How to Stop Being a Nice Guy. Thoughts?

[Catherinabird]

I actually just ordered No More Mr. Nice Guy. I would also recommend reading The Prince, The 48 Laws of Power, and any of Ayn Rand’s novels.

As a former nice guy still in the process of getting it out of my system, those books are extremely helpful in changing your mindset. The first 2 explain how successful people really operate and how to succeed in a cutthroat world. Ayn Rand’s philosophy will help with the altruistic mindset that so many nice guys suffer from. She will remind you as my signature says, that your happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end.

Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead is the worst thing I have ever read.

A genuine nice guy (or girl) would not be lamenting about being the “nice guy who finishes last”. A genuine nice guy wouldn’t be whining about what he deserves but is not getting from relationships.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Another issue I’ve noticed with the “nice guy” talk - a lot of the people who talk about not being “nice guys” anymore aren’t looking for a Catholic marriage. Most of them are looking to get laid. Even the ones who are looking for a marriage aren’t looking for the kind of partnership God describes where the spouses give themselves to each other in mutual submission - they’re looking for a one-sided partnership where the man dominates a subservient wife (hence, often, the preference for very young women who are less likely to tell a guy to go jump in a lake as needed).

There’s as much schizophrenia in the manosphere is there is in feminism. Which kind of makes it funny if you see a website with all the various factions on it- the folks bewailing the loss of morals in our current culture and any sense of social conventions expectations between the sexes, and those as rabidly pursuing a hedonistic lifestyle with willing partners as any ‘sex positive’ feminist, those disavowing any relationships because the other sex is inherently bad, and those simply looking for equality on legal issues.

So- a lot of discussion comes down to semantics. Exactly what do you mean by a ‘nice guy’ since depending on your viewpoint there are a lot of definitions.

I think the article isn’t so much as a ‘nice guy’ as it is- don’t confuse being nice with having no boundaries and allowing yourself to be used. There is a difference between willingly helping folks out and allowing oneself to be manipulated into it. And confusion that somehow just because you’re willing to assist someone that they’re obligated to respond in your preferred way.

 

[UbiCaritas]

At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, and in keeping with what others here have said, it all depends on your definition of “nice guy.”

For example, I know one guy who often posts on social media about how women don’t like “nice guys” in the context of complaining about his lack of a girlfriend or wife. Now, on the surface, he could fit one definition of a “nice guy”: he (to the best of my knowledge, at least) doesn’t abuse controlled substances, he isn’t rude or crude in social situations, and he’s a practicing Catholic. All good things, yes?

However, he isn’t going to be seen as potential husband material by most of the sort of women he’s interested in (i.e., fairly traditionally-inclined Catholics) for several reasons, none having to do with the above “niceness”:

–He quite clearly sees a wife or girlfriend as something he’s owed by God, the world, and life in general, rather than as a separate human being with her own ideas and desires.

–He generally claims that all women are moneygrubbing gold-diggers, and the only reason they won’t date him is that he works on the bottom run in fast food. Nothing wrong with working in fast food per se; it’s a perfectly respectable, honest job. However, if you make $8/hour working at a part-time job while in your mid-20s, it seems improbably on the face of it that you’re going to be able to support a SAH wife, and later mom, plus an ever-growing number of kids. Throw in your stated refusal to go to college or trade school or to pursue even full-time work on the grounds that “a woman should like me for who I am, not the paycheck I bring in!”, and, well, a woman who’d like to be a SAHM is going to be concerned about your ability to support her and the potential kids, not to mention your overall attitude towards women.

–He often posts about how women, in addition to all being gold-diggers, are all unfaithful and untrustworthy because they won’t date “nice guys” like him.

–Honestly, he’s just plain * boring*. He doesn’t have any hobbies, it seems, except ranting about the horribleness of the female of the species and then wondering why they don’t want to date him. I went out to dinner with him as part of a group once, and chatted with him for a while. He mostly ranted about how “society” wants him to fit into the “mold” of working full-time, but how he’s smarter than “society” because he’s figured out how to get his parents to support him rather than his being expected to support himself. It wasn’t exactly stimulating conversation, except in the nausea department.

In contrast, there’s DH. DH treats everyone around him with respect and courtesy. He sees other people as humans, not as objects to be exploited for his own benefit. He works hard at his job. Given that he was hired immediately after grad school by a Very Big Company, where he’s routinely ranked in the top 20% of performers there, I’d say he’s a pretty successful guy. We’re happily married, in no small part because he treats me with even more respect than he does his coworkers. If he tried the “I’m the Alpha Male, you’d better do as I say, woman!” nonsense on me, we’d never have gotten married. As it is, I freely admit he’s rather more intelligent than I am, but that our minds also have very different strengths, and that part of the reason we’ve succeeded as well as we have is that we use those strengths to our (in the plural sense) best advantage, whether they’re traditionally masculine/feminine or not. Our job as a team is to raise a family who will, hopefully, join us in Heaven someday, along with their kids and their kids’ kids and so on. Frankly, between work, housework, errands, and general kid-raising, we don’t have time to decide that one of us is “alpha”-anything. We’re too danged busy!

 

[john1513]

If you read the articles on the links, the author is not really talking about being “nice.” He’s talking about being a self-betraying people-pleaser and probably an enabler, someone who will prefer avoiding possible conflict to telling the truth, and so on.

He is not talking about being an Ayn Rand imitator. He’s talking about giving up the kind of behavior that gets people into Al-Anon.

This is right. As a potential “nice guy,” I think I’m being “nice” to people in my mind but in reality I’m depending on other’s approval for my happiness and failing to do God’s will. So the words. So for a “nice guy”, being “nice” is what he does not want to be anymore.

 

[EasterJoy]

That is a very good point.

Although it is true that dysfunctional people might accuse a person of selfishness who is not being anything of the kind and who is just trying to keep good boundaries.

I love C.S. Lewis’ treatment of the topic of “unselfishness.” I would say, however, that there are also men who fall into the trap of being “nice” meaning a) chiefly taking trouble for others, as Lewis put it and b) avoiding conflict by falsely acting as if there are no sources of inner discontent that charity isn’t (and perhaps shouldn’t be even if it could be) covering over.

MY DEAR WORMWOOD,

Yes; courtship is the time for sowing those seeds which will grow up ten years later into domestic hatred. The enchantment of unsatisfied desire produces results which the humans can be made to mistake for the results of charity. Avail yourself of the ambiguity in the word “Love”: let them think they have solved by Love problems they have in fact only waived or postponed under the influence of the enchantment. While it lasts you have your chance to foment the problems in secret and render them chronic.

The grand problem is that of “unselfishness”. Note, once again, the admirable work of our Philological Arm in substituting the negative unselfishness for the Enemy’s positive Charity. Thanks to this you can, from the very outset, teach a man to surrender benefits not that others may be happy in having them but that he may be unselfish in forgoing them. That is a great point gained. Another great help, where the parties concerned are male and female, is the divergence of view about Unselfishness which we have built up between the sexes. A woman means by Unselfishness chiefly taking trouble for others; a man means not giving trouble to others. As a result, a woman who is quite far gone in the Enemy’s service will make a nuisance of herself on a larger scale than any man except those whom Our Father has dominated completely; and, conversely, a man will live long in the Enemy’s camp before he undertakes as much spontaneous work to please others as a quite ordinary woman may do every day. Thus while the woman thinks of doing good offices and the man of respecting other people’s rights, each sex, without any obvious unreason, can and does regard the other as radically selfish…

Continued…

 

[EasterJoy]

Continued…

On top of these confusions you can now introduce a few more. The erotic enchantment produces a mutual complaisance in which each is really pleased to give in to the wishes of the other. They also know that the Enemy demands of them a degree of charity which, if attained, would result in similar actions. You must make them establish as a Law for their whole married life that degree of mutual self-sacrifice which is at present sprouting naturally out of the enchantment, but which, when the enchantment dies away, they will not have charity enough to enable them to perform. They will not see the trap, since they are under the double blindness of mistaking sexual excitement for charity and of thinking that the excitement will last.

When once a sort of official, legal, or nominal Unselfishness has been established as a rule - a rule for the keeping of which their emotional resources have died away and their spiritual resources have not yet grown - the most delightful results follow. In discussing any joint action, it becomes obligatory that A should argue in favour of B’s supposed wishes and against his own, while B does the opposite. It is often impossible to find out either party’s real wishes; with luck, they end by doing something that neither wants, while each feels a glow of self-righteousness and harbours a secret claim to preferential treatment for the unselfishness shown and a secret grudge against the other for the ease with which the sacrifice has been accepted. Later on you can venture on what may be called the Generous Conflict Illusion. This game is best played with more than two players, in a family with grown-up children for example. Something quite trivial, like having tea in the garden, is proposed. One member takes care to make it quite clear (though not in so many words) that he would rather not but is, of course, prepared to do so out of “Unselfishness”. The others instantly withdraw their proposal, ostensibly through their “Unselfishness”, but really because they don’t want to be used as a sort of lay figure on which the first speaker practices petty altruisms. But he is not going to be done out of his debauch of Unselfishness either. He insists on doing “what the others want”. They insist on doing what he wants. Passions are roused. Soon someone is saying “Very well then, I won’t have any tea at all!”, and a real quarrel ensues with bitter resentment on both sides.** You see how it is done? If each side had been frankly contending for its own real wish, they would all have kept within the bounds of reason and courtesy;** but just because the contention is reversed and each side is fighting the other side’s battle, all the bitterness which really flows from thwarted self-righteousness and obstinacy and the accumulated grudges of the last ten years is concealed from them by the nominal or official “Unselfishness” of what they are doing or, at least, held to be excused by it. Each side is, indeed, quite alive to the cheap quality of the adversary’s Unselfishness and of the false position into which he is trying to force them; but each manages to feel blameless and ill-used itself, with no more dishonesty than comes natural to a human.

A sensible human once said,** “If people knew how much ill-feeling Unselfishness occasions, it would not be so often recommended from the pulpit”**; and again, “She’s the sort of woman who lives for others - you can always tell the others by their hunted expression”. All this can be begun even in the period of courtship. A little real selfishness on your patient’s part is often of less value in the long run, for securing his soul, than the first beginnings of that elaborate and self-consciousness unselfishness which may one day blossom into the sort of thing I have described. **Some degree of mutual falseness, some surprise that the girl does not always notice just how Unselfish he is being, can be smuggled in already. **Cherish these things, and, above all, don’t let the young fools notice them. If they notice them they will be on the road to discovering that “love” is not enough, that charity is needed and not yet achieved and that no external law can supply its place. I wish Slumtrimpet could do something about undermining that young woman’s sense of the ridiculous,

Your affectionate uncle

SCREWTAPE

 

[starshiptrooper]

So long as your philosophy accepts that we may receive in giving, no problem. But focussing on “your happiness” is a limited statement of a life philosophy because it says nothing about our actions or beliefs about what brings happiness. Some believe a self-centered, selfish and hedonistic life will bring them happiness, so they too may espouse the same philosophy but adopt an entirely different attitude to their fellow man.

Read the first paragraph in each link. That should clarify my stance.
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/trader_principle.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.html

…Even the ones who are looking for a marriage aren’t looking for the kind of partnership God describes where the spouses give themselves to each other in mutual submission - they’re looking for a one-sided partnership where the man dominates a subservient wife (hence, often, the preference for very young women who are less likely to tell a guy to go jump in a lake as needed).

Wrong, the correct reason is a search for a partner with youth, beauty, fertility, and a lower notch count. All are qualities more likely to be possessed to a greater degree by a younger woman.

Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead is the worst thing I have ever read.

Opinions without an argument to back them up have little sway.

A genuine nice guy (or girl) would not be lamenting about being the “nice guy who finishes last”. A genuine nice guy wouldn’t be whining about what he deserves but is not getting from relationships.

This goes back to what I said earlier, you can be a nice guy with no expectations and no benefits, a nice guy with expectations who is shamed for them, or you can be the one who gets the action.

 

[AdamP88]

Of course not, few people are that blunt. The term is ‘exciting’. They rationalize it like this, “He’s so tall, and handsome as hell. He’s so bad but he does it so well.”. Ever since the rise of both women in the workforce and the birth of the modern welfare state, being dependable, supportive provider material was never going to be enough for the vast majority of women. Their need for beta bucks was addressed, now they had complete freedom to focus on the alpha tingles.The nice guy is weak because he has been intentionally raised with cooperativeness and not competition. He has never been taught the values of strength and stoicism. The joy of conquest is foreign to him. He is told to let his emotions out, and be nice, be cooperative,** and worst of all, that people ought to value him for who he is rather than what he does.**

Every human person is to be valued for who they are.

 

[starshiptrooper]

There’s as much schizophrenia in the manosphere is there is in feminism. Which kind of makes it funny if you see a website with all the various factions on it- the folks bewailing the loss of morals in our current culture and any sense of social conventions expectations between the sexes, and those as rabidly pursuing a hedonistic lifestyle with willing partners as any ‘sex positive’ feminist, those disavowing any relationships because the other sex is inherently bad, and those simply looking for equality on legal issues.

This has nothing to do with schizophrenia. The Red Pill is simply a realization that social and legal expectations of men are completely toxic to our wellbeing and a realization that we have been fed numerous half-truths and outright lies about the nature of men and women. How we decide to utilize that information; whether it involves marriage on our terms, spinning plates, or MGTOW is completely up to us. We decide what it means to be a man and set our own expectations.

Is this line of thought existentialist? It certainly is and for good reason. We reject our assigned roles as rapists, domestic abusers and other villains as per 2nd Wave Feminism. Contrary to what 3rd Wave Feminists will tell you, we are not part of a cabal to oppress women with microaggressions, mansplaining, manspreading, or man-existing or whatever they whine about. Finally, we most certainly will not be shamed into finding body-positive, post-wall, strong, independent, career-women types who followed Sheryl Sandberg’s advice about sleeping with every bad boy attractive.

For example, I know one guy who often posts on social media about how women don’t like “nice guys” in the context of complaining about his lack of a girlfriend or wife…

Yeah, that guy definitely needs to get his act together. There is a reason that knights in fairy tales had to pull the sword out of the stone, solve the ancient riddle, and slay the dragon before getting the princess.

 

[AdamP88]

This has nothing to do with schizophrenia. The Red Pill is simply a realization that social and legal expectations of men are completely toxic to our wellbeing and a realization that we have been fed numerous half-truths and outright lies about the nature of men and women. How we decide to utilize that information; whether it involves marriage on our terms, spinning plates, or MGTOW is completely up to us. We decide what it means to be a man and set our own expectations.

Is this line of thought existentialist? It certainly is and for good reason. We reject our assigned roles as rapists, domestic abusers and others villains as per 2nd Wave Feminism. Contrary to what 3rd Wave Feminists will tell you, we are not part of a cabal to oppress women with microaggressions, mansplaining, manspreading, or man-existing or whatever they whine about. Finally, we most certainly will not be shamed into finding body-positive, post-wall, strong, independent, career-women types who followed Sheryl Sandberg’s advice about sleeping with every bad boy attractive. Yeah, that guy definitely needs to get his act together. There is a reason that knights in fairy tales had to pull the sword out of the stone, solve the ancient riddle, and slay the dragon before getting the princess.

Yeah, yeah…red pill is so great. it has all the stuff men need. Red pill is the worst kind of lies, because it is laced with a load of half truths.

There is no problem acknowledging the nature of men and women…the problem is when some guys take the view that women are “bad by nature” or some rubbish like that.

Red Pill basically appeals to lads who are insecure and can’t get any women so they learn how to spot insecure women and manipulate them into getting into bed with them.

That’s red pill in a nutshell.

 

[Xantippe]

The manosphere alphabet soup is a ‘Sexual Market Value’ measure.

It is how much appeal a man has for women- since they’re decision makers as to if and what type of relationship will occur.

It has nothing to do with leadership, character, animal categorizations, opinions of other males be they colleagues or subordinates or any other factor.

It’s a marketing estimation of appeal a man has for women. Period. Market value.

I haven’t caught up with the thread, so apologies for any repetition, but I think this idea of sexual market value or marriage market value is a little off.

In real life, I often marvel at how it is that certain people manage to keep their spouses around. They drive me nuts even after just an hour–how does anybody tolerate them for 40-50 years? And yet, a lot of these people are reasonably happily married and will die married.

I’ve literally never known a grown man that seemed like he would be a better husband to me than my husband.

People really aren’t interchangeable widgets. Some people annoy me or bore me or their jokes make me wince–but their spouses think they are swell and probably think that **my husband is boring or annoying or have a terrible sense of humor, or that I **am boring or annoying or have a terrible sense of humor.

 

[Xantippe]

Wrong, the correct reason is a search for a partner with youth, beauty, fertility, and a lower notch count. All are qualities more likely to be possessed to a greater degree by a younger woman.

I have a few concerns about this:

1. I would counsel any young woman to avoid a man who has that attitude, because if he primarily values her for youth, beauty and fertility, what happens when those qualities are gone? Is he going to chuck her out, Donald Trump style, and replace her with a slightly younger model?

It’s a very dangerous thing for a woman to marry a man who thinks like that, who sees no value in her beside these totally transitory features.

1. How many kids does the average American guy want, anyway? As one can see from CAF, while infertility is a thing, it’s also easy to wind up with more children than one can comfortably handle, even marrying a woman in her mid/late 20s.
2. I suspect that you overestimate the contemporary American male love of female virginity. After all, only a small minority of American men marry virgins these days, which suggests that it isn’t exactly their #1 priority.

The facts on the ground suggest that US men prefer a woman with a solid education and income to a virgin, if they have to choose between the two. Also, on average, they want to date and cohabit for a number of years before marriage–which doesn’t combine very well with virginity.

 

[AdamP88]

I have a few concerns about this:

1. I would counsel any young woman to avoid a man who has that attitude, because if he primarily values her for youth, beauty and fertility, what happens when those qualities are gone? Is he going to chuck her out, Donald Trump style, and replace her with a slightly younger model?

It’s a very dangerous thing for a woman to marry a man who thinks like that, who sees no value in her beside these totally transitory features.

1. How many kids does the average American guy want, anyway? As one can see from CAF, while infertility is a thing, it’s also easy to wind up with more children than one can comfortably handle, even marrying a woman in her mid/late 20s.
2. I suspect that you overestimate the contemporary American male love of female virginity. After all, only a small minority of American men marry virgins these days, which suggests that it isn’t exactly their #1 priority.

The facts on the ground suggest that US men prefer a woman with a solid education and income to a virgin, if they have to choose between the two. Also, on average, they want to date and cohabit for a number of years before marriage–which doesn’t combine very well with virginity.

Agree totally, especially with the part in bold.

If your only criteria is youth, fertility, and beauty, then you’re setting yourself up for a bad marriage and disappointment.

I don’t think you speak for the majority of “devout” Catholic men. Certainly not in Ireland anyway. Most of us are more interested in marrying a faithful Catholic woman who believes and obeys the teaching of the Church and desires to bring up our kids to do the same. Someone who will be a partner through life. That’s certainly what I prayed for (and got). It’s funny…I never really considered beauty at all in prayers for a future spouse. But I guess God likes me a lot cos since he sent the most beautiful woman in my direction.

Sorry to be mushy…getting married in three weeks and feelings of excitement are abounding.

 

[Xantippe]

That’s certainly what I prayed for (and got). It’s funny…I never really considered beauty at all in prayers for a future spouse. But I guess God likes me a lot cos since he sent the most beautiful woman in my direction.

Sorry to be mushy…getting married in three weeks and feelings of excitement are abounding.

Awwww!

Best wishes!

 

[ConfusedLucy]

At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, and in keeping with what others here have said, it all depends on your definition of “nice guy.”

For example, I know one guy who often posts on social media about how women don’t like “nice guys” in the context of complaining about his lack of a girlfriend or wife. Now, on the surface, he could fit one definition of a “nice guy”: he (to the best of my knowledge, at least) doesn’t abuse controlled substances, he isn’t rude or crude in social situations, and he’s a practicing Catholic. All good things, yes?

However, he isn’t going to be seen as potential husband material by most of the sort of women he’s interested in (i.e., fairly traditionally-inclined Catholics) for several reasons, none having to do with the above “niceness”:

–He quite clearly sees a wife or girlfriend as something he’s owed by God, the world, and life in general, rather than as a separate human being with her own ideas and desires.

–He generally claims that all women are moneygrubbing gold-diggers, and the only reason they won’t date him is that he works on the bottom run in fast food. Nothing wrong with working in fast food per se; it’s a perfectly respectable, honest job. However, if you make $8/hour working at a part-time job while in your mid-20s, it seems improbably on the face of it that you’re going to be able to support a SAH wife, and later mom, plus an ever-growing number of kids. Throw in your stated refusal to go to college or trade school or to pursue even full-time work on the grounds that “a woman should like me for who I am, not the paycheck I bring in!”, and, well, a woman who’d like to be a SAHM is going to be concerned about your ability to support her and the potential kids, not to mention your overall attitude towards women.

–He often posts about how women, in addition to all being gold-diggers, are all unfaithful and untrustworthy because they won’t date “nice guys” like him.

–Honestly, he’s just plain * boring*. He doesn’t have any hobbies, it seems, except ranting about the horribleness of the female of the species and then wondering why they don’t want to date him. I went out to dinner with him as part of a group once, and chatted with him for a while. He mostly ranted about how “society” wants him to fit into the “mold” of working full-time, but how he’s smarter than “society” because he’s figured out how to get his parents to support him rather than his being expected to support himself. It wasn’t exactly stimulating conversation, except in the nausea department.

In contrast, there’s DH. DH treats everyone around him with respect and courtesy. He sees other people as humans, not as objects to be exploited for his own benefit. He works hard at his job. Given that he was hired immediately after grad school by a Very Big Company, where he’s routinely ranked in the top 20% of performers there, I’d say he’s a pretty successful guy. We’re happily married, in no small part because he treats me with even more respect than he does his coworkers. If he tried the “I’m the Alpha Male, you’d better do as I say, woman!” nonsense on me, we’d never have gotten married. As it is, I freely admit he’s rather more intelligent than I am, but that our minds also have very different strengths, and that part of the reason we’ve succeeded as well as we have is that we use those strengths to our (in the plural sense) best advantage, whether they’re traditionally masculine/feminine or not. Our job as a team is to raise a family who will, hopefully, join us in Heaven someday, along with their kids and their kids’ kids and so on. Frankly, between work, housework, errands, and general kid-raising, we don’t have time to decide that one of us is “alpha”-anything. We’re too danged busy!

See I would consider this guy passive aggressive and manipulative even though he probably does not see himself that way. Someone who is truly ‘nice’ is not just doing nice things in order to gain something like a girlfriend.

 

[john1513]

See I would consider this guy passive aggressive and manipulative even though he probably does not see himself that way. Someone who is truly ‘nice’ is not just doing nice things in order to gain something like a girlfriend.

A nice guy is not a nice guy. Thus the Nice Guy Syndrome. Seems to be lost on many people in this thread or they just didn’t read the links provided by the OP.

 

[DarkLight]

I have a few concerns about this:

1. I would counsel any young woman to avoid a man who has that attitude, because if he primarily values her for youth, beauty and fertility, what happens when those qualities are gone? Is he going to chuck her out, Donald Trump style, and replace her with a slightly younger model?

It’s a very dangerous thing for a woman to marry a man who thinks like that, who sees no value in her beside these totally transitory features.

I’m pretty sure the book of proverbs has a lot to say about valuing virtue and not beauty.

I think my point stands - this sort of redpill ideology is ultimately incompatible with Catholic marriage.

 

[Lea101]

Agree totally, especially with the part in bold.

If your only criteria is youth, fertility, and beauty, then you’re setting yourself up for a bad marriage and disappointment.

I don’t think you speak for the majority of “devout” Catholic men. Certainly not in Ireland anyway. Most of us are more interested in marrying a faithful Catholic woman who believes and obeys the teaching of the Church and desires to bring up our kids to do the same. Someone who will be a partner through life. That’s certainly what I prayed for (and got). It’s funny…I never really considered beauty at all in prayers for a future spouse. But I guess God likes me a lot cos since he sent the most beautiful woman in my direction.

Sorry to be mushy…getting married in three weeks and feelings of excitement are abounding.

Yep. Almost all of the men I see on the red pill forums are delusional when it comes to women. They think they understand women but IMO all I see is then channeling their anger (at the negative stereotypes radical feminists create) onto them. I honestly just read a guy teaching other guys to ‘tame’ their girlfriends. Scares me honestly. They get really, really angry over this sort of oppression. Imagine if they actually faced the oppression women went through throughout history, lol. People keep going to the extreme when it comes to gender issues.

Is there a purple pill?

And awww, congrats!!! She’s a lucky woman!

 

[Catherinabird]

Opinions without an argument to back them up have little sway.

I wasn’t trying to sway anyone. I just think it is the worst thing I have ever read. I don’t need to argue why, because it simply is, to me, the worst thing I have ever read. That was purely my own statement of opinion that stands alone. If I were to elaborate, I would say I will never want to read another book by Rand if the others are anything like it and its message. But I am certainly not trying to sway anyone from reading them. More like it is doubtful your advice to read those books would sway ME to read more because I hated the one so much, and if you are saying the message is the same through them all, I will decline.

This goes back to what I said earlier, you can be a nice guy with no expectations and no benefits, a nice guy with expectations who is shamed for them, or you can be the one who gets the action.

You make it sound like nice guys never get “action”. That you have to not be nice to get “action”. Is that all you want anyway? “Action”? Like others are explaining, the “nice guy” is rarely actually a nice guy.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m pretty sure the book of proverbs has a lot to say about valuing virtue and not beauty.

I think my point stands - this sort of redpill ideology is ultimately incompatible with Catholic marriage.

Right–Proverbs 31: “charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.” Actually, all of Proverbs 31 is pretty un-Red Pill.

It’s just weird to make a philosophy out of focusing on the most superficial features of a woman, because those are the things that one already puts too much weight on, without any “Red Pill” influence.