why are feminist obsessed with Nice guys(TM)

Post Reply New Topic

As mentioned several times, I started approaching, not because I am male or female, but simply because of me being sh***y at nonverbal clues and hints, which normally starts flirting between NTs, before any of both approach. And ARE YOU the aggressor cant be answered objective, simply because it depends on the opinion of the opposite. For some people that behavior seemed to be aggressive, for others not. So there is not an objective answer to that, and you can as well only decide for yourself, if you think of this as aggressive or not. I personally dont see anything aggressive in mentioning it verbally, if I feel sympathy for someone.

Yes, thats obviously, that if your asking about the same stuff "How do you approach someone, you feel sympathy for." that there wont be much different answers for the same question.

Goddamn, watch less porn and start living in reality. If you want to have an healthy relationship, you should care for both persons simply mentioning their personal likings on equal terms, so that the opposite know about it. I mention what pleases me, as does my partner, not to be passive or dominate, but to simply have fun with sex. Thats normally the reason why you do sex. ^^

I think both are ok, but have more experiences with male partners, simply out of statistical reasons, that there are far more heterosexual men available then homosexual women. ^^

As as well already mentioned in further threads, I like the smell of my partner. Do you think, having a nose and primal brain stem depends on having Y-chromosomes? O_o

None of both. As already explained for you, for me having a child is linked two persons getting a child. I do not GIFT my partner with an child, I created it together with him. I cant pull that out of nothing, but need his agreement and as well physical context for it, just as he needs both of me. I dont HAVE a child: Me and my partner are receiving one.

Most women and men I learned to know, preferred to be treated as individuals and to be asked what THEY like, and not what your gender likes. It´s ok that many males like football. But simply assuming, that because of you being male, you HAVE TO like football and forcing you to spend your sundays free time with watching footballs, is simply stupid. If you do like football, there is nothing wrong with it or you. But if you dont, there is as well nothing wrong with it or you.

I played with my neighbors dolls, but because of some weirdos, trying to create differences in people by all means, they were not refered to as dolls, but are actually called "action-figures" ("Masters of the Universe" and "WWF" to be detailed.)

I wont discuss with you, that there are statistical preferences when it comes to gender. But that include as well a broad spectrum, which is overlapping each other, and there is nothing wrong about it. Or as already explained in another thread, I see nothing wrong about, that most women have european shoe sizes of average 39 and most male of 42. There is nothing bad about accepting that, as long as you dont try to make an ultimate truth out of it, ignoring the people for whom that statistical preference does not fit.

As you did with: "we have different needs, nor only for our selves, but from each other."

The difference between an prejudice and an fact is simply the usage of certain words as "many", "some", "few", ... Because the moment you do so, you will start not to piss off everyone that does not fit in your description. The existing men with shoe size 39 or female with shoe size 42, will thank you for that.

Without realizing it, in many ways you just made many of my points, thank you.

BTW, I don't like most sports, not unless their intellectual, Olympic types for personal achievement, or games where I can see titties bounce. love womens mud wrestling.

hate to be a nit-picker, but that's actually not a reasonable assumption--otherwise assuming that humans get around via the trees like orangutans would also be a reasonable assumption, which it obviously is not. animal behavior is not newtonian physics. primate behaviour is extremely complex and diverse amongst the various species.

The Nice Guy(TM) I dated, I quit because he was clearly being dishonest about something and had an unpleasantly condescending and superior attitude, despite the opened doors. The Jerk I dated, I quit because I started to want more than we both agreed that the relationship would be able to provide for either one of us. I'm still friends with him (note: not "friendzone," just friends). The nice guys I've dated, variously they have quit or I have quit because we weren't "the one." a couple of them I wished we could make it work, others not so much. The nice ones were, by far, the ones I spent the most time with, though.


No. I think that you're deluded and you're making up a tale to comfort yourself about how women are deluded, illogical, and/or evil, to keep it from being your problem that you have difficulty in relationships.


No. A male chauvinist can only ever be a Nice Guy(tm).

Whenever I find urine all over the toilet seat.

Never. Literally, never.
I have a brother, two dads, some great male co-workers, etc. and they're all unique, wonderful people.


It's misandry to think that a man can never have a relationship with a woman unless he wants to have sex with her.

Not since before I hit puberty. That's a profoundly unfeminist thought. I've thought, "women are unfairly saddled with the majority of the unpleasant parenting duties," but that's not the same thing at all.


I'm just curious: do you think that you're addressing an actual person? Or is the straw-feminist in your head real enough to you that you're actually talking to her?

i really should have noted earlier what i put in bold there at the bottom, and taken heed then. you're right LKL, i do believe i'm wasting my time.

there is a question i would like to ask before i leave this conversation, i am an insatiably curious person:

i believe i mentioned earlier how not standardly "feminine" i am, and that it extends not just to my personality but my neurology and my perception--for example, i have always been analytical as well as visually-spatially acute (i'm an excellent driver, and i offer as evidence the fact that i can back a large diesel pickup with a full trailor-style motor home on the back of it into a very long straight driveway from the street). my consciousness is very much visually-oriented--i am in fact a visual artist, and my style of drawing is hyper-realism. i am curious to know how you would explain, MP, exactly how i am "denying my womanly nature" by having the sort of neurology i was born with? does denial not imply choice? how did i manage to choose to be born with what people typically classify as a "male" neurology so as to "deny" the automatic femininity that apparently comes with my genitals?

please explain.

Well, if you are able to analyse it a bit further, you'll conclude that I'm talking about the overwhelming majority of women, not all women. Women don't divide sharply into lesbians and heterosexuals. It's more nuanced than that, of course. And if there are exceptions to the overwhelming majority of human females' sexual behaviour, it's probably found on lesbians and/or aspies (or people with a very different way of socializing). Even then, I still mantain that most heterosexual aspie women do have this sexual behaviour, even though they, sometimes, are a bit less feminine.

As for lesbians, that's a whole different gigantic discussion. And that would be, in fact, speculation. But if it took you 8 pages to recognise that what I'm saying is not an as**olic, lunatic and baseless rant; that I may have a point somewhere _ even though you deny it _ then I couldn't ever discuss that with you.

But I leave you with a TEDx talk that will make you put under fire your assumption that you're not that different from men and, in particular, why genitals have more to do with your mind than you imagine. One funny example is him provocatively saying that, because the difference of male and female genetics is the same difference, in percentage, as the difference of male humans and male chimpanzes, Bill Clinton is as close to Hillary Clinton as he is to a chimpaze. It's a fun talk. Not misogynist, don't worry.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQcgD5DpVlQ[/youtube]

Frankly, the problem is that men and women don't think the same way.

Men only know what women SAY they want. Women, however, don't say what they REALLY want.

Men generally have no patience for such head games.

Guys who try to be what women say they want get little to nothing for it.

I also think women have very unrealistic expectations of what they want in a man...and are never satisfied because they can't find their non-existent ideal man.

Do you still think I have no theory of mind?

This thread, summed up:
Men:
"Why won't more women do x that I like, why is female behavior like y?"
Women:
"Because your assumptions about women are wrong, and we would rather do y than x because we're people just like you."
Men:
"That can't be right, of course women like x, that's what women are for. You women just don't understand female nature properly."

But I leave you with a TEDx talk that will make you put under fire your assumption that you're not that different from men and, in particular, why genitals have more to do with your mind than you imagine. One funny example is him provocatively saying that, because the difference of male and female genetics is the same difference, in percentage, as the difference of male humans and male chimpanzes, Bill Clinton is as close to Hillary Clinton as he is to a chimpaze. It's a fun talk. Not misogynist, don't worry.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQcgD5DpVlQ[/youtube]

That sounds like the conversation between you and ArrantPariah! [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo_Pk-JFaXk[/youtube]

This thread, summed up:
Men:
"Why won't more women do x that I like, why is female behavior like y?"
Women:
"Because your assumptions about women are wrong, and we would rather do y than x because we're people just like you."
Men:
"That can't be right, of course women like x, that's what women are for. You women just don't understand female nature properly."