Nice Guys, Right Guys

[Xin]

Just stumbled upon this small essay on nice guys and I'd like to hear some feminine thoughts on it. I think it represents what women want pretty accurately, but what do I know? I'm not one! :P

Nice guys have given a bad reputation to all of the "sweet" things men can typically do for a woman. Compliments, flowers: it has all been abused for too long. Too many men hand it all out like cheap candy, degrading the value of these things, and as a result women now see these things more often as being "cheesy" rather than attractive qualities. What doesn't help is the fact that, irregardless, women still insist they want a man that has the capacity to do thoughtful, wonderful things. This is a dangerous blend because sooner or later it will lead a nice guy to a point where he becomes angry with women. He starts to think all women are hypocrites. This is when Mr. Nice becomes Mr. Bitter-Sweet.

This puts Mr. Bitter-Sweet into the perfect state that will have him tumbling down the rabbit hole like Alice when he finally comes across the magical world of 'seduction gurus', most all of which will usually confirm that belief of hypocrisy for him. Many will even add that women simply don't know what they want. Of course, Mr. Bitter-Sweet buys into it because it feels good not to be wrong for a change. It feels good that someone actually understands what he's going through: the pain, the frustration, all of it. So he becomes hooked on all of the guru theory and tactics. He stops giving compliments and starts using "neg-hits". He stops buying flowers and starts "qualifying her".

In the meantime, women are still screaming, louder and louder, about how much they just want to meet a nice, fun guy who has the capacity to do thoughtful, wonderful things. This of course leads all of the nice guys who still haven't found the seduction community to just start pouring all of their sickly-sweetness on thick like molasses, which as you can hopefully see now is like throwing jet-fuel on a camp fire.

Good god. What a mess.

When you see other men using all of these 'seduction' tactics to get a woman in bed, it is seldom because they "get it". Most usually, these types of men are having sex because they are often unknowingly taking advantage of the fact that if a woman were to wait for a man to come along who truly gets it, she would practically never have sex herself. Usually, sex happens because she has other needs that must be met, not because he is a master seducer. This is why it seems some women will agree or at the very least seem to go along with these theories, yet continue to express a desire for qualities that seem to conflict with many of them. This why it seems another group of women will read the exact same stuff and call it crap, insisting that just being yourself is the way to go. It is why guru's see their results of this same exact stuff and think they have women all figured out. And it is the reason why every nice guy on the planet is all torn up, scratching his head not knowing who to believe.

All of this because of a simple misunderstanding.

The answer is not to pour on the sweetness. Likewise, it is not to stop buying flowers, to stop giving compliments, stop being so nice and start acting like a jerk. The answer is to understand when things such as a rose or a compliment will have a value; to know the rare quality that can be found in timing and circumstance. You must know the difference between simply doing it, and when you do it. Awkwardly handing a woman a rose on your first Match.com date together is completely different than bringing it to her on a silver platter with breakfast as she lays warm, content and happy in your big, soft bed on a beautiful Sunday morning. As obvious as this comparison can be, the mere fact that this difference virtually goes without discussion in the 'men's self-help with women' community is disturbing.

It is no wonder to me why men and women are so often at each other's throats instead of each other's arms.

[Jill]

You need to post some attribution to the author of this article, please...

[Xin]

Originally Posted by Jill

You need to post some attribution to the author of this article, please...

Actually, the guy who wrote this asked for people not to attribute any link back, and just post it around if we wanted. =)

[somaziro]

I think that the article is pretty off base. I can agree with the general premise that in order to get a girl you have to meet her needs. I don't agree with the premise that nice guys don't get girls because they don't give them flowers at the right time. It is not a nice guys v. bad boys struggle, its a boring v. interesting struggle.

"Nice guys" that we generalize and stereotype don't get girls because they don't seem interesting, while bad boys seem interesting and fun - when in fact it has nothing to do with being nice or not, there are plenty of guys that get girls that are nice, they get them because those guys are interesting and fun to be around.

It doesn't matter what you do, it matters how you make the girls feel. So I disagree about the flower analogy at the end of the article - it really doesn't matter if what you do is cliche or whatever, it just depends on how you make the girl feel about it.

That is just my opinion - I am a 'nice guy' and always treat women well, but I have never had trouble with women not enjoying being with me.

Bottom line - you will get girls if you make them feel good about themselves and are fun so that they will want to be around you.

[Old Soul]

Ok I have 3 daughter in total ages, 35, 25, 22
and we have had some really good discussions on this very topic...here are some basic, prerequisits in which they all share, where they differ are not the basics , but things like , wether he can dance, or if he can cook.. these are not prerequisits

They see through pretense, what I mean by that is , pick up lines, pretending to be someone they are not..... putting on a show, is an automatic turn off to them, they also avoid all "tough guy" bad boy men... as they are still dating their own ego's

They like to see a little vulnerability, coupled with strength, a sense of humor too

They like to be supported in their endevours , not rescued...they want to walk side by side with their partners not one step behind or one step ahead

They avoid all men who are moma's boys

[engendertruth]

I think the article is interesting but I think as in all the cases with gender issues, there is no one-size-fits-all for seducing any person, regardless of whether they are women or men on a general basis. Thoughtfulness requires a certain knowledge of that person at least on a friendship level first.

A thoughtful gift or action is usually personal to that man or woman. If you find (for example) that person has an interest on a particular topic...say... ballet and you find a book or trinket on the subject of ballet, that is a thoughtful gift... or simply helping a man/woman out when they are struggling, giving them a lift when they are stranded, or giving them a hand with the DIY when needed can be a thoughtful action.

I wrote a little bit about this "nice guy" issue on my blog. I have met too many men who complain that they are "nice guys" but really under the face of it they are being manipulative.

I often read all these "seduction techniques" written by men to men about how to seduce women and I cannot help but shake my head and laugh. A lot of these techniques only talk generally about how to bed a woman, not maintain a loving relationship with her and love her on a long term basis. I think if a man came onto me (as a woman) in the ways in which these "seduction experts" suggest I would feel uncomfortable... these techniques do not really appeal to me personally.

The same is true on the other end of the scale, where burnt "nice guys" suggest that women like being treated badly... I find it hard to understand why anyone that wants a lasting, strong relationship with the opposite sex could think that in order to achieve that they have to be mean or violent? It just doesn't make sense. Don't people want happy, lasting relationships anymore? The mind boggles!

...I couldn't agree more with somaziro on the boring....not boring ratio, tho. Wish I thought of it sooner!

[Erki]

Originally Posted by Old Soul

Ok I have 3 daughter in total ages, 35, 25, 22
and we have had some really good discussions on this very topic...here are some basic, prerequisits in which they all share, where they differ are not the basics , but things like , wether he can dance, or if he can cook.. these are not prerequisits

They see through pretense, what I mean by that is , pick up lines, pretending to be someone they are not..... putting on a show, is an automatic turn off to them, they also avoid all "tough guy" bad boy men... as they are still dating their own ego's

They like to see a little vulnerability, coupled with strength, a sense of humor too

They like to be supported in their endevours , not rescued...they want to walk side by side with their partners not one step behind or one step ahead

They avoid all men who are moma's boys

Can you explain a bit, what makes a guy a moma's boy?

[Jill]

Originally Posted by Xin

Actually, the guy who wrote this asked for people not to attribute any link back, and just post it around if we wanted. =)

I didn't mean a link. But it's usually appropriate to mention the author of something. If he wants to remain anonymous, that's fine too, but I think that should be said also.

(Sorry...offtopic, but I'm very sensitive to people simply pasting others words...i.e., stealing them, without attribution to the original author.)

[lifequest]

Originally Posted by Erki

Can you explain a bit, what makes a guy a moma's boy?

My own definition:
a guy that, even though he is a grown up and has (or not) a gf, will always rely on his mother's opinion and let her decide. He can't seem to take a decision by himself, and goes along with what his mother wants only to please her, even if it means to go against the gf if he has one. So, in that case, there's like 3 persons in the couple, even though a couple should be 2 persons... Plus, the mother is usually very active not only in the decision department, but also in doing his cleaning, laundry and food. So, he's used to having someone always taking care of him, and tends to expect the same thing from his gf.

So, basically, a moma's boy is a grown-up guy that acts like a 10 year-old...

What a chance that not all guys are like that!

[Holistic Star]

So what this guy is saying is that it's all women's fault that these poor sweet men have turned so bitter.

First Eve with the apple causes the fall of mankind, and now this!

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

So what this guy is saying is that it's all women's fault that these poor sweet men have turned so bitter.

Funny, I don't see that in this article at all.

What I see is yet-another stab at the age-old question, "What do women want?"

Even Freud couldn't figure it out. Not surprising, maybe, because women - like men - are individuals. What they want changes, sometimes minute to minute, based on their own personalities, the things that drive them, their environment and all the rest.

I will admit, though, that I get exasperated sometimes with the moving target. More than once it's happened to me that being the "nice guy," doing and saying all the "right things" (at least, the right things according to some women - you know, the basic stuff like honour, respect, honesty and all the rest) gets one relegated to the heap of broken hearts when the woman in question decides she wants the "bad boy" after all. And, true to form, she gets damaged in the process, then whines that she can never find any good men.

Happens all the time... and I do mean all the time.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

More than once it's happened to me that being the "nice guy," doing and saying all the "right things" (at least, the right things according to some women - you know, the basic stuff like honour, respect, honesty and all the rest) gets one relegated to the heap of broken hearts when the woman in question decides she wants the "bad boy" after all.

You're assuming that you got rejected because of being a nice guy, because they prefered a bad boy. What if you being nice wasn't the reason at all, but something else that you were lacking or that they didn't like with you? Or what if you were perfectly ok, but the bad boy had something that she was looking for that you didn't have, that was not him being a bad boy but something totally different?

A stupid example, the one is a nice guy with blue eyes and the other one is a bad boy with green eyes. Lady finds green eyes totally sexy and decides she wants the bad boy. Nice guy will think "ah, I'm doing everything right, but women just prefer bad boys!" because that's a very common stereotype. What if the point wasn't nice guy/bad boy but something else??

[NotesMaeve]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

Funny, I don't see that in this article at all.

Oh, I do. Has one of my exes written all over it, although he used to ineloquently phrase it as, "Bitches ain't nothing but grief." At least, the first part of the article is about bitches bein' nothin' but grief.

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

What I see is yet-another stab at the age-old question, "What do women want?"

Even Freud couldn't figure it out. Not surprising, maybe, because women - like men - are individuals. What they want changes, sometimes minute to minute, based on their own personalities, the things that drive them, their environment and all the rest.

Agreed, but there's a general outline to what most women want. Most of us are heterosexual women who want to feel protected, nurtured, AND excited. (This just has ass pain written all over it, doesn't it?)

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

I will admit, though, that I get exasperated sometimes with the moving target. More than once it's happened to me that being the "nice guy," doing and saying all the "right things" (at least, the right things according to some women - you know, the basic stuff like honour, respect, honesty and all the rest) gets one relegated to the heap of broken hearts when the woman in question decides she wants the "bad boy" after all. And, true to form, she gets damaged in the process, then whines that she can never find any good men.

That's the fault of the woman. Nothing to do with you, babe.

I admit, I am very happy I don't date a perfect man. Slamhot bought me stripper heels and clothes as a present. Not Vic's Secret. Stripper clothes, from Prevues of Sacramento, where trannies and strippers shop. Then he asked me if I'd wear it to a gig. I looked at the six inch white heels, pleather micro mini, bra top, and thong, and said, "Sure." Know why? Me neither! Sure, I could have a traditional boyfriend who got me flowers and chocolates, but what the hell would I do with those? Put them on a shelf and look at them? And there's nothing quite like being asked by people who hadn't seen him in years if I was a paid date. (I said yes, because I'm evil.)

This is not to say he's not incredibly romantic or that he doesn't get me some wonderful things, both tangible and intangible, but the strangeness simply adds to the allure.

[Rose of Cairo]

What's a bad boy?

[NotesMaeve]

Rose, think James Dean from Rebel Without a Cause. Tough guy who uses a woman for pleasure.

[Soul Vibe]

After reading the comments left on this thread, I have to say I disagree with the original post, and agree that it is not a nice guy vs. bad boy struggle. It certainly can feel that way at times, but I think it is more of an interesting vs. boring struggle, as somaziro suggested. Which raises the question: What IS interesting to women? Obviously, I mean in a general sense, because I agree that women, like all people, are individuals and have different interests. You are not going to find a "magic formula" that will work on every woman. People in general want to feel different, or important somehow, and you aren't going to make them feel that way by using seduction tactics. Whether the seduction tactics being used are "neg-hits" or whether they're flowers and candy. I agree with engendertruth that,

Thoughtfulness requires a certain knowledge of that person at least on a friendship level first.

However, I think any man can agree with me when I say that it is very difficult to go from friend to lover. Not because we are unwilling or lose interest, but because now we only arouse platonic feelings like comfort and trust for the woman we have become friends with, instead of exciting feelings like passion and romance. As somaziro put it:

It doesn't matter what you do, it matters how you make the girls feel.

If they feel like a friend, then they are not a lover. Then there is always the excuse of "I love you like a friend, and I would hate to jeopardize our friendship." This is where the seduction gurus capitalize as well. They are aware of this fact and they use it to draw in unsuspecting "nice guys" like myself. I'll admit I was sucked in for a brief moment, and it's because these "gurus" are aware of some valid truths. It is unfortunate to me that they don't put these truths to better use though. They pair these truths with the ideology of "sex sells" to make a buck on poor lonely clueless men seeking truth in the department of finding out what women really want. These men only succeed in becoming more confused than before, myself included. The thing is, most of these "nice guys" do want long-lasting relationships with women, and know how to maintain one, as long as it remains in the friendship arena, but we also want that physical intimacy that you can't get from a friendship. The "gurus" say it is easier to be a lover first and a friend later, rather than the other way around. Is this true? I think it might be. How sad is that? What we need to know is how to create a romantic interest, a passionate desire in women who we have put a lot of care and time into getting to know, and developed feelings for. How to do so without "making things weird" and jeopardizing the friendship entirely. How to do so before we have to watch her date some other loser who mistreats her. How to do so before she dates a mutual friend who didn't seem to show as much interest. Once we earn her affection, how to keep her interested and excited and keep her from deciding she'd be more content leaving you to see some married guy a couple times a year who lives halfway across the continent. These are the things that make good guys question their methods. We meet wonderful women, treat them with respect, watch them date losers, and we get left for more losers. I have been the bad guy too. I have been in relationships with women that I wanted out of and had to fight to get my way. The less I want to be with a woman the more they want to be with me it seems, and the more I want to be with a woman, the less they want to be with me. This confuses me. We want what we cannot have, I guess. Not a very positive way to look at things, but it's the only experience I have to base my opinion on at this time. They say (whoever "they" are) that love always finds you when you're not looking for it. That's usually when I give up looking for it and end up settling for the first thing that comes along. How many others do the same thing? Rarely does that turn out to be love, I've painfully discovered. And here I find myself waiting again, and growing tired of the wait. Will I end up settling again? Or will I grow a pair, and tell a woman I truely want and care about, how I feel, and risk rejection? Time will tell, but if history is any indicator...

(Sorry I got a little off-topic toward the end maybe, but I have been needing to get that out)

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

What I see is yet-another stab at the age-old question, "What do women want?"

Even Freud couldn't figure it out. Not surprising, maybe, because women - like men - are individuals. What they want changes, sometimes minute to minute, based on their own personalities, the things that drive them, their environment and all the rest.

It's also not surprising because Freud got a hell of a lot wrong

Originally Posted by Soul Vibe

However, I think any man can agree with me when I say that it is very difficult to go from friend to lover. Not because we are unwilling or lose interest, but because now we only arouse platonic feelings like comfort and trust for the woman we have become friends with, instead of exciting feelings like passion and romance.

You know what. I think it's time we challenge this belief.

I've only had three serious relationships, and two of them were with girls who I was friends with first, for a while. Definitely more than long enough to be in the 'friend zone'. Likewise many of my friends have had relationships with other friends, often from the same friendship group. Another friend has a sister who married someone who she was previously friends with.

Now you might say that there are always exceptions. Well, as far as I can see the exceptions aren't much less frequent than the norm.

So I have to ask, is it really all that difficult to go from friend to lover? Or is it that we tend to remember the rejections more than the successes? Besides, rejections are more frequent in general, right? So being rejected by a friend is just a special case of rejection, but not necessarily more likely.

I wonder how much of a contribution that preconception makes to those cases where it doesn't work out? Is it possible that we're influenced by the stories of lost friendships (or even personal experience), without taking into account the dynamics of our own situation? If we believe that it's going to end in trouble, then we're setting ourselves up for failure. I'm pretty sure that most of us don't really know how a relationship is going to turn out before it has started. And for those who think they did know, I'd ask if you're absolutely certain you might not have been wrong.

Tying this back into the main topic, I also suspect that most of the time that a guy tries to turn a friend into a lover, if he's a 'nice guy' (the needy kind), his friend will know it. "I don't want to ruin the friendship," could very well be the same as, "I don't want to tell you you're too needy, because that could ruin the friendship." But if that's not the case then if he and the friend he wants as a lover are both mature people, I see no reason why their chances of forming a romantic relationship should be any less than if they weren't friends.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

So I have to ask, is it really all that difficult to go from friend to lover?

I sure hope not, as I'm becoming more and more convinced that friends first is the only route that really works for me. I'm just not the type to start snuggling with someone I don't know or trust yet.

[Aurora]

Well from my pont of view, I don't go from friend to lover "like that".
If there ever was an interest on a level that could sooner or later result in being lovers - it's there all along.

Attraction is a damn hard thing to define and pinpoint. I know that I fall for individuals that make a non-verbal (and sometimes verbal) statement of confidence and feeling good about themselves.

If someone doesn't like themselves enough it makes a statement of something fishy going on.. I do accept insecurities about some things, but not being comfy being yourself is a definitive turnoff.

[Angela]

What doesn't help is the fact that, irregardless, women still insist they want a man that has the capacity to do thoughtful, wonderful things.

Nice guy, good guy, sweet guy, I don't care... you lose me by saying "irregardless."

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Angela

Nice guy, good guy, sweet guy, I don't care... you lose me by saying "irregardless."

*snort*

And I was going to leave it at that, but since the forum insists I write a longer message, here goes...

If your impression of me is influenced by unquestioned stereotypes, you've lost me. Firstly because I'm not interested in someone who doesn't question their influences, but more subtly because the real me is hidden somewhere in that sea of stereotypical impressions, lost to you.

And I'm sure unquestioned stereotypes are a large part of the problem.

[Angela]

uh-oh, you're an "irregardless" sayer, aren't you.

It was just a joke, Mark -- it's a pet peeve of mine. Like when people say "that literally made my head explode!"

It's just the English-major in me.

[Mark Lapierre]

Heh. Yeah, I make up words like "femininising"

But I'm with you on being an English-major. Borrowing from Daniel Gilbert for a moment, if I were buying something and the salesperson said, "That'll be three dollars," I'd probably reply, "Really? When?"

In case it wasn't clear the snort was me laughing with you (sorry it really wasn't clear was it?), and the rest of my post wasn't directed at you at all (just inspired by you prompting me to think of what causes women to lose me)

[Angela]

Poor men. You're talking with a woman, doing fine, lots of chemistry, and you activate her pet peeve without even knowing you've done so (maybe without HER even knowing you've done so) and *poof* you get the boot, and you're left all dazed and wondering what happened.

Oh, well. One woman's pet peeve perpetrator is another woman's hot hunk o' heat.

[Mark Lapierre]

True. And the needy guy would probably try to placate her and try to make up for doing something wrong (even though he didn't), while other guys would either ask her what her problem is, or shrug their shoulders and turn their attention to one of their other three dates, or acknowledge that she has issues which she's allowing to lessen her enjoyment, and then shrug and turn to one of his other women.

(or let her know, in a non confrontational way, that there was a misunderstanding and leave it up to her to decide whether she wants to sort it out with him or not)

[Soul Vibe]

I understand what people mean when they say "needy guy", but I have to say, I hate that description. Everyone has the need to feel loved, or we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place, would we? Fool yourselves all you like with all the love yourself first crap, but it's hard to do when you feel isolated, detatched and withdrawn. To attach such a negative connotation to being in need of love from another (or being "needy") is just cold and heartless to me, and pushes the "needy" further away. Where is the love, people?! Everyone deserves to be loved by another. I personally believe it is all these walls, and defenses we put up to keep the "needy" at bay which turn people into a lot worse than needy. You know, the guy you mumble to yourself; "he didn't get enough hugs as a child." Same principle! Just turn on Dateline and count all the perverts who have become so discouraged to date women their own age, they have turned to preying on the innocence of youth. It is disgusting! What's sad is, I have known someone personally, who ended up on that show. An instructor at my college. Okay, maybe it's not fair to blame natural sexual frustration for these behaviors, but something caused these behaviours. Unless you believe these men are just genetically born pedophiles. I'm not saying women should go out and find "needy" guys to save, but maybe the "needy" should be treated like human beings, so they don't become monsters.

[Mark Lapierre]

Absolutely agree. I use the term "needy" with the understanding that I try to apply to all use of language. There are many connotations to all of the words we use to talk about emotive topics and it's quite likely that someone will have a problem with any word (nice nor needy seem satisfactory). And not only at the connotations plentiful, but the denotations are also abundant. I'm pretty sure that if there were more suitable words, we'd already be using them. The search for the best word will continue, but in the mean time a common word with an agreed upon definition seems fine.

In this case I see a "needy guy" as someone who is ruled by his needs. Someone whose behaviour is dictated by those needs in unreasonable and counterproductive ways. We all have needs, yes, but we don't all start harassing the person who might satisfy those needs if it seems they won't.

Frankly I think "immature" is more accurate, but I suspect everyone would complain about that one, even though we're all immature in some ways.

But you're right, we shouldn't treat those guys as monsters. Hell, I was one of those guys! (a "needy/immature guy", not someone who'd go on Dateline...) What I would have benefited from greatly was someone telling me that that's what they saw in me. No one did so I had to piece it together over time, from hints here and there, distracted and confused by those times when a relationship was successful for a while, despite still behaving in that same "needy" fashion. Sure I might have denied it at the start, but if someone had planted that seed of doubt, I'm sure I would have saved many years of addressing that particular issue (and been able to move onto all the others )

[Angela]

Well, everyone wants love, but to believe that you "need" love from a particular person gives you a stance that robs that person of her freedom. That's not love, that's holding someone hostage.

When we refer to a "needy" person, we're not talking about the general desire people have to feel loved; we're talking about the attachment wherein a person believes he's incapable of being satisfied or fulfilled if he doesn't receive the "love" of one particular person. And unfortunately, when you hold that sort of attachment, there is no amount of love that can satisfy you, because you're a bottomless pit. That doesn't make you a monster, but it does make you someone who sucks away freedom.

[Soul Vibe]

Originally Posted by Angela

When we refer to a "needy" person, we're not talking about the general desire people have to feel loved; we're talking about the attachment wherein a person believes he's incapable of being satisfied or fulfilled if he doesn't receive the "love" of one particular person.

Ah, I had never looked at it that way. Surely, this is an unhealthy situation outside of an established relationship, but I'm not convinced this is entirely harmful within the bounds of one. Unless of course, the feeling was no longer mutual. Whatever, I get what you are saying, and I agree for the most part. On the other hand, I can also say that being fully aware that there are "other fish in the sea", sometimes someone comes along who just satisfies every sense, lives a compatible lifestyle, has similar taste, admirable style, on the same intellectual wavelength, etc. Let's say a seahorse or angelfish among a sea of mudsharks and bottom-feeders to stick with the analogy. A truely rare find, not one-of-a-kind, but rare. It is hard not to put the blinders on in that case. Yeah there are other fish, but they are mostly mudsharks and bottom-feeders compared to this seahorse. Yeah, there's an angelfish over there too, but... I forgot where I was leading with this. And certainly some guys may prefer mudsharks to seahorses, but anyway... I think most people can relate to this feeling. I don't believe that it should excuse robbing a person of their freedoms, but I don't think that's always the case. I just think it is a bit sad to see so many guys trying so hard to show praise and affection, and treat a woman they are interested in with sincerity, and perhaps being a little overbearing or passively agreeable in their efforts, being percieved as a "needy guy" and immediately disqualified as a potential lover. Then there is the flip-side of that coin, where a guy is trying too hard to show respect for a woman's personal space and boundaries, or even looking at other options, that they seem disinterested or insincere. Like in 40-year-old Virgin, where he says, "I respect women so much, I completely avoid them!" I think that is a very real scenario, and I even identify with it to some extent, because I have such a crippling fear of being percieved as "needy". Surely there is a balance between overbearing, passively agreeable and avoidant, I have yet to find it, but I'm getting closer. I don't mean forcefully overbearing either. I mean being ever-present, showering with gifts, syrupy romance, etc. I'm really not as overbearing as I used to be, I've actually shifted into the other two catagories. In fact, my last relationship ended (almost a year ago now) because I wasn't being romantic enough. I over-corrected basically, because I was trying too hard to do the right thing to keep her happy, and it backfired.

In this case I see a "needy guy" as someone who is ruled by his needs. Someone whose behaviour is dictated by those needs in unreasonable and counterproductive ways. We all have needs, yes, but we don't all start harassing the person who might satisfy those needs if it seems they won't.

Again, I've never really associated "needy" with harrassment, but I guess it makes sense in the more extreme cases. I guess what I am more concerned about is being percieved as needy, when guys are just trying to put forth an honest effort to give a woman what she wants, even though, and especially because none of us really know what that is. Some guys obviously have a better idea, and they have fulfilling love-lives. The majority of us though, seem to settle for whoever will accept us the way we are, and acceptance isn't the earth-shattering, passionate, feel-it-in-every-cell-of-your-body L-O-V-E I'm looking for. Settling certainly isn't either, but it happens. Why? Because we get tired of waiting for the next seahorse or angelfish to come along, and decide a salmon is better than a mudshark or bottom-feeder and certainly better than nothing at all. Heck, there are even things to love about salmon that a seahorse or angelfish may not possess. They taste good smoked for instance.

[Brien]

This thread reminds me of this comic strip:
girls with slingshots

I think I'm a pretty "nice guy", but never to the extent to make a woman feel pressured to like me. Even after we've been dating for a while, I make sure she understands she can walk out whenever she wants - no emotional blackmail. The catch? I expect the same from her.

Off topic: Soul Vibe, your posts are very insightful, but a bit hard to read. If would help if you broke up your paragraphs a bit. The walls of text can cause "tl;dr" in hurried readers.