Lib Arts Major:
“Generation AFC” has done a great job of producing Brevik, Cho, Laughner, Sodini, Holmes, and now recently Lanza among scores of others who never got a bodycount high enough to make the news.
Here’s to a new generation of defects.
Or should I say products working as intended?
Furious Ferret:
This is just standard way of tearing down beta males. Most of the guys that are nice are geniuely nice guys but being guys they still want to fuck. They were taught by women that being nice and respectful lead to being attractive so they were brought up to behave this way. It’s no uniqueness or virtue for a woman to call ‘nice guys’ as really horrible digusting perverts while rewarding the bad boy.
Mumtaz elaborates in response to a female commenter:
‘ From my own personal experiences, I’ve found that being nice does not equate to attraction from men. ‘
Actually, it’s being nice man that doesn’t equate to attraction from women. Nice woman means sweet and pleasant , that is attractive.‘ Nice is boring. ‘
That’s exactly what women think.‘ And the average person appears to NEED drama or kaybe just more vivacity. ‘
No , it’s average WOMAN who seeks drama . For a man , coming home after day of hard work , drama is the LAST thing he wants…‘ It seems that a lot of men look to women for something akin to entertainment ‘
Again, swap sexes and it rings true.
Also notice anecdotal evidence…
When I wrote Play Nice I elaborated upon the recent fem-centric trend of ridiculing self-professed Nice Guys. The notion of Nice Guys only using the monicker as a ruse for an assholish reality has been a staple response for Alpha-burned women for decades now. However, an interesting threshold is being crossed when a globalized internet society begins a campaign of mass ridicule of Nice Guys.
Nice Guys of OK Cupid is one such effort.
While I’ve come to expect women’s rationalizations about Nice Guys as foils for their attention needs, what NGOKC illustrates is an escalation in beta male in-fighting. Some have called this ridicule cyber-bullying on a global scale, but there’s more to this than that. The progression from rebuking forum white knight to online attack blogger is evidence of a new comfort level the femosphere has in sowing discord amongst the beta orbiters they rely on for fem-centric male affirmation.
NGOKC is really a clever new twist on Dalrock’s proposition of “lets you and him fight.” In viscerally exposing OKC Nice Guy profile pictures and pairing them up with subjectively contradicting statements about being ‘nice guys’, NGOKC is (perhaps unwittingly) attempting to define what makes a guy genuinely “nice” based on the terms that indicate feminine supremacy.
If you peruse the sampling of ‘nice guy’ case subjects on the blog you’ll begin to see a pattern form. A, most likely out of context, declaration of ‘Nice Guy-ness’ paired with some horribly incongruent statement about expectations of women’s legs being shaved or men being the head of the household. The social experiment that NGOKC is involved in starts with its efforts in qualifying ‘Nice’ as being compliant with what best serves the feminine imperative. Do you like the feel of a woman’s smooth legs that she painstakingly shaves 7 times a week? You’re not a Nice Guy. Do you believe that men should be confident, decisive, heads of the household? You’re not a Nice Guy either. In fact if you indicate on your profile any belief that is inconsistent with absolute, equalitarian gender neutrality, you’re not a nice guy.
For all the semantics debates the manosphere gets into over the proper usage of “Nice” for men, the binary nature of the femosphere is definitive; if a belief is contradictory to the feminine imperative, it is decidedly “not nice”.
Beta Fights
Being that beta men constitute the vast majority of men in modern society, one of the larger problems of being an abject beta is the sheer volume of sexual competition they experience from other betas. When a beta chumps is AMOG’d by an Alpha there’s an almost tacit understanding by the beta that the Alpha held an advantage over him. The Alpha had the physical, Game and status tools the beta does not. However, put two (or more) betas in contention with each other and they will resort to ever escalating feats of greater beta qualification amongst each other. When all you know is Beta Game, only more intense applications of that game is the natural response to competition within Beta Game.
NGOKC is one such escalation in the Beta Game arms race. From Enter White Knight:
Every random chump within earshot of your conversation about Game, about your ‘changed’ way of seeing inter-gender relations, about your most objective critical observations of how women ‘are’, etc. – understand, that chump waits everyday for an opportunity to “correct” you in as public a way as he’s able to muster. That AFC who’s been fed on a steady diet of noble intent, with ambitions of endearing a woman’s intimacy through his unique form of chivalry; that guy, he’s aching for an opportunity to prove his quality by publicly redressing a “villain” like you for your chauvinism.
By essentially doxxing the Nice Guys on OKC, NGOKC is a blog dedicated to beta white knights attempting AMOG other betas while the women of the femosphere egg them on. The social impetus behind the blog is one of beta men jockeying for feminine approval by ever increasing declarations of being more suitable, more feminine identifying betas, than the so-called fraudulent Nice Guys they hope to expose. They’ve made a game of qualifying for the approval of the femosphere by looking for chinks in their competitor’s beta armor:
“I’m a nice guy,..”
“Charlatan! You want to oppress women by expecting to be the head of the household! I’m the real nice guy,..”
“STFU rape apologist, says here you’re open to first date sex, and what type of guy has tats and piercings like that? Rapists, that’s who! I’m the real nice guy,..”
“Misogynist, looks like you expect women to shave their legs,…FOR YOU!,..only fucking patriarchs think women should make themselves ‘acceptable’ for men,..I’m the real nice guy,..”
The feminine influence naturally loves the beta dystopia between guys they’d never want to fuck otherwise because it primes their need for indignation while simultaneously satisfying a woman’s need for attention and affirmation of her own imperative.
Obligation
One of the things that solidified this beta in-fighting for me was reading Hugo Schwyzer’s Jezebel endorsement of NGOKC.
Hugo Schwyzer has a rightly earned reputation in the manosphere for being a manboobed captain amongst the vichy males feminization has made so common through its selective breeding efforts . The lengths to which he’s ego-invested his life, career and personality into a feminine identification schema is truly grandiose. Hugo’s gender self-loathing is a monument to the dictates of the feminine imperative – he is what feminized men would ultimately become in a society defined by the feminine imperative.
While I have patience for the likes of Manboobz and even the information deficient members of the PUA Hate forums, Hugo is a step beyond their simple mockery.
What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the socially awkward; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of male sexual entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young men who were told that if they were nice, then, as Laurie Penny puts it, they feel that women “must be obliged to have sex with them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young men feel cheated. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to women’s bodies in exchange for rote expressions of kindness, these boys have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Sex Fairy. And while they’re still hopeful enough to put up a dating profile in the first place, the Nice Guys sabotage their chances of ever getting laid with their inability to conceal their own aggrieved self-righteousness.
Nice Guys of OkCupid provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate a basic truth: there is no right to have sex.
This represents the basic disconnect that a feminine conditioned male like Schwyzer can’t grasp. He’s very concerned that self-avowed Nice Guys harbor this endemic, deep expectation of obligatory sex in lieu of ‘being nice’, yet remains willfully ignorant of the nature of exchange inherent in the sexual marketplace. Of the hundreds of self-professed nice guys I’ve known or counseled, not one of them expressed an expectation of reciprocal sex. In fact the genuine ‘nice guys’ are so self-sacrificing that the idea of a social contract of reciprocal sex is alien to them.
The new popularity of Nice Guy demonization that Hugo and the predictable, gender trend vultures piling on at The Atlantic isn’t about expectations or entitlements it’s about the underlying and unspoken reciprocal nature of the sexual marketplace being exposed. When a ‘nice guy’ does express some angst over his sexless and solitary life, or does bring his Savior Schema to the surface in a public fashion it becomes an ugly reminder for the feminine that the SMP is actually that, a marketplace. A fem-centric society doesn’t like the idea of a visceral resource exchange, because it ruins its humanist/equalist social pretense. Solution? Ridicule and marginalize the one doing the exposing.
Besides the near-universal sense that they’ve been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Nice Guys is their contempt for women’s non-sexual friendship. They rage about being “friendzoned,” and complain about the hours spent listening to women without being given so much as a hand job in return for their investment.
Because Hugo has been so well conditioned by his feminization he lacks any frame of reference to understand the reflexive rage these “false-flag nice guys” experience. This rage response isn’t the disappointment of some societal masculine influence convincing these guys of a sex-debt obligation, it was the entirely feminized influence which convince them of myth of Relational Equity:
…I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.
For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.
Hugo’s preoccupation with the sex-debt obligations for being ‘nice’ is a convenience for his inability to address the concept of relational equity. In a sense he’s correct, men should never presume that anything they do, any personal sacrifice, any emotional investment they make for a woman will EVER be appreciated, much less reciprocated, because hypergamy doesn’t care about any of it.
If these ‘nice guys’ are guilty of anything, it’s in their ego-investment in the lie that any woman might have the capacity to appreciate his investments in them. That rage isn’t about the disappointment of not getting an expected lay, it’s the self-rage associated with the disillusionment of a belief in a relational equity that women (often times the same women they want to become intimate with) continue to convince them of. It’s a rage that comes from the loss of investment and being ridiculed for ever having invested by the same women who convinced them to invest.
So thank you Hugo, you’ve unwittingly made the manosphere, Game and red pill wisdom all the more attractive for ‘nice guys’ with your exposé. The obvious moral to this story is to drop the pretense of being a ‘nice guy’ and embrace a self-concerned Game perspective. In other words, unplug. Drop any expectations of a mutual respect, shared purpose or infantile visions of an idealistic love – because you have no ‘right’ to something women fundamentally lack the capacity to reciprocate. Your idealized relationship doesn’t exist in a feminine frame, it only exists in a positive masculine frame of your making. The only thing ‘nice guys’ have to lament is not embracing these truths before they posted their profile pic on OK Cupid.
January 10th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
Being mad at women for being hypergamous is like being mad at your dog because he can’t mow the lawn.
They’re not rational in the same way we are. All that means is that we’re supposed to be in charge, not that they deserve a slow and painful death.
January 10th, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Actually, Nate, this isn’t unhealthy or cynical or pessimistic. It’s a warning, a reminder that women do NOT love in the same manner as men do. Expecting the same thing in return is dishonest and foolish.
Men experience love as men; but, this does not cause (any) woman to reciprocate or confoirm to the same ideal. Knowing the harsh reality lets you choose the best path. That’s all.
January 10th, 2013 at 6:08 pm
Mulla Nasrudin is sitting with his son, on a wall, at midday, enjoying the sunshine. His son suddenly becomes excited and says to his dad “Father, my mother, your wife, is frolicking with another man in the town square!”
Mulla answers, “yes son, I noticed” and continues basking in the sunlight. “But Father” the son, agitated, replies to his father, “are you not going to go over there and punch him in his nose?”
“No son” Mulla calmly replies.
“Do you not love my mother, your wife? For if you do, you should be jealous and go and protect your and my honour!”
Mulla slowly opens his eyes, to look at his son squarely, “Son, when love is true, jealously cannot be found. Love dances in the happiness of the one it is bestowed upon. Look at your mother, my wife. Look at her eyes, they are gleaming. Look at her mouth, you can see her teeth she is smiling so broadly. Look at her dance, her feet barely touch the ground. She is beyond happy son, she is in joy. Love has no constraints son, only complete freedom. Her joy is my joy”
January 10th, 2013 at 8:15 pm
@Jeff Thomas
Not all the female posters here are trolls, and you shouldnt assume that any attempt to communicate with females here is an attempt to educate only them.
January 10th, 2013 at 8:24 pm
[…] Rollo Tomassi – Nice Like Me […]
January 10th, 2013 at 8:29 pm
@DeNihilist
Heres another Mulla Nasrudin story:
“Mulla Nasruddin bought some meat and asked his wife to prepare kababs. But his wife felt tempted and ate it all herself.
When asked, she blamed the house cat. The amount of meat being one kilogram, it was hard for Nasruddin to believe that a cat could eat so much.
So he weighed the cat on a balance. It weighed exactly one kilogram. Nasruddin exclaimed: ”If this is the same cat, then where is the meat? Or, if this is the meat, then where has the cat gone?”
The lesson here seems to be that Mulla Nasrudins wife is disrespectful, self centered, a liar AND a slut. That seems to tie into our conversation and illustrate the average modern woman pretty well DeNihilist, thanks for the story.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:46 pm
Apollo – “”If this is the same cat, then where is the meat? Or, if this is the meat, then where has the cat gone?””
Eggxatcly! Our life view is informed by our experiences.
January 10th, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Nice guys of OKC is the writing on the wall and I commend heartiste for drawing attention to cuckoldry for the week it began trending. In the future, all sex will be withheld from betas altogether but they will still be held in supporting roles for women. Why would any man accept that? Well, with this generation you shouldn’t be surprised, but even if they didnt, in 40 years they won’t have a choice.
January 10th, 2013 at 10:22 pm
@Kate
Possible, but i wouldnt discount the possibility that some men would intentionally lie in order to get sex. Though a genuine nice guy isnt just after sex, as madvillan eloquently pointed out earlier, faking the persona of a nice guy who wants a relationship in order to get sex is definitely a thing. Dalrock even wrote a post about it a while back.
January 10th, 2013 at 10:28 pm
@collapseofman
Its hard to predict the future, but the impression that im getting is that the current up and coming generation will either be unwilling or incapable of supporting anyone other than themselves. And maybe not even that. I would certainly predict a collapse over enforced servitude without sex in return.
January 11th, 2013 at 12:26 am
new site making fun of guys on ok cupid: http://okcgoldmine.tumblr.com/
January 11th, 2013 at 12:29 am
FFY’s in looove.
“He’s very concerned that self-avowed Nice Guys harbor this endemic, deep expectation of obligatory sex in lieu of ‘being nice’, yet remains willfully ignorant of the nature of exchange inherent in the sexual marketplace. Of the hundreds of self-professed nice guys I’ve known or counseled, not one of them expressed an expectation of reciprocal sex. *In fact the genuine ‘nice guys’ are so self-sacrificing that the idea of a social contract of reciprocal sex is alien to them.”*
Dammit Rollo, how are you so poignant and accurate at once?
January 11th, 2013 at 12:48 am
What Schwyzer really misses in his article is the fact that his reasoning can be easily extend to both A.) Republican economics and B.) Denial of birth control coverage. If “no one is entitled to sex” then certainly no one is entitled to birth control. Likewise, if people are supposed to be at peace with the fact that love are sex are unequally distributed due to genetic and situational factors, then they should also be at peace with the fact that wealth is likewise unequally distributed for virtually the same reasons. I doubt that either position is popular on Jezebel, but alas, idiots like that don’t use reasoning to arrive at a conclusion, they come to the conclusion first and then fill in the reasoning blanks only as needed.
January 11th, 2013 at 1:08 am
Good post.
As a nice guy waking up to the red pill, the most frustrating part of the niceguy discussion is the notion that nice guys are out to manipulate women into sex. Do nice guys want sex? Sure, nice guys are men. (I believe to the anti-nice guy crowd, though, nice guy =/= or < man.) But nice guys are not pick-up artists looking for lays and notch count.
Nice guys make themselves vulnerable and invest of themselves deeply in our romantic objects in order to build the foundation of a long-term monogamous relationship where sex is one part of the bundle with mutual, reciprocal commitment, empathy, acceptance, care, trust, and loyalty with a soul mate – a life partner. Intimacy and sex are parts of the bundle of romantic love. Women tell us they want the same thing, which causes us to believe we are building the foundation properly for the love we seek. Except we're not, and instead, we watch our romantic objects give themselves over emotionally and physically to men who are doing everything wrong (…except they're not).
It hurts that the most noble part of us is made crass and our most essential hopes and dreams are degraded and mocked. It's a harsh realization when one's deepest convictions are exposed as lies.
January 11th, 2013 at 1:29 am
@Eric
As a former nice guy myself i know where you are coming from and understand your frustration perfectly. Look at it as a positive though. A painful truth is better than a comfortable lie if facing the truth gives you the opportunity to make your life better.
The mocking of the feminists, and to a lesser extent most other women, is also useful to you, because it lets you know exactly what those people think of someone who wants to treat them nicely because thats what he has been taught is right all his life. The lesson is that they are not capable of reciprocating in kind, and that they do not deserve the “nice” treatment you have been gifting them with. They are not worthy of being on that pedestal, in fact most of them are beneath you and are only getting any special consideration at all from others because they happened to have been born female. God knows they havent earned it with the way they treat others, especially those that they think of as weaker or less powerful than themselves.
Make yourself better for you, and then look after yourself, and only spend your attention on those who have proven themselves worthy in some way more significant than just being born with a vagina.
January 11th, 2013 at 2:40 am
Martel January 9th, 2013 at 5:34 pm: “What makes it extra hard is that some of these nice guys have two red pills to swallow. … It’s possible to acknowledge that “most women” are like that, but refuse to accept that it’s morally okay to be more of a selfish bastard in response. These guys end up as martyrs, believing that being an asshole will get them laid, but that being an asshole is still wrong so they won’t go there. … they’re really trying to do what they think is right. … Changing strategy is easier than changing your moral compass. They’re related, but not the same.”
Yes. You described where I am with the red pill(s). The 1st one is down, but the 2nd one is too tough to swallow.
I’ve accepted red pill reality: being a nice guy has failed me, game works, women respond positively to players, and women are not what I believed they were. However, I was fundamentally against game for a long time. I recognize now my blue pill way of thinking is impractical and game is practical, but my moral compass hasn’t changed to where I can adopt game. For now, in order to break out of the blue pill dead end and make progress with the red pill, I’m going MGTOW.
January 11th, 2013 at 5:26 am
@ Nate.
Truth is neither good nor bad. It is up to you, what you will do with it. Mz exepriences are not from “manosphere”, but from dicorce courts in real life. Of course, you can still enjoy women, they are amusing creatures. I myself am doing this for years.
But honestly – how could anyone trully “red pill” man marry (it requires some levels of trust and respect), is beyond me.
January 11th, 2013 at 7:04 am
Back in the old days men had higher value than women so hypergamy was the natural state for women. Now that things have changed their hypergamy is on steriods so that’s why men have to be overconfident to the point of ridiculousness.
January 11th, 2013 at 7:28 am
@Eric
I too face the same dilema. Taking the red pill made me realize being a nice guy is the wrong approach with women…but it is more important for me to follow the word of God and not manipulate them into premarital sex. It’s like being between a rock and a hard place…but I still have faith that living the truth is better in the long run than believing a lie.
Going our own way isn’t the worst thing in the world…but I prefer to mingle with ladies in hopes there’s a unicorn for me out there.
January 11th, 2013 at 8:13 am
Sex can certainly be a right, if food, home heating and shelter can be. You don’t have to force anyone to have sex (creating government-enforced rape) for that, just legalize prostitution and have the state pay prostitutes for sex with specific men.
But technically, it can be argued that to achieve feminist equality everywhere (even out gender differences in workplace, leader positions, wages, and anywhere where there is a power imbalance), the government needs to even out the sexual power difference between the sexes, and sometimes force women to give up sex to men who don’t have it. That’s where feminist logic really leads, if you remove the sexist inconsistencies.
January 11th, 2013 at 8:35 am
The way I understand it, the ones who complain about niceguys often say niceguys are trying to “buy their love/sex”. Like rewarding a man with sex and love for anything at all, is actually prostitution. When they say this, they don’t realize that the majority of women are prostitutes as it is (considering who normally pays for dates and who earns more), and there isn’t anything dishonorable about it. It’s just how things are.
In fact, trying to break away from this is very foolish for a woman. I wouldn’t be surprised that this thinking contributes to pump and dump statistics. I just don’t think women are made for “sex in exchange for sex” relationships, in general. Money, or commitment, or something besides sex, is a good idea to get in exchange for sex.
January 11th, 2013 at 9:32 am
From collapseofman:
“In the future, all sex will be withheld from betas altogether but they will still be held in supporting roles for women. Why would any man accept that? Well, with this generation you shouldn’t be surprised, but even if they didnt, in 40 years they won’t have a choice.”
The typical tatted-up, beanie wearing alpha doesn’t mine the metals, coals and oil to sustain and advance civilisation. They don’t work at the Max Plank institute or CERN doing ground-breaking physics experiments. Most, if not all, companies, and especially tech companies’ wealth and profit is build upon the backs of betas.
The massive ongoing transfer of wealth from men (yes, mostly from beta men) to women in combination with the latter’s unrestrained hypergamy is like a millstone around betas’ necks. One that gets heavier and heavier. Take away their reproductive chances, their warm showers, their jobs and pensions, and I guarantee you things will get violent in the future.
January 11th, 2013 at 11:05 am
Westcoaster said “Why not just be honest and say you don’t want that?”
It seems womens brains are not only not wired to know what they want, but are wired to not know what they want. Rollo has explained it as having to do with their need to convince providers that the providers are sexually wanted, in order to attract and keep providers. Nature has decided that the best way to convince others of a lie is to believe it yourself.
January 11th, 2013 at 11:46 am
“By essentially doxxing the Nice Guys on OKC, NGOKC is a blog dedicated to beta white knights attempting AMOG other betas while the women of the femosphere egg them on.”
Relating back to the feminine imperative is dead on
Back when I had a blog (and felt like what I wrote was worth reading) I posited that events like what you describe above all hearken back to the root cause of the problem for the modern Man:
The modern Man has allowed females to define what it means to be a Man. To solve the problem, a Man must define what it means to be masculine outside of the context of the feminine.
Of course it was in A LOT more words than that, but you get the idea. “The Male Condition” is just one step away from the Human Condition – essential questions that every person eventually asks and answers throughout their lifetimes based on culture, region, lifestyle, religion, etc…
Simply put, to begin solving the Male Condition “correctly” a boy seeking to become a Man must not allow his answer to be influenced by or defined by females in any way. Only when working from that starting point can a boy grow into a Man who can potentially become fully self-actualized. Otherwise it’s always going to hinge on something external and likely be unattainable…
January 11th, 2013 at 2:09 pm
@Mebus: “Take away their reproductive chances, their warm showers, their jobs and pensions, and I guarantee you things will get violent in the future.”
Damn straight. It’s like their cornered and scared. And we know how dangerous these type of people can be.
January 11th, 2013 at 5:23 pm
Stoked to see Nasrudin up there. Just felt the need to add that.
January 11th, 2013 at 7:17 pm
As I improve my game I note very interesting responses. In the past behaviours I would have apologized for—like being a jerk, leaving without saying goodbye, walking fast etc etc. Suddenly have become differentiators.
I’m now wondering whether in this feminist-centric dynamic the world has evolved into, being assertive, being dominant and being unapologetic for your natural sexual desires—and of course standing up to the scrutiy of the ensuing shit-tests—are the things that differentiate you and get you to where you want to be with women.
I look at myself, not overly handsome, older, but i’m doing great with women by learning game.
I’m meeting higher quality women and getting better bangs while screening out girls and even rejecting girls.
It’s a great position to be in when I turn down a sure-bang because I’m tired and don’t feel like it…the scarcity mentaility of the “nice guy” holds them back.
January 11th, 2013 at 7:38 pm
“It’s a rage that comes from the loss of investment and being ridiculed for ever having invested by the same women who convinced them to invest.”…
Reading this had my dying laughing. The female logic can be just Fucking ridiculous at times. I wonder sometimes tho, if they’re really just messing with me on purpose, or, they’re just really that deeply invested into what comes out of they’re mouth, that fact and numbers are just lost COMPLETELY by them
Anyway, great post as always Rollo
January 12th, 2013 at 12:24 am
I have always wondered what interest women had in deconstructing nice guys. Through red pill eyes, it is quite obvious. The deconstruction of the AFC further monopolizes the advantage the alpha has and will continue to have. This goes back to Rollo’s Queens, Workers, and Drones post in which the imperative is to use supplicating nice guy betas as a way to achieve a stepping stone to an alpha. Simultaneously, the modern feminine tendency to narcissism is amplified more so through the use of these “disposable” male betas, creating a self-aggrandizing belief that they are truly worthy of an alpha. This used to be chilling stuff to me but I accept it as standard fare and act accordingly. I try my best to unplug as many males as possible but “you can’t save ’em all”.
January 12th, 2013 at 1:57 pm
from what i read, i gather 1 woman is someone who likes to project and is the type of person why abuses “cliches” to a point to justify more bad behavior.
For example, she is the type of person who would take the statement “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” and use it to the point where in her mind, if she “fools” you once, she now has free reign to continue fooling you because in her mind, since the saying is “fool me twice, shame on me” that puts the onus on the “victim” .
They say that the devil is in the details and women are busy hiding them.
January 13th, 2013 at 10:25 am
Got here from M3’s link…I must say, I definitely agree with *this* take on “NiceGuys” far more than the one presented by Jezebel/Manboobz. Perhaps it’s because I work in a gaming/hobby store and am part of the gamer/nerd/geek culture, but it’s quite evident that the majority of “NiceGuys”far actually *are* nice guys.
You’ve got yourself a new subscriber, sir.
January 13th, 2013 at 10:50 am
Nice guys make themselves vulnerable and invest of themselves deeply in our romantic objects in order to build the foundation of a long-term monogamous relationship where sex is one part of the bundle with mutual, reciprocal commitment, empathy, acceptance, care, trust, and loyalty with a soul mate – a life partner. Intimacy and sex are parts of the bundle of romantic love. Women tell us they want the same thing, which causes us to believe we are building the foundation properly for the love we seek. Except we’re not, and instead, we watch our romantic objects give themselves over emotionally and physically to men who are doing everything wrong (…except they’re not).
It hurts that the most noble part of us is made crass and our most essential hopes and dreams are degraded and mocked. It’s a harsh realization when one’s deepest convictions are exposed as lies.
You shouldn’t look at it so harshly, really. What you are guilty of is not taking into account attraction, and what drives that. In other words, you were putting intimacy building before attraction — that’s putting the cart before the horse. Attraction has to come first, always, always, always. It’s the same for men, even though what attracts us is different — an unattractive fat chick isn’t going to make you be attracted to her by building intimacy with you. Now, many women will take advantage of this with beta orbiters and so on, milking the situation — this is to be expected, humans being the selfish creatures that we are — but there are other women who aren’t leading these guys on directly, but nevertheless they like the attention and “perks” that go with this. You don’t have to be the guy who provides that if you don’t want to be.
The main failure is that for a few generations society/families stopped telling older boys and young men what it means to be an attractive man. The intimacy-building stuff was harped on, but not the stuff that actually attracts women — charm/Game, looks/muscles, fashion/put-togetheredness, and so on. This was previously passed from fathers to sons and also collectively among men, and that process stopped for a while in the second half of the 20th C until around now. So we have had a few generations of men who thought they could just show up, display intimacy building behaviors, and attract women, when in fact they needed to attract women first long before any intimacy building behaviors become relevant. This is why we have the manosphere, Game forums, and so on — it’s because this knowledge stopped being passed down in other more informal and less systematic ways, and so now it’s being passed down in a more systematic way in these kinds of places.
But it shouldn’t be an overly bitter pill. It’s really just a correction to a flawed upbringing that failed to get you ready for things as they are. That’s a good thing.
January 13th, 2013 at 1:43 pm
It could be said that the “kill the nice guy” meme that feminists are throwing around is a last gasp effort on their part to keep the hierarchy policed — to activate beta men’s protective white knight reflexes and to keep them from noticing the discrepancy between women’s stated preferences in men (sensitive “nice guys”) and their actual, demonstrated preferences in men (masculine alpha men who are often not all that nice).
“Don’t listen to them, they’re not ‘nice’ at all! They’re just spoiled, entitled jerks! That’s why we don’t want them! If they were REALLY nice then they’d have girlfriends! Because women really like nice guys! By the way, my computer’s got a virus, could you come over later and look at it? Also, Jim’s been a real asshole to me lately and I really need someone who I can talk to about it. Could you come over? You’re such a good listener…”
January 14th, 2013 at 12:40 am
Rollo,
I just read this article from the nytimes. Lots of things to talk about from a red pill prospective in here and I was wondering your thoughts on it? I had a friend post it on facebook and it caused quite a stir.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/fashion/the-end-of-courtship.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
January 14th, 2013 at 8:06 am
Blaming technology for the death of courtship is like blaming guns for school violence.
January 14th, 2013 at 11:11 am
Brendan,
That makes sense. I agree the blue-pill model I bought whole growing up is just wrong. As a nice guy, I understood romantic attraction in 2 ways: Fatalistically, attraction is a mysterious chemistry that is either there or isn’t, so that if mutual attraction is there, then simple easy actions will yield a high ROI, but if it isn’t there, then intense effort will yield a poor ROI. C’est la vie. Or alternatively, building attraction is achieved by building intimacy with investment, trust, commitment, care, empathy, etc.. In that sense, a monogamous romantic relationship is an intimate heightened form of friendship.
I now know, empirically, it doesn’t work like that. Moreover, I’ve wondered why girls that seemed interested in me would become turned off the harder I worked for the relationship. The hard lesson is that being a nice guy is worse than unproductive as a romantic strategy, it’s counter-productive and induces ill will.
“an unattractive fat chick isn’t going to make you be attracted to her by building intimacy with you.”
I agree to a point. A pretty girl definitely creates a compelling 1st impression and that’s where it begins. I’ve found though that sensibleness, loyalty, kindness, gentleness, and other feminine positive traits, ie, an exceptionally good woman, can compensate so that attraction can grow where I wasn’t attracted at first. Within reasonable limits, of course.
January 14th, 2013 at 6:57 pm
This should have been “When Orbiters Collide”.
January 16th, 2013 at 1:03 am
[…] being nice; don’t invest in women. Related: The crime of being nice. Related: It doesn’t matter; reality wins in the end. Related: […]
February 15th, 2013 at 2:15 pm
[…] an omega) AFC mindset you can begin to understand how it molds the ego of a person ego-invested in reciprocity or Relational […]
February 19th, 2013 at 11:05 pm
[…] the beta male, but they do have some very strong feelings of entitlement. My experience mirrors Rollo’s in that the “self-professed nice guys I’ve known [never] expressed an expectation of […]
March 30th, 2013 at 5:19 pm
[…] http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/nice-like-me/ […]
April 13th, 2013 at 9:40 pm
As a life long beta (60 years old) I take the ribbing from advocates here in a positive way. They are actually trying to help us.
As for women denigrating “nice guys” that makes sense too. If their real desire is for alphas, what better than to encourage betas to become alphas. The more there are the more they have competitors to select from.
I’m too old, too lazy, and too married to bother adopting the alpha behaviors, but it has been an education learning about the true natural impulses of females.
I should say a lot of this behavior was suppressed in my day. I never really saw the sorts of female expression in my relatives and circles of friends and colleagues. It seems to be a problem of the younger generations. Due in part to the welfare state freeing women to follow their natural inclinations without cost (subsidized in fact.) I wish my younger brothers good luck in this new world.
August 21st, 2013 at 10:19 pm
[…] Nice Like Me […]
May 27th, 2014 at 12:57 am
[…] is that a guy like Eliot would’ve made the ridicule list for the now defunct Tumblr “Nice Guys of OKCupid“. I’d suggest reading that post as a primer for anyone wanting to get a better grasp of […]