What happens to the guys who . . .

[thefooloftheyear]

The "nice" guys I know are the types that bury their head so far up any woman's ass they can see their tonsils...Most women, on the surface. may find that appealing, but deep down, IME, they prefer a guy that has his own shyt to worry about and isn't all up in hers...It becomes annoying...

 

Also. a lot of these guys are nice, quite frankly, because its little to no effort or minimal expense to be "nice"....And many of these guys go overboard with that stuff because they don't have the intangible qualities the other guys have...

 

But "nice" has a lot of meanings...Some guys aren't the cards, flowers, and poem types, but they rather are the type a woman can count on at any time the need arises....They are more reserved in expression, but they are always there..

 

Lastly, I don't think anyone likes a laydown or a pushover...man or woman...I like strong willed women that aren't afraid to push me back Maybe wallflower type women like the "yes dear" types..

 

Speaking of that, I did business with a guy recently that, with every little move in the project, not only did he need to get his wife's approval, but he feared she wouldn't and let me know...This was pretty minor stuff..He was a "nice" guy...Good effing grief, though...If that's what a marriage is supposed to be,then count me out....

 

TFY

[GoodOnPaper]

Most nice, boring, normal people end up with someone, despite what you might read on LS. Those nice guys might not have a date every night, and they might not end up with that hottie they really want, but if they keep their eyes open, they may just find a decent girl that is interested.

 

^ I agree. There's plenty of bland people to go around, but what I've always wondered is where they meet each other. Probably work or church.

 

So is it a matter of mutual settling? With it as easy as women have it in the meeting/attraction stage, how would a "bland" or "vanilla" guy win out even with a woman who's not considered too exciting herself?

[Miss Spider]

@chili plenty of nice guys/girls pair up. You get a distorted view because people only come here with problems. Oftentimes the girls you are talking about who post here lack self esteem and are going after a guy who just isn't that interested in them, but takes advantage of the position. Nice people pair off into healthy relationships and live their lives without posting rship problems on message boards.

 

I wouldn't go that far. However, there is indeed a semantic difference between the common term "nice guy" and how it is used in this context. I remember a guy being angry at a woman who liked him just as a friend. He was going into the whole nice guy routine, overlooking that this woman was the only person who tolerated him, and the only thing between this situation and having an actual girlfriend was a question of personal hygiene and the ability to show some honest affection.

 

He was neither dangerous nor suicidal, but extremely annoying.

 

Lol. Not surprising. I agree there's difference, but really I'm confused 90% of the time these words are used. They seem like a misnomer. I never thought boring meant nice. I have never used those words interchangeably. And if boring and nice means being a gentleman, being kind, stable, faithful , I'll take the most boring and nice man ever, please.. As long as he has the rest of his life together and stands on his own happily that's like the perfect man...

 

What happens is again and again is I see it conflated with these people who try to make up for their lack by acting nice. This is off putting on two fronts I can think of... lack authenticity and reeks of desperation. It can be so extreme it gets creepy. I've been seeing some of those pop up on this board now and again. Extreme white-knighting - that I hope you are right is benign. I can't help but wonder when a guy says "I will do whatever it takes so we are together forever" about a girl who just isn't into him or doesn't know him

Edited August 6, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[Miss Spider]

Women like guys who are jerks to others because kindness is perceived as weakness by society and women care very much about society's views. While she might like a guy who says please and thank you, etc, she doesn't want a truly altruistic man because such men get trampled. Look at Christ.

 

True altruism doesn't exist in people except in very rare instances but I wouldn't even consider it a voluntary action. If it did it'd be dangerous. It'd be self-negation and you wouldn't survive very long. Even when we love we don't do it selflessly. That doesn't mean that women like guys who are jerks to others.

[Els]

You are extrapolating. There IS a woman who is head-over-heels for you (your wife!!!) and yet you keep kvetching and kvetching that no other women want you because you are apparently "too nice".

 

Lots of perfectly normal people (read: not celebrities) fall in love with each other and have happy relationships. And yes, many of those include genuine nice dudes!

[basil67]

Not every girl out there is dying to be with some exciting dude. Some women want to settle down, get married, and have a family. Mr. Exciting sounds great when she is younger, but he might not seem so good to a commitment minded lady. Sometimes, a woman can be drawn to a guy over something that seems silly to everyone else, but she loves the guy. I see it all the time.

 

My guy isn't the kind who seems silly to everyone else ....but the rest of your post describes my relationship. I sometimes look at other relationships which on the outside seem exciting, but inside they are full of drama.

 

Give me a good bloke who knows where he's at. I don't want excitement and the drama, I want stability and secure love.

[basil67]

Did you ever read that woman's article that was an appreciation for "dad bod?" A lot of that sentiment was present: "As an average woman, I want a man with an average, unspectacular body so I don't feel bad about myself and so he won't cheat on me. I want a guy like James Corden because I don't want to expend the energy to keep a guy like Channing Tatum."

 

I never fail to be amazed at the things people write. As much as I like a dad bod, it's not at all for the reasons she does.

 

I like a dad bod for tactile reasons. And for reasons about him being low maintenance. For example, today was a beautiful sunny day and despite the fact that we probably should have been eating light after last night, I talked him into going to a local beer garden for a cheeky pint and some pub food.

 

I feel like the dad bod guy will be more fun and easy going. He'll probably not be on some weird diet or refusing to go to the pub because he hasn't pumped iron today.

 

Keep in mind, that article was probably written by an average woman and not a model or a doctor who would likely have higher expectations for her partner.

 

If you've ever read my posts, you'd know I was ruthless in my dating. Very high expectations. But my expectations are around who he is as a person, not what he looks like.

 

Is a woman who has no desire to improve to get a "better" guy going to apply a similar lax worth ethic to other areas of life and hinder herself and you from achieving your full potential? Most likely. This is not the women who's going to go to the gym if she's unsatisfied with herself, she's just going to accept her situation and not do much to change. But this is basically an ideal situation for people who are content to be average and don't want to expend the energy to push their lives any further.

 

There are plenty of woman who will meet you and appreciate some aspect of you previously thought to be trivial or frivolous even in the absence of anything spectacular. But if you're not getting those women now, you might need to utilize a bit of testosterone to get your foot in the door, then lean back on it a little. Your sexual marketing tactic isn't money, excitement, abs, etc -- it's "safety." And that makes the average, vanilla guy pretty attractive to a lot of women, I think. Any women on here can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just making assumptions here.

 

I fully agree that safety is part of the attraction I have to a good bloke. Someone who's not going to let me down.

 

But the attitude you give in your first paragraph perfectly sums up why I avoid gym guys. I know overweight women and men who are very successful in life. Like mind-bleedingly successful. But you write them them off as having no drive because they don't force themselves to become one of the beautiful set. Because after working a really hard day at work, they'd rather chill with their friends than sweat at a gym.

[Bastile]

What became of the likely lads?

 

My 2 probably best friends over a lifetime. One always clumsy and terrible with women (we'll call him L), the other a bit of a "player" (we'll call him T).

 

L eventually had a woman choose him. Entered into a femaledom/malesub relationship where he got married and is raising a kid that isn't his. Buries his head in work to sooth his poor soul. Disappeared, and hardly gets heard of anymore.

 

T went around the world on adventures. Had the same attitudes with women too. Eventually got married to a stunning woman with a great nature whom I really like. Isn't raising anyone's kids but his own (2nd on the way now, I spoke to him recent). Enjoys his wife so much that he started a business with her. Seems very happy in life.

[CptInsano]

What happens is again and again is I see it conflated with these people who try to make up for their lack by acting nice. This is off putting on two fronts I can think of... lack authenticity and reeks of desperation. It can be so extreme it gets creepy. I've been seeing some of those pop up on this board now and again. Extreme white-knighting - that I hope you are right is benign. I can't help but wonder when a guy says "I will do whatever it takes so we are together forever" about a girl who just isn't into him or doesn't know him

 

I used to work for an undergraduate exchange program of a state university from the Midwest. The students were generally the typical midwest-friendly and very direct kind, smiling and talking to strangers. Now they were temporarily transplanted into a society where their regular behavior indicated flirting. In other words, despite my warnings the women on the program drew some very odd guys out of the woodwork very quickly, sometimes within a week of arrival.

 

There were relatively few cases that required intervention. I only had to confront a stalker once.

 

That being said, this overly early attachment is not particularly male problem IMHO. The creepiest thing I ever heard was from a very religious woman who had an interest in me, who proclaimed that she wasn't afraid of dying and wanted to "spend eternity with me".

[GoodOnPaper]

You are extrapolating. There IS a woman who is head-over-heels for you (your wife!!!)

 

But is this really a good indicator that I'm some kind of "catch"? It would be different if I had done a physical and emotional re-boot to resolve my issues and then chosen her. But she chose me when I was at the lowest point I had ever been emotionally. Although the "nice guy" pop psychology hadn't been developed as extensively (and for-profit!) as it is now, I knew my problems with dating were in the too-nice, too-sensitive, too-spineless ballpark.

 

With this in mind, I just have a very difficult time reconciling how women are so picky about who they date - I think one poster in this thread described her criteria as "ruthless" - with the general sentiment that has been expressed several times in this thread alone that well, pretty much everybody ends up with someone.

[somanymistakes]

 

With this in mind, I just have a very difficult time reconciling how women are so picky about who they date - I think one poster in this thread described her criteria as "ruthless" - with the general sentiment that has been expressed several times in this thread alone that well, pretty much everybody ends up with someone.

 

Because people don't have the same tastes. Not everyone is competing for the same man/woman.

 

Finding a person who is the best possible match for you as opposed to the "most eligible bachelor" in the country not only means less competition, it also increases your chances of being happy with your eventual relationship.

 

I mean, if Johnny Depp asked me to marry him, a bunch of squealing fangirls would think I was the luckiest woman in the world, but I'll bet that relationship would not work out.

[basil67]

But is this really a good indicator that I'm some kind of "catch"? It would be different if I had done a physical and emotional re-boot to resolve my issues and then chosen her. But she chose me when I was at the lowest point I had ever been emotionally. Although the "nice guy" pop psychology hadn't been developed as extensively (and for-profit!) as it is now, I knew my problems with dating were in the too-nice, too-sensitive, too-spineless ballpark.

 

With this in mind, I just have a very difficult time reconciling how women are so picky about who they date - I think one poster in this thread described her criteria as "ruthless" - with the general sentiment that has been expressed several times in this thread alone that well, pretty much everybody ends up with someone.

 

Why do you need to be some kind of "catch"? It kind of feeds in to the modern child raising theory about everyone being special.

 

But you're not special, and I'm not special. None of the people on this thread are special. We are all human with different variations of flaws and being ordinary.

 

That guy who you think has it all together? Clearly you don't know him well enough. Get into the psyche of anyone and you'll find they too have worries, issues and concerns just like everyone else. And if they don't have issues and concerns like everyone else, then they are narcissists or psychopaths.

 

Edited to add: I'm the poster who described herself as ruthless. But unlike many who write here, I don't discriminate by appearance. I discriminate by whether or not you're a d*ckhead. So I've been blessed to find good men who have been shunned by other women because they aren't tall or classically handsome or whatever. So, to agree with the previous poster, it's not like we're out chasing the same people.

Edited August 6, 2017 by basil67

[preraph]

I used to work for an undergraduate exchange program of a state university from the Midwest. The students were generally the typical midwest-friendly and very direct kind, smiling and talking to strangers. Now they were temporarily transplanted into a society where their regular behavior indicated flirting. In other words, despite my warnings the women on the program drew some very odd guys out of the woodwork very quickly, sometimes within a week of arrival.

 

There were relatively few cases that required intervention. I only had to confront a stalker once.

 

That being said, this overly early attachment is not particularly male problem IMHO. The creepiest thing I ever heard was from a very religious woman who had an interest in me, who proclaimed that she wasn't afraid of dying and wanted to "spend eternity with me".

 

I think women are just as likely to be obsessive -- but the difference is, when men are obsessive and stalkery, they are now in the highest category for potentially turning violent, whereas violent women are in the tiniest percentile (because they're not testosterone-driven) and most men don't worry about it. But women have to worry a LOT about an obsessed man.

Edited August 6, 2017 by preraph

[CptInsano]

I think women are just as likely to be obsessive -- but the difference is, when men are obsessive and stalkery, they are now in the highest category for potentially turning violent, whereas violent women are in the tiniest percentile (because they're not testosterone-driven) and most men don't worry about it. But women have to worry a LOT about an obsessed man.

 

You are however indicating a progression that is not necessarily the case. I was talking about creepy and awkward people, who are just lonely, inexperienced, or socially inept. That is a different category than obsessed and dangerous.

[preraph]

You are however indicating a progression that is not necessarily the case. I was talking about creepy and awkward people, who are just lonely, inexperienced, or socially inept. That is a different category than obsessed and dangerous.

 

IMO, once you reach the "creepy" status, that indicates something sneaky and off.

[preraph]

I agree, and it is obvious that obsessed men can present a real, physical danger to a woman, however, physical dangers are not the only things a person needs to be concerned with. I might not have to worry about some crazy, obsessed woman trying to physically attack me, but she might do her best to destroy my life. Men do have to be worried about things like false rape accusations, false sexual harassment accusations, and other non-physical threats.

 

When I was in college, I managed to pick up a crazy stalker. I soon realized that she was a bit unstable, so I tried to tell her that I was no longer interested in being her friend. She threatened me one day in front of another student, and I got a bit worried about what she might do. I went to the office to talk to someone about the situation, and it turns out that she had accused another student of either raping or attempting to rape her, and that guy was investigated, but luckily was cleared of all charges. That poor kid had to leave the school because everyone thought he was a rapist for a while. That was almost me.

 

I totally agree. My first stalker was a woman. I found out she was being pimped out by another woman, a real creep, and never understood what this woman had on her, why she needed to do it. But anyway, she had crappy boundaries, and my group no longer trusted her, so I got away from her and she found out where I worked and came and got a job there. I had a talk with her there telling her why I didn't want to be close anymore. We had had a "flash" friendship, very close very quick. So I had guilt about it, but then I began distrusting her. I was lucky because I think she moved out of town. Before I ran her off, and one thing that prompted it, is a small group of us girls were going to my dad's cabin on the lake, and she was invited. But after we got up there, right away, the little creepy pimp woman showed up right on our tails. So she followed us, but I figured she couldn't have if the girl hadn't told her so after that, I felt more justified because I really didn't trust that creepy little pimp woman and never understood at all why this college girl (I met her in the dorm) was mixed up with her. I was and remain baffled by it. I felt like I should have been able to save her, but I was very young and inexperienced and just didn't know what the problem was or I'd have at least tried.

 

I myself have been obsessive and poked around finding out about guys I liked, so I am not unfamiliar with those tendencies myself. I think in my older generation, when women really didn't pursue men or ask them out, one of the tools we used was placing ourselves in the vicinity of who we had a crush on, which in order to do that, you have to do some spying and stuff. So I know it when I see it.

 

Also, along with the list of things men have to be afraid of, I'd add sleeping with the woman and her getting pregnant on purpose. Because there's plenty of guys who would sleep with someone obsessed with them and then that's all.

Edited August 7, 2017 by preraph

[CptInsano]

IMO, once you reach the "creepy" status, that indicates something sneaky and off.

 

From my observation in most cases that person just needs to be different. I'm not saying that somebody has to like that person, but the assumption of danger based on awkwardness is something I consider a bit of a stretch.

[somanymistakes]

From my observation in most cases that person just needs to be different. I'm not saying that somebody has to like that person, but the assumption of danger based on awkwardness is something I consider a bit of a stretch.

 

Yeah, it's very unfortunate. Some people use 'creepy' to refer to specific inappropriate behaviors, and get extremely bent out of shape about how YOU SHOULD TRUST WOMEN! if you don't rally behind their creep-shaming.

 

And some people use 'creepy' to describe awkward, unattractive, and weird people. Not because of anything horrible they've actually done, just because they wear black or have stringy hair or whatever.

 

And then there's grey-areas of people whose behavior IS creepy but who may not actually intend or realize what they're doing (especially people with certain social/mental disorders).

 

When all these different things get lumped into the same word, people get into huge fights partly because they are using different internal ideas of what "creepy" means.

[GoodOnPaper]

Why do you need to be some kind of "catch"?

 

That's just a way of saying that I'm not getting the type of validation I'd like. Basically, like I posted earlier, I thought that a committed relationship could be a way to experience some of the physical excitement and satisfaction that I missed out on when I was single.

 

I was always interested in relationships, even when I first became interested in dating as a teenager. It became apparent very quickly that I would have trouble attracting girls but I figured in a committed relationship, I could make up for all the casual dating, hook-ups, FWBs, etc. that I would miss out on. I would just get this experience with one woman instead of several but still gain the same kind of confidence and satisfaction as men who are good at attracting women. Or so I thought. This thinking seemed logical but maybe casual flings and relationships are just too different for one to "make up" for the other.

[tetrahedral]

To quote a bit that I do about dating occasionally:

"Man, I'm such a nice guy, what's wrong with these b*tches?"

[basil67]

That's just a way of saying that I'm not getting the type of validation I'd like. Basically, like I posted earlier, I thought that a committed relationship could be a way to experience some of the physical excitement and satisfaction that I missed out on when I was single.

 

So is this more about you being unhappy in your marriage? Do you not feel valued by your wife?

[normal person]

I fully agree that safety is part of the attraction I have to a good bloke. Someone who's not going to let me down.

 

But the attitude you give in your first paragraph perfectly sums up why I avoid gym guys. I know overweight women and men who are very successful in life. Like mind-bleedingly successful. But you write them them off as having no drive because they don't force themselves to become one of the beautiful set. Because after working a really hard day at work, they'd rather chill with their friends than sweat at a gym.

 

Totally understandable, I think people should do what makes them the happiest. But to be fair that's just one example, and the same principle can extracted to any other aspect of life. We could just as easily write off the beautiful girl who went to the gym all the time but consequently had no career to speak of. Admittedly my earlier example was a bit myopic. Everyone has different priorities. I don't think the people you describe are doing it wrong by any means (especially if they enjoy their lives, good for them), but we all define success differently too. Personally I wouldn't be content with just career success, or success in just one specific arena, or "just" anything, really. I like to fire on all cylinders: career, friends, knowledge, fitness, etc. I like get the most out of everything. I know to many that sounds high maintenance and absolutely horrific, which is fine, to each their own. But this is the only gear I have, and to me, slowing down or jettisoning something I think is essential sounds just as bad. Neglecting one important aspect of life -- whatever it is -- sounds like taking a half-measure. Which just isn't for me.

 

However, like OP says, attraction is subjective. I get really excited when I meet people who have a similar attitude and priorities that I do. I would imagine that most people feel the same, more or less (?), it's just that attitudes/priorities/goals/ambitions/standards and every combination thereof varies vastly across individuals. That's why I said I don't think OP is in any sort of perilous situation. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who think he's doing things right by their own standards, and meeting and connecting with those people in whatever way they deem fit will be an enjoyable experience.

 

At the end of the day if you're happy, you're doing it right -- however you're doing it.