What's this thing about "nice guys" and getting frienzoned?

[Makaze]

I want a guy that's honest about his motives. If I feel I'm being manipulated, things end right then and there. Learned this one the hard way. That's a huge difference between kind men and Nice Guys.

As for absolute doormats. . .I know I can be extremely dominant, and I know that it will lead to an unhealthy relationship; thus, I try to avoid that quality. This doesn't mean that I want a jerk; it means I want a man that knows how to pick his battles. A man that's willing to cater to my every whim is not what I'm looking for. However, that kind of man may be a good fit for another type of girl.

As for abuse. . .this one's complicated. Maybe the abused grew up in a household with abuse (which may normalize it in the abused person's mind). Maybe the abused REALLY LIKES the attention from the abuser, no matter how negative. Maybe the abused thinks that they can't get out of the situation (financially, kids, etc.) right now. Maybe the abused has become so intellectually dishonest with themselves that they can't find a reason to leave. Maybe it's something else. It's a messy situation, and one that I wish didn't happen. . .but it does, and it's not just men that do the abusing. I think this is a HUMAN problem, not a gender one, so I don't see how it ties in.

No confidence/being naive, etc.: Meh. Probably a deal-breaker for me, but it's because of the type of guy I'm looking for. However, a regular friendship is possible.

Being "friends" for the purpose of getting into my pants: NO, and I don't like those qualities in any sort of person. Probably not good friend material, either.

One may be honest, one is dishonest. I don't like the dishonest ones.

You more or less said what I had to say.

To answer Soul's question as best I can (in a comprehesive way):

Nice Guys™ are manipulative narcissists who blame others when their 'insert kindess for sex' strategies fail. Compare them with pickup artists. They are playing their targets with a relationship in mind. Contrast them with pickup artists. They both very bad at what they are doing and immediately go for the long con. They invented the friendzone to make themselves feel better about their actions and eventual failures.

I think there is truth to the claim that actually nice guys end up alone, even if it only gets talked about by misogynists. Females are chemically predisposed to and taught to expect their partner to make the first move. Females who make the first move are few and far between and the ones who do often get shamed for this behavior. Doing so is a risk. When someone does not make a move, they accept that this person has no interest and move to the next natural conclusion for the relationship: they designate them as a friend. Truly nice guys are the same way. Their sumissive personalities cause them to expect their partners to move first, so when that does not happen, they automatically designate them to another part of their life and move on. Submissive males have trouble finding mates because they predominately like women and not many women are domineering enough to make up for the role reversal.

The Nice Guy strategy fails because of differences in expectations. We expect different things from different people. Once an impression is formed, it can be hard to break out of. This is one of the reasons first impressions are important. Bosses offer different things from coworkers. Coworkers offer different things from friends. Friends offer different things from love interests. Love interests offer different things from family. We have different expectations and thresholds for each kind of relationship and as such we naturally compartmentalise them into different parts of our lives.

Once someone has designated you a friend, that designation solidifies your role in their mind. From then on they will view you in the model of their life as that kind of asset and create a kind of budget for you in their life. Friends are a medium case with about equal benefits and risks. They are useful assets because they have a sense of security and stability that romances do not and come at a much lower cost. Some examples: Arguments are easier to smooth over when less is on the line. Requests can be turned down without much fuss. Distance and time apart does not create worry. Jealousy is less likely to happen. The benefits are many and the costs are a few, making friends easy to change to, but hard to change from. Coworkers can easily become friends, but a friend is not likely to become a coworker again.

It is no easier to go from friends to love interests. The stronger the friendship, the harder it will be to change it to anything other than what it is. You could call this a friend zone, because it is one, but it does not have the negative connotation that Nice Guys people put on it when they use their term. It is a natural phenomenon that happens for a good reason: self-preservation.

Nice Guys have no understanding of these compartmentalisations and completely misread the expectations others have. In romance, they think that because they expect to be a friend and then change it into a relationship, their target must expect that, too. When their targets inevitably do not, their concept of them as a friend grows stronger the longer the Nice Guy waits to reveal their intent. By the time the Nice Guy expresses their feelings, they have made their bed as a friend and strengthened it every time they did something friendly. They have ruined their own chances.

Think of getting kicked out of your house and having someone ask you to have a sleepover, but not invite you to sleep in the same bed when they make the invitation. You make plans and talk about it, they volunteer to buy the necessary materials, and you thank them profusely and make a note to pay them back (as a friend). Then you get there and they only have one bed planned. You ask where yours is and they say they figured you would sleep together. You say no, maybe even thinking they are joking. They get upset and call you out for not being interested despite their good nature. They may even have the gall to say that they are entitled for asking you over and taking care of everything.

A genuinely nice guy would let you sleep over and not expect anything or even hope for it. Both they and you would have already ruled each other out as romantic interests when you did not make advances from the start.

My two pence.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Makaze

[Loki Laufeyson]

The amount of butthurt here from one side is mindboggling and hilarious. "But ive been rejected so you are putting me down!" Actually we arent. Cuz im going to be kind enough to assume that the insecure blokes in this thread would never manipulate a woman with friendship just to get in between her legs.

I think your missing the point people are trying to make, yes, friendship is improtant and valluable, but if you happen to develop feelings for said person and s/he doesn't feel the same way (rejeced or fear for rejection), it makes it a lot more difficult to be around the person, it doesen't need to be about sex, it could just be that you have strong feelings for the person, and the harder it is to be around the person, the likelier it is to slowly crumble.

Maybe im just stronger than most people, because i dont see it that way. I came very close to totally falling for this one guy. I wanted to make a move. I wanted to get with him. But after doing some flirting, i realized he wasnt reciprocating. Instead of bringing up the issue outright, i simply stopped flirting with him. Yes, i felt a sense of rejection and no, it didnt feel very good. However, this bloke is my friend and because of that i felt no real pain or malice in my heart. Being his friend was good enough for me. He wound up getting a lady friend and instead of feeling spiteful, i cheered for him. It was a fucking crime this guy was single to begin with. As long as hes getting some lovin', its all good. I stand back and watch him feel more confident in himself with the girl hes chosen to enter his life and it feels great. Thats what friendship is.

I have extremely strong feelings for a man who is married. I hide these feelings, but they are there. Do i feel anger at him or his wife? No. Do i envy his wife? Yes. Is there malice borne from that envy? No not at all. I want them to be happy. I want them to spend the rest of their lives together. I want to see them start a family. Because they are my friends.

They must be extremely rare then, because I've yet to meet a guy that doesn't want them. And I've met lots of guys.

loool. /patpat They exist and theres far more than you could imagine. I dont want kids and i know loads and loads of blokes who dont want kids.

[RandomX2]

Irrelevant wall of text ahead.

because it's interesting and relevant? if people are going to toss around anecdotes like they're evidence, then clearly they have a low bar for evidence.

I just took a minute to think about why I even added that comment. I don't know if I simply wanted to validate you placing a reference to literature, thereby approving of its use, or if I disliked it. The reason I'd dislike it is because I have an implicit dislike of referencing studies without completely understanding them (and their weaknesses) and stating their exact relevance to a situation. There's tons of RCTs that'll indicate something and yet be totally wrong. Like Treatment X reduces mortality for Y patients, except researchers lied very convincingly by omission and it has too many hidden side effects for it to be practical, and no one notices until a few years have passed and damage has been done. That's a problem of studies. People believe studies because they're lazy, and not enough people want to trawl through a whole article looking for weaknesses that the researches might have been actively trying to hide.

I feel that when you post a link to something that looks legit, there's an implicit follow-up remark of: Well, I'm actually giving evidence to what I'm saying, and it's not just pretentious theory-crafting. I believe that's what I was responding to, regardless of whether or not you actually thought it. I was saying, "No, there's no point of posting evidence unless you're sure there's no flaws in what's being said. You have to know everything about what you posted, otherwise the conclusions you draw could be wrong and can't be used. If you post evidence regardless, you get the benefit of having posted evidence (that is, an advantage in an argument because you've offered proof) without being right, because people won't actually look into evidence to disprove you. Especially because it's so long. You could instead summarize what's said in a paper and then assure us that you've read it thoroughly, and then we can accept your conclusions on the basis of trusting you."

Except I didn't realize that's what I was thinking and so, without understanding my thoughts, simply commented on your providing a reference because something about it was bothering me. Of course, what I said doesn't apply to this situation; it was subconscious and therefore poorly thought out. Particularly because you didn't reference a comparative study, which is where what I said mainly applies, and instead posted someone else's summary of evidence that indicates why they think what they think about behaviour. And it is relevant in the sense of useful background information. So my comment was unnecessary, and it's true that anything is better than anecdotal evidence as proof. Huh.

Edited May 3, 2014 by RandomX2

[Anacybele]

You don't want to have babies because you don't want to deal with their crying? To be honest, I think you need to be a lot more patient with children to be a suitable parent in the first place.

That isn't the only reason. You need to read my post again. I also have a phobia of pregnancy. And again, I have sensitive hearing. Baby crying often hurts my ears to the point where I'm forced to run farther away. If I put up with it too much, I could damage my ears, maybe even go deaf and not be able to hear the child at all. And I would like to be able to hear my child talk.

It's an evolutionary necessity that men want to have sex and create offspring. Men are just fulfilling their innate needs.

Wanting sex so you can have a child is one thing. Wanting sex just because it's sex is a different matter entirely.

[Makaze]

Wanting sex so you can have a child is one thing. Wanting sex just because it's sex is a different matter entirely.

I am confused. If you do not mind sex for procreation, why doesn't sex for its own sake make even more sense? Wanting sex for its own sake is as intuitive as wanting dessert for its own sake instead of eating more of the main course, for the same reason.

Not wanting sex is fine and possible, but wanting it makes sense from multiple angles. Among those, pleasure seeking is the more obvious one.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Makaze

[Tamanoir]

That's a topic that touch me a lot, because I could have been this kind of person. (I'm glad I hadn't access to those kind of stuff on middle school, when I was a stupid teenager (all teenagers are stupid, or at least most of them)

That's actually why they revile me so much.

I'm seriously lacking self-confidence, because I'm emotionnallyoverseonsitive.

Even a simple bad world makes me nearly cry, even if it's not told to hurt (just a little bruskly).

That's one of the reason I never tried to date a girl. Because I'm absolutely not ready.
Because, being honnest with yourself is the most important, I think.

I also hate this, because being friend with girl is totally possible.

Most of the time, I enjoyed my time with girls more than with guys, especially on middle school.

Having friends is freaking great. It's extremely valuable. even if they never lasted really long, I still remember them dearly.

[Excellen Browning]

DEAR SANGYUI/BORON

QUOTING POSTS AND WINDOWS RT DO NOT MIX SO DEAL WITH IT

THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT MEN BECAUSE APPARENTLY YOURE SEXIST PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SEX OR RELATIONSHIPS JUST BECAUSE THEYRE NICE TO SOMEONE DONT ACTUALLY EXIST. THEYRE A MYTH. BECAUSE - SERIOUSLY - NO ONE IS LIKE THAT.

I HAVE NEVER MET A BOY OR GUY OR MAN WHO THINKS LIKE THAT. EVEN THE MOST SOCIALLY INEPT PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS DO NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

THERE ARE HOWEVER A GAZILLION REASONS WHY SOMEONE CAN APPEAR TO FIT YOUR SET STEREOTYPE - USUALLY A MIX OF SIMPLE FRUSTRATION AND A POOR CHOICE OF WORDS. AND YET YOU APPARENTLY CHOOSE TO PERSECUTE THEM FOR IT.

[Moira]

While there may not be many people who actually think they deserve sex for being nice, there are definitely people who try to get sex by being nice anyways.

Edited May 4, 2014 by n00srac

[ClevelandSteve]

That's a topic that touch me a lot, because I could have been this kind of person. (I'm glad I hadn't access to those kind of stuff on middle school, when I was a stupid teenager (all teenagers are stupid, or at least most of them)

That's actually why they revile me so much.

When I was in High School, I WAS this kind of person. Thankfully, my terrible rural internet (I still had dial-up right up to the point where I graduated high school and moved out of the rural area where I lived. In 2009) prevented me from discovering places like Reddit when I was that young, or I might have turned into an even more awful person instead of growing up and realizing that women are people and don't exist solely for me to have sex with them.

So, basically, when I see a misogynistic douchebag, I see what I could have become. And it is terrifying.

I HAVE NEVER MET A BOY OR GUY OR MAN WHO THINKS LIKE THAT. EVEN THE MOST SOCIALLY INEPT PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS DO NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

You clearly haven't been to Reddit, then.

[Makaze]

DEAR SANGYUI/BORON

QUOTING POSTS AND WINDOWS RT DO NOT MIX SO DEAL WITH IT

THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT MEN BECAUSE APPARENTLY YOURE SEXIST PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SEX OR RELATIONSHIPS JUST BECAUSE THEYRE NICE TO SOMEONE DONT ACTUALLY EXIST. THEYRE A MYTH. BECAUSE - SERIOUSLY - NO ONE IS LIKE THAT.

I HAVE NEVER MET A BOY OR GUY OR MAN WHO THINKS LIKE THAT. EVEN THE MOST SOCIALLY INEPT PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS DO NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

THERE ARE HOWEVER A GAZILLION REASONS WHY SOMEONE CAN APPEAR TO FIT YOUR SET STEREOTYPE - USUALLY A MIX OF SIMPLE FRUSTRATION AND A POOR CHOICE OF WORDS. AND YET YOU APPARENTLY CHOOSE TO PERSECUTE THEM FOR IT.

Nice Guys are defined by their inability to recognize the problem with their own behavior. One of the big things that separates them from pickup artists is that when pickup artists fail, they recognize that they failed to manipulate the other person. They know what they are doing. The only people they lie to about are their targets. Nice Guys are in denial. They think they are being genuinely nice. They feel entitled, but think of themselves as infinitely patient and forgiving.

In other words, they do not believe they can do wrong, so when they fail, it must be someone else's fault. The stereotype is based on how they appear to others. They do not have to think kindness equals sex consciously to behave in a way that shows they feel it should be that way.

[Chiki]

That isn't the only reason. You need to read my post again. I also have a phobia of pregnancy. And again, I have sensitive hearing. Baby crying often hurts my ears to the point where I'm forced to run farther away. If I put up with it too much, I could damage my ears, maybe even go deaf and not be able to hear the child at all. And I would like to be able to hear my child talk.

Wanting sex so you can have a child is one thing. Wanting sex just because it's sex is a different matter entirely.

You can use ear plugs / ear muffs. You wouldn't going to go deaf even if you didn't use those.

Men do innately want to have sex just for the sake of sex. It's just in their nature.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Men do innately want to have sex just for the sake of sex. It's just in their nature.

So do women. All. The. Time.

[Sunwoo]

THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT MEN BECAUSE APPARENTLY YOURE SEXIST PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SEX OR RELATIONSHIPS JUST BECAUSE THEYRE NICE TO SOMEONE DONT ACTUALLY EXIST. THEYRE A MYTH. BECAUSE - SERIOUSLY - NO ONE IS LIKE THAT.

I HAVE NEVER MET A BOY OR GUY OR MAN WHO THINKS LIKE THAT. EVEN THE MOST SOCIALLY INEPT PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS DO NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

THERE ARE HOWEVER A GAZILLION REASONS WHY SOMEONE CAN APPEAR TO FIT YOUR SET STEREOTYPE - USUALLY A MIX OF SIMPLE FRUSTRATION AND A POOR CHOICE OF WORDS. AND YET YOU APPARENTLY CHOOSE TO PERSECUTE THEM FOR IT.

Excellen, you are NOT everyone in the fucking world. Just because ~YOU~ personally have never met anyone like that, doesn't mean that they don't exist. Because ACCORDING TO OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSONAL EXPERIENCES, they DO exist. It is NOT a myth. I'm sure they're far less common than people tend to make them sound, but they're FAR from a myth.

And I don't care if it's even in strikethroughs, if you think I'm sexist you seriously need to go out and meet some more people because you literally sound quite idiotic even putting that in strikethrough.

You're still not getting my point. If the number of "nice guys" in the world is actually 0 and they're all actually genuinely good people who are merely awkward, then I don't have a point and I will not "prosecute" people who are genuinely awkward. However, I truly believe that there are guys who are entitled pricks who have no respect for women, and that is WHAT I will not condone. Have fun spouting out nonsense and throwing accusations at someone who doesn't even do what you're accusing them of doing.

[Anacybele]

I am confused. If you do not mind sex for procreation, why doesn't sex for its own sake make even more sense? Wanting sex for its own sake is as intuitive as wanting dessert for its own sake instead of eating more of the main course, for the same reason.

Not wanting sex is fine and possible, but wanting it makes sense from multiple angles. Among those, pleasure seeking is the more obvious one.

I apologize, I wasn't really clear. Wanting sex for the pleasure is fine too, I didn't mean there was an issue with that. It's simply wanting to have multiple partners and threesomes and just wanting to see women naked or show off a big man thing that I have a problem with.

[Makaze]

I apologize, I wasn't really clear. Wanting sex for the pleasure is fine too, I didn't mean there was an issue with that. It's simply wanting to have multiple partners and threesomes and just wanting to see women naked or show off a big man thing that I have a problem with.

Objectifying people as sex toys.

Does that sum it up?

[MercyWalk]

I apologize, I wasn't really clear. Wanting sex for the pleasure is fine too, I didn't mean there was an issue with that. It's simply wanting to have multiple partners and threesomes and just wanting to see women naked or show off a big man thing that I have a problem with.

I don't see how having multiple partners and threesomes is a problem, nor do I see how any fetish is a problem. Sure, the showing off part is pretty bad, I agree with that, no need to gloat about the next pussy you smashed or guy you fucked the hell out of. But the wanting to see a naked person part is perfectly fine, is it not a compliment that one wants to view another naked, explore their body if consented? I may be sounding like someone who objectifies the body as a sex object but no, i'd like to clarify I appreciate the beauty of the human body as much as I appreciate the beauty of human interaction and emotional bonds.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Alb

[eclipse]

I. . .actually kinda like some of the responses that I see. Onward~!

I just want to say this to you guys/girls who feel hurt about getting friendzoned: consider yourself lucky.

I've had most girls give me the cold shoulder and shun me completely after they find out my feelings towards them. That's definitely a lot worse than the girl just wanting to stay friends. I understand that they think a direct rejection, no matter how nicely put, would be painful. But a simple "I'm sorry. I'm not interested in you that way and I want to just stay friends" is a lot less painful than losing a friendship completely and having the person shun you for good.

Girls are people, too. Perhaps they feel it would be better to cut off contact? Either way, you'll have to respect their decision, and move on.

See that PM offer to Jedi regarding passiveness vs. assertiveness? That goes for anyone else who wants to chat.

[Makaze]

I don't see how having multiple partners and threesomes is a problem, nor do I see how any fetish is a problem. Sure, the showing off part is pretty bad, I agree with that, no need to gloat about the next pussy you smashed or guy you fucked the hell out of. But the wanting to see a naked person part is perfectly fine, is it not a compliment that one wants to view another naked, explore their body if consented? I may be sounding like someone who objectifies the body as a sex object but no, i'd like to clarify I appreciate the beauty of the human body as much as I appreciate the beauty of human interaction and emotional bonds.

On the other hand, the body is something the person has little control over. When you value their body before their personality, it is kind of demeaning.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Makaze

[MercyWalk]

On the other hand, the body is something the person has little control over. When you value their body before their personality, it is kind of demeaning.

I'd say quite the opposite, you do have quite a lot of control over your own body. Sure, you might not have the ability to alter your facial structure, height or genitalia, but you have full control over diet, exercise, even mannerisms, as an adult at least (disabilities on the other hand, are a different case). The body is what you usually are given to see first (the majority of the time) and you build your first impression off of that. I understand if it's demeaning after a solid amount of time interacting though.

[Nightmare]

lots of text

I think you're putting too much constraint on human behaviour...like if x, then -> y. Like they're robots! While I don't think what you said is exactly wrong, I think humans are much more varied in their behaviour than you may think, and not all of them are subject to act exactly as you would expect them to, because of society or whatever.

It's a general point to take into consideration though, I guess. Maybe.

[Rehab]

RE sleepovers: that particular metaphor reminded me that when I was around a preteen age, I was at a sleepover at my best friend's, and I guess I didn't have my bedroll for whatever reason? So we just ended up in the same bed. It was basically just like any other sleepover, we talked a bit then slept and woke up. Pretty boring stuff.

I think that might be part of why, when people would talk about "sleeping with somebody" in indignant tones or something, for awhile I was like "what, you wouldn't share a bed with a friend? Fucking weaksauce, just come out and say you fugged if that's what you're really on about"

[Phoenix Wright]

I apologize, I wasn't really clear. Wanting sex for the pleasure is fine too, I didn't mean there was an issue with that. It's simply wanting to have multiple partners and threesomes and just wanting to see women naked or show off a big man thing that I have a problem with.

so being highly sexual is a bad thing?

[Anacybele]

No. Makaze summed it up. Objectifying people as sex toys. People are not objects. And if they say no, then no means no.

[Rehab]

(what is the most depressing study)

(if perhaps not the most widely substantiated ever)

Edited May 4, 2014 by Rehab

[Makaze]

I think you're putting too much constraint on human behaviour...like if x, then -> y. Like they're robots! While I don't think what you said is exactly wrong, I think humans are much more varied in their behaviour than you may think, and not all of them are subject to act exactly as you would expect them to, because of society or whatever.

It's a general point to take into consideration though, I guess. Maybe.

I saw exceptions in this very thread. I was trying to explain a trend and nothing more. No offense meant.

I'd say quite the opposite, you do have quite a lot of control over your own body. Sure, you might not have the ability to alter your facial structure, height or genitalia, but you have full control over diet, exercise, even mannerisms, as an adult at least (disabilities on the other hand, are a different case). The body is what you usually are given to see first (the majority of the time) and you build your first impression off of that. I understand if it's demeaning after a solid amount of time interacting though.

You actually can have control over your genitalia and facial structure if you have a lot of money.

It's demeaning because people rarely identify as their body and would like to be valued for who they are instead of what they are. People who liked to be personified instead of objectified find it demeaning when people view them as objects instead of people. People who prefer to be objectified may exist. I have not met any of them.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Makaze