The Definitive Answer to "Why Nice Guys Finish Last"

Gennaro

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to kst...@mail.telis.org

Where did you find this post? This is the clearest explanation, the most rational,
the most accurate, and most informative I have ever read. It actually makes me feel
better about being single. Nice post.

Larry

Ken Stuart wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The following seems to me to be the clearest explanation I've seen of
> the dating problems of "nice guys". It is from a web page, the
> address of the page is given at the bottom....
> ======================================================
>
> Why Nice Guys Finish Last
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Ever wondered why the beautiful, intelligent, and even well educated
> girls end up with the real prats? The guys who talk tough, act sweet,
> and treat them like dirt? Is it just nature? Surely it can't be
> nurture, because clearly they don't. Ever wonder why the really nice
> guys who would be loyal, faithful and enthusiastic husbands miss out,
> and spend their time having to be content with just looking and
> admiring? And ever wondered why do women always say "why are men such
> cads and liars?" Here's why.
>
> Guys, there are two main things which determine your success rate when
> you try to pick up women - how well you come across, and how well you
> come across. We can talk about grooming, nice clothes, the fast car,
> and the big bank balance, but ultimately what impresses a young woman
> is confidence.
>
> There is a famous quote from an actress who said "It's about 50% what
> you have, and 50% what you think you have". Well for guys it's about
> 25% what you have and 75% what you think you have.
>
> Remember all those old movies about high-school romances? Who did
> better with the girls - the geek with the keys to Daddy's fast car, or
> the bad boy with the leather jacket? Right. He had something that
> Daddy's money couldn't buy. Confidence.
>
> Why do women like confidence? Well the answer lies in our murky
> subconscious programming. Some of us might like to believe that we are
> in control of what we are attracted to, but in fact this is almost a
> contradiction. We do not control our attraction to others - it
> controls us. Somewhere our subconscious tries to program us to be
> attracted to (and hence to appropriate) those who will make successful
> breeding partners, and even in the modern age, women like men to be
> successful - not necessarily rich, but successful in their field.
>
> A young woman who is after a young man often can't choose one who is
> already successful, because he hasn't had time to be successful yet.
> So she does the next best thing - she chooses one who is likely to
> become successful. If you were to select from a group of people the
> ones who were most likely to be successful, which one's would you
> choose? Right - the ones with the most confidence.
>
> Women are not in control of this any more than men are in control of
> their likings - perhaps for blonde hair or long legs or a quiet or
> bubbly personality, a cute smile or whatever. It is just nature.
>
> Imagine That ...
>
> Imagine that there's a girl that you really like. You think that she
> is really special. You find out she is single, and you eventually
> muster the courage to ask her out. Ever piece of your body language
> says that you are terrified of her saying no - because her acceptance
> means so much to you.
>
> Now imagine there's a girl who seems to be single, and you want a date
> for the party on Friday, because you are not sure if the other girl
> you could take is going to be in town then. You just politely ask her,
> knowing that if she says no, you can ask someone else, or maybe take
> the first girl if she is available after all.
>
> Which girl is more likely to accept? Now imagine that the girls are
> the same girl, but the askers are different. Which asker is the girl
> more likely to accept? Right - the one who couldn't really care less
> about her. This isn't a debasement of her - it's just natural for her
> to be keen to go out with the most confident one if all other
> indications are the same. She doesn't know that one is more serious
> than the other, she just sees two guys asking her out - one clearly
> confident, the other not.
>
> To some extent it is precisely the fact that he doesn't care about the
> girl which makes it more likely he will get her.
>
> And in fact success breeds success. The kind of guys who ask lots of
> women out not only become confident in it, but the experience lets
> them read and play the situation better. They know what kinds of body
> language work, what kind of tone of voice to use (sexy, cheerful,
> cool, understanding or whatever), and they get to read the signs of
> the other person so they can dynamically adjust to the situation. The
> smooth talker with the flash smile, or the unctuous voice gets the
> girl.
>
> Further, because they are so good at playing the game, they can see
> little point in staying with one partner for any length of time, and
> go off to enjoy other experiences. So the unfaithful playboy type also
> gets the girl.
>
> On the other hand the sincere guy who would only ever ask a girl out
> if he really liked her, gets so little experience, and gets into a
> situation that means so much to him, that he botches up the job and
> misses the opportunity. As usual, nice guys finish last.
>
> So what's the solution? Easy.
>
> Guys: Just invite girls out whether you want to have a relationship
> with them or not. Don't be afraid of rejection, because it really
> doesn't matter. Most of them won't bite (unless you ask them very
> nicely). Choose someone who you are not actually interested in having
> a relationship with and ask them out to dinner or a party.
>
> Don't give them the wrong impression, don't make promises that you
> have no intention of keeping, and don't take advantage of the
> situation by making them think the date is more than it is. If they
> ask, explain that you are just interested in going out as friends (but
> maybe not until they have agreed to go out with you). Chances are they
> will welcome the opportunity to meet other people too. These are
> modern times, and there is nothing wrong with two people just going
> out with each other to get to know each other as friends. And at the
> very least it will increase your set of acquaintances.
>
> Remember the only way to get really confident at doing something is to
> do it a lot - just like riding a bicycle. Don't concentrate on being a
> nice guy. If you are a nice guy, that's fine, but concentrate on
> something which will always help you, regardless of the situation -
> genuine confidence. Cads do well, not because they are cads, but
> because so many of them have learned this lesson.
>
> Nice guys can finish last. Confidence resolves lust. Try it.
>
> Happy Hunting!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Brought to you by Vis-A-Vis, the online totally FREE no frills
> e-ntroduction service at http://bamboo.anu.edu.au/~visavis/index.html
>
> The above article can be found at
> http://bamboo.anu.edu.au/~visavis/articles/niceGuysFinishLast.html
>
> PS I have no connection with Vis-A-Vis, I just thought the article
> made a lot of sense.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ken <*>
> kst...@mail.telis.org
>
> "Love, reign o'er me" - Pete

David S Ching

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

Gennaro (gl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Where did you find this post? This is the clearest explanation, the

: most rational,
: the most accurate, and most informative I have ever read.
: It actually makes me feel
: better about being single. Nice post.

: Larry

~~~Hey, I dunno.......why would a woman want to go with a guy who seems
lothargic about going out with her? It seems like this would be more of a
case of her wanting a chance with him to see if she can make the guy
REALLY fall for her. Doesn't sound like she's attracted to the
confidence. Besides, I've heard many women say that they find it cute
when a guy asks them out and is nervous about it.

Ariana

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

Ken Stuart wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The following seems to me to be the clearest explanation I've seen of
> the dating problems of "nice guys". It is from a web page, the
> address of the page is given at the bottom....
> ======================================================
>
> Why Nice Guys Finish Last
> ----------------------------------------

Hey. Not bad.
One thing I always wondered about is that if a guy asks you out, how
can you tell what type of person he is. In school, reputations get
around, but now, it's hard to tell beyond the first impression. The
only thing you do have to judge by is the "face" he shows you. But how
do you know that behind the "face" is a loving, caring person?

Ariana

Brenda

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

David S Ching wrote:
>
> Gennaro (gl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Where did you find this post? This is the clearest explanation, the

> : most rational,
> : the most accurate, and most informative I have ever read.
> : It actually makes me feel
> : better about being single. Nice post.
>
> : Larry
>

> ~~~Hey, I dunno.......why would a woman want to go with a guy who seems
> lothargic about going out with her? It seems like this would be more of a
> case of her wanting a chance with him to see if she can make the guy
> REALLY fall for her. Doesn't sound like she's attracted to the
> confidence. Besides, I've heard many women say that they find it cute
> when a guy asks them out and is nervous about it.

Yeah, I said that,too... But the point of the story is: hey, nice guy
who's love life isn't exactly going the way you want, try this tact,
women will respond this time! It sounds like the latest fad diet.

You nice guys have to be yourself. There are all types of women, and
obviously someone for everyone. Why try to balance that fine line
between nonchalance and true excitement over meeting someone you finally
really like? It's almost impossible if you are true to your feelings.
I can't do it. That's called manipulation.

I still say it's the younger and/or emotionally/physically abused or
abandoned women are most attracted to "prats", while healthier women
wise up and eventually find the nice guys... Who are then more than
likely going to turn them down as the Nice Guy always seems to want the
woman that doesn't want him. Tell me that isn't true. Otherwise what is
this whole conversation about? The evils of the female?

IF you set your sights too high (only supermodels or gymnasts for me) to
protect yourself from rejection, 9 times out of 10 you'll stay alone.

BrendaR

P.S. I like a man with confidence, but I'd rather have a nice guy who's
sensitive and funny, who's comfortable being himself with me, who isn't
afraid to cry or complain, but not a macho cad who guzzles beer and
camps without food or a sleeping bag to prove how tough he is who can't
really talk to me. I had the latter, and left him for the former, who I
am completely happy with. Why? Because he can talk to me in a way I can
understand, have a conversation about feelings and such...Chicks dig
that... Nice guys are the way to go...

The Master Cow

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

Ariana (ari...@ica.net) wrote:

: Ken Stuart wrote:
: >
: > Hello,
: >
: > The following seems to me to be the clearest explanation I've seen of
: > the dating problems of "nice guys". It is from a web page, the
: > address of the page is given at the bottom....
: > ======================================================
: >
: > Why Nice Guys Finish Last
: > ----------------------------------------

Or, if you'd like another reason: I was talking to a friend yesterday and
what he said made perfect sense. Nice guys tend to think to much, whereas
the not so nice guys don't think so much, so they don't become so attached.
If you're a nice guy (yes, this is from personal experience), you tend to
REALLY like the women you'd like to date, and because of this, rejection
becomes all that more difficult. Some jerk (not saying all non-nice guys
are jerks) who doesn't care what a woman thinks, can ask someone out, get
rejected, and move on to the next person, while someone like me sits and
thinks and thinks and thinks, not wanting to get hurt again, not wanting
to ever have to experience that pain again. I'm sure if I didn't think,
things would be so much easier, because I'd go out with women just for the
hell of it, and wouldn't be crushed when they show absolutly no interest,
and for me, quite recently, when they seem to have a hatred for you, based
on misinterpertation of the point you were trying to make, a friendship
you were trying to build... *sigh*

--

]:o_ Jason Quattrini The Master Cow _o:[
|O = qua...@rpi.edu "I am a WERECOW! Moooooooo!!!!" = O|
|_o= =o_|

Matt B Parisi

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

>>
>> Why do women like confidence? Well the answer lies in our murky
>> subconscious programming. Some of us might like to believe that we
are
>> in control of what we are attracted to, but in fact this is almost a
>> contradiction. We do not control our attraction to others - it
>> controls us. Somewhere our subconscious tries to program us to be
>> attracted to (and hence to appropriate) those who will make
successful
>> breeding partners, and even in the modern age, women like men to be
>> successful - not necessarily rich, but successful in their field.

And this is completely unsubstantiated.

>>
>> A young woman who is after a young man often can't choose one who is
>> already successful, because he hasn't had time to be successful yet.
>> So she does the next best thing - she chooses one who is likely to
>> become successful. If you were to select from a group of people the
>> ones who were most likely to be successful, which one's would you
>> choose? Right - the ones with the most confidence.

But what about a little later in life? If young women are programmed
by their subconscious to admire "confidence" most of all, because it is
a behavioral catch-all that will most likely lead them to successful
breeding partners, then their nature most certainly ought to push them
toward the real thing a little later in life. What I mean, is that if
women must be attracted to the "confident brats" as a 20 year old,
because this most assures them of security later in life, then the
analysis must bear out that the same woman should be attracted *more*
to the real item -- ie. a man with money, success in field, influential
family, etc -- *regardless* of his "confidence" with women, and at
*any* time of her life. Yet there appears to be no real evidence of
this; in fact the above analysis concludes that nearly *all* younger
women must be attracted to the "confident" man above all. So, this
destroys the argument.
Also, since you are making a blanket statement about most women chasing
after a certain personality type and making an appeal to popular
culture to substantiate it, I'll do the same -- why do women seem to go
after "loner" figures; rebels who play by their own rules,
individualists, etc? They certainly are confident, they certainly have
a "mysterious appeal;" yet they are preciesly the wrong kind of person
that would be most likely to be a "good breeding partner" and be
successful in the real world: their rejection of common rules and mores
-- be it formal education or society in general -- make them
particularly unlikely to be successful; certainly more unlikely than a
stereotypical "nerd" who is intelligent, conforms to societies norms
and gets a lucrative, if unexciting job.

So, it appears that one of three conclusions can be drawn from the
original article:
1) The article is wrong in it's conclusion that "confidence" is
biological stimulant (formed by years of biological engineering) that
leads women to be attracted to a man;
2) The article was correct, but human nature is wrong, as the confident
individualistic rebel types are actually poor breeding material;
3) The article correctly idendified a behavior trait that women
subconsciously desire in choosing a mate, but made a faulty analysis of
*why* this is so and thus rendered the false conclusion that it is
because "confident" guys must make the best breeding partners.

Option three is probably correct, as after the author idendified the
"problem" he basically grasped at straws to substantiate the claims,
and developed a conclusion that I've already shown to be full of holes.

So, why do women piss on "nice" guys?
I'm staying tuned...

Matt P

>

'TIGGER-grrr' A Nguyen

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

[blah, blah, blah...bs lawyer-like rhetoric on confidence and its
correlation--with a linear regression of less than 0.1--with why women
choose men, breeding sources, etc.]

Different women choose confident for their own reasons. But seriously, do
you think that they actually care about the confidence-good breeding
linear curve? Hell no.

Have you ever stopped to realize that women prefer confident men because
the women, themselves, are confident??? I'm sorry, but after braving
panels of professors grilling on my work, panels of corporate headquarter
gurus grilling me on my findings, do you think that I would actually want
to hang out with a wussy who has no self-confidence and no self-esteem?
What a complete let-down. I want a guy who is strong in his ways and
views. I don't want a spineless companion? I don't want a guy who agrees
with everything that I say. I don't want a guy who's as fragile as a
little mouse. This is not a matter of nerd vs. muscles, nice vs. jerk,
etc. It's the attribute that counts. I amazes me how people can just
come up with any excuse to squeeze in the part about nice guy vs. jerk.
Confidence does not necessarily correlate with being a jerk. Spineless
men do not fit the type of nice, nerdy men. Move on with it. Stop using
this nice guy vs. jerk cycle. If the women that you know prefer jerks,
then it's their stupid fault. It's not your loss. Who cares if they
screw up their lives. It's their life. And if you are a nice guy, be a
nice guy. If women don't like you for who you are, then you shouldn't go
out with them anyway. And if you are unhappy with yourself, see where you
can explore to improve that part of your life. Once you figure that out,
I am sure you will have all the confidence in the world. Why? Because
you'd be happy with yourself. That is going to be the source of your
confidence--your personal happiness. And no, I am not bull-shitting you.

Been there, done that, gone through it.

Gennaro

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to Brenda

Brenda wrote:
>
> David S Ching wrote:
> >
> > Gennaro (gl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

> > : Where did you find this post? This is the clearest explanation, the

> > : most rational,
> > : the most accurate, and most informative I have ever read.
> > : It actually makes me feel
> > : better about being single. Nice post.
> >
> > : Larry
> >

I don't take this post to be about the evils of females at all. It is advice to nice,
intense guys to lighten up and not get paralyzed with emotion at stages of dating which
should be light, fun, exciting, and emotionless until you know more about the person and
know more. It tells the "nice" guys what the arrogant, playboys are doing and how they
are doing it. To me, the point is to pick up the prats good habits, the confidence, and
to stay a nice guy while you chase women.

Larry

MDSA...@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

In article <58m7ku$c...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
davi...@Hawaii.Edu (David S Ching) wrote:
>
> Gennaro (gl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Where did you find this post? This is the clearest explanation, the

> : most rational,
> : the most accurate, and most informative I have ever read.
> : It actually makes me feel
> : better about being single. Nice post.
>

> ~~~Hey, I dunno.......why would a woman want to go with a guy who seems

> lothargic about going out with her? It seems like this would be more of a
> case of her wanting a chance with him to see if she can make the guy
> REALLY fall for her. Doesn't sound like she's attracted to the
> confidence. Besides, I've heard many women say that they find it cute
> when a guy asks them out and is nervous about it.

I don't know, it seems silly at first, when you read that article. Even brings
up the "jerk gets girl" hypothesis,and that's what I thought at first. Actually
I can see the point, when I began to look a little deeper - the CONFIDENCE
matters,for sure. In my opinion,this will vary on which woman you ask etc.
However, I also see what you mean - a mild diffidence can be charming - just
Don't take it to extremes -Unless you can't help it, of course..:-) In any case,
I know which approach I'd choose - being confident is a heck of a lot easier on
ME, than getting hyper about some situation like that, which is probably very
casual.

BTW, you should check out the web page that post came from - I did, and found it
very interesting indeed. Just in case, here's the address:
http://bamboo.anu.edu.au/~visavis

Just me,

Badri Natarajan,
Madras,India
MDSA...@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Tim Bessie

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

In article <32b1e4a6....@news.zippo.com>,

Ken Stuart <kst...@mail.telis.org> wrote:
>>Hey. Not bad.
>>One thing I always wondered about is that if a guy asks you out, how
>>can you tell what type of person he is. In school, reputations get
>>around, but now, it's hard to tell beyond the first impression. The
>>only thing you do have to judge by is the "face" he shows you. But how
>>do you know that behind the "face" is a loving, caring person?
>

>Well, I think that from this article and from Tim's post with the
>Subject:
>
>A Nice Guy/Jerk Example Story From My Past -- For the "Big
>Differences" Debate

[ much snippage ]

As Ariana mentions school and reputations, I am reminded of a
housemate I once had in Berkeley, California. He was on the GQ
side of looks, and a talented, intelligent guy. He used to be
R.A. (residence advisor) at one of the co-op households at UC Berkeley.
He told me that in the course of one year, he slept with almost every
woman in the co-op! I asked him, "Wouldn't your reputation get in the
way?" He said it was the opposite -- it helped him! The women saw him
around, fixing things (a "manly" activity, and also a chance to show off
muscles), he'd play his guitar for them if they stopped by to chat,
he'd always be pleasant, charming and kind to them. And, apparently, he
was good in bed.

So it got around that he was someone the women could have a good
time with, have sex with, and know that nothing too serious would
probably come of it. They just LOVED that guy. And for all
the reasons I'd always assumed a woman would _stay away_ from
a guy (i.e. he was not someone who you could hope for a relationship
with, you knew for certain he was sleeping with EVERYONE, etc.).
Yet, they all wanted to be with him.

If 30 or so women in one building will sleep with a guy because
he's got a reputation as a hot lover, and know that he's not real
relationship material for them, isn't that enough of a sample to
say something about women in general? It definitely destroyed some
of my more hallowed notions about women being somehow more noble.

Incidentally, I do not think I was being told a story by this
guy... just an intuition, anyway.

- Tim Bessie
ti...@West.Sun.COM

Brenda

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

Ken Stuart wrote:
>
> In an eloquent manner, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> elucidated:

>
> >IF you set your sights too high (only supermodels or gymnasts for me) to
> >protect yourself from rejection, 9 times out of 10 you'll stay alone.
>

> Gymnasts? Gymnasts ???
>
> I thought child molesting was both immoral and illegal !
>
> Certainly NOT my idea of sexy !!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ken <*>
> kst...@mail.telis.org

You're right, Ken, my apologies to nice guys everywhere.

How about female trapeze artists?

What I really meant was women with superfit, athletic bods....

Steve Lundy

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

In article <32AF13...@Neversoft.com>, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> writes:
[snip]

|> Yeah, I said that,too... But the point of the story is: hey, nice guy
|> who's love life isn't exactly going the way you want, try this tact,
|> women will respond this time! It sounds like the latest fad diet.
|>
|> You nice guys have to be yourself. There are all types of women, and
|> obviously someone for everyone. Why try to balance that fine line

"Just be yourself".... such an innocent sounding line, yet it can
be so damaging. A normal, run of the mill, nice guy usually isn't
nervous, hesitant or shy when talking to ordinary people, about
mundane things. He only starts to get like this when he starts
to approach a woman with the idea of a romantic relationship.

Maybe you should infer that to mean that you aren't being yourself
when you ask a woman out. So many of these nice guys hear the
phrase "just be yourself" and then sigh and think "great I don't
have to worry about all those self confidence exercises, I just
be myself." That means not changing becomes not improving.

It's sort of like going to a gym to workout, you aren't changing
yourself as much as making yourself stronger and healthier.
Self-confidence doesn't change you it just makes you a stronger
and healthier person.

Regards,

Steve

John Fereira

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

That would only be the case if you found superfit, athletic bods to
be at the top of your list. Some people don't buy into the markteting
notion that "buns of steel" are what makes a woman attractive. Personally,
I like something a little softer.

--
John Fereira
fer...@isis.com
Isis Distributed Systems - Ithaca, NY

John Fereira

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

In article <58pnjj$f...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> lu...@bnr.ca (Steve Lundy) writes:
>
>
>In article <32AF13...@Neversoft.com>, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> writes:
>[snip]
>
>|> Yeah, I said that,too... But the point of the story is: hey, nice guy
>|> who's love life isn't exactly going the way you want, try this tact,
>|> women will respond this time! It sounds like the latest fad diet.
>|>
>|> You nice guys have to be yourself. There are all types of women, and
>|> obviously someone for everyone. Why try to balance that fine line
>
>"Just be yourself".... such an innocent sounding line, yet it can
>be so damaging. A normal, run of the mill, nice guy usually isn't
>nervous, hesitant or shy when talking to ordinary people, about
>mundane things. He only starts to get like this when he starts
>to approach a woman with the idea of a romantic relationship.

Then the solution to this should be obvious. Don't approach women with

the idea of a romantic relationship.

--

the tree by the river

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

In article <58pkj1$9...@abyss.West.Sun.COM> ti...@West.Sun.COM (Tim Bessie) writes:
>
>As Ariana mentions school and reputations, I am reminded of a
>housemate I once had in Berkeley, California. He was on the GQ
>side of looks, and a talented, intelligent guy. He used to be
>R.A. (residence advisor) at one of the co-op households at UC Berkeley.
>He told me that in the course of one year, he slept with almost every
>woman in the co-op! I asked him, "Wouldn't your reputation get in the

>way?" He said it was the opposite -- it helped him! [...]

>he'd always be pleasant, charming and kind to them. And, apparently, he
>was good in bed.
>
>So it got around that he was someone the women could have a good
>time with, have sex with, and know that nothing too serious would
>probably come of it. They just LOVED that guy. And for all
>the reasons I'd always assumed a woman would _stay away_ from
>a guy (i.e. he was not someone who you could hope for a relationship
>with, you knew for certain he was sleeping with EVERYONE, etc.).
>Yet, they all wanted to be with him.

Sounds like pretty much standard operating procedure; a positive
reputation like that will generallt result in a lot of people of
the appropriate sex wanting to give you a "test drive." Nothing
the least bit odd or out-of-the ordinary about this.

>If 30 or so women in one building will sleep with a guy because
>he's got a reputation as a hot lover, and know that he's not real
>relationship material for them, isn't that enough of a sample to
>say something about women in general?

I'd be real wary of making any "women are like XYZ" type
conclusions like this. Lots of women and men are into experimenting,
trying new things and new people, and looking to "rack up points" or
just have a good time; if you've got a reputation for being a good
choice for such purposes, you'll probably get plenty of offers.

However, lots of women and men aren't into that at all; many more are
into experimentation and variety at some times in their lives and not
at others. You can say "plenty of people are like X" but you can't
say "people in general are like X" because they aren't. Think of it
as if you'd noticed that there are a lot of blondes out there; that
doesn't imply that "women in general are blonde."

> It definitely destroyed some
>of my more hallowed notions about women being somehow more noble.

And none too soon, either. Get rid of any other pedestals you have
encumbering your psyche while you're at it; women are people and
you're much better off thinking of them as individuals rather than
as a class.

>Incidentally, I do not think I was being told a story by this
>guy... just an intuition, anyway.

Doesn't really matter either way; even if his story were a fabrication,
the world's full of similar ones that are quite real.
--
Trygve Lode | 6529 Lakeside Circle, Littleton CO 80125 | (303) 470-1011
Email for free copy of the soc.singles FAQ.
Trygve's Solstice/Christmas party! Saturday, December 21st!
"Dominion: Some say prayers, some say prayers...I say, 'Mine.'"--SoM

Brenda

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

Steve Lundy wrote:
>
> In article <32AF13...@Neversoft.com>, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> writes:
> [snip]
>
> |> Yeah, I said that,too... But the point of the story is: hey, nice guy
> |> who's love life isn't exactly going the way you want, try this tact,
> |> women will respond this time! It sounds like the latest fad diet.
> |>
> |> You nice guys have to be yourself. There are all types of women, and
> |> obviously someone for everyone. Why try to balance that fine line
>
> "Just be yourself".... such an innocent sounding line, yet it can
> be so damaging. A normal, run of the mill, nice guy usually isn't
> nervous, hesitant or shy when talking to ordinary people, about
> mundane things. He only starts to get like this when he starts
> to approach a woman with the idea of a romantic relationship.
>

> Maybe you should infer that to mean that you aren't being yourself
> when you ask a woman out. So many of these nice guys hear the
> phrase "just be yourself" and then sigh and think "great I don't
> have to worry about all those self confidence exercises, I just
> be myself." That means not changing becomes not improving.
>
> It's sort of like going to a gym to workout, you aren't changing
> yourself as much as making yourself stronger and healthier.
> Self-confidence doesn't change you it just makes you a stronger
> and healthier person.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve

You're always going to revert to yourself somewhere down the line in any
relationship, why not start at the beginning?

What I wonder is, just what do you consider the basic traits of the
model "Nice Guy" to be?
I'm curious about what you all perceive them to be?

BrendaR

the tree by the river

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

In article <32c6bcca....@news.zippo.com> kst...@mail.telis.org writes:
>In an eloquent manner, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> elucidated:
>
>>IF you set your sights too high (only supermodels or gymnasts for me) to
>>protect yourself from rejection, 9 times out of 10 you'll stay alone.
>
>Gymnasts? Gymnasts ???
>
>I thought child molesting was both immoral and illegal !
>
>Certainly NOT my idea of sexy !!

Hey, maybe she was including amateur gymnasts who aren't olympic
contenders there. After all, if one expressed a preference for
chess players, you probably wouldn't usually assume that this
meant only world-class players.

(Which reminds me; I still need to get the uneven parallel bars
set up over the trampoline--I figured that'd be a cool way to
make the mounts and dismounts easier on the landing gear.)

Glenn Saunders

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

The mortal 'TIGGER-grrr' A Nguyen wrote:
: Have you ever stopped to realize that women prefer confident men because

: the women, themselves, are confident??? I'm sorry, but after braving
: panels of professors grilling on my work, panels of corporate headquarter
: gurus grilling me on my findings, do you think that I would actually want
: to hang out with a wussy who has no self-confidence and no self-esteem?

Is confidence something you have or don't have or are there shades of grey
here? You seem to be seeing it in black vs. white.

: views. I don't want a spineless companion? I don't want a guy who agrees

: with everything that I say. I don't want a guy who's as fragile as a

What is it about difference or conflict that you like? I still see this
as ironic. Just because someone agrees with you doesn't make them
spineless or without any opinions.

: Confidence does not necessarily correlate with being a jerk. Spineless

I still think that women say confidence to mean one thing, some kind of
cross between Fabio and Phil Donahue that they have in their mind, but the
reality of what they go for doesn't match the ideal--at all.

A lot of women look for things in men that they don't possess. I don't
necessarily see the search for confident men being one of finding a
soulmate. It seems the worse the self esteem of the woman, the more
arrogant a man they seek out.

Glenn Saunders

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

The mortal Brenda wrote:
: P.S. I like a man with confidence, but I'd rather have a nice guy who's

: sensitive and funny, who's comfortable being himself with me, who isn't
: afraid to cry or complain, but not a macho cad who guzzles beer and
: camps without food or a sleeping bag to prove how tough he is who can't
: really talk to me. I had the latter, and left him for the former, who I

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What attracted you to a guy like that in the first place? Guys want to
know.

Eric Chen

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Ken Stuart wrote:

> In an eloquent manner, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> elucidated:
>
> >IF you set your sights too high (only supermodels or gymnasts for me) to
> >protect yourself from rejection, 9 times out of 10 you'll stay alone.
>
> Gymnasts? Gymnasts ???

Gymnasts????

The ones I see are like 13 years old. Ask me the question 7 years ago and
I'd have been able to give you a better answer on that one.

Interesting thing about super-models. They sell stuff to _women_, not to
men. The women meant to appeal to men (Playboy et al., guys' ads), while
not BBW's, are closer to healthy ideals and have more meat on them.

I could fall in love with a skinny woman. But then, I'd sneak extra bars
of butter and extra cups of sugar into everything I cooked. Then,
afterwards, I'd occupy her while her food was working its way through her
system (ain't no woman of mine sticking her finger down her throat after
meals).

Eric

Brenda

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

the tree by the river wrote:
>
> In article <32c6bcca....@news.zippo.com> kst...@mail.telis.org writes:

> >In an eloquent manner, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> elucidated:
> >
> >>IF you set your sights too high (only supermodels or gymnasts for me) to
> >>protect yourself from rejection, 9 times out of 10 you'll stay alone.
> >
> >Gymnasts? Gymnasts ???
> >

> >I thought child molesting was both immoral and illegal !
> >
> >Certainly NOT my idea of sexy !!
>
> Hey, maybe she was including amateur gymnasts who aren't olympic
> contenders there. After all, if one expressed a preference for
> chess players, you probably wouldn't usually assume that this
> meant only world-class players.
>
> (Which reminds me; I still need to get the uneven parallel bars
> set up over the trampoline--I figured that'd be a cool way to
> make the mounts and dismounts easier on the landing gear.)
> --
> Trygve Lode

What I really meant was that a few years ago I worked for a large
japanese video game company (that rhymes with Vega) ;) and a few
japanese women artists came over from Tokyo to help us with a game.
All of the guys in my dept. went nuts over this one girl, Gina, who was
very pretty yet had the body of a twelve year old boy. I have a very
different body style, more curvy small waist lgr. hips kind of thing,
and I thought, hmmm, is that what men find attractive? I don't stand a
chance. Thin, athletic, non-italian is where it's at? At least that's
how I felt. Of course she probably just fit into this 'perfect geek
anime dream'...

Brenda

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

I was lonely, thought at 30 years old I should maybe settle down (he
wanted children and he fixed up old houses (my dream) and most
importantly, I'd never yet experienced what I believe true love felt
like, so I didn't know what I was missing. After a few years of
frustration and unhappiness, I left him. A year later, I met the man I'm
with now, and finally think I have an idea of what the real thing is...

I would never, ever settle for less now that I've seen the light...
No nothings perfect and nothing lasts forever, effort is required in any
realtionship, but at my age, 35, I think I now know what I really want
and really don't want. Call me a late bloomer.

First guy wasn't a bad guy by any means, just not the guy for me.

Anh Nguyen

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

I really hope that guys out there don't get the idea from what Brenda
wrote that they can't be nice and sensitive and confident at the same
time.

On 12 Dec 1996, Glenn Saunders wrote:

> The mortal Brenda wrote:
> : P.S. I like a man with confidence, but I'd rather have a nice guy who's
> : sensitive and funny, who's comfortable being himself with me, who isn't
> : afraid to cry or complain, but not a macho cad who guzzles beer and
> : camps without food or a sleeping bag to prove how tough he is who can't
> : really talk to me. I had the latter, and left him for the former, who I
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> What attracted you to a guy like that in the first place? Guys want to
> know.
>
>

===========================
Life is like unit ops results. You never know what you're gonna get.
===========================

Eric Chen

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

On 12 Dec 1996, the tree by the river wrote:

> However, lots of women and men aren't into that at all; many more are
> into experimentation and variety at some times in their lives and not
> at others.

I think one of the healthiest approaches to life is to experiment and try
things out with an open mind.

> And none too soon, either. Get rid of any other pedestals you have
> encumbering your psyche while you're at it; women are people and
> you're much better off thinking of them as individuals rather than
> as a class.

Yeah, but Tree, that'll make life so much more complicated and confusing.

Seriously, how do you train yourself to do this? Many people have never
viewed anyone else as a unique individual their whole life.

Eric

Anh Nguyen

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to Glenn Saunders

hi Glenn,

On 12 Dec 1996, Glenn Saunders wrote:

> The mortal 'TIGGER-grrr' A Nguyen wrote:

Gosh, I kinda like to think that I am immortal. But alas, i don't have
any magical powers.

> : gurus grilling me on my findings, do you think that I would actually want
> : to hang out with a wussy who has no self-confidence and no self-esteem?
>
> Is confidence something you have or don't have or are there shades of grey
> here? You seem to be seeing it in black vs. white.

I was being extreme to make a point. Obviously, each of us have achilles
tendons. There are going to be situations that are going to make me feel
un-confident. However, I just don't see myself dating guys who are weak
and can't make up their minds. It's not the only attribute that I look
for, but it is an important one, nevertheless. If I have to invest my
time in a person, you bet he has to meet my "expectations." And I do
admit that I have expectations. We are all humans. We have our
preferences.

>
> What is it about difference or conflict that you like? I still see this
> as ironic. Just because someone agrees with you doesn't make them
> spineless or without any opinions.

Again, I was being extreme to make a point. I don't see anything wrong
with guys agreeing with me. I am big on investing for the future. I worry
aobut my stock options, I worry about my 401k plan. If the person that I
am dating dreams of having a minimum wage job and joining a band, you can
bet that I would not be interested in him. However, if he spends his
whole life being a GOP and all of a sudden switches to the DEM party just
to please me, I wouldn't be happy. Bye, bye. I want a guy who stands up
for what he believes in.

> : Confidence does not necessarily correlate with being a jerk. Spineless
>
> I still think that women say confidence to mean one thing, some kind of
> cross between Fabio and Phil Donahue that they have in their mind, but the

> reality of what they go for doesn't match the ideal--at all..
>

Gross. Fabio is disgusting. I would prefer Phil Donahue over Fabio
anyday. And no, I would not change my mind. I want someone who is
"normal," has brains, charm. Fabio is nothing but a flab of muscles.
That is the difference. Donahue would come across as perhaps being
not-so-confient in a group of Chippendale centerfolds. However, he would
probably be able to use his wit and charm to rise above the beefcakes.
But in a group of intellectuals...I'd like to see Fabio come across as
having brains. That is the difference. Phil has the ability to write
books. Fabio can only appear on the cover of those trashy grocery-store
novels. So sad. What is even sadder is that talking about Phil is
turning me on. HAHAHAH.

> A lot of women look for things in men that they don't possess. I don't
> necessarily see the search for confident men being one of finding a
> soulmate. It seems the worse the self esteem of the woman, the more
> arrogant a man they seek out.

I feel sorry for those women. It is too bad that they are not strong
enough on their own so that they need to have men to make them feel
significant.

Tkil

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

>>>>> "Brenda" == Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> writes:

Brenda> All of the guys in my dept. went nuts over this one girl,
Brenda> Gina, who was very pretty yet had the body of a twelve year
Brenda> old boy.

i think there's also the sheer size difference. i'm a largish (6'4,
220 lb / 192cm, 100kg) guy, but i do have an initial attraction to
very petite women. probably some vestige of a protection instinct or
something.

Brenda> Thin, athletic, non-italian is where it's at?

not at all! thin, athletic, italians are welcome to apply as well.

[tkil ducks, even if he *is* half italian...]

in my rather limited experience, i do see certain physical attributes
as attractive. but after i've talked to someone person for five
minutes or so, the physical side really doesn't matter nearly as much.

[not to say i won't continue to feel guilty for looking at the Hot
Babes when i'm out walking with my girlfriend... way too many years of
window shopping to be programmed out in a month or two.]

Brenda> Of course she probably just fit into this 'perfect geek anime
Brenda> dream'...

ok, so i think vampire princess miyu is cute. sue me. :P

t.
--
Tkil <tk...@scrye.com> emacs evangelist, hopelessly hopeless romantic
"I will not fall in love, I cannot risk the bet
For hearts are fragile toys, so easy to forget"
-- Oingo Boingo, _Dead Man's Party_, "Just Another Day" [1985]

Tkil

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Chen <dc...@interport.net> writes:

Eric> Seriously, how do you train yourself to do this? Many people
Eric> have never viewed anyone else as a unique individual their whole
Eric> life.

i find that making the simple assumption that *i* am not the reason
the rest of the world functions is enough.

if i'm talking to a girl, i don't make the assumption that she's part-
icularly interested in me. therefore, i'm free to see what is really
interesting to her, what her goals are, what she likes and dislikes.

of course, if she actually *is* interested in me, the whole thing goes
to hell in a handbasket, i get flustered, and generally run away.

Dan

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> wrote:

>IF you set your sights too high (only supermodels or gymnasts for me) to
>protect yourself from rejection, 9 times out of 10 you'll stay alone.
>

That means a 10% increase in my success rate! That's worth a try.
>BrendaR

>
>P.S. I like a man with confidence, but I'd rather have a nice guy who's
>sensitive and funny, who's comfortable being himself with me, who isn't
>afraid to cry or complain, but not a macho cad who guzzles beer and
>camps without food or a sleeping bag to prove how tough he is who can't
>really talk to me. I had the latter, and left him for the former, who I

>am completely happy with. Why? Because he can talk to me in a way I can
>understand, have a conversation about feelings and such...Chicks dig
>that... Nice guys are the way to go...

I'm a "nice guy" who happens to agree with you, but...

A lady isn't going to find out that I'm a nice guy if I just sit alone at
the bar drinking my drink and being a nice guy, keeping to myself. If I
understand this, it's not about "tricking" someone into thinking you're
James Dean as much as it is making a first impression. I really don't
think that a truely nice guy can pretend to be a schmuck for any length of
time.

Dan

Joe Dlhopolsky

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> wrote:

>What I wonder is, just what do you consider the basic traits of the
>model "Nice Guy" to be?
>I'm curious about what you all perceive them to be?

Easy. Someone who lives by the Golden Rule. He treats others as he
would like them to treat him. But in this world of, "I've got mine.
You don't have yours? Too Bad," it is a curiously arcane and
anachronistic way to live. People will either take advantage of you,
be suspicious of you, dismiss you, or try to prove that you are just
as unprincipled as everybody else they know. In any event, you lose.

Ariana

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

You know...what you said is true (to a point anyways).
I still want to live by the Golden Rule despite all it's apparent
disadvantages. Funny eh?

Ariana

John Fereira

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

In article <32b164f6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> dan...@ix.netcom.com (Dan ) writes:
>Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>>IF you set your sights too high (only supermodels or gymnasts for me) to
>>protect yourself from rejection, 9 times out of 10 you'll stay alone.
>>
>
>That means a 10% increase in my success rate! That's worth a try.

Which shows how ridiculous it is use a numbers game to describe relationship.

Using whatever criteria you wish to describe "the perfect woman", and
assuming you manage to find 10 women which match that criteria, even
if 9 of them turn you down, if one of them accepts are you not still
going out with what you consider a perfect woman?

>>
>>P.S. I like a man with confidence, but I'd rather have a nice guy who's
>>sensitive and funny, who's comfortable being himself with me, who isn't
>>afraid to cry or complain, but not a macho cad who guzzles beer and
>>camps without food or a sleeping bag to prove how tough he is who can't
>>really talk to me. I had the latter, and left him for the former, who I
>>am completely happy with. Why? Because he can talk to me in a way I can
>>understand, have a conversation about feelings and such...Chicks dig
>>that... Nice guys are the way to go...
>
>
>I'm a "nice guy" who happens to agree with you, but...
>
>A lady isn't going to find out that I'm a nice guy if I just sit alone at
>the bar drinking my drink and being a nice guy, keeping to myself. If I
>understand this, it's not about "tricking" someone into thinking you're
>James Dean as much as it is making a first impression. I really don't
>think that a truely nice guy can pretend to be a schmuck for any length of
>time.

This makes me wonder about the "stealth nice guy" approach. If someone
is attracted to qualities that a "nice guy" doesn't seem to have wouldn't
they tend to lose that attraction once the nice guy reverts back to
his "nice guy" behavior? Wouldn't you prefer to have someone be attracted
to how you really are?

Tim Bessie

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

In article <58q6s6$a...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>,

the tree by the river <tl...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>In article <58pkj1$9...@abyss.West.Sun.COM> ti...@West.Sun.COM (Tim Bessie) writes:

[ Story of Berkeley Stud snipped ]

Jill Lundquist

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

In article <58s8pk$b...@abyss.west.sun.com>,

Tim Bessie <ti...@West.Sun.COM> wrote:
>The thing that always steamed me, though, as it does many guys
>in the "Nice Guy" debate here, is that I've known many women to've
>done such things, and at the same time reject guys who, later on
>they might want as a real boyfriend, but wouldn't think of
>sleeping casually with. I _still_ don't get "you're good enough
>to be my boyfriend when I'm 25, but not good enough to have sex
>with when I'm 19."

I don't think being "good enough" has much to do with whom people
decide to have sex with (at least most of the time). It sounds
as if the 19-year-old women are looking for different things than
the 25-year-old-women, but the "good enough" part is something you
have overlaid onto that difference.

And for a bit of perspective, please keep in mind that this is not
a trait of women; it is a trait of youth. Both women and men change
a great deal between 19 and 25, very often for the better.

--
Jill Lundquist ji...@qualcomm.com DoD #882

"They say travel broadens the mind,
so I went over the falls in a barrel." (Thomas Dolby)

Eric Chen

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

On 13 Dec 1996, Tim Bessie wrote:

> The thing that always steamed me, though, as it does many guys
> in the "Nice Guy" debate here, is that I've known many women to've
> done such things, and at the same time reject guys who, later on
> they might want as a real boyfriend, but wouldn't think of
> sleeping casually with.

I know lots of guys who have different standards for casual sex than they
do for a long term relationship. For instance, you might look solely for a
Playboy-esque looking woman with a talented mouth and not much beyond that
if you're only looking for sex. But, in a girlfriend you might look for
compatibility in intellect, tastes, demeanor, etc. and de-emphasize
appearance or sexual talents. I imagine there are women who this holds
true for as well.

I _still_ don't get "you're good enough
> to be my boyfriend when I'm 25, but not good enough to have sex

> with when I'm 19." Yes, comparing apples and oranges, but it
> still annoys me. Logic doesn't necessary make me sensible. ;-)

Yeah, it's not the same scale and women's, as all people's, tastes change.
It would be nice to be both, but not all guys are that lucky.

Eric

Gennaro

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to Joe Dlhopolsky

Joe Dlhopolsky wrote:
>
> Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> wrote:
>
> >What I wonder is, just what do you consider the basic traits of the
> >model "Nice Guy" to be?
> >I'm curious about what you all perceive them to be?
>
> Easy. Someone who lives by the Golden Rule. He treats others as he
> would like them to treat him. But in this world of, "I've got mine.
> You don't have yours? Too Bad," it is a curiously arcane and
> anachronistic way to live. People will either take advantage of you,
> be suspicious of you, dismiss you, or try to prove that you are just
> as unprincipled as everybody else they know. In any event, you lose.

I have a problem with the misleading phrase, "Why nice guys finish last." To me, this
is just a phrase which is misnamed, but not the truth. In my opinion, nice guys do not
finish last. However, the phrase does try to describe something true and real. It
describes the rut that nice guys feel when they aren't comfortable with women. However,
it is not the fact that they are nice that makes them finish last. It is that they
haven't developed the social grace or confidence from dating a lot that the male
rake/stud has obtained, like the original post described. On the contrary, it is only
the nice guy who has the potential to have a truly loving, fulfilling relationship. The
prat/stud still has to learn the nice guy lesson of being yourself instead of what women
want him to be before he can be happy in love.

Nice guys, don't change--just mature, learn, and grow.

Larry

Gennaro

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to ari...@ica.net

Ariana wrote:
>
> Joe Dlhopolsky wrote:
> >
> > Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > >What I wonder is, just what do you consider the basic traits of the
> > >model "Nice Guy" to be?
> > >I'm curious about what you all perceive them to be?
> >
> > Easy. Someone who lives by the Golden Rule. He treats others as he
> > would like them to treat him. But in this world of, "I've got mine.
> > You don't have yours? Too Bad," it is a curiously arcane and
> > anachronistic way to live. People will either take advantage of you,
> > be suspicious of you, dismiss you, or try to prove that you are just
> > as unprincipled as everybody else they know. In any event, you lose.
>

> You know...what you said is true (to a point anyways).
> I still want to live by the Golden Rule despite all it's apparent
> disadvantages. Funny eh?
>
> Ariana

No, not at all. I am with you one hundred percent. It is the highest
quality of existence andform of association that a human can have with
one another. In my experience, the non-nice guys live empty lives,
although they do have huge egos.

Larry

Anh Nguyen

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to Ken Stuart

Hi Ken,

But I have seen interviews of FAbio. I think that he went to SPU here
before he became famous. They had interviews on him when he came back for
some sort of a tour. He didn't come across as being very amusing...for my
own taste.

I guess I'm not really into rock stars. They are nice from a far, but,
nah, not my type.

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Ken Stuart wrote:

> Hello,
>
> In an eloquent manner, Anh Nguyen <duke...@u.washington.edu>
> elucidated:

>
> >> : Confidence does not necessarily correlate with being a jerk. Spineless
> >>
> >> I still think that women say confidence to mean one thing, some kind of
> >> cross between Fabio and Phil Donahue that they have in their mind, but the
> >> reality of what they go for doesn't match the ideal--at all..
> >>
> >
> >Gross. Fabio is disgusting. I would prefer Phil Donahue over Fabio
> >anyday. And no, I would not change my mind. I want someone who is
> >"normal," has brains, charm. Fabio is nothing but a flab of muscles.
> >That is the difference. Donahue would come across as perhaps being
> >not-so-confient in a group of Chippendale centerfolds. However, he would
> >probably be able to use his wit and charm to rise above the beefcakes.
> >But in a group of intellectuals...I'd like to see Fabio come across as
> >having brains. That is the difference. Phil has the ability to write
> >books. Fabio can only appear on the cover of those trashy grocery-store
> >novels. So sad. What is even sadder is that talking about Phil is
> >turning me on. HAHAHAH.
>

> Actually, I happened to see a long interview with Fabio and you are
> 100% wrong.
>
> Phil Donahue is a classic "jerk" - witty and charming and could care
> less about you.
>
> Fabio is actually more intelligent and is a classic "nice guy" -
> except obviously his looks give him confidence and appeal as well.
>
> PS It's interesting what stereotypical characteristics we assign to
> people we don't know.
>
> PPS All the wildly successful rock stars started off working minimum
> wage - I've known a few at that point in their lives -- too bad you'll
> never know any. :-)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ken <*>
> California state certifed studio engineer
> kst...@mail.telis.org
>
>

=========================== Don't ask what men can do for you, but ask
what you can do to get rid of them. =================================

Lorrie

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

Brenda wrote:
>
> Joe Dlhopolsky wrote:
> >
> > Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > >What I wonder is, just what do you consider the basic traits of the
> > >model "Nice Guy" to be?
> > >I'm curious about what you all perceive them to be?
> >
> > Easy. Someone who lives by the Golden Rule. He treats others as he
> > would like them to treat him. But in this world of, "I've got mine.
> > You don't have yours? Too Bad," it is a curiously arcane and
> > anachronistic way to live. People will either take advantage of you,
> > be suspicious of you, dismiss you, or try to prove that you are just
> > as unprincipled as everybody else they know. In any event, you lose.
>

> yes, but sometimes, Joe, you get lucky. An optimistic attitude doesn't
> hurt either. I refuse to become cynical. It's bad for my skin...
> BrendaR

Good comeback, Brenda. It messes up my skin too! Lorrie

John Fereira

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

In article <32b511c2...@news.zippo.com> kst...@mail.telis.org writes:
>In an eloquent manner, fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) elucidated:
>
>>In article <58pnjj$f...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> lu...@bnr.ca (Steve Lundy) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>In article <32AF13...@Neversoft.com>, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> writes:
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>|> Yeah, I said that,too... But the point of the story is: hey, nice guy
>>>|> who's love life isn't exactly going the way you want, try this tact,
>>>|> women will respond this time! It sounds like the latest fad diet.
>>>|>
>>>|> You nice guys have to be yourself. There are all types of women, and
>>>|> obviously someone for everyone. Why try to balance that fine line
>>>
>>>"Just be yourself".... such an innocent sounding line, yet it can
>>>be so damaging. A normal, run of the mill, nice guy usually isn't
>>>nervous, hesitant or shy when talking to ordinary people, about
>>>mundane things. He only starts to get like this when he starts
>>>to approach a woman with the idea of a romantic relationship.
>>
>>Then the solution to this should be obvious. Don't approach women with
>>the idea of a romantic relationship.
>
>And we've just gone around in a perfect circle, because the original
>post in this thread is about why that leads to LJBF.

That doesn't make it true. Did you miss all the articles in between
which described many relationships which began as friendships but
ended up as romantic relationships?

My point is that when you stop approaching people different depending
on whether they're an "ordinary person" (whatever that is) or someone
you find attractive it becomes easier to meet people and it becomes
easier to get over your shyness. When you begin to approach everyone
in the same fashion you become better at social interaction and as a
result don't come across as shy and introverted. The end result is
that you just may find yourself in a romantic relationship.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ken <*>
>kst...@mail.telis.org

Tim Bessie

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

In article <58taha$h...@abyss.West.Sun.COM>,
Tim Bessie <ti...@West.Sun.COM> wrote:

[ mucho snippo ]

Oh, Brenda, I forgot to address one issue there.

No, of course, I haven't asked a woman out when she was 19,
then asked her out many years later. The younger and older
women I've asked out have not been the same women. Perhaps
I am selecting for two distinct kinds of personalities between
the two age groups... maybe all the young women who rejected
me grow up and get married very quickly so they're off the
market, as it were. I don't know. Enough of the older women
I've known, though, have described themselves to me as often
living the very same sorts of lifestyles as the younger women
I'd been interested in, so my feelings on the matter might not
be too skewed.

- Tim

Tim Bessie

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

In article <58sjhl$d...@qualcomm.com>, Jill Lundquist <ji...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>In article <58s8pk$b...@abyss.west.sun.com>,

>I don't think being "good enough" has much to do with whom people
>decide to have sex with (at least most of the time). It sounds
>as if the 19-year-old women are looking for different things than
>the 25-year-old-women, but the "good enough" part is something you
>have overlaid onto that difference.
>
>And for a bit of perspective, please keep in mind that this is not
>a trait of women; it is a trait of youth. Both women and men change
>a great deal between 19 and 25, very often for the better.

This I know. I tried to make what I said clearer in a response to
BrendaR's comment on this thread. I'll further clear it up here by
saying this: I sometimes feel cheated by the fact that the kind of
guy I am perceived to be by women is the sort of guy you'd want to
stay with, not the kind of guy who is instantly exciting and who you'd
want to have a wild time with.

I could take this as a compliment, I suppose, but it means that, even
if I would love to have a casual affair with a woman, I often could only
do that if I didn't mind lying to her by telling/showing her that I wanted
something serious too, but only really be in it for the fun).

I guess what I can't understand is, why can _I_ be perfectly happy
having a casual, sexy time with someone, have lots of respect and
consideration for them, and YET it REMAIN casual, while most
women I meet can't seem to put those two things together? I've met
a few (they've usually been in their mid to late 30's, _never_ younger --
this probably has something to do with knowing onesself and what one
wants, being able to set good boundaries, etc.).

Instead, I hear "You're just not that kind of guy. You're too... nice."
And I don't mean "Nice Guy" as in "being a weak little worm who lets himself
get stepped on." I mean nice as in honest, direct, and respectful of
my partner, without playing any games or particular roles (i.e. "the wild
romantic artist", "the dangerous biker", "the sophisticated European
lover", etc.). It seems like the young women I've met who are in it
for the fun will usually choose someone who could be a character in
a book, rather than a real person. Again, I must stress that I feel
experienced enough in all this to be able to know that when I say "honest,
direct and respectful", it doesn't mean that I have any problems playing
the confident sexual agressor IN CONTEXT. Perhaps I just don't project
that in a way it can be seen, though. Why should a person have to advertise
who they are in the bedroom?

Wa-hoo, I'm rambling. I'll give it a rest. Have a good
weekend, folks!

- Tim
ti...@West.Sun.COM

Tim Bessie

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

In article <32B1CA...@Neversoft.com>, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> wrote:
>Tim Bessie wrote:
>> In article <58q6s6$a...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>,
>> the tree by the river <tl...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>> >In article <58pkj1$9...@abyss.West.Sun.COM> ti...@West.Sun.COM (Tim Bessie) writes:
>> [ Story of Berkeley Stud snipped ]
>>

>this made absolutely no sense to me, Tim. Sorry.
>You "_still_don't get" meaning you still dont understand or it still
>doesn't happen to you? And what I think you're talking about here is a
>woman becoming more mature and making smarter decisions with her life.
>How many woman have you propositioned at the age of 19, who rejected
>you, and still knew six years later, who finally decided they realized
>what a "catch" you were? Is she saying "my tastes have changed?" which
>is fine, or "I've become a born-again christian" or what?
>
>Bren-Duh

Only speaking quantitatively, what I meant was that, over the
course of my dating life (from around 20 until now), of the women
to whom I've been attracted, the women who've been also attracted
to me (at least as far as I knew from their actions) have generally
been older than 24 or so. This was true even when I was younger
than 24 myself. The older women I've dated have generally wanted
to have a serious relationship, not just a grand ol' time, with
me, even if I wasn't oriented towards that.

In the meantime, the younger women in whom I was interested (but
who were not interested back) were off enjoying casual goings-on
with yon wild artist, biker or studly cafe' counter boy. They
may have talked about wanting something more serious with him,
but it seemed more of a challenge to them, not a commitment (as
one might see by the way they easily rebounded after the affair
and found another similar feller to be gaga over).

To come clean, there have been some younger women who were
interested in me as well, but usually they were of a more
sober, intellectual bent.

The point was, I would like to've been appealing in a sexual,
exciting way to those younger women who were not looking for
any long-term commitment. However, their idea of exciting
was a lot more wild than I am/was (although a lot more
conventional in it's adherence to stereotype).

- Tim
ti...@West.Sun.COM

Richard Romero

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

Ken Stuart <kst...@mail.telis.org> wrote in article
<32b1e4a6....@news.zippo.com>...
> >> ======================================================
<snippage occured *here*>
> it is clear that if you come across a man who is suave, confident, and
> has all the right lines that make you feel good, then this is the sort
> of guy who is not going to really care about you, because (as
> described in the first post in this thread) he has the capability to
> be with any woman he wants.
<more snippage>
Hold on there, Ken. Just because a person is beautiful or charming,
confident and sexy is no indication of their character. Just as we are
cautioned to get to know those who are plain, because you never know but
they might be wonderful inside, so too ought we not judge the beautiful
without getting to know them as well.
--Richard

Javier Alvarado

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

Brenda (Bre...@Neversoft.com) wrote:
: In this movie Beautiful Girls, (on video now) Rosie gives two guys the

: best speech about how we normal girls are probably a better deal for
: them than the fantasy penthouse women they constantly wait to drop out
: of the sky... I can't begin to do it justice, best part of the film in
: my opinion...

: BrendaR

I have to agree with Brenda. That speech is one of highlights in this great
movie. I saw it a few weeks ago with my sister and her husband and at the end
my sister commented that it was a sad movie because it was true.

Even though the movie is called Beautiful Girls, it's really about guys, how
boys have difficulty becoming men even when they're pushing thirty. I whole-
heartedly recommend this movie. (If anyone cares.)

I'm sorry for going off an a tangent.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Javier Alvarado http://www.calpoly.edu/~jalvarad |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| But that's just my opinion... I could be wrong. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

dg...@gateway.ecn.com

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

Jill Lundquist (ji...@qualcomm.com) wrote:
: In article <58s8pk$b...@abyss.west.sun.com>,

: Tim Bessie <ti...@West.Sun.COM> wrote:
: >The thing that always steamed me, though, as it does many guys
: >in the "Nice Guy" debate here, is that I've known many women to've
: >done such things, and at the same time reject guys who, later on

: >they might want as a real boyfriend, but wouldn't think of
: >sleeping casually with. I _still_ don't get "you're good enough

: >to be my boyfriend when I'm 25, but not good enough to have sex
: >with when I'm 19."

: I don't think being "good enough" has much to do with whom people

: decide to have sex with (at least most of the time). It sounds
: as if the 19-year-old women are looking for different things than
: the 25-year-old-women, but the "good enough" part is something you
: have overlaid onto that difference.

This reminds me of the time I took a woman out, we had fun, I took her
back to her apartment, we agreed to go out the next weekend, and a few
days later I found out she'd returned to the club, picked up some guy,
and had a one night stand. I'll never forget the excuse she gave,
"I thought you were relationship material, the guy was just a fling,
thought you'd never find out". And I got all kinds of advice from
friends, both men and women, some who said I should shrug it off,
others who thought I should shrug her off.
I dumped her. Does that make this woman wrong? It's the wrong
question. People are who they are. Do what you want, be responsible,
and don't burden yourself with what other people think. I think the
real question the above poster is asking is, "why does it seem as if
society regards men as being dogs when women do the same thing?"
You're right, there's a double standard. Don't take it seriously
and it has no power over you. People make different choices, it's
not a man or woman thing.

dg...@gateway.ecn.com

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

Brenda (Bre...@Neversoft.com) wrote:

: The Pam Anderson sort as opposed to the Rosie O'Donnell sort?

: In this movie Beautiful Girls, (on video now) Rosie gives two guys the
: best speech about how we normal girls are probably a better deal for
: them than the fantasy penthouse women they constantly wait to drop out
: of the sky... I can't begin to do it justice, best part of the film in
: my opinion...

: BrendaR

I don't buy that. That somehow implies that beautiful women are somehow
less substantive, intelligent, or personable than others. I can understand
why someone might write that into a movie, but it's just another
stereotype. The joke is most people, I think, really do seek out someone
who is close to them on the "looks hierarchy". Is there some magical
formula which says that the better looking a person is the worse their
personality will be? Not that I've seen (which in some ways shows up
the limitations of movies, can you imagine "The Truth About Cats and
Dogs" where Uma Thurman has the wit and personality of Jennifer what's
her name? In the movie no, that would kill it, but in real life I
think you find that all the time).

Marla Channon

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

Yeah, a lot of attractive woman go for attractive men. I can attest to
that as an attractive woman. I used to go for the playboy types when I
wasn't serious about anyone. But after about ten playboy boyfriends, I
got tired of them. I still went for good looking men, but only
faithful, successful, honest good looking men. Hence, I'm engaged to a
man with the qualities in the previous sentence. It would take a real
stupid woman to try to marry one of these playboys. I'm much to smart
to marry a playboy. Only a faithful attractive man will do as a
marriage partner for me.

Marla

Eric Chen

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

On 14 Dec 1996 dg...@gateway.ecn.com wrote:

> I don't buy that. That somehow implies that beautiful women are somehow
> less substantive, intelligent, or personable than others.

Go to any Ivy league college campus and its babes-ville. I don't know if
those women are personable or substantive but they certainly are
intelligent.

Eric

In the past 5 years I have come to see what a self-defeating prophecy
that attitude is. I now believe in vibrational energy and the law of
attraction. This cynicism holds your level of energy at bay and only
allows whatever is oscillating at the same level to come into your
life. Therefore, if you are cynical then you will attract that very
essence into your life. I know that this works for I was attracting a
lot of garbage and now that I don't operate under the belief you
mentioned I am able to attract a much higher and purer expression of
energy. Joe, you are a trooper and have done all you can to let that
woman know of your support and undying love and devotion. There comes a
time however when you have to let it go. If she is yours she will come
back to you. If not, you need to move on and attract the one who is
right for you.

Cynicism is like the governor on a mini-bike. It holds you down and
prohibits acceleration past a certain degree. You are in control and
able to freely look at life in any way you choose. Why adopt a belief
that holds you down and back? Life is whatever you make it. If you
want more, then expect to receive it as your right.
--
Brenda <'-'>
Official Lady DreamCatcher of the RFA

** Come check out our web page. **
http://www.frontiernet.net/~ehmka/

Blair Zajac

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.961214...@interport.net>, Eric
Chen <dc...@interport.net> wrote:

> On 14 Dec 1996 dg...@gateway.ecn.com wrote:
>
> > I don't buy that. That somehow implies that beautiful women are somehow
> > less substantive, intelligent, or personable than others.
>
> Go to any Ivy league college campus and its babes-ville. I don't know if
> those women are personable or substantive but they certainly are
> intelligent.
>
>
> Eric

Most of the women in Ivy League schools are feminists.

By any rational assessment, that means they are not intelligent*. It means
they are able to have discourse that meets today's politically correct
agenda. But they are no more intelligent than Lefty or Carolyn -- and I
certainly would not call them intelligent.

*My old Webster's states: intelligence - revealing or reflecting good
judgement or sound thought.

--
First God practiced on making idiots, then he made feminists.
(Paraphrase to Mark Twain)

Blair Zajac
bza...@isomedia.com

John Fereira

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

In article <bzajac-1512...@news.isomedia.com> bza...@isomedia.com (Blair Zajac) writes:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.961214...@interport.net>, Eric
>Chen <dc...@interport.net> wrote:
>
>> On 14 Dec 1996 dg...@gateway.ecn.com wrote:
>>
>> > I don't buy that. That somehow implies that beautiful women are somehow
>> > less substantive, intelligent, or personable than others.
>>
>> Go to any Ivy league college campus and its babes-ville. I don't know if
>> those women are personable or substantive but they certainly are
>> intelligent.
>>
>>
>> Eric
>
>
>Most of the women in Ivy League schools are feminists.

Really? I suppose that you've *met* most women in Ivy League schools?

Marla Channon

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

Javier Alvarado (jalv...@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu) wrote:
: Marla Channon (cha...@wahoo.csu.net) wrote:
: : Yeah, a lot of attractive woman go for attractive men. I can attest to
: : that as an attractive woman. I used to go for the playboy types when I
: : wasn't serious about anyone. But after about ten playboy boyfriends, I
: : got tired of them. I still went for good looking men, but only
: : faithful, successful, honest good looking men. Hence, I'm engaged to a
: : man with the qualities in the previous sentence. It would take a real
: : stupid woman to try to marry one of these playboys. I'm much to smart

: : to marry a playboy. Only a faithful attractive man will do as a
: : marriage partner for me.

: : Marla

: So what you're saying is that you went for the attractive men when you just
: wanted to have fun, but when you wanted someone you could have something mean-
: ingful with, you were willing to lower your standards. (But not much lower
: though; they're still good looking, but now also "faithful, successful,
: [and] honest.")

: --

: +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
: | Javier Alvarado http://www.calpoly.edu/~jalvarad |
: +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
: | But that's just my opinion... I could be wrong. |
: +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

No, actually, Javier, I raised my standards. This isn't the first man
who proposed to me, but this is the first man who is faithful, honest,
successful and attractive whom I'd consider marrying.

Marla

Brenda

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

dg...@gateway.ecn.com wrote:

>
> This reminds me of the time I took a woman out, we had fun, I took her
> back to her apartment, we agreed to go out the next weekend, and a few

> days later I found out she'd returned to the club, picked up some guy,

> and had a one night stand. I'll never forget the excuse she gave,
> "I thought you were relationship material, the guy was just a fling,
> thought you'd never find out".

Geez, do women actually say things like that???? I must be hanging out
with girls with less testosterone... ;)

brendar

Brenda

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

Tim Bessie wrote:
>
> In article <58taha$h...@abyss.West.Sun.COM>,

> Tim Bessie <ti...@West.Sun.COM> wrote:
>
> [ mucho snippo ]
>
> Oh, Brenda, I forgot to address one issue there.
>
> No, of course, I haven't asked a woman out when she was 19,
> then asked her out many years later. The younger and older
> women I've asked out have not been the same women. Perhaps
> I am selecting for two distinct kinds of personalities between
> the two age groups... maybe all the young women who rejected
> me grow up and get married very quickly so they're off the
> market, as it were. I don't know. Enough of the older women
> I've known, though, have described themselves to me as often
> living the very same sorts of lifestyles as the younger women
> I'd been interested in, so my feelings on the matter might not
> be too skewed.
>
> - Tim

It seems life just gets more precious as we get older, so we are drawn
to stuff of substance, men and women alike...

Brenda

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

Steve Lundy wrote:

>
> In article <32B0A1...@Neversoft.com>, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> writes:
> [snip]

> |> What I wonder is, just what do you consider the basic traits of the

> |> model "Nice Guy" to be?
> |> I'm curious about what you all perceive them to be?
>

> Basic traits.... courteous, thought-ful, pleasant, not particularily
> selfish or greedy.

You forgot "a strange attraction to certain women who are willing to
make their lives a living hell for whatever reason"
>
> Self-confidence is probably the single most important thing a man
> needs in order to win a woman's romantic attentions. Self-confidence
> shows a certain strength of character that most women find attractive.
>
> Please note, my definition of a nice guy doesn't include self-confidence
> and strength of character. This is why I think that the nice guys
> don't necessarily "get the girl".
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve

Brenda

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

Tim Bessie wrote:

>
> This I know. I tried to make what I said clearer in a response to
> BrendaR's comment on this thread. I'll further clear it up here by
> saying this: I sometimes feel cheated by the fact that the kind of
> guy I am perceived to be by women is the sort of guy you'd want to
> stay with, not the kind of guy who is instantly exciting and who you'd
> want to have a wild time with.
>
> I could take this as a compliment, I suppose, but it means that, even
> if I would love to have a casual affair with a woman, I often could only
> do that if I didn't mind lying to her by telling/showing her that I wanted
> something serious too, but only really be in it for the fun).

>
***************************************************************************
If I heard the following comment from a man I was interested in,
I would run away, very quickly!!!
***************************************************************************

> I guess what I can't understand is, why can _I_ be perfectly happy
> having a casual, sexy time with someone, have lots of respect and
> consideration for them, and YET it REMAIN casual, while most
> women I meet can't seem to put those two things together? I've met
> a few (they've usually been in their mid to late 30's, _never_ younger --
> this probably has something to do with knowing onesself and what one
> wants, being able to set good boundaries, etc.).

What I hear, is, I don't think you're worth the possibility of a serious
relationship.
I don't believe in commitments, not now, not ever. In my thinking, That
would eliminate most women from the pool of potentials right there, and
if that isn't a problem, then what value's do you look for in a woman?
Other than "a casual, sexy time" with a woman to whom you are nice.

>
> Instead, I hear "You're just not that kind of guy. You're too... nice."
> And I don't mean "Nice Guy" as in "being a weak little worm who lets himself
> get stepped on." I mean nice as in honest, direct, and respectful of
> my partner, without playing any games or particular roles (i.e. "the wild
> romantic artist", "the dangerous biker", "the sophisticated European
> lover", etc.). It seems like the young women I've met who are in it
> for the fun will usually choose someone who could be a character in
> a book, rather than a real person. Again, I must stress that I feel
> experienced enough in all this to be able to know that when I say "honest,
> direct and respectful", it doesn't mean that I have any problems playing
> the confident sexual agressor IN CONTEXT. Perhaps I just don't project
> that in a way it can be seen, though. Why should a person have to advertise
> who they are in the bedroom?

Well, why don't you try ambivilence? Just a touch might actually do
wonders to add mystery...
I say this sincerely, even though it comes off as sarcastic. I think the
types you mention
above have it in spades...

Brenda

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

Javier Alvarado wrote:
>
> Marla Channon (cha...@wahoo.csu.net) wrote:
> : Yeah, a lot of attractive woman go for attractive men. I can attest to
> : that as an attractive woman. I used to go for the playboy types when I
> : wasn't serious about anyone. But after about ten playboy boyfriends, I
> : got tired of them. I still went for good looking men, but only
> : faithful, successful, honest good looking men. Hence, I'm engaged to a
> : man with the qualities in the previous sentence. It would take a real
> : stupid woman to try to marry one of these playboys. I'm much to smart
> : to marry a playboy. Only a faithful attractive man will do as a
> : marriage partner for me.
>
> : Marla
>
> So what you're saying is that you went for the attractive men when you just
> wanted to have fun, but when you wanted someone you could have something mean-
> ingful with, you were willing to lower your standards. (But not much lower
> though; they're still good looking, but now also "faithful, successful,
> [and] honest.")
> --

I'm going to take Marla's seminar...

Mark Allen Opheim

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

On 14 Dec 1996 20:56:01 GMT, cha...@wahoo.csu.net (Marla Channon)
wrote:

>Yeah, a lot of attractive woman go for attractive men. I can attest to
>that as an attractive woman. I used to go for the playboy types when I
>wasn't serious about anyone. But after about ten playboy boyfriends, I
>got tired of them. I still went for good looking men, but only
>faithful, successful, honest good looking men. Hence, I'm engaged to a
>man with the qualities in the previous sentence. It would take a real
>stupid woman to try to marry one of these playboys. I'm much to smart
>to marry a playboy. Only a faithful attractive man will do as a
>marriage partner for me.

this is natural selection at it's best/worst.

is it just me or do you get the impression that Marla is breeding dogs
as a profession?

The Oxymoron of the Day: scheduled spontaneity

<mark_...@usa.net> www.angelfire.com/ca/lost/index.html

Tom C.

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

> >> Go to any Ivy league college campus and its babes-ville. I don't know if
> >> those women are personable or substantive but they certainly are
> >> intelligent.
> >>
> >>
> >> Eric
> >
> >
> >Most of the women in Ivy League schools are feminists.
>
> Really? I suppose that you've *met* most women in Ivy League schools?
>
> --
> John Fereira
> fer...@isis.com
> Isis Distributed Systems - Ithaca, NY

^
|
\---- big 'net, small world

Ditto for me. I still disagree that it's babesville though - despite
some people within the system that have flamed me on e-mail to the
contrary. I've met some really nice women, I'd even go out with some of
them, but none that I would call centerfold material.

I have not met very many feminists here - except for my Freshman Writing
Seminar teacher ;)

Steve Lundy

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

In article <32B0A1...@Neversoft.com>, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> writes:
[snip]

|> You're always going to revert to yourself somewhere down the line in any
|> relationship, why not start at the beginning?
|>

Sure you are right, but being yourself doesn't include things like
stuttering, sweating, shaking, when you trying talking to your S.O.
If it does... well I'd say you have some real problems to deal with...

|> What I wonder is, just what do you consider the basic traits of the
|> model "Nice Guy" to be?
|> I'm curious about what you all perceive them to be?

Basic traits.... courteous, thought-ful, pleasant, not particularily
selfish or greedy.

Self-confidence is probably the single most important thing a man

Brenda

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

dg...@gateway.ecn.com wrote:
>
> Brenda (Bre...@Neversoft.com) wrote:
>
> : The Pam Anderson sort as opposed to the Rosie O'Donnell sort?
>
> : In this movie Beautiful Girls, (on video now) Rosie gives two guys the
> : best speech about how we normal girls are probably a better deal for
> : them than the fantasy penthouse women they constantly wait to drop out
> : of the sky... I can't begin to do it justice, best part of the film in
> : my opinion...
>
> : BrendaR
>

> I don't buy that. That somehow implies that beautiful women are somehow

> less substantive, intelligent, or personable than others. I can understand
> why someone might write that into a movie, but it's just another
> stereotype. The joke is most people, I think, really do seek out someone
> who is close to them on the "looks hierarchy". Is there some magical
> formula which says that the better looking a person is the worse their
> personality will be? Not that I've seen (which in some ways shows up
> the limitations of movies, can you imagine "The Truth About Cats and
> Dogs" where Uma Thurman has the wit and personality of Jennifer what's
> her name? In the movie no, that would kill it, but in real life I
> think you find that all the time).

Oh Really? Then why don't you introduce these beautiful, witty
dime-a-dozen women to the men on this newsgroup? ;)

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

Brenda (Bre...@Neversoft.com) wrote:
: Tim Bessie wrote:
<snip>

: ***************************************************************************

: If I heard the following comment from a man I was interested in,
: I would run away, very quickly!!!
: ***************************************************************************

: > I guess what I can't understand is, why can _I_ be perfectly happy
: > having a casual, sexy time with someone, have lots of respect and
: > consideration for them, and YET it REMAIN casual, while most
: > women I meet can't seem to put those two things together? I've met
: > a few (they've usually been in their mid to late 30's, _never_ younger --
: > this probably has something to do with knowing onesself and what one
: > wants, being able to set good boundaries, etc.).

: What I hear, is, I don't think you're worth the possibility
: of a serious relationship. I don't believe in commitments, not
: now, not ever. In my thinking, That would eliminate most women
: from the pool of potentials right there, and if that isn't a
: problem, then what value's do you look for in a woman? Other
: than "a casual, sexy time" with a woman to whom you are nice.

what i hear is ignorant amazement presuming itself
superior to all but those who share that ignorance...

--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.

Matt Kennel

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

Eric Chen (dc...@interport.net) wrote:
: On 14 Dec 1996 dg...@gateway.ecn.com wrote:

: > I don't buy that. That somehow implies that beautiful women are somehow
: > less substantive, intelligent, or personable than others.

: Go to any Ivy league college campus and its babes-ville. I don't know if

: those women are personable or substantive but they certainly are
: intelligent.

Substantive and intelligent, but ``babesville''?

: Eric

--
Matthew B. Kennel/m...@caffeine.engr.utk.edu/I do not speak for ORNL, DOE or UT
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/

Tim Bessie

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

In article <32B5AF...@Neversoft.com>, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com> wrote:
>***************************************************************************
>If I heard the following comment from a man I was interested in,
>I would run away, very quickly!!!
>***************************************************************************
>

>Tim Bessie wrote:
>>
>> I guess what I can't understand is, why can _I_ be perfectly happy
>> having a casual, sexy time with someone, have lots of respect and
>> consideration for them, and YET it REMAIN casual, while most
>> women I meet can't seem to put those two things together? I've met
>> a few (they've usually been in their mid to late 30's, _never_ younger --
>> this probably has something to do with knowing onesself and what one
>> wants, being able to set good boundaries, etc.).
>
>What I hear, is, I don't think you're worth the possibility of a serious
>relationship.
>I don't believe in commitments, not now, not ever. In my thinking, That
>would eliminate most women from the pool of potentials right there, and
>if that isn't a problem, then what value's do you look for in a woman?
>Other than "a casual, sexy time" with a woman to whom you are nice.

Brenda, you can decide to hear whatever you like in whatever I say.
Here's a quote from an earlier posting of mine, which I believe
you've seen... I never said I was 100% against committment:

> I disagree -- I may be a bit unusual, but not a contradiction.
> I really do believe there exist folks in the world who are honest,
> caring, clear-headed, devoted and calm, and who also enjoy more
> casual relationships. I consider myself one such person... I
> will never jerk anyone over, and I consider any intimate relationship
> important, but that doesn't mean that I have any claim over another,
> nor they over me. Perhaps I mean I desire not-necessesarily-exclusive-
> intimacy? Of course, if in the course of dating I meet a woman who
> I just find simply amazing (very intelligent, witty, "good values" as
> you say, drop-dead gorgeous as well, adventurous, well-travelled,
> questioning, etc.), I'd have absolutely no problem being exclusive.

Most of the time, when I say something, I mean it exactly as I've said
it. If I told a woman that I was interested in a casual, friendly
sexual relationship, that's exactly what I'd want with her. Perhaps
I would grow to want more. I expect any woman I meet to be responsible
for her own decisions; as long as I am truthful, I'm not doing anything
wrong. Are you saying that I am denigrating her by telling her what I
would like?

My point here was that the various "bad boys" I've met -- guys that
fulfill many women's romantic ideal, regardless of the guy's desire
or lack of one for a serious relationship -- have never been particularly
given to honest admissions of what they want; if a woman had convinced
herself that there was a chance, they didn't knock it. Sometimes,
they enhanced the fantasy with glowing fairy-tale-style talk, like
"Wow, baby, I can really see us together forever, ya know? Jus' riding
off into the sunset together! We can tour the world on my motorcycle,
baby", etc.); maybe the guys believed it themselves at the time, who
knows?

I could tell you in a minute if a guy meant what he said, was really
interested in a serious relationship or not. And yet many women I've
known have seemed well nigh hypnotized by the romantic picture a
guy like this paints. And she "falls in love" with him -- I put it
in quotes to distinguish it from a more conscious falling in love.
In these sorts of romances, she's usually fallen in love with the
image of the Rugged Biker Dude or Handsome Starving Poet or Rebellious
And Misunderstood Artist... the classic situation where her great
goodness will eventually win him over and he'll choose her over all
the other women who adore him.

She's wrong, of course. She will (almost) never get him. He
does whatever he wants, and he gets love and sex and adoration
for it. Why _should_ he change?

The gist of all that I've been whining about, put as succinctly,
selfishly and unselfconciously, direct from the ID, is this:

If these women are setting themselves up for
a _defacto_ short-term romance replete with
adventure and impassioned love-making, only to
be dumped at the end of it, why don't they just
choose _me_ in the first place? They'd get
adventure and impassioned love-making, and
we'd actually be able to _communicate_ and
be _good_ to each other as well! _Surely_ they
can't be so stupid as to really believe the lies
some of these "bad boys" tell; just look how
quickly they bounce back from one of these
fantasies-gone-wrong, only to try out another.

A childish fantasy on my part, perhaps, but one that still
drives me crazy on occasion.

>Well, why don't you try ambivilence? Just a touch might actually do
>wonders to add mystery...
>I say this sincerely, even though it comes off as sarcastic. I think the
>types you mention
>above have it in spades...

You have to have someone's attention before you can be
ambivilent to them, n'est pas? Also, one of my great joys
is open, honest and clear communication. I'd have to drop that,
and feel even more isolated than I already do.

I'll probably have to settle for a mature woman of good
communication habits someday. *sigh* ;-)

- Tim Bessie
ti...@West.Sun.COM

Mark Allen Opheim

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:03:22 -0800, Brenda <Bre...@Neversoft.com>
wrote:

>> The moron of the Day

hey watch it. that's copyright stuff ; )

>Your witty comments aside, Marla has yet another twist on the subject,

>attractive girl can get attractive guy, but attractive guys don't cut it
>(surprise!) Men with substance and character do. Sure, her story sounds
>strange in the way she phrases it, "I still went for good looking men,
>but only faithful, successful, honest good looking men." which might not
>endear her to the average nice guy, (as she one day seems to have this
>epiphany about her men, by the way it's written) , but she is still
>sharing an experience with us, so chill, baby...

Brenda, baby, (letting my Virgo side take over for a sec) NOWHERE in

that post of Marla's does she mention "substance and character" or for
that matter intelligence, independence, a good screw or the myriad of
other GOOD CHARATERISTICS that make a gentleman.

now, what *i* gleamed from that post is a women who after burning out

on puppies found a fat cat who behaves. in other words she had her fun
and now wants money and security. do you disagree with my assessment?

> why don't YOU tell us a story...

MY pleasure, in what genre are you suggesting? on using a women?

Richard Romero

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

Steve Lundy <lu...@bnr.ca> wrote in article <594fhd$g...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>...

>
> Please note, my definition of a nice guy doesn't include self-confidence
> and strength of character. This is why I think that the nice guys
> don't necessarily "get the girl".
>

Steve.
I hope you aren't intending that a guy who is confident and has character
cannot be a nice guy...
Richard
--
Silent Angel of the R.F.A.

Richard Romero

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

John Wright <jo...@pegase.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<32b7ccf0...@betanews.demon.co.uk>...
> On 14 Dec 1996 08:29:32 GMT, in
> <01bbe999$2c9ee6e0$5c80...@casper.cwo.com>, Richard Romero wrote:
> >Ken Stuart <kst...@mail.telis.org> wrote in article
> ><32b1e4a6....@news.zippo.com>...
> >> >> ======================================================
> > <snippage occured *here*>
>
> Surely it's the case that charm and confidence *are* parts of people's
> character. Superficial parts, which may give no real clue about what
> underlies that, but that's more often than not what makes them sexy.
> --
> John Wright

Well John, just as surely, anything you can percieve about anybody is
superficial by definition, and because most people are complex, those
perceiveable parts may or may not give a clue about what underlies the
surface. So in essense, all that your post said, that had any substance, is
that charm and confidence are what is considered sexy about them, correct?

Richard Romero

--
Silent Angel of the R.F.A.

> My grandmother started to walk five miles a day when she was 60
> Now she's 95 and we don't know where the hell she is
> - Ellen de Generes
>

jonny

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

Sorry, I came in late on this one, I would like to backtrack a bit
about dealing with the "nice guy "curse.

>> P.S. I like a man with confidence, but I'd rather have a nice guy who's
>> sensitive and funny, who's comfortable being himself with me, who isn't
>> afraid to cry or complain, but not a macho cad who guzzles beer and
>> camps without food or a sleeping bag to prove how tough he is who can't
>> really talk to me. I had the latter, and left him for the former, who I
>> am completely happy with. Why? Because he can talk to me in a way I can
>> understand, have a conversation about feelings and such...Chicks dig
>> that... Nice guys are the way to go...
>
>I don't take this post to be about the evils of females at all. It is advice to nice,
>intense guys to lighten up and not get paralyzed with emotion at stages of dating which
>should be light, fun, exciting, and emotionless until you know more about the person and
>know more. It tells the "nice" guys what the arrogant, playboys are doing and how they
>are doing it. To me, the point is to pick up the prats good habits, the confidence, and
>to stay a nice guy while you chase women.

All of this is true from the perspective of someone who is "detached"
emotionally from a situation. I agree with it, but if you are the kind
of person who (like myself) commits to something 100 percent even if
it is just a friendship or whatever I may be doing at the time, it
becomes next to impossible to do. I do not take things TOO seriously
in life, but am the kind of person who feels EVERYTHING, (probably
too much for my own good). That is a part of me and I'm sure a lot of
other people out there feel the same way. It is something that you
really can't change even if you should.
For some people this becoming "detached" is a fantastic way of dealing
with this. But for others, you just can't feel right in doing so. Just
from a personal experience, I realize that the same personality
traits that sometimes brings the emotional gears to a grinding halt is
also the same thing that people really like about me. You can't have
one without the other.

In my latest escapade, (and hopefully it may turn out very cool) I
have not been "paralyzed" at all when dealing with this particular
woman directly, I think the problem that I have is in the expectations
that a person has (mostly a false perception of the "way things should
be" versus the way things are in society). I have been "myself" and
actually been very light-hearted, fun, and not overly demanding, yet I
still I have a certain line of respect (in how I am too be treated),
that does not get crossed.

The bottom line is there is no ONEanswer for how a "nice guy" should
deal with all of this. It all depends on what kind of person he is,
and what kind of person he is involved with at the time.

(I hate the phrase "nice guy" almost as much as the word "dating", why
not try to invent some new ways of communicating this. How about
instead of dating, use "just seeing someone that you like" )

just a thought...hope it makes sense - I do tend to ramble at
times...

Jim R.

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

As I see it nice guys don't finish last. Losers finish last, nice guys have
sense enough not to judge themselves on whether their nice or not, but
except themselves for who they are without opinions of others.

Tkil

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

>>>>> "John" == John Fereira <fer...@isis.com> writes:

John> Then the solution to this should be obvious. Don't approach women with
John> the idea of a romantic relationship.

>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Lundy <lu...@bnr.ca> writes:

Steve> I think not!!!!!!!!!!!

hm... not to disagree or agree with either party completely, but what
would you think of "don't approach women *solely* with the idea of a
romantic relationship"? in some ways, this is just echoing the
sentiment of others who have said "practice talking/flirting to become
more comfortable with women" (not to mention the opportunity to, er,
network with other candidates!). but there is another side to it:

Steve> She will just look at you and think "He isn't interested in me
Steve> that way, I'll just go find someone who is."

given my re-formulation above, do you think that this would still
hold? do you think there is a "he's not being pushy about a romantic
relationship, therefore he doesn't really want a romantic relationship
with me, therefore i'll go look somewhere else"?

i suppose i'm being optimistic, but i like to think that the woman in
question can respond with something like "maybe, we'll see. let's
have a beer and talk."

t.

(me? optimistic? i must have gotten up too early today...)

p.s. let's see: bauhaus, curve, coil, belly, and thrill kill kult.
yup, i'm up *way* to early.

Tkil

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

>>>>> "Ken" == Ken Stuart <kst...@mail.telis.org> writes:

Ken> (2) [...] What happens is that if a human being encounters two
Ken> people, and one is cynical and the other is cheerful, they
Ken> will choose to be around the cheerful one EVERY TIME.

what about someone who is gleefully, mirthfully cynical? ;->

Ken> (3) I think that in order to be cheerful instead of cynical,
Ken> one's self esteem must not depend on what other people think
Ken> of you.

by the law of the exluded middle, then, self-esteem must depend on
what you think of you. but then you go on to quote:

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Dyczkowski writes:

Mark> The ego arises from the mistaken notion that the light of
Mark> consciousness reflected in the intellect and coloured by
Mark> objectively perceived phenomena is the true nature of the Self.

i happen to believe that the verb "think" == "utilizing one's
intellect". i also happen to read this paragraph as indicating that
intellect cannot be used to know one's own self, and therefore cannot
be used to assess self-esteem.

how do you personally resolve this conflict, or do you not see a
conflict? (and if the latter, please explain what definitions you're
using to dodge it).

t.

Tkil

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Bessie <ti...@West.Sun.COM> writes:

Tim> [various sweet-talking used by "bad boys" to let women delude
Tim> themselves into having sex with them] maybe the guys believed it
Tim> themselves at the time, who knows?

nicely put, tim. brings to mind a similar topic...

i have this hangup about being honest (well, honesty about my *bad*
points, at least; i do my best to lie about my good points!). this
hangup is so severe that i have a hard time saying something as simple
as "i like you": in my mind, "like" has all sorts of connotations,
and i'm using it in a very precise manner. given the choice between
saying it and being misinterpreted, or saying it then spending ten
minutes explaining it, or just not saying it, i tend to opt for the
latter.

(for example, i just finished sending about 5k of e-mail reassuing
someone that when i said "i think you're interesting", i meant exactly
that, not the malespeak of "interesting" == "sexual attraction". but
then i had to explain that i wasn't *excluding* the latter, i just
didn't intend to emphasize or de-emphasize it. sigh.)

back to topic: i *especially* have a problem with people saying "i
love you", even in the middle of an orgasm or whatever. that's such
an overloaded phrase, and it's such an important thing to communicate
correctly... and that's just the unintentional / "they believe it at
the time" type of "i love you".

i won't even start on punishments deserved by people who use "i love
you" as a tool just to get laid.

thoughtfully,

Ariana

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

Matt Kennel wrote:

>
> Substantive and intelligent, but ``babesville''?
>

It's definitely not babesville at my university!
Maybe if there were some females it might be. ;)

Ariana

John Fereira

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

In article <32bf67d3...@news.zippo.com> kst...@mail.telis.org writes:
>In an eloquent manner, fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) elucidated:
>
>You seem to be saying "Instead of approaching the situation as a
>romantic one, which therefore makes you nervous, approach the
>situation the same way you would with a platonic friendship. Since
>you then won't be nervous, you'll come across better, which means that
>it will be more likely that you will appeal romantically to someone
>you've been friends with."
>
>This statement is good advice, and I would agree with it.

Your analysis was spot on.

>However, what the original post is saying, and this has been echoed by
>many of the women who post here, such as Kabbibi and A. Nguyen, that
>in order to have romantic appeal to most women, you must exhibit a
>dimension that cannot come across in a friendship situation. The
>sheer platonicness of a friendship, even if it has not yet been
>formally declared to be only platonic, lacks elements necessary for
>romantic appeal. This is why, time and again, women enter into
>romantic relationship with other guys, while the platonic friend is
>still waiting for one of his friendships to add a romantic element.

My advice only has to do with how to go about approaching women. If
both parties *maintain* a platonic approach the likelihood of a
romantic relationship developing is low. The "nice guy" will tend
to wait and wait for fear of coming on too strong. If you find
that you'd like the relationship to be romantic at least one of you
is going to have to test the waters to see if there is romantic potential.
Sure, there is a risk involved that the other person may not share
your romantic interest but it's a risk that you have to take if you
want a romantic relationship.

John Fereira

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

In article <594eti$g...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> lu...@bnr.ca (Steve Lundy) writes:
>
>In article <58q55u$e...@transfer.stratus.com>, fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) writes:
>[snip]
>

>|> Then the solution to this should be obvious. Don't approach women with

>|> the idea of a romantic relationship.
>

>I think not!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>If you don't want a romantic relationship with a woman, why should
>she then give you one? If she doesn't think you like her in that manner
>why should she invest in you as a romantic partner?

All I am talking about is the *approach*. How can you determine that
you'd like a romantic relationship with someone before you've even
met that person? Once you met someone you can judge whether or not
there is romantic potential and then act accordingly. That has little
to do with how you approach someone initially.

Believe what you want, though. What I have suggested works for me
and several others have indicated that it works for them as well.

John Fereira

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

In article <32e0895b....@news.zippo.com> kst...@mail.telis.org writes:
>Hello,

>
>In an eloquent manner, fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) elucidated:
>

>>In article <bzajac-1512...@news.isomedia.com> bza...@isomedia.com (Blair Zajac) writes:
>>>In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.961214...@interport.net>, Eric

>>>Chen <dc...@interport.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14 Dec 1996 dg...@gateway.ecn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I don't buy that. That somehow implies that beautiful women are somehow
>>>> > less substantive, intelligent, or personable than others.
>>>>
>>>> Go to any Ivy league college campus and its babes-ville. I don't know if
>>>> those women are personable or substantive but they certainly are
>>>> intelligent.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>Most of the women in Ivy League schools are feminists.
>>
>>Really? I suppose that you've *met* most women in Ivy League schools?
>

>If you had a team of a thousand people, you could post several million
>messages like this is per week, in all the newsgroups that exist.

What in the hell is that supposed to mean?

I *live* in a town with an Ivy league school and a few weeks will be
working at Cornell. I have met a *tiny* fraction of the women that
attend there and haven't really noticed feminist tendencies one way
or another. Since there are quite a number of Ivy league schools I
had to wonder how someone could possibly draw the conclusion that most
of the women that attend them could share a common trait without having
actually met them.

The_Doge of St. Louis

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

Ken Stuart (kst...@mail.telis.org) wrote:
: Hello,

: In an eloquent manner, Joel Stanley <jrst...@umd.umich.edu>
: elucidated:

: >> Even a rigidly scientific person can see that a cynical attitude

: >> bleeds through into your relationships, because it colors your
: >> responses...

The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy certainly applies here, yes.

: >
: >And if any of these few women had cared enough to find out WHY I was

: >cynical...I'd have been a lot happier and less cynical.

: (1) Yes, I understand exactly why you are cynical and I understand
: what goes on.

: (2) Nevertheless, neither women nor men go around inquiring why people
: they meet are cynical. What happens is that if a human being
: encounters two people, and one is cynical and the other is cheerful,
: they will choose to be around the cheerful one EVERY TIME.

Or more often than not, yes. Mind you, the choices aren't just
cynical vs. "cheerful". One needn't be a bundle of joy all the time to
get along well with others. One only needs to avoid being cynical, bitter,
and hostile most of the time. These are simply not attractive
characteristics, and not very healthy attitudes for the person holding them.

: (3) I think that in order to be cheerful instead of cynical, one's
: self esteem must not depend on what other people think of you. In
: order to do that usually requires some depth of philosophical
: understanding, which can be boiled down to the understanding that
: happiness derives from within us. (If this were not true, one could
: not experience happiness just sitting around doing nothing much.)

Mostly from within, anyway. This is probably a hard notion for most
Americans (at least) to grasp, since we are such an "other-directed"
society (to use Riesman's term) which places such emphasis on what
others think of us.

That doesn't mean that what others think doesn't matter, only that you can't
base your own happiness entirely on that. Ultimately, someone who is
unhappy with himself and his life most of the time is not likely to
suddenly become happy in a relationship. Both my fiancee and I, for
example, were fairly satisfied with our lives before we met. Now that
we're a couple, however, our lives have become immesurably richer.

Alas, there seems to be a belief among some posters in this group* that
meeting Ms. or Mr. Right will magically transform their otherwise drab,
unhappy lives into an unending dream of bliss. I'm not saying it's
impossible, but as bets go it's not a good one.

*soc.singles, which is where I encountered this post; I don't read any of
the others to which is was cross-posted

---
The_Doge of St. Louis
Stage, screen, and radio
http://www.inlink.com/~thedoge/
---

Ariana

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

Tkil wrote:

>
> (for example, i just finished sending about 5k of e-mail reassuing
> someone that when i said "i think you're interesting", i meant exactly
> that, not the malespeak of "interesting" == "sexual attraction". but
> then i had to explain that i wasn't *excluding* the latter, i just
> didn't intend to emphasize or de-emphasize it. sigh.)

I think if you just said you thought they were interesting, they would
take it as what you meant and the explanation wouldn't be necessary ;).
If someone said that to me, I would think "Oh, well, that's nice, they
like talking to me, and they aren't hitting on me, but that doesn't mean
that nothing would happen" (Well, maybe I don't actually think that,
but that's the connotation it would have.)

>
> back to topic: i *especially* have a problem with people saying "i
> love you", even in the middle of an orgasm or whatever. that's such
> an overloaded phrase, and it's such an important thing to communicate
> correctly... and that's just the unintentional / "they believe it at
> the time" type of "i love you".

I used to have a lot of trouble saying the L-word. (haha). I never
thought I would ever say it to anyone until I met my ex. Since then,
I'm much more open about my feelings. And yes, now I sign my letters
with "Love" if I care about the person more than average. It doesn't
mean that I'm in love with them. ;)

>
> i won't even start on punishments deserved by people who use "i love
> you" as a tool just to get laid.

hmm. do you think that works on guys?

Love,

Ariana

Marla Channon

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

Mark Opheim, you pride yourself way too much. I'm sure you're a dog in
person. I'm not, to say the least.

Mark, do you make love or do you just have sex? I would bet $1000 that
you have only done the latter in your lifetime, being the breeding dog that
you are. My soulmate who is my fiance and I make love which dogs like you,
Mark, are not capable.

Marla

Mark Allen Opheim (mark_...@usa.net) wrote:
: On 14 Dec 1996 20:56:01 GMT, cha...@wahoo.csu.net (Marla Channon)
: wrote:

: >Yeah, a lot of attractive woman go for attractive men. I can attest to
: >that as an attractive woman. I used to go for the playboy types when I
: >wasn't serious about anyone. But after about ten playboy boyfriends, I

: >got tired of them. I still went for good looking men, but only
: >faithful, successful, honest good looking men. Hence, I'm engaged to a

: >man with the qualities in the previous sentence. It would take a real
: >stupid woman to try to marry one of these playboys. I'm much to smart
: >to marry a playboy. Only a faithful attractive man will do as a
: >marriage partner for me.

: <mark_...@usa.net> www.angelfire.com/ca/lost/index.html

Joe Dlhopolsky

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

kst...@mail.telis.org (Ken Stuart) wrote:

>>dgls> Is there some magical formula which says that the better looking
>>dgls> a person is the worse their personality will be?

[snip]

>>... someone who is attractive will get more than their

>>"fair" share of attention paid to them. this implies greater social
>>contact, which will tend to increase their personability, stimulate
>>their intelligence, and expand their knowledge base (thus making them
>>more substantive).

[snip]

>I know plenty of unattractive people who have 16 hours of social
>contact per day. I don't think attractive people have any more
>social contact than anyone else.

>Furthermore, I also know plenty of incredibly stupid people who have
>16 hours of social contact per day and it hasn't "stimulated their
>intelligence or increased their knowledge base".

People gravitate to the areas in which they can shine. An ugly kid is
not generally going to have a career in modeling. Yet he or she may be
intelligent, or have a great sense of humor, or be a musical talent.
Did you ever wonder why university professors tend to be rather homely
as a group? They developed their intellectual gifts rather than
something with which they were not endowed naturally. Not only do we
assess our own assets and gravitate toward our success areas, we
respond to those around us. Look at how many hollywood stars had
driven mothers. An attractive child will be stroked by parents and
peers. He or she will come to believe that his or her best attribute
is physical beauty. A more homely child might have just as much social
contact. However nobody is constantly telling them how beautiful they
are.

A case in point: my daughter is quite attractive - blue eyes, natural
blonde, athletic, etc. Everyone told her how beautiful she was when
she was a child. I wish I had a nickel for everyone who told me that
she should be a model. However, seeing how our society eats attractive
people alive and then spits them out when they are no longer current,
I never sought to exploit this attribute. In fact, I used to joke that
when she started attracting boys, we should break her nose. She is
also quite intelligent (146 I.Q.) That's what we focused on. As a
consequence, she will be her class valedictorian instead of someone
focusing on how she looks today and whether she has gained a pound
that now must be lost. Beyond that, I knew that her physical beauty
might attract an aggressive element that would try to exploit her. It
was important for her to grow up knowing that she is the master of her
own fate and does not have to say "yes" to anybody. By focusing on her
intelligence over her physical beauty, she came to know herself well.
I didn't have to break her nose. She'll do it to anyone who tries to
screw around with her.

Physical beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. It makes the person
dependent on those around them. They are at the mercy of the
capriciousness of others. My daughter knows that she is attractive.
However, she is not at the mercy of anyone.

To sum it all up, attractive people normally find this to be their
best asset. They become dependent on the positive reinforcement of
others. This can often lead to superficiality because they learned to
focus on nothing else. They will often seem vane and petulant.
Attractive people who feel that they have more to offer will actually
be handicapped by their beauty. Unattractive people have to work at
impressing people. Consequently, they often have more substance, more
talent, and get along better with others. It is a rare person who
combines depth with beauty in our society.

That's my two cents anyway.

Joe D.
joe...@i-2000.com

Marla Channon

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

Mark Allen Opheim (mark_...@usa.net) wrote:
: On 14 Dec 1996 20:56:01 GMT, cha...@wahoo.csu.net (Marla Channon)
: wrote:

: >Yeah, a lot of attractive woman go for attractive men. I can attest to
: >that as an attractive woman. I used to go for the playboy types when I
: >wasn't serious about anyone. But after about ten playboy boyfriends, I
: >got tired of them. I still went for good looking men, but only
: >faithful, successful, honest good looking men. Hence, I'm engaged to a
: >man with the qualities in the previous sentence. It would take a real
: >stupid woman to try to marry one of these playboys. I'm much to smart
: >to marry a playboy. Only a faithful attractive man will do as a
: >marriage partner for me.

: this is natural selection at it's best/worst.

: is it just me or do you get the impression that Marla is breeding dogs
: as a profession?

: <mark_...@usa.net> www.angelfire.com/ca/lost/index.html

: The Oxymoron of the Day: scheduled spontaneity

Dogs are not capable of typing long sentences into the internet.
Mark--do you make love to your current partner
or do you just have sex (like dogs)? I'll bet the latter. My soulmate
who is my fiance and I make love to each other which dogs
like you, Mark are not capable.

Marla

Mark Allen Opheim

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

On 17 Dec 1996 20:56:39 GMT, cha...@wahoo.csu.net (Marla Channon)
wrote:

>Mark Opheim, you pride yourself way too much. I'm sure you're a dog in

>person. I'm not, to say the least.
>
>Mark, do you make love or do you just have sex? I would bet $1000 that
>you have only done the latter in your lifetime, being the breeding dog that
>you are. My soulmate who is my fiance and I make love which dogs like you,
>Mark, are not capable.

settle down there, easy, i caught your fire the FIRST time around.

now let's get back to the way YOU were assessing men in your original
post. your post annoyed me, and i let you know it, you gave the
impression that men just be "faithful and attractive", that is where i
culled the *dog* metaphor.

even if i was to lose that $1000 bet, you are still the one who needs
to do the explaining. huh? huh?

The Oxymoron of the Day: second best

<mark_...@usa.net> www.angelfire.com/ca/lost/index.html

Eric Chen

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Ken Stuart wrote:

[Another Brenda Ehmka post worth saving.]

> I'll just add a nitpick that you should have simply left off the last
> line. "Life is whatever you make it" is the accurate portrayal.
> The concept of "rights" is contradictory to that statement. It
> implies whining to some third party about what you are supposed to
> get.

For some people, that 'right' is not defended to a third party, but to
themselves. There are some pitiable people who genuinely feel that they do
not deserve love, that they do not have a 'right' to feel love and to be
loved. Realizing you have that 'right' is a big step to freeing yourself
from that sort of self-destructive thinking.

Eric

Joel Stanley

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

Brenda Ehmka wrote:

> I found your post very scary indeed for that was my philosophy my
> entire life. Life was so bad that I was afraid to place any hope or
> value lest I be hurt even more than I was already.

If it is true that who dartes wins, then who dares all wins all. But
Reality is not the SAS, and who dares usually loses and who dares all
usually loses all. Whoever said that "Love is a Battlefield" was
right. I've got shellshock.

> In the past 5 years I have come to see what a self-defeating prophecy
> that attitude is. I now believe in vibrational energy and the law of
> attraction. This cynicism holds your level of energy at bay and only
> allows whatever is oscillating at the same level to come into your
> life. Therefore, if you are cynical then you will attract that very
> essence into your life. I know that this works for I was attracting a
> lot of garbage and now that I don't operate under the belief you
> mentioned I am able to attract a much higher and purer expression of
> energy. Joe, you are a trooper and have done all you can to let that
> woman know of your support and undying love and devotion. There comes
> a time however when you have to let it go. If she is yours she will
> come back to you. If not, you need to move on and attract the one who
> is right for you.

No, no, a thousand times no! Never give up the quest. What does it
say, to have given up?

> Cynicism is like the governor on a mini-bike. It holds you down and
> prohibits acceleration past a certain degree. You are in control and
> able to freely look at life in any way you choose. Why adopt a belief
> that holds you down and back? Life is whatever you make it. If you
> want more, then expect to receive it as your right.

Again, I disagree; cynicism is the reflection of reality onto fantasy.
Belief does not make fact. Thought does not make reality. Life is
thrust upon us, and the Fates are cruel. Or maybe the dice are loaded.
Who knows?

Joel
http://www.umd.umich.edu/~jrstanle/unhappiness.html

Eric Chen

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Joel Stanley wrote:

> Again, I disagree; cynicism is the reflection of reality onto fantasy.
> Belief does not make fact. Thought does not make reality. Life is
> thrust upon us, and the Fates are cruel. Or maybe the dice are loaded.
> Who knows?

Brenda Ehmka isn't just about not giving up, she's about fundamentally
changing her life.

You can fight a losing fight and pour your life energy into it, and just
not win. What I think Brenda has tried to show us, is that that fight. our
reality, doesn't have to be all there is. We have choices and one of them
is to stop what we're doing and start over with something else. Each of us
has an idea of what life is and we may think that that's all that life can
be. But it's not. Ideas change, values change, and suddenly there's an
entirely new concept of life we can follow if we choose.

Many of us and I assume everyone here that's posting is lucky in this
country. We don't have to fight for a basic level of survival. We can live
our lives, not just survive. That's a rare opportunity in this world and
one I feel far too many people waste. Ultimately, we have the power to
choose what our lives will be.

Eric

Anh Tu Nguyen

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to Ken Stuart

Hi Ken,

It's interesting that you should mention this. Actually, I'm really
replying because my name is mentioned in one of the posts below! Heheh.
Someone spelled my last name right! Whatsamatter? Couldn't spell my
first name? Just joking. I spelled my last name wrong today as I was
taking my final! yeah! No more tests for a while. Back to what i was
saying.

Oh, yes. I think that if you are that platonic with someone and you are
that comfortable with them, I think that you should go for it: test the
water! I mean, if both of you are mature, then there shouldn't be a "kiss
off" reaction. And of course, I only speak from experience.

Today, after finals, my best friend and I walked to the post office to
pick up his mail. He recently broke up with his gf. He's the greatest
guy ever. I've got him really trained! He's very strong (yet very
considerate and sensitive), thoughtful, analytical. He is the world's
most thoughtful male. I mean, girls, he CARES about everyone. And he's no
spineless guy either. Too bad he's my best friend and I have no romantic
interest in him.

Anyway, we were walking and I mentioned to him that it would be nice (just
arbitrary talking about life. See? He's a great guy. You can talk about
these things with him and have him be totally responsive to the
conversation) to come home from work and have someone to share your time,
thoughts, love with. I was referring to having a boyfriend. He said that
you don't need a boyfriend, etc. You can just have fun with your friends.
I told him that it would not be the same thing since you don't really
flirt with your friends (intentionally). Well, this led to something
about going to the Space Needle for New Year's Eve this year. And since I
have no one and he has no one, we're going to go together. I told him
that I wouldn't kiss him on the mouth. Just the cheeks. Gross already!
He's handsome, but no, I wouldn't ever kiss him. Anyway, he brought up
that he and I could be "boyfriend-girlfriend." My reaction was, "Ew.
That's sicko. No way." But like Ken mentioned, I wasn't serious. I
wasn't repulsed at all, it just wouldn't work out. I told him that he and
I can still share our thoughts, ideas, etc. But no way. And then we
walked to the post office, arm-in-arm. See? No harm done. No big deal.
I know that if he and I ever become a couple, we'd be totally compatible,
we finish off each other's thoughts, we understand each other more than we
understand ourselves, etc. But no, I wouldn't date him. No chemistry in
that romantic category. Of course, he probably wasn't serious about being
gf-bf. But even if he were serious, nothing would change. I'd still
comfortable around him.

> Hello,
>

> In an eloquent manner, fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) elucidated:
>

> >In article <32bf67d3...@news.zippo.com> kst...@mail.telis.org writes:
> >>In an eloquent manner, fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) elucidated:
> >>

> You've brought up a very interesting point.
>
> How much of a risk is there, really?
>
> In just my own experience, I've never lost a friend when I've asked
> for the relationship to take a romantic turn. No one's ever said
> "how could you ask that - I never want to see you again!" .
>
> But perhaps that happens to others?
>
> If not, then perhaps the risk is only in the mind of the "nice guy"
> and not actually real.... in which case, the
> waiting-for-months-and-hoping bit should be avoided.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ken <*>
> kst...@mail.telis.org
>
>

"What you can't get out of, get into whole-heartedly." M. McLaughlin