For some reason I found this quite touching:

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/483318927.html

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4c5963dc@news.povray.org...

>   For some reason I found this quite touching:
>
> http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/483318927.html

Sounds like a bitter old mean guy to me.

Is there such a thing as a nice guy? Not really. There's a time when guys
are naive, and there's a time when girls are naive. Girls grow up faster get
over their naivete a few years sooner, so that may be the origin of nice guy
myth. All guys want one thing, and all girls know what that one thing is.
It's girls, any girls. Girls also know what they want, and that's successful
boys. Such is how evolution programmed us all. All the rest is a coping
mechanism.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4c598b3b$1@news.povray.org...
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4c5963dc@news.povray.org...

> >   For some reason I found this quite touching:
> >
> > http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/483318927.html

> Sounds like a bitter old mean guy to me.
>
> Is there such a thing as a nice guy? Not really. There's a time when guys
> are naive, and there's a time when girls are naive. Girls grow up faster
get
> over their naivete a few years sooner, so that may be the origin of nice
guy
> myth. All guys want one thing, and all girls know what that one thing is.
> It's girls, any girls. Girls also know what they want, and that's
successful
> boys. Such is how evolution programmed us all. All the rest is a coping
> mechanism.

And one more thing, no girl in any walk of life looks for a "nice" guy or
laments the lack of existence of such (except in hollywood movies or
sitcoms), so the premise is nonsense. Girls (women) may look for nice rich
guys, nice built guys, nice successful guys... etc, but "nice" in those
phrases is fairly flexible and meaningless.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4c5963dc@news.povray.org...

> >   For some reason I found this quite touching:
> >
> > http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/483318927.html

> Sounds like a bitter old mean guy to me.

  Look who's talking:

> Is there such a thing as a nice guy? Not really. There's a time when guys
> are naive, and there's a time when girls are naive. Girls grow up faster get
> over their naivete a few years sooner, so that may be the origin of nice guy
> myth. All guys want one thing, and all girls know what that one thing is.
> It's girls, any girls. Girls also know what they want, and that's successful
> boys. Such is how evolution programmed us all. All the rest is a coping
> mechanism.

  If there's bitterness and cynicism, it's right there in that paragraph,
I'd say. ;)

  (Seriously, though. The "all guys want one thing" is such a pervasive
myth that even many men have begun to believe it, even when it contradicts
their own personal experience.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4c59958c@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> > news:4c5963dc@news.povray.org...

> > >   For some reason I found this quite touching:
> > >
> > > http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/483318927.html

> > Sounds like a bitter old mean guy to me.

>   Look who's talking:

Doesn't make it wrong though. You can even say "takes one to know one".

[...]

>   (Seriously, though. The "all guys want one thing" is such a pervasive
> myth that even many men have begun to believe it, even when it contradicts
> their own personal experience.)

To be fair, guys want many things, but all but one of those things are
really the stepping stones to get to that one thing.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> >   (Seriously, though. The "all guys want one thing" is such a pervasive
> > myth that even many men have begun to believe it, even when it contradicts
> > their own personal experience.)
>
> To be fair, guys want many things, but all but one of those things are
> really the stepping stones to get to that one thing.

oh, that wet, pulsating, warm, red heart... :)

Post a reply to this message

On 08/04/2010 10:46 AM, somebody wrote:
> All guys want one thing

Don't believe it. We live long lives on a densely populated planet. I 
think the instinct to procreate (or just to go through the motions) is 
less now that in the past.

> Girls also know what they want

No, again, IMO. Where you and I live, relative security is a given and 
survival of ones offspring is almost guaranteed. Most girls give little 
thought to tending their nests. More than guys, sure, but still not a lot.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <n@n.n> wrote in message news:4c5ae3b6$1@news.povray.org...
> On 08/04/2010 10:46 AM, somebody wrote:

> > All guys want one thing

> Don't believe it. We live long lives on a densely populated planet. I
> think the instinct to procreate (or just to go through the motions) is
> less now that in the past.

Who said anything about procreating? Men want sex. Procreation is a
programmed side effect.

> > Girls also know what they want

> No, again, IMO. Where you and I live, relative security is a given and
> survival of ones offspring is almost guaranteed. Most girls give little
> thought to tending their nests. More than guys, sure, but still not a lot.

First, competition in modern society is as fierce as ever. Whether we do
better as a whole compared to 100 or 10,000 years ago is immaterial. We all
compete with out contemporaries. And no matter how secure the baseline is,
natural instinct is for your offspring to be as secure as possible, not
merely as secure as the baseline.

Second, this is instinct, not rational thought. This is why female of our
species will always go for the stronger, more beautiful and more well to do
specimens *even when* it's merely for a one night protected stand. No woman
will prefer to spend the night with the weak, timid or poor (qualities often
misinterpreted as being "nice") if there's a choice (and why should they,
would men?).

Post a reply to this message

On 08/05/2010 07:04 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Shay"<n@n.n>  wrote in message news:4c5ae3b6$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 08/04/2010 10:46 AM, somebody wrote:
>
>>> All guys want one thing
>
>> Don't believe it. We live long lives on a densely populated planet. I
>> think the instinct to procreate (or just to go through the motions) is
>> less now that in the past.
>
> Who said anything about procreating? Men want sex. Procreation is a
> programmed side effect.

All guys want one thing: food
All guys want one thing: air
etc.

Or would you suggest that guys only want food and air so we can stay 
alive for more sex? I think the belief that all human (or animal, for 
that matter) inclinations can be traced back to some perfect and logical 
instinct is a load of crap.


> First, competition in modern society is as fierce as ever. Whether we do
> better as a whole compared to 100 or 10,000 years ago is immaterial. We all
> compete with out contemporaries. And no matter how secure the baseline is,
> natural instinct is for your offspring to be as secure as possible, not
> merely as secure as the baseline.

bs. Why is it that I prefer skinny women? They certainly won't make 
stronger babies. My guess is that my preference is a reaction to my 
environment.

> Second, this is instinct, not rational thought. This is why female of our
> species will always go for the stronger, more beautiful and more well to do
> specimens *even when* it's merely for a one night protected stand. No woman
> will prefer to spend the night with the weak, timid or poor (qualities often
> misinterpreted as being "nice") if there's a choice (and why should they,
> would men?).

"Nice guys" really do finish last, but it's not because they are weak or 
poor. I was born with a nack for attracting "good will." People around 
me just insisted on doing things for me ...

UNTIL I decided that I wanted these things. Then I'd throw a wrench into 
the works by acting under some of the same assumptions you've expressed 
here. I never really did figure it out on my own; Someone, several 
someones, had to show me what I was doing wrong.

You may be right about the timid, but look for the weak and poor guy 
with the "hot chick" next time you go out -- you'll see him.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
> > Who said anything about procreating? Men want sex. Procreation is a
> > programmed side effect.

> All guys want one thing: food
> All guys want one thing: air
> etc.

> Or would you suggest that guys only want food and air so we can stay 
> alive for more sex? I think the belief that all human (or animal, for 
> that matter) inclinations can be traced back to some perfect and logical 
> instinct is a load of crap.

  I think that the implication is "the only thing that men want *from a
relationship* is sex". The "from a relationship" being omitted shouldn't
be taken as the claim literally meaning that there's absolutely nothing
else on a man's mind than sex (which, rather obviously, cannot be the
case because it would be a physical impossibility, as a person would *die*
pretty quickly if he didn't think of *anything* else at all).

  Of course the claim is just not true. It might be true for *some*
individual males, who truly and honestly seek the company of the opposite
sex (or in some cases the same sex, or in even a fewer cases either will
do just fine) for the sole purpose of having sex and absolutely nothing
else *at all*. But they are probably a minority. And even in these few
cases it's probably only a very *temporary* thing (iow. it won't be like
that for the rest of their lives).

  In fact, I'm pretty certain that the human instinct of seeking company
is not so much related to sex as it is related to humans being a very
heavily social species. Humans *need* the company of other humans, or
they will simply go crazy (this is been clinically and scientifically
tested so many times that people have probably lost count). It might be
that from an evolutionary point of view the ultimate reason why people
need other people (or go crazy) is procreation and the survival of the
species, but even if that's so, that's usually not the major thing in
one's conscious mind when one seeks the company of others. In other words,
people are usually not *thinking* about sex and procreation when they
seek other people (which is what the original claim is about).

  Having someone to relate to, someone to talk with, is a psychologically
essential element of the human psyche. The vast majority of people,
including men, do not seek other people mainly for sex, but for company.
A man does not want primarily sex. A man wants a friend.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <n@n.n> wrote in message news:4c5c2990$1@news.povray.org...
> On 08/05/2010 07:04 PM, somebody wrote:

> > Who said anything about procreating? Men want sex. Procreation is a
> > programmed side effect.

> All guys want one thing: food
> All guys want one thing: air
> etc.

I think the context got lost somewhere. It was about what men want from
women and what women want from men...

> > First, competition in modern society is as fierce as ever. Whether we do
> > better as a whole compared to 100 or 10,000 years ago is immaterial. We
all
> > compete with out contemporaries. And no matter how secure the baseline
is,
> > natural instinct is for your offspring to be as secure as possible, not
> > merely as secure as the baseline.

> bs. Why is it that I prefer skinny women?

Because you find them sexy. Remember, you want sex, not procreation. Men are
not particularly picky, so their preference varies with the fashion.

> They certainly won't make
> stronger babies. My guess is that my preference is a reaction to my
> environment.

Correct you are there.

> > Second, this is instinct, not rational thought. This is why female of
our
> > species will always go for the stronger, more beautiful and more well to
do
> > specimens *even when* it's merely for a one night protected stand. No
woman
> > will prefer to spend the night with the weak, timid or poor (qualities
often
> > misinterpreted as being "nice") if there's a choice (and why should
they,
> > would men?).

> "Nice guys" really do finish last, but it's not because they are weak or
> poor. I was born with a nack for attracting "good will." People around
> me just insisted on doing things for me ...
>
> UNTIL I decided that I wanted these things. Then I'd throw a wrench into
> the works by acting under some of the same assumptions you've expressed
> here. I never really did figure it out on my own; Someone, several
> someones, had to show me what I was doing wrong.
>
> You may be right about the timid, but look for the weak and poor guy
> with the "hot chick" next time you go out -- you'll see him.

Sure, if they have redeeming qualities. Weak may be rich, poor may be
strong. Women ideally want rich and strong, but there are so many of those
to go around.

My point is, "nice" is meaningless, a non-factor. We are all nice, and we
are all not nice. Even Hitler was "nice" enough to hitch up with Eva Braun,
if you believe being nice earns points (did that cost me Godwin points?). In
fact, it doesn't, nor does it cost points. Those who claim nice guys finish
last confuse being nice with having the aforementioned "inferior"
(evolutionarily handicapping) qualities that drive women away.

A peacock that flaunts itself for the peahen is not being obnoxious, and
likewise, a peacock that fails to do that, for whatever reason, is not being
nice or considerate. A man who thinks that immitating the weaker of the
peacocks is a virtue is thus delusional.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 01:42 AM, somebody wrote:
>
> Sure, if they have redeeming qualities. Weak may be rich, poor may be
> strong. Women ideally want rich and strong, but there are so many of those
> to go around.

Name three romantic leading men over 200 lbs. I can't name one.

>
> My point is, "nice" is meaningless, a non-factor. We are all nice, and we
> are all not nice.

No, "nice" is a factor, because "nice" guys don't communicate. "Nice" 
guys lie. "Nice" guys act interested when they're bored. "Nice" guys 
think they can get away with it and can never figure out why their 
deceitful human encounters go sideways.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
> No, "nice" is a factor, because "nice" guys don't communicate. "Nice" 
> guys lie. "Nice" guys act interested when they're bored. "Nice" guys 
> think they can get away with it and can never figure out why their 
> deceitful human encounters go sideways.

  It sounds like that your opinion is that there are only "nice men" and
"douchebags". The "nice men" are just liars, and the "douchebags" are,
well, douchebags.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 09:02 AM, Warp wrote:
> Shay<n@n.n>  wrote:
>> No, "nice" is a factor, because "nice" guys don't communicate. "Nice"
>> guys lie. "Nice" guys act interested when they're bored. "Nice" guys
>> think they can get away with it and can never figure out why their
>> deceitful human encounters go sideways.
>
>    It sounds like that your opinion is that there are only "nice men" and
> "douchebags". The "nice men" are just liars, and the "douchebags" are,
> well, douchebags.
>

My opinion is that "nice men" aren't really that nice at all. Your 
typical "nice guy" is a selfish, manipulative (at least, he tries to be) 
person. I can't stand to be around him. I can't stand when he interrupts 
the conversation of normal, mentally-healthy people with his bullshit. 
His being socially awkward or "unlucky" with women doesn't make him any 
less a troll.

Some of these trolls find a home in the bullshit avalanche of particular 
bar/club scenes[1]. This is the type of person I think of as a 
"douchebag." Whatever girl he can barter sex from in exchange for his 
blowing smoke up her ass is as much a troll as he is and finds the 
attention/reinforcement well worth whatever heartache he may give her. I 
think you'll find most douchebag guys were dorky kids.

  -Shay

[1] I'll ignore the fact that you're a checker at Wallmart and pretend 
your putting on that hat makes you a cowboy if you ignore the fact that 
I'm 25, unemployed, and live with my parents and pretend that my putting 
on this jacket makes me a biker.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 09:02 AM, Warp wrote:

Perhaps this is saying it better.

There are people who want to live in reality – occasionally we fail by 
fooling ourselves.

There are people who *do not* want to live in reality – occasionally 
they succeed by fooling others.

Dorks and douchebags both occupy the second group.

Post a reply to this message

Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
> My opinion is that "nice men" aren't really that nice at all. Your 
> typical "nice guy" is a selfish, manipulative (at least, he tries to be) 
> person. I can't stand to be around him. I can't stand when he interrupts 
> the conversation of normal, mentally-healthy people with his bullshit. 
> His being socially awkward or "unlucky" with women doesn't make him any 
> less a troll.

  It sounds to me like your definition of "nice guy" is a bit different
than what most other people think (including the guy who wrote that text
I linked to in my original post).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 11:34 AM, Warp wrote:
> Shay<n@n.n>  wrote:
>> My opinion is that "nice men" aren't really that nice at all. Your
>> typical "nice guy" is a selfish, manipulative (at least, he tries to be)
>> person. I can't stand to be around him. I can't stand when he interrupts
>> the conversation of normal, mentally-healthy people with his bullshit.
>> His being socially awkward or "unlucky" with women doesn't make him any
>> less a troll.
>
>    It sounds to me like your definition of "nice guy" is a bit different
> than what most other people think (including the guy who wrote that text
> I linked to in my original post).
>

No, I'm talking about the exact same guy. What he doesn't understand is 
that he gets no "physical intimacy" because he is *incapable* of 
"emotional intimacy." He has his head so far up his ass that he doesn't 
see why he can't get close to a woman by going through the right moves 
(opening doors, cooking dinner, buying gifts) instead of having honest 
communication with her – must be that she's a stuck-up bitch.

The woman somehow eluded him despite his master-planned strategy, so now 
she deserves misery. Yeah, nice guy.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
> No, I'm talking about the exact same guy. What he doesn't understand is 
> that he gets no "physical intimacy" because he is *incapable* of 
> "emotional intimacy." He has his head so far up his ass that he doesn't 
> see why he can't get close to a woman by going through the right moves 
> (opening doors, cooking dinner, buying gifts) instead of having honest 
> communication with her ??? must be that she's a stuck-up bitch.

> The woman somehow eluded him despite his master-planned strategy, so now 
> she deserves misery. Yeah, nice guy.

  I'm sorry to say this, but you are being outright delusional. I can't
understand how you are seeing this in what that guy wrote.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
> > No, "nice" is a factor, because "nice" guys don't communicate. "Nice"
> > guys lie. "Nice" guys act interested when they're bored. "Nice" guys
> > think they can get away with it and can never figure out why their
> > deceitful human encounters go sideways.
>
>   It sounds like that your opinion is that there are only "nice men" and
> "douchebags". The "nice men" are just liars, and the "douchebags" are,
> well, douchebags.

where are we geeks in that classification? :p

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> where are we geeks in that classification? :p

  Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 12:05 PM, Warp wrote:
> Shay<n@n.n>  wrote:
>> No, I'm talking about the exact same guy. What he doesn't understand is
>> that he gets no "physical intimacy" because he is *incapable* of
>> "emotional intimacy." He has his head so far up his ass that he doesn't
>> see why he can't get close to a woman by going through the right moves
>> (opening doors, cooking dinner, buying gifts) instead of having honest
>> communication with her ??? must be that she's a stuck-up bitch.
>
>> The woman somehow eluded him despite his master-planned strategy, so now
>> she deserves misery. Yeah, nice guy.
>
>    I'm sorry to say this, but you are being outright delusional. I can't
> understand how you are seeing this in what that guy wrote.
>

You can't see how that might have been interpreted as ...

I did everything I was supposed to do to make you want to sleep with me, 
but you didn't because you were shallow and foolish. Now, I have a new 
strategy for making girls want to sleep with me.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:55:25 -0400, Warp wrote:

> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> where are we geeks in that classification? :p
> 
>   Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.

bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.

I think that's how it works out best, yes.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
> On 08/07/2010 11:34 AM, Warp wrote:
> > Shay<n@n.n>  wrote:
> >> My opinion is that "nice men" aren't really that nice at all. Your
> >> typical "nice guy" is a selfish, manipulative (at least, he tries to be)
> >> person. I can't stand to be around him. I can't stand when he interrupts
> >> the conversation of normal, mentally-healthy people with his bullshit.
> >> His being socially awkward or "unlucky" with women doesn't make him any
> >> less a troll.
> >
> >    It sounds to me like your definition of "nice guy" is a bit different
> > than what most other people think (including the guy who wrote that text
> > I linked to in my original post).
> >
>
> No, I'm talking about the exact same guy. What he doesn't understand is
> that he gets no "physical intimacy" because he is *incapable* of
> "emotional intimacy." He has his head so far up his ass that he doesn't
> see why he can't get close to a woman by going through the right moves
> (opening doors, cooking dinner, buying gifts) instead of having honest
> communication with her – must be that she's a stuck-up bitch.
>
> The woman somehow eluded him despite his master-planned strategy, so now
> she deserves misery. Yeah, nice guy.

haha, good point...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:55:25 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> where are we geeks in that classification? :p
> > 
> >   Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.

> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.

  Then you are a geek in-name-only. ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:01:17 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:55:25 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> >> where are we geeks in that classification? :p
>> > 
>> >   Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.
> 
>> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.
> 
>   Then you are a geek in-name-only. ;)

Oh, I don't think so - I'm a Linux geek. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 02:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:01:17 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:55:25 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>>> nemesis<nam### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>>>>> where are we geeks in that classification? :p
>>>>
>>>>    Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.
>>
>>> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.
>>
>>    Then you are a geek in-name-only. ;)
>
> Oh, I don't think so - I'm a Linux geek. ;-)
>

.. with a mullet!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:55:25 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
> > nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> where are we geeks in that classification? :p
> >
> >   Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.
>
> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.

see the problem right there?  You were lucky enough to find a very rare female
geek.

Post a reply to this message

Shay <n@n.n> writes:

> On 08/07/2010 12:05 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Shay<n@n.n>  wrote:
>>> No, I'm talking about the exact same guy. What he doesn't understand is
>>> that he gets no "physical intimacy" because he is *incapable* of
>>> "emotional intimacy." He has his head so far up his ass that he doesn't
>>> see why he can't get close to a woman by going through the right moves
>>> (opening doors, cooking dinner, buying gifts) instead of having honest
>>> communication with her ??? must be that she's a stuck-up bitch.
>>
>>> The woman somehow eluded him despite his master-planned strategy, so now
>>> she deserves misery. Yeah, nice guy.
>>
>>    I'm sorry to say this, but you are being outright delusional. I can't
>> understand how you are seeing this in what that guy wrote.
>>
>
> You can't see how that might have been interpreted as ...
>
> I did everything I was supposed to do to make you want to sleep with me,
> but you didn't because you were shallow and foolish. Now, I have a new
> strategy for making girls want to sleep with me.

Or, you know, he was just plain nice, and is bitter about being so. 

Simpler explanations sometimes are the more correct one.

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.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> 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 *always* wrong. There *are* people who fit perfectly
into even the most outlandish stereotypes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
news:87t### [at] festercom...

> 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)?

> Simpler explanations sometimes are the more correct one.
>
> 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
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.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
> news:87t### [at] festercom...

> > 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)?

  I'm starting to think that both you and Shay have some kind of unhealthy
obsession with sex.

  When a man tries to be nice to a woman, the motive must be sex. When a
man listens to a woman, shares feelings and emotions, that is, he wants
to be a good friend to the woman, the motive must be sex. When a man is
courteus to a woman, shows respect and has good manners, the motive must
be sex. You talk as if all men who do any of this consider women to be
just sentient sex toys which must be conquered by whatever social and
psychological means are necessary.

  This kind of "the only thing men want is sex" complete bullshit, in the
same category as "every man is a potential rapist" and other such feminist
nonsense. Unfortunately feminists have succeeded in indoctrinating these
lies so well that even many men believe it (even though most of these men
have personal evidence of the contrary, both in themselves and close
friends who they know extremely well).

  It *is* possible for a man to be friends with a woman, potentially even
with the prospect of a lifetime companionship, *without* the primary goal
being just "getting laid". If the friendship goes that far, it would a
natural side-effect, but it's not the primary reason why the man wants to
be friends with a woman. A man, like any human being, *needs* the company
of other people (quite literally, as proved by psychology), and a lifetime
partner is one of the best company which a person can have, so it's natural
for people to seek that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Why does he think being nice (to women), whatever it means, entitles him to
> anything (getting laid, in this case)?

He's not bemoaning not getting laid, per se. He's bemoaning getting treated 
like crap when he's nice, discarded for people who are not nice, and being 
used for the thing's he's nice at without being around when she's having 
fun. There's only so long even the nicest guy will be an emotional tampon 
before he moves on.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

> Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
>> 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 *always* wrong. There *are* people who fit perfectly
> into even the most outlandish stereotypes.

Well, OK. Let me put it this way: I feel he /wrongly/ stereotyped. I'm
sure not all (or even most) women who complain about not being able to
find a "nice" person have treated a nice person in the past the way he
claimed.

Post a reply to this message

"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

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 17:47:31 -0400, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:55:25 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>> > nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> >> where are we geeks in that classification? :p
>> >
>> >   Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.
>>
>> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.
> 
> see the problem right there?  You were lucky enough to find a very rare
> female geek.

I don't see that as a problem, and neither does she. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:31:29 -0500, Shay wrote:

>> Oh, I don't think so - I'm a Linux geek. ;-)
>>
>>
> .. with a mullet!

Yeah, yeah, ... usually tied back, thoguh.  ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Basically, he just takes his experience, and ridiculously
> generalizes. 

Because, you know, craigslist is such a high-value peer-reviewed journal 
that rival Nature in how complete and scientifically sound its published 
articles are.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4c5e7ffc@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > "Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
> > news:87t### [at] festercom...

> > > 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)?

>   I'm starting to think that both you and Shay have some kind of unhealthy
> obsession with sex.
>
>   When a man tries to be nice to a woman, the motive must be sex. When a
> man listens to a woman, shares feelings and emotions, that is, he wants
> to be a good friend to the woman, the motive must be sex. When a man is
> courteus to a woman, shows respect and has good manners, the motive must
> be sex. You talk as if all men who do any of this consider women to be
> just sentient sex toys which must be conquered by whatever social and
> psychological means are necessary.

I'm nice to women. But I'm also nice to men. I am not nice to men because I
want sex with them, and I don't get mad when men I am nice to don't have sex
with me. Nor am I nice to women because I want sex with them.

You could say my being nice is not conditional on getting laid. Obviously,
the ebay poster means somethine else by being "nice".

If he (or men in general) is being extra nice to women (above and beyond
being nice to fellow men), why?

Of course sex is a motive for being "extra nice". Shay probably calls that
sleazy. I don't know, I myself have not figured out yet when men say they
are being nice to women, as if that should earn them a medal (i.e. sex).

>   This kind of "the only thing men want is sex" complete bullshit, in the
> same category as "every man is a potential rapist" and other such feminist
> nonsense. Unfortunately feminists have succeeded in indoctrinating these
> lies so well that even many men believe it (even though most of these men
> have personal evidence of the contrary, both in themselves and close
> friends who they know extremely well).
>
>   It *is* possible for a man to be friends with a woman, potentially even
> with the prospect of a lifetime companionship, *without* the primary goal
> being just "getting laid". If the friendship goes that far, it would a
> natural side-effect, but it's not the primary reason why the man wants to
> be friends with a woman. A man, like any human being, *needs* the company
> of other people (quite literally, as proved by psychology), and a lifetime
> partner is one of the best company which a person can have, so it's
natural
> for people to seek that.

Someone seeking friendship would not lament and curse the lack of sex in
return for being nice.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I'm nice to women. But I'm also nice to men. I am not nice to men because I
> want sex with them, and I don't get mad when men I am nice to don't have sex
> with me. Nor am I nice to women because I want sex with them.

And you would be upset if the guys you were nice to treated you like crap, 
never told you about a good job opening they heard of, didn't invite you out 
to go drinking but did continue to bum money off of you, made fun of you for 
how bad you were at sports when the game required one more player, etc, yes?

|| You ignored the nice guy.
|| You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with 
physical intimacy.
|| You laughed at his consideration and
|| resented his devotion.
|| You valued the aloof boyfriend more than the attentive "just-a-" friend.


So out of the five things he lists, one has to do with sex.

Now he's talking about the women not being able to find a romantic 
relationship with a "nice" guy.

> You could say my being nice is not conditional on getting laid. Obviously,
> the ebay poster means somethine else by being "nice".

See above.

> Someone seeking friendship would not lament and curse the lack of sex in
> return for being nice.

Yes, but someone seeking romance shouldn't complain when the guy seeking 
friendship isn't around for them when they spent five years going out with 
the other type and putting down the friendly ones.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Basically, he just takes his experience, and ridiculously
>> generalizes. 
>
> Because, you know, craigslist is such a high-value peer-reviewed journal
> that rival Nature in how complete and scientifically sound its published
> articles are.

Umm...I'm not sure I see your point.

Yes, it's just a random Internet post. 

And yes, it's a meritless post. Since some people started commenting
about it and attempted to begin a serious discussion based on a pathetic
post, I felt I'd point out why it's pathetic.

Not disagreeing with you, but I'm wondering if you were implying
something more. I don't "lower" my standards that much if it happens
not to be a peer reviewed journal. If a friend of mine made sweeping
remarks like these, I'd say the same to him, if I were confident that he
would still remain a friend.<G>

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> Well, OK. Let me put it this way: I feel he /wrongly/ stereotyped. I'm
> sure not all (or even most) women who complain about not being able to
> find a "nice" person have treated a nice person in the past the way he
> claimed.

  That may be true. Perhaps he made a hasty generalization. However,
it seems that he was speaking from personal experience, so at least
*some* women are probably like that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Not disagreeing with you, but I'm wondering if you were implying
> something more. 

I'm saying that it's not so much "generalization" as "addressing a specific 
audience."  It's not saying "every nice guy was blown off by every woman, 
and every woman is now looking for a nice guy."  He's saying "if you're 
looking for a nice guy, and he used to be around, and you blew him off, it's 
your fault he's not around any more."

> If a friend of mine made sweeping
> remarks like these, I'd say the same to him, if I were confident that he
> would still remain a friend.<G> 

Yes, and that works where there's back-and-forth. But when there isn't, the 
appropriate way to look at it is to consider the case presented and discuss 
the merits, not consider all the cases not presented and point out that the 
one presented isn't universal.

It's a story, not a scientific analysis.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/08/2010 04:59 AM, Warp wrote:
>
>    When a man tries to be nice to a woman, the motive must be sex. When a
> man listens to a woman, shares feelings and emotions, that is, he wants
> to be a good friend to the woman, the motive must be sex. When a man is
> courteus to a woman, shows respect and has good manners, the motive must
> be sex. You talk as if all men who do any of this consider women to be
> just sentient sex toys which must be conquered by whatever social and
> psychological means are necessary.

The original author feels *exactly* that way (minus the part about 
sharing feelings and emotions [this type only does so when he feels it's 
expedient]). There are a lot of people out there who, due to some 
psychosis or Aspergers or their just being pricks, see others (not just 
women) as sentient objects which can be controlled with the correct input.

A person like this may honestly believe that he's just being nice, but 
the premise under which he operates isn't very nice at all. Advise him 
to be honest with her and he'll instead give her a speech about the 
importance of honesty. Advise him to be forthright, and he'll instead 
try to convince her of his forthrightness. He'll never abandon his 
premise because he's an @55hole.

And of course other girls will tease a friend for spending time around a 
guy like this; Guys like this come across as creepy to most people. They 
are creepy. They don't have true friends, because it's impossible to 
obligate someone into true friendship.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> The original author feels *exactly* that way 

Oh? What's his name?

> They don't have true friends, because it's impossible to 
> obligate someone into true friendship.

I feel really bad for you.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2010 05:16 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> The original author feels *exactly* that way
>
> Oh? What's his name?

¿¿¿¿ "A Recovering Nice Guy" ????

Why?

>
>> They don't have true friends, because it's impossible to obligate
>> someone into true friendship.
>
> I feel really bad for you.

Huh?

Because I think the "Recovering Nice Guy" is really full of crap? 
Because I'm unfortunate enough to have met a few of that type in my life?

Fill me in, please!

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> On 08/09/2010 05:16 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>> The original author feels *exactly* that way
>>
>> Oh? What's his name?
> 
> ¿¿¿¿ "A Recovering Nice Guy" ????
> 
> Why?

I just wondered how you discovered exactly how the author feels without e
ven 
knowing what his name is, let alone talked to him about it, particularly 

when most of the others here seem to think his message means something 
different.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2010 07:37 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
> I just wondered how you discovered exactly how the author feels without
> even knowing what his name is, let alone talked to him about it,

So, assuming some guy ranting on craigslist is full of shit is more of 
an assumption that assuming he's not?

> particularly when most of the others here seem to think his message
> means something different.
>

Small sample.

But even if "most others" do disagree with me, perhaps techy folks are 
more inclined to believe that women can be gamed. Sure, they /can/ be, 
everyone /can/ be gamed by the right person, but it's far from the 
easiest way to find love.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 2010-08-09 21:11, Shay wrote:
> But even if "most others" do disagree with me, perhaps techy folks are
> more inclined to believe that women can be gamed. Sure, they /can/ be,
> everyone /can/ be gamed by the right person, but it's far from the
> easiest way to find love.

 From what I understand, it's the exact opposite.  It's the jerks and 
frat-boy types that are blatant about 'gaming' women that actually get 
the women, while the 'nice guy' geeks get 'friendzoned'.

...at least, that's the traditional portrayal by pop culture.

It has to do with the nice guy geeks being the ones that will provide 
stability for the offspring while the female goes off and has affairs 
with the good-looking ones, effectively shopping for ideal genes for the 
offspring the sucker at home will help raise, or something.  Birds do 
it, too, if the documentaries I've seen hold any water.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> I'm saying that it's not so much "generalization" as "addressing a
> specific audience."  It's not saying "every nice guy was blown off by
> every woman, and every woman is now looking for a nice guy."  He's
> saying "if you're looking for a nice guy, and he used to be around, and
> you blew him off, it's your fault he's not around any more."

If he'd said that, I'd agree with him. Instead, he said "If you complain
you can't find a nice person, then it's your fault".

> It's a story, not a scientific analysis.

You could easily modify his story to one that would satisfy my
complaints without losing anything.

Post a reply to this message