Nice guys and feminists

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, but she was accompanied by the "My-Subjective-Opinions-are-Objective-Facts-Because-I Say-So" Nice Guy Brigade, so maybe the Straw Feminists can hook up with the "Nice Guys" and the "Nice Guys" can finally get laid.

Everybody wins.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TJMMdXr8AY[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA&feature=related[/youtube]

Gosh, I haven't seen that before...
(/sarcasm)

YouTube = truth.
(/sarcasm)

As far as "no one is owed love or sex" I agree, but it would apply to EVERYONE, not just nice guys. So, in particular, no one is owed love or sex for being strong, either. Yet, women act like they do -- after all, they have to "endure" jerks just because said guys are "strong".

You see, if no one is owed sex, then the girl would pick out the person she NATURALLY likes, and I am pretty sure that NATURALLY she would like nice guys. So perhaps she would pick 80% nice guys and 20% jerks (so since stats is not 100%, it is still true that no one is "owed" sex, but still her "preference" would be logical). But in reality she does just the opposite: she mostly picks jerks. So the only way to explain why she does it is that she was CONDITIONED taht man should be in control so she FORCES HERSELF to pick jerks despite the fact that she really doesn't want to. And this means that deep down she feels she owes them something.

Also this whole ladder system where you are "not allowed" to move from "friends ladder" to "relationship ladder" is also very unnatural. YET it is structural. So again women are "forcing" themselves to fit into this strict rule which again contradicts the assertion that "no one is owed anything".

Now of course it is possible that the "conditioning" that women should pick men in control was done in so early age that they are not aware of it. BUt still that conditioning is very anti-feminist. Yet, because they are unaware of this particular anti-feminist aspect of their conditioning, they are ironically using feminism to claim the right to stick to the anti-feminist conditioning they have undergone.

Still, the "impression in general" might still be wrong. For example, the person in the visa office was worried I would lose my passport because the papers that he handed to me were all in a bad physical shape. Now, keeping things in a bad shape doesn't mean losing them. But in other people's minds it is the same thing. And this is just one latest example.

It does apply to the baaad boys. Feminists are granting coitus to the baaad boys not because there is an obligation, but because their vaginas automatically moisten when a baaad boy enters the room. For the nice boys, there is internet pornography.



Aeons of evolution have left the human vagina moistening at the sight of a jerk. To permit a nice boy to have access to her vagina would require her to force herself, and would not be natural.



She decides who gets which place on which ladder, based on her own personal whim, and not on a sense of obligation to anyone.



I think that it is basic evolutionary biology: the female selects a mate who is strong, and who will protect and provide for her and her offspring. In exchange, the male gets coitus. It would require a certain amount of conditioning to persuade a woman to open her vagina to a non-jerk. Feminism is about women having complete control over their vaginas, and deciding for themselves with whom they will share their vaginas. If they start giving in to "pity sex", then they would be yielding control, and giving in to the notion that some men are owed coitus for being nice and pitiful.

Shall we examine, for a moment, the flip side of the coin?

Imagine a woman who is morbidly obese, suffers from rotting teeth and halitosis, has a moustache growing on her upper lip, and who perspires like a hog.

Are you going to offer to give her a Good Stiff Poke as a reward for being nice, or because she says that she shares your cherished political beliefs?

A few men might, out of principle, pity, or a commitment to fairness.

Most men, however, are going to fix their sites on the woman who causes them to experience a spontaneous penile erection as she walks out of the room.

EXACTLY!! !! !!



Roman, if a woman is not sexually attracted to you she's not going to want to sleep with you[let alone be your girlfriend]. Treating her as a human being in the way that LKL is describing isn't going to change this. If your goal is to have a sexual relationship[regardless of duration], you have to find someone who is actually attracted to you. I have to say that I've found that shy, hyper-introverted women who tend to be far more willing to overlook social awkwardness than most normal women. But you have to be prepared to put the time and effort into self-improvement to make yourself more desirable to women. Most women do this on a regular basis to make men want them and guys like you need to do it too.



ArrantPariah, you sound like you regurgitating a bunch of nonsense you read in a PickUp Artist manual. Most feminists are smart enough to understand that they aren't going to change "baaad boys" and that these men will never treat them with any respect. Straight feminists usually go for passive aggressive men with finely honed social skills. What makes baaad boys attractive to women is much more than their dominant behavior and attitude; these guys are often street smart. Street smarts are manifestation of social intelligence, and social intelligence is highly attractive to the vast majority of women but it isn't the only thing. Trouble is, too many women are naive enough to think that they can change bad boys and make them into chivalrous men who are also attractive. This may explain why some women remain with abuse boyfriends and husbands even though by doing so they continue to endure abuse.

Still, once she is in a long term relationship with a bad boy then HIM (and not her) is in control (after all she selected the dominant man). Thus, it ruined her feminist dream of avoiding man's control over a woman. This is the irony. First she used feminism to say that she has a right to chose whom she wishes and she HAPPENED to wish a dominant man. But then THE OUTCOME of being with a dominant man ruined her feminist wish of being in control of herself.

I have been with Jennifer out of pity. To be honest, originally I chose to be with her because she was graduate student which is prestigious. However, after half a year of being with her it became clear that her other qualities (such as her excessive bleeding due to polycistic ovaries which made it difficult for her to walk, and also screwed up her academic career as well, her depression, as well as her weight) made her low quality on a grand scheme of things. Nevertheless. I didn't want to "betray" her seeing how hurt she is, so I was with her regardless. Even if some really attractive woman were to come along I would still stay with her in order not to "betray" her. But I guess the fact that I wasn't actually attracted to her came through in the "small things" I did wrong here and there which made her break up with me herself once 2 years were over. If this didn't happen I would never break up with her myself, although I would feel "trapped".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTfg1I1YWLY[/youtube]What nice guys need are good girls so that they can win at last. ........I wish I had a good girl. Not a fan of bad girls or abusive women I dont wish to be even more traumatized heh.

People still listen to this pseudointellectual neckbeard dropout?

First of all, polycystic ovarian syndrome is treatable and I sincerely hope that Jennifer gets the medical help she needs(if she hasn't already).
That being said, I'm not surprised that she broke up with you eventually. You were lying to her as well as lying to yourself about your true sexual feelings. You weren't attracted to her sexually, and I suspect that she picked up on it and found it very off putting(as I would too). Being with someone you don't find attractive and/or giving them a mercy f*ck only shows that you are desperate.

Do you have ANY idea how repulsive desperation is to people? Especially women?? Well now I certainly hope so. A guy who's desperate will settle for anyone and by hooking up with such a guy, it makes her feel unattractive. In her mind, she must be so ugly that the only guys who want to be with her(and shag her) are guys who are unable to get with anybody else. Funny thing is, even ugly women who you'd think would never get laid always seem to manage to find somebody wanting to shag them.

Last edited by AspieRogue on 11 Sep 2012, 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jesus effing christ, what a f*****g stew of crap. The only things that I want to say in response to this is that there are more than two types of men (ie, 'nice' vs. 'jerk' is a false dichotomy); that a lot of guys who think that they're losing because they're 'nice,' are actually losing because they're as*holes and are not actually 'nice' by most women's definition of the word; and that different women are attracted to different men, just like different men are attracted to different women. Oh, and also: 'strong' does not necessarily mean 'domineering bastard.'

Almost as repulsive as talking out of one's ass



...as well settle for any self-empowering theory that explains his failure to elicit positive responses from females through consistent inept behavior



This is more a glimpse into your mind than that of the average female



That's pretty dumb. There are plenty of dorky, ugly or unintelligent guys who end up getting married or dating women. There is no guarantee of a mate for anyone, but it certainly helps not being arrogant and self-entitled.