How to Stop Being a Nice Guy. Thoughts?

[John_Lazarus]

Is there a purple pill?

Here, maybe…

 

[styrgwillidar]

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.

Yes-- people aren’t interchangeable widgets. But all this gender theory/feminism/manosphere stuff treats people as members of groups vice individuals. It’s all generalization.

As to the Greek letter thing.

It originated in the Pick Up Artist (PUA) community and definitely is SMV.

Alpha is simply the type of guy who appeals to women. Period. Full Stop. End of sentence. That’s their view as they generalize it to all women. However, since they’re PUAs and their interest is in a hedonistic lifestyle and finding women amenable to one night stands/promiscuity, an Alpha is the kind of guy who appeals to women with similar interest/attitude towards sex. Hence where I see schizophrenia in the generic manosphere since there’s a segment of traditionalists who see the declining morals as bad, that a high number of partners as lessening the traditional bonding sexual exclusivity provides, and bemoaning there are less women of that mindset. They also see this as destructive to marriage and the family. They see current culture as diminishing the value and respect for chastity. So PUAs like the whole loose morals for women thing, while traditionalist are encouraging women to be more selective and chaste. PUAs aren’t interested in or value women for marriage, while traditionalists do. So on the same site you’ll have articles like ‘Why are all women (term for loose morals)’ and ‘Day game at the grocery store’ kind of things. Two completely opposite views/goals.

Alpha is not who you are. It is not how other men view you. It is how women view and rate you. It combines a lot of things- looks apparent resources, *apparent *appeal to other women, social status, number of friends, hobbies/interests, apparent confidence. It’s why the advice they usually give to other men about being successful with women (as they define it) is- improve themselves in those aspects relevant to SMV. Interests, circle of friends, resources, etc. It is all about marketing themselves.

 

[styrgwillidar]

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. 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.

My point about schizophrenia is that there are different factions in the ‘manosphere’ it isn’t homogeneous either in the opinion of women or goals. It’s just like feminism in that respect.

As you state- you have a segment of the MGTOWs writing off women entirely while the PUAs make fun of MGTOWs by categorizing them as whatever greek letter they’ve come up with for basement dwelling game players who don’t want to improve themselves, as the PUAs push the whole recreational sex thing while the traditionalists look to the restoration of chastity and traditional marital commitment. Then you have the guys just looking for legal equality who couldn’t care less about any of the social stuff (unless affected by legal issues like fair custody).

To an outsider just thinking there’s some kind of homogeneous ‘manosphere’ it does look schizophrenic.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes-- people aren’t interchangeable widgets. But all this gender theory/feminism/manosphere stuff treats people as members of groups vice individuals. It’s all generalization.

As to the Greek letter thing.

It originated in the Pick Up Artist (PUA) community and definitely is SMV.

Alpha is simply the type of guy who appeals to women. Period. Full Stop. End of sentence. That’s their view as they generalize it to all women. However, since they’re PUAs and their interest is in a hedonistic lifestyle and finding women amenable to one night stands/promiscuity, an Alpha is the kind of guy who appeals to women with similar interest/attitude towards sex. Hence where I see schizophrenia in the generic manosphere since there’s a segment of traditionalists who see the declining morals as bad, that a high number of partners as lessening the traditional bonding sexual exclusivity provides, and bemoaning there are less women of that mindset. They also see this as destructive to marriage and the family. They see current culture as diminishing the value and respect for chastity. So PUAs like the whole loose morals for women thing, while traditionalist are encouraging women to be more selective and chaste. PUAs aren’t interested in or value women for marriage, while traditionalists do. So on the same site you’ll have articles like ‘Why are all women (term for loose morals)’ and ‘Day game at the grocery store’ kind of things. Two completely opposite views/goals.

Alpha is not who you are. It is not how other men view you. It is how women view and rate you. It combines a lot of things- looks apparent resources, *apparent *appeal to other women, social status, number of friends, hobbies/interests, apparent confidence. It’s why the advice they usually give to other men about being successful with women (as they define it) is- improve themselves in those aspects relevant to SMV. Interests, circle of friends, resources, etc. It is all about marketing themselves.

Very interesting.

I think the PUA stuff is funny, because these are guys patting themselves on the back for successfully picking up women who wanted to be picked up and made every effort to make that happen…



It’s like getting excited about the fact that there are comic book lovers at Comic-Con. Who saw that coming?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Very interesting.

I think the PUA stuff is funny, because these are guys patting themselves on the back for successfully picking up women who wanted to be picked up and made every effort to make that happen…



It’s like getting excited about the fact that there are comic book lovers at Comic-Con. Who saw that coming?

Yeah, but I think part of it is a lot of guys feel awkward and aren’t comfortable around women in high school/college. They finally figure things out like-- surprise, surprise, focus on yourself and become a more interesting person to be around and people will want to be around you. ETA: of course, for the guy the decision is always in the woman’s hands- he can’t control that. Like when you were a kid and they were picking teams, are they gonna pick me? When? For the team I want to be on?

The more interesting discussion becomes- what does marriage provide? Is it a worthwhile institution to participate in? I think that’s more where the idea of the ‘red pill’ of truth comes in. Society is very different than it was a few decades ago, the institution of marriage is very different as well.

My problem is when folks take advantage of others. I.E. a PUA gets involved with a girl who doesn’t hold the same view and wants something more. Or the female equivalent. People shouldn’t lead other folks on or be dishonest about their actual intentions in relationships.

But I think this is only tangentially relevant to the ‘How To Stop being a Nice Guy.’ Nothing wrong with being a ‘Nice Guy’ if that’s who you want to be. Again, semantics- what do we mean by ‘Nice Guy’ and in what context and what is actually the problem. And the problem in the articles isn’t so much the problem with being nice, it’s the problem of allowing yourself to be used or not being clear in your intentions and motivations when dealing with other people.

The whole ‘friend zone’ thing. Look, if you want an amorous relationship with someone who only wants to be friends, just decide whether you want to be friends or not. Look elsewhere for an amorous relationship, don’t whine about someone not having the same level of interest you do. It happens. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just the reality that needs to be accepted.

 

[EasterJoy]

Read the first paragraph in each link. That should clarify my stance.
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/trader_principle.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.htmlWrong, 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. Opinions without an argument to back them up have little sway. 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.

He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? What could one give in exchange for his life? Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” Mk 8:34-38

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism is totally opposed to the message of the Gospel. Oh, she’s in favor of being “good” alright–just exactly as much as it will serve to get you what you want. She is very clear that self-interest ought to be everyone’s guiding principal. After that, let the “productive” keep all the fruits of their labor and let the devil take the hindmost.

Ayn Rand said:* I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.*

To which Christianity says:
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
1 Cor. 1:22-25

Follow Ayn Rand or follow Christ. It is impossible to do both.

 

[styrgwillidar]

He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? What could one give in exchange for his life? Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” Mk 8:34-38

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism is totally opposed to the message of the Gospel. Oh, she’s in favor of being “good” alright–just exactly as much as it will serve to get you what you want. She is very clear that self-interest ought to be everyone’s guiding principal. After that, let the “productive” keep all the fruits of their labor and let the devil take the hindmost.

Ayn Rand said:* I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.*

To which Christianity says:
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Follow Ayn Rand or follow Christ. It is impossible to do both.
1 Cor. 1:22-25

But to be fair-- she expected both parties in any agreement to be looking out for their own interests and come to a mutually beneficial agreement. She saw the best relationships between people as coming from folks honestly advocating on their own behalf coming to agreement, vice outside influences directing or putting limitations on them.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes-- people aren’t interchangeable widgets. But all this gender theory/feminism/manosphere stuff treats people as members of groups vice individuals. It’s all generalization.

As to the Greek letter thing.

It originated in the Pick Up Artist (PUA) community and definitely is SMV.

Alpha is simply the type of guy who appeals to women. Period. Full Stop. End of sentence. That’s their view as they generalize it to all women. However, since they’re PUAs and their interest is in a hedonistic lifestyle and finding women amenable to one night stands/promiscuity, an Alpha is the kind of guy who appeals to women with similar interest/attitude towards sex. Hence where I see schizophrenia in the generic manosphere since there’s a segment of traditionalists who see the declining morals as bad, that a high number of partners as lessening the traditional bonding sexual exclusivity provides, and bemoaning there are less women of that mindset. They also see this as destructive to marriage and the family. They see current culture as diminishing the value and respect for chastity. So PUAs like the whole loose morals for women thing, while traditionalist are encouraging women to be more selective and chaste. PUAs aren’t interested in or value women for marriage, while traditionalists do. So on the same site you’ll have articles like ‘Why are all women (term for loose morals)’ and ‘Day game at the grocery store’ kind of things. Two completely opposite views/goals.

Alpha is not who you are. It is not how other men view you. It is how women view and rate you. It combines a lot of things- looks apparent resources, *apparent *appeal to other women, social status, number of friends, hobbies/interests, apparent confidence. It’s why the advice they usually give to other men about being successful with women (as they define it) is- improve themselves in those aspects relevant to SMV. Interests, circle of friends, resources, etc. It is all about marketing themselves.

This use of biological terminology to defend the choice of obliterating one’s emotional conscience in order to perpetuate a hedonistic con on women who might make enjoyable throw-away sex partners has about as much to do with real biology as the concept of social Darwinism has to do with what Darwin’s theory of natural selection really said.

I’m not doubting that there are people out there sprinting towards Hell on just this theory of how an “alpha” has an advantage in the pursuit of utter self-indulgence. I’m only clarifying that this is not what field biologists mean when they talk about the political rules in operation in a herd or, in the case of the animals closest to us in their animal characteristics, a troupe of great apes.

Let us remember, too, that even the most advanced of the great apes do not have the intellectual capacity of an adult human. Other than humans, you’re not ever going to fill an auditorium with great apes willing to sit quietly next to a total stranger for the purpose of listening to the works of Mozart. It does not take a religious sensibility for a typical group of humans to learn to interact for what they believe to be the common good according to an abstract philosophy.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…
partner with youth, beauty, fertility,
…
.

Need to understand this in the context of SMV. Who is more in demand in the Sexual Market Place? That’s the Alpha. They can be more selective because there are more consumers pursuing what they have to offer.

For women- it’s the woman in their early 20s, who are fit and take care of themselves. She’s the Alpha.
They are more in demand, as marketing to men for that initial interest is pretty simple.

Now- the SMV concept isn’t about long term relationships. Again, it came out of the whole PUA approach and involves seeking women of similar mindset. They aren’t looking for long term relationships and therefore can only assess those things readily apparent in initial contact.

George Gilder did address this in his book, “Men and Marriage” from a long term relationship aspect. But came from kind of the some starting point-- men and women are looking for specific things long term but are initially attracted by those things which can be readily detected. Therefore - young women have the highest value, rich middle aged men the next, older women, young men with resources, than young single men the lowest value, etc. Interesting book in that it explores how marriage is essential for a society, that marriage through its assurance of paternity binds a man to having a greater interest in society and its future for his children. That the breakdown of marriage and rising out-of-wedlock birthrate in some communities was responsible for rising crime and other social ills due to alienation of the father from his kids and therefore interest in society’s future as a whole.

Anyway, so any individual relationship may start with an attraction due to externals but will continue based on a whole slew of other factors.

 

[EasterJoy]

But to be fair-- she expected both parties in any agreement to be looking out for their own interests and come to a mutually beneficial agreement. She saw the best relationships between people as coming from folks honestly advocating on their own behalf coming to agreement, vice outside influences directing or putting limitations on them.

What does Ayn Rand and her Objectivists have to say about people who can offer you nothing? They pretty much say, “let people who are bothered by the disabled take care of the disabled.”

Here is what she had to say about public spending on “subnormal children and on the handicapped… It’s the attempt to bring everybody to the level of the handicapped. It includes the mentally retarded, subnormal children who are not able to learn. So at the end of spending thousands of millions of the tax payers’ dollars, you’re left with a half-idiot who may learn to read and write. May!”

Ayn Rand resented it when resources were spent on those who could give her nothing in return. Well, that is one way to look at the world. It is the antithesis of Christianity, however.

 

[styrgwillidar]

This use of biological terminology to defend the choice of obliterating one’s emotional conscience in order to perpetuate a hedonistic con on women who might make enjoyable throw-away sex partners has about as much to do with real biology as the concept of social Darwinism has to do with what Darwin’s theory of natural selection really said.

I’m not doubting that there are people out there sprinting towards Hell on just this theory of how an “alpha” has an advantage in the pursuit of utter self-indulgence. I’m only clarifying that this is not what field biologists mean when they talk about the political rules in operation in a herd or, in the case of the animals closest to us in their animal characteristics, a troupe of great apes.

Let us remember, too, that even the most advanced of the great apes do not have the intellectual capacity of an adult human. Other than humans, you’re not ever going to fill an auditorium with great apes willing to sit quietly next to a total stranger for the purpose of listening to the works of Mozart. It does not take a religious sensibility for a typical group of humans to learn to interact for what they believe to be the common good according to an abstract philosophy.

Absolutely agree. That’s the point. The Alpha concept has nothing to do with field biology or the study of animals. The use of the term in the PUA community didn’t come from its use in animal studies.

 

[styrgwillidar]

What does Ayn Rand and her Objectivists have to say about people who can offer you nothing? They pretty much say, “let people who are bothered by the disabled take care of the disabled.”

Here is what she had to say about public spending on “subnormal children and on the handicapped… It’s the attempt to bring everybody to the level of the handicapped. It includes the mentally retarded, subnormal children who are not able to learn. So at the end of spending thousands of millions of the tax payers’ dollars, you’re left with a half-idiot who may learn to read and write. May!”

Ayn Rand resented it when resources were spent on those who could give her nothing in return. Well, that is one way to look at the world. It is the antithesis of Christianity, however.

She said- that it is a personal choice whether you choose to assist others or not, something you are, and should be free to do.

 

[EasterJoy]

Need to understand this in the context of SMV. Who is more in demand in the Sexual Market Place? That’s the Alpha. They can be more selective because there are more consumers pursuing what they have to offer.

For women- it’s the woman in their early 20s, who are fit and take care of themselves. She’s the Alpha.
They are more in demand, as marketing to men for that initial interest is pretty simple.

Now- the SMV concept isn’t about long term relationships. Again, it came out of the whole PUA approach and involves seeking women of similar mindset. They aren’t looking for long term relationships and therefore can only assess those things readily apparent in initial contact.

George Gilder did address this in his book, “Men and Marriage” from a long term relationship aspect. But came from kind of the some starting point-- men and women are looking for specific things long term but are initially attracted by those things which can be readily detected. Therefore - young women have the highest value, rich middle aged men the next, older women, young men with resources, than young single men the lowest value, etc. Interesting book in that it explores how marriage is essential for a society, that marriage through its assurance of paternity binds a man to having a greater interest in society and its future for his children. That the breakdown of marriage and rising out-of-wedlock birthrate in some communities was responsible for rising crime and other social ills due to alienation of the father from his kids and therefore interest in society’s future as a whole.

Anyway, so any individual relationship may start with an attraction due to externals but will continue based on a whole slew of other factors.

In other words, the SMV paradigm is a recipe for finding yourself alone and unwanted in your hour of greatest need, for looking back on your life and finding that not a soul has a reason to miss you when you’re gone, for living your life with your back turned as firmly against any power or demand on you greater than yourself as you can humanly manage, all for the sake of a regular and impersonal diet of sexual release.

Even for a total humanist, this is a recipe for creating a hell on earth for yourself. Even Ayn Rand offers you more than this, because she’ll tell you to cultivate a few long term relationships with people who may come in handy to have around some day. That is because even the Objectivists know they’ll get old some day, if they’re lucky.

More to the point, though, human emotional connections are not a form of psychological weakness or a barrier to realizing one’s self-interest. The “nice guy” doesn’t have the wrong idea, as the SMV would say he does. He is simply going about doing the right thing in the wrong way.

 

[EasterJoy]

She said- that it is a personal choice whether you choose to assist others or not, something you are, and should be free to do.

Did she herself ever help someone less fortunate than herself, someone who could give her nothing? She talked with great contempt about people who did that.

Christianity teaches that charity is a demand of justice, not something we are free to do as whim prompts us to do. Mind you, it does not say the government has to see that this responsibility is met. It says that the individual Christian has this responsibility. It is not unforeseeable that a government set up by Christians might not presume that individuals will take on the responsibility of seeing to the needs of the less-fortunate. Having said that, Christianity does see certain human needs as exerting a just demand on other human beings in a position to meet those needs out of their resources. Christianity does say that those who fail to ever exert themselves to meet the needs of the least ones will justly merit a final judgment of eternal expulsion from the presence of God.

You can agree with Ayn Rand, if you like. I am only saying that Rand’s world view is philosophically incompatible with Christianity. There is such a thing as capitalism that can be reconciled with Christianity, but because objectivism unequivocally rejects the very idea of a responsibility to do charitable works, there can be no such thing as Christian Objectivism.

Actually, if you read The Screwtape Letters, you can see pretty clearly that the views of Ayn Rand are very compatible with the world view of Hell.

*The reason one comes to talk as if He really had this impossible Love is our utter failure to find out the real motive. What does He stand to make out of them? That is the insoluble question. . . . . [T]his very problem was a chief cause of Our Father’s quarrel with the Enemy. When the creation of man was first mooted and when, even at that stage, the Enemy freely confessed that He foresaw a certain episode about a cross, Our Father very naturally sought an interview and asked for an explanation. The Enemy gave no reply except to produce the cock-and-bull story about love which He has been circulating ever since. This Our Father naturally could not accept. *(from Letter 19)

 

[styrgwillidar]

Did she herself ever help someone less fortunate than herself, someone who could give her nothing? She talked with great contempt about people who did that.

Christianity teaches that charity is a demand of justice, not something we are free to do as whim prompts us to do.

You can agree with Ayn Rand, if you like. I am only saying that Rand’s world view is philosophically incompatible with Christianity. There is such a thing as capitalism that can be reconciled with Christianity, but because objectivism unequivocally rejects the very idea of a responsibility to do charitable works, there can be no such thing as Christian Objectivism.

Actually, if you read The Screwtape Letters, you can see pretty clearly that the views of Ayn Rand are very compatible with the world view of Hell.

*The reason one comes to talk as if He really had this impossible Love is our utter failure to find out the real motive. What does He stand to make out of them? That is the insoluble question. . . . . [T]his very problem was a chief cause of Our Father’s quarrel with the Enemy. When the creation of man was first mooted and when, even at that stage, the Enemy freely confessed that He foresaw a certain episode about a cross, Our Father very naturally sought an interview and asked for an explanation. The Enemy gave no reply except to produce the cock-and-bull story about love which He has been circulating ever since. This Our Father naturally could not accept. *(from Letter 19)

I think you’re expecting me to defend Ayn Rand. I’m not. My comment was pointing out she was a believer in personal responsibility and assumed folks were better looking at looking out for their own interests in coming to mutually beneficial agreements.

 

[styrgwillidar]

In other words, the SMV paradigm is a recipe for finding yourself alone and unwanted in your hour of greatest need, for looking back on your life and finding that not a soul has a reason to miss you when you’re gone, for living your life with your back turned as firmly against any power or demand on you greater than yourself as you can humanly manage, all for the sake of a regular and impersonal diet of sexual release.

I think you’ve captured Gilder’s point exactly about the breakdown of the family in the inner cities.

Even for a total humanist, this is a recipe for creating a hell on earth for yourself. Even Ayn Rand offers you more than this, because she’ll tell you to cultivate a few long term relationships with people who may come in handy to have around some day. That is because even the Objectivists know they’ll get old some day, if they’re lucky.

More to the point, though, human emotional connections are not a form of psychological weakness or a barrier to realizing one’s self-interest. The “nice guy” doesn’t have the wrong idea, as the SMV would say he does. He is simply going about doing the right thing in the wrong way.

Agree.

But to understand why the use of ‘Alpha’ in the manosphere has no relationship to the use of ‘Alpha’ in animal studies you need to understand that SMV concept.

I know there’s a whole host of other letters they assign, but have no idea what they represent- Beta, Sigma, Omega, … or if those terms are even used in animal studies. Which may help you understand that the use of the greek letters was, I think, just what one guy at some point decided to assign to his concepts vice an attempt to apply animal studies concepts to human behaviors.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think you’re expecting me to defend Ayn Rand. I’m not. My comment was pointing out she was a believer in personal responsibility and assumed folks were better looking at looking out for their own interests in coming to mutually beneficial agreements.

I’m only saying that she went quite a bit farther than that. Heaven forbid that a Christian who is finding the what he or she believes to be the demands of the faith are a social liability ever decides to follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand, instead. There are other options!!

I will agree, however, that as C.S. Lewis points out, Christians can convince themselves they are being “unselfish” and worthy of appreciation when they are actually being a total pain in the hind end to others in their quest for a moral high ground and the praise of others. Their unselfishness is really self-protection and sometimes self-serving. Sometimes, looking out for your own interest IS the most charitable thing you can do, yes. I think *The Screwtape Letters *explains the difference really well.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I’m only saying that she went quite a bit farther than that. Heaven forbid that a Christian who is finding the what he or she believes to be the demands of the faith are a social liability ever decides to follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand, instead. There are other options!!

I will agree, however, that as C.S. Lewis points out, Christians can convince themselves they are being “unselfish” and worthy of appreciation when they are actually being a total pain in the hind end to others in their quest for a moral high ground and the praise of others. Their unselfishness is really self-protection and sometimes self-serving. Sometimes, looking out for your own interest IS the most charitable thing you can do, yes. I think *The Screwtape Letters *explains the difference really well.

I think you’re referring to Lewis’ famous quote about a tyranny of those sincerely believing they’re acting in your best interest is the worst…

I think it takes a certain amount of respect to expect others to be acting in their own best interests as well. That is you respect them enough to believe they understand what they’re doing. I.E. be honest in their negotiations so you’re not taking advantage of them or pressuring them into going against their own interests. Which I think is relevant to the ‘Nice Guy’, some folks will push your boundaries or they’ll accept favors thinking both sides or on the same page-- hey, this ‘Nice Guy’ really likes helping folks out and pitched in and helped me move. When the person doing the favor was expecting something more- hidden/ulterior motives they didn’t express. And that’s on the ‘Nice Guy’ for not speaking up. People can’t take advantage of you unless you let them.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think you’re referring to Lewis’ famous quote about a tyranny of those sincerely believing they’re acting in your best interest is the worst…

I think it takes a certain amount of respect to expect others to be acting in their own best interests as well. That is you respect them enough to believe they understand what they’re doing. I.E. be honest in their negotiations so you’re not taking advantage of them or pressuring them into going against their own interests. Which I think is relevant to the ‘Nice Guy’, some folks will push your boundaries or they’ll accept favors thinking both sides or on the same page-- hey, this ‘Nice Guy’ really likes helping folks out and pitched in and helped me move. When the person doing the favor was expecting something more- hidden/ulterior motives they didn’t express. And that’s on the ‘Nice Guy’ for not speaking up. People can’t take advantage of you unless you let them.

Leaving behind the women who don’t want to be around someone who can’t “loosen up” about moral law and concentrating on the ones that would actually make reasonable prospects for a Catholic marriage: I think the problem that Nice Guys face among women who *don’t *want a “bad boy” is that the women they are trying to attract do not trust them to be honest about their needs and expectations. Some of us (male and female) are so unreasonably agreeable that the “if something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is” red flag goes up. They may not know it, but they’re making it too much work to *not *take advantage of them. You can’t ask them for help in the knowledge that they’ll say “no” when they ought to say “no.” That puts all the work of looking out for them on you, (all while you are systematically robbed of the information you’d need to do it responsibly) and invites them to bustle in and “look out” for you when respect requires allowing you to do that for yourself.

In other words, under this model a “nice” guy probably wouldn’t want a “nice” girl, because they’d each make the other one’s goals impossible to realize! If they tried to make a go of it, they’d inevitably start resent each other for being an inferior mind-reader!! Meanwhile, as a couple they’d have their friends diving behind the curtains every time they came up to knock at the front door. These couples do exist. They get a lot of work done for the good, but it isn’t a mystery that no one is in a hurry to canonize them.

 

[Elena321]

Personally,i want a nice guy and not a “bad boy”.
Nice doesnt have to mean boring and i think that women who want bad boys have got issues like father issues or something.

Though the “nice guys” should be genuinly nice and not just put on a nice persona to get a girl to like him.
If a guy is genuinly nice with no strings attached then it shoudnt lead to any resentment/bad feelings when girls dont appreciate their niceness.

Also being nice isnt the same as people pleasing.The secong one is unhealthy.