"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

>> Or, you know, he was just plain nice, and is bitter about being so.
>
> Why does he think being nice (to women), whatever it means, entitles him to
> anything (getting laid, in this case)?

Never said it did. Even if it is the wrong approach, being bitter about
it isn't.

>> Didn't sympathize with his posting at all, though. Not because I think
>> he was being manipulative or any of the other things you said, but
>> because he ridiculously stereotypes certain women in a fashion not
>> dissimilar to what you're doing.
>
> Stereotypes are not necessarily wrong, but he reads immature in his emotions
> and simplistic in his reasoning. Realizing that opening doors for women

Yes, yes and yes.

> won't get you sex is a good start, but if it's to amount to anything, it's
> got to be followed by understanding why not. He starts with the wrong
> premise that opening doors for women would get him laid, and when it doesn't
> work out, he assumes it's the women's fault instead of questioning why he
> thought (or was led to think) it should work in the first place.

Not exactly what I had in mind, but not far off either.

If he's nice to someone, and that someone later complains about there
not being nice people, his point is valid. It's just his assumption that
all women who complain treated a nice person like him the way he was
treated that seems very self serving. 

Basically, he just takes his experience, and ridiculously
generalizes. He wants comfort in the notion that the world is screwed
up. He wants to believe that since his being nice didn't work for him,
that it won't work for anyone else, and it's because all women behave
the same way to nice people. He wants the world to be simplistically
screwed up to make him feel better about his experience, rather than
exploring the possibility that he just experienced a screwed up part of
it.

Post a reply to this message