# Nice Guys



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I came upon this by accident:

https://medium.com/the-composite/why-a-nice-guy-isnt-good-enough-for-love-c98dc45a8adc


I could've written this article about my ex, and the irony was that his "nice" tendencies extended to everyone but me. I was the one he threw under the bus to make himself look nice to everyone else.

I won't get into detail with my issues with him as many here know my story, and at this point I have nothing but well wishes for him. This article just struck me....particularly the part about not valuing honestly, loyalty, integrity, and love as much as his own peace, comfort, and security (I would add image in the case of my ex). Of course these traits could apply to women as well, I just know that women find the strong man very attractive. I'm not sure how much these traits on women influence how their attractiveness to men.....perhaps the men can weigh in.

My dad used to say that people who said what needed to be said and did what needed to be done were often disliked initially, but (in his words) "they loom large in history" when people have a chance to look back.

I guess I'm throwing this out there because I'm on my own personal journey of authenticity; it is something I highly value but struggled with when dealing with my ex because he was so averse to it. It seems to be that a lot of people struggle with some of this because conflict is hard and unpleasant. Presenting your true self requires a great deal of vulnerability and trust which is something I struggle with.

I was wondering to what degree posters here see either their current or former selves in this article and if you've moved beyond it how did that happen?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

It becomes extremely difficult to believe someone loves you - when they consistently choose to prioritize external optics at your expense. It is a massive love buster for sincere people....





lifeistooshort said:


> I came upon this by accident:
> 
> https://medium.com/the-composite/why-a-nice-guy-isnt-good-enough-for-love-c98dc45a8adc
> 
> ...


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

MEM2020 said:


> It becomes extremely difficult to believe someone loves you - when they consistently choose to prioritize external optics at your expense. It is a massive love buster for sincere people....


Do you think they actually can really love you if they've chosen to prioritize external optics? Maybe the fact that they've prioritized image means they don't love you and maybe aren't capable of real love?


----------



## Zodiac (Dec 7, 2018)

lifeistooshort said:


> Do you think they actually can really love you if they've chosen to prioritize external optics? Maybe the fact that they've prioritized image means they don't love you and maybe aren't capable of real love?


Love is a skill set. He may have never been shown how to love. I think the term "Nice" gets used to death. If he's doing it for external validation, etc. Then he was never nice, nice is a doormat. If he's doing everything for external reasons then he's just selfish and ego driven. 

Yes , he loved you the best way he knew how. It's what my mother says about my selfish ungrateful ex, when I say did she ever even love me. She wouldn't help the relationship.

Should be a gender neutral article. I could swap out guy for gal and it would be the same article and just as valid.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Zodiac said:


> Love is a skill set. He may have never been shown how to love. I think the term "Nice" gets used to death. If he's doing it for external validation, etc. Then he was never nice, nice is a doormat. If he's doing everything for external reasons then he's just selfish and ego driven.
> 
> Yes , he loved you the best way he knew how. It's what my mother says about my selfish ungrateful ex, when I say did she ever even love me. She wouldn't help the relationship.
> 
> Should be a gender neutral article. I could swap out guy for gal and it would be the same article and just as valid.



Yes, I think I did mention that it could apply to women as well.

I guess I just think of men because my experience has been with men.

I suppose love means different things to different people.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

lifeistooshort said:


> Do you think they actually can really love you if they've chosen to prioritize external optics? Maybe the fact that they've prioritized image means they don't love you and maybe aren't capable of real love?


The point that struck me in that article is they don't love themselves. Which is probably true as they instead feed off of other's perceptions to fill that void that is there that they don't understand why its there in the first place. Secret self loathing, or a denial of it even. Impossible to really love another if you are like that.


----------



## Zodiac (Dec 7, 2018)

lifeistooshort said:


> Yes, I think I did mention that it could apply to women as well.
> 
> I guess I just think of men because my experience has been with men.
> 
> I suppose love means different things to different people.


Did you say what needed to be said in your relationship? The problem I had with the article is that it's written as the female partner did everything they could, open honest communication, etc. If you did that then he's probably more a cluster B then a Nice guy (especially if he threw you under the bus). 40 years ago when we had gender roles it was easier to find a partner and it was easier to see what happens and why. Women still are emotionally driven, so when you get men doing half and half its easier to take it personally. When men were emotionless and detached it was easier to rationalize your feelings as he didn't know better. The article shows that he knows how to act in society and not in a relationship. That's because we don't have men teaching men the role. 

Like your dad said a STRONG PERSON, says what must be said. 

I also think that when people were marrying younger, etc. They accepted their partners to teach them, aka the opposite gender role then what they were taught.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Zodiac said:


> Did you say what needed to be said in your relationship? The problem I had with the article is that it's written as the female partner did everything they could, open honest communication, etc. If you did that then he's probably more a cluster B then a Nice guy (especially if he threw you under the bus). 40 years ago when we had gender roles it was easier to find a partner and it was easier to see what happens and why. Women still are emotionally driven, so when you get men doing half and half its easier to take it personally. When men were emotionless and detached it was easier to rationalize your feelings as he didn't know better. The article shows that he knows how to act in society and not in a relationship. That's because we don't have men teaching men the role.
> 
> Like your dad said a STRONG PERSON, says what must be said.
> 
> I also think that when people were marrying younger, etc. They accepted their partners to teach them, aka the opposite gender role then what they were taught.


I tried really, really hard to say what needed to be said...even if I didn't always do a good job. This included dragging him to counseling where I was honest in ways that were frightening to me because he was an emotional bully when things became uncomfortable.

I can tell you that he knew what my grievances were.....I felt like he deserved the chance to address them. Not only did he not bother with any of them because it was more important that he not be uncomfortable, he was so terrified of conflict and not appearing to be a nice guy that he never shared any of his grievances with me. I never got the courtesy of being able to address them until he blew up and threatened me with a divorce. Which ironically he didn't actually want....it was an attempt to bully me into leaving him alone. It happened right after I was painfully honest with him about some things.....that was the answer I got to the things that needed to be said.

When I decided I wanted a divorce he went to pieces.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Perhaps - as they age - an get more insecure - their fixation on optics increases. 

That is purely guesswork. I do not know. 





lifeistooshort said:


> Do you think they actually can really love you if they've chosen to prioritize external optics? Maybe the fact that they've prioritized image means they don't love you and maybe aren't capable of real love?


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

I believe in being a nice guy, and I believe I am a strong guy

Being honest means being strong while being nice.

Nice means being kind.

I do not want anyone to feel bad, but it needs to be true, kind, and necessary.

If it meets all three, then honest is nice... I cannot control how it is received but it must meet all three to what it truly is, not what I want it to be.

No deceit.

Because I believe in no deceit, I am openly vulnerable... but I have no fear of that.


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

I guess I challenge the article because it has no middle path... one has to be one or the other.

I do not believe this is an absolute.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

My problem has always been being _too _real. Telling people what I viewed to be "the way it was", regardless of how it made them feel. Because it was the "truth", they could just deal with it - or not. While this _can _be a good thing in limited circumstances, I've recognized that it just makes me a douche bag.

I'm trying to learn to find the balance. Tempering the truth, with tact. Bluntness, with consideration.


----------



## TBT (Dec 20, 2011)

It would be nice to know how old the person is that wrote the piece. Years ago,when I was young,the person she described in the first part as a nice guy was what we would call a 'pushover'.I think that most parents at that time would be hard pressed to tell their daughter to marry someone like that. In my opinion the writer doesn't give her audience the credit they deserve as discerning individuals. To me it reads as she is almost 'dumbing down' for the reader. Tell me something new,not old.


----------



## Zodiac (Dec 7, 2018)

lifeistooshort said:


> I tried really, really hard to say what needed to be said...even if I didn't always do a good job. This included dragging him to counseling where I was honest in ways that were frightening to me because he was an emotional bully when things became uncomfortable.
> 
> I can tell you that he knew what my grievances were.....I felt like he deserved the chance to address them. Not only did he not bother with any of them because it was more important that he not be uncomfortable, he was so terrified of conflict and not appearing to be a nice guy that he never shared any of his grievances with me. I never got the courtesy of being able to address them until he blew up and threatened me with a divorce. Which ironically he didn't actually want....it was an attempt to bully me into leaving him alone. It happened right after I was painfully honest with him about some things.....that was the answer I got to the things that needed to be said.
> 
> When I decided I wanted a divorce he went to pieces.


I hear ya, I could sit mine down tell her that people at my work were talking about how I let her travel alone, I saved her from an ex (heroine junkie) and her family kicking her out. Tried again for the 5th time over 13 years, they say you try with cluster B people 5 times on average (psychopath free book), I'm also a co dependent. (sigh), moved her half way across the country. Helped her get into management and all I got was "it was easier when we were poor" After I talked to her about traveling alone and how "we" can travel after she never got her bearing, it never caught on. She ignored me, etc. I was her doormat and she isolated me. She wouldn't go out with me and my friends. When we talked about her behavior I got the " This is why we don't talk, you make me want to cut myself" This is after she moved out with no warning and I called her 2 months later, had a great month and she asked me to move in with her, sigh. It feel apart. the only way I could get her to pay attention was by other women. I never cheated but I left messages on fb. It was so toxic. My family wanted nothing to do with her. I was a nice guy/caretaker. I told her i needed help with the next stages of life..... *blank stare* it was horrible. I've done alot of work on FOO and trying to emotionally grow as a 36 year old who never socialized in my 20's. She would say she knew she made me smoke pot, I denied it. I now accept it. I was such a doormat.


----------



## Síocháin (Mar 11, 2016)

@lifeistooshort almost 25 years of exactly this. Subtle at first and then more blatant as time went on. I still don't trust myself or others yet. A work in progress in IC but I am working on it. The nice guy behavior will do a number on you emotionally and I still feel it. I feel for other women who are married to "nice guys" too. It is just an awful way to live.


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

I have a few issues with the article. If we all agree that it’s gender neutral (what’s good for the goose is good for the gander), then I kind of hear the author’s theory, but I’m not sure I agree. 

I believe the theory is that a “Nice Person” only chooses to be nice for what they get out of it—attention and being liked—and if they are nice, they are not honest or authentic. Conversely, a strong person values honesty and trust above all else, including offending people, and thus they aren’t always nice. 

Hmmmm…is that really true? I mean I have personally known people who are “Nice People” who do it for their selfish reasons rather than out of the altruism of their hearts, but are all (or even the vast majority) of nice people really self-serving attention-seekers of low self-esteem? Are all (or even the vast majority) of strong people really lacking compassion and okay with offending at the drop of a hat? I just can’t honestly agree.  

Here are some quotes from the article that don’t sit just straight:

“But the nice <person> deceives <themself>.
Because what s/he really wants at the end of the day?
It’s not just to be nice.
It’s to be liked.”

Really? That’s the ONLY thing a nice person wants at the end of the day? I don’t buy that. Sure there are some people who put on that Nice image and their motivation may be “to be liked” but what about a mother doing something thoughtful for their child? She’s being nice. Is she doing it “to be liked”? How about a husband who got his wife flowers “just because”—he’s being nice. Is he really only doing it “to be liked”? How about the person who takes the time to write to an internet stranger on TAM? They only do it “to be liked”? I think this author is writing in hyperbole.

“See, the nice <person> might know all about like.
But let me tell you something:
S/he does not know about love.
S/he can’t.
Not when s/he’s too busy trying to be liked and loved by everyone.
Because underneath all that?
S/he’s still trying to love <themself>.”

First, is it just me or does this suddenly take on a little different tone if read feminine voice? See…the nice girl might know all about LIKE but let me tell you something: she doesn’t know about LOVE. She can’t. Not when she’s too busy trying to be liked and loved by everyone. Because underneath all that? She’s still trying to love herself.” I’m pretty sure if a male human wrote an article like that about women, that feminist social justice warriors would tar and feather him! Yet, say this about a man and it’s not only tolerated—it’s acceptable! 

Second, skipping the whole gender mismatch, look at the statement: if a person is nice, they CAN NOT know about love. Their only motivation is to be liked and loved by EVERYONE. A nice person does not love themself. I am gobsmacked at this. Really? I would think it’s more like this: a person can not know about love if they are not able to treat another human in a nice way. We don’t have to be liked or loved by everyone, but we might want to be liked by the one person with whom we are interacting at the moment…so why not be nice? And how could I possibly be loving to another being if I am not loving myself? 

“And so one day, the nice <person> will let you down because s/he will not stand up for you. One day, the nice <person> will fail you because s/he will not fight for you. And the irony is: One day, the nice <person> will hurt you because s/he won’t want to hurt someone else, too.”

OR…just as equally possible: “So one day the nice person will stand up for you when no one else will. One day the nice person will fight with you. And the most ironic thing of all: one day the nice person will get hurt because they will take hurt and not dish it back.”

Right? Because both are just possibilities. Both have not happened yet. Once again this strikes me as most hyperbole to get an emotional rise out of the reader—like a good soap opera in a way. 

“But the strong <person> knows: That if s/he wants to be honest, if s/he respects <their own> truth, and respects others, sometimes, s/he will have to risk someone else feeling bad, offended, angry, or upset.
Because real honesty, loyalty, integrity, and love?
They’re only tested — and proven — when the choices we have to make are no longer easy, or convenient to us.”

You know, when I read things, one of the first things I do is just ask myself “Is this really true as written? Don’t just believe it—is it true or not?” I challenge myself to question everything just to seek out validity and logic, not just emotion. And here’s the thing—a strong person who really respects another will risk telling them a truth that will make them mad, because the underlying belief is that they believe the person can handle it. I’ve done that many a time here on TAM—had to tell good people that they had slipped or were slipping down that slippery slope. But I have to ask myself “is the ONLY way that honesty, loyalty, integrity, and love are proven is when choice we have to make are no longer easy?” If you are telling the truth and it’s easy—is it not still the proven truth? If you are loyal and it is convenient to be loyal—is it not still loyalty? I mean, I get the idea of proving gold in the fire, and burning off the impurity in the fire…but what if someone was easy to love, and loving them was convenient? Now all of a sudden would it be untested, unproven love just because it wasn’t HARD? Do we really HAVE TO make someone feel bad, offend, anger, or hurt someone to test our integrity? That sounds kind of backward to me. 

“A strong <person> doesn’t just try to get your attention.
Instead — s/he gives you their attention.
S/he gives you their love.
Simply. Fully. Completely. Without pretense. Without confusion. Without playing games. Without you having to analyze or figure them out or work for it or jump through hoops or pass tests or prove yourself worthy.
S/he’ll give you their love not because s/he thinks you deserve it, but because s/he knows you are worth it.
You are worth all of their love. All of their attention, their trust, their respect.
Their best.
And it’s by consistently loving you first, over everyone else, that the strong <person> will win your heart.”

I found this part of the article REALLY interesting, and here’s why. The person who is being loved (whether from the nice person or the strong person) is just WORTHY of this simple, full, complete love. They didn’t have to earn it—they care just WORTH it … by existing I guess. And apparently by their mere existence, they are an amazing prize to win, because even the strong person has to consistently love them over everyone else IN ORDER to “win” their heart! Yet nowhere….NOWHERE is there any mention that by merely existing, the nice person and the strong person are also just as equally worthy of love. Nowhere is it ever suggested that this person might need to simply, fully, completely LOVE another who just exists…because they are worth it. Nowhere does it say that YOU need to consistently love the nice person or the strong person FIRST over everyone else in order to win THEIR heart.

In a way, this is very sad to me. 

In conclusion, I think this article had a really unique perspective on the person who plays that role of “Nice Guy” or “Nice Gal” in order to cover for low self-esteem or cover a personality disorder, but in my opinion it loses a lot of credibility by using too much aggrandizement attempting to invoke an emotional response from the reader. It also is not really written in a very gender respectful way, and that means more respect flies out the window. I sincerely do not think that all “Nice” people are bad, any more than I believe all “Strong” people are good, nor do I think that those two adjectives are the opposites of each other. So …. interesting read, and great topic to discuss, but I don’t agree.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> I came upon this by accident:
> 
> https://medium.com/the-composite/why-a-nice-guy-isnt-good-enough-for-love-c98dc45a8adc
> 
> ...


I can't answer your question. But the one thing that resonated with me a LOT was your mention of the word trust in this context. One thing I learned is that I have to trust myself not to fall apart when someone does not respond well to my vulnerability. And that is a good way to know who ones real people are.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> Do you think they actually can really love you if they've chosen to prioritize external optics? Maybe the fact that they've prioritized image means they don't love you and maybe aren't capable of real love?


This is partly correct.

They are not capable of love in the traditional sense...true.

But the reason they prioritize optics over sincerity is due to fear...fear of what others will think...fear that they might somehow be seen as less than the image they are doing their best to portray.

When fear overwhelms any decision making process, the outcome is poor. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> The point that struck me in that article is they don't love themselves. Which is probably true as they instead feed off of other's perceptions to fill that void that is there that they don't understand why its there in the first place. Secret self loathing, or a denial of it even. Impossible to really love another if you are like that.


This. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

MEM2020 said:


> Perhaps - as they age - an get more insecure - their fixation on optics increases.
> 
> 
> 
> That is purely guesswork. I do not know.


It can.

Aging, and what it does to us, is kryptonite for the insecure. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

farsidejunky said:


> When fear overwhelms any decision making process, the outcome is poor.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


QFT


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

Zodiac said:


> Should be a gender neutral article. I could swap out guy for gal and it would be the same article and just as valid.


She wrote one about nice girls too...

https://medium.com/@irismdza/you-re-not-a-nice-girl-you-re-a-liar-5401b30f55c4


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

MEM2020 said:


> Perhaps - as they age - an get more insecure - their fixation on optics increases.
> 
> That is purely guesswork. I do not know.





farsidejunky said:


> It can.
> 
> Aging, and what it does to us, is kryptonite for the insecure.


Looking around me, I see those in the first half of life much more focused on other's perception of them than the later half.

We all want to make a difference, especially in our relationships... easy to find fault from a single perspective.

My ex never saw me as others did even though I behaved little different (she was shown more effort than was ever acknowledged) because it was the right thing to do, nice or not.

She never trusted my intent, therefore being nice with honesty and integrity looking out for her best interest alone never stood a chance.

Without trust, everything acted on in truth is seen differently.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Life, I find myself in that awkward place of being happy and sad for you. Sad that your marriage ended. Happy that you now get to, should you choose, look for something that suits you far better.

I read more of this author's work. Respectfully, I feel like she uses her writing as art style, and there is a lot of 'color', or hyperbole in there. In several cases it seems she is lamenting the men, or man, she has had, and through the lens of creativity has written several pieces on the men, or man she wishes she could have.

My point is, I enjoyed her writing. I have a deep appreciation for when when imagery, music, or prose can elicit and stir deep feelings within us, or make us think; as she certainly seems to have in relating your marriage to the concept of the 'Nice Guy'.

My 2 cents is that she has an elegant way of saying what she has to say. But I don't think all of what she has to say, accurately addresses the pathology of the "Nice Guy". I guess I'd sum it up in the following way, there are lots of Aholes that are Nice Guys. Not all Nice Guys are Aholes. They are misguided. They attempt to forge relationships out of a completely different, and inaccurate rule book than most other men. It doesn't serve them, it doesn't serve their partners.

On the up-side, they can change. They just need to learn how. Believe me, I know.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> I came upon this by accident:
> 
> https://medium.com/the-composite/why-a-nice-guy-isnt-good-enough-for-love-c98dc45a8adc
> 
> ...


If someone lacks that inherent self-respect, anyone in an equal relationship with them is devalued in their eyes. They will lose respect for anyone who respects them.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> *Do you think they actually can really love you if they've chosen to prioritize external optics? Maybe the fact that they've prioritized image means they don't love you and maybe aren't capable of real love?*


*I honestly believe that they are not only capable of real love, and can love their significant other, but by the very same token, they also relish being loved by others.

IMHO, it's when they start assigning a higher prioritization to the love of others, much rather than their spouse when their problems start happening!*


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

So to me, a nice guy was one that did things with no ulterior motive, simply that it was the decent thing to do without looking for a reward.

Here I have learned that there is a use for this phrase that one has ulterior motives, that a person may do things that leave them feeling owed for their actions and react when they do not get what they feel they deserve.

Hence my confusion with the article, I have always referred to this as "Ego"... urban psychology rebadges and repackages so many basic things, it is hard to keep up.

I like the way I see the phrase better...


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

Emerging Buddhist said:


> So to me, a nice guy was one that did things with no ulterior motive, simply that it was the decent thing to do without looking for a reward.
> 
> Here I have learned that there is a use for this phrase that one has ulterior motives, that a person may do things that leave them feeling owed for their actions and react when they do not get what they feel they deserve.
> 
> ...


Your definition is the type of man that mom and dad want their little girl to marry. The type of man portrayed in the article is the type of man that pretends to be that guy to get the girl. Once he gets the girl, he has others to impress and she drops to the bottom of the list.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

Emerging Buddhist said:


> So to me, a nice guy was one that did things with no ulterior motive, simply that it was the decent thing to do without looking for a reward.
> 
> Here I have learned that there is a use for this phrase that one has ulterior motives, that a person may do things that leave them feeling owed for their actions and react when they do not get what they feel they deserve.
> 
> ...


Yes, I think the nice guy bashing is excessive.

I think there is a more ignorant and fearful side to dismissal of the nice guy too. 

If you are an unpleasant person, you will obey societal norms and play nicely out of cowardice. Those people who think all nice guys are cowards are like this typically.

There is also, I suspect, that women are under far greater pressure to not have a dark side than men have and this expectation is unreasonable. It means they feel they also have to be the deep and kind one, if the man takes that role, he is making them the baddie.

There are also men who are keen with being good as a goal in itself and this is a trap. And, many women and men who sensitive/empathetic, but only to their own feelings. Which actually makes then asshats.


----------



## Zodiac (Dec 7, 2018)

Emerging Buddhist said:


> She wrote one about nice girls too...
> 
> https://medium.com/@irismdza/you-re-not-a-nice-girl-you-re-a-liar-5401b30f55c4


This one "the nice girl" one. Is written like a KISA/Nice Guy/Codependent/care taker which is the personality type most associate as a "nice person". This one had a healing tone to it.

The "nice guy" one is written with a manipulation/deceiving tone. This one had the Victim/Survivor tone. 

Same title, completely different tone. I understand why they are different. We all heal differently. I've thought to write a very sad but realistic Rom Com about my 13 years. 

The other posts from other people has made all the other points I would make. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Affaircare said:


> I have a few issues with the article. If we all agree that it’s gender neutral (what’s good for the goose is good for the gander), then I kind of hear the author’s theory, but I’m not sure I agree.
> 
> I believe the theory is that a “Nice Person” only chooses to be nice for what they get out of it—attention and being liked—and if they are nice, they are not honest or authentic. Conversely, a strong person values honesty and trust above all else, including offending people, and thus they aren’t always nice.
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to put words to a vague feeling I had as well.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Appreciate the discussion here. It would seem that I was dealing with a specific type of so called nice guy and one that the article happened to nail.

I can see how it's narrow in its focus.


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

Wow, thank you for posting this, it really hits close to home for me, both of the links actually. 

A LOT, but not all, of the nice guy article relates to my current SO. 
A LOT, but not all, of the nice girl article relates to ME. 

I feel like many people get Nice Guy and Good Man confused. To me, a "good man" is equivalent to the Strong Man referred to by this author. I need a strong man in my life, and I know I wont be able to find him and let him in until I let go of my Nice Guy. Ugh, here is where my Nice Girl kicks in.


----------



## Ursula (Dec 2, 2016)

Blondilocks said:


> Your definition is the type of man that mom and dad want their little girl to marry. The type of man portrayed in the article is the type of man that pretends to be that guy to get the girl. *Once he gets the girl, he has others to impress and she drops to the bottom of the list.*


That would be my XH. He loved the fact that he had a wife on his arm, but past that point, had no interest in the marriage itself or what made his spouse tick.


----------

