Nice guys come last/ There are no nice guys

[You'reasian]

Every...single...man on this planet, has two sides to him. No one is universally nice. If you're waving your niceness like a big flag, it's a big red flag!

 

Most often nice guys aren't so nice. They just think they're nice.

 

And most guys who are nice are usually alone lol

[loveslife]

Every single "nice guy" I've known, when presented with a "nice girl" has rejected her or played her or just not been interested. I think a lot of the guys we label "nice" are the biggest players and liars out there.

[39388]

And most guys who are nice are usually alone lol

This whole thread pisses me off.

 

Funny how people interpret "nice" as "nice all the time". Clearly *some* women expect someone who is nice to be that way all the time. Call them at the wrong time or say one thing that is not nice and everything is over in a second. Sometimes, not only for the one guy but for anyone in teh future similar to him.

 

You say you are a jerk at the beginning and many of these same women let you get away with just about anything.

 

Haha maybe I should say I'm a jerk?

 

 

I say this from the point of view of a male. No doubt the same things happen with the genders reversed.

[39388]

Every single "nice guy" I've known, when presented with a "nice girl" has rejected her or played her or just not been interested. I think a lot of the guys we label "nice" are the biggest players and liars out there.

And every a**hole jerk you have known is what, "nice"?

[BoredPerson]

It doesn't matter whether you made it up, Woggle - what a horrible thing to even repeat! I understand the Bro Code & its multiple levels (we women have similar codes among ourselves), but to phrase it that way is just, well, nasty. What would your current SO say if you said that phrase to her?

 

Just lighten up a little it is only a way for men to feel better about the bad treatement they recieve from women. Like when women make all of their chauvanistic remarks like 'you go girl'.

[BoredPerson]

Well men can be selfish jerks too of course.

 

The story of the bankers, fallen from grace and power, and in their hour of need also losing their partners, is telling. Men realise that it's easy to get women along for the ride when the goings good. But the only ones we could truly love and trust are the ones that will be there when it all goes tits up.

 

They will all have some crazy excuse made up as to why they're getting out with the real reason being money.

[Thaddeus]

They will all have some crazy excuse made up as to why they're getting out with the real reason being money.

There was an article some time ago in the UK's Daily Telegraph about this exact thing. The author - female - called it the Toxic Wife Syndrome.

 

The author did a follow-up article after the banking crash. Recession: When the money goes, so does the toxic wife.

 

It makes for chilling reading.

[The Collector]

According to Susie Ambrose, a marital psychotherapist and CEO of Seventy-Thirty, an upmarket introduction company that takes its name from the work versus free time balance, there has been an unprecedented demand from married women recently.

''We are being targeted by women on the fence between leaving their husbands who are on the brink of losing their wealth, and wanting to meet someone extremely rich straight away,'' she says.

 

Classy!

 

 

.........

[gypsy_nicky]

having interacted and observed couples, I can say that "nice" and "bad" are not universal personalities that each man can only be able to possess one.

 

I have seen numerous "bad" boys that are downright clingy and dramatic-no women. I have seen numerous "nice" boys who are well put,assertive and aloof-no women.

[FleshNBones]

This thread makes me wonder what percentage of women are spiritual (not necessarily religious), and what percentage are overly materialistic or worldly.

 

I've been called a nice guy and a gentleman by some women. Maybe these women thought I was fawning over them when I was actually trying to be polite. Believe it or not, I actually try to be just as polite with the guys, and so far the guys have been much more welcoming.

 

I do try to include them in some of my activities, but so far, they are no shows. I can't imagine spending my waking hours just eating, sleeping, defecating, chitchating, shopping, and working. Maybe they are just neurotic.

[BoredPerson]

All that matters is how attractive you are to the other person women will then categorise you based on how attractive you are.

 

An attractive nice guy is a man of a womans dreams.

An attrative jerk is the guy a woman complains about.

 

Both are equal all that matter is that the woman is attracted to the man.

 

In all honesty I do not think I will ever have an attractive partner and for that reason I might never have a partner. Which is unfortunate but looks as though it will be the truth.

 

Is it the womans fault for not liking 'nice guys' or is it due to my misfortune of being unattractive to women in the first place ? Do you expect them to go out with someone they find unattractive ? Would you do the same thing ?

 

I am sure they would enjoy hanging out with us unattractive men but when it comes to having sex I do not think they would enjoy that and it is not fair that you expect women to take on that burden just because you are nice.

 

If they do it because you have money you should make sure you get married and have contracts drawn up to say that you get to keep most of your money. You will end up paying child support which is okay but you should ensure that you have access to the children and if possible have that put into the original marriage contact. Chances are she won't read the whole thing anyway.

[You'reasian]

I'm generally very upbeat and forward-thinking, but I will say this.

 

If I could go back ten years and give myself advice, I’d say this - “Nice guys” need to wake up and stop dreaming that someone special out there will appreciate their unconditional, indefatigable niceness.

 

Try thinking like an economist – the reason that there are so many surplus nice guys on the market is because no girl wants them – an utter lack of demand, which diminishes value. I could swing a stick right now and hit five nice guys. If we could power our cars with nice guys, Saudi Arabia would go bankrupt overnight. Being a nice guy means being ignored most of the time and spending the rest of the time as a therapist who doesn’t get paid, or as Sam Kinison so aptly characterized it, an emotional tampon.

 

Someone who is meek, acquiescent and automatically forgiving of anything will be considered a self-renewing resource, also known as a resource that does not require care or attention because it will always be there no matter what. So, nice guys, if you want to stay bankrupt and devoid of market value, keep doing exactly what you’ve always been doing. I could go on...

 

Spot on. You could also think like an evolutionary biologist.

[GoodOnPaper]

Every single "nice guy" I've known, when presented with a "nice girl" has rejected her or played her or just not been interested. I think a lot of the guys we label "nice" are the biggest players and liars out there.

 

 

You'd think this kind of pairing would be natural, but mutual attraction can be hard to generate. If he's bad at picking up interest and sexuality cues and she's bad at sending them, nothing is going to start. Also, one may out-nice the other and lack of challenge may cause things to go south.

 

Being in a nice guy-nice girl marriage myself, I can say that generating any healthy level of intimacy is very difficult. It's hard to bring down those emotional shields.

[True2form]

Thanks for such an insightful, and most importantly - honest - post. I've always suspected that this *exact* dynamics has been in place, but coming from a man it would inevitably be interpreted as a misogynism.

The morale of the story for men is not to be resentful, but acceptance.

However, I do understand where the resentment comes from (and feel it myself) --> based on what you say, it simply means that a man can NEVER, EVER lower his guard and be actually vulnerable - which is what a good relationship is supposed to allow you to do . Hence, where the so called bad boys often succeed is precisely in being somewhat aloof and not showing any vulnerability. It is pretty effective, but as a guy, I testify that it is pretty tiring, and lonely. It is hard to feel that a woman "has your back" when you know that her (caveman) mentality will see you differently if you let go for once.

 

As for the rest, I think I may have a real chance with my current GF - she's pretty traditional and "nice", while I'm a bit on the ambitious/domineering sied. The problem is that every once in a while I want to be on the vulnerable side and conversely - to see some ambition from her, but I know if i let is go, there will be trouble. (Also, nice should not be confused with doormat - while my GF does seem to have some self esteem issues, I don't think she'd allow to be mistreated).

 

hey Sam, sorry i didn't reply for ages I was away over the weekend. Don't give up hope, this doesn't mean you can't be vulnerable sometimes. My boyfriend went through his vulnerable stage for six months, for a long time I could handle it and I was there for him, comforting and letting him know I wasn't going to scoot off because he couldn't find a job. I also had a health problem with recurrent cystitis (never fun) and we helped each other through it. It just got bad when my problem ended and I recovered but for him I couldn't see an end in sight, I felt like he wasn't helping himself because he was being too proud to get just any old job that would keep him afloat and then he borrowed money off of me I'm traditional in the way i see the man as the provider and that was a huge turn off. Anyway, he's got a job now, is getting paid soon very well and I'm sure he'll pay me back and he's promised to take me out to any restaurant I like. Waiting with clenched fists pays off sometimes haha!

 

Sorry i should have made clear there was more to it, I was being as basic as I could with my explanation because my post was long enough anyway :-)

 

Also, on the subject of Toxic wives, consider for a moment delving a little deeper. I have NO DOUBT in my mind that there are some women out there driven by nothing but money. BUT....well having been brought up around my dad's occasional rich banker friend, going to public school meeting and knowing their daughters, wives... meeting them and meeting guys who are destined to become them...they're just....so.....unspiritual and unromantic (I'm sure there an exception but bear with...). So yes, you can see what attracts these women in the first place but I'm sure some of them fool themselves into loving these guys...becoming very defensive of them, they can't wait to be the wife, keeping a beautiful home with her well educated husband and well educated children let's face it women are very guilty of idealism.

 

So consider for a moment that after the vast majority of the marriage, the kids getting through school, you're a bit older, banker husband's gotten a little bit tubby, grey...bald....sweaty *shudders* at middle-age, you've had all the time in the world to be pampering yourself and hair-saloning and you still look pretty HOT at fifty while suddenly coming crashing to earth the the idealist dream is OOOOVER. Banker hubby is distracted, busy and possibly has no sodding clue when it comes to romance or he can't be bothered anymore... arguments have started and all you have left is money to take your other banker's wife friends out to lunch and a big house to hide in...it's the last straw when that resource suddenly goes, you realise he's going to be home all the time, stressed as hell, possibly taking it out on you or on the other hand, clinging desperately to you and yes my friends, it's time to bail.

 

I DO NOT CONDONE THIS I just think it's not as simple as "Oh money's gone, so am I" and there's some pitiful man left sobbing on a doorstep. Bankers are busy and ruthless, they don't have time for romance, they just share a credit card and give permission for shopping and pampering. I would also like to add that Bankers rate high in the type of men who are likely to cheat or be seduced outside of the marriage (or they were before they lost all their jobs...yes, evil whores are even more money-grabbing than toxic wives)

 

ALSO around the time my dad left my mother, my mum went to the doctor for anti-depressants because of the stress and the doctor said "It's an epidemic...all the middle aged men are leaving their wives!"

 

Soooo...no one mentioned that because, things were good and money was still floating around I'm sure it's normal! But now it's all tut tut and new articles at the Toxic wives... lol....

 

Anyway sorry if my grammar there was terrible, I had so much to say I just typed like crazy!

[sumdude]

Well men can be selfish jerks too of course.

 

The story of the bankers, fallen from grace and power, and in their hour of need also losing their partners, is telling. Men realise that it's easy to get women along for the ride when the goings good. But the only ones we could truly love and trust are the ones that will be there when it all goes tits up.

 

Aye, and you never know until the s*** hits the fan whether or not they'll jump ship. It's not always about money either.

[Sam Spade]

 

Also, on the subject of Toxic wives, consider for a moment delving a little deeper. I have NO DOUBT in my mind that there are some women out there driven by nothing but money. BUT....well having been brought up around my dad's occasional rich banker friend, going to public school meeting and knowing their daughters, wives... meeting them and meeting guys who are destined to become them...they're just....so.....unspiritual and unromantic (I'm sure there an exception but bear with...). So yes, you can see what attracts these women in the first place but I'm sure some of them fool themselves into loving these guys...becoming very defensive of them, they can't wait to be the wife, keeping a beautiful home with her well educated husband and well educated children let's face it women are very guilty of idealism.

 

So consider for a moment that after the vast majority of the marriage, the kids getting through school, you're a bit older, banker husband's gotten a little bit tubby, grey...bald....sweaty *shudders* at middle-age, you've had all the time in the world to be pampering yourself and hair-saloning and you still look pretty HOT at fifty while suddenly coming crashing to earth the the idealist dream is OOOOVER. Banker hubby is distracted, busy and possibly has no sodding clue when it comes to romance or he can't be bothered anymore... arguments have started and all you have left is money to take your other banker's wife friends out to lunch and a big house to hide in...it's the last straw when that resource suddenly goes, you realise he's going to be home all the time, stressed as hell, possibly taking it out on you or on the other hand, clinging desperately to you and yes my friends, it's time to bail.

 

I DO NOT CONDONE THIS I just think it's not as simple as "Oh money's gone, so am I" and there's some pitiful man left sobbing on a doorstep. Bankers are busy and ruthless, they don't have time for romance, they just share a credit card and give permission for shopping and pampering. I would also like to add that Bankers rate high in the type of men who are likely to cheat or be seduced outside of the marriage (or they were before they lost all their jobs...yes, evil whores are even more money-grabbing than toxic wives)

 

 

 

So, they should be fed, pampered, entertained, and provided for all of their needs - emotional, existential, and otherwise. And whenever any of that begins to wobble - bail. What do THEY bring to the table (except vaginas, which doesn't count because evedybody has one). So, it really is as simple.

Whilte there are plenty of selfish men pricks, no doubt, the cold reality is that about 70% of divorces are *initiated by women*.

[True2form]

I didn't mean to make it sound like they don't try and make it work themselves! I just think after a while trying to get an emotional response, you give up :-S You wouldn't bother to marry someone unless you thought there was something loving there for you...please exclude Anna Nicole Smith from this...

 

what I'm saying is after everything's gone, the last straw breaks and it's unfortunate that money is a huge factor that can make people turn blind eyes to a lot of things they hate for a long time. And no, not wobble, crash. What do they bring to the table? The children, the care of the children, taking care of the home...these things don't happen by themselves.

 

I'd also say about 95% of that 70% are not middle-class wealthy banker's wives....considering people that well off are a minority anyway, so take from that what you will....

[sally4sara]

Whilte there are plenty of selfish men pricks, no doubt, the cold reality is that about 70% of divorces are *initiated by women*.

 

I challenge you to ask a dozen lawyers why this is.

 

I've asked and I've posted what I was told. No man on this forum would believe me though because it didn't support the whole victim vibe they like to spout on about.

 

They file because their the ones unhappy. They file because men know they stand a large chance of getting fleeced if they do the filing. It makes them appear to be abandoning the little lady so the courts come heavier on the man when he files.

There are other reasons, but I don't care to be called a liar again. Go talk to even half a dozen lawyers about why women file more often than men. You might be surprised.

 

I don't respect easy quitters in any situation. I did ask about it though, before I started making judgments.

 

And when it comes down to it, I smile every time lately I hear of a banker getting fleeced by his trophy wife. Or any bad luck situation really. Look at our economy and what greedy bankers caused. Serves them right when the money they swindled causes them grief!

Use some other guy with a different occupation and I'll manage some sympathy.

[Sam Spade]

Well, fine, actually I don't feel much pity for rich divorcees too. Who cares if your wife left with millions upon millions? You still have millions upon millions. I feel worse for the regular joe who ends up paying 1,000 child support on a 2,500 salary.

 

But on a more abstract level I simply cannot comprehend the logic behind giving a divorcing wife millions, even if she had never worked one day during the marriage (so she could "maintain the standard of living" - look it up in most state family code.) Makes absolutely no sense. She would not be having this standard of living unless she was married, so her decision to terminate the marriage should come with the consequence of losing that standard of living.

Whoever earned it - owns it, period. (And it's not like rich wifes do any household work or do any important uncompensated work either.)

 

I understand the importance of the "no fault" diforce, but this does not mean that faults should never, ever, be considered. Examples of the cheating wife leaving with the kids and half the money may be rare, but the very possibility of such outcome is apalling.

[Thaddeus]

They file because men know they stand a large chance of getting fleeced if they do the filing. It makes them appear to be abandoning the little lady so the courts come heavier on the man when he files.

Generally incorrect, though it may depend on your jurisdiction.

 

In any jurisdiction with "no-fault" divorce laws, the person doing the filing is irrelevant, as is infidelity, and those factors aren't considered when custody/alimony/other decisions are ordered.

 

The result is that a woman can have an affair, file for divorce and financially destroy her ex-husband.

 

This isn't hyperbole. This is a very stark reality, it happens every single day. I personally know two couples in which this exact same thing happened.

 

In my view, and supported by two divorce lawyers who represent both males and females, and in the jurisdiction in which I live, it is true that about 65% of all divorce filings are done by wives. The reasons for this are simple. If there's no pre-nup, the custody and financial orders in the vast majority of cases favor the wife (or, rather, ex-wife); therefore, if she feels she's "not happy" (and she can choose how she defines it) she can file for divorce, take the kids, get a support order and take a minimum of half his assets.

 

It's not victim-speak here, this is factual reality.

[Sam Spade]

Generally incorrect, though it may depend on your jurisdiction.

 

In any jurisdiction with "no-fault" divorce laws, the person doing the filing is irrelevant, as is infidelity, and those factors aren't considered when custody/alimony/other decisions are ordered.

 

The result is that a woman can have an affair, file for divorce and financially destroy her ex-husband.

 

This isn't hyperbole. This is a very stark reality, it happens every single day. I personally know two couples in which this exact same thing happened.

 

In my view, and supported by two divorce lawyers who represent both males and females, and in the jurisdiction in which I live, it is true that about 65% of all divorce filings are done by wives. The reasons for this are simple. If there's no pre-nup, the custody and financial orders in the vast majority of cases favor the wife (or, rather, ex-wife); therefore, if she feels she's "not happy" (and she can choose how she defines it) she can file for divorce, take the kids, get a support order and take a minimum of half his assets.

 

It's not victim-speak here, this is factual reality.

 

No fault divorce is by now national standard. In addition, 9 states are community property states - i.e. everything is divided 50/50 (and unfortunately I live in one of them).

 

The worst case scenario is a wife who does not work. Besides annoying (how fun it is to talk to a wife that does not leave the house??), it seems that agreeing to such an arrangement is just dumb given the ~40% chance of divorce. Also, marrying as old as possible to a foreign girl (of similar age) seems to help too, statistically speaking .

 

I guess the solution to the assets dilemma is to marry a richer wife, and if that is not possible 1) spend absolutely everything as it comes in; 2) consistently out (hide) some money aside over time; 3) then move to mexico after the divorce .

[Thaddeus]

I've struggled for a decade to achieve financial security, and I'll be damned if I gamble it all on the whims of another human, no matter how great she seems at the moment

Which is exactly why a thinking man should never, EVER even CONSIDER marriage without an ironclad pre-nup.

[Taramere]

There are other reasons, but I don't care to be called a liar again. Go talk to even half a dozen lawyers about why women file more often than men. You might be surprised.

 

I used to handle a lot of divorce cases. Often the divorce was a mutual thing, but the wife would raise the action primarily because it was more often the case that her income brought her within the bracket where she'd be entitled to legal aid. So she'd raise the action, the H wouldn't put in a defence, he wouldn't incur expenses of raising/defending the action (provided we didn't put in a plea for our expenses, which we wouldn't) and bingo.

 

It was generally the most economically sound route for the husband - assuming he was in employment and provided agreement had been reached regarding the division of matrimonial property, to let his lower earning (legal aid entitled) wife raise the action.

[samspade]

But on a more abstract level I simply cannot comprehend the logic behind giving a divorcing wife millions, even if she had never worked one day during the marriage (so she could "maintain the standard of living" - look it up in most state family code.)

 

It's called prostitution.

 

And it's a good reason not to marry.

 

It's happening in same-sex unions now, too. Martina Navritilova's ex is suing her for millions - for what? Because she had her heart broken.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...d-warning.html

 

I'd like to see how many grand slams SHE won.

[sally4sara]

I understand the importance of the "no fault" diforce, but this does not mean that faults should never, ever, be considered. Examples of the cheating wife leaving with the kids and half the money may be rare, but the very possibility of such outcome is apalling.

 

I think what is rubbing about this is that it was always appalling when cheating seems rewarded. It feels like wasn't considered so appalling when the husband wanted to drop out with the replacement wife after 20 years. Appalling to ask someone to forgo a career to raise children and then stand them up to prepare for retirement without a work history in their 40s.

 

I had the "law" explained. Most stated that when a marriage sours (no gender blame game here) the man avoids taking action. Distant becomes absent, cold becomes icy and he waits for her to give up. "Nice" guys think that letting her take the first move keeps them from being the bad guy.

 

We are talking about "nice" guys right?