bad boys idek why.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

b0red said:


> haha i don't know... i'm a nice girl but i seem to be attracted to bad boys idek why.


My guess would be, and I'm no expert or anything, but it might have something to do with the fact that you are a teenage girl. :laughing:


----------



## b0red (Dec 1, 2012)

marked174 said:


> My guess would be, and I'm no expert or anything, but it might have something to do with the fact that you are a teenage girl. :laughing:


Lol that must be it, badgey.


----------



## funcoolname (Sep 17, 2011)

marked174 said:


> When a person who has an interest in sociology finds that the dynamics and experiences surrounding the friend-zone to be less than ideal, they can sometimes offer criticisms or complaints about the nature, purpose, and outcome of it. These critical analysis's, not unlike the OP's, can raise legitimate concerns about it, and can do so with the intent of proposing and supporting equal treatment to others.
> 
> I happen to be an individual who subscribes to the social exchange theory, and believe that the friend-zone, simply put, is a demonstration of an unhealthy relationship due to imbalanced interpersonal communication and improper distribution of relationship-based exchanges. My anger, for lack of a better word, is placed on the acceptance of and undervalument to those who want and need healthy relationships (those in the friend-zone rarely have healthy relationships). My anger is also placed on those who decide to deride, bully, and vilify those people who, now more than ever, need support and encouragement.
> 
> I believe that these are legitimate complaints and could serve as a healthy alternative to the normally malignant views toward those who oppose friend-zoning.


I am not attempting to deride, vilify, etc. guys who feel they have been put in the "friend zone". I dislike the whole notion of the "friend zone", and I, apart from its inability to explain what I think women mean when they say they are cautious of "nice guys", disliked the video because all it does is fan the flames of vitriol, rather than clarify either sides' opinions. I edited my post above to further explain why I wrote what I did. I am glad you questioned my conclusions and language. My issue was perhaps trying to explain why her arguments did not work, using her terms and the terms that have become popular - entitlement, nice guy, etc.. which already leave a bitter taste in people's mouths. I got caught up in first, my anger at the video, and the following comments demonizing feminism and generalizing about women by people who are not women. As for your above post, I completely agree, that is the core of the problem, and it is much nicer to see it that way over the man vs. woman, feminist vs. nice guy approach.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

@_funcoolname_ 

I detect some defensiveness and some aggressiveness in this debate. I feel like Feminism is under attack. But I don't think Feminism is at fault, tbh. 

First of all, I don't think anyone in this thread will defend people who knowingly use those who are attracted to them for favors and social domination (a slave, essentially). Because that's just revolting. 

So what's going on? 

I'd say there's a few ideas that are causing this problem. 

-The idea that shallowness is bad
-The idea that niceness is good and increases romantic appeal
-The idea that we are not attracted to bad boys/girls

These ideas are causing problems because they're all false. 

-Physical attraction is important
-Niceness often degrades romantic appeal and social standing
-We are generally attracted to bad boys/girls

We pretend that we'd pick someone less physically attractive, more compassionate to our needs, and less of a user. . . We pretend that if someone were genuinely nice to us, that it would improve their chances with us to make ourselves feel better about our romantic selection. 

This "fairy tale" leads to nice-guy and nice-girl behavior. 

But let's be honest, it's bullshit. If someone doesn't turn us on, niceness doesn't do the trick in increasing that appeal. This is because we're shallow, we gauge things based upon social ranking, and because attraction matters. 

We want someone with good physical traits and social adeptness. We want a lover who is nice, but more specifically, we want a _*valuable lover*_ to be nice to us. 

"right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." -Thucydides

Importance of this quote- Instinctively, to humans, right and wrong, fair and unfair, only matters between equals in "social value". If someone is of low social value, their virtues are meaningless to those who deem themselves socially superior. This rule applies in almost every avenue of human socialization. It applied in the Melian dialogues. It applies to American political Hegemony, and it applies to games of sexual power and value.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

funcoolname said:


> I am not attempting to deride, vilify, etc. guys who feel they have been put in the "friend zone". I dislike the whole notion of the "friend zone", and I, apart from its inability to explain what I think women mean when they say they are cautious of "nice guys", disliked the video because all it does is fan the flames of vitriol, rather than clarify either sides' opinions. I edited my post above to further explain why I wrote what I did. I am glad you questioned my conclusions and language. My issue was perhaps trying to explain why her arguments did not work, using her terms and the terms that have become popular - entitlement, nice guy, etc.. which already leave a bitter taste in people's mouths. I got caught up in first, my anger at the video, and the following comments demonizing feminism and generalizing about women by people who are not women. As for your above post, I completely agree, that is the core of the problem, and it is much nicer to see it that way over the man vs. woman, feminist vs. nice guy approach.


To be clear: I was not referencing or implying that you were one of the "bullies" I described earlier. I hope that you didn't take my response as an implication as such, for that was far from my intent. There is a huge difference between criticizing another's actions and just plain being cruel (to those interested, you can usually see the distinction when the word "pussy" is thrown around in regards to the friend-zoned person).



funcoolname said:


> As for your above post, I completely agree, that is the core of the problem, and it is much nicer to see it that way over the man vs. woman, feminist vs. nice guy approach.


Unfortunately, the essence of my post does in fact imply things that I'm pretty sure you don't agree with. 

For example, the main arguments against those in the friend-zone is that these guys feel like they are entitled to something in the relationship that they aren't getting. This argument portrays the friend-zone victims as people who see their girls as a prize or commodity and that this is a very bad thing. The argument is also made that these guys (or in some cases, girls) act like the relationship is based on a contract. 

The problem with that is that, according to social exchange theory, everybody actually does view their relationships in these exact economic terms. Because people only have 24 hours in a day, and can only invest so much in people and relationships, they budget and prioritize their time and efforts with others. Every single person has a preconceived set of expectations from the relationships they have with every single person in their lives. These expectations vary due to the specific nature of the relationships and the individual values of the person.

For example, I expect my mother to treat me a certain way. There are things I have always expected to take from her (love, support, encouragement) and their are certain things I am expected to give (love, support, encouragement as well). I expect my friends and co-workers to give me different things (fun, intriguing conversation) and they have similar expectations of me. If any of these people stop giving me these things, or if I do so to them, then a "breach of contract" occurs and we have a problem. Unless one of us changes our actions or expectations of the other, we will continue to struggle over the nature of our relationship or the "terms of our contract".

To make things even more complicated, as time progresses people can make the relationship intensify or wane. As people grow closer together or drift further apart, old standards and expectations are re-defined and "new clauses" are written in their relational contract; if two people aren't on the same page with that transition, things can get quite ugly.

The inherent problem in our society is that, although these issues are common and accepted in many types relationships, when addressing the friend-zone they become unacceptable. This is unfortunately due to a perverted set of expectations regarding gender roles. Instead of dealing with the relationship and communication issues, it is common to simply blame the guy.


----------



## funcoolname (Sep 17, 2011)

Btmangan said:


> @_funcoolname_
> 
> I detect some defensiveness and some aggressiveness in this debate. I feel like Feminism is under attack. But I don't think Feminism is at fault, tbh.
> 
> ...



I agree, the problems have nothing to do with feminism. At its most basic, I think marked147 is correct about the situation, but as you pull the lens back to look at what led so many to that situation, it does become more muddled, and has obviously attracted many connotations and strong emotional reactions due to those.

I have probably "friend-zoned" male friends without using them, and my practical explanation would be this for non-using friend-zoning (and why it can go on for so long with the guy making effort), in and of itself, not all the men's and women's issues that have been tacked on to it: Friend-zoning is rejection. not some "zone" you have to pass through before the other realizes they likes you, which from what I have read and heard (as in the youtube vid), it is viewed as. The length of the problem may come from the fact that girls are traditionally not as vocal about their feelings as guys, that guys are taught not to display emotions other than anger, competence etc, that the other person noticed affection but knows it's arrogant to assume a friend likes you and tell them "I don't like you" without solid proof of their affection, etc. 

Basically, the person may or may not come to have feelings for you later, it's possible, but it's not guaranteed, which is why it's better to just be upfront so you know where you stand instead of continuing to invest yourself blindly. As for the video, Scott was an idiot for pursuing anyway because she was already in a relationship. Only pursue single people. For practical purposes, it's just the other party's interest, regardless of whether society/media has placed it there or not. Niceness is a good trait to have in general, it's one of my favorites, and it is frustrating that "nice guy" and "friend zone" have become entangled. But, the bottom line is that friend zone = rejection for the time being no matter how nice you are - it shouldn't matter so much that it's because she prefers a 'bad boy' at the moment, or he wants a cheerleader, or he/she thinks you're not cute enough, or mean enough. She/He may be an idiot and brainwashed by the media, but rejection is rejection and it is their choice. And whether you cut ties with the rejector, remain their friend, do something wise or stupid in an attempt to make them jealous or prove yourself, at some point in your life, it should be recognized that your actions henceforth are your own choice, and how long you choose to stick with that action is your decision, and not something another person can be blamed for if they just aren't feeling it.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

funcoolname said:


> I agree, the problems have nothing to do with feminism. At its most basic, I think marked147 is correct about the situation, but as you pull the lens back to look at what led so many to that situation, it does become more muddled, and has obviously attracted many connotations and strong emotional reactions due to those.
> 
> I have probably "friend-zoned" male friends without using them, and my practical explanation would be this for non-using friend-zoning (and why it can go on for so long with the guy making effort), in and of itself, not all the men's and women's issues that have been tacked on to it: Friend-zoning is rejection. not some "zone" you have to pass through before the other realizes they likes you, which from what I have read and heard (as in the youtube vid), it is viewed as. The length of the problem may come from the fact that girls are traditionally not as vocal about their feelings as guys, that the other person noticed affection but knows it's arrogant to assume a friend likes you and tell them "I don't like you" without solid proof of their affection, etc.
> 
> Basically, the person may or may not come to have feelings for you later, it's possible, but it's not guaranteed, which is why it's better to just be upfront so you know where you stand instead of continuing to invest yourself blindly. As for the video, Scott was an idiot for pursuing anyway because she was already in a relationship. Only pursue single people. For practical purposes, it's just the other party's interest, regardless of whether society/media has placed it there or not. Niceness is a good trait to have in general, it's one of my favorites, and it is frustrating that "nice guy" and "friend zone" have become entangled. But, the bottom line is that friend zone = rejection for the time being no matter how nice you are - it shouldn't matter so much that it's because she prefers a 'bad boy' at the moment, or he wants a cheerleader, or he/she thinks you're not cute enough, or mean enough. She/He may be an idiot and brainwashed by the media, but rejection is rejection and it is their choice. And whether you cut ties with the rejector, remain their friend, do something wise or stupid in an attempt to make them jealous or prove yourself, at some point in your life, it should be recognized that your actions henceforth are your own choice, and how long you choose to stick with that action is your decision, and not something another person can be blamed for if they just aren't feeling it.


I agree with everything you've said. 

I think there is a myth that has gotten a lot of traction that if a guy is consistently nice to a girl, he will be able to show to her how much "better" he is than other prospects by showing the beauty of his caring soul, (especially if the guy the girl is currently chasing someone the guy sees as being a jerk).

A myth has developed that strong, quick attraction is "shallow" and that by becoming a genuine, caring friend, the man can show both his kindness, and allow the woman to get to know his "deeper self" which will allow the development of a non-shallow love. 

Film, entertainment, and the broader social discourse encourage these ideas. 

I say they've been largely overplayed and that these ideas have given false hope to many of these men who are making this attempt. 

And I agree with you that the attempt is foolish and based upon a fantasy. Not only does a woman have no obligation to give herself to a kind man she isn't attracted to, the strategy is (I'd argue) very poor to that end.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Btmangan said:


> So what's going on?
> 
> I'd say there's a few ideas that are causing this problem.
> 
> ...


Uggh... I hate the Melian Dialogue. You're right on all those points, but when I analyze the implications of power dynamics in this universe and the corruptions they have upon human nature and its relationship to everything... it makes me think that we might just be... in *​hell*.:shocked::shocked::shocked:


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

marked174 said:


> Uggh... I hate the Melian Dialogue. You're right on all those points, but when I analyze the implications of power dynamics in this universe and the corruptions they have upon human nature and its relationship to everything... it makes me think that we might just be... in *​hell*.:shocked::shocked::shocked:


Human nature can be pretty shitty. 

I try to find what goodness and value that I can. . . and have a good time while I'm here. But I don't pretend that we (or even I) are hardcoded for virtue.

Sometimes I let myself do shitty things because it's in my nature. But when I can afford it, I try to be kinder and less instinctive. That's all anyone can really do.


----------



## EmileeArsenic (Jun 8, 2012)

What is ignored here is that most often, the Nice Guys, quote unquote that these feminists have so much venom for are often guys who are throwing hissyfits because not all women want to have sex with all of their guy friends. The ones I get annoyed with (I'm a fairly outspoken feminist) are not guys who got hung up on a girl and got hurt, they're the ones who treat non-sexual friendships like insults. I, personally, have a lot of male friends who I really, truly believe are not sexually interested in me, nor am I in them. Awesome, we can chill and keep our clothes on. The guys I, personally, get angry with are the ones who openly admit that if they had the chance they would have sex with each and every one of their female friends and get upset when they happen to be single at the same time as one of their friends and she goes "whoa, there, Turbo... I'm... uh... I don't see you that way." and he gets butt-hurt and calls her frigid and a tease and accuse me and other women of enjoying denying them sex as if it was their right for having put up with us for so long. It's the attitude that some guys hold that we enjoy turning them down. 

It's one thing to be like "Ok, well, I'm interested in you and being around you when I can't have you will hurt me, so I'm going to have to walk away if you don't see me that way, too." and quite another to accuse her of enjoying hurting you.

I can tell you I was depressed for days when I had to tell one of my friends that I wasn't interested in him. It really hurt me to turn him down because I know he's a great guy (why else would I want to spend time around him? He's a really cool dude!), I hated to think that maybe I'd hurt him, I would never want to hurt him. I turned him down immediately after I found out he was interested because he deserves to know the truth and I really wish I DID return his feelings, I just don't. I have no control over who pops up in my dreams and who I find myself giddy durring and after speaking to. If I did, my life would be a LOT easier. 

I have had guy friends who have had expressed interest in me that I didn't return. I didn't brow-beat them or ridicule them. I understand. I have been interested in someone who didn't return it before. There's no hostility there from me or any other feminist I've ever known or encountered. The hostility springs up when the guy calls me a bitch because I didn't want to sleep with him and accuses me of stringing him on for entertainment (as if I enjoyed watching him jump through hoops pointlessly or something. I'm kind of a bitch, but I'm not enough of a bitch that I find enjoyment in watching people I consider friends get hurt like a cat playing with a mouse before it eats it or something. What kind of friend does that?) when I had absolutely no idea he was interested in me that way and really, honestly believed that he enjoyed spending time with me in a platonic way. I really hope that all of my guy friends aren't only friends with me because they want sex. I find that prospect depressing because that means I'm not a cool enough person for people to just like being around me just because they enjoy my company, and that being around me is work. Work they hope to get paid for in sex. I didn't know "WOMAN!!!! What are you doing??? Are you hungry? Let's go get tacos!!! I require tacos to live, and you should come with because you like them, too!!!" *actual text message I've received from a guy friend* was code for "oh, by the way, if we happen to eat under the same roof intentionally at some point, I'm going to expect you to put out... Just so you know..." Is it so wrong of me to enjoy spending time around a guy because I think his personality is cool and we have things in common, but I don't get horny or want to pick out wedding rings or baby names when I think about him?

I swear, sometimes when I hear about this topic I'm like "Jesus, sorry for liking non-sexual relationships with other heterosexual people of the opposite gender... I didn't know that was a crime."


On the other hand, I also don't claim to like guys who dote over me (I don't. It makes me uncomfortable). I like guys who think for themselves, have their own interests (and aren't afraid to say something along the lines of "F*** you! I LIKE Frosted Flakes!" while hugging the box and sticking his tongue out at me after I've said something about the sugar content because he's trying to lose weight and then proceeds to eat the entire box in front of me out of spite, perhaps even licking the bag clean just because he knows it'll make me roll my eyes and laugh... and because they're delicious...), are all-around cool people, call me on my shit when I'm being a bitch (which happens) and whom I listen to because they've earned the right to call me on my shit when I'm being a bitch by showing me that they have their own shit together or are at least on the right path. Actually, I usually end up liking good-natured trolls. They're my guy friends who tease me mercilessly (in a playful way), will take my keys and make me jump for them while calling me short and aren't afraid to tell me I'm wrong because being wrong is part of being human and he and I both know I'm no goddess. I also like the ones who always seem to be one step ahead of me and manage to come off to me as this strange combination of this brilliant mind and an easily amused little kid stuck sharing a body (the kind of guy who is simultaneously trying to crack a difficult problem and has been working at it for months, yet you'll find him on the couch watching Saturday morning cartoons in his pjs shamelessly drinking a beer he's balanced on his tummy out of a crazy straw "because crazy straws rule. We've gone over this. I'll drink beer out of a straw if I want to. It allows me all the benefits of early-morning alcoholism without having to move my arms, now shut up, my show's back on"). I'm a regular human who makes mistakes and hopefully one who's cool enough that he doesn't find it a chore to be around me.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

infinitewisdom said:


> So whats the solution to friend zone prone guys?


A) Don't be friend-zone prone.

B) Stand up for who you are, and don't give a crap whether she's interested or not. It's just a relationship... how many do we ruin in our lives? How many will come and go with our hearts broken?

The fact that we even care and invest ourselves in it prematurely is what allows friend-zoning to even happen... a guy gets his hopes up before the status of the relationship has settled.

C) When you don't care, flirting is a lot easier... because she can reject you and it literally does not matter at all.

D) The devil-may-care attitude that results will win you more women than being perceived as a nice-guy.

The downside... you end up not caring, so when you're confronted with a potential relationship, you don't care, so why bother? Having had relationship hassles, you realize being single is ten times better than trying to put up with a woman... at least the sort which are interested in someone who behaves like you do. (Where I'm at basically.)



> Do not spend money, invest minimal time, and companionship until they hit it?


Well, if money is tight, as it is with me, yes that's good advice. Relationships cost tons of money... I'd rather drive my truck and make the payment, than have it repossessed, with a woman bitching at me to get a new set of wheels. I think what is required here is a woman with a good paying job.

Woman doesn't have a job; she's not dating me.


So that's my general advice to "nice guys"... I was one, once... it's called being desperate. After you get some, and you lose the rose colored glasses, relationships aren't as great as you thought they were, so what's there to be nice about? Set your standards higher, and if you're just after sex, then work that out by being more manly, because the nice-guy approach wont get you laid... and I can't imagine it leads to a decent relationship either.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

I feel that there is a little too much hate on both sides. Not all "nice guys" are trying to manipulate women (or complain about their lack of success), nor are all women who are merely friends with guys (who have romantic feelings) manipulative.

We often don't have control over who we are attracted to and it is often more complicated than the stories we tell ourselves. Sometimes feelings are developed over time, sometimes our minds are made up soon after we have met someone.

The problem is that it hurts to communicate our feelings, both to reject someone (who we might otherwise respect), or to be rejected.

Often the "nice guy" is unaware they the are in fact in a "friend only zone" (with no future relationship prospects) and it is this mismatch of expectations that leads to further pain.

Of course the same thing happens when the script is flipped and the girl is in the "friend zone", but people don't seem to talk about that as much.

People should not be made to feel ashamed about how they feel, that way people are more likely to share our feelings early and not have mismatched expectations.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> People should not be made to feel ashamed about how they feel, that way people are more likely to share our feelings early and not have mismatched expectations.


Yes! this. The big problem in these instances are not so much about attraction as they are interpersonal communication. Every person has a set of basic human needs. When they feel like they aren't getting them, they tend to get desperate and do crazy things. If people were able to see these deficiencies in others, and support and encourage them to get those needs met in a constructive way, then these problems would simply not be as prevalent.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

@_EmileeArsenic_

We've demonized "shallowness" and the result of our shame at being shallow creatures is that people often think they can win us over by being morally/ethically good to us. 

The problem is that we don't want someone who is just morally/ethically good, we also want someone who turns us on. 

It isn't just all these people saying "I want a kind man" without adding "who turns me on" afterwards. It's also all these love movies that play into this idea that morality is a backdoor to getting into a girls heart

(These guys are generally looking for those story-book romances, not just a quick hard fuck). 

It is problems like these that make me more open about what I want.* Attraction is the litmus test*, for me, and if someone passes that test, and happen to be morally good and intellectually compatible, then we're in business. 



Razare said:


> A) Don't be friend-zone prone.


Amen. If there's no spark. People shouldn't hover around trying to make a spark by being generous. 

This will not improve anyone's chances. That is a love-movie myth.



> The downside... you end up not caring, so when you're confronted with a potential relationship, you don't care, so why bother? Having had relationship hassles, you realize being single is ten times better than trying to put up with a woman... at least the sort which are interested in someone who behaves like you do. (Where I'm at basically.)


This is true. If someone mimics an attitude for too long, it becomes true. 



> the nice-guy approach wont get you laid... and I can't imagine it leads to a decent relationship either.


It doesn't work because it's an uneven power dynamic. The man seeks approval from the female, and attempts to earn that approval by supplication and generosity. However this just reinforces his position as a social inferior which turns the girl off further.

Sexual attraction is a game of social _power_. And attempting to earn favor through generosity is a display of weakness.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Btmangan said:


> It doesn't work because it's an uneven power dynamic. The man seeks approval from the female, and attempts to earn that approval by supplication and generosity. However this just reinforces his position as a social inferior which turns the girl off further.
> 
> Sexual attraction is a game of social _power_. And attempting to earn favor through generosity is a display of weakness.


Yeah, I don't completely agree with that assessment. My relationships are not predicated upon terms and positions of power, but by a conscious set of values. I don't see people in terms of inferiority or superiority, and I certainly don't see attempts of earning favor as signs of weakness. Because I believe that everyone should be loving and generous to others, regardless of their standing or perceived worth, I find it counter-productive to support systems and structures that enforce and propagate this limiting dynamic. I'm sure there are others who reached this conclusion as well.

Although you are correct in a strictly power-dynamic sense, I have found that through the intimate and coalescent properties of relationships a certain strength arises that is generally more potent than traditional power structures. In other words, when looking at healthy relationships: there is a certain strength in weakness and vulnerability; a strength the forceful cannot know. 

Perhaps in this way the meek shall indeed inherit the earth, even if it takes centuries to get there.


----------



## Twoshoe (Mar 2, 2011)

EmileeArsenic said:


> On the other hand, I also don't claim to like guys who dote over me (I don't. It makes me uncomfortable). I like guys who think for themselves, have their own interests (and aren't afraid to say something along the lines of "F*** you! I LIKE Frosted Flakes!" while hugging the box and sticking his tongue out at me after I've said something about the sugar content because he's trying to lose weight and then proceeds to eat the entire box in front of me out of spite, perhaps even licking the bag clean just because he knows it'll make me roll my eyes and laugh... and because they're delicious...), are all-around cool people, call me on my shit when I'm being a bitch (which happens) and whom I listen to because they've earned the right to call me on my shit when I'm being a bitch by showing me that they have their own shit together or are at least on the right path. Actually, I usually end up liking good-natured trolls. They're my guy friends who tease me mercilessly (in a playful way), will take my keys and make me jump for them while calling me short and aren't afraid to tell me I'm wrong because being wrong is part of being human and he and I both know I'm no goddess. I also like the ones who always seem to be one step ahead of me and manage to come off to me as this strange combination of this brilliant mind and an easily amused little kid stuck sharing a body (the kind of guy who is simultaneously trying to crack a difficult problem and has been working at it for months, yet you'll find him on the couch watching Saturday morning cartoons in his pjs shamelessly drinking a beer he's balanced on his tummy out of a crazy straw "because crazy straws rule. We've gone over this. I'll drink beer out of a straw if I want to. It allows me all the benefits of early-morning alcoholism without having to move my arms, now shut up, my show's back on"). I'm a regular human who makes mistakes and hopefully one who's cool enough that he doesn't find it a chore to be around me.


She likes the bad boys this one.

I hope you're hot enough to tame one, otherwise single motherhood _AWAITS_.

... in the meantime, come check out my motorcycle.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Twoshoe said:


> She likes the bad boys this one.
> 
> I hope you're hot enough to tame one, otherwise single motherhood _AWAITS_.
> 
> ... in the meantime, come check out my motorcycle.


I have recently gone back to college. When I'm there, I hear tons of college teenagers talk about how much they want bad boys and despise "nice pushovers". Then around 3:00 I head off to work and talk to women 10 or 15 years older who have kids and they are completely opposite. To those women, nice guys are made of gold. To them those girls are stupid and childish, and they say things like "those girls will learn the hard way".

I find this phenomenon intriguing, because the men's values don't change all that much comparatively.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Twoshoe said:


> She likes the bad boys this one.
> 
> I hope you're hot enough to tame one, otherwise single motherhood _AWAITS_.
> 
> ... in the meantime, come check out my motorcycle.


HAHAHAHA 

You _dawg_.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

I'll just throw my two cents in: 

I think the solution to the whole friend-zone scenario is a simple one. If one party wants one type of relationship and not the other (for instance, a more intimate relationship opposed to a friendship), but the other person does not see them that way, the solution is to simply stop hanging out. Ladies, if the guys stops hanging out with you and you get butt-hurt, just think of it like this: He didn't see you that way in terms of a friendship, just as you did not see him fit for a relationship. 

Some people may be worth having for an emotional exchange, but in terms of friendship (going places, hanging out, and just being casual), I don't see most women I know as a good fit. They whine, complain, and are far too moody for me to put up with. I have a female friend or two who are the exception, but they are lesbian and a bit more masculine so....

I personally find friendships with most women exhausting. I don't talk with or platonic ally hang out with many women often mainly because of how many of them act. Just as many tom-boy girls enjoy hanging with guys and hate hanging with girls, the ONLY reason some of us want to hang out with a girl is for a relationship. Generally, we don't see most other kinds as worth our time. I don't care what Jenny did, your boyfriend did, or how upset you are. Let's either share jokes and have a good time, but if you want to use me as an emotional crutch, whine constantly about all your aches and pains, or gossip, you're gone.

Before someone gets their panties in a knot, I'm not insulting women in general, simply the majority of the ones I have met. This is experience, not generalization, so please save yourself the breath.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

This subject is brought up ad nauseum at least once a month, maybe more frequently. There is a difference between being a person who actually has niceness as a quality, and a person pretending to be nice in order to squirm into a relationship and/or someone else's pants. There's a difference between courtship and being "nice," and it would honestly behoove people of all genders to learn the difference. One takes personality, the other is degradation. I am not saying you should be an unpleasant person; courteousness and respect should be general rules of engagement with other parties. Letting yourself be a doormat is unhealthy; never let yourself be a doormat. 

If you are "in the friend zone" and are being led around, you are not actually in a friendly zone -- you are being led around by someone who does not value you whatsoever. When you come to this realization, you should immediately quit pining and leave. People like this are not worth your time. Anyone who treats you like a doormat is not worth your time. If you cannot make this realization, then I have no advice for you.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm telling you, this is why I don't interact with men on a platonic level anymore. They will always misinterpret the tiniest signs and butthurt will ensue in the end. No thanks. I'm getting too old for it all.

I mean, I won't be overtly mean to the male gender, but I just can't see myself being friends with them anymore. It's not a popular opinion, but this is my life and that's how I'm gonna play it.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

ForsakenMe said:


> I'm telling you, this is why I don't interact with men on a platonic level anymore. They will always misinterpret the tiniest signs and butthurt will ensue in the end. No thanks. I'm getting too old for it all.
> 
> I mean, I won't be overtly mean to the male gender, but I just can't see myself being friends with them anymore. It's not a popular opinion, but this is my life and that's how I'm gonna play it.


Kindness without boundaries can be abused by the wrong people (whether we're talking about abusive 'friend zoning' or the pendulum swinging into sexual invitation.) I've had my kindness misinterpreted as some sort of gateway for sexual advances, and I used to be too much of a doormat myself to actually tell the person to back off. It took me a very long time to figure out how to politely, but bluntly tell a guy what is going on without having to do things like take legal recourse. I haven't gone so far as to avoid platonic friendships with men, but any guy entering friendship with me should figure out rather abruptly that I have no interest in any man but my boyfriend.


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

Ok. We have differing opinions on what "friend zone" means. I distinguish between actual friends, and the "friend zone".



funcoolname said:


> I wasn't telling anyone to shut up


Most of my interactions with feminists over time digress to a man isn't a woman so he can never understand. Or a man isn't a woman so he has no right to comment on "women's issues" or even anything pretaining to women. Yet to them it continues to remain perfectly acceptable to continue to comment on men, so it's all woman > man.

I'm sorry. Trusting your different, I apologize. Do you forgive me?



funcoolname said:


> What if she isn't lying?


If she's direct: "Listen. I'm not attracted to you. I don't feel any chemistry. Me and you as a couple aren't going to work. We are going separate directions in life. If you want though we can remain friends and I can recommend you to some of my girlfriends as a date." If she's direct she may not be lying. Other times what happens though is: "I'm not ready for a relationship right now. I need to take care of something before I'm ready for a relationship. If you want though we can remain friends." In this case she's not rejecting him as a mate only saying it's not the right time. So he's in the "friend zone" patiently waiting for her to be ready or her to accomplish something. She is lying to him. She's not saying no, she's saying not right now. By lying to him she is using him. And some men and women will spend months and years waiting believing the lie.

Basically, if you are aware you're in the "friend zone", you're no longer in the "friend zone", and you feel righteous indignation.

The "friend zone" is about her rejecting him in her mind, without her communicating rejection of him to him.



EmileeArsenic said:


> and each time, I let him know that the sentiments weren't returned as quickly and nicely as I possibly could (and privately). [...] I have a very strong (if not over-active) sense of guilt that wouldn't allow me to do that even if I wanted to.


Good! Thank you. I'm sorry. I apologize. Do you forgive me?



EmileeArsenic said:


> To me, that's what friends are: Two people who get along and see things similarly, but don't want to sleep together.


If it's in a group setting with balanced interaction, I'd agree. If it's a typical man-woman one-on-one with significant time sharing, shared activities, emotional sharing, I'd disagree. I'd say these healthy man-woman friends many times one is weighting risk-reward and wants to (sleep together/pursue marriage) and decides the risk is greater than the reward.



EmileeArsenic said:


> If there's anything I'm good at it's being a friend. [...] A friendship with me is not a one-way street.


In limited quantities I can also do this.



EmileeArsenic said:


> I actually don't really like when people try to do nice things for me, it makes me uncomfortable.






EmileeArsenic said:


> Sometimes feelings develop. It happens. It's not something you can control. Even my best friend has developed feelings for one of her husbands friends and she wrestled with it until they finally faded because she didn't want to feel what she was feeling and it bothered her.


I'd say this is very common for male-female friends. And that it should be recognizes that even if no one is saying it many times one person, many times the guy, has more than friends feelings.



EmileeArsenic said:


> In this situation, it's actually the guy who's villainising me because he's assuming I had any idea he wanted more than a friendship with me, when that's not the case.


Yes, if he doesn't speak his interest, he's to blame. Though the song and dance some people go through today and when do you apply what label to a relationship, when can you say what.



EmileeArsenic said:


> Why? Why can't two cool people just enjoy hanging out without expectations?


Because we're relational and we naturally want more.



EmileeArsenic said:


> It's not the fact that sometimes feelings develop that makes me get hostile, it's the assertion that all women who have male friends they see in a platonic way are like Jane


I think it's that in many relationship there's a Scott.



EmileeArsenic said:


> The FriendZone, IMO, is for people you like and respect, and like spending time around, but aren't sexually attracted to.


Excluding guys and relatives, limiting to similar age range, healthy, I can't think of one person that would qualify. Now I'm surrounded by women I like and respect, people I like spending time around, but these prerequisites generate sexual attraction to the degree I'm aware of it even if not to the degree that I'd pursue anything of it.

And, trying not to be weird.  Anything from interacting with a female store clerk to reading a post here by a female, if I like the interaction I'm aware of a degree of sexual attraction. Even if we completely disagree in foundational worldview ways, like you and I, and if I'm sober and in my right mind I would never pursue, I'm still aware of it.

To boil it all down I'm saying that if I'm friends with a woman I've already met the criteria to want to be more than friends with them. I don't see getting married will change anything on the sexual attraction/feeling side, just add an additional reason never to pursue.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

HonestAndTrue said:


> And this is where "friend zoning" creates players. Nice guys who were all give and receiving nothing flip and become all take and give nothing. Describes my life journey. Trying to get back to being a nice guy, to serving.


I'm not a player, I'm just honest about who I am and the things I expect in life.

If I'm going to be in a relationship, it's going to happen on terms that I agree with. As opposed to desperately seeking something and putting up with awkward situations that I'm not in total agreement with.

As for whether I'm nice or not, I think I am to a degree... I do my best to love all people and the last thing I would do is "play" a woman, because nothing good comes out of it, and it might hurt her. I'd rather just take it slow and make sure things work well for both of us each step of the way, rather than rushing head-first into a bad situation.

As an INFJ, I can become very forgetful about what my demands are in a relationship... and this is what I have to watch out for, because that's how I ruin relationships... I give too much without expecting anything... which burns me out in the long run, especially if something doesn't sit well with me in the relationship.


Edit: but I would just add that I understand what you were getting at... it does tend to push you in the "player" direction, but that's a good thing... the healthy difference is that even though I could "play" just fine, I don't because it's wrong and I'm not that desperate for sex. Now if you want to actually get into a relationship with someone, being able to act the right way to reel-in a female who is attracted (flirting properly), becomes necessary... facilitated by the fact that if you lose her, you don't care... meaning there's no pressure, making flirting easy.


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

ForsakenMe said:


> At this time of my life, I make it a point to avoid men altogether unless it's for either professional reasons, or academical reasons, or a guy needs my advice on something, or he's my family member, or I'm actually INTERESTED in becoming his girlfriend. Otherwise, I keep my safe distance. Now nobody can bitch me out for friendzoning them. roud: I think a lot of women can benefit from doing just this because, let's be honest, men and women cannot be friends unless in very, very, super rare cases. Sorry.
> 
> EDIT: OKAY OMG LOL. I saw the rest of the video and I suddenly remember her saying that Jane DOES know that Scott likes her and takes advantage of that fact alone. Yeah, that makes her a... well, many small words here and there.


Don't say sorry for telling the truth. I take the same approach. The two most common types of women around me are either married or divorced moms. Exchanging pleasantries is fine. If I find that we are sharing stories or being "too nice" I pull back. You're married, so no. Your divorced and a mom, and if I'm not 100% willing and committed to live that kind of a life, then no. If I'm not willing to put a ring on it, time is a great divider to make sure no sparks start.

Does this mean we can't interact as part of group at lunch or an event? No. Does this mean we can't interact one-on-one and go back to your place, just the two of us? Yes.


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

saintless said:


> What the fuck is the friendzone besides a softer form of rejection.


This is what I consider the friendzone:



ForsakenMe said:


> EDIT: OKAY OMG LOL. I saw the rest of the video and I suddenly remember her saying that Jane DOES know that Scott likes her and takes advantage of that fact alone. Yeah, that makes her a... well, many small words here and there.


----------



## Doom (Oct 25, 2010)

I've been watching her videos and saw that one the other night, I agree on a lot of points she makes but watching this video I don't think she really understands really what the friendzone is and what its all about. There is this weird rape culture thing that seems to be going on where girls want to be raped BUT only by the guy they liked. 

To be honest I've been in those kind of situations but never realized it was what they called the friend zone till recently because my point wasn't so much as friendship but more that I prefer talking to females and rarely relate to males. Never did I expect sex though I did sometimes see some of them in a sexual light. The thing is if I act that way to everybody, its more than just sex; it's my insecurity of being accepted. However when I am interested in a girl I am much more flirtatious with mild teasing and playing around than trying to please them.


----------



## TragicallyHip (Jan 6, 2012)

My issue with "nice guys" is that they tend not to take responsibility for the situation, they put the responsibility on women and blame them for being a bitch, stupid (because she chooses a "bad boy"), shallow, cock tease, golddigger, etc etc. They do not tend to take personal responsibility for their lives (maybe there is something about me that is not very attractive, maybe the signs/signals were there, I should not invest in a relationship with low ROI) and their unrealistic expectations (these guys want "hot" girls, not seeing the irony of this at all).

In my experience, I can think of at least four instances in recent years where I have said to new men in my life unequivocably (sp) that I am not looking for a BF, that it's friends-only (the fact that I have to even issue this disclaimer prior to a relationship makes me feel a bit resentful, because again, it puts the responsibility on me) if they want any sort of relationship, but they continue to delude themselves anyway or worse acknowledge later that it was a ploy for more, despite being called out on it numerous times. 

It just sets up a bad dynamic and makes it hard to relate because every time a man does something nice for me I have to question the motive, fearful that if I accept, I will be seen as leading someone on, taking advantage of someone, etc etc. And when the relationship runs it's course (the friend does not get promoted to BF), I worry I have just created another bitter "nice guy", when in fact, I tried to manage expectations all along. It's fucking exhausting. And frankly, I'm coming to see it as not my problem.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Maybe we should find what we all agree on and go from there, instead of making arbitrary barriers on the subject.

I think we all can agree:


Scott should have grown a pair.
Jane was a poophead.
Women who take advantage of men, and men who take advantage of women are all poopheads.
People in the friend zone should get some self-respect.

Also, everytime I think of GirlWritesWhat, I think of this comment, which is pretty funny.

Splicd 15:51 to 16:04 · Those privileged blue bundles of joy

Whee!


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Torai said:


> Maybe we should find what we all agree on and go from there, instead of making arbitrary barriers on the subject.
> 
> I think we all can agree:
> 
> ...




You've jumped to the conclusion that a person in the friendzone lacks self-respect.

Sorry, we don't all agree with you.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> You've jumped to the conclusion that a person in the friendzone lacks self-respect.
> 
> Sorry, we don't all agree with you.


A rejected person doesn't necessarily lack self-respect, but someone who is so nice to the person they like that they don't ever prioritize themselves does.

The friend zone isn't just being friends. It's generally a very sycophantic relationship where one person exercises power over the other and takes advantage of the other's feelings in order to gain things.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Torai said:


> A rejected person doesn't necessarily lack self-respect, but someone who is so nice to the person they like that they don't ever prioritize themselves does.




You've never been in love, have you?
You want to do nice things for the person. This isn't a lack of self-esteem or self-respect. It's just something you WANT to do. The thing is, you don't always realize immediately that your actions aren't having the intended effect of getting you noticed.


Look at what "girlwriteswhat" said about "Scott". That's a person who didn't lack self-respect, at least not visibly from the explanation she was giving. If you saw it, then it's something YOU added to the story. Not something that was there to begin with. The fact that he turned on... what did she call her? Jane? The fact that Scott turned on Jane the second he realized she was just taking advantage of him is proof of the fact that he didn't lack self-respect.


You're jumping to that conclusion because you're a spectator, because "hindsight is 20/20" or whatever the saying is.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> You've never been in love, have you?
> You want to do nice things for the person. This isn't a lack of self-esteem or self-respect. It's just something you WANT to do. The thing is, you don't always realize immediately that your actions aren't having the intended effect of getting you noticed.


I've had amorous feelings. I just would not go above and beyond for someone who I understand wouldn't do the same for me, just because they make my heart go a-flutter. And I am nice to people I like, but I only go as far to treat them as well as I would a good friend. It's not fair to them or me to be their personal secretary, because if I am too nice to someone I like, it means I don't respect them enough to think that they could like me for me.



> Look at what "girlwriteswhat" said about "Scott". That's a person who didn't lack self-respect, at least not visibly from the explanation she was giving. If you saw it, then it's something YOU added to the story. Not something that was there to begin with. The fact that he turned on... what did she call her? Jane? The fact that Scott turned on Jane the second he realized she was just taking advantage of him is proof of the fact that he didn't lack self-respect.


I disagree. Self-respect doesn't mean being angry and lashing out at someone. It means setting proper limits for yourself so you don't get so invested that anger takes over.

In my mind, it's similar to the stereotype of the woman who sleeps with a guy early in the relationship in order to impress him, and then gets mad at him when she realizes he used her for sex. She didn't have any self-respect, and getting angry didn't change that.

It means understanding if it's really fair to yourself to go above and beyond for someone who doesn't reciprocate, and shouldn't if she's in a long-term relationship. By the end of the ordeal, Scott was doing a good chunk of Jane's work for her. That's overextending yourself for someone.

I think Scott should have honestly had some foresight when it came to Jane. I think he felt he had to do those things in order to impress her, and that's the mentality I disagree with. If you want someone to love you for who you are, it's not going to help to be so super nice to someone that you are practically their servant. Does that mean I think all guys who are nice to women they like are spineless? No. But there's a limit, and Scott definitely pushed it.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Torai said:


> I've had amorous feelings. I just would not go above and beyond for someone who I understand wouldn't do the same for me, just because they make my heart go a-flutter. And I am nice to people I like, but I only go as far to treat them as well as I would a good friend. It's not fair to them or me to be their personal secretary, because if I am ultra-nice to someone I like, it means I don't respect them enough to think that they could like me for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You DO understand that not everybody has the same views, experiences and expectations that you do, correct?
That was the point I was trying to make. That part about Scott needing foresight makes me think you don't understand that.


I should point out that if I failed to make that point before, it most likely isn't your fault. I'm not that great at getting my point across most of the time.


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

EmileeArsenic said:


> I'm kind of done with this conversation now because it's obvious some posters refuse to actually listen and just want to hyperbolise and ignore what's actually being said. Bored now. Shame, too, because it was just getting fun.


Look, do what you want, but I'd welcome you back. I'm listening and trying to understand but I'm also sharing my life experiences and my opinions. I'm benefiting by listening to you and others. I'm benefiting by putting into words and externalizing who I am and letting others accept or reject me. It's not easy, but I'm trying to grow as a person to one day put into words and externalize the fullness of who I am in person. I'm sorry if you're not benefiting by listening to me.

If you never again respond to any words I say, so be it. I've enjoyed what you were able to give to me. I hold no negativity to you personally. I pray the best for you. :crying:

(Meditation)

Next!



TragicallyHip said:


> And when the relationship runs it's course (the friend does not get promoted to BF), I worry I have just created another bitter "nice guy", when in fact, I tried to manage expectations all along. It's fucking exhausting. And frankly, I'm coming to see it as not my problem.


I think people don't understand that with investments being made one can maintain limiting expectations. The more I'm allowed to put into a relationship, the more I put into a relationship, and the more I have a need for the relationship to grow. If the relationship is not growing and I want it to grow there will be tension. Friend is an artificial limit for a male-female relationship, not the pinnacle, and as such friend is but one step of growth.

Taking for example one woman I interact with. Our relationship is at the friend level. If I spend time with her, we share what's going on in our lives, our opinions, we connect with each other, the relationship grows. I will then think about her more, dream about her, wonder what she's thinking, feeling, where she is, what she's doing, have a strong desire to spend more time, connect more, grow the relationship more. In this case I don't want to pursue for more than friendship. I then consciously have to distance myself from her, avoid interactions, and let things settle. We're not scheduled activity partners so this works. And then the process can repeat itself.

What I can't do is artificially limit a male-female relationship to friendship where we are scheduled activity partners. If our lives are intertwined and I can't distance myself the time will come when the relationship has grown to the point where friendship will no longer suffice and I will need to be more than friends, will be an unhealthy friend, or will need the relationship to end.

Why do you want to have a relationship with a man and artificially limit the relationship to the friend level? Why not be after one relationship with one man where you share each other completely with no limits?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> You DO understand that not everybody has the same views, experiences and expectations that you do, correct?
> That was the point I was trying to make. That part about Scott needing foresight makes me think you don't understand that.


That's why I used phrases throughout the post to indicate that it was my own personal thoughts. I acknowledged that someone would likely not agree with me, and that it was not the only opinion.

I understand I have a different modus operandi from other people. I don't want to treat someone differently simply because I like them. It personally feels dehumanizing to me. It feels like I'm only doing that because they look pretty, and that's not what I want to subject someone to.

I was more making the fallacy that the view that "everyone here agrees people in the friend zone should get self-respect", because most GWW videos have a massive debate between feminist and MRA ensue, and that view is relatively common to people who identify as either. But now I understand that all people don't necessarily have that view.



Cheveyo said:


> I should point out that if I failed to make that point before, it most likely isn't your fault. I'm not that great at getting my point across most of the time.


Meh, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted. At my first post, I was more trying to make the point that most debates are brought about by misinterpretation of an opponent's viewpoint.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

You know what's really funny? When guys complain that women go for bad boys, jerks, assholes, etc... but then I turn around and see those same guys going after women who just screams *BAD NEWS* all over her yet they still pursue her anyway. I keep hearing about these guys still going back to their cheating ex-girlfriends or forgiving their lying girlfriends, and oh, all those "nice girls" you hear about? Either they're single almost all the time or they get dumped by their recent boyfriend because, according to him, "Nothing's wrong with her, she's just boring."


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

ForsakenMe said:


> You know what's really funny? When guys complain that women go for bad boys, jerks, assholes, etc... but then I turn around and see those same guys going after women who just screams *BAD NEWS* all over her yet they still pursue her anyway. I keep hearing about these guys still going back to their cheating ex-girlfriends or forgiving their lying girlfriends,


Two ideas:

The devil you know is the easier path. Say he invested 6 months, two years, or twenty years. There's at minimum some temporary comfort in familiar surroundings. If she hasn't changed he's not on the path to recovery. Men though, even if it may be negative like this sometimes just need to do something to stay busy instead of doing nothing. In positive relationships there's the honey do list. I'd imagine in negative relationships there's still the ***** do list. Even if negative there's a list, a purpose to get out of bed, a reason for living. Not a good reason, but a reason. Men require a purpose to live, something to do.

The other is he's either given up or not given up. He's either lost all his chips, or bought a lottery ticket. He's either saying this is the best I can do or saying this can still be changed to be the best I can imagine. Different from above he'll stay here permanently if allowed. So he's either attempting to fulfill the role of either the child or the parent.



ForsakenMe said:


> and oh, all those "nice girls" you hear about? Either they're single almost all the time or they get dumped by their recent boyfriend because, according to him, "Nothing's wrong with her, she's just boring."


I could use some boring. What's her number?


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

Btmangan said:


> We pretend that we'd pick someone less physically attractive, more compassionate to our needs, and less of a user. . . We pretend that if someone were genuinely nice to us, that it would improve their chances with us to make ourselves feel better about our romantic selection.
> 
> This "fairy tale" leads to nice-guy and nice-girl behavior.
> 
> ...


^THIS. QFT.

I think this comment:


marked174 said:


> I have recently gone back to college. When I'm there, I hear tons of college teenagers talk about how much they want bad boys and despise "nice pushovers". Then around 3:00 I head off to work and talk to women 10 or 15 years older who have kids and they are completely opposite. To those women, nice guys are made of gold. To them those girls are stupid and childish, and they say things like "those girls will learn the hard way".


gives more of an understanding to this. When I was in high school/college I tended to be attracted to the guys who were (not necessarily) bad boys, but very good looking --- and sadly in many cases jerks. As I got older I realized that there is a lot more to finding a good mate than looks. That's definitely not to say I would date someone I was not attracted to. I think in reality my perspective of what is attractive became more reasonable. Let's be honest, I am in no way the type of girl/women that the David Beckham's of the world would be interested in. However, as I near 30 a man who has a stable job, and has certain beliefs and values that I share, and who has the same view of marriage and family as I do, I would see them as a much more attractive mate.

So in a way as I have gotten older I have become more attracted to bona fide nice guys (as opposed to "nice guys" which I tend to see through fairly quickly). That's not to say every nice guy I'm attracted to. I went on dates with some of these men and while they were sweet, and in some cases I felt that stab of pity for them because I could tell they were really into me but I didn't share the same feelings for them. In those cases I gently let them down. And the true nice guys understood, and you know what, they actually appreciated that I was open and honest with them and my intentions to not lead them on. The "nice guys" get angry because they honestly believe that they deserve something for their effort. It's the whole PUA movement and such.



> We want someone with good physical traits and social adeptness. We want a lover who is nice, but more specifically, we want a _*valuable lover*_ to be nice to us.


I love this comment. We want/need someone we are attracted to....at the most basic shallow visual, chemical, intellectual level. And when we have that we want/need that person to be nice and do nice things for us (and us for them). 

These nice guys just have it wrong. Relating back to what the video said, these guys are assuming that the nice factor can come first and that by providing for these women the women will then become attracted to them. But it doesn't work that way. 

I don't think guys like Scott are assholes who just want to get laid. I think they are genuine nice guys who really like a girl and from society and our media have learned that things like opening doors and being a shoulder to cry on are what make women fall head over heels in love. But it's not. And these guys are hurting, but not because women are necessarily being deceitful (though Jane obviously is a bitch), but because the women don't even realize it. These guys need to be upfront with their FEELINGS not assume that the woman/girl by proxy is going to see them as the man of their dreams. And these girls/women need to be honest.



marked174 said:


> I have recently gone back to college. When I'm there, I hear tons of college teenagers talk about how much they want bad boys and despise "nice pushovers". Then around 3:00 I head off to work and talk to women 10 or 15 years older who have kids and they are completely opposite. To those women, nice guys are made of gold. To them those girls are stupid and childish, and they say things like "those girls will learn the hard way".





EmileeArsenic said:


> I'd even go so far as to say that Jane in the story hadn't Friendzoned Scott. IMO, she wasn't treating him like a friend, but a servant. The FriendZone, IMO, is for people you like and respect, and like spending time around, but aren't sexually attracted to. Jane didn't like Scott, she liked his services, and I can't blame Scott for calling her out. She completely deserved it.


I disagree. The term "friend zone" implies a one-sided relationship. Otherwise the guy and the girl would simply be FRIENDS. The term "friend zone" was coined to designate the ZONE in which someone puts another person that they like enough to not want to reject but that you're not sexually attracted to. If it was healthy the girl (or guy) would reject the other person in a healthy manner, and then from there they can theoretically become real friends. But if one party is attracted to the other party and the other party is either not reacting or responding (ie not saying no because they don't want to hurt them) or leading them on, then it's friend zoning.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Penguin said:


> Refer to my thread in the ENTJ forum on the Pick Up industry, it is the nice guys answer to all of this. I know it sounds bad but give the thread a shot, women, you too. I used to have this problem.


I second this.

Here's a link for people who don't want to wade through the forum:
http://personalitycafe.com/entj-forum-executives/125708-pick-up-industry.html

@NiDBiLD's post on here, specifically, is really great.

And I feel proud of myself for already doing two of the principles. I generally take women at face value, and try not to put them on an unachievable pedestal. And in terms of rejection, I'm not really that sensitive to it... There was one that made me really depressed for a while, but it's more because she was overtly critical of my personal qualities while we were on our "date".

I generally don't have any approach anxiety when it comes to women, and talking to them as friends is easy... But flirting is a different story. I've only seriously flirted with one woman in my life (she was responsive, too). And I didn't do the confidence game well at all. I was really anxious, but I could play it off as a joke.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

saintless said:


> I understand that. While nice guys don't always finish last, they can. It's lame. However, I enjoyed how you used the word "mythos" just now because there does seem to be this attitude that is bent on making these "nice guys" out to be something close to gods. People that divinely sweet do not exist in this world. Maybe a few of them can be found along the edges, but people like that don't generally exist. Therefore, any person who makes them out to be a "nice guy" as generally describe within this thread (I don't really pay attention to this rhetoric anywhere else) is just feeling a little over-entitled.


Which makes them one of the most self-interested types of people one can imagine, with the extra unappealing factor of doing this from behind the mask of "niceness." In reality everyone is nice and a monster, given the circumstances, the people involved and the person's feelings toward the situation. A "nice guy" is a myth and can't be found in reality no matter how hard you look.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

the solution to all of this is honesty.

1. present yourself as you really are.
2. present your intentions in the relationship exactly as they are...if it's "interest," it's not "just friends" - if it's "one night stand," it's not "professing my forever love to you."
3. stop relying on deceit and strategy to "seduce" people. try being real and letting them fall for the actual_ you_.
4. be compassionately truthful in giving people hope/leading them on or letting them know it won't work...early enough that feelings can't get too invested.
5. don't go on "pity dates" or use dating as medication for the pain of breakup or a crushed ego.

if the world followed these guidelines a TON of unnecessary heartbreak would be eliminated. deceit - a.k.a. pretense - is THE ENEMY of actual romance and disillusions/embitters people against those who actually are sincere, who they might meet in the future. but i know the dating world isn't going to suddenly renovate itself towards complete honesty. it won't happen. 

----
and, personally, i love _true_ nice guys, and can tell the difference between those who are "being nice" to get something out of you (inauthentic) and those who are _actually_ nice at heart (authentic). _true_ nice guys are the only guys worthy of any girl's time...emotional investment...or heart. mutual emotional respect is the only protection against intentional harm in a relationship setting, so why give your vulnerable heart to wolves who don't even respect what you have given them, and have no protective impulses towards you?_ genuinely_ nice guys _do_ realize what you've given them and they are naturally inclined to take care of it...because their inner protective impulses towards those they care about are triggered.


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

I did the 'freindzone' with a girl a few times...longstory short: first one was treated like crap by BF and she dumped all the pain on me, asked my opions and continued to let the BF use her as gym equipment (sex bowflex machine). The next was after I was maimed, my "_freinds_" would go off leaving me home with the GF's and one freindzoned me and did all her wedding planning with me as if I where one of her female posse...and I didn't even get an invite in the end. 

Always seem to be 'freind' but not good enough to be BF level....shallow manipulative biotches, all you!. lesson learned: _there is no 'freindzone' you either have to be *the BF* or keep it at arms length, anything else gets you screwed.

_I dare you to prove me wrong....guys, you know what I mean.


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

emerald sea said:


> the solution to all of this is honesty.
> 
> 1. present yourself as you really are.
> 2. present your intentions in the relationship exactly as they are...if it's "interest," it's not "just friends" - if it's "one night stand," it's not "professing my forever love to you."
> ...


Bull, I've always acted honorably, never pushed for one-nighters, been more interested in intellectual-interest partners (always believed the sex part is more meaningful when allowed to occur naturally and not charged into) and all it has ever done for me is get me used, treated like an expendable resource and discarded when no longer of value...


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

vt1099ace said:


> I did the 'freindzone' with a girl a few times...longstory short: first one was treated like crap by BF and she dumped all the pain on me, asked my opions and continued to let the BF use her as gym equipment (sex bowflex machine). The next was after I was maimed, my "_freinds_" would go off leaving me home with the GF's and one freindzoned me and did all her wedding planning with me as if I where one of her female posse...and I didn't even get an invite in the end.
> 
> Always seem to be 'freind' but not good enough to be BF level....shallow manipulative biotches, all you!. lesson learned: _there is no 'freindzone' you either have to be *the BF* or keep it at arms length, anything else gets you screwed.
> 
> _I dare you to prove me wrong....guys, you know what I mean.



I knew someone who would complain about how her family would step all over her. She'd go out of her way to help them, they would take advantage of the help, then disappear. Then she'd come to me and bitch about it.

I'll tell you the same thing I told her: YOU ARE DOING IT TO YOURSELF.
YOU are the person that puts yourself in that situation. You do not have to listen to their sob stories, you do not have to be there for them, you do not have to let them walk all over you. You can simply tell them to fuck off and go about your own business.
YOU have chosen the path of the doormat. You have nobody to blame but YOURSELF.
It is YOUR FAULT IT HAPPENS.

Either grow a spine and make it stop, or SHUT THE FUCK UP.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

vt1099ace said:


> Bull, I've always acted honorably, never pushed for one-nighters, been more interested in intellectual-interest partners (always believed the sex part is more meaningful when aloud to occur naturally and not charged into) and all it has ever done for me is used, treated like an expendable resource and discarded when no longer of value...


i'm sorry you have been through all this. this world is cruel. i wish i had some comforting words to give you. *hugs* no one should use you or be allowed to do so, and there are way too many users on the dating scene. i've been used myself, i know how it feels and i don't want others to go through that. 

there are women out there who will appreciate the right things in a man, and vice versa, but it seems like a matter of time and maturity. sometimes i feel like naivete rules, and often people go through a series of bad relationships before they realize and appreciate the right qualities in another person...and that until they get to this point of realization via experience, they set aside people of high value, who would treat them well and value them for the right things, for those less worthy.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

saintless said:


> I understand that. While nice guys don't always finish last, they can. It's lame. However, I enjoyed how you used the word "mythos" just now because there does seem to be this attitude that is bent on making these "nice guys" out to be something close to gods. People that divinely sweet do not exist in this world. Maybe a few of them can be found along the edges, but people like that don't generally exist. Therefore, any person who makes them out to be a "nice guy" as generally describe within this thread (I don't really pay attention to this rhetoric anywhere else) is just feeling a little over-entitled.


I think the case that anyone in this thread is attempting to deify "nice guys" is rather exaggerated. And within the context of forums discussing "nice guys", they are generally much more vilified than exonerated. Usually they are either attacked or defended; but rarely praised. The mythos is primarily found in our values and expectations; what we believe should happen to those who are good in comparison to what really happens due to previously stated power dynamics.

Also, although each person has issues and challenges, I have met many men and women who were much more than "nice". Don't lose your faith in good people, for they certainly exist. The fact that these folks tend to be overlooked is one of the big problems the friend-zone has in the first place. 

Maybe friend-zoning isn't just about sexual attraction, but rather the psychological high people get by saying that there is no good in the world and a subconscious attempt to block all those who suggest otherwise in order to perpetuate the paradoxically comforting feeling of sensitivity and superiority that cynicism provides.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

marked174 said:


> Maybe friend-zoning isn't just about sexual attraction, but rather the psychological high people get by saying that there is no good in the world and a subconscious attempt to block all those who suggest otherwise in order to perpetuate the paradoxically comforting feeling of sensitivity and superiority that cynicism provides.


Or maybe, just maybe, a person has enough experience with people to be able to understand the differences between people's motivations and know when someone is being genuine and when someone is doing something with the hopes of being rewarded with sex or companionship. It's not cynicism to recognize patterns in behavior and the notion of entitlement within an entitlement society.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

android654 said:


> Or maybe, just maybe, a person has enough experience with people to be able to understand the differences between people's motivations and know when someone is being genuine and when someone is doing something with the hopes of being rewarded with sex or companionship. It's not cynicism to recognize patterns in behavior and the notion of entitlement within an entitlement society.


And now we've gone full circle. I criticized the OP for having presumptive speculations about motive and now I find myself addressing it yet again. Presumption of motive is *highly* susceptible to confirmation bias and should be one of the smallest indicators when discerning actions.

Companionship and sex are two basic human needs; every functioning human on the planet needs them to some degree or else they will die or fail to develop. Bearing this in mind, how can trying to obtain these things be any less than genuine?

Just because a person wants sex or companionship doesn't mean that they feel like they are entitled.

Regarding entitlement though: When analyzing social exchange theory along with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I find it to be much more entitled to demand uncompromising altruism while simultaneously defending that a person has a right to do what's best for them and can choose relationships and actions solely based on their animal instincts.

I'm not saying that a person doesn't have a right to choose partners based on their sexual organs, but I find it hypocritical to demand that others can't do same. Unless, you know; they're really hot. Calling anything entitled that is less than selfless prostration kind of conflicts with the idea that guys/girls shouldn't let people walk over them. These are conflicting messages.

Unless you are referring to the overstated phenomenon of when guys literally believe that they have a right to a woman's vagina instead of merely really wanting it; a phenomenon which no one on this forum has even come close to defending.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

marked174 said:


> I think the case that anyone in this thread is attempting to deify "nice guys" is rather exaggerated. And within the context of forums discussing "nice guys", they are generally much more vilified than exonerated. Usually they are either attacked or defended; but rarely praised. The mythos is primarily found in our values and expectations; what we believe should happen to those who are good in comparison to what really happens due to previously stated power dynamics.
> 
> Also, although each person has issues and challenges, I have met many men and women who were much more than "nice". Don't lose your faith in good people, for they certainly exist. The fact that these folks tend to be overlooked is one of the big problems the friend-zone has in the first place.
> 
> Maybe friend-zoning isn't just about sexual attraction, but rather the psychological high people get by saying that there is no good in the world and a subconscious attempt to block all those who suggest otherwise in order to perpetuate the paradoxically comforting feeling of sensitivity and superiority that cynicism provides.


They're vilified for the implicit mythos surrounding them. 

My faith in good people isn't non-existent. This also is not an argument of absolutes, unless that is what you are doing yourself. My argument, I as I believe I have failed to mention, is there a gray zone between these things and the caricatures thus presented of "nice" and "bad" are inaccurate and ambiguous. People are more complex that the majority of what has been suggested. And, so. I believe in good people, but not this mythos of "nice" people. 

I saw some video by a youtube blogger I adore make an interesting point on nice guys the other day. Interests. There are no shared interests between the self-proclaimed "nice guy" and the girl they're chasing after. She wasn't just talking about values though, but other more common interests that are needed to sustain a relationship. Two people could both be perfectly good, friendly, and get along, but have no common interests. 

Like, I was once into this girl, a lot. She was cute and fun. I could talk easily with her. However my crush soon faded because while we got along, there was no way to move past her obsession with diet, exercise, and cosmetic beauty. I am still friends with her. We still carry on long conversations, even ones about dieting, but there will never be anything else there. 

^^Sounds like a good way for someone to unwittingly fall into the friendzone if I continued to delude myself that she was just a cute, little chick worthy of my attention. Also as a note while I did want to sleep with her, my attraction was more than just lust which I believe possibly qualifies me as a "non-bad" girl.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

saintless said:


> They're vilified for the implicit mythos surrounding them.
> 
> My faith in good people isn't non-existent. This also is not an argument of absolutes, unless that is what you are doing yourself. My argument, I as I believe I have failed to mention, is there a gray zone between these things and the caricatures thus presented of "nice" and "bad" are inaccurate and ambiguous. People are more complex that the majority of what has been suggested. And, so. I believe in good people, but not this mythos of "nice" people.
> 
> ...


I glad to hear about the "gray zone argument". People are indeed complex. I also agree that interests are very important in relationships, and that many people who are stuck in the friend-zone have not developed good interpersonal communication skills required to discern them just yet. 

I also think that the idolization and fantasies that people put onto their crushes cause them to be blind to warning signs and problems that they have. It is also important to note, especially in adolescent cases, that people approach others for predominantly social hierarchical reasons. In other words, they only go after the prom king/queen because if they choose someone else they will be designated as less valuable.

My major argument is that these people are merely under-developed and not evil, and should be engaged in a supportive and constructive way that helps everyone involved.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

marked174 said:


> My major argument is that these people are merely under-developed and not evil, and should be engaged in a supportive and constructive way that helps everyone involved.


I would say that is probably true for many people who find themselves in these situations, particularly the ones who complain without fully understanding the situation at hand. However, this is not true for everyone. 

There are many thoughts behind the last sentence, but the following is the biggest one guiding it at the moment.

Platonic friendship/love is not secondary to romantic relationships/love. They exist on a mutual level. Though, I could easily make the argument that platonic love is actually better or more noble because it doesn't have the same kind of 'mental illness' effect on people where their mental capacities become impaired in one fashion or another. The desire/passion with platonic love is of course less per definition. This can trick people into believing there is less value in it, but I disagree. The lack of value found in passion is made up for extra value in commitment and concern which I personally believe passion doesn't always encompass. 

This means sometimes the "friendzone" is precisely where people belong. We all can't be each other lovers. Sometimes, this may be exactly what people want as well even if it is not immediately apparent. 

Actually... is this also what you're suggesting?

My contention with this thread is the uselessness of overanalyzing the most simple principles within a very complex structure. Yes... I find this all to be a bit paradoxical, I guess.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

saintless said:


> I would say that is probably true for many people who find themselves in these situations, particularly the ones who complain without fully understanding the situation at hand. However, this is not true for everyone.
> 
> There are many thoughts behind the last sentence, but the following is the biggest one guiding it at the moment.
> 
> ...


Yes, I do think that platonic friendship is underrated, but I can't stress enough the importance of respect in there. That poor guy in line with me at the store had a platonic friendship, but he didn't deserve to be treated that way. A "friendzone" that has all of the elements of a healthy and supportive relationship is good in my book. Supportive relationships and open interpersonal communication would do everyone good; more than sex or popularity. In many ways, I am bothered with how most schools don't teach these things to their students, as they are fundamental to human development.


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

Cheveyo said:


> I knew someone who would complain about how her family would step all over her. She'd go out of her way to help them, they would take advantage of the help, then disappear. Then she'd come to me and bitch about it.
> 
> I'll tell you the same thing I told her: YOU ARE DOING IT TO YOURSELF.
> YOU are the person that puts yourself in that situation. You do not have to listen to their sob stories, you do not have to be there for them, you do not have to let them walk all over you. You can simply tell them to fuck off and go about your own business.
> ...


Why do think I'm not 'in the game' any more, don't expect to much from people and look at things with a cynical eye? People can go f^ck themselves unless they prove their worthy of me.


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

Cheveyo said:


> I knew someone who would complain about how her family would step all over her. She'd go out of her way to help them, they would take advantage of the help, then disappear. Then she'd come to me and bitch about it.
> 
> I'll tell you the same thing I told her: YOU ARE DOING IT TO YOURSELF.
> YOU are the person that puts yourself in that situation. You do not have to listen to their sob stories, you do not have to be there for them, you do not have to let them walk all over you. You can simply tell them to fuck off and go about your own business.
> ...


And it's not 'a spine' thing, I grew up with this _too idealized_ notion of duty, honor, loyalty from being both military family, catholic school, boyscouts and all that crap..... and it's bitten me in the ass.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

marked174 said:


> Yes, I do think that platonic friendship is underrated, but I can't stress enough the importance of respect in there. That poor guy in line with me at the store had a platonic friendship, but he didn't deserve to be treated that way. A "friendzone" that has all of the elements of a healthy and supportive relationship is good in my book. Supportive relationships and open interpersonal communication would do everyone good; more than sex or popularity. In many ways, I am bothered with how most schools don't teach these things to their students, as they are fundamental to human development.


Then, I don't understand how you can take this one anecdote and use it as a grievance against the majority of the world, even as valid as it may be. Some people are bitchy, but that doesn't mean everyone in the "friendzone" is disrespected. 

What I have often found is that others who refer to people within the friendzone are actually more condemning of the situation than those who are in it---unless of course it is that kind of douche who complains about how they are themselves in the friendzone. 

That's another reason why I think this is overrated because the term itself produces distressing stigma. As I have already alluded, there is nothing inherently wrong with the scenario referred to as the friendzone. It only becomes undignified after other factors are mixed in. However, the friendzone is framed as if it is an undesirable place to be. For some, it may just be the case, but the framing forces this negative perspective onto everyone else. That is truly unfair.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

marked174 said:


> And now we've gone full circle. I criticized the OP for having presumptive speculations about motive and now I find myself addressing it yet again. Presumption of motive is *highly* susceptible to confirmation bias and should be one of the smallest indicators when discerning actions.
> 
> Companionship and sex are two basic human needs; every functioning human on the planet needs them to some degree or else they will die or fail to develop. Bearing this in mind, how can trying to obtain these things be any less than genuine?


The methods chosen make a person less genuine.



> Just because a person wants sex or companionship doesn't mean that they feel like they are entitled.
> 
> Regarding entitlement though: When analyzing social exchange theory along with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I find it to be much more entitled to demand uncompromising altruism while simultaneously defending that a person has a right to do what's best for them and can choose relationships and actions solely based on their animal instincts.


If this is how you truly see it, then women are never in the wrong for denying "nice guys" since they do not meet the requirement to fulfill those needs.



> I'm not saying that a person doesn't have a right to choose partners based on their sexual organs, but I find it hypocritical to demand that others can't do same. Unless, you know; they're really hot. Calling anything entitled that is less than selfless prostration kind of conflicts with the idea that guys/girls shouldn't let people walk over them. These are conflicting messages.


No it doesn't. The act of being nice with the intent of receiving a pay-off is not choosing partners based off of sexual attraction, they're effectively trying to buy affection beyond the use of chemistry. You can respond to that anyway you like, reciprocate that person's wants or deny them, but it's not the same as two people hitting it off and building some kind of relationship from there. 

The whole act of being "nice" to women or men in hopes of receiving sex or having some kind of relationship does instill some kind of entitlement into this person who has put in effort in an attempt to win affection. And it's understandable to think so since any person who works towards anything and then is denied their attempted goal would feel denied of something they worked hard to get.

Like I said before, you can respond to this kind of act by someone anyway you want but to claim that it's the comparable to two people gravitating towards one another is simply ridiculous.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

saintless said:


> Then, I don't understand how you can take this one anecdote and use it as a grievance against the majority of the world, even as valid as it may be. Some people are bitchy, but that doesn't mean everyone in the "friendzone" is disrespected.


It has been my experience and observation that guys who are deemed "just friends" by girls, especially in adolescence, are largely disrespected and are given no support or encouragement towards healthy self-esteem or development. This emotional deficiency coupled with societal expectations of manliness and other gender role bullshit pushes these guys into dangerous places and mindsets. I also believe that this sequence of occurrences contributes massively in cultivating negative behaviors which many girls, both on these forums and in real life, consistently (and legitimately) complain about.



saintless said:


> What I have often found is that others who refer to people within the friendzone are actually more condemning of the situation than those who are in it---


I have found this as well. Guys aren't allowed to have girlfriends that they don't fuck. If they do then they can look forward to being called a pussy, a ***, or a liar (because everyone knows he wants a piece of that but isn't man enough to admit that he can't get it). It is not surprising to see a guy pushed into unhealthy mindsets of bitterness when these shaming tactics combined with an absence of healthy support and encouragement are the only things he can relate to his female friends.



saintless said:


> unless of course it is that kind of douche who complains about how they are themselves in the friendzone.


 I see these guys as an example of that "comforting pessimism" that I described earlier.



saintless said:


> That's another reason why I think this is overrated because the term itself produces distressing stigma. As I have already alluded, there is nothing inherently wrong with the scenario referred to as the friendzone. It only becomes undignified after other factors are mixed in. However, the friendzone is framed as if it is an undesirable place to be. For some, it may just be the case, but the framing forces this negative perspective onto everyone else. That is truly unfair.


 The only people who mockingly call legitimate platonic friendships as the friend-zone are those who claim that the guy is secretly lying (as I mentioned earlier). Barring this exception of douchery, most people understand that the friend-zone is, in many cases an unhealthy relationship between two individuals who have conflicting values and boundaries regarding their relationship. Because this tension is unhealthy in an interpersonal and developmental context, I see no problem in referring to it as an undesirable place or describing it derogatorily as the friend-zone.

Again, for clarity: There is a difference between friendships and friend-zones and those who argue otherwise are generally douches.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

android654 said:


> If this is how you truly see it, then women are never in the wrong for denying "nice guys" since they do not meet the requirement to fulfill those needs.


Rejection is rough, but I never asserted that it was wrong. The *way* a person denies another is what matters here.




android654 said:


> No it doesn't. The act of being nice with the intent of receiving a pay-off is not choosing partners based off of sexual attraction, they're effectively trying to buy affection beyond the use of chemistry. You can respond to that anyway you like, reciprocate that person's wants or deny them, but it's not the same as two people hitting it off and building some kind of relationship from there.


One is a successful use of social exchange theory, the other is an unsuccessful use of social exchange theory. The results are the only thing different.



android654 said:


> The whole act of being "nice" to women or men in hopes of receiving sex or having some kind of relationship does instill some kind of entitlement into this person who has put in effort in an attempt to win affection. And it's understandable to think so since any person who works towards anything and then is denied their attempted goal would feel denied of something they worked hard to get.


Technically, I suppose you could call this "entitlement". I think "expectation" is a much better word. Either way this "entitlement" can be found in every single instance of interpersonal communication. If you offer you hand in a handshake, are you entitled to having it shook back? If no, then entitlement isn't really the right word. If yes, then why call it an "entitlement society" when literally everyone does it literally every time they communicate. "entitlement" isn't the right word then either. But I don't think the purpose of calling it entitlement was to analyze the dynamics of interpersonal communication, rather I suspect that it is being used to marginalize and prosecute an extremely natural and common practice in a specific context to make it seem less natural or common.


android654 said:


> Like I said before, you can respond to this kind of act by someone anyway you want but to claim that it's the comparable to two people gravitating towards one another is simply ridiculous.


No I didn't. I claimed that the idea that "I like them. I want them." is comparable to "I don't like them. I don't want them." I am now also claiming that "chemistry" is a romantic word to describe when two individuals successful communicate within a romantic context and "trading niceness coins for sex treats" is an unromantic way of describing when two individuals unsuccessfully communicate within a romantic (or perceived romantic) context.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

vt1099ace said:


> Bull, I've always acted honorably, never pushed for one-nighters, been more interested in intellectual-interest partners (always believed the sex part is more meaningful when allowed to occur naturally and not charged into) and all it has ever done for me is get me used, treated like an expendable resource and discarded when no longer of value...


thats because if you were telling yourself the truth you'd realize you wanted to fuck her just as much as you want to talk to her, and there's nothing WRONG with that. So stop apologizing to her and yourself for being sexually attracted to her and let her know you're interested in her mind AND her vagina, because thats the truth.


----------



## TMWeiss (Nov 6, 2012)

What an amazing video, thank you. I want to watch it all over again! :happy: I had so much running through my mind as I was watching that I'll likely forget now. 

But, as a genuinely nice guy myself, I know the feeling of the friend zone all too well. I know that I've put others in the friend zone, which makes me a little sad. Unrequited love is amazingly painful to deal with, and experience. And since I'm a graciously selfless human being, I swallow my pain because I know that if I spit that pain back out into the world in a negative, hurtful way toward whoever is stabbing me at the moment, my core values will be violated. Plus, I end up writing an emotional string duet for Violin and Cello about it later, to rid myself of the pain forever roud: I tend to just give the INFJ door slam though, which is well within my value system. If you're hurt by my withdrawing action of avoiding more manipulation and pain, then that's your problem. 

I'm a feminist. I revere, love and respect women and their intelligence (emotionally and mentally). I have strong emotions myself. I have this gift (I don't like the word "gift"), where people tend to be more than forthcoming with me about how they feel. I can get people to open up to me, show me their true self, without asking. People love to talk, especially "to themselves"! I've had people flat out accuse me of being a molester, or a rapist, simply because I'm a nice and quiet guy (nothing provoked this, I just stood there and turned my attention toward this person and looked his way). There really is no other basis for those accusations. I don't fit any particular stereotype, otherwise. I suppose that I don't fit the "societal norm" for how attractive guys are supposed to act. Maybe I'm just intimidating, but I digress. I treat sexuality as something extremely personal, sacred and valuable; but also something that can potentially be dangerous emotionally, in particular (of course, physically too). So I tend to tread the waters of sexuality cautiously. I don't give myself up willingly (like some of my friends think I do), nor do I expect others to give it up to me, either. 

So I guess what I'm saying, is that there does seem to be some kind of stigma, or social more (?), attached to nice guys where all that drives us is sex. My personal belief is that sex is just something everyone thinks about among both genders, some more than others, and some less than; some unhealthily, and others not. I know that I'm going to treat you like a godess in bed (and I do), and that you'll probably not know what to do with me (how is that possible?). And if you cant see that in me, then you're not worth my effort after a certain point.

I'll just continue to do what I do, love loving people, and wait a little longer for the next amazing woman to come into my life. In the meantime, I can just focus on me, which is enough of a difficult task as it is! Thanks again for the video!


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

TMWeiss said:


> So I guess what I'm saying, is that there does seem to be some kind of stigma, or social more (?), attached to nice guys where all that drives us is sex. My personal belief is that sex is just something everyone thinks about among both genders, some more than others, and some less than; some unhealthily, and others not. I know that I'm going to treat you like a godess in bed (and I do), and that you'll probably not know what to do with me (how is that possible?). *And if you cant see that in me, then you're not worth my effort after a certain point.*


Let me get this straight. If a woman does not see the "incredible value" that is you, then their own value drops in your eyes. What if they just don't like you that way? What if you don't share common interests? What if you have habits that piss them off? What if your values differ? But no, they simply aren't "worth you effort", because if they were, they'd be able to tell what a _fantastic_ person you were and how _divinely_ you'd treat them, and come they'd come running. With an attitude like that, this girl will sprint in the other direction. Guess that doesn't make me worthy of your romantic attention. I think I'll live.


----------



## TMWeiss (Nov 6, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Let me get this straight. If a woman does not see the "incredible value" that is you, then their own value drops in your eyes. What if they just don't like you that way? What if you don't share common interests? What if you have habits that piss them off? What if your values differ? But no, they simply aren't "worth you effort", because if they were, they'd be able to tell what a _fantastic_ person you were and how _divinely_ you'd treat them, and come they'd come running. With an attitude like that, this girl will sprint in the other direction. Guess that doesn't make me worthy of your romantic attention. I think I'll live.


Oh, I'm not pretending that I'm the perfect fit for everyone. Everyone is valuable to me, and I think I can be valuable to everyone. I don't go chasing after every woman out there. There are certain qualities I like. I'm talking about being in the friend zone. I'm already friends with everyone (including you, who I know little about), at least that's how I approach new people. Until you fuck me over, or use me, we're friends. I'll be your "bitch" if it makes you happy, but don't expect that to last forever. If there is someone who I know is interested in me sexually, but they just see me as a "nice guy", I'm sorry, but you're not worth it romantically to me. I'm just as flawed as the next person, and I guess I just define beauty differently than most. 

I don't expect favors in return for me being nice, like I said above. If we don't share common interests (which, BTW, I'm interested in people and in most things in general), then I move on and I'll still say hi to you in the hallway at school, or where ever. I'm pretty spontaneous, and I don't expect all women to love me. I am well aware that there are women out there that aren't attracted to me. I'm 100% fine with that!

Is that all you got out of what I wrote? Are you saying if we don't align in interests or values, that I should still try and put in the effort to make it work with said person anyway? What's the point? If whoever doesn't like me that way, I'm fine with that and I'll live as well! You're as quick to judge me as everyone else, so what's new with you?

And P.S., I am pretty fantastic. I'm confident, but not arrogant. I don't blame you for seeing it differently, though.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

TMWeiss said:


> Oh, I'm not pretending that I'm the perfect fit for everyone. Everyone is valuable to me, and I think I can be valuable to everyone. I don't go chasing after every woman out there. There are certain qualities I like. I'm talking about being in the friend zone. I'm already friends with everyone (including you, who I know little about), at least that's how I approach new people. Until you fuck me over, or use me, we're friends. I'll be your "bitch" if it makes you happy, but don't expect that to last forever. If there is someone who I know is interested in me sexually, but they just see me as a "nice guy", I'm sorry, but you're not worth it romantically to me. I'm just as flawed as the next person, and I guess I just define beauty differently than most.
> 
> I don't expect favors in return for me being nice, like I said above. If we don't share common interests (which, BTW, I'm interested in people and in most things in general), then I move on and I'll still say hi to you in the hallway at school, or where ever. I'm pretty spontaneous, and I don't expect all women to love me. I am well aware that there are women out there that aren't attracted to me. I'm 100% fine with that!
> 
> ...


No, it's the part of your response that elicited a knee-jerk "wait, what the _fuck?_". I'm not saying to chase someone whose interests or values clash with yours. I simply didn't appreciate the message that your words seemed to convey. There is a world of difference between saying "if I'm not what you're looking for, I'll direct my attention to someone who will find me attractive" and saying "If you can't see how awesome I am, you aren't worth my effort". One is neutral; the other one is fairly devaluing of the other party. If someone is actively using you, then I can understand writing them off in that way, but that didn't come across in your previous post. It really just looked like you were ragging on women who weren't into you.

I thought the friendzone was about being _not_ seen sexually by the object of desire. What is your definition of "nice guy"? What is the hypothetical woman's definition of "nice guy", and how would this get in the way of her wanting to be with you if she's sexually attracted? How are you sure such a person does not find you physically attractive while preferring a different male persona overall?



> And P.S., I am pretty fantastic. I'm confident, but not arrogant. I don't blame you for seeing it differently, though.


Not helping your case.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Master Mind said:


> If "hitting it" is the goal, then they aren't actually "nice guys," which many who profess to be aren't. That's "playa"-speak.


Yeah being mad a chick don't wanna fuck you isn't being a nice guy.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

Want to know why the nice guy is creepy? Because he never makes it obvious that he is attracted. Like she said, he is SUPER FRIEND" which he thinks makes it clear the he's interested but even if it does it doesn't get you anywhere. 

To put it another way, if someone walks up to you on the street and hands you 10$ and says "here take it I'm just nice" you're going to be like whoa, no thanks. Why? because nothing is free. The nice guy is storing up all this "social credit" with said female and he's not asking her to pay it, until like 3 years later when he kind of hands her a note that says "I'm in love with you" feeling like he's been there for her done all these nice things and worked really hard so she has to say yes, right? NO no she doesn't and she probably won't. Its weird guys, make you're intentions clear from the start and even if you are nice she will know what you're about and you will save yourself a ton of time/pain.


----------



## TMWeiss (Nov 6, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> No, it's the part of your response that elicited a knee-jerk "wait, what the _fuck?_". I'm not saying to chase someone whose interests or values clash with yours. I simply didn't appreciate the message that your words seemed to convey. There is a world of difference between saying "if I'm not what you're looking for, I'll direct my attention to someone who will find me attractive" and saying "If you can't see how awesome I am, you aren't worth my effort". One is neutral; the other one is fairly devaluing of the other party. If someone is actively using you, then I can understand writing them off in that way, but that didn't come across in your previous post. It really just looked like you were ragging on women who weren't into you.
> 
> I thought the friendzone was about being _not_ seen sexually by the object of desire. What is your definition of "nice guy"? What is the hypothetical woman's definition of "nice guy", and how would this get in the way of her wanting to be with you if she's sexually attracted? How are you sure such a person does not find you physically attractive while preferring a different male persona overall?
> 
> ...



Yeah, that was just an emotional outburst at the end there. I felt threatened for some reason, sorry for that. I guess I just have a general response to being misunderstood. I realize that didn't help my case much.

I can see how my words would elicit such a response from you, so thank you for calling that out. I guess my whole life has been one of introversion and "aloofness", and I seemed to missed the part of life that taught me how to communicate my emotions more accurately. I'm told that I speak funny, perhaps it's how I say things that throw people off. But that's another topic, I guess. 

Perhaps that is my brain working in the same way, with the primitive side thinking first, then the reasoning comes second? I don't like sounding like the "If you can't see how awesome I am, you aren't worth my effort" person, but it's clear that is how I come off to others, when I don't mean that at all. I can see it from that perspective now.

My idea of a nice guy (person) is someone who will sacrifice and fight for those he (she) loves, put another before oneself, compliment, be there for emotional support, a helper. I see this as a pretty standard nice person, though. I guess not everyone wants my help though. I put more value on emotional and romantic connection, before sexual attraction, and my point was that I don't know if many people see that in me. So someone might be sexually attracted to me, I pick up on it quickly, but I want to develop a different level of connection first and if it doesn't feel right, I back off. It doesn't mean I that I don't want to go after the relationship still, or try to devalue this person. In a particular case, I might have backed off too much, and this person moved on and I was hurt.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

TMWeiss said:


> Yeah, that was just an emotional outburst at the end there. I felt threatened for some reason, sorry for that. I guess I just have a general response to being misunderstood. I realize that didn't help my case much.


Well, I did verbally bitch-slap you. And the "dear god, I wouldn't want you" part wasn't really necessary on my end.



> I can see how my words would elicit such a response from you, so thank you for calling that out. I guess my whole life has been one of introversion and "aloofness", and I seemed to missed the part of life that taught me how to communicate my emotions more accurately. I'm told that I speak funny, perhaps it's how I say things that throw people off. But that's another topic, I guess.
> 
> Perhaps that is my brain working in the same way, with the primitive side thinking first, then the reasoning comes second? I don't like sounding like the "If you can't see how awesome I am, you aren't worth my effort" person, but it's clear that is how I come off to others, when I don't mean that at all. I can see it from that perspective now.




Miscommunication happens, and for a number of reasons. Thank you for clarifying what you originally meant.



> My idea of a nice guy (person) is someone who will sacrifice and fight for those he (she) loves, put another before oneself, compliment, be there for emotional support, a helper. I see this as a pretty standard nice person, though. I guess not everyone wants my help though. I put more value on emotional and romantic connection, before sexual attraction, and my point was that I don't know if many people see that in me. So someone might be sexually attracted to me, I pick up on it quickly, but I want to develop a different level of connection first and if it doesn't feel right, I back off. It doesn't mean I that I don't want to go after the relationship still, or try to devalue this person. In a particular case, I might have backed off too much, and this person moved on and I was hurt.


OK. *shrugs* Some "nice guy" traits are universal. Others, not so much. (Which could be an interesting topic for discussion, IMO.) Ultimately, I can really only speculate on why some women might not see that as attractive. I have some thoughts on the matter, but I think they'd only de-rail the thread.

I'm going to echo @_Penguin_ a bit. If you know there's an attraction and the feeling is mutual but you're not ready to go there, say something. I can't recommend you say "Hey, you're hot, but I'm not ready to sleep with you". I'm not in the dating world, so I can't give specifics. But I think doing something to communicate your interest (while communicating you'd like to take it slow) would be good. As a serial "hot/cold" sort of person, just backing off really doesn't help your chances. XD


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

I'll give you guys an example of how not to be friend zoned. There's a girl who I've been studying with for the last week or so, every couple of days we meet in the library to study. Finally I wasn't really sure where I was and she wasn't helping so I just said "hey are you just naturally flirty or are you attracted to me" turns out she doesn't find me unattractive, but she has a boyfriend, either way I let it be known without falling all over myself that I thought she was attractive and that she was sending signals that were hard for me to interpret. Boom, not friendzoned. and this chick is super hot, and really nice, but she would have had me friendzoned like a motherfucker had I not taken that step.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I tend to think nice guys are kind of pathetic. if I was passionately into someone and they wanted to be "just friends" I would tell them "I'm sorry, but I'm extremely attracted to you and I just couldn't handle that"
that said, they deserve the defense given in this video because there isn't anything creepy about it


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

Penguin said:


> Finally I wasn't really sure where I was and she wasn't helping so I just said "hey are you just naturally flirty or are you attracted to me" turns out she doesn't find me unattractive, but she has a boyfriend [...] Boom, not friendzoned.


If it's true, not friendzoned.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

HonestAndTrue said:


> If it's true, not friendzoned.


I don't understand what you mean


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

Penguin said:


> thats because if you were telling yourself the truth you'd realize you wanted to fuck her just as much as you want to talk to her, and there's nothing WRONG with that. So stop apologizing to her and yourself for being sexually attracted to her and let her know you're interested in her mind AND her vagina, because thats the truth.


With first one, yah I rey wanted to fuck her..bad too, but I want long term like my folks with over 50 years of marrige and my dad is totally devoted to my mom despite her parkinsons and demenshea and his arthritis, diabeties and hearing loss....to like that old couple that's always on the cruise that can finish ech other sentences and still have that spark, each with absolute faith in the other.....romatic BS, sure, lesson: the unverse doesn't work that way.

the others, my "freinds from college" in the phyisical state I was at the time, I was starved for anybody to notice me, acknowledge that I still lived, but because I had no value anymore as a resource, and my condition made people nervious, they found it easier to come up with excuses to leave me behind..... I learned a hard lesson about human nature from that...'freindzoning' is BS


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

vt1099ace said:


> With first one, yah I rey wanted to fuck her..bad too, but I want long term like my folks with over 50 years of marrige and my dad is totally devoted to my mom despite her parkinsons and demenshea and his arthritis, diabeties and hearing loss....to like that old couple that's always on the cruise that can finish ech other sentences and still have that spark, each with absolute faith in the other.....romatic BS, sure, lesson: the unverse doesn't work that way.
> 
> the others, my "freinds from college" in the phyisical state I was at the time, I was starved for anybody to notice me, acknowledge that I still lived, but because I had no value anymore as a resource, and my condition made people nervious, they found it easier to come up with excuses to leave me behind..... I learned a hard lesson about human nature from that...'freindzoning' is BS


meh we romanticize marriage man. I know what you mean I used to be the same way. I really feel for you. If what you mean by "I had no value as a resource" is that you had nothing to offer that is maybe intially true, but if you take the time to get out there and improve yourself, and improve your social skills, you will have something very valuable to offer


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

Penguin said:


> meh we romanticize marriage man. I know what you mean I used to be the same way. I really feel for you. If what you mean by "I had no value as a resource" is that you had nothing to offer that is maybe intially true, but if you take the time to get out there and improve yourself, and improve your social skills, you will have something very valuable to offer


Man, my spelling sucks at 1:30 in the morning and frustrated (at the time I type that)..I mean 'resource' as in no more ride to glom into (thus burning MY gas instead of thier own), beer, beg money (that old 'spot a couple this time, I'll catch it next time' thing...) and other stuff like that.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

vt1099ace said:


> Man, my spelling sucks at 1:30 in the morning and frustrated (at the time I type that)..I mean 'resource' as in no more ride to glom into (thus burning MY gas instead of thier own), beer, beg money (that old 'spot a couple this time, I'll catch it next time' thing...) and other stuff like that.


da fuck? Are you speaking quirky Britishese or something? "I say old chap, a hashy fellow just glum me beg money, now that old spot will catch in the rain time." That is how I read all that, and it made me laugh.


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

marked174 said:


> da fuck? Are you speaking quirky Britishese or something? "I say old chap, a hashy fellow just glum me beg money, now that old spot will catch in the rain time." That is how I read all that, and it made me laugh.


I'm _soooo _glad I amuse you....me thinketh I hast found purpose finally in life.


----------

