Quote: (01-24-2013 12:36 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:
So now that I have a moment, let's dig a bit more into these articles. Of late, it has become fairly common to see nice guys being shamed, bashed and presented as not just undesirable, but also immoral. It is the most wicked form of hamster that the internet has seen so far.
To understand why, we have to go a bit into the past. In the past, not many men were wise to the real state of the sexual market, particularly who got girls and how they got girls. Occasionally someone would whine about being left out in the cold just for being nice, but it was widely understood that nice guys were still preferred for relationships and girls loved them after they matured.
With the rise of connectivity and sharing of stories, and particularly actual empirical data, it soon became apparent that the real situation was much worse. The gnawing feeling of those hordes of nice guys became more than a feeling - it began a reality. With this truth now impossible to hide, they became even more discontent and the whining increased. Some of them embraced the PUA skills; the others decided it was simply not worth it and retreated into their shells, similar to the herbivores of Japan. However, their outcry was now very public.
With this truth - that women don't go for nice guys at all, even though they mostly claim that they do - being now both confirmed and highly visible, the feminists and other asshole-digging women (The Kantian's observation is spot on here - feminists have much higher dominance thresholds, i.e. a more dominant or asshole-ish man is needed to make them wet than for the average girl) decided to adopt another tactic. No woman wants to be seen as responsible for her own poor mating choices, naturally. This is the basis of the hamster. But how to reconcile it with the reality? With hiding the truth now not being viable anymore, there was only one option left: present the nice guys as not really desirable - or 'not really "nice"'.
Herculean efforts by hamsters all around the world are needed to perform this ultimate vanishing act because the nice guy behaviour is so visible and plainly desirable to common sense, but fear not. The avalanche of articles bashing nice guys as manipulators, jerks, sexists and so on is now close to accomplishing the task.
You can see the results even here - not only does the general public now believe the bullshit that "nice guys are not really nice", but also some red-pill forum members are tacitly agreeing. Once you've spent years away from being a nice guy with no game, you tend to forget all that you've had to endure before. It becomes like an unpleasant dream which, in hindsight, seems completely avoidable - with our current knowledge! But most nice guys are still bombarded with too much bullshit to know the difference. It is a grave mistake to forget where many of us came from and join the bashing just because we understand the why of it now. However, most guys do not. With the amount of brainwashing, can you really blame them?
Of course, that brings us to the final point - is what these articles are saying just the hamster acting up, or is it true? In a sense, it is true. None of the nice guy behaviour is attractive, that we know. We also recognize that it is not congruent, although most of these guys don't know it - they have never been taught any other way. Genuinely believing that girls like you being nice and will (eventually) reward you with love and sex is not lying, it's just being in the wrong. And we all know how this wrong is formed: through the words of these women themselves and the mantra we are all familiar with: "I just want someone nice", and "Where have all the good men gone?" (commonly meant as "men who don't cheat, treat women like sexual objects etc - i.e. "being nice")
So women are still verbally making "being nice" extremely important to a man who doesn't know better. It is impossible to say that they aren't asking for niceness. The only thing left is - what actually represents being nice? The article rightly points out that just not raping someone is not nice, it's just normal. Same for waiting until the person opens up and finally recognizes and rewards your support. But what is nice then?
Is it not pressuring her into sex? We know that this sexual strategy is mostly a big piece of fail. Is it doing her favors, such as repairing her car, helping her with homework or walking her home in the rain? Apparently that isn't nice either, even though most of us would be delighted if a stranger of the same gender did that for us. What is being nice then? Is it financial support? Judging by how quickly women divorce boring Beta providers, I don't think that's it either. Maybe listening skills and willingness to offer support? Nope. Chivalry, Titanic-style? Hell no.
Conclusion: while these articles correctly point out that nice behaviour is not sexually attractive at all, and that some types of nice behaviour are not actually nice, it still fails to bridge the yawning chasm between the spoken desires of the female gender and the actual reality on the ground.
At best, while all women claim that they "just want someone nice", the threshold for what (to them) constitutes "niceness" is infinite - somewhere far above listening, helping, being respectful, offering financial aid and sacrificing your life for others.
And I thought that Mother Theresa was a nice person.
+1 and post is nominated for Everything Else Hall of fame