# Are nice guys more attractive?



## Blonde

_"They [women] get older, ovaries start drying up, and nice guys like you look attractive again."_ -House (Knight Fall, 6.18)

While watching House on Netflix, the above made me think of TAM and PUA/MMSL practices often promoted around here.

I do want a nice guy (and my ovaries are dried up). The fruit of those ovaries lives under my roof and I want them to be emotionally safe. My guy should be nice.

What do you think? Do you think there is truth to House's statement?

Maybe younger women really prefer nice guys too (if they are emotionally healthy, that is)? Neely Steinberg: 'Women Don't Like Nice Guys' Is a Crock


----------



## committed4ever

Don't know if I should comment since Im probably outside of the age group. I like a little edge. But don't be mean, unkind and inconsiderate. 

Thats probably why I would do anything [mostly] for my H. He has the perfect combination of edginess, affection, and empathy. But he is definitely in charge.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Depends on how "nice" is defined. Many guys think being nice, is doting and being very accommodating and servile - even passive. That version of nice is typically unattractive. I'm not a woman, but it appears that women are most interested in the assertive, confident, edgy guy... that has a modicum of consideration of others. A "bad boy" who isn't mean and entirely selfish - the one they know won't treat them like crap, but also won't be walked on or controlled. 

I also think men and women often have different ideas of what it means to be nice.

Men also have to understand that there is a sort of switch that women pull... in the early going, they're drawn to more edge/distance/mystery, but once he has her - its important to show a soft side, even vulnerability, and occasional thoughtfulness (but not dote). Its a natural progression for women imo, but not so much for men. We're more static.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Depends on how "nice" is defined. Many guys think being nice, is doting and being very accommodating and servile - even passive. That version of nice is typically unattractive. I'm not a woman, but it appears that women are most interested in the assertive, confident, edgy guy... that has a modicum of consideration of others. A "bad boy" who isn't mean and entirely selfish - the one they know won't treat them like crap, but also won't be walked on or controlled.
> 
> I also think men and women often have different ideas of what it means to be nice.


I been through some "hot girls" who ended up being mean b1tches who hate just about anyone they are in contact with.

After going through a personal hell like that a "nice" woman who is also physically attractive literally made my d1ck rock hard.

When all the attention grabbing and hot antics of the "hot girls" does exactly the opposite.


----------



## Jellybeans

Sh*theads certainly don't appear attractive to me.


----------



## jld

I think nice is really important. I think secure is even better.

I want to feel safe with a man. I want to know I can count on him. I have a strong character, and I needed someone with at least as strong a character as my own. I couldn't respect a man who would fall apart because of something I would say to him. I needed a man of steel. 

I probably would have ended up with a really smart guy, no matter what, but I did not expect to get such a truly good man, too. So free from prejudice, so just and fair. And it is just innate. Such a fine character.

I find my husband physically attractive, and I enjoy physical intimacy with him, but it is our emotional connection that sustains me. His love covers all my sins, to quote the Bible, and his absolute lack of fear towards me, in any way, gives me the freedom to express myself uninhibitedly to him.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Nice guys are attractive.
Jerks are ugly.
Doormats are ugly.

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## ariel_angel77

I've always been attracted to nice guys. I couldn't be with someone who was mean or a jerk.


----------



## manticore

Okey I will make a prediction here (and sorry if it sounds bitter resent, as is not the case) most women here will post that they prefer the nice guy but in real life more women prefer the bad guy (least momentarely choice him over the nice guy).

what we think we want and what we end doing is very different and many times a dissapointment for ourselves.

As examaple survivors of tragic events like massive fires or earthquakes, always say the same, they always thought they would be noble hereos who will help strangers saving kids and women over their own life but in real life when the instict to survive kicks, most people see just for themselves and their inmediate family.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> I been through some "hot girls" who ended up being mean b1tches who hate just about anyone they are in contact with.
> 
> After going through a personal hell like that a "nice" woman who is also physically attractive literally made my d1ck rock hard.
> 
> When all the attention grabbing and hot antics of the "hot girls" does exactly the opposite.


I have the same association as you do with "hot" women being kinda b*tchy, but I've come to believe its not very different from a sh*t test. If you coddle to it, she loses interest. If you're indifferent to it, laugh it off, don't take her too seriously... she gets mad but actually starts chasing you / more interested. My experience has been that most of the time, that b*tchy attitude gives way to a fairly submissive (I don't really have a better word here) regular, thoughtful, "nice" girl after awhile. Its like their walls are thicker, their demands are greater - but they don't actually want you to cater to meeting those demands. Its a test of your self-value/independence... something. Its hard to describe, but the closest I can describe it as is not taking sh*t from them or taking them too seriously. You only give them something (affection, whatever) when they're not being a b*tch. When they are being b*tchy, you mostly sort of laugh them off or ignore it and go on doing your own thing... or even call it out so long as you're not being defensive. Most guys end up kissing their @ss just because they're pretty, so I suspect the b*tch persona is actually a form of subconscious defense or way of evaluating men - eliminating the "weak" personalities. She truly wants someone on her level or higher in terms of self-value. In this regard, it takes acting like sort of a jerk yourself - indifferent to her b*tchy ploys - and this is one of the things that contributes to the perception that the jerks get all the hot girls. It doesn't mean you're necessarily a jerk... you're just assertive, know your value, and don't take sh*t. You don't sell-out for pretty.

Hopefully that makes sense... its kinda hard to explain my thoughts on that one.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

manticore said:


> Okey I will make a prediction here (and sorry if it sounds bitter resent, as is not the case) most women here will post that they prefer the nice guy but in real life more women prefer the bad guy (least momentarely choice him over the nice guy).
> 
> what we think we want and what we end doing is very different and many times a dissapointment for ourselves.


I really don't care what "most" women prefer in real life. I know my preference and I know why I prefer it.I also live my preference bc I'm married to a very nice man. 

Although I understand your point. Reminds me of the countless threads where tons of men talk about wanting women with athletic bodies or bodies with curves and extra meat...yet in real life they're drooling over the ultra skinny ladies and size 0 models in lingerie mags.


----------



## DoF

Human nature is to like/want things that we can't have.

"not so nice guy" fits above nicely and many women fall for the trap quite easily.

As women age and experience the CONS of being with "not so nice guy", reality kicks in and in time they figure out how stupid they really were.

It blows my mind that women choose to get involved with some of the worst creatures that walk this planet. But I'm not worried one bit, as THEY are the ones (and often their family/children) end up with the consequences of it all.

Same applies to married men. Why is it that woman decided to chase me the second there was a ring on my finger? Where were they when there wasn't one?

It's simple, I'm married and off limits, they want what can't be theirs and many choose to chase it.


----------



## jaharthur

ScarletBegonias said:


> Reminds me of the countless threads where tons of men talk about wanting women with athletic bodies or bodies with curves and extra meat...yet in real life they're drooling over the ultra skinny ladies and size 0 models in lingerie mags.


Not in our house. One of my most common statements on viewing models and actresses is "I would love to buy her a cheeseburger, fries and a milkshake."

I also realize that's unfair to many of those ultra-skinnies, who may suffer from anorexia in part because of exactly what you describe.

To go back on topic, I think "nice guys" are more attractive when the goal is a LTR. "Nice" is more likely to be irrelevant when the goal is casual sex.


----------



## manticore

ScarletBegonias said:


> I really don't care what "most" women prefer in real life. I know my preference and I know why I prefer it.I also live my preference bc I'm married to a very nice man.


For what I remember in your case you alredy had your share of bad guys (maybe I am confusing cases I hope not), so I believe your statament that you prefer "NOW" nice guys, but then again you choosed first the bad guys


----------



## jld

I agree, DA8. I think a lot of women would feel more secure with a guy who was not afraid of them. And dh thinks that, at heart, most women are submissive. But to submit, they have to be with a man stronger than themselves. The man has to earn it, primarily by not being afraid of her, but by genuinely caring about her, too.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

On changing wants... imo your conscious mind introduces new/changed wants, but the things your primitive brain wants stay the same. They're often in competition with one another, and the primal brain usually wins. Thus explaining why so many women will date a nice, good looking guy... and break up with him because they don't feel that sexual draw to him. Something is missing from his persona... that edge or aloofness, the hard to define "it" factor that primal brain is really looking for, which is imo... about perception of the guy's self-worth.

If you follow me for a second, when we think really highly of ourselves, we tend to be more confident... even b*tchy/jerky than those who think less of themselves. Those who think less of themselves tend to be more timid, nicer and put up with a lot more crap. That hard to define "it" factor, is strongly related to this imo.


----------



## ariel_angel77

ScarletBegonias said:


> I really don't care what "most" women prefer in real life. I know my preference and I know why I prefer it.I also live my preference bc I'm married to a very nice man.
> 
> Although I understand your point. Reminds me of the countless threads where tons of men talk about wanting women with athletic bodies or bodies with curves and extra meat...yet in real life they're drooling over the ultra skinny ladies and size 0 models in lingerie mags.


Agreed. My H always told me he loved my curves & stomach and that's why he was into me.

When looking at the pornographic pictures/videos he had looked at, it was all women with a completely flat stomach and no curves.

It was just a line he used on me.


----------



## Jetranger

ScarletBegonias said:


> Nice guys are attractive.
> Jerks are ugly.
> Doormats are ugly.


:iagree:

This is the crucial distinction. Nice does not equal doormat.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> The man has to earn it, primarily by not being afraid of her, but by genuinely caring about her, too.


Where I think guys screw this up, is thinking that "caring" means doing for her, or serving her. Making her wants the priority over his. Such a guy isn't actually a secure one. He's trading his wants (and this isn't a great word choice here either lol)... his "self", for her validation.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

manticore said:


> For what I remember in your case you alredy had your share of bad guys (maybe I am confusing cases I hope not), so I believe your statament that you prefer "NOW" nice guys, but then again you choosed first the bad guys


Were they bad guys really? or were they just bad to me bc I sucked as a person toward them? Was my perception of their badness distorted bc I was in fully caught up in my bpd? 

Who knows for certain. 

I do know I had my fair share of nice men and always preferred them over the ones I perceived as jerks or bad guys.

ETA It is important to note,I never chose a man based on his niceness or jerk status. I picked the ones who complimented me the most and boosted my self esteem the most. I had preferences but my own poor self esteem dictated my choices mostly.

ALSO, a lot of women choose bad guys bc they don't think they deserve the nice ones.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Where I think guys screw this up, is thinking that "caring" means doing for her, or serving her. Making her wants the priority over his. Such a guy isn't actually a secure one. He's trading his wants (and this isn't a great word choice here either lol)... his "self", for her validation.


I think caring for her means doing what is in her best interests, not giving her what she wants. It may often not be what she wants, at least not in that particular moment, at all.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> Were they bad guys really? or were they just bad to me bc I sucked as a person toward them? Was my perception of their badness distorted bc I was in fully caught up in my bpd?
> 
> Who knows for certain.
> 
> I do know I had my fair share of nice men and always preferred them over the ones I perceived as jerks or bad guys.
> 
> ETA It is important to note,I never chose a man based on his niceness or jerk status. I picked the ones who complimented me the most and boosted my self esteem the most. I had preferences but my own poor self esteem dictated my choices mostly.


This is so self-aware it's awesome.


----------



## DoF

Lila said:


> Now at 40, 50% of attraction is "Nice" and the other 50% is *wealth, power, and drive*. Again makes sense since my responsibilities revolve around my child.


Sounds like you still have a WHOLE lot of growing up to do (if you ask me).

Good luck, you will need it


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I think sometimes the term "nice" is confused with "boring and weak". There can be "nice" guys who are strong and interesting. 

The one problem is that the strength of a "nice" guy may not be visible until you know him well. The "bad" guy may make his strength obvious, and possibly even exaggerate it. 

I know a "nice" guy at work. I'd known him for years before I heard the story of how he had saved his girlfriends life in a boating accident at great risk to his own life (dragged here away from some sea cliffs with huge waves rather than just getting away safely himself). 

Of course there are "nice" guys who are just doormats, and "bad" guys who really are just thugs.


----------



## DoF

Lila said:


> :rofl::lol: I've always said opinions are like [email protected]@holes, everyone's got one and they all stink.


If that makes you feel any better, sure.

I'm just trying to help you, no need to strike back.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DoF said:


> If that makes you feel any better, sure.
> 
> I'm just trying to help you, no need to strike back.


How was your comment constructed in a way that makes it obvious you're trying to help rather than be critical or condescending? I understand her strike back after reading your reply to her so it's reasonable to think others saw it in a way that didn't convey a "let me help you" message too.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blonde said:


> Maybe younger women really prefer nice guys too (if they are emotionally healthy, that is)? Neely Steinberg: 'Women Don't Like Nice Guys' Is a Crock


Just watched the David Wygant vid cited by the article. The encounter with the Ukrainian girl in the vid looks virtually identical to how I talk to women on the street. Dude is textbook. I have to say Steinberg completely contradicts herself in that paragraph in saying "not manipulating them" and then citing Wygant as a better approach. If any of the pickup game is manipulation, than so too are the strategies Wygant employs. Every single thing he did is also suggested in your average PUA book. If you believe game to be manipulation, how is the game strategy, "leave her wanting more" not manipulation? The very purpose is to disarm her defenses (the knowledge that she won't have to get rid of you), and give her time to regroup and stew. The disengagement is manufactured - they fully intend to get back to her, and are merely setting up her attitude for an even more positive second engagement. Is that nice or devious?

To my thinking, you have to view all of this as manipulative, or none of it as not manipulative. Even the strategies that turn Steinberg off, serve the exact same purpose - to promote receptivity.


----------



## DoF

ScarletBegonias said:


> How was your comment constructed in a way that makes it obvious you're trying to help rather than be critical or condescending? I understand her strike back after reading your reply to her so it's reasonable to think others saw it in a way that didn't convey a "let me help you" message too.


I'm not disagreeing with you....and it was critical and condescending.

I'm an ahole at times, I know it, and perhaps that was one of those times.

Sorry if it came off as such though, I didn't mean it that way and I am rather direct/to the point and it can be rather hurtful at times.

What can I say.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DoF said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you....and it was critical and condescending.
> 
> I'm an ahole at times, I know it, and perhaps that was one of those times.
> 
> Sorry if it came off as such though, I didn't mean it that way and I am rather direct/to the point and it can be rather hurtful at times.
> 
> What can I say.


Happens to the best of us


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

DoF said:


> Sounds like you still have a WHOLE lot of growing up to do (if you ask me).
> 
> Good luck, you will need it


Meh. "Wealth/power/drive" => special => status => respect.

I commend her honesty. I also think that what she says applies to a whole lot of women. Distilled to its basic parts - its the old notion that a man is what he does. Success, achievement, drive, ambition, are all highly attractive. I'm not sure why someone should be recommended to grow up for thinking so. I call those standards higher than wanting just some bum off the street, no matter how nice he is.


----------



## Wolf1974

Lila said:


> *Preferences change over time based on where we're at in our life journey. *
> 
> Back in my late teens and early 20's, I put a lot of emphasis on physical appearance and not so much on "nice". Not to say that I dated [email protected]@holes but I fell for that b.s. PUA crap easily. It made sense since my only responsibilities revolved around me. I was selfishly looking for fun and so were they, end of story.
> 
> Now at 40, 50% of attraction is "Nice" and the other 50% is wealth, power, and drive. Again makes sense since my responsibilities revolve around my child.
> 
> I'm sure that as I grow older, my preferences will change and "Nice" will make up the majority of attraction. I hope to share my Golden Years with a partner.


I agree that people change over time in what they want. I can't speak for women but from what I have seen those that choose the bad boys are young and after getting ****ed over enough seem to find a more stable man.

Many Men do similar, in my own experience when I was in my 20's all I cared about was how hot the girl was. Didn't matter if she worked at mcdonalds and had no education or could barely form sentences.......did she look good on my arm and naked in bed?

Now with 20 years maturity on that I still want someone attractive but a woman with substance is far more important. Class, caring compassion, intelligence, integrity now matter much more


----------



## ericthesane

'Most women wants a bad boy that is nice only with them....

Most men wants a good girl that is bad only with them...'


_More postings from the Department of Sweeping Generalizations to follow.
_


----------



## jld

ericthesane said:


> 'Most women wants a bad boy that is nice only with them....
> 
> Most men wants a good girl that is bad only with them...'
> 
> 
> _More postings from the Department of Sweeping Generalizations to follow.
> _


----------



## naiveonedave

JMO....
1) The CWI forum is littered with WW and the bad boy
2) I think it is inate in women to want the provider/protector which is typically more bad boy than nice boy
3) US society is really teaching boys to be women and not men, so the bar to be a bad boy isn't very high and there are few of them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lila said:


> Dvls, you seem knowledgeable with the bio/evo stuff I've been reading about lately. Are there women who just aren't susceptible to the above PUA/Manipulation/Push-Pull stuff I read?


Oh you're asking to start an argument! lol 

My answer is no, but with a caveat. Game is a lot of different things, and not everything works for everyone everywhere. Nor will any guy doing so be able to seduce any woman. Its more like some ideas on how women behave/think that guide your actions, and having a toolbox to draw from, that tend to improve the odds of a connection and building attraction. I've never met a woman who isn't susceptible to something of game, because a lot of game is just good social skills.

There are women who don't respond to certain specific things - like some don't respond well to teasing. For that one, I suspect its related to insecurity. The insecure women take it as if its a real thing rather than a playful thing (they may get defensive, or pretend to blow it off as a playful thing even though it hits home for them). The secure ones know its not mean spirited, laugh and tease back... wrestle a bit, hilarity ensues, connection made. Insecure just folds, gets defensive, or blows it off and thinks you're an a-hole or joker, or even an insecure guy trying to down others to lift himself. When I do it, I'm seeking the witty funny combat - I want her to pick back at me and share some laughs. I think it invokes our inner children on the playground, but less secure women or more timid types just think its ass-hattery - as do women who take themselves and everything really seriously. So there is a lot of tailoring based on ongoing observations of the person.

Location/context/familiarity also matter. So while certain patterns exist, and some guidelines are near-universal, a lot of the specific "tactics" must be tailored. The most important things are still just the most basic learning how to start and carry conversations, being comfortably bold and having a wide interest/experience/knowledge base from which to draw connections, and not taking anything too seriously (be funny, but intelligent - not a clown) while still making real points.

And nothing works if you don't have the comfort level. You'll just come off artificial or "off" and creepy. This is the PUA most have experience with... which is to say, "not a PUA". On the other hand, if you come off really slick and you're knocking everything out, ... "too perfect" if you will, then you sometimes get told "omg you're such a player!" -but they're still into you.


----------



## jld

Dave, that is how you see #2? That providers are bad boys?


----------



## norajane

I am attracted to nice, if that means kind, thoughtful, and considerate. 

I also need an intellectual connection and humor connection. That's where that 'edgy' thing that many speak of comes into play for me.

I can't deal with someone who isn't nice to me and to others - family, friends, the waiter, the taxi driver, strangers we meet on vacation, etc. I can't deal with a guy who has rage/anger issues and is always looking for a fight. I can't deal with someone who is nit-picky or constantly critical. I can't deal with a guy who tries to put me down or ignores me or treats me like crap. I can't deal with a guy who always has one eye on other women. I can't respect those guys, and sure don't want them in my life to make me miserable.


----------



## RandomDude

I had always noticed a pattern with the women I've seen:

18-25 : Bad boys *swoon* 
Seems like around this age, well, as the saying goes: "Girls just wanna have fun" 

25-35 : Rich guys *swoon* 
At this age they start thinking of stability and security, rich and established becomes priority.

35+ : Nice guys *swoon*
And finally, nice guys are finally appreciated, even though they finish last hehe


----------



## Created2Write

Blonde said:


> _"They [women] get older, ovaries start drying up, and nice guys like you look attractive again."_ -House (Knight Fall, 6.18)
> 
> While watching House on Netflix, the above made me think of TAM and PUA/MMSL practices often promoted around here.
> 
> I do want a nice guy (and my ovaries are dried up). The fruit of those ovaries lives under my roof and I want them to be emotionally safe. My guy should be nice.
> 
> What do you think? Do you think there is truth to House's statement?
> 
> Maybe younger women really prefer nice guys too (if they are emotionally healthy, that is)? Neely Steinberg: 'Women Don't Like Nice Guys' Is a Crock


My ovaries certainly aren't dried up, but I want a nice guy. Always have. And I didn't just say it, I actually went out an married a nice guy. I knew what I wanted and went after it. Jerks are massively unattractive. Doormats are massively unattractive. Nice guys are the best.


----------



## Created2Write

"Nice" to me simply means a man who treats his woman well. He gives affection, he supports her, he continues to court her even after marriage, he doesn't manipulate or lie to get his way, he's confident but caring, not demanding or egotistical, sometimes spoils her, pursues her sexually but isn't selfish, opens doors for her, is mature enough to listen to how she feels and not just brush off her emotions. 

"Edge" is overrated imo. I've known too many guys who, under the pretense of being edgy, were total @ssholes.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
Slightly off topic, but I've always thought the Pickup Artist concept of trying to look better than you are would fail when your date / GF discovers that you are less that you implied. 

Isn't it much more fun when they discover that you are more than they thought rather than less?

Maybe that is why I'm not thrilled with "bad boys", too often they are much less than they appear to be at first.


----------



## Faeleaf

Nice or go home. 

I'm not the least bit attracted to "edgy" or "bad boys." Yawn. Take your attitude somewhere else, lol. 

Bring some self-esteem, intelligence, conversational skills, and determination to do the right thing. We can rule the world together.

I also care extremely little for "good looks." When I was younger, I made all the usual mistakes, falling for the outside paint job while ignoring how the interior turmoil was going to mess up my life. Never again. When I look at my partner now, all I see is the incredible person he is, the strength of his character, the closeness of our bond, and the heights of bliss he takes me to (...blush).


----------



## HappyGilmore

Must say that I've never been into "bad boys," primarily because I am not into fixer-uppers. Come to me as a whole person, or go away and work on yourself for awhile. 

Bad boys are so tedious. I do not want their baggage, anger issues, substance abuse problems, Oedipal conflicts, sexually transmitted diseases, debt, poor credit rating, and other evidence of emotional and personal instability. Oh, believe me...before I was married, I went on a few dates arranged by friends with various and sundry bad boys. It was usually one date a piece, because I would not waste my time with them. Once I saw the "red flags," I paid my tab and told them I was going home--thank you for your time. And this was when I was in my early to mid twenties. So much for the "ovaries-dried-up" theory. 

I have always wanted a man that was kind to me and to others. Nothing was more a turn off than a man that was rude to the waiter, cashier, etc. I also like a man with confidence. A truly confident man has no need to be uncouth, rude, mean, unkind, etc. A confident man can also be humble. 

I suppose I do prefer the "nice" man--always have. That is why I married my husband. He is confident _and_ considerate of others. We can carry on a conversation, without him dominating it. I can trust him not to cheat, lie, or do things that would hurt me or others.


----------



## jld

HappyGilmore said:


> A truly confident man has no need to be uncouth, rude, mean, unkind, etc. A confident man can also be humble.


:iagree: And really, this applies to women, too.


----------



## Deejo

Someone remind me again ... what does a nice guy look like and what does he do?

Because I've listened to this refrain time and time again.

It's like the 3 blind men and the elephant.

If 'nice' equates to attentive ... but not too attentive. Loving ... but not overdoing it. Sensitive ... but jeez don't get all weepy at a Lifetime movie. Good communicator ... but sometimes I really wish you'd more of the silent type. Fit and good looking ... but ya'know, not like Hollywood or beach body good looking, blah! Active and independent ... at least until I make demands on his time 

... then yeah that guy sounds great. One lucky bastard


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Well using my DH as an example...MY personal idea of the ideal nice guy is him. 
-thoughtful
-very attentive
-very loving
-puts me above all others but not necessarily above himself
-appreciates me
-doesn't get tired of being around me
-always asks what he can do to help if I'm sick or in distress 
-does a fair share of household jobs
-baby talks our dogs just as much as I do....
-he always wants to please me (hugely important Bc it makes me want to please him even more)
-honest no matter what
-includes me in major decisions 
-respects my intelligence
-sends sweet texts to check on me throughout the day
-tells me how happy I make him all the time
-wants to snuggle so much that he always touching me while we sleep and he can't sleep unless I'm in bed w him,I love that
-makes me feel important and needed and special. Like no one else can do for him what I do.

He's not ripped and he's not striking like a celebrity dude. He's lean and looks like a really normal sweet guy. Curls and sexy blue eyes and the most open smile ever 
He's not perfect but he tries so hard and really wants us to be happy together. He'll do most anything to make us work and makes me feel safe and secure. Loved and sexy. I really feel like he thinks I'm the most beautiful woman he has ever known. I know that even when I feel ugly inside and outside,he still thinks I'm amazing. Even when I screw up,he doesn't let me beat myself up too badly

Lol of course there is a LOT more but those are just for starters.just describing him makes me want to ravage him 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Created2write said*: "Nice" to me simply means a man who treats his woman well. He gives affection, he supports her, he continues to court her even after marriage, he doesn't manipulate or lie to get his way, he's confident but caring, not demanding or egotistical, sometimes spoils her, pursues her sexually but isn't selfish, opens doors for her, is mature enough to listen to how she feels and not just brush off her emotions.
> 
> "Edge" is overrated imo. I've known too many guys who, under the pretense of being edgy, were total @ssholes.










...this sums it up for me too. 

I literally got on my knees and prayed for a GOOD Guy to come into my life when I was a teen.. I suppose that may sound desperate ...but I'd explain it another way..... I knew exactly what I wanted, didn't think it'd be easy to find by any means.. and I'm a realist.. if anything, more on the pessimistic side.....Just seemed the majority wanted to flirt and feel up my dress ... then move on to another..

I wanted to find my soul mate.. so we could make a life together.. count on one another...someone who was honest & true, not someone who loved many women & was always on the prowl... but falls hard for one woman.. 

Physically speaking.. Bad Boys can turn on the Charm... they can grip you and give you some fantasies.. but again.. I am a realist...their lifestyle always destroyed it for me...a little too much risk taking (I prefer security, feet on the ground).. too much mystery (I prefer sharing our hearts openly, deep conversations/ romance).. 

See in my mind.... I would want to change who they are.. to tame them & turn them into a doting Family man ... and I knew how FRUITLESS this would be.. a banging my head against the wall .... and in turn they'd find me a NAG, trying to control them.. 

Part of my psyche was heavily influenced by witnessing the aftermath my Mother lived through after attaching herself to BAD MEN....it put such a sour taste in my mouth ...it made me ever cautious about BOYS and to always have my future in mind.. 

It's not like I wanted someone like Mr Rogers..wearing his loafers , playing with puppets and singing "Won't you be my neighbor"...







. or the smiling Enzyte Man ....









A little deviousness is necessary ... though I don't know if that is even "Edge" as everyone describes it so differently...(from Lyris's last thread here).... I am more interested in Playfulness, having a sense of humor, enjoying each other -over needing this thing called "Edge" in a man. 

I married a Nice man...he treats even those he doesn't like well...he would not suck up to them.. but he doesn't play "Prick for Prick" ...he has gained others respect over the years being the authentic Guy he is.. 

I do evaluate people on how they treat others, and having a pleasant personality (what I would term "nice") does factor in - to whether I would want to get to know someone better . 

It surely plays in attraction for me.


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> See in my mind.... I would want to change who they are.. to tame them & turn them into a doting Family man ... and I knew how FRUITLESS this would be.. a banging my head against the wall .... and in turn they'd find me a NAG, trying to control them..


Ey?

Well all ex had to do was ring the...









Which led to this:









And then to this:









And finally to this:


----------



## heartsbeating

ScarletBegonias said:


> Lol of course there is a LOT more but those are just for starters.just describing him makes me want to ravage him


Aww... Love this 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating

I grew up around 'edgy' and never sought that for dating. When I'm around those personality types (or perceived), I can feel myself revert to a certain side of myself. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily. Does it even make sense?

My husband does stuff for me. He's caring and supportive. He treats folks with integrity and has a way of putting others at ease. He's considerate. People are quick to laugh with him and he's genuinely interested in others' experiences. He's not buff, he's on the lean side, hair is slightly long for corporate standards and has a tattoo that he put a lot of thought into. He's not too cool for school. He doesn't put up with crap and can be bold when needed.

The women at work swoon over his cooking. I take leftovers for lunch sometimes and the response to the aromas as I warm up the dish, well, it makes me blush a little. They want him to cook for them. Even some of the dudes have swooned over his food - they thought I'd cooked it. I had to burst their bubble and say it was all down to him.

In a nutshell - he's class all the way. And I find that sexy as hell. Haha cue Salt n Peppa. What a mighty good man.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

JLD - look at the standard image portrayed of the super rich male. 90% or more are 'bad guys'. Think the rich dude in the movie Wall Street. They can provide because they bend the rules or make the rules. Standard nice guys finish last.....

I think in history, this was always the case. Maybe less so now, even.

Also, you can think of this in a non-linear way. There is the edge on one axis and success on the other. The winners are high edge/high success (have it all and don't care about anyone else). The low success low edge are doormats. High edge low success would be thugs and druggies.


----------



## jld

Thanks, Dave. I think I see what you mean now. It is the mega providers that may be the bad boys. I was not seeing that before.

To me, providers are good guys. They are taking care of their families. But I can see from your example that providing, when it doesn't come from just sources, can indeed be, well, evil.

And it's good that you point out the danger of edge. That can indeed be risky, edge.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response.


----------



## heartsbeating

I've a feeling my interpretation of nice guy, edge, and then edgy is different to others and when I think too long on it, my head hurts. 

Therefore, the elephant's tail is like a curtain tassel.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I think I missed that part about edge being interchangeable with thug, ass hole,and jerk and fixer upper. I certainly don't feel that way at all.


----------



## Deejo

Do you believe that a man you perceive as a doormat, perceives himself as a doormat?

Or do you think it more likely he sees his willingness to capitulate as an act of love, sacrifice or duty? Isn't his willingness to put the needs of others before his own, nice?

Once again we are left with the conundrum of where thoughtful, kind, and considerate end, and spineless and unattractive begins.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> Do you believe that a man you perceive as a doormat, perceives himself as a doormat?
> 
> Or do you think it more likely he sees his willingness to capitulate as an act of love, sacrifice or duty? Isn't his willingness to put the needs of others before his own, nice?


He needs to recognize what the true needs of his family are, and fulfill those. And he needs to do it without the expectation of reward.

Truly loving someone is meeting their needs, not their wants.

And a mature man does not worry about what others think of him. He does the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. 

Others can catch up in their opinions later. He is busy leading the way.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I think a person knows when they're a doormat. When we don't do right by ourselves we feel it inside. It's undeniable. 
A doormat,to me,is someone who gives and gives but never expresses that it isn't fulfilling for them to not receive in return. 

To be a truly good and nice man I think the man has to know how to be good and kind to himself as well as being good and kind to others. 

Spineless and unattractive starts when giving of himself ceases to make him happy but he refuses to express his needs so they can be met. 

A good person knows they deserve to have their needs met bc they're always doing good things to meet the needs of others.So they'll speak up and say "hey.I have needs too" They're still nice..just healthy nice without being a jerk who only cares about their needs and without being spineless/unable to see they're worthy of having their needs met.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Are nice guys more attractive?*



committed4ever said:


> I think its GREAT that there's someone for everyone, especially for nice guys (not doormats, just no edge).
> 
> What I find kind of curious though is that there seem to be a lot of nice guys on TAM (again, not doormats, just no edge) that seem to have made themselves over after having been cheated on. They have "grown" some edge if you want to put it that way. Is there any man who will admit to having done that? If so, how did it work out for you? Not being sarcastic genuinely want to know.
> 
> No edge at all would be a dealbreaker for me.


Sure, I'll bite. I did it. I have alluded to as much in many posts.

I wanted to save my marriage. Was willing to do the emotional work of 2 people. Thought my gestures to work late, come home, cook (she didnt), play with kids and participate in bed - time, help take care of the house, made me a model man and husband. Yet she would still be distant and wholly disinterested. I would avoid conflict under the belief that it couldn't take us anywhere good. I'd ask for permission to spend time away from her and the kids, only made sense after all.
I never got angry. Ever.

I was accommodating at both work and home.

And very literally, it changed overnight. Was like the lid blew off a pressure cooker. All those things I listed above? I stopped doing all of them, save for still participating with the kids. Anger and confrontation became my new buddy in a bar fight. 

Everything for me changed. Suddenly people stopped asking me to take on, or trying to guilt me into helping them at work. And my wife, who had been indifferent towards me, was afraid me. Not curious, uncertain, or excited ... she was scared. I can remember her saying to me as I was walking out the door one night, "Where are you going?" I just looked at her and said "Out."
She replied with, "I have no idea who you are anymore."
I smiled, said "Good." and left.

And that is where my learning curve began. I wasn't 'trying' to be an edgy a$$ hole to have my wife think I'm attractive and cool. I was mad as hell and felt I was the only one working for the marriage, it was her turn to do the work and win me. Didn't work out that way.

I'm not a dark triad guy. I do not look back on my behavior at that time with any fondness.

But I learned a great deal.

Since divorce I've dated a lot. Will never say never, but I think it very unlikely that I will marry again. 

I established a set of boundaries and a personal code of conduct for myself and when interacting with others.

It has worked out very well for me. I am not fundamentally different in who I am. What is likely most different is how I choose to behave in or respond to particular circumstances or situations.


----------



## jld

Deejo, you think you have found a middle ground now? Enforcing your boundaries, but with love?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Are nice guys more attractive?*

I agree with your first paragraph. But it comes with an expiration date. Men DO have needs too. If he is with a partner that cannot or will not recognize and fulfill those ... yet he chooses to continue serving with no expectation of reciprocity, he's just become a doormat. 
Absolutely agree with not catering to the thoughts of others.



jld said:


> He needs to recognize what the true needs of his family are, and fulfill those. And he needs to do it without the expectation of reward.
> 
> Truly loving someone is meeting their needs, not their wants.
> 
> And a mature man does not worry about what others think of him. He does the right thing just because it is the right thing to do.
> 
> Others can catch up in their opinions later. He is busy leading the way.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> I agree with your first paragraph. But it comes with an expiration date. Men DO have needs too. If he is with a partner that cannot or will not recognize and fulfill those ... yet he chooses to continue serving with no expectation of reciprocity, he's just become a doormat.
> Absolutely agree with not catering to the thoughts of others.


Well, we do live in a country where people can divorce for any reason at any time. He can leave if he wants to.

My guess is that a man who enforces his reasonable, not selfish, boundaries, with the best interests of his family in mind, is either going to get a wife who starts to comply and be inspired to meet his needs, or one who's going to walk away. I think either is a win, for both.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> Deejo, you think you have found a middle ground now? Enforcing your boundaries, but with love?


I have. It's also why I remain single.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> I have. It's also why I remain single.


You know your limits.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> You know your limits.


Enforcing them is the important piece.

To me there is a difference between the guy you look at and say, "Awww ... he's such a nice guy." versus the guy a woman can look at and feel deep desire and admiration for.

If a woman is looking to settle down, have children, and wants stability ... often the man in the first example will suffice. But it won't last. Can't last.

Nice, does not equal attraction. Attraction has more moving parts than 'Nice'.

So, in alignment with House's statement as outlined by Blonde's initial post? I do believe it's true. A woman whose agenda is to start a stable family, and feels the tick of the biological clock is invariably going to dial back expectations, and look for a common denominator, and that is often the guy in my first example.

On the flip-side, I can tell you that dating divorcee's coming out marriages, married to guy #1 in my example above? They are looking for a little edge and a little strange. Won't say they want t a bad boy, but they are definitely not looking for 'Nice'.


----------



## jld

Turnera had a great piece recently on how women are looking for goodness in men. Men may look for beauty, she said, but women, or at least some of them, are looking for goodness. I thought that was an insightful comment.


----------



## firebelly1

I can't say I like "nice" guys because that does sound kind of wimpy to me, but I do like "thoughtful" guys; guys who are balanced emotionally, not quick to anger, good listeners. I do like the facade of a bad boy - tattoos, piercings, broad, muscular shoulders. But where I have found charisma and self-aggrandizement wildly attractive, I'm smart enough now to know that those people exhaust me and make me feel small. Not saying they aren't still attractive, just saying I know to stay clear.

I want a guy who is confident AND considerate. I want him to be a leader in the bedroom but leading should include me getting as much pleasure as possible out of the experience and being encouraged to lead myself.


----------



## naiveonedave

To answer the question, I have put on some edge recently. I was too doormatty at times. Willing to sacrifice my time to keep the peace. Things I have done: really force the kids to do more chores, create and enforce electronics policies for the family, just go do my thing every now and again (while not caring what the others in the family think, which is the important part). The key is moderation and don't push the edge part to be an a$$.


----------



## jaharthur

Deejo said:


> Do you believe that a man you perceive as a doormat, perceives himself as a doormat?
> 
> Or do you think it more likely he sees his willingness to capitulate as an act of love, sacrifice or duty? Isn't his willingness to put the needs of others before his own, nice?
> 
> Once again we are left with the conundrum of where thoughtful, kind, and considerate end, and spineless and unattractive begins.


Do you believe that what one woman perceives as a doormat is perceived by all women as a doormat?

The conundrum worsens.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Lila said:


> Back in my late teens and early 20's, I put a lot of emphasis on physical appearance and not so much on "nice". Not to say that I dated [email protected]@holes but I fell for that b.s. PUA crap easily. It made sense since my only responsibilities revolved around me. I was selfishly looking for fun and so were they, end of story.
> 
> Now at 40, 50% of attraction is "Nice" and the other 50% is wealth, power, and drive. Again makes sense since my responsibilities revolve around my child.


This post is exceptionally honest. I think this is the mentality of most woman as they mature. I wouldn't put an age to it nessasarily as my ex is almost 40 and she still acts like you (and most cheaters) did in your twenties. 

But eventually as women mature (and there are a few that never do) their priorities shift. They will start looking for stability which equates to niceness and financial stability in their men. "Physical appearance" and "bad boy" attitude become less important because they don't provide needed security later in life. 

In a nut shell, I think House's statement absolutely rings true in my personal experience.


----------



## NoWhere

There's a difference between a good nice guy and a passive-aggressive doormat.

That being said I'm afraid many women mistake a man who deep down doesn't care at all about their feelings as a confident man. They only appear confident because they don't care how you react to them. They only want sex and if you become offended they will just move on. 

Unfortunately many women are more attracted to these types of men who appear mysterious, edgy and extremely confident. When in reality, hidden from everyone, they are the complete opposite.

IMO this whole idea of the masculine confident guy who swoops in and crowns his princess and they live happy every after is something instilled in many women at a early age. Reality is all men have pro's and con's as do women.


----------



## Blonde

Deejo said:


> So, in alignment with House's statement as outlined by Blonde's initial post? I do believe it's true. A woman whose agenda is to start a stable family, and feels the tick of the biological clock is invariably going to dial back expectations, and look for a common denominator, and that is often the guy in my first example.
> 
> On the flip-side, I can tell you that dating divorcee's coming out marriages, married to guy #1 in my example above? They are looking for a little edge and a little strange. Won't say they want t a bad boy, but they are definitely not looking for 'Nice'.


That's the opposite of what I was thinking.

Isn't the MMSL theory that the ovulating women like the bad boy dominant men? 

The House comment was directed to Wilson who is very VERY nice and is dating his first wife who previously dumped him.

House proposes that now that her eggs have dried up they might be a better match.


----------



## NoWhere

Using House here in the discussion its interesting that House himself would in no way fit into the nice guy category. His character turns out to be a complete mess while Wilson is a good friend and pretty stable till the end. Which man would attract women more in this scenario and which one would they be better off with given the choice. 

And no Dr Chase is not a option.


----------



## Blonde

NoWhere said:


> And no Dr Chase is not a option.


:rofl: Awe Shucks!


----------



## Wolf1974

committed4ever said:


> I think its GREAT that there's someone for everyone, especially for nice guys (not doormats, just no edge).
> 
> What I find kind of curious though is that there seem to be a lot of nice guys on TAM (again, not doormats, just no edge) that seem to have made themselves over after having been cheated on. They have "grown" some edge if you want to put it that way. Is there any man who will admit to having done that? If so, how did it work out for you? Not being sarcastic genuinely want to know.
> 
> No edge at all would be a dealbreaker for me.


I don't know if I grew edge as you describe it. I did develop an I don't care attitude and I let it shine in regards to dating. In the beginning I think it was that I needed to protect myself from any more pain but I really didn't care and just had no problem expressing it. 

I walked out on bad first dates, if someone cancelled I would call up another girl and just make another date for that night, I would tell women what I really thought and was honest with them. The thought would be "well you wouldn't be good at dating " but it was the opposite....women threw themselves at me.

So not sure where this falls in on definition:

I called it I don't really care anymore
My dates and GF called it confidence
Maybe that's what edge is on TAM?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> Slightly off topic, but I've always thought the Pickup Artist concept of trying to look better than you are would fail when your date / GF discovers that you are less that you implied.
> 
> Isn't it much more fun when they discover that you are more than they thought rather than less?
> 
> Maybe that is why I'm not thrilled with "bad boys", too often they are much less than they appear to be at first.


Not sure I follow. What is discovered to be less or more? A confident outcome independent mindset, boldness, playfulness, wit and general social skills don't just disappear. Like any other habits you make, they become a part of you.

The typical problem isn't that there's not enough that's "special" about any given person. It's that they don't know how to show it, or are otherwise fearful to - nervousness, approach anxiety, not knowing how to start conversations, fear of saying the "wrong" thing such that you say nothing, etc etc. Look at the guy trying to learn in the Wygant video - zero social skills. He awkwardly seizes up, stands there and doesn't know how to engage women. There's more than likely plenty of things that make him an interesting person - as there is for virtually everyone - but he doesn't know how to show it... he's not comfortable navigating social situations with women. Developing those skills and comfort, doesn't turn him into some illusion of an interesting person. They allow him to show the interesting person he is.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I wonder why there aren't topics about "are nice girls more attractive?" and "doormat girl vs nice girl vs jerk girl"


----------



## GTdad

ScarletBegonias said:


> I wonder why there aren't topics about "are nice girls more attractive?" and "doormat girl vs nice girl vs jerk girl"


Because it's already well-established scientific fact that men love *****es?


----------



## naiveonedave

SB - I think that TAM in general has many more dissatisfied men than dissatisfied women. This leads to the conversation of what me need to do to get women more often than the other way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> He needs to recognize what the true needs of his family are, and fulfill those. And he needs to do it without the expectation of reward.


Now contrast that with doormat if you will, because I'm not sure I see the differentiation.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> I wonder why there aren't topics about "are nice girls more attractive?" and "doormat girl vs nice girl vs jerk girl"


I have started several versions of an attempt to intuit an answer to this... but none of them are satisfying.

Conclusion: I have no effing idea.

The best sounding thing I came up with was perhaps men are more concerned with generalizations that can be applied to actions. ie - women like X; perhaps derived from a sense that we are pursuing women as a whole; while women care less for generalizations, because they aren't pursuing men as a whole, they want the advances of a particular man - and the particular qualities that make him attractive can vary dramatically from man to man.

Or maybe its simply a byproduct of the notion, held by many men, that women are the choosers. The guys line up, and the women do the picking. Or the idea that men aren't really choosing, but just working their way down a list, in order of beauty, until they find the prettiest that will accept them, that they can get along well with. Or perhaps its driven by a sense of explicit scarcity or rejection driven insecurity? As a man, you're explicitly aware of the rejections to your pursuits. As a woman, you're only explicitly aware of the offers - rejections are really hidden - a lack of offers. So men, faced with a more tangible rejection, might be more interested in understanding why they were rejected.

Or, men tend to address their insecurity through knowledge more than feeling.

Just some straws to grasp at.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Now contrast that with doormat if you will, because I'm not sure I see the differentiation.


Let's use finances. His wife wants a new car right now, $25k. They have $5k available. A doormat, scared he won't get sex, agrees to take a loan for the 20k. A confident man says, 5k is what we have in the car fund if you want a car now. 25k is what we will have this time next year. Your choice, hon: 5k used car now, or some patience and 25k next July?

Who do you think the wife is going to respect more, and therefore spark her sexual desire?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Let's use finances. His wife wants a new car right now, $25k. They have $5k available. A doormat, scared he won't get sex, agrees to take a loan for the 20k. A confident man says, 5k is what we have in the car fund if you want a car now. 25k is what we will have this time next year. Your choice, hon: 5k used car now, or some patience and 25k next July?
> 
> Who do you think the wife is going to respect more, and therefore spark her sexual desire?


I would expect my wife to be mature and aware enough to come to her own decision without me having come up with her choices for her.


----------



## BostonBruins32

jld said:


> Let's use finances. His wife wants a new car right now, $25k. They have $5k available. A doormat, scared he won't get sex, agrees to take a loan for the 20k. A confident man says, 5k is what we have in the car fund if you want a car now. 25k is what we will have this time next year. Your choice, hon: 5k used car now, or some patience and 25k next July?
> 
> Who do you think the wife is going to respect more, and therefore spark her sexual desire?


Depends. My wife in this case would say cant we get the car now and pay it off by next year, in the same amount of time we would have ahd 25k next july? I'd push back, but I'd feel quite a wrath until next july.

Doing things just to get sex from your wife is SOOOO out of style


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> I would expect my wife to be mature and aware enough to come to her own decision without me having come up with her choices for her.


The point is that he says No, and sticks to it, when it's in the family's best interest.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Really the only guys IRL saying women want bad boys is guys who define themselves as nice guys but really are passive aggressive douches who hide things and lie to appear like a good guy (then are surprised when it blows up in their face), the genuine nice guys (nice doesn't mean doormat) never seem to have a problem from what I've seen.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> Let's use finances. His wife wants a new car right now, $25k. They have $5k available. A doormat, scared he won't get sex, agrees to take a loan for the 20k. A confident man says, 5k is what we have in the car fund if you want a car now. 25k is what we will have this time next year. Your choice, hon: 5k used car now, or some patience and 25k next July?
> 
> Who do you think the wife is going to respect more, and therefore spark her sexual desire?


I don't see the distinction. Surely taking out a loan doesn't make a man a doormat.

To my thinking, a doormat doesn't seek his equal share. All of himself is sacrificed for someone else. He drives the beat up, 90s Honda Accord with 200k+ miles, while she drives a 2013 Porsche Cayenne. Vehicles not randomly selected... this is an actual example of one of my co-workers that I consider a doormat. Brilliant, nice guy, doesn't have an assertive nor ambitious bone in his body... and can't say no or anything displeasing to anyone. He's the guy you know will always work late, will put off his vacation because of something someone else didn't get done... a totally self-sacrificing, upstanding, nice guy.

His rationalization about the cars? "Well, I don't really care about cars. It gets me from here to there. She has the kid and needs a good car." What a nice guy.

We'll be in a design meeting, going over requirements for a new project, and he'll propose a certain architecture... and someone else will propose something else... and you'll just see him fold. As if he's thinking "I don't want to upset anyone, so I'll just go with your idea." Even though he has the better design most of the time! As his manager, I literally can't give him the solid review his technical skills deserve, because unless someone else is there to advocate for him... I know that if he faces any opposition, the opposition will win and I likely get an inferior product from the team. The implementation of people with less technical knowledge and insight ends up going forward because he just won't fight for his. He's too concerned with being nice and accommodating. I've even had to step in and tell him he is NOT to work on this or that project... that others in the office got him to jump on, because of his staying late to do so. NO! Those projects are those team's responsibility. Wtf are you doing staying later than them, to work on their project!?

It drives me mad. He'll do anything for anyone, with no respect to himself or fairness. That's a doormat.


----------



## Deejo

jaharthur said:


> Do you believe that what one woman perceives as a doormat is perceived by all women as a doormat?
> 
> The conundrum worsens.


I no longer base it in any way, shape, or form on what the woman perceives. Best way for any man moving forward is to define what he perceives as being a doormat, and putting boundaries in place to prevent it, or having the balls to recognize it and deal with it if someone is trying to treat you like one.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> Someone remind me again ... what does a nice guy look like and what does he do?
> 
> Because I've listened to this refrain time and time again.
> 
> It's like the 3 blind men and the elephant.
> 
> If 'nice' equates to attentive ... but not too attentive. Loving ... but not overdoing it. Sensitive ... but jeez don't get all weepy at a Lifetime movie. Good communicator ... but sometimes I really wish you'd more of the silent type. Fit and good looking ... but ya'know, not like Hollywood or beach body good looking, blah! Active and independent ... at least until I make demands on his time
> 
> ... then yeah that guy sounds great. One lucky bastard


I think people have their own idea of what "nice" means based on their experiences with people throughout their lives. I already listed what nice was to me, but I'd like to respond to this post because it's struck a nerve with me. I, personally, get really annoyed at the sarcasm that's often tossed around on this forum with regards to "nice guys". It's pushed and pushed by many men here that nice isn't desirable long term, and I flat out disagree. The women here who don't want nice guys are touted as absolute truth for _every_ woman. It's maddening. It's also maddening that it's assumed that women who say they wan't a nice guy don't know what they mean by nice. 

See, there have been women in this thread say they don't want nice guys, and there have been women who say they do. Some women want edge, some don't. Some women see nice guys as wimpy, some as mature men. Some women see edge as a desirable quality, others as just a mask for being a jerk. 

It's going to be different for each woman, Deej.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> Do you believe that a man you perceive as a doormat, perceives himself as a doormat?
> 
> Or do you think it more likely he sees his willingness to capitulate as an act of love, sacrifice or duty? Isn't his willingness to put the needs of others before his own, nice?
> 
> Once again we are left with the conundrum of where thoughtful, kind, and considerate end, and spineless and unattractive begins.


People know the difference between thoughtful and spineless, Deej. I expect you do, too. But the idea that a nice guy could be more attractive than some mysterious, unpredictable guy with edge who just keeps 'em guessing is outright unfathomable for some here. But, for me, it is the absolute truth.


----------



## jld

DA8, a doormat does not say No, even when he should.

Your guy may not care about the car. But at work, it is his obligation to say No, and stick to it, when the opposition is putting pressure on. If he is not saying No when it is appropriate, he is being a doormat. 

And yes, he may need to give explanation for the No. But he still needs to say it and stick to it.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> Enforcing them is the important piece.
> 
> To me there is a difference between the guy you look at and say, "Awww ... he's such a nice guy." versus the guy a woman can look at and feel deep desire and admiration for.


Okay, I'm willing to admit that I'm probably being a bit sensitive here, but I despise the way you're depicting a guy who is supposed to be nice...as if he's merely adorable, but not respectable. Perhaps you were a doormat in your marriage, but that's not "nice". That's self-destructive. 



> If a woman is looking to settle down, have children, and wants stability ... often the man in the first example will suffice. But it won't last. Can't last.


Speak for yourself, please. 



> Nice, does not equal attraction. Attraction has more moving parts than 'Nice'.


Nice is the broad term. The moving parts are the specifics of a man's character that make him nice. And yes, for some nice DOES equal attraction. Unless your implying that every woman married to a nice guy is going to turn him into a doormat?



> So, in alignment with House's statement as outlined by Blonde's initial post? I do believe it's true. A woman whose agenda is to start a stable family, and feels the tick of the biological clock is invariably going to dial back expectations, and look for a common denominator, and that is often the guy in my first example.


On the flip-side, I can tell you that dating divorcee's coming out marriages, married to guy #1 in my example above? They are looking for a little edge and a little strange. Won't say they want t a bad boy, but they are definitely not looking for 'Nice'.[/QUOTE]

How flattering to both sexes, Deej.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Really the only guys IRL saying women want bad boys is guys who define themselves as nice guys but really are passive aggressive douches who hide things and lie to appear like a good guy (then are surprised when it blows up in their face), the genuine nice guys (nice doesn't mean doormat) never seem to have a problem from what I've seen.


What about the women who have self-described as being attracted to "bad boys"?

I think for the guys who say this, its rooted in having a different idea of what a "bad/nice" are than women do. Its all about the various things we associate with a given word. Like I may say confident aloofness as a positive trait - and someone else may read aloof and think "uncaring/condescending/arrogance". Yet the aloofness I refer to, is about not being hung up... and not sweating anything... almost a sort of "relaxed".

All these terms we're using are separated in our minds by very thin lines.


----------



## jld

Yep, we definitely all have our own definitions going.


----------



## Created2Write

TiggyBlue said:


> Really the only guys IRL saying women want bad boys is guys who define themselves as nice guys but really are passive aggressive douches who hide things and lie to appear like a good guy (then are surprised when it blows up in their face), the genuine nice guys (nice doesn't mean doormat) never seem to have a problem from what I've seen.


I agree. I don't believe that the lines are as blurred as some in this thread imply. I believe they are obvious to most people. For whatever reason, the idea that any woman could desire a genuinely nice guy over a bad boy or a guy with edge seems inconceivable. I'll take the nice guy every time.


----------



## Deejo

Blonde said:


> That's the opposite of what I was thinking.
> 
> Isn't the MMSL theory that the ovulating women like the bad boy dominant men?
> 
> The House comment was directed to Wilson who is very VERY nice and is dating his first wife who previously dumped him.
> 
> House proposes that now that her eggs have dried up they might be a better match.


I just think we can go round and round on this 20 ways to Sunday.

Which character is more interesting, intriguing, thought provoking, which one grabs your attention more? House, or Wilson? Which one has more 'edge'?

I don't kneel at the altar of MMSL, but fact remains, the point Athol makes about ovulating women seeking out virile sex partners didn't originate with Athol. 

I think both are in play. My point actually addressed a question I have read a number of times, along the lines of "Where have all of the good men gone?"
Women start out with a list of what they 'want' in a long term partner with regard to work ethic, provider, social status, potential as a father. And when they can't find someone that ticks all of the boxes, if being a mother is their goal, they have 2 choices, go it alone, or scale back on those expectations. But ... if Mr. Perfect Bad Boy or Nice Man comes along after the fact? She is likely to start rationalizing that she never really was 'in love' with her husband. C'mon ... we've all seen this. He's good, just not good enough to keep her fire lit, because he never lit it in the first place.


----------



## Created2Write

Which character is more interesting is what you're basing this on? Yeah, House is more interesting; he's a genius, he's a drug addict, he's egotistical, he's a liar, he's a cheat, he's a thief, he's hilarious and horrible...he's the epitome of a self-destructive human being. He's broken in every sense of the word. And absolutely the MOST undesirable character in the show because he has no idea how to relate to the most basic of emotional needs in any kind of relationship. Wilson, while not perfect, _cares_ for people. Deeply. He sees good where House can only see the bad. He recognizes his emotions and allows himself to feel them, and process them. He's honest and good and stable. 

I'd choose Wilson every time.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> DA8, a doormat does not say No, even when he should.
> 
> Your guy may not care about the car. But at work, it is his obligation to say No, and stick to it, when the opposition is putting pressure on. If he is not saying No when it is appropriate, he is being a doormat.
> 
> And yes, he may need to give explanation for the No. But he still needs to say it and stick to it.


I agree, but in your example - there are three choices - a loan for a 25k car now, a 5k car now, or a 25k car next year. The implication being that if he agrees to the 25k loan, he's a doormat. I don't really see why that would be. Its a more subjective value judgment - if you have 5k now, and will have an additional 20k by next year, then you can clearly easily afford a 25k loan. The interest paid over the first year is really a just a premium on getting the car a year early - at which point its subjective: is getting the car a year early worth a couple hundred dollars?

Why is he a doormat if he accepts her desire to pay the premium to get the car a year early? Is she a doormat for allowing him the final say?

See, to my thinking, to be a doormat - you're not just agreeing with someone elses position... you're agreeing with someone else's position or needs to the detriment of your own - imbalance. Your original statement seems to imply a wholly self-sacrificing guy: "He needs to recognize what the true needs of his family are, and fulfill those. And he needs to do it without the expectation of reward." What about his needs, and where his needs conflict with the needs of his family? Are you saying he should always defer to the needs of his family first? To my mind, the guy who is always self-sacrificing is the very definition of a doormat.

In my life, I'm first. I don't exist for the benefit of someone else. If I can't meet my needs, I'm unhappy... and I will be unhappy for no one. That others I value have needs which may compete with mine, means I must strike a balance and compromise... not that I must always think of their needs first. Constant sacrifice, always putting others first... to me, that's a doormat.


----------



## Created2Write

And we're back to women not knowing what they want.


----------



## firebelly1

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I have started several versions of an attempt to intuit an answer to this... but none of them are satisfying.
> 
> Conclusion: I have no effing idea.
> 
> The best sounding thing I came up with was perhaps men are more concerned with generalizations that can be applied to actions. ie - women like X; perhaps derived from a sense that we are pursuing women as a whole; while women care less for generalizations, because they aren't pursuing men as a whole, they want the advances of a particular man - and the particular qualities that make him attractive can vary dramatically from man to man.
> 
> Or maybe its simply a byproduct of the notion, held by many men, that women are the choosers. The guys line up, and the women do the picking. Or the idea that men aren't really choosing, but just working their way down a list, in order of beauty, until they find the prettiest that will accept them, that they can get along well with. Or perhaps its driven by a sense of explicit scarcity or rejection driven insecurity? As a man, you're explicitly aware of the rejections to your pursuits. As a woman, you're only explicitly aware of the offers - rejections are really hidden - a lack of offers. So men, faced with a more tangible rejection, might be more interested in understanding why they were rejected.
> 
> Or, men tend to address their insecurity through knowledge more than feeling.
> 
> Just some straws to grasp at.


All comes back to sex right? There are more men complaining about not getting sex from women on TAM than the other way around and so they are trying desperately to figure out how they can get more of it. One theory is that they aren't being manly enough. 

A woman being a doormat doesn't really fit into the "not getting enough sex" equation so doesn't get discussed as much.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

Disclaimer: I am a guy. Despite this being the ladies clubhouse, I have noticed other men even start threads in this subforum, so I will assume a reply to this thread is "authorized" (not that societies rules are much to respect in many cases anyway..).

_*All*_ women want a man who treats them with truthful respect; that is to say, sarcasm and other means of playful disrespect are only implicit means of establishing his confidence within the relationship- what matters is that whatever masculine capactity she has discerned from his demeanor is directed towards her well-being.

You want a man who listens to your diatribes about your crappy day at work. You want a man who genuinely cares about what you feel and what you experience. You want a man who knows when to listen, and who knows when to let FIRE come out of his persona when its just the right time to offer advice or take action. It is that line of knowing when to listen and when to act that determines his value in relation to YOU, and its an attribute that you often subconsciously judge him on. 

A nice guy cares about these things. The problem is.. he doesnt necessarily have the best strategy for dealing with them.

A "not" nice guy treats you like crap and functions for his own interests. A "not" nice guy uses you, makes you feel for his benefit and then ditches you, and takes advantage of what he implictly understands regarding the way you function. The reason you feel attraction is because HE FUNCTIONS BY HIS OWN RULES; this indirectly suggests he has a mastery of his environment since he has developed a system which works that doesnt follow anyone else's formula. 

The ideal man- the one you search for through fields of online dating sites and personal encounters- is the one who both cares AND who has his own successful formula for dealing with the world in such a way that allows him to attain positive results for him (and you, by proxy).

THIS is the purpose of threads like this, of long elaborate conversations with girlfriends trying to ascertain how to spot the characteristics of an ideal relationship, of etc- to find the ideal man who embodies both care and capacity, compassion and fervor, empathy and execution.

A man who makes you feel, but takes what you feel as a personal responsibility. 

How to find it? I am not a wizard and I dont have all the answers. I take a crap like everyone else and Im sure many of you have answers I dont. I will say this though: there arent many relationships that last a lifetime where each party is truly happy. It is a commodity that cannot be purchased with money, time, or effort- only by good fortune. It is the commodity we all search for and hope to find, but only a lucky few will see the search come to fruition.

Look for a man who makes you feel- dont settle for a man who cares but doesnt light a fire in your soul- its the only way you will ever find true love.

Take all I say with a grain of salt. Written from my "nice guy" heart with the delivery of a "f you" bad boy- I mean no offense. Good day ladies.


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> Okay, I'm willing to admit that I'm probably being a bit sensitive here, but I despise the way you're depicting a guy who is supposed to be nice...as if he's merely adorable, but not respectable. Perhaps you were a doormat in your marriage, but that's not "nice". That's self-destructive.


You married a damn good looking, well adjusted, devoted, and hard working young man, to whom by all accounts you respect and adore, if not wishing he could be more attentive in the validation department. So yes, I'd agree that you are being sensitive.





Created2Write said:


> Speak for yourself, please.


You took my quote out of context, so your indignation is understandable.



Created2Write said:


> Nice is the broad term. The moving parts are the specifics of a man's character that make him nice. And yes, for some nice DOES equal attraction. Unless your implying that every woman married to a nice guy is going to turn him into a doormat?


No. SimplyAmorous' relationship is and always has been a beacon to me in that regard. She gets angry ... kind of like you, when it looks like good men are being assailed. So let me be clear, I'm not assailing good men. She's very attracted to her husband. You, I'm presuming are very attracted to yours. You are not the wives, and yours are not the husbands to whom I am referring.

But if you mean to tell me that you don't think that good men can be buffaloed in bad marriages, I would be very surprised to hear you say that.





Created2Write said:


> How flattering to both sexes, Deej.


Presuming you saw this as offensive or boastful. You're half my age CR, I am envious of where you and your husband are starting out. If my posts seem cynical or patronizing to you, all I can say is they aren't intended to be.

I am on the other side of divorce and have been out there dating ... and yes, having sex. I know explicitly that many of things I have shared with some of those partners they have verbalized that they could never imagine doing with their husbands ... or their husbands couldn't imagine doing it at all.

And to be crystal clear, as I've already stated once ... I AM a nice guy, not a bad boy. I've dated women that stated they were attracted to bad boys, but kept getting hurt. 

Hold your hand over a fire enough and eventually you learn to not hold your hand over a fire ... or you just enjoy getting burned.


----------



## jld

DA8, forgive me, but don't you think you sound _selfish_?

Dug and I put a premium on financial stability. We save up before we buy. That's how we can sleep well at night. We have 5 kids to put through college, and we don't intend to use loans.

To us, marriage is about giving your all. It is about seeking to please each other, not putting ourselves first. Neither of us would be happy if the other were not happy. And that does not mean we don't need to communicate clearly to get there! We need to constantly improve.

Marriage to us is not about grabbing for ourselves. It is about building a future for our family.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> Who do you think the wife is going to respect more, and therefore spark her sexual desire?


The car salesman that gets the doormat to fork over the additional 20K?


----------



## Racer

I’ll play...

So an outsider looking in just see’s a nice guy doing sweet and wonderful things for others. You often hear things like “I wish you were my husband”. The guy that always gives. What they don’t notice is no one gives him much back; it’s just sort of assumed his wife must be wonderful to hold onto such a catch. 

She probably isn’t. He trained her to become reliant and enjoy all that stuff he does. Years of it make it sort of the pattern… Then one day, “Why didn’t he clean the kitchen?” Long ago they’ve forgotten he doesn’t ‘have to’ do it… he did it because it was a nice thing to do for his wife. Does she give him a break and do it for him occasionally? Nope. That’s his job now. It doesn’t occur to her that she could be ‘nice’ and give him that break, just points out when he doesn't. 

And one day… That guy is going to snap. It’s usually when he realizes all of his “gifts” now have negative ramifications if he doesn’t provide it… So it’s no longer a gift at all, it’s a sentence he committed himself to. And we look at our wives; We made them #1 and now have to live with those consequences. That is how she acts.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> The car salesman that gets the doormat to fork over the additional 20K?


----------



## jld

Be clear and direct with her, Racer. Don't blame her for not reading your mind.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Be clear and direct with her, Racer. Don't blame her for not reading your mind.


And make sure you practice active listening, and have an action plan


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> You married a damn good looking, well adjusted, devoted, and hard working young man, to whom by all accounts you respect and adore, if not wishing he could be more attentive in the validation department. So yes, I'd agree that you are being sensitive.


By your posts, though, you're implying that if my husband is a nice guy he's, by default, also a doormat? Or, at least, undesirable to me?



> You took my quote out of context, so your indignation is understandable.


...In what context was your quote supposed to be in, exactly? Sometimes I think you're intentionally ambiguous just to stir the pot. 



> No. SimplyAmorous' relationship is and always has been a beacon to me in that regard. She gets angry ... kind of like you, when it looks like good men are being assailed. So let me be clear, I'm not assailing good men. She's very attracted to her husband. You, I'm presuming are very attracted to yours. You are not the wives, and yours are not the husbands to whom I am referring.


Yes, I am very attracted to my husband. We have our issues, both of us, but one thing that has always remained strong has been our attraction to one another. So, please clarify what couples you _are_ referring to because it seems to me to be very strongly pointing in the direction of women who want a stable family, so they settle for the nice guy and end up falling for the bad boy down the line because they never were attracted to the nice guy. 



> But if you mean to tell me that you don't think that good men can be buffaloed in bad marriages, I would be very surprised to hear you say that.


Good men and good women can be used and treated badly in marriages. Your point?



> Presuming you saw this as offensive or boastful. You're half my age CR, I am envious of where you and your husband are starting out. If my posts seem cynical or patronizing to you, all I can say is they aren't intended to be.


Cynical, yes. Very much so. Patronizing? A little. 



> I am on the other side of divorce and have been out there dating ... and yes, having sex. I know explicitly that many of things I have shared with some of those partners they have verbalized that they could never imagine doing with their husbands ... or their husbands couldn't imagine doing it at all.


...Ex-husbands, I hope. And I'm not sure what these things your sharing with them has to do with this? 



> And to be crystal clear, as I've already stated once ... I AM a nice guy, not a bad boy. I've dated women that stated they were attracted to bad boys, but kept getting hurt.
> 
> Hold your hand over a fire enough and eventually you learn to not hold your hand over a fire ... or you just enjoy getting burned.


...Okay. More ambiguity. If you are a nice guy, then all I can say is that you've either insulted yourself very badly in these posts, or you're not being very clear at all at what your point is.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> And make sure you practice active listening, and have an action plan


Why, yes, Sam, that's it.


----------



## Racer

jld said:


> Be clear and direct with her, Racer. Don't blame her for not reading your mind.


???
Replace wife with co-worker if you want. I'm just saying if you constantly and consistently give, that person at some point stops seeing it as "a nice or sweet thing to do for them" and instead as 'your job'. So if you withdraw it, they get angry like you stabbed them in the back or let them down. They long ago forgot 'that was awfully sweet of you to do for me'. It is no longer a gift and is now an expected duty of servitude.

The second part is once it becomes expected, they tend not to reciprocate in any way. It's only when they know you have valid choices and what they want is just one option, do they make efforts to influence your decision whether or not to help them.


----------



## Created2Write

Are there women who try and use the nice guy for personal gain? Yes. Only doormats allow it to happen. 

And there are women who appreciate their nice guy husbands. 

There are far too many generalizations in this thread.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Hilarious. I've had a similar discussion of House with a girl I know awhile back. She wants one good f*ck with House for reasons she can't really explain, but she'd never have a relationship with him.

Is that not the deal? 

House: Edge/****y/egotistical/assertive/dominant personality => sex. Ever seen Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer? There's a scene where Mr Fantastic stands up to the bully Military guy... the scene closes with his gf/wife/fiancé, The Invisible Woman saying "I am so turned on by you right now." What woman doesn't like to see their guy really assert himself and show some dominance? C'mon... its a turn on and doing so often means putting aside "niceties". 

Wilson: Comforting/emotionally supportive/endearing/kind/nice/unoffending personality => relationship. But is that really sexy? They're emotionally reinforcing... they're safe... they're love promoting perhaps... but sexy? Hmm.

I tend to think that those with sex drives derived from the later, are those with the greatest interest in "safe" for whatever reason. The qualities are not so much sexy as it is attachment confirming... and that's what those women are desperate for - proof of safety or security in the relationship.

I'm not judging anyone nor do I have a greater or lesser opinion of which anyone prefers.... but I've seen sooo many of the latter women get the "safe" guy they sought... only to end up bored and pining for a guy with more edge. They hooked up with House, married Wilson, were happy for a time... but down the road, can't seem to shake an attraction to guys like House.


----------



## Ikaika

Deejo said:


> The car salesman that gets the doormat to fork over the additional 20K?



Or when buying our car (three weeks ago), the salesman gave me the spew, we use mainland pricing and don't do markups. Oh but wait you still need to pay $1,500 more because we added on this special Hawaiian package. 

I smiled and told him, I need to go home and think about that price. His response "what can I do to have you drive home in this vehicle today?" I say sell it to me for the price you have listed right on the car. He says, I don't know if I can do that, I need to call get my manager. Manager, gives me all the reasons why I should go with the elevated price. I love the one, this is the hottest selling vehicle they have right now and only have three left in stock. I say, I'm not sold not the car completely. Again, the "what can we do to have you drive away in this car today?" manager asks. I smile and in my nice guy voice ask for the sticker price. They walk away again to leave my wife and I to stew. 

They ask again with three of them sitting across from us. I tell them one final time in my nice guy voice my price or we just walk right now. We really don't need the car nor are we in love with it. 

Finally one guy returns, the top manager to shake my hand, and says ok, you got your price, my wife rolls her eyes later and ask, why go through that just to give us our price. I say because not everyone will go through the "boiler" intact. It is a game and one they probably win more often than not. Problem for them, I love playing those games and winning, scwhing. 

They won needless to say anyway, not as if they still did not make a profit, just not the profit they wanted. Pic of wife worn out with our new car in my album.


----------



## jld

Racer said:


> ???
> Replace wife with co-worker if you want. I'm just saying if you constantly and consistently give, that person at some point stops seeing it as "a nice or sweet thing to do for them" and instead as 'your job'. So if you withdraw it, they get angry like you stabbed them in the back or let them down. They long ago forgot 'that was awfully sweet of you to do for me'. It is no longer a gift and is now an expected duty of servitude.
> 
> The second part is once it becomes expected, they tend not to reciprocate in any way. It's only when they know you have valid choices and what they want is just one option, do they make efforts to influence your decision whether or not to help them.


For sure, you have to have boundaries and remind people of them when necessary, like in my finance example.

Don't let yourself be taken for granted, Racer. Take responsibility for that.


----------



## TiggyBlue

I guess it really depends on what your definition is of bad boys and nice guys.


----------



## Created2Write

Yes, stability, caring, maturity and relationship = sex. And LOTS of it. 

Egotistical, arrogant, selfish edgy bad boy? Not. A. Chance. No fling, no hookup. Not even a second thought. 

It's not complicated.


----------



## GTdad

TiggyBlue said:


> I guess it really depends on what your definition is of bad boys and nice guys.


I can't help but think that's the biggest source of conflict on this thread. I'm not even sure any of us fundamentally disagree.


----------



## jld

Created2Write said:


> Yes, stability, caring, maturity and relationship = sex. And LOTS of it.
> 
> Egotistical, arrogant, selfish edgy bad boy? Not. A. Chance. No fling, no hookup. Not even a second thought.
> 
> It's not complicated.


Turnera had a great post on this recently: 

_What's the one thing that women are attuned to more than all else? Protecting themselves, due to being the 'weaker' sex (physiologically). So we're always on the lookout for anger. Anger = not a good time for the lady. Spend enough time with a man who doesn't get angry...we learn to relax and feel safe and be vulnerable and become very GIVING._


----------



## TiggyBlue

GTdad said:


> I can't help but think that's the biggest source of conflict on this thread. I'm not even sure any of us fundamentally disagree.


Does help to explain part of the whole 'women don't know what she wants' shtick.


----------



## Created2Write

Oh, I think a couple of us do fundamentally disagree.


----------



## GTdad

TiggyBlue said:


> Plus does help to explain part of the whole 'women don't know what she wants' shtick.


Well, it's a proven scientific fact that they don't.

KIDDING! (< the disclaimer being a sure sign of being a Nice Guy)


----------



## Created2Write

jld said:


> Turnera had a great post on this recently:
> 
> _What's the one thing that women are attuned to more than all else? Protecting themselves, due to being the 'weaker' sex (physiologically). So we're always on the lookout for anger. Anger = not a good time for the lady. Spend enough time with a man who doesn't get angry...we learn to relax and feel safe and be vulnerable and become very GIVING._


People express anger differently. Not feeling angry isn't healthy, imo. Anger helps us identify when something isn't right in our lives, though can be used against others in horrible ways. Being careful of how one expresses that anger is the key, for both men and women. 

I would say being with a man who has self-control enables a woman to be vulnerable and become giving, and vice versa.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> All comes back to sex right? There are more men complaining about not getting sex from women on TAM than the other way around and so they are trying desperately to figure out how they can get more of it. One theory is that they aren't being manly enough.
> 
> A woman being a doormat doesn't really fit into the "not getting enough sex" equation so doesn't get discussed as much.


Maybe so. I've heard more than one woman complain that their men want sex so much more than they do, and their seeking it as being unattractive and annoying.

But then you have women who complain that their men never initiate/seek sex, and how unmanly and unattractive it is.

I often wonder if women just want to complain regardless of circumstances - because complaining is a strategy to receive attention and empathy. 

Consistency ladies... that's all we ask. Consistency. ;D 

Him: "What do you want!?" Her: "It's not that simple!!"

This is a must see vid... its about what you want to eat, but its hilarious. Anytime my gf gets wishy washy, this is a scene we act out and laugh together. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=340522902790207


----------



## TiggyBlue

GTdad said:


> Well, it's a proven scientific fact that they don't.
> 
> KIDDING! (< the disclaimer being a sure sign of being a Nice Guy)


lol the scientists have charts and everything.


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> By your posts, though, you're implying that if my husband is a nice guy he's, by default, also a doormat? Or, at least, undesirable to me?


No. But he certainly could become a doormat if he compromises his own principles to please you, or keep the peace.





Created2Write said:


> ...In what context was your quote supposed to be in, exactly? Sometimes I think you're intentionally ambiguous just to stir the pot.


Sometimes. Not this time. 
I have a very close work colleague. Young guy, early 30's. He is feeling pressure about marriage and children from his family. He is with a lovely young woman in grad school, who quite plainly and flatly told him, "You fit my plan." And make no mistake, she has one. Despite being in grad schoold paid for by her parents, she intends to be married and pregnant by 27. She wants four kids, a 3,200 square foot house, and a Range Rover.

Whereas, if she finds herself at 27 with no kids, house, or Range Rover, she is likely to alter her plan in terms of the mate that will fit that criteria. She may choose someone who fits the criteria rather than the man that makes her heart skip a beat. That is what I meant. This example I assure you is real. I can also assure you that if they marry, it won't go well for my friend.





Created2Write said:


> Yes, I am very attracted to my husband. We have our issues, both of us, but one thing that has always remained strong has been our attraction to one another. So, please clarify what couples you _are_ referring to because it seems to me to be very strongly pointing in the direction of women who want a stable family, so they settle for the nice guy and end up falling for the bad boy down the line because they never were attracted to the nice guy.


Lets lose the language of nice guy and bad boy. If you believe that you married the partner that is RIGHT for you (and don't we all?) and the 2 of you remain committed to making the marriage and relationship work, both in, and out of the bedroom ... then you are distinctly NOT the kind of couple to whom I am referring. If however, one of you goes 'off plan' then it casts the entire dynamic into jeopardy, including but not limited to, the potential for infidelity. I am not saying women that want families are all going to dump their milquetoast husbands and screw the handyman. 





Created2Write said:


> Good men and good women can be used and treated badly in marriages. Your point?


That whether or not you are a doormat or a devoted husband/wife is in direct correspondence with how each one feels about and cares for the other. That was my point. You can be a nice, good, well adjusted husband or wife whose spouse takes them for granted and treats them like a doormat ... regardless of how well adjusted they are. 

All doormats are not sniveling, spineless, whimps. 





Created2Write said:


> Cynical, yes. Very much so. Patronizing? A little.


Probably not as much as my posting style indicates. Often I'm attempting humor or irony. That can be challenging in print. I don't like hurting anyone. I don't feel compelled to win an argument, but I do enjoy the process of finding our way through disagreement.





Created2Write said:


> ...Ex-husbands, I hope. And I'm not sure what these things your sharing with them has to do with this?


One case I was seeing a woman who was separated. We got along very, very, well. Talked a lot about her husband. She loved him. Was clear. I ended it because I didn't want to be 'THAT' guy. That was months ago. Got a text from her recently that they are trying to reconcile. I hope they do.

I suppose I was attempting to reiterate what someone else posted earlier up-thread. Women and men ... tend to want different things based upon where they are at in life. That's what I was trying to share. There was a point in my life where I imagined cooking with my wife in the kitchen, sharing a bottle of wine. Reading stories with the kids at night, going on family vacations. Going on romantic vacations. Those things no longer apply. I want different things, was trying to make a contrast. Obviously poorly. 





Created2Write said:


> ...Okay. More ambiguity. If you are a nice guy, then all I can say is that you've either insulted yourself very badly in these posts, or you're not being very clear at all at what your point is.


I struggle at times with what I have in my head, versus what I can convey on the page. If I have insulted myself it wouldn't be the first, or last time.

Have honestly tried to clarify above.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

It really is simple though. Be thoughtful,attentive,sweet,devoted,honest,vulnerable,and present.listen and attempt to understand,help when we need it,and don't take us for granted. Also,give us the biggest orgasms of our lives and never hesitate to go down on us.make our hearts race and our cheeks rosy every chance you get. 
Easy right? 


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> It's going to be different for each woman, Deej.


LOL ... after all of our back and forth, I just saw this initial post you made.

I know this. This is what I meant in my blind men and the elephant post.

See CR2W? We agree.

I trust that you chose well. I hope both you and yours feel that way ... always.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

ScarletBegonias said:


> It really is simple though. Be thoughtful,attentive,sweet,devoted,honest,vulnerable,and present.listen and attempt to understand,help when we need it,and don't take us for granted. Also,give us the biggest orgasms of our lives and never hesitate to go down on us.make our hearts race and our cheeks rosy every chance you get.
> Easy right?
> 
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No. That is not enough. The orgasm/go down part is 100% accurate, but that is a symptom of a mentality- a mentality that is EXPRESSED through actions a man performs...

I have no doubt your man performs these actions and performs them well, but what you listed is not enough for a woman to be attracted.

There are plenty of "nice guys" I have known who have been "thoughtful,attentive,sweet,devoted,honest,vulnerable,and present.listen and attempt to understand,help when we need it,and don't take us for granted" who have been cheated on, dumped, or ignored. These are GREAT things, but they are not the only required things.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Oh geez it was tongue in cheek..hence the smileys. Jokey joke? Yes?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

ScarletBegonias said:


> Oh geez it was tongue in cheek..hence the smileys. Jokey joke? Yes?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Fair enough, but considering there are likely those who are really looking for answers in this thread and are not in a humorous mood about "love", it may be good to clearly denote that instead of leave it to connotation.

There is other mastery a man needs to have, and unfortunately the dominant narrative of this society doesnt encourage, vaunt, or even mention this mastery often.

We at TAM must be very clear 

You are a woman (I presume), so by all means, tell us everything- the gents ninja-reading this thread are all ears


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I was serious in this thread earlier. A LOT of people joke on tam to lighten up the thread but if you want to be all in my ass for doing it that's cool. When people are serious they don't use ridiculous smileys. I'm sorry you couldn't take the hint and are now being a weirdo about it. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GTdad

ScarletBegonias said:


> I was serious in this thread earlier. A LOT of people joke on tam to lighten up the thread but if you want to be all in my ass for doing it that's cool.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


At least you use smileys. I usually don't and because of that I suspect I've gotten crossways with you once or twice.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer said:


> I’ll play...
> 
> So an outsider looking in just see’s a nice guy doing sweet and wonderful things for others. You often hear things like “I wish you were my husband”. The guy that always gives. What they don’t notice is no one gives him much back; it’s just sort of assumed his wife must be wonderful to hold onto such a catch.
> 
> She probably isn’t. He trained her to become reliant and enjoy all that stuff he does. Years of it make it sort of the pattern… Then one day, “Why didn’t he clean the kitchen?” Long ago they’ve forgotten he doesn’t ‘have to’ do it… he did it because it was a nice thing to do for his wife. Does she give him a break and do it for him occasionally? Nope. That’s his job now. It doesn’t occur to her that she could be ‘nice’ and give him that break, just points out when he doesn't.
> 
> And one day… That guy is going to snap. It’s usually when he realizes all of his “gifts” now have negative ramifications if he doesn’t provide it… So it’s no longer a gift at all, it’s a sentence he committed himself to. And we look at our wives; We made them #1 and now have to live with those consequences. That is how she acts.


What is missing in your example here is the nature of the wife in your scenario.

Some wives would NOT do what you described to their husband, and some would.

It has more to do with her than him being a NG.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

ScarletBegonias said:


> I was serious in this thread earlier. A LOT of people joke on tam to lighten up the thread but if you want to be all in my ass for doing it that's cool.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Please notice my smilies as well. Im not in your ass- I simply think that only mentioning the care aspect might lead to a misunderstanding.

I will bow out here. I dont attack anybody here and that includes you; you are a woman and so I like many other men listen to what you have to SAY.

Hopefully others who know me will understand my intent was not to attack but instead to clarify.

Good day


----------



## ScarletBegonias

GTdad said:


> At least you use smileys. I usually don't and because of that I suspect I've gotten crossways with you once or twice.


 

Nope,no more jokes! All business all the time,mister!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScarletBegonias

OptimisticPessimist said:


> Please notice my smilies as well. Im not in your ass- I simply think that only mentioning the care aspect might lead to a misunderstanding.
> 
> I will bow out here. I dont attack anybody here and that includes you; you are a woman and so I like many other men listen to what you have to SAY.
> 
> Hopefully others who know me will understand my intent was not to attack but instead to clarify.
> 
> Good day


Yeeeah..ok. Peace.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> DA8, forgive me, but don't you think you sound _selfish_?


In the strictest sense of the word, sure. I'm not a worker ant. I don't exist solely for someone else's benefit. If I'm not happy, I'm going too seek my happiness, not sacrifice my happiness for someone else's. Been there done that, won't do it again. Its similar to saving or retirement planning - you pay yourself first.



jld said:


> Dug and I put a premium on financial stability. We save up before we buy. That's how we can sleep well at night. We have 5 kids to put through college, and we don't intend to use loans.


Nothing wrong with that, its even commendable. I'm just pointing out that the analogy is problematic, in that his allowing you to take out an affordable loan wouldn't make him a doormat. In the sense that you need him to allow it, or it doesn't happen, wouldn't that argue that you're the doormat? (don't take that as a jab... genuine curiousity.)



jld said:


> To us, marriage is about giving your all. It is about seeking to please each other, not putting ourselves first. Neither of us would be happy if the other were not happy. And that does not mean we don't need to communicate clearly to get there! We need to constantly improve.


That's all good until it isn't - ie - when someone becomes willing to argue for more than what is just. When what you need to be happy, will make your partner unhappy.... or the only way to make your partner happy, is to forgo your own happiness. Giving your all and being selfless, with faith that other person is taking your interests to heart and won't ask of you that which would make you unhappy - works great until there is really an irreconcilable conflict of needs/wants... where no compromise is possible.



jld said:


> Marriage to us is not about grabbing for ourselves. It is about building a future for our family.


My life is about being happy. Marriage is a piece of paper. My relationship contributed to my happiness. Until what made her happy, didn't make me happy. Building a future for my family where I am unhappy, is building no future at all - and certainly not a lesson I want my children to learn. 

My conclusion about relationships is this: I'm not here because I make *you* happy. I'm here, because you make *me* happy. If that's not the same for you, then you shouldn't be here.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

ScarletBegonias said:


> Yeeeah..ok. Peace.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is an implicit insult. I directed no such thing towards you.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

OptimisticPessimist said:


> This is an implicit insult. I directed no such thing towards you.


No,it was the fact that I have no idea what you were even saying there. So I'm dropping it. If I want to insult I'm very direct
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Racer

ScarletBegonias said:


> It really is simple though. Be thoughtful,attentive,sweet,devoted,honest,vulnerable,and present.listen and attempt to understand,help when we need it,and don't take us for granted. Also,give us the biggest orgasms of our lives and never hesitate to go down on us.make our hearts race and our cheeks rosy every chance you get.
> Easy right?
> 
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


lol... and you forgot mindreading powers to know when to be 'that guy' at the precise moment you want him to be. 

That's one I've always gotten a kick out of. There are times women want you to be that soft shoulder and just listen. There are other times they respect you for calling them out. And there are also times they want you to fix this for them. And a hundred more variations of 'perfectly handled' situations. 

We can't be all things at once.... My newer mantra is just being who I am instead of trying to be what I think she wants. May not make her happy, but does make me consistent and predictable so she doesn't expect something different.


----------



## jld

That is good, Racer, but remember that you can be who you are without being selfish.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer said:


> lol... and you forgot mindreading powers to know when to be 'that guy' at the precise moment you want him to be.
> 
> That's one I've always gotten a kick out of. There are times women want you to be that soft shoulder and just listen. There are other times they respect you for calling them out. And there are also times they want you to fix this for them. And a hundred more variations of 'perfectly handled' situations.
> 
> We can't be all things at once.... My newer mantra is just being who I am instead of trying to be what I think she wants. May not make her happy, but does make me consistent and predictable so she doesn't expect something different.


Again though, your wife is one specific woman who has a very specific set of mental issues. (Same for you too, of course). Do you honestly think your dynamic is all that common?

My husband really is all the right things at the right times for me, even though sometimes I want a hero, sometimes a shoulder, sometimes a sex god, sometimes a handy man.

He and I are specific people too and I also don't think our sitch will match everyone's...but I want to throw our sitch out here because it isn't as "impossible" as you say for a man to be all things to a woman, it depends heavily on the woman.


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> What is missing in your example here is the nature of the wife in your scenario.
> 
> Some wives would NOT do what you described to their husband, and some would.
> 
> It has more to do with her than him being a NG.


Not necessarily, because also remember he's generally a nice guy. A nice guy does nice things. My dad knows I know computer stuff. So, he’d call me when something went wrong. A girl I know knows I can work on cars, so when it breaks, she calls. A friend knows I’m an architect and he wants to do a deck, so he’ll call. And on and on and on. I’ll help them all out. Nice right? But all these people…. Every night it was something. Some volunteer board, some friend in need, a wife needing something, you promising to help someone… You start saying no. You just can’t keep up. 

Then you start hearing the snide comments, how their situation is somehow your fault like that girl having to pay $500 bucks to fix the car. They are mad at you because they rely on you and you bailing on them cost them something. Even things like because I volunteered for a board, my wife had to watch the kids a whole night by herself and ‘do everything’ so she’s mad that I wasn’t home helping… Help the son learn to ride a bike and the lawn didn't get mowed right away; wife is unhappy... A whole cascading effect and pressure of "what now!?" 

You can’t please them all. Just being nice often means being overcommitted and people relying on you because you are happy to help and reliable (instead of flaky or non-committal). 

If I were an ass, no one would call to ask for help... I could do as I please and just call 'that nice guy' to help me when I needed help..


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer said:


> Then you start hearing the snide comments, how their situation is somehow your fault like that girl having to pay $500 bucks to fix the car. They are mad at you because they rely on you and you bailing on them cost them something. Even things like because I volunteered for a board, my wife had to watch the kids a whole night by herself and ‘do everything’ so she’s mad that I wasn’t home helping… Help the son learn to ride a bike and the lawn didn't get mowed right away; wife is unhappy... A whole cascading effect and pressure of "what now!?"


There are SOME wives who not only wouldn't take advantage of this man's good nature, she would also help him make boundaries so that others couldn't take advantage of him, and still be hot for him when the lights go down.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> No. But he certainly could become a doormat if he compromises his own principles to please you, or keep the peace.


I agree with this. 



> Sometimes. Not this time.
> I have a very close work colleague. Young guy, early 30's. He is feeling pressure about marriage and children from his family. He is with a lovely young woman in grad school, who quite plainly and flatly told him, "You fit my plan." And make no mistake, she has one. Despite being in grad schoold paid for by her parents, she intends to be married and pregnant by 27. She wants four kids, a 3,200 square foot house, and a Range Rover.
> 
> Whereas, if she finds herself at 27 with no kids, house, or Range Rover, she is likely to alter her plan in terms of the mate that will fit that criteria. She may choose someone who fits the criteria rather than the man that makes her heart skip a beat. That is what I meant. This example I assure you is real. I can also assure you that if they marry, it won't go well for my friend.


Okay, I see better what you were saying but I still disagree with the point. Personally, I think the woman is nuts. Not marriage material in the slightest. Her idea of marriage has more to do with material things than it does companionship and commitment. I hope, for your friend's sake, they don't marry. 

However, I have to point out that, just because one's plan does or doesn't come to pass, it doesn't mean that the man they choose won't make their heart skip a beat. 



> Lets lose the language of nice guy and bad boy. If you believe that you married the partner that is RIGHT for you (and don't we all?) and the 2 of you remain committed to making the marriage and relationship work, both in, and out of the bedroom ... then you are distinctly NOT the kind of couple to whom I am referring. If however, one of you goes 'off plan' then it casts the entire dynamic into jeopardy, including but not limited to, the potential for infidelity. I am not saying women that want families are all going to dump their milquetoast husbands and screw the handyman.


Not gonna lose the terms, Deej. They're essential to the points being made in the thread. I don't disagree with the first part of your quote...but the second is, again, confusing and seems to conflict with the first half of the quote. "Off plan" is supposed to mean what, exactly? Are you implying that any change to the plan a man and woman have for their lives is going to cause the other to cheat? Or at least be tempted? Or that those who change the plan _aren't_ still trying to make the marriage work? 



> That whether or not you are a doormat or a devoted husband/wife is in direct correspondence with how each one feels about and cares for the other. That was my point. You can be a nice, good, well adjusted husband or wife whose spouse takes them for granted and treats them like a doormat ... regardless of how well adjusted they are.


Can a spouse take a good husband or wife for granted? Yes. They can only treat them like a doormat if they are allowed to, though. 



> All doormats are not sniveling, spineless, whimps.


Perhaps not. But they allow the treatment to occur. 



> Probably not as much as my posting style indicates. Often I'm attempting humor or irony. That can be challenging in print. I don't like hurting anyone. I don't feel compelled to win an argument, but I do enjoy the process of finding our way through disagreement.
> 
> One case I was seeing a woman who was separated. We got along very, very, well. Talked a lot about her husband. She loved him. Was clear. I ended it because I didn't want to be 'THAT' guy. That was months ago. Got a text from her recently that they are trying to reconcile. I hope they do.
> 
> I suppose I was attempting to reiterate what someone else posted earlier up-thread. Women and men ... tend to want different things based upon where they are at in life. That's what I was trying to share. There was a point in my life where I imagined cooking with my wife in the kitchen, sharing a bottle of wine. Reading stories with the kids at night, going on family vacations. Going on romantic vacations. Those things no longer apply. I want different things, was trying to make a contrast. Obviously poorly.


People change. No argument.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> In the strictest sense of the word, sure. I'm not a worker ant. I don't exist solely for someone else's benefit. If I'm not happy, I'm going too seek my happiness, not sacrifice my happiness for someone else's. Been there done that, won't do it again. Its similar to saving or retirement planning - you pay yourself first.
> 
> Be careful. You don't want to end up all alone at the end of life, because you always put yourself first.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that, its even commendable. I'm just pointing out that the analogy is problematic, in that his allowing you to take out an affordable loan wouldn't make him a doormat. In the sense that you need him to allow it, or it doesn't happen, wouldn't that argue that you're the doormat? (don't take that as a jab... genuine curiousity.)
> 
> I don't think so. We have the same financial values. If we are not on the same page, we are not going to feel good. We each want the other to feel good. And we want to do the wise thing, even if there is some sacrifice involved. Save today for tomorrow, to a point, I guess.
> 
> That's all good until it isn't - ie - when someone becomes willing to argue for more than what is just. When what you need to be happy, will make your partner unhappy.... or the only way to make your partner happy, is to forgo your own happiness. Giving your all and being selfless, with faith that other person is taking your interests to heart and won't ask of you that which would make you unhappy - works great until there is really an irreconcilable conflict of needs/wants... where no compromise is possible.
> 
> We really want to do the right thing for each other, and for our family. I get defensive when he points out my selfishness, but I learn from it. Same for him. Again, we really want to feel good together, and make wise decisions for our family. We are a team.
> 
> 
> My life is about being happy. Marriage is a piece of paper. My relationship contributed to my happiness. Until what made her happy, didn't make me happy. Building a future for my family where I am unhappy, is building no future at all - and certainly not a lesson I want my children to learn.
> 
> I am sure that was painful. There was no way to compromise? Well, no, I guess not.
> 
> My conclusion about relationships is this: I'm not here because I make *you* happy. I'm here, because you make *me* happy. If that's not the same for you, then you shouldn't be here. You know, IndiaInk made the point once that we are all selfish, even when we are doing good things. We do them because we want a clear conscience, and even that is selfish. Interesting.


----------



## Blonde

Deejo said:


> Which character is more interesting, intriguing, thought provoking, which one grabs your attention more? House, or Wilson? Which one has more 'edge'?


Wilson is nice and very loyal but super OCD which would drive me nuts. House is entirely too mean for me. Chase is a hunk, moral, former seminarian for the priesthood and I'm not gonna lie, Thirteen is intriguing


----------



## jld

Racer, you don't have commitments to those other people. Let them get mad if they need to. Not your issue.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Racer said:


> You can’t please them all. Just being nice often means being overcommitted and people relying on you because you are happy to help and reliable (instead of flaky or non-committal).
> 
> If I were an ass, no one would call to ask for help... I could do as I please and just call 'that nice guy' to help me when I needed help..


Exactly. Hence, "pay yourself first". Your time is your time first. Whatever time you have left over, that's what you can offer someone else - but if they're taking, then they damn well better be giving and you shouldn't hesitate to ask for whatever you might need of them.

I knew a guy I used to regularly help out with bike/car work... yet I realized that every time I asked for help with whatever (the last one was building a fence)... he always had excuses. Never helped me with a thing. Guess who isn't available to help with your mechanical work anymore "buddy"? And your absolutely right - when people come to expect your giving - they get all tiffy when you no longer give to them. They call YOU selfish behind your back. lol 

That's the surest sign to remove that person from your life. They're leaches.


----------



## Created2Write

One thing that I love about my husband....he has learned that our relationship requires him to be vulnerable. Now, he can choose _not_ to be, but that would mean that only so much of him is available to me. I wouldn't ever see him sad, or upset, or disappointed...he'd be an endless wall of strength, something I don't want in our relationship. I don't want a man who keeps me at arms length. I don't want a man who hasn't dealt with his issues, and imo, a man who is so concerned with himself that he can't _truly_ be open and vulnerable, _hasn't_ dealt with his issues. 

Being open and vulnerable leaves one open to being hurt...temporarily unhappy. No human is perfect and we're all going to make mistakes. He's hurt me before, I've hurt him. Knowing that he feels pain and hurt when I make a mistake is essential to building trust. I know that he's a healthy human being, and I know I've crossed a boundary. Likewise with him. Mistakes help us learn. The learning helps us grow closer. Growing closer helps us see things more clearly. 

No relationship is perfect. What matters is that one person isn't pushing the other away. I want my husband to be happy, and he wants me to be happy. If DH didn't want me to be happy, I'd run far away from him.


----------



## Created2Write

ROFL. Give to yourself first, give whatever you have left to others, but don't hesitate to ask of other people whatever you might need of them. 

Hypocritical and selfish.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ROFL. Ignorant and simple minds don't go far enough to realize that the philosophy is universal - those who are asked to help, ought to be giving to themselves first as well. No one should give more than they truly desire to give... which is the case if you have no time left for yourself; and no one should give to those who don't reciprocate.

Ignorant and simple minded.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Exactly. Hence, "pay yourself first". Your time is your time first. Whatever time you have left over, that's what you can offer someone else - but if they're taking, then they damn well better be giving and you shouldn't hesitate to ask for whatever you might need of them.
> 
> I knew a guy I used to regularly help out with bike/car work... yet I realized that every time I asked for help with whatever (the last one was building a fence)... he always had excuses. Never helped me with a thing. Guess who isn't available to help with your mechanical work anymore "buddy"? And your absolutely right - when people come to expect your giving - they get all tiffy when you no longer give to them. They call YOU selfish behind your back. lol
> 
> That's the surest sign to remove that person from your life. They're leaches.


Refreshing story. Ahhh!

Doesn't it feel great in retrospect?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

OptimisticPessimist said:


> A "not" nice guy treats you like crap and functions for his own interests. A "not" nice guy uses you, makes you feel for his benefit and then ditches you, and takes advantage of what he implictly understands regarding the way you function. The reason you feel attraction is because HE FUNCTIONS BY HIS OWN RULES; this indirectly suggests he has a mastery of his environment since he has developed a system which works that doesnt follow anyone else's formula.
> 
> The ideal man- the one you search for through fields of online dating sites and personal encounters- is the one who both cares AND who has his own successful formula for dealing with the world in such a way that allows him to attain positive results for him (and you, by proxy).
> 
> THIS is the purpose of threads like this, of long elaborate conversations with girlfriends trying to ascertain how to spot the characteristics of an ideal relationship, of etc- *to find the ideal man who embodies both care and capacity, compassion and fervor, empathy and execution.
> 
> A man who makes you feel, but takes what you feel as a personal responsibility. *
> 
> How to find it? I am not a wizard and I dont have all the answers. I take a crap like everyone else and Im sure many of you have answers I dont. I will say this though: there arent many relationships that last a lifetime where each party is truly happy. It is a commodity that cannot be purchased with money, time, or effort- only by good fortune. It is the commodity we all search for and hope to find, but only a lucky few will see the search come to fruition.
> 
> *Look for a man who makes you feel- dont settle for a man who cares but doesnt light a fire in your soul- its the only way you will ever find true love.*
> 
> Take all I say with a grain of salt. Written from my "nice guy" heart with the delivery of a "f you" bad boy- I mean no offense. Good day ladies.










I especially liked this part....."A man who makes you feel, but takes what you feel as a personal responsibility"..



> *Created2write said*: Yes, I am very attracted to my husband. We have our issues, both of us, but one thing that has always remained strong has been our attraction to one another. So, please clarify what couples you are referring to because it seems to me to be very strongly pointing in the direction of women who want a stable family, so they settle for the nice guy and end up falling for the bad boy down the line because they never were attracted to the nice guy.


 Although Deejo already explained this... I must admit when he said (post #102)...."Women start out with a list of what they 'want' in a long term partner with regard to work ethic, provider, social status, potential as a father. And when they can't find someone that ticks all of the boxes, if being a mother is their goal, they have 2 choices, go it alone, or scale back on those expectations. But ... if Mr. Perfect Bad Boy or Nice Man comes along after the fact? She is likely to start rationalizing that she never really was 'in love' with her husband. C'mon ... we've all seen this. He's good, just not good enough to keep her fire lit, because he never lit it in the first place."

I felt the same way you did.. and was a bit sensitive to it also wanting to say ...this wasn't true here.... 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hilarious. I've had a similar discussion of House with a girl I know awhile back. She wants one good f*ck with House for reasons she can't really explain, but she'd never have a relationship with him.
> 
> Is that not the deal?
> 
> House: Edge/****y/egotistical/assertive/dominant personality => sex. Ever seen Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer? There's a scene where Mr Fantastic stands up to the bully Military guy... the scene closes with his gf/wife/fiancé, The Invisible Woman saying "I am so turned on by you right now." What woman doesn't like to see their guy really assert himself and show some dominance? C'mon... its a turn on and doing so often means putting aside "niceties".
> 
> *Wilson: Comforting/emotionally supportive/endearing/kind/nice/unoffending personality => relationship. But is that really sexy? They're emotionally reinforcing... they're safe... they're love promoting perhaps... but sexy? Hmm.*
> 
> *I tend to think that those with sex drives derived from the later, are those with the greatest interest in "safe" for whatever reason. The qualities are not so much sexy as it is attachment confirming... and that's what those women are desperate for - proof of safety or security in the relationship.
> 
> I'm not judging anyone nor do I have a greater or lesser opinion of which anyone prefers.... but I've seen sooo many of the latter women get the "safe" guy they sought... only to end up bored and pining for a guy with more edge. They hooked up with House, married Wilson, were happy for a time... but down the road, can't seem to shake an attraction to guys like House.*


I have no doubt these things are true..I do not understand many women, I think they think in the short term (I was never like this).. some of your posts just annoy me.. but you are just speaking it as you see it..

Again... I feel men like my husband are being put down.. .He really is THAT guy described in the 2nd part here...it shouldn't bother me , in fact you know what I tell myself sometimes.. Thank God women don't go for the type I do..I'm happy the GF before me dumped him or I would have missed out on this life.

He is ALL "relationship guy #2" "Comforting/emotionally supportive/endearing/kind/nice/unoffending personality"...

Why does he still hold my attraction after 33 yrs, I never pined for anyone else while married.. he never got Fat for one, I like his body.. if he gained weight, It would all fall apart for me (very shallow of me..I know)...

How he treats me...every day, revives that mushy gushy feelings of love, what we share.. we are a LOVE SONG.. take your pick.. they all fit.. 

When I feel in love, I am on top of the world... call it Romance...call me Crazy, and half deluted.. I still don't care, he is too !.... I'd never be one turned off by these things.... I admire men who are ALL IN... who give all of themselves...so long as they have a sex drive..Yeah that's important, I even LOVE the fact he likes porn more than sports.. :smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:

IF his sex drive dried up, however... that wouldn't be working for me... I NEED to feel desired by my man. The Dominance part in the bedroom - aggressive, is not a required need of mine, a want ...yeah.. but his DESIRE is a NEED.. something Jld and me might disagree on .. (going back to Neuklas thread)...

I really don't like Egotistical men, maybe because I am so doting and I love to build my man up... I prefer a Humble man who doesn't brag.. who maybe undervalues his real worth.. I'd say my husband fits this bill.. I don't think this makes him insecure in who he is though.. he's just not a bragger..he was never impressed with these sort of people - he works with some of them...and he would have no desire to come off like that.. we've had conversations about.. I just squeeze him tighter for being that way.


----------



## Created2Write

I'd rather be ignorant and narrow-minded than selfish. *shrug*


----------



## samyeagar

Racer said:


> ???
> Replace wife with co-worker if you want. I'm just saying if you constantly and consistently give, that person at some point stops seeing it as "a nice or sweet thing to do for them" and instead as 'your job'. So if you withdraw it, they get angry like you stabbed them in the back or let them down. They long ago forgot 'that was awfully sweet of you to do for me'. It is no longer a gift and is now an expected duty of servitude.
> 
> The second part is once it becomes expected, they tend not to reciprocate in any way. It's only when they know you have valid choices and what they want is just one option, do they make efforts to influence your decision whether or not to help them.


I have the poster child example of this...

When I was married to my ex-wife, I had to get up well before her to go to work. One morning, I made coffee for her before I left so it would be ready when she woke up. I got a wonderful thank you, you're so sweet, loving, appreciative text from her. I continued to make coffee in the morning before I left for work. One morning, about a year later, I didn't make coffee before I left. I got a very nasty text about how I had screwed up her morning routine, and how her whole day was off because she had to make the coffee and wait for it, and I had no regard for her, what she goes through in a day, or anything beyond my own nose. I did the doormat thing, and never missed a day after that.


----------



## Created2Write

SA, your husband and mine sound a lot alike. My husband doesn't brag, either. In fact, he'd sooner avoid talking about himself and what he does well than give himself due praise. It's one of the many reasons I love him so much. There are so many great things he is, and can do, but he's very humble about it. Always looking to do better and to be better. He's really my inspiration every single day.


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> I have the poster child example of this...
> 
> When I was married to my ex-wife, I had to get up well before her to go to work. One morning, I made coffee for her before I left so it would be ready when she woke up. I got a wonderful thank you, you're so sweet, loving, appreciative text from her. I continued to make coffee in the morning before I left for work. One morning, about a year later, I didn't make coffee before I left. I got a very nasty text about how I had screwed up her morning routine, and how her whole day was off because she had to make the coffee and wait for it, and I had no regard for her, what she goes through in a day, or anything beyond my own nose. I did the doormat thing, and never missed a day after that.


Making coffee screwed up her whole routine? She must have been a massive procrastinator then...


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> I have the poster child example of this...
> 
> When I was married to my ex-wife, I had to get up well before her to go to work. One morning, I made coffee for her before I left so it would be ready when she woke up. I got a wonderful thank you, you're so sweet, loving, appreciative text from her. I continued to make coffee in the morning before I left for work. One morning, about a year later, I didn't make coffee before I left. I got a very nasty text about how I had screwed up her morning routine, and how her whole day was off because she had to make the coffee and wait for it, and I had no regard for her, what she goes through in a day, or anything beyond my own nose. I did the doormat thing, and never missed a day after that.


Your ex-wife and Racer's wife both have PD's.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> but *if they're taking*, then they damn well better be giving and you shouldn't hesitate to ask for whatever you might need of them.


If its selfish to expect that those whom you help when they need it, be willing to help you when you need it - then I'll take selfish every time.

Doormats give all their time and free rides.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If its selfish to expect that those whom you help when they need it, be willing to help you when you need it - then I'll take selfish every time.
> 
> Doormats give all their time and free rides.


You can "doormat" yourself to being a BUM on the street!

So this man has got it.

I too, will occasionally give to charity, but people I exchange my time to make their life easier on a regular, I expect the same in return.

If they think my role in their life is to help them and as a backup ATM, then they have it twisted.


----------



## Created2Write

It's not selfish to expect others to treat you the way you treat them. It's selfish to expect more from others than you, yourself, are willing to give. Always putting other before self is an unhealthy way to live. But always playing self before others is also an unhealthy way to live. There has to be balance. 

Not "hesitating to ask [of others] whatever you need from them", while simultaneously only giving what's "left over" *is* selfish.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

Created2Write said:


> SA, your husband and mine sound a lot alike. My husband doesn't brag, either. In fact, he'd sooner avoid talking about himself and what he does well than give himself due praise. It's one of the many reasons I love him so much. There are so many great things he is, and can do, but he's very humble about it. Always looking to do better and to be better. He's really my inspiration every single day.


Any man who brags or feels a need to be egotistical has an inferiority complex. Even a superiority complex is nothing more than an inverted inferiority complex.

Sounds like you have a good catch. I think the longer any person lives the more he/she realizes he/she doesnt know; this should be cause enough for humbleness.

All of us stumble along in the dark for a short time before we leave consciousness- I would hate for the wonder to die by somehow knowing it all


----------



## jaharthur

Deejo said:


> Probably not as much as my posting style indicates. Often I'm attempting humor or irony. That can be challenging in print.


Methinks you are too frequently not up to the challenge.


----------



## Deejo

jaharthur said:


> Methinks you are too frequently not up to the challenge.


I just keep hoping for a smarter audience.


----------



## Created2Write

OptimisticPessimist said:


> Any man who brags or feels a need to be egotistical has an inferiority complex. Even a superiority complex is nothing more than an inverted inferiority complex.
> 
> Sounds like you have a good catch. I think the longer any person lives the more he/she realizes he/she doesnt know; this should be cause enough for humbleness.
> 
> All of us stumble along in the dark for a short time before we leave consciousness- I would hate for the wonder to die by somehow knowing it all


I have a great catch. He's got work to do still, but so do I. There are aspects where he's way ahead of me, and aspects where I'm way ahead of him. I believe that we're always a work in progress...we never reach the point where we're a work completed. 

DH knows that he's great at certain things. He's in numerous management positions at work where people constantly attempt to undermine him, or blame him for things that didn't happen in or because of his department. He knows how and when to stand his ground, but instead of just being a d!ck to everyone(like pretty much everyone else does,) he's tactful as to how he handles those situations. He is the most patient man I have ever known. It's one of the many, many reasons I chose him.


----------



## Created2Write

I sincerely hope that was sarcasm, Deejo.


----------



## jaharthur

Blonde said:


> Wilson is nice and very loyal but super OCD which would drive me nuts. House is entirely too mean for me. Chase is a hunk, moral, former seminarian for the priesthood and I'm not gonna lie, Thirteen is intriguing


Chase, moral? He MURDERED a patient!


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> I sincerely hope that was sarcasm, Deejo.


Me? Sarcastic?

Yes.

If you read enough of my posts, you will notice that I occasionally miss words. I think them while I'm typing but they don't end up in the type. It's a deficit I try to work around. I know I'm not always clear. It isn't always intentional.


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> I have a great catch. He's got work to do still, but so do I. There are aspects where he's way ahead of me, and aspects where I'm way ahead of him. I believe that we're always a work in progress...we never reach the point where we're a work completed.
> 
> DH knows that he's great at certain things. He's in numerous management positions at work where people constantly attempt to undermine him, or blame him for things that didn't happen in or because of his department. He knows how and when to stand his ground, but instead of just being a d!ck to everyone(like pretty much everyone else does,) he's tactful as to how he handles those situations. He is the most patient man I have ever known. It's one of the many, many reasons I chose him.


Man you are really holding his jock. Must feel nice to be him.


----------



## Created2Write

Yeah...moral isn't a word I would use when describing Chase. 

Course no one on House's team is very moral. They break the rules/law all of the time, and for no other reason than that House has told them to.


----------



## Ikaika

Deejo said:


> I just keep hoping for a smarter audience.


No such luck here, I would say 90% of the TAM conversation fly right over my head. Mr. Clueless


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> Man you are really holding his jock. Must feel nice to be him.


...Holding his jock? That...sounds like a euphemism. I'm proud to be his wife, if that's what you mean. There's really only one thing I'd change about him, and he's working on it. I love him more than I could love anyone else and I think he's an absolutely amazing guy.


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> ...Holding his jock? That...sounds like a euphemism. I'm proud to be his wife, if that's what you mean. There's really only one thing I'd change about him, and he's working on it. I love him more than I could love anyone else and I think he's an absolutely amazing guy.


Proud to be his wife. What century they pull you out of. That's a great complement that would uplift anyone!

Wow. I love to hear it.


----------



## jaharthur

treyvion said:


> Proud to be his wife. What century they pull you out of. That's a great complement that would uplift anyone!
> 
> Wow. I love to hear it.


My wife would say the same about me. And I have the same sentiment about her.

Proud, fortunate, and lucky.

Is there something about the 21st Century that disallows such attitudes? I didn't get a copy of that memo.


----------



## heartsbeating

samyeagar said:


> I would expect my wife to be mature and aware enough to come to her own decision without me having come up with her choices for her.


It was pages back but I absolutely felt this sentiment reading jld's question.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> Proud to be his wife. What century they pull you out of. That's a great complement that would uplift anyone!
> 
> Wow. I love to hear it.


lol. Well, I wouldn't have married him if I weren't proud to be with him.


----------



## heartsbeating

I'm still catching up with the thread but I will say my husband's journey had him reaching a turning point where he became more assertive. I'd felt he was assertive before this, but unravelling the dynamic we had reached together, along with me not meeting his needs and needing to face my own home-truths, this renewed sense of self I saw in him was different. And it dealt with his past in a way I hadn't seen before. Thing is, we worked on our stuff TOGETHER. Wouldn't have stood a chance or deserved a chance if we weren't both willing. Turns out, I also needed to be more assertive in my own right. 

Now it's as though some of the thoughts I had when joining TAM belonged to someone else. I'm not that same person anymore. Neither is he. There's elements of self that remain but the perspective is completely different. Boundaries, expectations etc all much clearer between us now. These changes have played out in other areas of life too. In the past with work, he's been termed a bull in a china shop. Now it's channeled slightly differently to be more about integrity and not being a 'yes' man. Sometimes it would be easier (falsely) if he was lol. But, I admire that about him.


----------



## heartsbeating

Lyris' thread about edge... is this scenario the opposite?

He'd given me a quirky look and I playfully responded, _don't cha love me?_

_Baby, I love you more than I ever have._

I flashed him my boobs in reply.

He complimented, then said, _Bring that beautiful body of yours over here._

_mreow_

That works for me!


----------



## heartsbeating

Created2Write said:


> It's not selfish to expect others to treat you the way you treat them. It's selfish to expect more from others than you, yourself, are willing to give. Always putting other before self is an unhealthy way to live. But always playing self before others is also an unhealthy way to live. There has to be balance.
> 
> Not "hesitating to ask [of others] whatever you need from them", while simultaneously only giving what's "left over" *is* selfish.


Yes, it's taken me this long to get through the thread.

Love what you have to say here.

Also for those who have experienced being the 'go to' guy and then not receiving help in return, I'm curious if any called this out and confronted?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Racer

heartsbeating said:


> Also for those who have experienced being the 'go to' guy and then not receiving help in return, I'm curious if any called this out and confronted?


Of coarse... and out come the excuses, justifications, and gross embellishments of what they do for you. (that's more in the wife/gf category of 'in general' being the one who's giving more in the relationship). Later it becomes 'it's not a gift, that's your chore..'

For friendships & co-workers. It's more like they say "you never ask" or "but you are good at that and I struggle"... So they tend to be more complimenting you like "You really know computers and I don't. If I did I wouldn't call you." Sometimes even a hint of guilting like offering you money if it 'bothers you so much'.

Volunteer groups, boards, etc. They just go for the guilt trip stuff. Try to make you feel bad for 'not caring'. 

And there are a good portion of folks who continue to see it as a gift. I've gotten that friendly six-pack, gift certificates to places, etc. in appreciation for my help.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Not paying yourself first is the unhealthy way to live. The term comes from saving/retirement planning... where even if one owes debts, one is recommended to contribute to their own savings/retirement FIRST. The reason being, failure to do so usually means NEVER saving anything - never taking care of yourself. Someone who is not paying themselves first in terms of addressing their needs is the definition of a doormat - it will always be tomorrow that they'll finally have money to put in savings... it will always be tomorrow that they have time to put into themselves rather than the needs of others. Words of wisdom for you: When tomorrow comes, its going to look an awful lot like today. All healthy individuals ensure that their own needs are being met, therefore whatever time they spend helping others IS "their remaining time." That IS balance. Your net should not be self-sacrifice - doing so is a long term recipe for unhappiness imo.

Its not selfish to ask for help when you need it. Its not selfish to expect those you help when they need it, to help you when you need it. "Not hesitating to ask" in kind, is one of the ways a person puts themselves first. Doormats tend avoid burdening anyone, even the people they have helped - because again, they put the needs of others above their own.

Pay yourself first.


----------



## jld

Everyone wants to feel respected, that's for sure. No one wants to feel taken advantage of.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

heartsbeating said:


> Also for those who have experienced being the 'go to' guy and then not receiving help in return, I'm curious if any called this out and confronted?


If you're a car guy, handy man, or computer guy... and I am all three... people will call on you. OFTEN. You absolutely cannot help them all, all of the time. You have no duty to. You must be sure your own needs are taken care of before giving to others. It is the only way to be healthy long term. The burdens others wish to place on you will not stop coming - you have to refuse them, not because you can't help, but because you've given YOURSELF that time. The needs of others do not come before your own. A ton of people have a problem with this - more women than men even. They find it noble to be so self-sacrificing... only to wonder one day down the line why they are so unhappy. Why others seem to think nothing of the burdens they place of them. It becomes regular... the norm... and the norm is rarely shown much appreciation. They feel unappreciated for all their sacrifice. They don't stand up for their own needs. They don't pay themselves first. Doormats.

When the help I give when needed, is not returned when I need it, I withdraw my help. Not the first time, not the second time... but you begin to recognize the leeches. There really isn't a need to "call it out" - you just stop helping and they stop asking. They've done you no offense in asking for help. You do them no offense in refusing - nothing is owed. You simply recognize the imbalance and put an end to it.

I have had a couple people in the past get pissy when I wouldn't help, and that's the only time it has been necessary to point out that they are takers, who always have excuses and never give back. "When have you helped me out? When have you been there when I needed you? Did you show up when I asked for moving help? Did you come out when I needed a jumpstart? etc etc. What do I owe you? Why should I want to help you? You've got the wrong guy." But that's still the exception. Takers have no intention of changing. They are who they are. When you stop helping, most simply look elsewhere.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If you're a car guy, handy man, or computer guy... and I am all three... people will call on you. OFTEN. You absolutely cannot help them all, all of the time. You have no duty to. You must be sure your own needs are taken care of before giving to others. It is the only way to be healthy long term. The burdens others wish to place on you will not stop coming - you have to refuse them, not because you can't help, but because you've given YOURSELF that time. The needs of others do not come before your own. A ton of people have a problem with this - more women than men even. They find it noble to be so self-sacrificing... only to wonder one day down the line why they are so unhappy. Why others seem to think nothing of the burdens they place of them. It becomes regular... the norm... and the norm is rarely shown much appreciation. They feel unappreciated for all their sacrifice. They don't stand up for their own needs. They don't pay themselves first. Doormats.
> 
> When the help I give when needed, is not returned when I need it, I withdraw my help. Not the first time, not the second time... but you begin to recognize the leeches. There really isn't a need to "call it out" - you just stop helping and they stop asking. They've done you no offense in asking for help. You do them no offense in refusing - nothing is owed. You simply recognize the imbalance and put an end to it.
> 
> I have had a couple people in the past get pissy when I wouldn't help, and that's the only time it has been necessary to point out that they are takers, who always have excuses and never give back. "When have you helped me out? When have you been there when I needed you? Did you show up when I asked for moving help? Did you come out when I needed a jumpstart? etc etc. What do I owe you? Why should I want to help you? You've got the wrong guy." But that's still the exception. Takers have no intention of changing. They are who they are. When you stop helping, most simply look elsewhere.


That's why for these services you HAVE to charge them. It's the only way to keep it right.

Takers, you can explain to them all day and everyday that your about to be done with their azz unless they are helpful to you, but your kindness is taken for weakness and these idiots think they are dominant over you for you helping their azz out. Let them leech each other...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I don't think you have to charge. Its not about money and perfectly even exchange. Its about cooperation and the betterment of friends. Sometimes it takes discovering that someone is a taker, to learn that they're not a friend you want to have.


----------



## missthelove2013

thus
to sum up
sexually active horny women like bad boyz who treat them like shlt
once women lose interest in sex, they want a good boy to support them and watch chick flicks with

sounds about right

SINGLE FOREVER...BOOYAH


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't think you have to charge. Its not about money and perfectly even exchange. Its about cooperation and the betterment of friends. Sometimes it takes discovering that someone is a taker, to learn that they're not a friend you want to have.


Do you ever point out to people when they're taking advantage of you? 

I don't think it's obvious to some people. 

And I will tell you that I have a hard time saying those kinds of things too. I prefer to just walk away, but I don't think it's very brave.


----------



## Deejo

Caring individuals who derive satisfaction and gratification from helping or doing for others, doesn't always a doormat make.

My 8 year old daughter is effectively a clone of me. Scares me sometimes. Insightful, and empathetic, at 8 for cripes sake, I can see her playing the peace maker role, and purposely taking a hit to her own self interest, in the interest of keeping peace or making someone else smile.

You can bet I'll be working with her on balancing that equation.

I don't think Nice Guys are more attractive.

I think that guys who are attractive are more attractive, folks can keep saying it's simple ... and maybe it is if you are with your soul mate. But if you find yourself unattached and looking, trust me, it's far from simple. Not that I'm complaining. The discovery process keeps things interesting.

Attraction has many more moving parts than being courteous, considerate, thoughtful, communicative and witty. 

You will find any of those combination of traits listed in 95% of dating profiles.

If it was 'easy' we'd be pairing off at the drop of a hat. But we don't. 

Attraction is both very general, and very, very, personal.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> Do you ever point out to people when they're taking advantage of you?
> 
> I don't think it's obvious to some people.
> 
> And I will tell you that I have a hard time saying those kinds of things too. I prefer to just walk away, but I don't think it's very brave.


I take the perspective that no one takes advantage of me without my consent. So all the times I helped and they did not, those aren't advantage taking... I consented to help them, because I want to help my friends. I believe friends want to help their friends. So when I realize that I never receive any help from them, what really happens is that I recognize that they're not a friend... so I stop treating them as one. They're just someone I know.

I have no reservation about calling someone out for being a taker or a piece of sh*t in general, but I've learned doing so is a waste of time. If I were mad about it, doing so my satisfy my ego - but I've never actually been mad about it. They are who they are. Nothing I say will change them. I just don't want to help them anymore. They aren't someone I choose to count among my friends. Rather than feeling angry about it, my thoughts come more from a place of "Well, that's a shame." I'd rather have 1 less bad friend, than 1 more bad friend.


----------



## jld

But you could do them a favor. Sometimes people really do not know.

And again, I know it is hard. I rarely do it myself. But I hope someday I will feel comfortable doing that.


----------



## Curse of Millhaven

Oh Hey Zeus but don’t I just love a good doormat! When a human male prostrates himself before me so I can wipe my razor-sharp talons down his back after a hard day of stealing food from Phineus and fighting Jason…what harpy wouldn’t love that?! Bring me your doormats, I say! I could always use more…they wear out so frequently…

In all seriousness the above is a lie. I’m totally an evil monster of myth, that much is true, but I actually don't need any more doormats. What I really love to sink my claws into are assh0les. Not, you know, actual holes of the ass, but rather “bad boys” that love to treat women like sh!t. Simply irresistible! I mean, Mr. A. Hole, when I was younger and just innocently walking by minding my own on a hot summer day in my thin cotton t-shirt and you felt compelled to spread the manure in your head my way with this lovely line…”Girl, you look good, but your tits are too small”…why _thank you_, and well, let’s just say you had me at “girl” and I was ready for our matching ring-finger tattoos by “tits”! And when another of your brethren kept insisting on chatting me up despite my icy demeanor and disinterest and when I politely refused to “go out” with him, concluded with “what you’re too good for me?" and huffed off...Ah the romance! Be still my clenching vagina! And years later when a foreign member of your tribe thought it was a capital idea to grab my wrist and rub his semi-hard penis on my hip in a crowded shop and say, “talk to me, bebe, speaka the English to me!” That was _awesome_! And so on and so forth in a lifetime of fending off assh0les.

In all honesty from where I stand and where I’ve always stood…”nice” is what I’ve desired; to be treated with kindness, respect and decency. That’s it. I don’t care if it is hackneyed to say I am attracted to nice men or if others believe that my control tower and my runway want two different things. I know what I seek out in others and it has never wavered…I’ve always wanted a good man I can trust who has a kind heart and gentle spirit. And I don’t care what that heart/soul are wrapped in or how much money they make or what kind of car they drive or if they have the elusive Goldilocks of “edge” that’s not too sharp but not too dull. As long as they treat animals and me with care and honor, then both my control tower and runway are in accord…we have clearance and can prepare for take-off from there. And God willing there will be clear skies and zero turbulence, which would be…nice.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> But you could do them a favor. Sometimes people really do not know.
> 
> And again, I know it is hard. I rarely do it myself. But I hope someday I will feel comfortable doing that.


Doing them yet another favor, is exactly what I have no interest in doing anymore. haha 

Once again, I don't have any issues with calling someone out on their bs. It's that I know from experience that it doesn't go anywhere. It's pointless. They get defensive and/or come up with more excuses, guilt ploys, and woe is me stories. So unless you're frustrated and simply need to vent, or just enjoy drama, it's really a waste of your time. You're better off just cutting the dead weight.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Doing them a favor, is exactly what I have no interest in doing anymore. haha
> 
> Once again, I don't have any issues with calling someone out on their bs. Its that I know from experience that it doesn't go anywhere. Its pointless. They get defensive and/or come up with more excuses, guilt ploys, and woe is me stories. So unless you're frustrated and simply need to vent, or just enjoy drama, its really a waste of your time. You're better off just cutting the dead weight.


Yeah, that works. And you don't have to do them any favors. And people do get extremely defensive when they know they are wrong, and start blaming like crazy, and basically do anything other than look at what you tell them.

But I do think that if you are speaking the truth, it will eat at their conscience until they make peace with it.


----------



## heartsbeating

jld said:


> But I do think that if you are speaking the truth, it will eat at their conscience until they make peace with it.


I'd do it to for self, not the other person. It's being assertive. An assertive person will not be a doormat. And it doesn't need to lead to drama or unnecessarily holding on to relationships / friendships.

I'll admit that I've found it very difficult to do. It's easier to just drop it, avoid and move on. But I'd rather be the alternative - the person that can calmly assert, simply because I feel it's healthier for me.

From the perspective jld is bringing, I'm grateful to the friends who have asserted to me when needed. It helped me learn more about myself as well as their needs. Our friendships were able to strengthen as a result.


----------



## heartsbeating

Curse of Millhaven said:


> Be still my clenching vagina!


:lol: You're great.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Me and my husband had a short conversation today, I was telling him he spoils me ...he came home, fixed the mower... I should have gotten out there & cut the grass..so he could work on his chain saw that won't start.... but he did it all -while I was playing on here.. then I felt bad.. telling him he spoils me too much when he came in.....and he says ...

"you can't spoil someone too much"..he was being very affectionate saying this.. leaning over top of me...and I just started laughing out loud, thinking if he put his philosophy on how to treat women on TAM ...he would be lambasted and pitch forked for saying something like that.. 

Then he went on some more how he likes to spoil me, it makes him happy.. 

I'm sure you'd all see that as some form of Doormatism.. but that was one of our exchanges today.... Next time I will cut the grass.

I slacked today but it was the 1st time this summer... I really don't want to take advantage...*his being this way makes me want to give back **more*... If I showed no thankfulness to what he does... was consistently lazy in return, sucking up all his goodness... he would surely grow weary and resent me though..


----------



## Deejo

Curse of Millhaven said:


> I know what I seek out in others and it has never wavered…I’ve always wanted a good man I can trust who has a kind heart and gentle spirit. And I don’t care what that heart/soul are wrapped in or how much money they make or what kind of car they drive or if they have the elusive Goldilocks of “edge” that’s not too sharp but not too dull. As long as they treat animals and me with care and honor, then both my control tower and runway are in accord…we have clearance and can prepare for take-off from there. And God willing there will be clear skies and zero turbulence, which would be…nice.


You are extraordinarily artful with prose. I mean it.

Based upon your elaborate description, and conscientious disclaimer about appearance, I've found your mate.










I don't really mean it. 

It's just ya'know ... there is still that attraction piece. This gentleman has a caring demeanor ... and look, he even loves annoying, yippy, little cat-dog-things.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Deejo said:


> You are extraordinarily artful with prose. I mean it.
> 
> *Based upon your elaborate description, and conscientious disclaimer about appearance, I've found your mate.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really mean it.
> 
> It's just ya'know ... there is still that attraction piece. This gentleman has a caring demeanor ... and look, he even loves annoying, yippy, little cat-dog-things.


For some reason, that picture didn't show up on my computer, so I looked it up >>>









This man actually reminded me of a couple I know.. her story was...she married a high school football player..very good looking, egotistical to the hilts... he was the dominant extroverted...she the submissive, catering ...

They had 2 kids... but he mistreated her for years, we'd see them at parties, in front of others he would put her down...just demeaning...in ear shot of everyone.. uncomfortable...(so we could only imagine what it was like at home)... he was a big mouth.. obnoxious, once I got into a debate with him around a Bonfire...he tried to pulverize me but I held my own....My H would always make comments to his behavior when we left and the friend who hostessed the party...would also tell me about him , he's just not a good person, and how she wanted better for her friend...

Eventually she met a man that this picture reminds me of ...-minus the dog....she met him in the home she worked at... heavy set, never married...very very kind ...*NICE*..seems he has little else to offer.. doesn't have a great job...but he treated her so good...better than she has ever been treated in her life, at this point I am sure her self esteem was on the ground..

Ya know... she left her husband for this man.. they have been together for a good 3 yrs now.. and I guess she is happy. I've seen them about 4 times since then.

So crazier things can happen -when you've been on the extreme end living your life with a c0cky Jack*ss, I guess you are willing to go overboard in the other direction..


----------



## LeGenDary_Man

OptimisticPessimist said:


> The ideal man- the one you search for through fields of online dating sites and personal encounters- is the one who both cares AND who has his own successful formula for dealing with the world in such a way that allows him to attain positive results for him (and you, by proxy).


I agree that these characteristics define a real man. 

To be honest, it is not difficult to be an ideal man. I have a code of conduct for life, pre-determined ambitions that I am slowly but surely fulfilling and I also care about my fiancée. These are the qualities that convinced her to consider me and she is a catch as well. My fiancée is not materialistic but she knows that I will do my best to provide her a comfortable life-style and I will also not be a doormat. In my relationship, I have defined the boundaries so far even though I have encouraged my fiancée to do the same but she respects my judgments and acknowledges my leadership potential.

I advice men to have some goals in life and be patient at choosing the right woman. Don't bend yourself too much to please a woman, ensure a balance that works for both. If you bend too much, you may spoil your woman and it will be difficult for you to keep her under track afterwards. If you maintain a balance, your woman is likely to respect you and take you seriously, she is also likely to feel content in her choice.

Choosing the right woman is important, every woman is not the same. Be patient and observe carefully.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

Why guys like good girls, while women like bad boys : LIFE : Tech Times

Just saw this on a news sweep this morning. Not the greatest study or article, but on subject.

"These three studies reinforce the idea that women who listen to a man's problems are seen as sexually attractive, *while the same behavior by men is, at best, neutral in the eyes of women*. Some females can perceive responsiveness as manipulative, possibly trying to gain sexual favors."

Not sure about the latter part of that quote, and its important to note much of this "study" pertains to new couples, not established ones like here on TAM.

I also have my reservations with such studies, but I do think it falls in line with my thesis- women are _indifferent_ to a man expressing care _until he demonstrates other characteristics which demonstrate his value._ Care being attractive is contingent on him having characteristics which demonstrate his ability to effect a positive environment through his actions.

Take SimplyA above- her husband does many things that are masculine/useful- so when he does nice supportive things for her, she FEELS.

Anyways, just some food for discussion in this thread


----------



## jld

You are right, Optimist. Have you read any of IndiaInk's posts, by the way? She says women are attracted by power. Power is defined differently by different women. It is not always money and status. It may be quietness and gentleness.

I guess the trick is to figure out what speaks power to your wife, and then develop that.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

jld said:


> You are right, Optimist. Have you read any of IndiaInk's posts, by the way? She says women are attracted by power. Power is defined differently by different women. It is not always money and status. It may be quietness and gentleness.
> 
> I guess the trick is to figure out what speaks power to your wife, and then develop that.


I have not specifically read posts by that user, but I will now.

FWIW, I agree with her. The "power is defined differently by different women" part I absolutely agree with. 

Quietness and gentleness could be a "power" determined by a man's ability to be civilized no matter what his environment, etc (not to lecture or explain why, but to agree with you/her). A young girl might find power in toned abs and big arms, another might find power in a brilliant mind, etc etc. 

I also agree with your last line. Sometimes a woman you want may not find power in who you are (due to the way her society/genetics shaped her when she grew up), and thus its unrequited.

I tend to think if youve ended up married, the woman has found a "power" she is attracted to- the trick is to grow together and to continue demonstrating that power. People can grow apart as different experiences shape her definition of power and his definition of femininity differently; our marriage counseling and calls for "communication" are how we try to ensure couples grow together instead of apart.

Of course, YMMV FWIW and all that


----------



## jld

You don't have to do YMMV and FWIW, JMO, etc. with me, OP. I am secure enough to hear a different opinion than my own, and remain calm and rational. Usually. 

Actually, I really enjoy hearing opinions that differ from my own. They challenge my thinking. 

The trick is to not feel threatened, and get emotional, and demand that other people pacify you.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

jld said:


> You don't have to do YMMV and FWIW, JMO, etc. with me, OP. I am secure enough to hear a different opinion than my own, and remain calm and rational. Usually.
> 
> Actually, I really enjoy hearing opinions that differ from my own. They challenge my thinking.
> 
> The trick is to not feel threatened, and get emotional, and demand that other people pacify you.


Yeah, well I try to ensure I convey that I have an open mind and that I am not deadset on any one opinion. I have found "YMMV" and "FWIW" often diffuse _emotion_ from ever getting a start.

I think at least most of us can say weve failed to be perfectly open-minded at times; its cause for reflection, and we're bound to fail as we walk the fine line between arrogance, ignorance and confidence from time to time.

In any case, it wasnt specifically directed at you  Just in general..


----------



## jld

That makes sense, putting some words in right away, so people don't feel threatened by a different opinion than their own. I will try to remember that.

I think an open mind is important. Bad ideas will fall apart, anyway. Incomplete ideas will prove themselves incomplete. Solid ideas will remain solid.

I wish people were not afraid of ideas. You don't like an idea, say why. Or just ignore it. But why trying to stamp it out, or not allow it to be heard?


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

jld said:


> That makes sense, putting some words in right away, so people don't feel threatened by a different opinion than their own. I will try to remember that.
> 
> I think an open mind is important. Bad ideas will fall apart, anyway. Incomplete ideas will prove themselves incomplete. Solid ideas will remain solid.
> 
> I wish people were not afraid of ideas. You don't like an idea, say why. Or just ignore it. But why trying to stamp it out, or not allow it to be heard?


Well, inline with our conversation on power, having one's ideas socially vaunted is perhaps the greatest form of power.

On any forum, I think this becomes emotional tinder. If you put forth an idea- no matter how logically sound, emotionally neutral, etc- and it essentially dismisses another's argument, that person will use any and all means of response to validate their idea (as in a forum, ideas are about all we have); this is because that idea is the only way to remain socially relevant.

Consider this: what if the nazi's won the war? Would the dominant narrative of contemporary society view the holocaust as an evil occurence? Would jewish people be accepted as simply another race among many? Probably not (as scary as that alternate future sounds).

Consider this: if you deposit $3000 in a savings account, you will be lucky to get $30 in interest over the course of a year. The bank takes a significant percentage of that (required reserve in a fractional reserve banking system) and USES IT in speculative markets to earn profit. At the same time, if you go over $0.10 on your check card, that same bank will charge you a $35 "overdraft fee". And perhaps most horrifically, if the bank goes bankrupt, the _taxpayers_ pay you back your $3000 via the "FDIC". Why is this approach "right"? Because the banks have power- they make the rules.

Power _often determines_ the ideas that become accepted as "right". So, there is an incentive to either BE the power that defines "right", or to be a part of the social group that accepts beliefs known as right.

A person will become emotional, close-minded and even _desperate_ in the pursuit or sustainment of power. An open-mind could essentially be seen as "a mind willing to sacrifice power now in the interest of learning information that allows for a greater amount of power later" since all mental faculties are directed towards efficating an environment most favorable towards one's person (and those who that person cares about).

Wrapping this back into the subject of this thread, women are attracted to men who HAVE this power and who are _willing to share it with them and their offspring_ (referred to by the lingual label "care"). Without care, all a man's gifts are wasted exclusively on himself; without capacity or _power_, care cant DO anything of value.


----------



## jld

OptimisticPessimist said:


> On any forum, I think this becomes emotional tinder. If you put forth an idea- no matter how logically sound, emotionally neutral, etc- and it essentially dismisses another's argument, that person will use any and all means of response to validate their idea (as in a forum, ideas are about all we have); this is because that idea is the only way to remain socially relevant.


That's an interesting way to think about it. I think people have a lot invested in their ideas. Their lives are run by the ideas they have in their heads. If they believe that they've been "done wrong" by their partner, that they are victims, those ideas are probably pretty strongly in their heads. It's like a religion.

So when someone comes along and says No, you don't have to be a victim; you can change things! of course they're going to be resistant and defensive. It's not in their paradigm. It's uncomfortable. Most of us resist what is uncomfortable.



> A person will become emotional, close-minded and even _desperate_ in the pursuit or sustainment of power. An open-mind could essentially be seen as "a mind willing to sacrifice power now in the interest of learning information that allows for a greater amount of power later" since all mental faculties are directed towards efficating an environment most favorable towards one's person (and those who that person cares about).


Yep. People would rather remain hurting than change their ideas and stop hurting. They have to believe they are right, no matter what. They have too much invested. 

But what they don't realize is that they're missing out on a healthier, happier present and future, just for the price of adopting new, temporarily uncomfortable ideas.


----------



## heartsbeating

SimplyAmorous said:


> For some reason, that picture didn't show up on my computer, so I looked it up >>>


Deejo's post makes more sense now lol.


----------



## Curse of Millhaven

Deejo said:


> You are extraordinarily artful with prose. I mean it.


Thank you! I mean it.



Deejo said:


> Based upon your elaborate description, and conscientious disclaimer about appearance, I've found your mate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really mean it.
> 
> It's just ya'know ... there is still that attraction piece. This gentleman has a caring demeanor ... and look, he even loves annoying, yippy, little cat-dog-things.


He does seem sweet, doesn’t he? And he looks like he crochets his own underwear, which is…awesome! I know you posted this photo with the assumption that he is unattractive as some kind of challenge to my so-called “conscientious disclaimer”, but really my biggest complaint with the image is his choice of dog. His Kentucky waterfall is free flowing and he looks like he would give great bear hugs….win-win! 

Although, I did neglect to mention in my previous post my most important litmus test…what’s his stance on All Hallows’ Eve?
Would he agree: a) that it’s the best co-opted pagan holiday EVER, b) to carve pumpkins and decorate the house with me and dress up in elaborate homemade costumes and watch endless horror movies while passing out candy to the trick-or-treaters, and c) to appreciate my extensive collection of Día de los Muertos figurines, skulls, and dioramas which are displayed year round? 

He looks like a Christmas lover to me. That’s a deal breaker right there. Non-negotiable, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Well…with one exception. This fella gets a pass despite his obsession with Christmas just because he is so damned talented and some of his Christmas songs are so deliciously bittersweet:

Did I make you cry on christmas day? (Well, you deserved it) - Sufjan Stevens - YouTube

Sufjan Stevens - That Was The Worst Christmas Ever! - YouTube

Sufjan Stevens, "Christmas In The Room" [Track 3/9, Vol. 8] - YouTube

Christmas in July!

And to be fair and accurate…in my previous post I said treating me and animals with care and honor was what got clearance from my control tower and that we could prepare for take-off from there, i.e. get to know one another, build a bond, and develop trust, which is required to gain access to my runway. Based on just that photo you posted, if I were single and that man…loved all animals (not just purebred lapdogs), treated me with respect and kindness, and we seemed to have shared interests and my intuition “magic 8 ball” didn’t read “Predator: Going to wear your skin while vacuuming his basement kill room”, then I would not automatically disqualify him from anything. And besides…I’m no prize and am a total pain in the ass; he could do a lot better.


----------



## Curse of Millhaven

heartsbeating said:


> :lol: You're great.


I know you are, but what am I?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> You are right, Optimist. Have you read any of IndiaInk's posts, by the way? She says women are attracted by power. Power is defined differently by different women. *It is not always money and status. It may be quietness and gentleness.*
> 
> I guess the trick is to figure out what speaks power to your wife, and then develop that.


I've never heard it said before that quietness and gentleness can be seen as power.. now that is a new one! 



> *OptimisticPessimist said*:* Quietness and gentleness could be a "power" determined by a man's ability to be civilized no matter what his environment, etc*


 I mentioned this to my H...he still thinks power is only related to Wealth / social standing, things like that..

But your thoughts here.. Mine has this in droves... Like at work...the things that go on..if the Boss needs calmed.. (the man's had to go to anger management twice).. my husband is the man for the hour...Why.. he doesn't give attitude, cause drama, backbite...he can bring a little humor to a shi**y day...he does his work, shuts his mouth... very calm...cool... collected...a stability one can always count upon...a good listener...and you'll get an honest opinion..if you ask. 

If there is ANYTHING TO say about these traits on a power scale, it has to be due to some sort of *authenticity*...and a respectful goodness to hold a woman's interest...

I am watching the Bachelorette..and Chris, the FARMER.. oh the gentleness.. yet so stable, how he handled her crying telling him he wasn't the one/ it wasn't there.... I was SO impressed - "Now that is a MAN"... (this is what I was thinking watching it play down- I had this rising admiration for his handling of it , his words, his kiss to her hand as he walked off)...the height of grace...in total control of himself / his feelings..Yet he FELT THEM at the same time.. 










When I hear the word Attraction, I automatically think of LOOKS 1st ...(I wonder how other women are??).... I have to have an "hmmm , not too bad" going on in my head ...or it's an automatic "friend zone".. 

Another thing I want to say about attraction is this.. I will always like the Good guys.. I feel my personal attraction is dependent on how I am treated, it's not what the guy does externally that binds me to him but how he makes ME FEEL ABOUT MYSELF...what our chemistry brings to each of us, how I affect him also.. If I have no effect..or little effect on him... how BORING.. uneventful, why would I want to tie myself to that.. it's be like chasing something I couldn't catch... frustration comes to mind.

It wouldn't matter how much $$ he made, or how many other women wanted him ...like he is some superb catch...

I don't know if this is normal or not ?? .. but it's how it works for me personally...



> *OptimisticPessimist said:* I also have my reservations with such studies, but I do think it falls in line with my thesis- women are _*indifferent *_to a man expressing care *until* _*he demonstrates other characteristics which demonstrate his value.*_ Care being attractive is contingent on him having characteristics which demonstrate his ability to effect a positive environment through his actions.


Great observation....those other characteristics (for me)...as I mentioned above, shallow as it may be..would be "looks"... next questioning his reputation/ character... if our lifestyles/ beliefs would be compatible...and on down a line of boxes that needed checked.. Too often, they can't be...so the attraction is halted, you just know it wouldn't be wise.

Then is the question... are women seeking just a short term thing.. or long term/ Marriage (this is the only way I have ever thought, mind you)...but one thing is certain....our lists of "I NEED THIS" to "what are my personal deal breakers" will vary from woman to woman... we all want similar but the order of importance can vary greatly....

For instance.. there are women who set out seeking successful men/ 6 figures...this immediately UPs their attraction ... you know what comes to my mind ..(and I'd want to rule out)....

1. he's probably a workaholic
2. has little time for a family
3. maybe travels too much (that can bring it's own marital risks)...
4. Too many other women competing for him ...
5. Does he look down on those who have a more modest lifestyle...or a lessor education...

All of those would be a turn off to me... but I bet the next women would have a whole different take on that !



> *OptimisticPessimist said*: *Take SimplyA above- her husband does many things that are masculine/useful- so when he does nice supportive things for her, she FEELS.*


 You brought a  to my face taking our little exchange & sharing what you gleamed in that...how true it is..


----------



## jld

Curse of Millhaven said:


> And to be fair and accurate…in my previous post I said treating me and animals with care and honor was what got clearance from my control tower and that we could prepare for take-off from there, i.e. get to know one another, build a bond, and develop trust, which is required to gain access to my runway. Based on just that photo you posted, if I were single and that man…loved all animals (not just purebred lapdogs), treated me with respect and kindness, and we seemed to have shared interests and my intuition “magic 8 ball” didn’t read “Predator: Going to wear your skin while vacuuming his basement kill room”, then I would not automatically disqualify him from anything. And besides…I’m no prize and am a total pain in the ass; he could do a lot better.


You are a great gal, Curse. We are all a pita. Truly. 

I didn't get the big deal about that guy either. And in social a few weeks ago they were talking about how driving a minivan makes a guy a wimp. I didn't know that either. And they showed this picture of a guy and a gal getting their pictures taken with cats and that was supposed to be some sign that the guy was a wimp. All went right over my head.

I don't care what kind of a car a guy drives. And I don't think his getting a picture taken with cats has a deep significant meaning about his manhood.

I do think that the people who worry about those things are revealing a lot about their own insecurity.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've never heard it said before that quietness and gentleness can be seen as power.. now that is a new one!
> 
> Power has different definitions to different people. I think the ability to do the right thing, just because you think it's the right thing to do, regardless of what anyone else thinks, is incredibly powerful. It makes me respect a person.
> 
> I mentioned this to my H...he still thinks power is only related to Wealth / social standing, things like that.. Again, we all define it differently. Your husband's definition is probably a very common one, though.
> 
> But your thoughts here.. Mine has this in droves... Like at work...the things that go on..if the Boss needs calmed.. (the man's had to go to anger management twice).. my husband is the man for the hour...Why.. he doesn't give attitude, cause drama, backbite...he can bring a little humor to a shi**y day...he does his work, shuts his mouth... very calm...cool... collected...a stability one can always count upon...a good listener...and you'll get an honest opinion..if you ask. Mr SA is a wonderful man, truly. You chose well, SA! :smthumbup:
> 
> If there is ANYTHING TO say about these traits on a power scale, it has to be due to some sort of *authenticity*...and a respectful goodness to hold a woman's interest... I totally believe authenticity is powerful.
> 
> I am watching the Bachelorette..and Chris, the FARMER..* oh the gentleness.. yet so stable, how he handled her crying telling him he wasn't the one/ it wasn't there.... I was SO impressed - "Now that is a MAN"... (this is what I was thinking watching it play down- I had this rising admiration for his handling of it , his words, his kiss to her hand as he walked off)...the height of grace...in total control of himself / his feelings..Yet he FELT THEM at the same time.. *I wish I had seen that. Sounds like my idea of a good man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I hear the word Attraction, I automatically think of LOOKS 1st ...(I wonder how other women are??).... I have to have an "hmmm , not too bad" going on in my head ...or it's an automatic "friend zone".. I think this is more true than I realize. I don't think of looks as being very important to me, but I was definitely physically attracted to my husband right away when I met him.
> 
> Another thing I want to say about attraction is this.. I will always like the Good guys.. I feel my personal attraction is dependent on how I am treated, it's not what the guy does externally that binds me to him but *how he makes ME FEEL ABOUT MYSELF.*..what our chemistry brings to each of us, how I affect him also.. If I have no effect..or little effect on him... how BORING.. uneventful, why would I want to tie myself to that.. it's be like chasing something I couldn't catch... frustration comes to mind. I totally agree with the bolded. Dug is very affirming. Even when I get frustrated with him, I know that on a much deeper level I am greatly loved. He is so committed. He really believes in me.
> 
> It wouldn't matter how much $$ he made, or how many other women wanted him ...like he is some superb catch...Again, we all define power differently.
> 
> Great observation....those other characteristics (for me)...as I mentioned above, shallow as it may be..would be "looks"... next questioning his reputation/ character... if our lifestyles/ beliefs would be compatible...and on down a line of boxes that needed checked.. Too often, they can't be...so the attraction is halted, you just know it wouldn't be wise.It is important to be honest. If looks matter to you and are at the top of your list, then it's good to acknowledge that.
> 
> Then is the question... are women seeking just a short term thing.. or long term/ Marriage (this is the only way I have ever thought, mind you)...but one thing is certain....our lists of "I NEED THIS" to "what are my personal deal breakers" will vary from woman to woman... we all want similar but the order of importance can vary greatly....For sure.
> 
> For instance.. there are women who set out seeking successful men/ 6 figures...this immediately UPs their attraction ... you know what comes to my mind ..(and I'd want to rule out)....
> 
> 1. he's probably a workaholic
> 2. has little time for a family
> 3. maybe travels too much (that can bring it's own marital risks)...
> 4. Too many other women competing for him ...
> 5. Does he look down on those who have a more modest lifestyle...or a lessor education...
> 
> All of those would be a turn off to me... but I bet the next women would have a whole different take on that !Money is important to me. A strong work ethic really says a lot to me.
> 
> I need a lot of inner strength in a man to feel attracted to him. Intelligence is extremely important to me. Security in a man, as I define security, is also critical.
> 
> Your husband is secure, SA. And I recognize that authenticity of which you speak. Again, he is a great guy!
> 
> My husband is gentle, but not like yours. Your husband is very sweet and kind. Mine is kind, but there's just a rougher edge there. Sometimes it drives me crazy, but I probably need it.
> 
> I needed a man who would not be intimidated by me in any way, who actually is stimulated by my directness, and sees it as an asset to his own growth.
> 
> You brought a  to my face taking our little exchange & sharing what you gleamed in that...how true it is..Yep, you are a treat here on the board, optimistic pessimist. Like SA, I appreciated your thoughtful, insightful comments yesterday!
> 
> And SA, thanks for adding your own interesting post!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *jld said:* * I wish I had seen that. Sounds like my idea of a good man.*


Here you go Jld - love You tube !...the beginning of the END here...she is crying ...letting him down, rawfully honest...

Bachelorette Andi & Chris Overnight Date - Part 4/5  (4 mins)

Bachelorette Andi & Chris Overnight Date - Part 5/5  (4 mins)...more crying...he tells her she did the right thing, told her she is amazing.. kisses her hand... DAMN, what a GUY ! I think she's a fool for letting this one go.. but Ok. .. coming from me, I used to say I always wanted to marry a Farmer..


----------



## jld

It says it is not available for viewing?


----------



## jld

I am using an iPad, not a PC. I guess that is the problem.

Girls are so silly sometimes. They marry the wrong guy, for whatever reason, because he's cute or fun or something like that. Then the cute fun guy makes them cry, with all his selfish ways.

And then they think about the good guys that they threw away, guys that would've been so good to them, treated them so well, been truly kind to them. 

But you can't tell them anything at the time. _They know best._

Spoken like an old mother!


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Integrity in a man ooozes RESPECT ....


For me, it is essential. If I could not trust dh totally, I could not be with him.

I don't care about a lot of the more superficial things to the degree that other gals do. It would be nice, but it is not critical. 

But integrity is critical. It is one of my deepest emotional needs.

I think it is self-protection when you have as transparent of a nature as I do.


----------



## Deejo

heartsbeating said:


> Deejo's post makes more sense now lol.


Of what little sense there was to be made in the first place.


----------



## vellocet

Blonde said:


> What do you think? Do you think there is truth to House's statement?


In general, yes. But I would rather think it isn't because of the dried up ovaries theory as much as it is women as they get older tire of the games being played by the types of men to whom they were attracted. I think they, like men who do the same thing, mature in this area as they get older.

I've never been that "player" type, but haven't been shunned by women either. So I wouldn't say that younger women aren't attracted to nice guys.


----------



## Created2Write

heartsbeating said:


> I'd do it to for self, not the other person. It's being assertive. An assertive person will not be a doormat. And it doesn't need to lead to drama or unnecessarily holding on to relationships / friendships.
> 
> I'll admit that I've found it very difficult to do. It's easier to just drop it, avoid and move on. But I'd rather be the alternative - the person that can calmly assert, simply because I feel it's healthier for me.
> 
> From the perspective jld is bringing, I'm grateful to the friends who have asserted to me when needed. It helped me learn more about myself as well as their needs. Our friendships were able to strengthen as a result.


Some people in this world are users. They only take and take and take. Personally, I don't keep people like that in my life. I love giving and investing in my friendships and relationships, and I've been a doormat in friendships before. Choosing not to be a doormat isn't the same as outright putting self first 100% of the time. That's the opposite of being a doormat, and is just as damaging to self and the people around us. 

The majority of my friends have told me that I'm a better friend to them than they are to me. I can live with that. It's when a "friend" is only a friend in name, and seek to take as much from me as they can without giving anything back, that I put myself first entirely and cut them out of my life. Because, with my other friends, it's almost always worth it to be the best friend I can be. If I put myself first I will end my life with no one but myself. I'd rather be surrounded by the people I loved, accepted, supported, and encouraged.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> Girls are so silly sometimes. They marry the wrong guy, for whatever reason, because he's cute or fun or something like that. Then the cute fun guy makes them cry, with all his selfish ways.
> 
> And then they think about the good guys that they threw away, guys that would've been so good to them, treated them so well, been truly kind to them.


It is kind of sad that people speak in these absolutes...that a guy is either a total Nice Guy or he's a Bad Boy. There really are more than just two types of men. Not all cute, fun guys are selfish "Bad Boys". And not all truly nice men are clueless doormats.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> It is kind of sad that people speak in these absolutes...that a guy is either a total Nice Guy or he's a Bad Boy. There really are more than just two types of men. Not all cute, fun guys are selfish "Bad Boys". And not all truly nice men are clueless doormats.


Definitely.


----------



## nikoled

Several months ago I would have said yes to nice guys! But after my "nice guy" had an affair we have realized the issues that CAN come with being nice...bad boundaries. Now I wouldn't choose a nice guy. I"d choose a guy who is confident and a good leader over a "nice guy". But I also wouldn't want a jerk of course.


----------



## heartsbeating

Deejo said:


> Of what little sense there was to be made in the first place.


Without the picture showing, I thought you were referring to yourself as 'this guy' ...but it was the mention of a yippy cat-dog that really threw me. But, I try not to judge. Carry on, just as you are 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Quant

No,next question.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Quant likes the bad boys lol


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> It is kind of sad that people speak in these absolutes...that a guy is either a total Nice Guy or he's a Bad Boy. There really are more than just two types of men. Not all cute, fun guys are selfish "Bad Boys". And not all truly nice men are clueless doormats.


So true, there isn't a set list for 'nice guys' or 'bad boys'. The whole of the male gender doesn't fall into two catagories.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

TiggyBlue said:


> So true, there isn't a set list for 'nice guys' or 'bad boys'. The whole of the male gender doesn't fall into two catagories.


No, it doesn't..but depending on what we personally want in a man.. we all do our own personal categorizing ...

When I personally use the term Bad Boy ... this is what comes to mind:

He is someone who easily separates love and sex, he lives his life for FUN...commitment to one woman is something he would probably laugh at...and say "Are you kidding?- why the H would I want to put a leash on my di**?......

I would not see him as traditionally minded wanting kids .. he'd probably rather play pool , get a tattoo & hop on his Harley instead... He is generally c0cky, has an "I don't care attitude" ...and women seem to love it !!


----------



## heartsbeating

I don't relate tattoos to being bad, edgy, or good.. Although I'm curious why it is that when you get one, it's usually followed with another. Hubs mentioned the other night that he's thinking of his next design. I couldn't commit to one design to last me. Or, as I heard a comedian tell it 'ya don't put a bumper sticker on a Ferrari'. I kid. Hubs' friend has pretty much full-body worth of tats that are covered by corporate attire - conservative appearing, family man. But, I digress.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

heartsbeating said:


> *I don't relate tattoos to being bad, edgy, or good*.. Although I'm curious why it is that when you get one, it's usually followed with another. Hubs mentioned the other night that he's thinking of his next design. I couldn't commit to one design to last me. Or, as I heard a comedian tell it 'ya don't put a bumper sticker on a Ferrari'. I kid. Hubs' friend has pretty much full-body worth of tats that are covered by corporate attire - conservative appearing, family man. But, I digress.


Yes, you are right Heartsbeating.. I have my own example...

Our 6th son (what I call him anyway).... he's a nice guy... he got a large tattoo of a woman on his leg... he was all excited...pulling up his jeans to show me a few yrs back...his 1st TATT...no one would ever associate him with a Bad boy.. he loves kids.. even on the geeky side.. not out hammering the chicks by any means...so of course just a tattoo doesn't say much..I foresee him getting another someday too.

Just trying to give some flavor/ some association to what comes to my mind .... 

This is the epitome of a Bad Boy to me...* Jesse James*...numerous affairs while Married to Sandra Bullock...He's known as Hollywood's Bad Boy and he's earned the reputation....for some reason he keeps getting married again..(at least 4 times now?).... though monogamy just doesn't seem to be in his make up...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

heartsbeating said:


> I'll admit that I've found it very difficult to do. It's easier to just drop it, avoid and move on. But I'd rather be the alternative - the person that can calmly assert, simply because I feel it's healthier for me.
> 
> From the perspective jld is bringing, I'm grateful to the friends who have asserted to me when needed. It helped me learn more about myself as well as their needs. Our friendships were able to strengthen as a result.


Why would you feel it's healthier for you?

Personally, I have no interest in teaching someone how not to be a sh*tty friend. You're a grown man. I don't really see anything assertive about it. Why would saying something be difficult? From my experience, whether it be a friend abusing your generosity, a stranger in traffic cutting you off, a person cutting in line, or anything... the correction is just a waste of time. I've never known anyone to change such behavior because someone talked to them. You stop giving to the taker, you let the traffic go, you step back in front of the person who stepped in front of you in line. These people know what they're doing - they aren't going to change because you say something to them. Don't talk, act. I guess I don't agree with what you'd consider assertive. IMO, actions are way more assertive than conversations. Some people truly just aren't worth your time.


----------



## heartsbeating

It's not about teaching someone to be a friend or correcting another. It's about asserting my own boundaries and feelings without expectation of outcome. Although in the truer sense of being assertive, I guess it's about finding mutual outcome. It can be in various interactions. While others may view me as assertive, it's something I find difficult at times - which is why I feel it's healthier for me. The more it's done, the easier it gets.


----------



## heartsbeating

As for friendships, I'll have someone's back - but when traits or expectations have been expressed to me from my friends, it has helped me understand them better and view myself from their perspective. The finger can't point at itself.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating

However Dvls... I agree in part with your sentiment about actions. To me that's the follow on. There's no point asserting a boundary or expectation if actions don't back it up.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

