Skip to content

The Expectations of ‘Mean’ vs the Realities of ‘Nice’

June 2, 2010

I met her in a bar, though it turned out we were in geography together. I don’t remember the open or the close, I just knew that it was appropriate to sit down next to her the next time I actually showed up to class. Since I was feeling randy, I’m sure it was the first class meeting following the Friday on which we’d met. Though not a model student, I did actually take paper and a writing utensil with me and mostly pay attention to the professor. I gave the impression of being a serious student, when I was there, so the decision to study together at my apartment wasn’t totally illusory.

It was quickly decided that the hour was late and she should most definitely spend the night. The sun was down, her car was parked feet from the front door of my apartment, and her sorority house was almost a whole mile away, after all. I was a nice guy to boot. Only nice guys offer their beds to sorority girls on a weeknight.

I don’t think we ever actually feigned studying, we just started making out. At one point she started sucking my thumb provocatively. I suggested it was time to hit the hay and she agreed. Once in my bed, the whole, “I don’t want to move too fast because I really like you” routine came out. I told her I understood and then complimented her thumb sucking technique. I don’t remember if I then looked at my crotch or if I made an attempt at clever suggestion. I know that whatever I did, it wasn’t the pinnacle of smoothness. It did get the point across. More important, she was amenable to the suggestion, which isn’t shocking since she’s the one who surreptitiously suggested it it in the first place. A ponytail holder appeared, the hair was fastened back, and I was made aware that not everything was considered too fast.

But, you say, what about my claims of being a nice guy? I was nice. I gave her what she wanted. I didn’t beat around the bush, I didn’t go passive aggressive, I didn’t supplicate myself and pretend to be wimpy in order to seduce her. Granted, my technique was flawed, but it got the job done. I’d be more proud of that story if I’d said something ultra direct like, “Your sucking technique is impressive. Look, a cock!” Live and learn.

I ended up breaking that girl’s heart. She still refuses to acknowledge she knows me when we find ourselves in the same location. I catch her looking, but when I attempt eye contact or a friendly smile, she quickly looks away.

How did I get from provocative thumb sucking to furtive glances? I stopped being a nice guy. I started being mean. I stopped telling the truth and started trying to protect her feelings. I tried to buffer aloof and self-focused game with a facade of beta caring, even going so far as to try to maintain this facade once my interest had vanished. It was the noble thing to do. It was the mature thing to do.

It was the wrong thing to do.

Pick up artists often talk about game or about themselves in less than glowing terms. They acknowledge that game works because it appeals to women’s baser motives. What they don’t often acknowledge is that the honesty inherent in game, in being direct and decisive, hits the girls, instinctively if not logically, as nice, even if society says that behavior is dishonest, mean, manipulative, etc. So even though gamers can talk about tactics in less than glowing terms, the behavior itself, by force of sheer honesty, is nicer than the behavior of the ‘nice guys.’

‘Nice guys’ create an expectation of nice behavior. The ulterior motives and passive aggression they employ in pursuit of those motives inflict more hostility upon the girls in their lives. The hamster wheels spin furiously in an abortive attempt to understand the mixed signals coming forth from these nice guys. In short, their behavior produces an opposite result of that expected. They’re the bad guys in the dichotomy, not the cads.

The cads, on the other hand, with their directness and clear motives, with the focus on the truth, are the true nice guys of the world. Their goals are never obfuscated. Their self-interest is obvious. They offer a clear choice. They do not try to protect feelings or construct an artificial persona around themselves.

That’s where I went wrong. I’d lost interest in the girl. Instead of just telling her that, I tried to let her down gently, to gradually wean her from my glorious manhood. I constructed a long term persona and found myself unable to maintain. I refused to bluntly tell her the truth. I tried to drive her away. I acted like a pussy. I became the beta nice guy I had pretended to be. I was totally focused on myself, but I was trying to serve that focus by stealthily avoiding her instead of just removing her from the equation.

‘Nice guys’ do finish last. They finish last because they’re afraid to cross the finish line. They have to be dragged, kicking, screaming, and attempting to convince the finish line to move to a more easily reached location. The guys who finish first? They may not be nice, but the ladies certainly perceive their affections that way. Which path will you take? Me, I’m sticking with the honest one, the one with integrity, the one that doesn’t tiptoe around the desire for a good knob polishing. It’s oh so nice.

12 Comments leave one →
  1. June 3, 2010 5:48 am

    This is a good post.

    I think you need to define what you mean by cad though. So many people have different definitions of this term.

    I can’t work out from your post whether you just mean it to refer to a guy who is primarily interested in a woman for sex (I really don’t think this is sufficient to make someone a cad, this is the reason why people are in relationships in the first place), or whether you are adopting the following definition of cad proffered by Talleyrand in the course of tying me up in knots on one of his recent posts:-

    Doesn’t give a shit about hurting your feelings, may not even care about your feelings, self absorbed, narcisstic, sleeps with multiple women, Macavillian, sociopathic (despite what all those M.Ed and Ph. Ds want to say sociopathy is a sliding scale with serial killers being the extreme end, James Bond being up there or if you prefer the real life equivalent Reilly), reckless, fearless, thrill seeking, substance abuser, the list goes on) (helpfully, he then includes himself as an example)

    Does being honest with women automatically make you a cad within Talleyrand’s definition? I don’t necessarily think so. This requires something more, treating women badly. Being honest with a woman is not actually treating her badly, it is usually best for her in the long run. Pretty lies don’t usually benefit women any more than men. The other characteristics may not be so good of course, but I think that honesty can exist independently of them.

    In fact, I’m not actually sure that a cad within Talleyrand’s definition is really honest, what they give is the appearance of honesty, rather than the reality, a lot of what they say is self-serving and half-truths.

    I think there is room out there for a guy who is genuinely honest without being a shit. Quite apart from being independently valuable in itself, honesty presupposes self-knowledge and self-confidence on the part of the man, all of these are traits which attract women.

    There is genuinely nothing worse than dealing with a guy who is not being honest.

    The ponytail holder was a nice touch btw. So many men never think of the practicalities of these things.

  2. June 3, 2010 9:33 am

    The alternate reality you threw out there, the one where you would have told her “look, a cock!”, while clever and perhaps more impressive for story re-telling purposes, actually might not have had the same effect. I think that approach is a niche approach and I don’t know much of this girl you speak of, I’m guessing it might not have had a great effect. Actually, your sly, wisp of a hint about her sucking technique was tremendously more powerful in my book. Women enjoy the oblique and the subtle, in both the physical and verbal lead up to sex.

    “I like the way you suck my thumb,” with the correct tone and facial cues is just as powerful as “look, a cock” which comes across to me as try hard and superficially gratifying. Granted, this was your University period and a lot of uncontrollable, social ricocheting is to be expected.

    Interesting, the cad thing. I often encounter words which I realize have a special private definition which I can live with until I must use them in the context of a wider audience. This is one. The common consensus in the online dictionary realm seems to define a cad as “a man whose behavior is unprincipled or dishonorable” which basically is inline with my previous thinking. The emphasis being on the “dishonest.” In this respect, the spineless nice guy who uses all means of trickery and falsehoods to ingratiate himself with women is a cad.

  3. June 3, 2010 1:56 pm

    SDaedalus and Phoenixism – You both hit on one of the flaws with this post. I was really using cad as shorthand for the opposite of nice guy instead of the more often used definition. I couldn’t think of a good way to describe the way that some perceive the alpha/pua/gamer/traditional man against that of the ‘nice guy.’ I almost typed ‘bad boy,’ but couldn’t pull the trigger on that one.

    I started thinking about this post during the comments back and forth you mentioned, SDaedalus. Talleyrand somewhat reminds me of a friend and former roommate. My friend presented an interesting dichotomy in that though he was focused on his own pleasure, he was one the most genuinely nice guys I’ve ever known. Wasn’t a ‘nice guy,’ but a guy I’ve always been proud to call a friend and the type of person you can actually rely on. That got me thinking about the fact that ‘nice guys’ are often rife with undesirable traits of one sort or the other, whether it be a predilection for lying, passive aggression, or something else ignoble.

    Perhaps I’ll rework this one. Perhaps not. One thing I’ve learned with this whole blogging enterprise is sometimes it’s good to really work something over and edit it within an inch of its life. Other times it’s good to just hit publish.

  4. June 3, 2010 2:07 pm

    I think it’s a very good post. It takes the discussion a step further, what more can one ask. I really enjoyed the discussion on Seasons of Tumult and Discord too.

    I have a theory that although some women are attracted to bad boys because they want to be treated badly, some women are just attracted because bad boy traits mirror or give the impression of some non-bad traits that betas lack, these women don’t actually want to be treated badly, they just misjudge the man. If we could identify these traits then we could create an uber race of men who were not shits, but not betas either. This would be nice.

  5. June 3, 2010 2:08 pm

    Also, I agree with Phoenixism on beta cads. This is exactly the point I was trying to make over at Tumult & Discord but he put it much better than I could.

  6. June 4, 2010 7:43 am

    I agree that the long and slow death is the worst way for a relationship to end, but I’m not so sure about the inherent altruism of the pump ‘n’ dumper. What I would like to know is how a woman out in that jungle right now can find a decent guy without getting used. It sounds like it’s getting harder all the time.

    • June 4, 2010 8:41 am

      The woman I used as an example in this post, while we never would’ve ended up married, was, ahem, more than gently used by the time we started dating. Admissions of some less than savory past experiences really accelerated the end of our relationship. Initially I really liked her.

      This all happened 15 or so years ago. Popular perception is that the trends are accelerating, but Agnostic crunched the numbers and reached a different conclusion.

      http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2010/05/making-sense-of-hook-up-culture.html

      As to the altruism, I actually think the problem is feigned altruism. That’s where I think the true cads beat the nice guys. The motivation and goals are often the same. At least one group is honest about them.

      • June 4, 2010 11:22 am

        So it was Chasing Amy all over again? I would really love to see the manosphere discuss that movie.

        [Then I'd have to watch Chasing Amy again and I have no desire to do that. Perhaps someone else will accept that challenge. I'm a bigger fan of his stupider offerings like Mall Rats and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

        More seriously, limited parallels notwithstanding, I'm not pining over this one as was Kevin Smith. Me and girl's relationship, though short, just provides lots of fodder for the blog.]

Trackbacks

  1. Notice She Doesn’t Say You Can’t Be an Ego-Inflated, Arrogant Jerk « Hidden Leaves
  2. Weekend Link Fest – Limo edition « Seasons of Tumult and Discord
  3. Linkage is Good for You: Not Safe for Work Edition
  4. Time to Matriculate « Hidden Leaves

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers