When and why women go for the nice guy

[NoLongerSad]

I've never cheated or lied about how I felt for someone to keep them around.

This is an interestingly-qualified statement.

 

 

I've never expected more out of someone than I could offer. So I'm not sure how I could be considered a "player".

I guess whether or not you could be considered a player depends on how promiscuous you were. If you had sex with a lot of guys, in a carefree fashion, many people would call that a "player" even if the other people you were with were also "players" (you would be offering each other exactly the same thing, which is what you stated your goal was in your relationships).

 

 

 

 

Woggle delights in holding me to a standard he cannot live up to himself.

What standard is that exactly? And why does it matter whether Woggle lives up to it?

 

 

 

That was the kind of mentality that had me ending things with people before.

No, woggle's mentality could not possibly have been responsible for you ending your prior relationships. Your mentality was responsible for it, that's why you ended them.

 

 

How it goes for dating women, I'm not very aware of.

Since you are a woman and you have been dated by many guys, why would you be unaware of what dating women is like?

 

 

 

How it often went for me in dating men was they offer up monogamy (which they were getting in return) and expected that was all there was to it for them.

If you were attracting all of the same kind of (unsatisfactory) man over and over again, why doesn't that reflect on you?

 

 

I like to cook and only had one dance hall I enjoyed going to on one particular night out of the week. I would rather watch a movie at home than in a cold, over priced theater. Seeing as I didn't go dancing every week, my relationships ended up being all about cooking for the guy and whatever friend he had over.

Not my cup of tea, but so what? If you didn't want to cook for your boyfriends' friends you shouldn't have done it. Apparently you did do that over and over and over again, through multiple different relationships. Then you changed your mind and decided not to do that anymore. It's not clear why you changed your mind nor is there any way of determining whether the current state of affairs is "better" but how do you blame Woggle for your past relationship failures? Makes no sense to me.

 

 

 

 

 

I'd find interesting events and exhibits to go to - always the same excuse; not their kind of thing.

That's not an "excuse." That's stating a preference. Men generally don't like to go to museums and exhibits the same way women do. That's why most of your ex boyfriends were all the same. They were men, acting like men. Cook them dinner, be monogamous, and they're happy. Not good enough for you I guess?

 

 

 

Well neither is playing mom to you and all your friends while you play video games and watch sports "my kind of thing" since we are not married and I had to do it at my own place too.

Well you seem extremely resentful at what were your own consensual relationship decisions. You are blaming your exes for being somewhat shallow or not to your liking, not simply realizing that your own preferences changed over time. Previously you were perfectly happy cooking for these guys and accommodating them, or at least happy enough to be in relationships with them.

 

Now you have a different kind of man I guess but you are resentful against men for your own relationship decisions of the past.

 

That's kind of ridiculous, you know? Did anyone force you to cook dinner for him? Or his friend? No of course not. So you must have been getting something in exchange out of the relationship but you don't want to admit that for some reason.

 

 

 

 

 

I like to cook doesn't mean I like to be cafeteria lady! Never any reciprocity in the friends hanging around being my friends.

That's your fault, isn't it? Did any of your exes actually stop you from inviting your friends over and if so--why didn't you just walk out immediately? This sounds like a pattern on your part, and if so, how is it the men's fault, and not your fault, assuming there is any "fault" at all?

 

 

 

with me so I guess I should have felt honored righThe charity work I do was usually seen as me wasting time I could have been giving them (cooking and play hostess no doubt is a much more important charity to devote time to ). And that they might join me - HA!

But hey, they were only sleeping t?

You were sleeping with each other. Presumably you weren't forcibly raped. Stop playing this nonsensical "victim" role. You were a full equal consensual partner in each and every one of these relationships but don't want to take responsibility for your behavior. Take responsibility for your own choices for once. Stop blaming your exes, stop blaming woggle, stop blaming men in general.

 

If you were in "bad" relationships in the past, it's because of your own "bad" choices and decisions.

 

"But...but...but....it wasn't MY fault that those relationships sucked....AFTER ALL I'M JUST A GIRL....IT WAS THE FAULT OF THOSE MEAN CRUEL NEANDERTHAL MEN I DATED....I don't know how I ended up in bed with those guys or cooking meals for them and their video game playing slacker friends....IT'S NOT MY FAULT I'M JUST A GIRL."

 

 

 

 

Were they outright jerks? No. If they had been they wouldn't have made it past a date or two.

If you are in a relationship and can't tell who the jerk is.....well let's just say maybe it's like sitting in a poker game and not being able to tell which of the players is the "fish"?

 

 

They, and most people I meet, are just out for what they can get with the smallest amount of effort they can get away with.

You seem to attract these kind of people. Why is that?

 

 

 

 

and that just wasn't enough to get me to cool my jets for very long. Now I don't have to worry about it.

Well good for you. So why are so resentful of your ex boyfriends for basically doing nothing wrong other than failing to live up to your arbitrary standards?

 

 

 

 

But I come on here and read about how jerks always get the wimminz.

Well I think more broadly, the sterotype is that the jerks always get the super attractive women. Less attractive women aren't as successful in getting jerks' attention so even though they want jerks too, they are more likely to settle for "nice guys" at some point.

 

 

 

That they are too nice and that is why they get none. Yeah, you all think you're nice if you're only sleeping with one girl and don't call her names or hit her but that in of itself isn't much of an offering if they're giving you the same and more.

I guess your current bf cooks dinner for you?

 

Clap clap clap.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2010 by NoLongerSad

[sally4sara]

Lots of words

 

Why does it matter what Woggle can and can't live up to?

 

Because he cares a whole lot that others live up to more than he can manage enough to continuously hassle them about it. If he didn't keep bringing it to me, I wouldn't care much about it. I'd just be glad he seems less bitter these days and it would end there.

 

My past relationship choices?

No one is without poor choices be it a bathing suit purchase or their love life. I can really only think of a two brief relationships that were truly bad beyond my ex-husband who wasn't bad when we got together. The bottle swallowed him. Hardly my fault that alcoholism ran so high in his family tree. Hardly his fault that I'd never met an alcoholic before to identify one without them being drunk every time they came around. The others I didn't keep around once I knew what I was dealing with.

 

Most were just not right for me. That doesn't make them jerks with a capital J.

And when I speak of people wanting as much as they can get with as little reciprocity as possible - I'm speaking of people in general. Not just the ones I've dated.

 

Your definition of a player is clearly different than mine. Player to me is someone who employs manipulation and deceit to get what they want, not just promiscuity. Promiscuity is in the eye of the one judging. What is promiscuous to one is normal to another and even prudish to someone else. A guy could be getting sex from his first sex partner and use lies to get it. I would consider him a player. Another guy could be completely honest to his 50th sex partner and everyone before her. I would not consider him a player.

 

I don't have a BF. I have a husband. And yes, he does domestic stuff too. He is also into galleries and museums as much as he is into stereotypical Man Stuff. And not everything I'm into is stereotypical Woman Stuff. I love MMA fights and use to go hunting a good bit. I like to cook for him because he cares about more than just my ability to cook and look pretty. He makes me laugh, treats me well, and is happy when I achieve a goal I set for myself. We're both into charity work. That I am in many ways someone who gravitates toward a more traditional role in a relationship doesn't mean I like being taken for granted in that role. Unfortunately, many of the men who find that appealing tend to take it for granted as though women are born to love it and doing it is in itself the reward.

 

This is yet another thread comparing nice guys to jerks. What I offered up is that nice guys are often not really nice guys. Often they are guys who think that if they offer the bare minimum, women should be satisfied with that and if they are not - then the woman must want a jerk.

 

How I feel about the vast majority of the guys I dated is not resentful. I am no victim. If I was I would have stayed with some "nice guy" who took what I had to offer for granted. I don't mind cooking for someone. I don't mind cooking for many someones. What I mind is someone thinking that just because I do something nice I'm going to want to do it all the time and they don't need to do anything to keep it worth my time. Once a pattern begin to present itself, I'm also not someone who immediately flies off the handle and cuts out. I speak up and see if a change is made.

 

I'm still on friendly terms with most as much as one can consider a long distance FB friend to be. Hell, even the through and through jerk I dated in high school has contacted me in the last year to apologize. Wow! He did not age well at all!

Not being enough to keep me doesn't make them awful. It doesn't make them jerks. It doesn't make them nice either.

 

Oh, and who I sleep with and under what set of circumstances is none of your business. Bringing it up is just one of those trashy things men do to try to discredit anything a woman says. Its funny because if the number of people you've slept with degraded your credibility to speak with knowledge on a subject there are lots of men who should just STFU already.

 

Thank you for linking me the alert button and the not on line dot. It was so helpful?

Edited December 15, 2010 by sally4sara

[Taramere]

"But...but...but....it wasn't MY fault that those relationships sucked....AFTER ALL I'M JUST A GIRL....IT WAS THE FAULT OF THOSE MEAN CRUEL NEANDERTHAL MEN I DATED....I don't know how I ended up in bed with those guys or cooking meals for them and their video game playing slacker friends....IT'S NOT MY FAULT I'M JUST A GIRL."

 

"Straw man" tends to be an over-used term around here, but that's got to be one of the most glowing examples of a straw man argument I've ever seen. Er....congratulations?

[Floridaman]

Otherwise I wouldn't have dumped so many of you.

Originally Posted by sally4sara

I'd dump you too because you're unfair.

Originally Posted by Floridaman

Man, could I teach you something and bring you back to reality.

 

No, I've never been a "player," which is what I suspect you are.

You, however, might build up feelings for me and guess what would happen next....

I've never cheated or lied about how I felt for someone to keep them around. I've never expected more out of someone than I could offer. So I'm not sure how I could be considered a "player".

Sally, you're right. I made a sweeping generalization about you when I really hadn't looked over your other posts. Allow me to apologize.

I was only going afte the words you used in the previous posting.

 

Truth be told, I wouldn't "show you a thing or two" and dump you or deliberately do anything to make you cry.

[sally4sara]

Sally, you're right. I made a sweeping generalization about you when I really hadn't looked over your other posts. Allow me to apologize.

I was only going afte the words you used in the previous posting.

 

Truth be told, I wouldn't "show you a thing or two" and dump you or deliberately do anything to make you cry.

 

Awww. It's okay. Most of the time I chalk up the misunderstandings in posts to the lack of facial expression and interpreted tone of the reader. You can't see if I'm smiling or not and I'm pretty blunt. Perhaps you're like the wonderful Mr Walken when he says

 

"You're talking to my guy all wrong. Its the wrong tone and if you do it again I'll stab you in the face with a soldering iron."

 

So its okay. I like most guys. Just not enough to want to date them.

[NoLongerSad]

"Straw man" tends to be an over-used term around here, but that's got to be one of the most glowing examples of a straw man argument I've ever seen. Er....congratulations?

 

Well the straw man was the one created by sally4sara which I pointed out by those bolded words and which she has now apparently retracted. All those exes now aren't so bad after all, her contention that they were initially, was a complete straw man indeed. That straw man has been thoroughly knocked down, so she is back to the standard "Promiscuity is defined by each person according to their own tastes, as long as their tastes agree with mine. And whatever I have done in my life by definition could not possibly be promiscuous, therefore, even though I just said each of us gets to form our own definition, you can't call me (or any other female with whom I choose to identify) promiscuous, because that would hurt my feelings."

[NoLongerSad]

Oh, and who I sleep with and under what set of circumstances is none of your business. Bringing it up is just one of those trashy things men do to try to discredit anything a woman says.

So stop constantly talking about your sex life then. And by the way no one tried to discredit anything a woman said because of their sex life, yourself included. If you say something that doesn't make sense, then your sex life is irrelevant. What you seem to think is that any challenge to your thinking process is also a challenge to your sex life (whatever it may be), because most of what you say here seems to be in defense of your own sexual mores.

[sally4sara]

So stop constantly talking about your sex life then. And by the way no one tried to discredit anything a woman said because of their sex life, yourself included. If you say something that doesn't make sense, then your sex life is irrelevant. What you seem to think is that any challenge to your thinking process is also a challenge to your sex life (whatever it may be), because most of what you say here seems to be in defense of your own sexual mores.

 

Oh there is only one poster I know with such awful reading comprehension! A new username to add to the ignore list?

 

Oh don't you worry. Things will get better. Its the holiday season after all and I'm sure you endeared yourself to whatever friends you have that are the proud parents of some adorable nymphet.

 

The kiddie table again this year?

[Taramere]

Well the straw man was the one created by sally4sara which I pointed out by those bolded words and which she has now apparently retracted. All those exes now aren't so bad after all, her contention that they were initially, was a complete straw man indeed. That straw man has been thoroughly knocked down, so she is back to the standard "Promiscuity is defined by each person according to their own tastes, as long as their tastes agree with mine. And whatever I have done in my life by definition could not possibly be promiscuous, therefore, even though I just said each of us gets to form our own definition, you can't call me (or any other female with whom I choose to identify) promiscuous, because that would hurt my feelings."

 

I didn't get anywhere, from her posts, that she thought her exes were bad people. What she described sounded to me like fairly standard behaviour from young guys who are used to their mothers running about after them and expect their girlfriends to happily adopt a similar maternal role with them. Most people, I'm sure, have the urge to pamper and indulge their partner sometimes....but from what Sally's saying, the mistake her previous boyfriends made was in feeling entitled to it. When people take treats for granted, that's when the line has been crossed between someone enjoying being treated, and a spoiled brat having a sense of entitlement.

 

It's a bit like the woman who expects the guy to pay when they go out for dinner "because he's the man, and I'm the woman - he paid last time, so clearly we're in traditional roles here." Is the onus on a man to try to negotiate a woman out of that spoiled brat stance, or is it fair to expect that as an adult she should refrain from behaving like a spoiled brat just because there have been times in the past that he felt like treating her?

 

Like Sally, I don't think that being a bit spoiled and selfish necessarily makes a person monstrous and dysfunctional. However, it does probably mean they're on the immature side...and that others might feel less inclined to want to continue in a relationship with them. Which is what happened with Sally. She wanted someone who had a more mature outlook, who would be better equipped to give as well as take in the relationship...and to appreciate that just because someone decides to treat or pamper you, it doesn't mean they're some sort of doormat.

[Woggle]

Some women have their own version of entitlement. I remember many screaming matches I had with my ex in public because I could not afford to buy some expensive item at the time even though she would not earn money to pay for it herself. Some women act entitled to a man's money and gentlemenly behavior and it is the reason so many men keep such a tight grip on our wallets. I have no issue spending money on my wife because she does not act like my sole purpose is providing money but with my ex I did not want to give her a dime at the end. This concept goes both ways.

[NoLongerSad]

 

Oh don't you worry. Things will get better. Its the holiday season after all and I'm sure you endeared yourself to whatever friends you have that are the proud parents of some adorable nymphet.

 

The kiddie table again this year?

 

Only a truly damaged person would view a child as a sexual object. You do, based on the very offensive comment you just posted. But please don't project your hang ups on me. I'm not responsible for whatever events you may have experienced in the past.

Edited December 16, 2010 by NoLongerSad

[NoLongerSad]

I didn't get anywhere, from her posts, that she thought her exes were bad people.

 

I didn't either, nor did I say she did. What she did was to characterize a number of her exes as bad partners, not as bad people. Indeed it was I who pointed out to her that they didn't sound like very bad partners at all. When I questioned her on it, she backed off that claim, totally backtracked, and has typically descended into an insulting rant about where I am spending the holidays and who with.

 

What she described sounded to me like fairly standard behaviour from young guys who are used to their mothers running about after them and expect their girlfriends to happily adopt a similar maternal role with them.

 

And she willingly did adopt that maternal behavior, which was my point. That's why she had to back down from her anti-male rant against her exes. It was all consensual on her part. Who knows what real point she believed she was making? It certainly undercut her attempt to attack Woggle. It's perfectly fine for a man to want a maternal attitude from his gf as long as she is willing to provide it. Sally4sara was, until she decided she wasn't. She hasn't explained what made her change her mind about how her relationships should be. Remember this wasn't a one-off, she went through a series of these relationships with similar guys. It really doesn't make any sense for her to have done that but now be complaining about the guys she dated. I pointed that out, and now she's angry with me. Oh well I can live with that I guess.

 

 

Most people, I'm sure, have the urge to pamper and indulge their partner sometimes....but from what Sally's saying, the mistake her previous boyfriends made was in feeling entitled to it.

 

She didn't say that they felt entitled to it; maybe that's a reasonable inference. But how was it a "mistake" on their part? It's no more a mistake then their lack of desire to go to museums and shows with her. It's just their set of preferences. As I pointed out to sally4sara. If there was a "mistake" it was when sally4sara cooked dinner for them and catered to them--assuming she didn't want to do that. But obviously she must have wanted to do it, because she DID do it, repeatedly, in consensual relationships, for multiple different guys. I guess now she's found a guy who's willing to accept less effort from her in the relationship, so she married him.

 

 

When people take treats for granted, that's when the line has been crossed between someone enjoying being treated, and a spoiled brat having a sense of entitlement.

 

If she felt like she was being taken for granted then obviously she should have talked with the bfs about it. She apparently didn't, and remember, this happened in multiple relationships with multiple guys. So that's not the guys' fault, it's a matter of the type of guy that she was selecting to be in a relationship with. It's a pattern she'd established. Obviously in her mind their had to have been some sort of expectation on her part of what she was supposed to be getting out of these relationships, which she hasn't really explained. All she's done is make characterizations of her ex's that somehow her cooking dinner for them and their friends was their fault, rather than a mutual relationship choice. Also she criticized them for not liking the same recreational activities as she does. That's just a different preference, it's kind of ridiculous for her to assert that they should have the same preferences that she does. It just means they're incompatible and if she doesn't like it she should get out of the relationships, which it looks like is exactly what happened.

 

 

 

 

It's a bit like the woman who expects the guy to pay when they go out for dinner "because he's the man, and I'm the woman - he paid last time, so clearly we're in traditional roles here." Is the onus on a man to try to negotiate a woman out of that spoiled brat stance, or is it fair to expect that as an adult she should refrain from behaving like a spoiled brat just because there have been times in the past that he felt like treating her?

 

Adults who are in relationships or getting into them try to communicate expectations about these things--paying for dates, who cooks dinner, recreational activities--and reach a mutually acceptable arrangement. The "onus" if you insist on calling it that, is on both members of the relationship to address these issues, sooner or later. It sounds like sally4sara had difficulty doing this, that is communicating her expectations in an effective manner. Does that make her a "brat"? I don't know--maybe you're right about that.

 

 

 

However, it does probably mean they're on the immature side...and that others migLike Sally, I don't think that being a bit spoiled and selfish necessarily makes a person monstrous and dysfunctional.ht feel less inclined to want to continue in a relationship with them.

 

Just who do you think was the "spoiled" party in sally4sara's prior relationships? Why do you feel they are "spoiled" because they accepted the services she willingly provided? She was providing those services for a reason--she had a motive. Apparently the motive wasn't simply joy in cooking a nice meal, there was some kind of quid pro quo in her mind, which didn't get fulfilled to her satisfaction.

 

Don't forget this wasn't something that happened to her in a single relationship, she said it happened multiple times, which indicates sally4sara was most likely either seeking out similar sorts of guys to be in relationships with, or finding guys receptive to this sort of "mothering." But she got angry when the quid pro quo she was looking for--taking her out dancing, to the show, I suppose--wasn't fulfilled.

 

She did admit that she views her relationships as quid pro quo situations, by saying that she would never ask from another person more than she would be willing to give in the relationship. The other side of that coin is that she looks at relationships as trade-offs rather than as collaborations. Probably in her current relationship with her husband she's always doing some sort of mental accounting to make sure everything is "even" and she doesn't get "cheated." Always measuring whether she is appropriately rewarded for whatever she puts into the relationship. Well I guess that works for a lot of people, I would just find it to be a tough way to live personally.

 

 

Which is what happened with Sally. She wanted someone who had a more mature outlook, who would be better equipped to give as well as take in the relationship...and to appreciate that just because someone decides to treat or pamper you, it doesn't mean they're some sort of doormat.

 

She found someone who she was more compatible with. That doesn't mean there was anything wrong or immature with the prior guys she went out with--certainly not because she cooked dinner for them and they developed an expectation of that. The development of that expectation is her fault, because she's the one who mothered them.