What defines a "Nice Guy" and how to avoid becomming one!

[MidasGirl]

Originally Posted by brendannz

I think people like nice-ness. It's just that guys and gals need to be nice to THEMSELVES as well as others..

.

I think nice-ness in the context that it is used here means "weak". Very true that people who are nice to themselves first are attractive no matter which gender they are.

[MidasGirl]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

Yes - and, actually, a woman will often say the same about a guy whom she believes is genuinely nice. BUT when the TERM "Nice Guy" is bandied about, it normally comes in two varieties:

A woman might says "He's such a 'Nice Guy'" as a way of apologizing for her not finding him compelling, or sexy.

A MAN self-describes as "I'm a "Nice Guy" overwhelmingly when he is ACTUALLY a self-serving prick. (Ladies, am I right on this one? Have you discovered that NO MAN who described himself as a Nice Guy was ACTUALLY nice?)

Johnny Soporno
Cunning Linguist

LOL.........that is so true.

If you ask a woman who's having a hard time finding a good guy what kind of a guy she's looking for though, almost invariably the first answer you hear is, 'I want a guy that is nice to me'. So I think many guys are trying to be that for women without really realizing what exactly is meant by it. Women really mean they want the opposite of jerk, but with the other attractive forces that will create the polarizing attractive energy.

I haven't gone through all of your material, but the little I've gone through shows that you distinguish yourself from other PUA teachers who seem to be telling guys to turn into jerks to get women. (at least that's the way it comes across). We don't want our "nice guys" turned into jerks, there are already enough jerks out there as it is. Good that you teach it very differently, very positively.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Indiana

I find it surprising when someone confidently makes a claim about what many or most of a particular group of people think/like/want/do, and that claim conflicts totally with my personal experience. Is it not valid to comment on that?

I know you by now, you only say things that will counter what I'm saying.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by cylon

I know you by now, you only say things that will counter what I'm saying.

Only when I disagree with you, it just seems that's a frequent occurrence.

[cylon]

Well, it was fun. Take it easy.

[rei]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

A MAN self-describes as "I'm a "Nice Guy" overwhelmingly when he is ACTUALLY a self-serving prick. (Ladies, am I right on this one? Have you discovered that NO MAN who described himself as a Nice Guy was ACTUALLY nice?)

this is definitely true Johnny! the last guy i considered for a potential relationship turned out to be a 'nice guy' who put me on a pedestal, came across as needy, and was actually even super polite when i said i don't think this will work. he asked why, so i answered honestly and told him it seemed like he put me on a pedestal and like he could have a wonderful day or a wretched day depending on whether i gave him attention. i want an equal, not a lapdog.

a word (or few) about the example of gender specific language use...
i'd also say, sometimes people of both genders will use the word "nice" or the word "interesting" as a polite way of saying a person or situation is not their cup of tea.

example: (a woman or a man, to a friend of the same gender) "how was your date with x?"

"it was ... interesting."

now, if the person who answers doesn't care about being polite or considerate (and some people of both genders like to be polite and considerate), that person may answer with something like "it was a train wreck! i had absolutely nothing in common with him/her and don't know why i agreed to the date!" so i think this is something both genders have in common, depending on how much the person makes an effort to be respectful and courteous.

[cylon]

I don't think I'd want to explain if it were bad. That's just wallowing in bad things and attracting more to you. Because that person is probably perfect for someone else.

[Falco]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

Every woman's most-critical fear, when it comes to having sex with someone new, is NOT for her reputation - THAT is just a side-effect of her true fear.

It is her fear of 'FEELING USED' which terrorizes her, and prevents her from consummating more readily, despite her desires and urges. She figured that if she is seen to be 'too easy' by men, they will all merely want to 'use' her.

Perhaps someone could help me out here, as I have a little trouble understanding this statement 100% correctly.

I have always believed that the girls reputation (or loss thereof) was more important to her because of evolutionary reasons. For example, if other girls found out she was having sex with a lot of men, she may very well have been banned from the village.

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by Falco

I have always believed that the girls reputation (or loss thereof) was more important to her because of evolutionary reasons. For example, if other girls found out she was having sex with a lot of men, she may very well have been banned from the village.

That seems counter evolutionary to me?

Prehistoric human females most likely mated with whichever and however many unfamiliar 'itinerant alphas' happened to be in the vicinity when they entered estrus (ovulation).
(Males born with the alpha temperament and ambition, but who were too immature or insubstantial actually to overthrow the reigning alpha in their family - usually their sire (father) - would have had to strike out on their own, 'lone-wolf style' due to their inability to take orders and "behave" in their own packs)

The other females would certainly not have cared about this action, and the males unafflicted by the overabundance of androgens which designated the potential alpha caste, would have been sublimely unaware of this action on the part of the females.

Johnny Soporno
Evolutionary Psychologist

[joelr]

Going back that far we get into matriarchal societies where the connection between sex/babies had not been established. Women were mysterious baby makers and worshipped as Goddesses.

I think once men eventually figured it out and became territorial over their woman and babies there were arranged pairings. Not always based on simple alpha male concepts but a range of things- intelligence, hunting skills, family status, material items to trade...
By the New Testament times marriage was still an arranged thing, the whole man/woman, romance/love thing didn't start until later with the troubadors and their radical new ideas on love. Before that love was more for God.

The church tends to play down those things, they don't let on how archaic they were on matters of love during a time that they still talk lots about.

[IFeelGood]

Why would you even start this thread? Really it's odd... Seems to me that it is to bring people to your other posts, which in turn draw people to your own site.
Why pick on nice guys? Why not sleazy guys?

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by joelr

Going back that far we get into matriarchal societies where the connection between sex/babies had not been established. Women were mysterious baby makers and worshipped as Goddesses.

Indeed. Along with the Agricultural Revolution came the notion of persistent property, and the recognition and predictability of slow-fruition results: (like seeds planted in fertile soil yielding produce; or semen implanted in fertile women yielding children!)

Originally Posted by joelr

I think once men eventually figured it out and became territorial over their woman and babies there were arranged pairings. Not always based on simple alpha male concepts but a range of things- intelligence, hunting skills, family status, material items to trade...

Certainly - the notions of 'legacy' and inheritance-of-property brought about arranged marriages, and the concept of the value of virginity - ie. DO NOT ACCEPT FROM COURIER IF SEAL IS BROKEN! - because if during the moon following the wedding (the Honeymoon, the month of sexual sequestering the groom and his new bride from all other men) she were to conceive, ONLY THEN could the first child [the Legacy Child, heir to the family fortune) be presumed to be of the nominal father's bloodline.

Originally Posted by joelr

By the New Testament times marriage was still an arranged thing, the whole man/woman, romance/love thing didn't start until later with the troubadors and their radical new ideas on love.

Yes - "Romantic Love" is a very recent concept, one fraught with misrepresentations, unrealistic aspirations, and disinformations from parents, courters, and media.

It is this very thing which has CREATED the 'Nice Guy' phenomenon in the first place:

Mothers teach their daughters that they should 'hold out' for Mister Right. their "Prince Charming" who will ride in on his white charger, wearing gleaming armour, and carry her off to a fabulous castle in which they will live Happily Ever After, and raise a glorious family.

This teaches women to seek out a man who is at once attractive, masculine, dominant (in the make-decisions, take-charge sense) charming, independent, noble, responsible, compliant, appreciative, thoughtful, kind, considerate, and mature, while also playful and supportive, a good provider and protective of his wife & children, AND exclusively attracted to and faithful to her.

Since that combination of traits contains many which are mutually exclusive, or at least highly unlikely to occur simultaneously, the young women sets an unrealistic standard and is therefore prone to disappointment OR denial.

"Nice Guys" believe that they need to BE all those things, at once, and that if they endeavour to present themselves as such, they will ultimately be selected as Mister Right, eventually. This represents a self-sabotage of the highest magnitude, and leaves them miserable and full of resentment - and inspires misery and resentment in others. Q.E.D.

Johnny Soporno
Lifestyle Guru

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by IFeelGood

Why would you even start this thread?

To help people understand what a "Nice Guy" truly is - and why it is SO CRITICAL that both women and men alike help these passive-aggressive self-defeatists to become LOYAL TO THEMSELVES FIRST - because there is NO HAPPINESS possible for either these "Nice Guys", nor for those who indulge them through pity or guilt.

Originally Posted by IFeelGood

Why pick on nice guys? Why not sleazy guys?

Ah! Clearly you didn't read the OP! In it I explain that "Nice Guys" are actually the MOST sleazy guys, because the don't just betray their own interests, but they also inflict their own misery on the objects of their infatuation, converting otherwise sweetly natured and positive women into seemingly heartless shrews, who either flee the alleged "Nice Guy", or ultimately begin abusing his so-called generosity.

Originally Posted by IFeelGood

Really it's odd... Seems to me that it is to bring people to your other posts, which in turn draw people to your own site.

Nope! Although I did have a list of threads I wanted people to check out in my signature...

Ironically, my reason for wanting people to visit my threads was to help ensure the messages contained within them were not overlooked in the vast deluge of posts made on this forum daily.

Now that you mention it, I really SHOULD be directing people to my "Intro to Seductive Reasoning 101" seminar, which is available for free downloading or streaming, and may be redistributed freely as well.

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy & Lifestyle Guru

[blossom]

Is your use of the word ' sleazy' here meant in the context of someone who has betrayed themselves and fallen out of integrity with their own authenticity...gosh that's alot of buzzwords there, but I'm trying

[Falco]

Man, I didn't think this forum would challenge my beliefs on this level. Thank you guys

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

Certainly - the notions of 'legacy' and inheritance-of-property brought about arranged marriages, and the concept of the value of virginity - ie. DO NOT ACCEPT FROM COURIER IF SEAL IS BROKEN! - because if during the moon following the wedding (the Honeymoon, the month of sexual sequestering the groom and his new bride from all other men) she were to conceive, ONLY THEN could the first child [the Legacy Child, heir to the family fortune) be presumed to be of the nominal father's bloodline.

Okay, but this seems to be valid evolutionary wise, albeit immature nowadays. After all, for a father wanting to know the baby is his own ensures the survival of his genes.

Isn't this the number 1 reason of terrible treatment of women in the world today (i.e. Middle east/ devout religious areas)?

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

Yes - "Romantic Love" is a very recent concept, one fraught with misrepresentations, unrealistic aspirations, and disinformations from parents, courters, and media.

It is this very thing which has CREATED the 'Nice Guy' phenomenon in the first place:


"Nice Guys" believe that they need to BE all those things, at once, and that if they endeavour to present themselves as such, they will ultimately be selected as Mister Right, eventually.

Could you please go a little bit deeper into "Romantic Love". As I am 23, the 'Disney era' was not that long ago .

Infatuation has always been around has it not? Now, thanks to you guys, I know a little on how societies looked like in the past, but is infatuation (love) a chemical byproduct of a females reaction towards 'alphaness'? And is that same infatuation the culprit behind 99% of every "unfaithful" escapade?

Also, can you guys recommend some books on this prehistoric stuff , I'm really fascinated by your explanations.

IFeelGood, sorry mate, I believe I'm gonna sin and click on his link anyways

Cheers guys

[brendannz]

Originally Posted by MidasGirl

I think nice-ness in the context that it is used here means "weak".

Yeah, but a girl's not really going to say "I'm rejecting you becasue you're a weak guy" she's going to say "you're a nice guy but..."

So I guess the guy thinks "that's my problem I'm too nice"

confusing world sometimes I guess.

[Falco]

Originally Posted by brendannz

Yeah, but a girl's not really going to say "I'm rejecting you becasue you're a weak guy" she's going to say "you're a nice guy but..."

So I guess the guy thinks "that's my problem I'm too nice"

confusing world sometimes I guess.

True indeed, I also believe he actually does think he's being 'nice'. After all, in his world 'going out of your way to do stuff for people' = nice. Even if they didnt ask for it .

I used to be like this, and still am actually to a certain point. It's quite hard to come to terms with. Especially if, in the past, not giving in resulted in violence (although thankfully, I wasnt really in that much of a desperate situation).

[brendannz]

Yeah well, my parents always preached manners, and never told me anything about looking after yourself, and managing your own time first.. I'm not sure about other peoples parents.

Originally Posted by Falco

I used to be like this, and still am actually to a certain point. It's quite hard to come to terms with. Especially if, in the past, not giving in resulted in violence .

Did you get bullied in the past?

[Falco]

Originally Posted by brendannz

Yeah well, my parents always preached manners, and never told me anything about looking after yourself, and managing your own time first.. I'm not sure about other peoples parents.



Did you get bullied in the past?

Yup, Here (in Amsterdam), Hockey is quite a popular sport. As I used to be chubby in the past, I got bullied to the point where I quit the sport that I loved. As my pride didn't want to acknowledge it, I claimed it was because I didn't feel like it anymore.

From there on, my shyness just got worse and worse. But thankfully, nowadays I'm not that ultra shy anymore, although I do still need to work on it .

[brendannz]

[QUOTE=Falco;438481]

Yup, Here (in Amsterdam), Hockey is quite a popular sport. As I used to be chubby in the past, I got bullied to the point where I quit the sport that I loved. As my pride didn't want to acknowledge it, I claimed it was because I didn't feel like it anymore.

Have you ever thought about taking up the sport again?

I quit basketball for about 10 years, and took it up again, and it's totally taken me back to my childhood, i seem to be a natural at the game, can't wait til the next NBA game on TV... but at the moment I've got a bad back, and am resting from it..

From there on, it just got worse and worse. But thankfully, nowadays I'm not that ultra shy anymore, although I do still need to work on it .

I didn't really get bullied in high school because I wasn't totally nice, and plus I kept to myself a bit, but I've been bullied a fair bit in my adult life, but the main problem was that I gave time to the idiots in the first place, because I didn't realise I was too cool for them.. Which is why you don't want to be a "nice guy"

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by blossom

Is your use of the word ' sleazy' here meant in the context of someone who has betrayed themselves and fallen out of integrity with their own authenticity...[?]

I use 'sleazy' in the mid-Seventies' interpretation:
Used to describe a person of low character; dishonest; disingenuous; and unworthy.

Sleazy Definition | Definition of Sleazy at Dictionary.com

Anyone who, in an effort to satisfy an immediate goal (such as seducing someone through misrepresentations of their true nature) falls into the "sleazy" category - whether they are "Nice Guys" or "Jerks" aside

Johnny Soporno
Cunning Linguist

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by Falco

Okay, but this seems to be valid evolutionary wise, albeit immature nowadays. After all, for a father wanting to know the baby is his own ensures the survival of his genes....

You've fallen victim to a vastly-spread falsely assigned preconception, I'm afraid. Human males have no innate ability to establish if the offspring born to women we attend are actually related to us - in fact, we've evolved that right out of the equation!

Our 'biological imperative' on an evolutionary level is NOT to "pass on our genes", nor to 'survive and replicate' - but rather to facilitate the passage of our parents' genes. A father's desire for his children to be "his own" is entirely an egocentric, 'reasoned' position, rather than an intrinsic natural drive.

Once the relationship between fertile soil and fertile women became obvious to primitive man, and the notion of property took hold, as men began to believe that they could OWN WOMEN; and to they feel that without that relationship, they couldnt believe their offspring were truly "theirs".

It is critical to understand that there are three discrete aspects to every child's paternity:

Biological Father (ie, successful sperm donor)

Nominal Father (ie, the 'father of record', the one who's surname the offspring is assigned)

Actual [or 'de facto'] Father (ie, the one who accepts the ROLE of 'father' and provides for/nurtures/protects the child, and whom the child envisions as 'daddy')

Now, in an ideal world, all three aspects are presumed to be the same man; at least, according to 'polite society'.

But human evolution suggests differently, and that PRIOR to easy-access to birth control pills/condoms, the odds weren't good that more than two of the three aspects were the same man.

BUT TWO OUT OF THREE AIN'T BAD! And if you raise a child as your child, and love it as your child, are proud of it as your child, and IT BELIEVES YOU ARE IT'S DADDY -- then you are its father, in every significant respect.

Originally Posted by Falco

Isn't this the number 1 reason of terrible treatment of women in the world today (i.e. Middle east/ devout religious areas)?

Virtually all of the fundamentals of modern male/female interactions are founded in the notion that men MUST OWN women, and that therefore their children will be THEIR OWN - instead of understanding and accepting that the Father-Child relationship has nothing to do with genetics.

A marriage was originally a publicly recognized transfer-of-ownership of a man's daughter to her new owner (husband/master).

This has lead to tremendous cultural misogyny and resentment throughout the ages as women have endeavoured to keep the true heredity of their children from the men who mistakenly presumed biological paternity.

Originally Posted by Falco

Could you please go a little bit deeper into "Romantic Love". As I am 23, the 'Disney era' was not that long ago .

Infatuation has always been around has it not? Now, thanks to you guys, I know a little on how societies looked like in the past, but is infatuation (love) a chemical byproduct of a females reaction towards 'alphaness'? And is that same infatuation the culprit behind 99% of every "unfaithful" escapade?

Wow - that's too huge a question for me to attempt to answer in this thread - check back with me after you've watched through my video seminar, if you still need clarification, ok?

Originally Posted by Falco

Also, can you guys recommend some books on this prehistoric stuff , I'm really fascinated by your explanations.

Indeed! Please check out any of the following:
Sperm Wars by Robin Baker

The Red Queen by Matt Ridley

The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller

The Evolutionary Biology of Human Female Sexuality by Randy Thornhill

These ones are all very insightful and educational, in my opinion.

Johnny Soporno
Sexual Revolutionary

[Falco]

Thanks Johnny, for taking the time to write such an in depth explanation, I really appreciate it .

I will definately check out those books, I'm truly fascinated with human biology and the way we evolved.

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

You've fallen victim to a vastly-spread falsely assigned preconception, I'm afraid. Human males have no innate ability to establish if the offspring born to women we attend are actually related to us - in fact, we've evolved that right out of the equation!

Our 'biological imperative' on an evolutionary level is NOT to "pass on our genes", nor to 'survive and replicate' - but rather to facilitate the passage of our parents' genes. A father's desire for his children to be "his own" is entirely an egocentric, 'reasoned' position, rather than an intrinsic natural drive.

I'm still not understanding that one to be honest. If our biological drive is to facilitate the passage of our parents genes, would that not produce the need for 'survival and replication AND to pass on our genes'? Or is that exactly what you mean, that those two are merely the effects of wanting to facilitate the passage of your parents genes?

Virtually all of the fundamentals of modern male/female interactions are founded in the notion that men MUST OWN women, and that therefore their children will be THEIR OWN - instead of understanding and accepting that the Father-Child relationship has nothing to do with genetics.

A marriage was originally a publicly recognized transfer-of-ownership of a man's daughter to her new owner (husband/master).

This has lead to tremendous cultural misogyny and resentment throughout the ages as women have endeavoured to keep the true heredity of their children from the men who mistakenly presumed biological paternity.

Okay, so it comes from the insecure need to own your wife which has nothing to do with biology/evolution but rather insecurity?

Wow - that's too huge a question for me to attempt to answer in this thread - check back with me after you've watched through my video seminar, if you still need clarification, ok?

Ok, will watch it tonight, thanks a lot

[JSB]

Hi all. I'm not looking to derail this thread, but Johnny seems to have a very interesting perspective on relationships that on the surface may strike some people as unsavory but really seems to be genuine, positive, and respectful of both men and women.

Johnny, do you have any thoughts on traditional monogamous relationships? I have nothing against polyamory, it's just not my thing (unless I'm just casually dating)--- for me personally, the "disadvantage" of sexual exclusivity is made up for by the "advantage" of increased intimacy that comes from traditional fidelity. (I'm not preaching anything here; everyone should live whatever type of lifestyle is best for them.)

Which elements of your material do you find most applicable to more traditional relationships, or which elements translate best, if not applicable in their original form?