# “No More Mr. Nice Guy” by Robert Glover: my mini-review



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

I have had a respect-even reverence-for books for as long as I can remember. I treat them with care, and when I am done I either store them carefully in my bookcase or, if I don’t think I will read them again, donate them or give them away. The thought of throwing a book away seemed almost sacrilegious.

I made an exception for this book. But to be fair, the trash is where garbage goes, and that’s what this book is.

(Seriously, I threw the book away as soon as I finished it. I mention this to confirm that I actually did read the whole thing.)

I won’t go chapter by chapter or point by point (this is a “mini” review after all). I’ll just sum up my impressions, what I took away from it:



If other people mistreat, disrespect, use, or abuse you, it is your fault, not theirs; they are blameless
You are a fool if you expect other people to be nice to you and treat you decently because you do the same for them
Only by becoming a selfish a$$hole will you ever be liked and respected.

(Oh, by the way, if you have any of the problems mentioned in the book it’s because of childhood abandonment issues. If you don’t agree with that, it’s because your view of the past is distorted.)

What he says over and over, that the reason people mistreat you and walk over you is because you are too nice and accommodating, and the assertion that if this is the case you are the one who is flawed and needs to change, not the person mistreating you, is an ugly, disgusting point of view, akin to telling an abused woman she shouldn’t have made her husband angry.

I suspect that some of the author’s observations may be true, but not for the reason he thinks. When someone is a selfish, pushy, jerk, people may be more accommodating to them, but it is not because they respect them for being true to themselves and sticking up for themselves. It’s because the jerk is seen as confrontational that people tread lightly around them, to avoid making them mad and getting into a conflict. It is not respect, it is fear that gets these Un-Nice Guys what they want.

I see this book recommended all the time around here, and I just don’t get it.


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

You hit the nail on the head and that was exactly what I got out of that book as well. I think the "real" truth is that more women than not prefer the a$$hole over the caring, emotional, nice guy.

That book was written for all of the alpha male frat boy wannabees.


----------



## knightRider (Dec 31, 2014)

I've found the book very useful, especially relevant to those brought up by their mum's and have ended up as "woman" pleasers. 

Did not see the "selfish a$$hole" anywhere in the book that I've read so far. He does say that men should look after themselves and give unconditionally.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

knightRider said:


> I've found the book very useful, especially relevant to those brought up by their mum's and have ended up as "woman" pleasers.
> 
> Did not see the "selfish a$$hole" anywhere in the book that I've read so far. He does say that men should look after themselves and give unconditionally.


That is what I got out of it as well. Don't kill yourself to be a woman pleaser if you are only doing it expecting return in kind.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

knightRider said:


> Did not see the "selfish a$$hole" anywhere in the book that I've read so far.


He repeatedly advises men to look after their own needs and wants without regard for what others want or how it affects them. That's pretty much my definition of "a$$hole".


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

I have never read a book where I agreed with every point made or attempted by an author. I typically get something of value from all of them even if the ideas are inserted in between other ideas I find less useful.

Like conversations with several dozens people for a wide cross section of opinions on whatever issue is vitally important to me, I read several books on a subject and form my own opinion. 

What I don't do is get all bent out of shape when someone shares what I don't find applicable to my values and situation

Any book that alleviates suffering for thousands of men and those books that are enthusiastically recommended by them, that is trashed by a reader, has earned enough respect to question the motives of that reader review by the reader himself. 

Why the emotional response? Step of the holier than thou box and try the mirror. 

I find your first two points largely accurate and the label of "selfish a$$hole" to be suspect. Other posters back that up as well. 

Speculating, it appears the OP has issues he is not ready to address. 

So be it, but that doesn't make the book any less useful for others even if he isn't ready to consider points that have been helpful to others.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Woman here. I was married to a passive aggressive "nice guy" for 20 years. I found the book immensely helpful in sorting out (in my mind) much of his behavior.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

This review would be a lot more (or less) credible if you also mentioned the status of your sex life. Frankly if you're just another sexless nice guy, your opinion doesn't carry much weight. If you're not, then I'm very interested in how you turn the niceness into a positive for you without being taken advantage of.


----------



## knightRider (Dec 31, 2014)

Joey2k said:


> He repeatedly advises men to look after their own needs and wants without regard for what others want or how it affects them. That's pretty much my definition of "a$$hole".


Think you're missing the point. Men should look after themselves. It's the "pleasing others" that has a hidden meaning. Do not please others expecting a return.

I was brought up by my mum, dad died when I was 9. This book is a breath of fresh air to me. I see much emotional conditioning that my mum has "placed" into me. I am breaking free from this and am asserting my needs without being an "ass". People are noticing a change in me. I took a lot crap from men, not any more. I do things for women, not expecting a return. 

There is a much to learn from this book.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

If you expect and require a mutually satisfying relationship on balance, you are not a Nice Guy. If you accept an abusive or mean or nasty relationship thinking you can out nice your way into better sex, you are probably a Nice Guy. The opposite of Nice Guy is not ass.


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

Joey2k said:


> He repeatedly advises men to look after their own needs and wants without regard for what others want or how it affects them. That's pretty much my definition of "a$$hole".


facepalm


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> That is what I got out of it as well. Don't kill yourself to be a woman pleaser *if you are only doing it expecting return in kind*.


Quid Pro Quo. Nailed it.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

By pointing out that people are abused or mistreated because they allow it is huge...HUGE. 

Why? Because it affords someone the opportunity to see that they are planting their butt squarely in the victim chair. 

Do abusers and takers suck? Absolutely. But they can only abuse or take from those who stand idly by, wishing that the @$$hole would stop abusing or taking. The first step to getting out of a lousy situation is realizing you have the power to do so.

As a reforming nice guy (the process never really stops as being a nice guy is freaking ingrained in me), this book was invaluable.


----------



## JoeHenderson (Oct 3, 2011)

Hey there,

I'm not in love with the book, as I thought it simplified gender roles, and doesn't seem to acknowledge much of within group differences. With that said, I took what I needed from it. 

Regarding your first point, I didn't think that the author was blaming me rather than showing me I had agency. If I took some responsibility in my relationships, then I can do something about them rather than feel resigned to my fate. This was a big one for me. 

To your second point, I don't think he was calling me a fool for being nice, but perhaps calling me a fool for not being authentic. Shoveling "niceness" to people (perhaps when you're angry or sad deep down) and expecting different results other than mistreatment is foolish. 

Your third point is too black or white for me. I struggled with this as well at first because I was worried that being assertive would come across as being an *******. Strangely enough, being passive/nice is being an ******* because you're being an ******* to your own needs. I don't think he says to be aggressive or insensitive, but to have the courage to say what you want in a relationship. That's how I took it anyway. 

In summary, it wasn't my favorite book and I'm not a "Nice Guy" disciple, but I took some valuable information out of it. I wish you luck on your path.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> If you expect and require a mutually satisfying relationship on balance, you are not a Nice Guy. If you accept an abusive or mean or nasty relationship thinking you can out nice your way into better sex, you are probably a Nice Guy. *The opposite of Nice Guy is not ass*.


not so sure about this, if one defines 'nice guy' correctly and not as a codependent wimp. the opposite of 'nice' is 'not nice'.

I didn't read the book, so i will not comment on it's value.

however from what iv'e heard about it (and it's talked about TONS on this website). I don't agree with the paradigm 'don't be a nice guy'.
Don't be a codependent/passive aggressive wimp? Agreed. but that's not REALLY a nice guy, only a nice guy in disguise, so call it what it is and stop beating up on truly nice guys that happen to be independent and self assured.

from my own experience, iv'e been in abusive relationships, but iv'e also been in good ones that were not abusive. and i was always me. i didn't have to change for anybody. and what that taught me was it's the mate that makes the difference not who i am.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

There is a reason it is capitalized. It is an expression that has taken on meaning beyond the words that are used.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Men do need to pursue their own needs, ask for what they want, and act in ways that help them get it - ethically, and kindly, IMO. Being nice with the expectation that it will get you something in return is weak. Being kind or generous for its own sake is a different attitude. Of course, if the person who is the beneficiary of this behavior begins to expect these behaviors and never does or says anything to show their appreciation, it become a toxic relationship. You are not obligated to continue being "nice" if you're being taken advantage of. Nice guys will continue anyway, whereas good men will set limits as they'll know things have turned toxic.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

Joey2k said:


> I have had a respect-even reverence-for books for as long as I can remember. I treat them with care, and when I am done I either store them carefully in my bookcase or, if I don’t think I will read them again, donate them or give them away. The thought of throwing a book away seemed almost sacrilegious.
> 
> I made an exception for this book. But to be fair, the trash is where garbage goes, and that’s what this book is.
> 
> ...


This book is good for a minority of men. However, on this forum it is often recommended to all men.

There is a certain type of man who most men to not like because he is precious and self-absorbed. He considered himself better than other men and therefore believe women should treat him better, so expect him to talk about "Us men really are useless aren't we!  Where would we be without our ladies to look after us!", which is just being precious. Of course, he cannot really speak for all men. 

I have had girlfriends come up to me to say I have been to mean to their boyfriends, as the boyfriend has complained to them but does not say anything to me.

This sort of man considers himself and nice guy and he equates masculinity with being mean. Of course, this is not true and their claim to being a nice guy actually just makes them a self-absorbed *****. Often they will actually meet a woman who also equates masculinity with meanness and they will actually have a long happy marriage and this 'nice guy' will lecture other men on how they should try to learn to be better like women are, and self-absorbed women will give these Facebook declarations lots of likes. 

When these men have marriage problems, they are lost. For them, the book is brilliant.

However, it is recommended to many people on this forum (myself included) to whom it does not apply. That is the problem with it. It is useless for you, then perhaps you are right to trash it. But it is not that the book has no value, it just does not apply to your situation.

If you can read it in that context, there might well be useful advice in there. Just accept much of it does not apply.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Here's my mini-review.


This book is awesome. Buy it twice.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

Joey2k said:


> He repeatedly advises men to look after their own needs and wants without regard for what others want or how it affects them. That's pretty much my definition of "a$$hole".


I agree. But in the context of its target audience, it means that if you feel I have been mean to you, then tell me. Do not, mope feel sorry for yourself, be sweet but wimpery to your woman until you reveal that I was mean and then rely on her to speak with me.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

The flip side... the alternative.

One thing you see a lot on this board for men in sexless marriage is well have you talked to her about how important it is to you? 

This is not a helpful approach.

Taking a look at it. It is rarely in year 1 or 2 that this complaint starts. Short of a straight up bait and switch which is not fixable anyway, you are married, things are going ok. As time goes on it slowly dwindles until the dwindle amounts to a cessation. What happened? It is easy to focus on the sex. That's what the guy is missing, right?

Well depending on the guy, it can be any number of things. But it is not uncommon for him to have unwittingly contribute to this by losing her respect, admiration and attraction. Enter book on things like respect, admiration and attraction. 

My husband is VERY good to me. He takes care of me when I need it. But he also respects me, expects me to carry my load as well. On the practical side, we take care of each other. He is RESPONSIBLE. 

He cares for me, but not at his own expense. He owns his own feelings like a grown up should. He handles his ****, like a responsible grown up should. He is strong, confident and mature, like a grown up should be.

If he came to me with but I mopped the FLOOOR. And I do so MUCH for you. I nub you oh sweet smookums. Just. Ew. First of all, the chores are not mine. So you can't do them for me. And really if the only reason you did them was to get in my pants, then that is a Big Fat turn off.

Want to see Nice Guy in action? Read everything HappyBudda ever wrote. The weak, ycuky, ewishness coming off his posts... Married people should be nice to each other. But I can't say I even blame his wife for avoiding him,


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Oh the other thing, it has very little to do with blame and fault. It has to do with taking action to get what you want out of life, and adjusting your mindset accordingly. No one blames the victim of domestic abuse. Nonetheless, blame or no, they are the ones who usually have to act to change their situation.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Mr The Other said:


> This book is good for a minority of men. However, on this forum it is often recommended to all men.
> 
> There is a certain type of man who most men to not like because he is precious and self-absorbed. He considered himself better than other men and therefore believe women should treat him better, so expect him to talk about "Us men really are useless aren't we!  Where would we be without our ladies to look after us!", which is just being precious. Of course, he cannot really speak for all men.
> 
> ...


The reason it is recommended to all men here, is that a lot of the men here need this type of advice, same with MMSLP. 

Totally agree, you need to decide what to take for you. Many men here, me included, didn't get much out of this book, but man, did my brother.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Men do need to pursue their own needs, ask for what they want, and act in ways that help them get it - ethically, and kindly, IMO. Being nice with the expectation that it will get you something in return is weak. Being kind or generous for its own sake is a different attitude. Of course, if the person who is the beneficiary of this behavior begins to expect these behaviors and never does or says anything to show their appreciation, it become a toxic relationship. You are not obligated to continue being "nice" if you're being taken advantage of. "Nice" guys will continue anyway, whereas good men will set limits as they'll know things have turned toxic.


Winner, winner, chicken dinner.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Joey2k said:


> I’ll just sum up my impressions, what I took away from it:


My impression of the book and its author was very close to yours, Joey.

I would clarify though by pointing out that the tendency for people to confuse good manners, empathy and kindness with weakness is real and in an age of trashy reality television, that seems to be getting worse, not better. 

Although it can be an unparalleled delight to educate another man out of that mindset, one can't do that to the whole world and ultimately, it's bad for your blood pressure.


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

While we're on the "nice guy" subject, I've been wanting to flat out ask everyone, "Do you consider me a nice guy"? My skin has gotten ultra thick, so let the fur fly. Just keep in mind that I'm currently not in a mean, abusive or nasty relationship and I don't try to "nice" my way to get anything. Some of this may have been true in the past, but not anymore. My actions are solely my choice and done for me and not to gain anything in return.

So let's hear it and why you feel that I am or am not? A lot have read my threads, so this could benefit them as well.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

woundedwarrior said:


> While we're on the "nice guy" subject, I've been wanting to flat out ask everyone, "Do you consider me a nice guy"? My skin has gotten ultra thick, so let the fur fly. Just keep in mind that I'm currently not in a mean, abusive or nasty relationship and *I don't try to "nice" my way to get anything.* Some of this may have been true in the past, but not anymore. My actions are solely my choice and done for me and not to gain anything in return.
> 
> So let's hear it and why you feel that I am or am not? A lot have read my threads, so this could benefit them as well.


If this is true, then no--you likely are not a "Nice Guy".

Just remember--"Nice Guy" =/= "nice guy". I play fast and loose with capitalization, as anyone who's read my posts can attest. But this is one situation where I think capitalization is critical for understanding.

Nice Guy is a moniker for guys who only act nice for the purpose of getting something out of it. Which isn't very nice.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> If this is true, then no--you likely are not a "Nice Guy".
> 
> Just remember--"Nice Guy" =/= "nice guy". I play fast and loose with capitalization, as anyone who's read my posts can attest. But this is one situation where I think capitalization is critical for understanding.
> 
> Nice Guy is a moniker for guys who only act nice for the purpose of getting something out of it. Which isn't very nice.


There is an element in there whereby Nice Guys don't realize that not only is this quid pro quo not nice, it is unattractive as is all the mewling "talks" that tends to go along with it.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

Fozzy said:


> Nice Guy is a moniker for guys who only act nice for the purpose of getting something out of it. Which isn't very nice.


I don't understand the issue with this. Why is it bad to expect other people to be nice to me because I am nice to them? I want people to be nice to me, so I act in a way that I think should result in them behaving that way.

I seem to remember a saying, started something like "Do unto others..."


----------



## JoeHenderson (Oct 3, 2011)

Joey2k said:


> I don't understand the issue with this. Why is it bad to expect other people to be nice to me because I am nice to them? I want people to be nice to me, so I act in a way that I think should result in them behaving that way.
> 
> I seem to remember a saying, started something like "Do unto others..."


It's about the motivations and intentions that can be the difference between selflessness and selfishness. "Giving to get" is qualitatively different from "Do unto others."

"Hello random person in need. I know you're hungry. Have a sandwich."

VS

"Hunny, I vacuumed, did the laundry, went to the restaurant you wanted to (even though I sulked), so can I please have the sex now?"


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Because people aren't vending machines you can put Nice Coins into and get stuff back. Truly nice behavior is selfless. Expecting a return on your behavior is transactional, not selfless.

As an example--I enjoy doing stuff for my kids. Buying them toys--playing with them--taking them places they like. I do it for them because I want them to be happy--not because I expect them to return the favor some day. See the difference?


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

Joey2k said:


> I don't understand the issue with this


Obviously



Joey2k said:


> Why is it bad to expect other people to be nice to me because I am nice to them?


The expectation is absurd. It doesn't work and is a covert contract that is pathetic. IF your motive for being nice is for reciprocation that is not "nice" at all. It's purely self-serving. 



Joey2k said:


> I want people to be nice to me, so I act in a way that I think should result in them behaving that way.


This is the grossness of the "nice" guy. Look at the reason you are "nice". Disgusting



Joey2k said:


> I seem to remember a saying, started something like "Do unto others..."


There is no expectation of reciprocation in the golden rule. It is a wise guide for your own behavior not your expectations of the behavior od others


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

OK, help me understand what you people are saying here. Put my actions and whether I am "nice" aside for the moment.

I want people to be nice to me and treat me decently. How do I make that happen? What do you say I should do to make that happen? It sounds like you are saying it is wrong for me to even have that as a goal.


----------



## JoeHenderson (Oct 3, 2011)

Joey2k said:


> OK, help me understand what you people are saying here. Put my actions and whether I am "nice" aside for the moment.
> 
> I want people to be nice to me and treat me decently. How do I make that happen? What do you say I should do to make that happen? It sounds like you are saying it is wrong for me to even have that as a goal.


If you're nice to people and they're nice to you back, great. But do you cover up your feelings about matters to not make waves? Do you put on a smile but hold grudges? Do you go behind people's backs rather than express a grievance? This is the "dark side" of what the author is trying to uncover.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Joey2k said:


> OK, help me understand what you people are saying here. Put my actions and whether I am "nice" aside for the moment.
> 
> I want people to be nice to me and treat me decently. How do I make that happen? What do you say I should do to make that happen? It sounds like you are saying it is wrong for me to even have that as a goal.


There are two goals.

1. Be a genuine good person. Be nice to people as an expression of kindness and empathy TO THEM.

2. Don't allow people to be anything other than decent to you. If someone is, see if you can apply effective limit setting. If they are just toxic, lose them.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Because people aren't vending machines you can put Nice Coins into and get stuff back. Truly nice behavior is selfless. Expecting a return on your behavior is transactional, not selfless.
> 
> As an example--I enjoy doing stuff for my kids. Buying them toys--playing with them--taking them places they like. I do it for them because I want them to be happy--not because I expect them to return the favor some day. See the difference?


however, the nuance here may be cut pretty thin.

you do stuff for your kids REGARDLESS of whether you get reciprocated because you love them. However, (i can't speak for you, only guess) that you WANT and HOPE for your kids to return that love.

my guess is you would be thrilled. you'd do it anyway, no matter how they did or didn't return the love.

maybe we should re-phrase and say 'i do nice things for others, regardless of what i get back out of love, but hopefully i get something nice back'?. i mean certainly people want their spouses and family to be nice?

still. i sense a false dichotomy here. the 'alpha' guy acts macho and does his own thing. but if he doesn't get what he wants, he'll react and let people know. deal with it 'head-on'. the beta guy doesn't do his own thing, instead cow towing to people and if he doesn't get his way, goes passive aggressive.

but make no mistake about it. both want to get what they want.

the manner of seeking what we want may be different but the motivations are ultimately the same as far as i can tell.


----------



## JoeHenderson (Oct 3, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> There are two goals.
> 
> 1. Be a genuine good person. Be nice to people as an expression of kindness and empathy TO THEM.
> 
> 2. Don't allow people to be anything other than decent to you. If someone is, see if you can apply effective limit setting. If they are just toxic, lose them.


Well stated.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Joey2k said:


> OK, help me understand what you people are saying here. Put my actions and whether I am "nice" aside for the moment.
> 
> I want people to be nice to me and treat me decently. How do I make that happen? What do you say I should do to make that happen? It sounds like you are saying it is wrong for me to even have that as a goal.


You can't MAKE other people treat you well. They decide for themselves how they treat you. 

Your goal should be personal happiness, which it sounds like it is--step 1 complete.

Step 2 is to realize that you are mistakenly depending on other people to provide that happiness for you. This is where you're going off the track. YOU have to make you happy. Once you're happy on your own, you can start making other people happy around you. Your cup will runneth over, if you get me. Right now, you're trying to pour happiness out of your own mostly empty cup into everyone else's, hoping that they'll pour some back. Instead, fill your own cup first, then pour the extra into theirs. 

People like being around happy people.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Fozzy said:


> Because people aren't vending machines you can put Nice Coins into and get stuff back. Truly nice behavior is selfless. Expecting a return on your behavior is transactional, not selfless.


Glover's analogy strikes me as simplistic. Human relations are a tightrope that philosophers throughout history have attempted to describe with axioms that sometimes sound contradictory on the surface. For example:

Elbert Hubbard observed: “In order to have friends, you must first be one.” 

Lucius Seneca observed: “He who begins to be your friend because it pays will also cease because it pays.” 

I would submit that these are simply two faces of the same coin. The antithesis of the, "Nice Guy" is the "Entitled Taker" who accepts kindness from others and then responds with various degrees of indifference and offense at the idea that anything whatsoever is required of them. 

You mentioned your children, Fozzy, but your children are not your peers. If you had a "friend" who consistently refused to pay his fair share of restaurant and bar tabs; who asked for and received your labor to move a houseful of furniture and then couldn't be troubled to go five minutes out of his way for you, then it's probably safe to say that he is not your friend and may not even know what the word means.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

jorgegene said:


> however, the nuance here may be cut pretty thin.
> 
> you do stuff for your kids REGARDLESS of whether you get reciprocated because you love them. However, (i can't speak for you, only guess) that you WANT and HOPE for your kids to return that love.
> 
> my guess is you would be thrilled. you'd do it anyway, no matter how they did or didn't return the love.


Maybe I am a big fat *****. But I don't pine for my kids' love. That is not my job. My job is to love the **** out of them and do what is right for them everyday. That my children love me warms me to no end. But there is no dirty little secret motive of acquiring their love and approval that I shush about behind my hand.

It just is not a mentally healthy attitude to trade love for some kind of market value. It diminishes the shared nature *with the other human being* to covet it. That basically makes it not love to be more interested in the GETTING of it.

As counter intuitive as it seems, people with a healthy mental attitude are more likely to be attractive to other people in their character and their joy and are more likely to engender genuine love.




> maybe we should re-phrase and say 'i do nice things for others, regardless of what i get back out of love, but hopefully i get something nice back'?. i mean certainly people want their spouses and family to be nice?


I do nice things because I am a good person. I get all the reward from being a good person. I get to look in the mirror every day. I get to look at my kids squarely in the face every day. The fact that that attracts like people to me is awesome, and I love it. But it is not why I do it.

I don't just want my family to be nice. I require it. Not nice means I calmly and matter of factly make that plain. I will never understand people who tolerate bad behavior from people who are supposed to be close.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> Glover's analogy strikes me as simplistic. Human relations are a tightrope that philosophers throughout history have attempted to describe with axioms that sometimes sound contradictory on the surface. For example:
> 
> Elbert Hubbard observed: “In order to have friends, you must first be one.”
> 
> ...


I don't think those two would be antithetical to each other. Both operate out of a default selfishness. Only their methods are different.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> You can't MAKE other people treat you well. They decide for themselves how they treat you.
> 
> Your goal should be personal happiness, which it sounds like it is--step 1 complete.
> 
> ...


One of the important things that Fozzy alludes to but does not quite say (I think) is that since you CAN'T make people treat you well, you don't waste a bunch of energy with tools who won't.


----------



## JustAFamilyMan (Aug 27, 2015)

It's been stated pretty clearly a few times, but I know first hand it's a concept you have to repeat and absorb over and over to really have it sink in.

1) You should expect to be loved and treated well by those people close to you in life. You should want that.
2) You should love and treat those in your life well. You should want to do that. 
3) These two things must be separated in your mind. You should do 2 without thought of 1. You should expect and want 1 without thoughts of 2. It's the mixture of 1 & 2 that is the problem.

Most of the time people mix 1 & 2 because they aren't getting enough 1. Once you make that split, you realize that to get more of 1... there is only one option.

4) Take responsibility for your own happiness.

That's what I believed the worthwhile message was, discarding any machismo BS.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> You can't MAKE other people treat you well. They decide for themselves how they treat you.
> 
> Your goal should be personal happiness, which it sounds like it is--step 1 complete.
> 
> ...


I agree with this with one small change. It is more important than to consider yourself a good person than to be happy. The former is necessary for the latter. And by far less obvious. But to seek "happiness" is often to look down the wrong road into things like material wealth, popularity, power and other useless things like that.


----------



## Average Joe (Sep 2, 2015)

Glover doesn't want you to be an a-hole. He wants you to be more conscious, have integrity, self-soothe your anxiety, and develop empathy. The "integrated" or "second-order" male.

Edit: whoops, anxiety, not anger


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Fozzy said:


> I don't think those two would be antithetical to each other. Both operate out of a default selfishness. Only their methods are different.



I would say that the fundamental difference between "Doing" and "Being" is blurred here. 

There is a difference between saying something stupid out of ignorance and being stupid at the core in the sense of innate lack of intelligence. 

Similarly, there is a difference between doing an altruistic act for a selfish motive and being selfish at the core in the sense of innate laziness and parsimony. 

The, "sin" of the Nice Guy is his ignorance and naivete and it's interesting (To me anyway) that Glover's negative spin on this is actually one of the red flags of an entitled taker.


----------



## JoeHenderson (Oct 3, 2011)

Average Joe said:


> Glover doesn't want you to be an a-hole. He wants you to be more conscious, have integrity, self-soothe your anxiety, and develop empathy. The "integrated" or "second-order" male.
> 
> Edit: whoops, anxiety, not anger


yeah, the anxiety part is a big one. Learn to soothe your anxiety rather than making other people (like your SO) responsible for it. It's draining on other people.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> I would say that the fundamental difference between "Doing" and "Being" is blurred here.
> 
> There is a difference between saying something stupid out of ignorance and being stupid at the core in the sense of innate lack of intelligence.
> 
> ...


I'd agree that there's a difference between "doing" and "being", but I still don't see the Nice Guy and the Entitled Taker as diametrically opposed. I do think there's definitely more hope for the Nice Guy to become a healthy happy person.

Whether a person behaves a certain way because that's his core, or because he's operating out of a mistaken set of beliefs---the end result will often be the same. People won't like him.

Actually, it's probably even worse for the Nice Guy, because the Entitled Taker won't really even care when he finds himself friendless.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

I think it's interesting how people come away from this book with radically different takes. I think maybe some of it stems from how people believe happiness can be achieved. 

Can a person truly make themselves happy, or does happiness always come at the expense of another? Is it really a zero-sum game?


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> Maybe I am a big fat *****. But I don't pine for my kids' love. That is not my job. My job is to love the **** out of them and do what is right for them everyday. That my children love me warms me to no end. But there is no dirty little secret motive of acquiring their love and approval that I shush about behind my hand.
> 
> It just is not a mentally healthy attitude to trade love for some kind of market value. It diminishes the shared nature *with the other human being* to covet it. That basically makes it not love to be more interested in the GETTING of it.
> 
> ...


so it's a matter of striving to be 'right' rather than just being 'nice'
'right' in the sense of righteousness (in the true, best sense of the term). not 'self righteous', but rather always seeking what is good to others and right. this is where the golden rule would be sought.

sometimes 'right' and nice coincide, sometimes they don't.
but it is always better to be righteous first, rather than nice.

niceness will flow naturally from righteousness where it is so justified.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

jorgegene said:


> so it's a matter of striving to be 'right' rather than just being 'nice'


Not right. A good person. 



> 'right' in the sense of righteousness (in the true, best sense of the term). not 'self righteous', but rather always seeking what is good to others and right. this is where the golden rule would be sought.
> 
> sometimes 'right' and nice coincide, sometimes they don't.
> but it is always better to be righteous first, rather than nice.
> ...


I don't even really know what the word "nice" means, so I tend to avoid it.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't even really know what the word "nice" means, so I tend to avoid it.


George Carlin had a great joke/commentary on the word nice. It is such a weak word. The nice guy finishes last, why? Not because he is doing stuff for others, he just expects others to do stuff for him. Covert contracts never work. 

Similar to the SIM thread right now, where the couple has a MFF 3 some, now the wife wants a MMF 3 some. She blatantly stated she was bi, but never broached the subject of the MMF until after the MFF was done. pure covert contract.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> Similar to the SIM thread right now, where the couple has a MFF 3 some, now the wife wants a MMF 3 some. She blatantly stated she was bi, but never broached the subject of the MMF until after the MFF was done. pure covert contract.


Her covert contract is not even PRETENDING to be "nice".


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> Her covert contract is not even PRETENDING to be "nice".


I guess it depends on how you view the offer of a 3 some.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> Not right. A good person.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even really know what the word "nice" means, so I tend to avoid it.


nice is telling somebody what they want to hear.

right is telling someone what you think they need to hear in love with selfless motivations. it may be nice and it may be right and it may be both.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

naiveonedave said:


> George Carlin had a great joke/commentary on the word nice. It is such a weak word. The nice guy finishes last, why? Not because he is doing stuff for others, he just expects others to do stuff for him. Covert contracts never work.
> 
> Similar to the SIM thread right now, where the couple has a MFF 3 some, now the wife wants a MMF 3 some. She blatantly stated she was bi, but never broached the subject of the MMF until after the MFF was done. *pure covert contract*.


Nah, I think a Gloverian covert contract in the strict sense would have been her bringing home another woman and then expecting him to reciprocate by bringing home another man without her having to ask.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Joey2k said:


> Nah, I think a Gloverian covert contract in the strict sense would have been her bringing home another woman and then expecting him to reciprocate by bringing home another man without her having to ask.


A covert contract is much more simple: I do this and then you will do this x. In the case I suggested, it means agree to something I want, but you might not (or already know you won't). Your's is more crazy, because I would have to guess what you wanted, since the W admitted she was bi.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Fozzy said:


> I'd agree that there's a difference between "doing" and "being", but I still don't see the Nice Guy and the Entitled Taker as diametrically opposed. I do think there's definitely more hope for the Nice Guy to become a healthy happy person.


I would agree that "Giving' for the wrong reason (i.e. There are strings attached) and "Taking" for the wrong reason (i.e. As a right or entitlement) are both comparable in terms of result (i.e. Nobody will like you after all is said and done) but the two methodologies and the words that describe them are opposites and antonyms respectively.

I don't know if your children did this, but mine all went through a stage right around the age of three where the word, "Sharing" meant that you had something that they wanted. They understood the altruism of the concept, but saw it as a one-way street that only flowed in their direction, which is fairly typical at that age. Understanding the mutuality of human relationships took at least another year to learn. 

My criticism of Glover is not so much that he's fundamentally wrong about Nice guys, but that he focuses on that extreme and places the blame for the failure of relationships almost exclusively on that personality type. 

Maybe, just maybe relationships also fail because one person or the other never advanced beyond the selfish outlook of a three-year-old.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

I read the book, and did all the exercises backwards! Meaning that I even *preemptively* announced to my wife that I was going to have a passive aggressive temper tantrum if I did not get what I want, and that I would be back from the store in a little bit to buy her flowers. 

I got what I wanted! Still do...

If I wrote a NMMNG book, it would just say:

• Get naked
• Smile
• Other than that, it may not matter what you do or don't do. 

Cheers, 
Badsanta


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

naiveonedave said:


> *A covert contract is much more simple: I do this and then you will do this x.* In the case I suggested, it means agree to something I want, but you might not (or already know you won't). Your's is more crazy, because I would have to guess what you wanted, since the W admitted she was bi.


Don't forget the part about neither party acknowledging the contract out loud


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Joey2k said:


> Don't forget the part about neither party acknowledging the contract out loud


in my example, the H had no idea reciprocity was expected. How much more covert can you be than that?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Lots of different ideas being discussed here. I, for one, read the book and found it to be very enlightening. It made me look at many of my own actions throughout the years and realize that it was those (my actions) that many times sabotaged relationships. I felt as if Glover had been secretly watching me and then writing my life story without my permission. But having said that I can absolutely see why some might not think it would apply to them.
Some of the ideas being discussed:
Nice Guy is not the same as being nice. as Glover explains it has more to do with the motivations and expectations of the NG than it does about the actions they take. it is fine to do stuff for others as long as you aren't seeking reciprocity (covert contracts)
Selfishness - the modern day assumption is that selfishness equals greediness and is therefore bad. The two are totally different. True selfishness is the epitome of all that is life. You stay faithful to your spouse because you know it would hurt her if you didn't - that is true selfishness. A greedy person would just go off an cheat. You compromise on other issues because having that person in your life is important to you - the issue you comprise over is less important than your need to keep that person in your life. It doesn't mean you are a thoughtless, self-centered, *******. It simply means that you take care of your NEEDS first, which is far different than taking care of your WANTS or DESIRES first, as a greedy person would do. Nice Guys typically place their wants and desires ahead of their needs. 
One other thing - the Golden Rule - Do Unto to Others, As You Would Have Them Do Unto You. The rule is predicated on knowing what YOU would want done to you. If you want others to be "nice" to you, then you have to be "nice" to yourself first. If you want others to treat you with respect, then you must respect yourself first. If you want others to love you, then you must love yourself first.
The essence of the book is about treating yourself better so that others will too.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Ynot said:


> Lots of different ideas being discussed here. I, for one, read the book and found it to be very enlightening. It made me look at many of my own actions throughout the years and realize that it was those (my actions) that many times sabotaged relationships. I felt as if Glover had been secretly watching me and then writing my life story without my permission. But having said that I can absolutely see why some might not think it would apply to them.
> Some of the ideas being discussed:
> Nice Guy is not the same as being nice. as Glover explains it has more to do with the motivations and expectations of the NG than it does about the actions they take. it is fine to do stuff for others as long as you aren't seeking reciprocity (covert contracts)
> Selfishness - the modern day assumption is that selfishness equals greediness and is therefore bad. The two are totally different. True selfishness is the epitome of all that is life. You stay faithful to your spouse because you know it would hurt her if you didn't - that is true selfishness. A greedy person would just go off an cheat. You compromise on other issues because having that person in your life is important to you - the issue you comprise over is less important than your need to keep that person in your life. It doesn't mean you are a thoughtless, self-centered, *******. It simply means that you take care of your NEEDS first, which is far different than taking care of your WANTS or DESIRES first, as a greedy person would do. Nice Guys typically place their wants and desires ahead of their needs.
> ...


you must love yourself before you know how to love others.

and you must know what love is.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Ynot said:


> Selfishness - the modern day assumption is that selfishness equals greediness and is therefore bad.


The concept of "Self" was reborn around the 17th century when Thomas Hobbes argued that the idea of a rational animal was entirely a human invention. 

The idea that selfishness is comparable to greed is much, much older. (e.g. St. Paul mentions love of self and love of money as equally bad.) 

It is an interesting philosophical debate though, because a good argument can be made that true altruism doesn't really exist inasmuch as there is always a reward of some sort, even if it's nothing more than a sense of satisfaction at having done what one believes to be right.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> The concept of "Self" was reborn around the 17th century when Thomas Hobbes argued that the idea of a rational animal was entirely a human invention.
> 
> The idea that selfishness is comparable to greed is much, much older. (e.g. St. Paul mentions love of self and love of money as equally bad.)
> 
> It is an interesting philosophical debate though, because a good argument can be made that true altruism doesn't really exist inasmuch as there is always a reward of some sort, even if it's nothing more than a sense of satisfaction at having done what one believes to be right.


this is what i was trying to say a while ago, but you're articulating it better than me.

that even our best motives such as being 'good', has an intrinsic motive of reward. 'i do good so i can can consider myself a good person'. that's a reward. almost nothing is pure. or maybe nothing?

this btw does not make these things bad. only that people sometimes think their motives are pure. we need to understand ourselves better.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> I would agree that "Giving' for the wrong reason (i.e. There are strings attached) and "Taking" for the wrong reason (i.e. As a right or entitlement) are both comparable in terms of result (i.e. Nobody will like you after all is said and done) but the two methodologies and the words that describe them are opposites and antonyms respectively.
> 
> I don't know if your children did this, but mine all went through a stage right around the age of three where the word, "Sharing" meant that you had something that they wanted. They understood the altruism of the concept, but saw it as a one-way street that only flowed in their direction, which is fairly typical at that age. Understanding the mutuality of human relationships took at least another year to learn.
> 
> ...


That's totally fair. NMMNG is for a certain kind of guy with a certain set of problems. It won't fix every situation.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Joey2k said:


> I have had a respect-even reverence-for books for as long as I can remember. I treat them with care, and when I am done I either store them carefully in my bookcase or, if I don’t think I will read them again, donate them or give them away. The thought of throwing a book away seemed almost sacrilegious.
> 
> I made an exception for this book. But to be fair, the trash is where garbage goes, and that’s what this book is.
> 
> ...



This applies to the ladies, your job and every walk of life.

If you are very nice, always trying to please others and never get mad, there are those people who will treat you like crap, think its perfectly fine, all because they are scum bags.

I've learned in life to always stand up to Mrs.CuddleBug and speak my mind and at times I'm a jerk. I'm definitely not a Mr.Nice guy.

At my former job, I was the Mr.Nice guy. There were a few coworker (in management and shipper) that blamed me for their screw ups, got mad at me if they're having a bad day, blame me if they misplaced something they used, and it never ended.

I got really mad a few times, the owner took me serious because I never got mad and I'm a Mr.Nice guy. The BS from the management and shipper overall stopped in the end. Never had any issues with any workers on the floor and everyone liked me and that I was a team player.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The book has it's use but it's not a panacea. Focusing on yourself is great if you don't have family for example... 

And contrary to popular belief reciprocity is still in most people's vocabulary as a social behavior.


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

Joey2k said:


> He repeatedly advises men to look after their own needs and wants without regard for what others want or how it affects them. That's pretty much my definition of "a$$hole".


That's being self aware, self sufficient, and self confident.

If looking after your own needs affects others negatively, then maybe you are an a$$hole.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Fozzy said:


> That's totally fair. NMMNG is for a certain kind of guy with a certain set of problems. It won't fix every situation.


I agree with that, but do think it begs the question, "What kind of guy?" 

(And I'm mostly speaking into the air here -- Not directing this at you, Fozzy..)

Early on in the book, Glover tells about a member of a therapy group named Lars, who is afraid of becoming like his father, a "...self-centered S.O.B" who only ever thought about himself to the exclusion of his wife and children. 

Glover states that Lars is fairly typical of Nice Guys and launches into a thesis that is developed throughout the book. --Nice guys are created by unloving, uncaring parents who view children as a burden. 

In Glover's own words, they (Nice Guys) are "...victims to the people who failed to love them, pay attention to them, meet their needs and protect them." 

Eventually these children blame themselves for even having needs at all and this develops into a consistent pattern in adulthood where the needs of others are paramount. 

Glover states without equivocation:

"Nice guys are wimps. This may not sound like a nice thing to say, but it's true"

He set the stage for that observation by describing what sounded like a trivial argument with his wife where he was literally reduced to tears.

Seriously...._*Who cries during an argument with his wife?*_ That smacks of serious, serious emotional issues and in keeping with the principle thesis of the book, actually does sound like the byproduct of bitter, unresolved frustration going way back into childhood; perhaps from being bullied at school or having an emotionally abusive or unloving parent. 

Glover amplifies on that idea via the concept of "Memory Fear" which is apparently a feeling of utter powerlessness and frustration that develops when a child too small to take care of their own needs is not taken care of by those who should. 

That concept is fleshed out even further though observations about social change in the post-war era. The confident, self-reliant, jack-of-all-trades frontier male who could shoot a bear, fix a leaky roof and deliver a calf all in one day faded away as more and more men were forced into the role of desk-bound city boy. So rather then helping to undo the damage caused by emotionally distant and uncaring parents, our society morphed into one where that damage is compounded because the field of expertise of many men became so esoteric and narrow that day to day problems often fell outside of it.

Other pieces of the puzzle include lack of attachment to a father figure; unhealthy attachment to one's mother; lack of basic self-worth and self-respect; lack of quality male friends; sexual dysfunction; lack of boundaries, etc.

The point to this micro-synopsis is that with each passing page of the book, the portrait of a Nice Guy becomes more clinical, more precise and consequently less applicable to men in general. 

In deference to Glover's academic credentials and experience, maybe this syndrome is far more common than I realize, but my gut feeling is that the book really doesn't apply to a lot of the men it gets recommended to. --Like Joey, it leaves a bad taste

Here's a simple example:

Many men with LD wives have sat down at some point for a heart-to-heart / "Can this marriage be saved?" discussion. And our wives told us in all sincerity that it is the stress of career/children/home that is the problem and if this could be alleviated, things would get better. Some of us may have tried this approach for awhile, clear up until we realized that our LD wives didn't know what was wrong themselves. Facilely this may resemble Nice Guy behavior, but there is nothing covert whatsoever in asking your wife what is wrong and then responding to that. Neither does it make you a timid, furtive little mouse who's ashamed of his own desires. 

I would also point out that in the common vernacular, the term, "Nice Guy" describes the symptoms and not the illness itself. People will take advantage of that ambiguity and label a male as a, "Nice Guy" simply for being open and honest about the fact that the relationship is going nowhere and probably needs to end. 

It's true that nobody was put on this earth to meet our needs and neither were we put on this earth to meet theirs, but the Yin to that Yang is that we voluntarily enter into social arrangements and compacts where it is either implicitly or explicitly understood that we will. People can shuck and jive; twist and turn; insult and act offended; pretend that marriage entitles you without obligating you all they want, but refusing to acknowledge a matter of basic ethics doesn't change the fact that human relationships are mutual.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

ocotillo said:


> It's true that nobody was put on this earth to meet our needs and neither were we put on this earth to meet theirs, but the Yin to that Yang is that we voluntarily enter into social arrangements and compacts where it is either implicitly or explicitly understood that we will. People can shuck and jive; twist and turn; insult and act offended at the idea that marriage entitles you without obligating you, all they want, but refusing to acknowledge a matter of basic ethics doesn't change the fact that human relationships are mutual.


According to thread the needle, you and I are "disgusting"


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> I agree with that, but do think it begs the question, "What kind of guy?"
> 
> 
> The point to this micro-synopsis is that with each passing page of the book, the portrait of a Nice Guy becomes more clinical, more precise and consequently less applicable to men in general.
> ...



I couldn't begin to give you an accurate figure of how many men this applies to. I do agree it probably gets over-recommended on this site as a catch-all, along with MMSLP.

But I'll tell you for sure, when I read the book--it was like Glover had been following me around with a notepad. And I've heard other men say the same thing.

Did he get every detail right? No. My father wasn't abusive, nor absentee. But he WAS (and still is) a Nice Guy himself. He allows himself to be walked on by virtually everyone, including my mother. And I can also tell you that his relationship with HIS dad did fit Glover's bill quite a bit better. So Gramps turned Dad into Nice Guy, and Dad turned Fozzy into one by virtue of learned behavior. 

I'm not blaming him, btw. I have only myself to blame. I love my dad, and my grandfather, but I'm glad I was able to finally see both the forest and the trees--and Glover's book was definitely a catalyst for that.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Joey2k said:


> According to thread the needle, you and I are "disgusting"


Joey,

I think the disagreement between you and TTN is that you are focusing on the general and he is focusing on the specific.

He's absolutely right.  We don't give gifts with strings attached and we don't do good deeds with the expectation of a reward. --Not specifically anyway. 

But as a general pattern of behavior, who of us would continue to go out of his way for a friend who refused to go out of his way for us? Eventually the spigot of kindness would be shut off. Anything less than that would actually satisfy Glover's definition of a Nice Guy. 

He's also absolutely right about the Golden Rule. It is not a maxim of reciprocity. Things get a little more complicated though if you step off the street and into a church where other people are ostensibly following that rule too. A Christian who treats other people like dirt is a hypocrite of the worst sort and probably not worthy of your time.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

As a side note--another great book that CAN'T be recommended too much---5 Love Languages---shot the Golden Rule to pieces for me. I now teach my kids the Platinum Rule instead.

Rather than treating others how you would want to be treated, instead treat them how THEY want to be treated.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

Fozzy said:


> As a side note--another great book that CAN'T be recommended too much---5 Love Languages---shot the Golden Rule to pieces for me. I now teach my kids the Platinum Rule instead.
> 
> Rather than treating others how you would want to be treated, instead treat them how THEY want to be treated.


The golden rules works as long as you want to be treated with love, compassion and understanding. It is how those things are expressed that complicates matters.

Two women I see, one of whom I will arrive at her place tonight, plonk myself down and tell her what drink she is to bring me. The other I will be superficially far more respectful to. In both cases I am actually being sensitive to what they are comfortable with, both obey the golden rule.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

It's a very simplistic view of the whole male female interaction.

I grew up in a mostly male family and extended family and workplace (Army brat). Both parents worked. I'm a nice guy but also a very manipulative Machiavelli type when needed. 

People don't have one image that they project. They're not all alpha or all beta or all this or that. There's a few basic behaviors and we slip in and out of them. So behavior adaptations - micro programming - come and go. 

Humans are not like animals - they generally learn what works and in what settings. The idea we are all labeled this or that is a bit off the beaten path.


----------



## Joey2k (Oct 3, 2014)

ocotillo said:


> He's also absolutely right about the Golden Rule. *It is not a maxim of reciprocity*. Things get a little more complicated though if you step off the street and into a church where other people are ostensibly following that rule too. A Christian who treats other people like dirt is a hypocrite of the worst sort and probably not worthy of your time.


I wasn't saying it did. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" sound to me like "However you want people to treat you, treat them that way", or "If you want people to be nice to you and respect you, be nice to them and respect them".


----------

