Define "Nice Guy" and define "Alpha Male" please. Really.

Post Reply New Topic

You mean, when they aren't accusing people of being a misogynist, or worse.

Nice guy: physically unattractive male who gets continuously rejected by physically attractive females and gives them s**t for it, wants to forcefully push them into desiring him. (in his mind he's the king and they don't know it yet)

Alpha male: physically attractive male.

Yeah but like 97% of guys in their twenties and thirties think that's what they are.

Also, there's lots of ugly-azz redneck type guys that would probably be considered "alphas", as the OP is no doubt aware.

It just so happens that I defend other people.....because I want to defend other people. I effin feel like it!! !! !!

I expect nothing in return.

"White Knights," to me, are males (or perhaps masculine females) who enjoy saving "damsels in distress," and assume that all woman are, underneath, "damsels in distress." They do not seem to be aware that many woman are not "damsels in distress" and don't want to be "saved."

They don't necessarily expect sex in return, though they might expect the lady to "appreciate" them.

i'm a female feminist happily married to a male feminist.

A "Nice Guy" is a man who lacks the physiological traits men traditionally need to attract women, so instead they try to do so by being caring, thoughtful and good natured. You know, all the things women SAY men want. Whether or not this is just a facade or whether or not they're actually caring, thoughtful and good-natured is irrelevant as far as the definition of "Nice Guy" goes. After his attempts to attract women through these traits inevitably fail, the Nice Guy will invariably become bitter, disillusioned and jaded. And then feminists, along with the rest of society, will jump on him saying he was a never a "truly" a nice guy to begin, which may or may not be true. Again, it's not really relevant. The Nice Guy will still get shat on regardless of whether his niceness was a facade or not.

I don't know what planet you're from, but here we have the opposite problem; pretty much every woman who ISN'T hideously deformed thinks she's Scarlett f*****g Johansson. And if the sight of some dull-as-ditchwater, overweight Plain Jane walking around like she's f*****g Helen Troy and she owns the place doesn't fill you with rage, I don't know what will.

Excellent summation. I think this is how it mostly works. Except it doesn't need to be because of lacking physiological traits, it can just as well be the lack of aggressiveness and assertiveness that males in general use to contact women.

Define feminist.

Me too.

Also some people do not understand that feminists are not a cohesive group. If you do a bit of research into the types of feminism you will see that the idea of all feminists holding a particular view is absurd as they disagree vehemently in many ways.

You'd wish you never wrote that.

A (toxic) feminist is a once-was Alpha girl in her 40s that no longer can act like a spoiled teen because guys no longer find her attractive. She is now hoping that feminism can force guys to like once-was Alphas that missed their opportunity when they had it because they acted like spoiled kids. However, her whining will do no good as guys generally don't like her type. It won't help to shout misogynist either.

Hate to break it you, but how "dominant" and "assertive" you are is also largely gonna come down to your physiological traits. You don't seriously think it's a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of shy people are also physically unattractive, do you?

i know tons of attractive shy people.

Eternally single ones?

She's talking about some of her lady-friends. They're not shy, they're passive. Big difference.

well no group is a cohesive group. every group disagrees on things, but we still allow the group heads to represent groups. so we can say feminists hold a particular view the same as you say christians do or democrats or republicans or gun owners do.

people get together and agree on some issues they form a group make a title. the leaders go and speak, regardless if all members agree with what is said. they represent them. so you can stop calling yourself the title or deal with what your leaders say.

humans like to form groups o.O. it would be far better for each person to represent themselves as no to people will agree on everything 100%. so there is no group that is cohesive.

now perhaps on a small scale like 10 people you could have a more cohesive group on some issues. but on a national scale nope. so a group starts out cohesive but the larger it grows the less it is. which is why groups fight in amongst themselves a lot. I'm not part of any such group by choice. I get grouped with them by others. owning guns makes me a gun owner, people tend to think all gun owners think the same but oh no we fight a lot, its the downfall of groups. a united gun owners would put a stop to all anti gun laws, but we fight each other over small issues.

so are feminist cohesive, no not anymore then others, but you have to deal with getting represented badly and being generalized like all other groups of people . its how nts work

nts like everyone in neat little groupings. easier for them to navigate the world that way, funny you'd think it'd be us that would like that.

Blanket-terms of surface-logic connation. The stereo-types do hold some truth in the manner used but seem to be to be more like euphemisms. Pop-culture catch-phrases as these may as well be pulled out of Urban-Dictionary.

I also think that these terms are mostly used by male-virgins who mis-understand context in language and are somehow indocrinated with the idea that "women say that they want nice guys" whilst simultaneously trying to "do favours" for said women that they have an interest in screwing with absolute no clue as to how to actually seduce a lady, and they make the mistake of thinking that doing a "perceived favour" automatically makes the "recipient" obligated to return said favour (this is where the guy himself thinks himself to be a "nice guy" when in reality the "expectation" for "sexual-payment" makes him out to be more of a "creepy guy" instead in the perceptions of those he was attempting to woo).

Alpha-Male is a term that these virgins will come across in their desperate attempts to try & learn how to "get laid" and will often read publications from questionable authors who use said term of Alpha-Male & claim to sell material on secrets to seduction & speed-seduction & getting laid when they themselves (the authors) probably don't have a clue as to how to actually get a woman into bed. They sucker these poor "nice guys" (euphemism: creepy guys) into acting all dumb-ass & saying stupid things, and thus, causing these virgins to continue to ruin potential girl-friends or fuck-buddies or relationships through the "be an ass-hole to her" logic (the actual reason why that happens having more to do with "karmic" reasons than because of it being a turn-on), and they end up remaining as desperate virgins.

Ultimately, a real man knows how to make his own decisions, and the timid "non-alpha" man isn't really even a man, more like some little boy who still has to go about looking for so-called "experts" to tell him how to fix or solve problems, kind of like a boy who needs the girl to do his homework for him, rather than a man who already knows how to do all of his office-work but has the lady helping him with the work due to the amount of s**t that needs to get done, whilst the "nice/non-alpha" one doesn't have a clue how to even do s**t in life worth any sense of importance.