Feminist logic about entitlement – why the niceguy hate?

Modern American feminists often talk about “niceguys” and their sense of entitlement. I was curious why they think “niceguys” are feeling entitled, and looked into a book called “Yes means yes”, edited by Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman. It always confused me why wanting sex or love really badly was considered to be an entitled attitude.

                                                      The root of hostility

First, I will say something about how this book views sex. Feminists criticize what they call the commodity model of sex. It is an understanding that sex is something women have, and men can  earn, buy, or even steal/trick women out of. Nevermind that it’s a biological fact, they don’t like it, because they think it supports rape culture. The author of the essay, Thomas Macauley Millar, suggests we replace the commodity model of sex with the performance model of sex. That means thinking about sex like you think about playing music with other people, or dancing – just a fun time with someone, where you create something beautiful. He thinks commodity model is adversarial. He says the performance model would never create such nasty things as lack of respect for promiscuous women, because if sex was like playing music, the more you perform, the better you get, and the MORE valuable your performances become.  The thought is nice, but only realistic with people you are very close to, and know well. On a grand scale, trying to replace the commodity model with the performance model is like being a scientist, and saying:

“Hey, guys, I don’t like the “possible massive destruction” model of movements of ocean water. It’s too oppressive and adversarial. Why won’t we replace it with the “always calm, helpful and pleasant” model?”

                                                        So, what is a sense of entitlement?

An entitlement is a right. A sense of entitlement is therefore a sense of having a right to something. Some websites also say that having a sense of entitlement means thinking you deserve something, but I’m not sure I want to mix those two up. They are totally different things! I might feel I deserve to be loved, but I don’t feel I have a right to it. However, I have a right to pursue love, and try to get it.

                                                                     Is it bad?

The feeling of deserving comes from the realization that I’m actually a good person who is good at loving, so there is no reason why I don’t deserve to be loved. The feeling of having a right comes from the realization that I’m a person, and all persons should have certain inalienable rights, like in the constitution. Any special rights are allowances, given by the government. So I don’t actually see these following things as bad:

1) Having a feeling that you have a right to live, be free, and pursue happiness, as long as it doesn’t mess with other people’s rights.

2) Having a feeling that you’re a good person who deserves to be loved. This is just called having a good self-esteem, and is not problematic as long as you realize it’s only useful in the realm of self-esteem.

However, it IS bad to actually have a sense of entitlement to things you have no right to just take. It’s delusional and sounds like a mental illness, making a person unable to function in society adequately.

                                                                            Who has it?

Some people imply rapists rape because of sense of entitlement. But that is not necessarily true. A robber or a rapist might not think they have a right to that property or sex, they know what they are doing is wrong, but they do it anyway. They don’t even have to feel they deserve it, but they want to have it.

And of course, nice guys. Thomas Macauley Millar writes that nice guys have a view of their own entitlement, described as:

“Their entire worldview depends on the commodity model, and on a corollary view of their own entitlement: that there must be some “proper” way for them to act and “get” sex; that if they do all the “right” things, they will unlock the lock and get laid”.

“..the NiceGuy expresses clearly the undercurrent of the entitlement that runs through the culture. Men generally are constructed as the pursuers of sex, and taught that their proper pursuit will be rewarded. What straight men really need to learn is that women are humans, too, who get to make their own decisions about whether and with whom to have sex; and that nobody owes anyone sex”

Let’s compare. Are these two the same?

a) Feeling you have a right to get something.

b) Trying to earn something, finding nothing objectively wrong with your methods, and being frustrated that you aren’t getting it. Having specific expectations based on what they were taught as a child and teenager.

I think it doesn’t take a lot of brainpower to see that they are not the same. One requires you to demand something unconditionally, the other to work for it. One makes a person frustrated because their supposed rights are not working out. The other makes a person frustrated because they keep trying according to the rules given to them (the only way they know!), and it’s not working out. Is really really wanting love/sex, and thinking you are actually a good person who deserves them, and trying to get them, entitled? I think not – entitled people don’t think they have to try. If that was the definition of entitlement, anyone with goals would be considered a narcissist. Does someone deserve hate, if they try to give women what they think they want (based on recommendations of women themselves, as well as parents), but it never works out, and they are confused and frustrated? No.

Also, the quote reveals that the mere act of trying to get sex and love is viewed as sexist and offensive. It means you view women as objects, rather than people who are “human, too, and get to make their own decisions”. What feminists don’t like is the commodity model of sex, which is the idea that sex is a good that women have and men can earn, buy or take some other way. Using language where you indicate you “want to get sex”, earn it somehow, reveals that you view sex as a commodity, which makes you a supporter of rape culture. You want to give something, and get sex in return.  Of course, there is nothing evil about it, as we ALL want something from other people, be it cooperation, reciprocal kind treatment or friendship. No one ever makes a big deal about THAT. We all know that wanting something from someone doesn’t mean they owe it to you, or that they shouldn’t make their own decisions.

So if someone wishes to prove that niceguys are all entitled jerks, they need better arguments. Some people do act and talk entitled, and you often don’t have to look hard for evidence. For example, in the same book, another writer insists that women have a right to good sex and sexual power:

“The goal of Yes Means Yes is to explore… how the cultures and systems that support rape in the United States rob us of our right to sexual power..”

“That’s what the essays in this book do. They encourage you to say yes to yourself, yes to your desires, and yes to the idea that you have a right to a joyful sex life..”

It’s words like these, as well as feminist expansion of rape law, which makes me think they are the true entitled ones. Right to joyful sex life means, in practice, jailing men who fail to satisfy.

P.S: I still don’t understand how commodity model of sex leads to rape culture, but I will tell you, once I find out 😉

This entry was posted in Feminism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Feminist logic about entitlement – why the niceguy hate?

  1. Valentin says:

    Friend-zoning really is a hell of a tricky topic. The sad fact is you’ll always going to have omega cowards and lower beta pussies that act like pals and literally expect sex to pop out as a reward for being so fucking “nice”. There is a definite basis for derisive treatment of nice guys indeed. Now of course the problem is that this is another handy apex fallacy that women (not necessarily feminists in this posts context) use to drive the rules of the SMP in their favor. So the question is why did we get here in this shit-flinging malaise of nice guys™ and friend-zones?

    Well unfortunately I’m going to have to start with a word that makes anyone sound like a broken record: hypergamy. As well know modern sex-positive feminism de facto goal has been to “relieve” of all their socio-sexual obligations and morals. This is why we have gotten to todays troubles for regular women that romance and dating is not only dead but has been continuously been beaten like a dead horse for over two decades.
    The simple fact is that dating in itself is an absolutely awful short-term socio-sexual contract where both parties agree to basically try and not only build a good conversational report but also that ethereal thing we call chemistry. Now the problem is that in this “new” world of sex-positive feminism this implies something that goes against the very nature of unleashed hypergamy: moral and socio-sexual reciprocity.
    Let me clarify. “Old” style dating and courting puts a certain moral pressure on the woman: you basically know the man in question is all goo-goo about you and (excuse me for being crude) wants to fuck your brains out. In other words you are *aware* what the mans intentions are and you are obliged to be clear on your reaction to that. In other words you were morally obliged to say yes you are interested or no you are not. Now if there’s anything that kills vagina-tingles for a “liberated” woman is to have to make choices, take responsibility for her actions and be accepting of the consequences of said choices and actions.

    Now this never killed dating and courting outright, women and men of course still do that. However as a means of initiating attraction and a sexual relationship it has been killed by the fact it has become completely obsolete and yields near to zero results for men pursuing a woman. Like I said above: dating and courting kills vagina-tingles for the modern girl under hypergamys spell.
    As you probably know men adapt to the rules of the socio-sexual jungle by observing winners and understanding their successful tactics. To generalize and make a bit of a hyperbole: that alpha guy that carries himself like a superior aloof specimen *and* has calibrated game to capitalize on any vagina-tingles he may create is the clear ideal.
    Without going into details that we all know already: he is of course the winner because he plays along with the modern girls morality where she is repulsed by even a hint of moral obligation and socio-sexual reciprocity. The game that works is of course that of maker *her* qualify to *you* while you maintain a soft harem and never show her enough consistent attention: good old push-pull at work. Of course the only problem is that this tactic only really works consistently for guys who are worth 15/20 and above. To clear the confusion: we usually adhere to a 10/10 scale but I mash two scales together. One is the physical handsomeness scale (both physical traits and how you dress and carry yourself) and the other is the social charm scale. It’s more correct for analysis because it can make up for why a 10/10 hot guy isn’t getting laid with his 0/10 personality in discussions. Of course it also punctures the PUA idiots bubble that if you can fake a 10/10 personality you can get laid with your 0/10 looks (numbers exaggerated for claritys sake).

    So basically we arrive to todays pretty shot SMP where dating and courtship is worth jack-shit for betas and game isn’t really effective for them either. And that’s the problem that women don’t like: they want all the attention and affection in the world from beta-orbiters they were never really into. This under the implicit promise that women play fair and don’t price-discriminate, but as we all know that is indeed the case with the SMP.
    Now my point is that this is why they love to use the apex-fallacy of the butthurt omega nice guy™ since it keeps all the betas in the cage of shame of belittlement. It’s like a vice of two apex-fallacies: the alpha hotties are just dogs that never commit and the omega losers are entitled disgusting little creatures. It’s win-win… or is it?

    Well it’s definitely a complete win as far as this one battle of many of the SMP goes. However we arrive to the problem that you’re winning all these battles of moral and socio-sexual superiority that you’re losing the war. This is the problem of womens combative and demanding attitude towards men and their wants: you may use shame and derision to win battles of crushing mens wants but with it goes your own bounty.
    You see mens good-will towards women to be giving and fair in the SMP is always a delayed reaction to womens good-will: especially the sexual ditto. Women absolutely hate this fact and which is why friend-zoning and the nice-guy™ is a battle they feel they have to constantly win because in the back of their heads they realize they’re losing the darned war! Que all the “where are all the good men?!”, the “man up!” and of course the Marcotte show-piece “there’s nothing nice about nice guys” articles. Nothing like the good old adage of offense is the best defence!

    The sad truth is the war is really over if you look at it from a practical viewpoint: it’s only in discussion and debate that we’re still at it. Men have and are retreating from the SMP more and more since there is no winning any battle. The game~ists are really nothing more than the scavengers and looters after a big battle: they are solving nothing in the long run, not even for themselves.
    Now this is where I usually come with some personal advice (with lots of projection) on what it takes to fix it. The problem is the only advice that would truly fix it is completely unpalatable for women. First of all an acceptance that it has to start with you on a personal level, as feminism once dealt with sexism by placing a moral responsibility on as many men as possible to undo the wrongs of the gender so must you now.
    No more “I’m not like that” solipsist excuses: it achieves nothing and just gives us the impression that we are not worth trying to fix the SMP for. Second of all there is this half-assed proposal by women that do indeed sympathize with todays young men and accept that women wrecked the SMP (Susan Walsh is a good example): that we can go back to a reasonably fair 60/40 market in terms of moral and socio-sexual obligation. Of course the reason being that women have more to lose by being less selective, which I agree with. However remember what I said about mens good-will being a delayed reaction? Yeah 60-40 after two decades of 90-10 in your favour is not going to balance the total and placate both parties. You yourself Emma kiiiind of got the right idea with your “fuck an omega sometimes for petes sake” piece. The intention is good but it’s also flawed since it doesn’t really fix the base issue and neither party is the winner. To simplify you have to start initiating both a relationship and sexual intimacy with that charming handsome beta more often than not: don’t just sit on your piedestal with combative judgment on how alpha and “confident” he is. Confidence by the way is completely misunderstood by women: confidence is something a lot of us don’t have indeed… in you. You make it synonymous with low self-worth because once again this is a battle you want to win to remain on your hypergamic piedestal.
    What you have to do is basically put the cart in front of the horse: reciprocity first by initiating each step in starting, creating and maintaining a relationship. However you have to demand the courtship and sexual selflessness in return: that’s where your fuck an omega sometimes tactic becomes a losing one. You want to build good-will by reciprocity from both parties: not to mention responsibility for the success of the relationship where neither sits on their end to try and keep all socio-sexual superiority to set the rules by winning a battle of least interest. You want both to try and please the other and fulfill their emotional wants and needs of reassurance: of course without going to far and becoming total pussies the both of you.

    Hezus Javier Christoso: didn’t I start the last part with “this is where I don’t give advice”? Well fuck it I spend all this time writing it I might as well leave it in. Good luck Emma with your masters!

    • emmatheemo says:

      Thanks for the long and interesting post. I have heard that some guys will act very unreasonable when sex fails to pop out as a reward for their niceness. But fortunately I haven’t had that happen. They fail to make their intentions known, and are then angry at the girl because things didn’t happen on their own. That is jerk behavior.

      However, what I disagree with is the idea that the concept of friendzone itself is something misogynist, or that one’s frustration about landing there is a sign of entitlement. I also feel surprised that the mere attempt to find a good method and achieve love can be met with accusations of objectification, and things like “you can’t achieve a woman, they are human beings”. As I said, when it comes to pointing out entitlement and jerky behavior, I just need good evidence.

      • adamnarcross says:

        The concept of the friendzone is a construct invented by women. In reality it is not the man performing kindnesses for a woman with the entire motivation to achieve sexual gratification. That makes the reasons for a relationship insincere. What accounts for the friendzone for guys who are placed into is the notion from the woman that the male friend is supposed to perform all the benificial occupations that come from her idea of what is preferred of a boyfriend, he is expected to run her errands, support her in all cases, submit to physical labor for sake, adjust his likes and dislikes to conform to her’s. Submit to being an emotional tampon, his own wants, troubles, likes and dislikes is irrelevant. Yet fir all of the expected personal sacrifices she feels is her entitled mode of living, he can never qualify as a partner in sex. In ithe words, the girl knows how he feels about her and exploits his feelings for personal gain and when he finally expresses deeper feelings that allude to sex, she ruthlessly friendzones him. The goall being that you as the zoned man will continue to exist as a utilty for exploitation. If you refuse, then the breakup of the friendship is your fault because you unfairly tried to pressure her into sex against her will. Therfore the correct definition of friendzone is the status a man is placed in by a woman that exploits his romantic affection for personal benefit.

  2. Eric says:

    Emma:
    The kinds of arguments that Ms. Jessica makes has me wondering again just how sexual women really are. If men or sex was really of any value to them; it seems that earning it would be completely natural. Instead, they seem to regard it as a necessary evil—almost like something that should be given out as welfare.

    As far as niceguys go, it seems that these men value women enough to DO something to earn them. This certainly isn’t the case with women, who see such men as expendable and throw themselves at males who really are jerks—probably simply to validate their own anti-male prejudices.

    • Emma says:

      Oh women value sex, but they value it less. So earning it goes usually only one way.
      But perhaps they don’t like this fact exposed, for many reasons. Niceguys expose it and make everyone look bad. Have you read the new guest post on Eivind’s site? http://eivindberge.blogspot.no/2013/04/45-reasons-for-denying-differences.html I think it’s in there somewhere.

      • Bill says:

        Dating sounds way too complicated. I think it is best left to the guys who are really good at it..the Bad Boys and the Alpha males. They have the traits that women love and it works out best for everyone. Regular guys like me are in the way.

    • Bill says:

      I am pretty simplistic but I see male/female relations based on the 80/20 rule: 80% of the women are pursuing 20% of the men. These lucky 20% are the Alpha males, violent thugs (some with criminal records), and bad boys. The bottom 80% of men are basically trated like trash by women. That’s just the way it is. I have seen 2 or more attractive women share one bad boy/jerk. Rather than lying to the men in the bottom 80% they should be told the truth: that the guys in the top 20% will ALWAYS go to the head of the line and that many guys in the bottom 80% will NEVER have a female. This way they can concentrate on worthwhile activities (furthering their education and their career) where they will see a return on their investment. Teying to beat the Thug/bad Boy/Alpha male in the dating game is like trying to beat the casino. You will lose every time. Don’t play a rigged game, you cannot win.

  3. Martel says:

    As a recovering nice guy myself, I can clearly claim I never felt entitled to sex with anyone (if anything, I thought too much that I had to earn it). I also reject the commodity model, at least in my own case.

    I was a nice guy primarily because I thought it was the ethical thing to be. I also heard zillions of women claiming that they wanted guys who had all the traits I had. I got nowhere with women.

    If a woman proclaims “I’m looking for A”, and I happen to be “A”, if she goes for a guy who’s opposite of “A”, eventually it gets confusing. It’s like if a casting director says he wants a bunch of buxom blondes for a beach scene but all the actresses who get the job are athletic brunettes. The blondes are going to start to wonder. Some may feel entitled, but all will feel like they’ve been tricked.

    I never felt entitled, but I sure as hell felt swindled.

    • That’s a great analogy. You basically put any of my confusion on this topic to rest with that.

    • Bill says:

      Women want Alpha males , thugs (including thugs with criminal records) and bad boys. Period. You need to become of of these guys or you are in the bottom 80% that women treat like trash. Guys need to face the truth. See women as they are, not how you wish they would be. Stop knocking yourself in a battle you will lose . You CANNOT compete with an Alpha male, thug or Bad Boy. Period.

  4. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    I wonder if Thomas Macauley Millar realizes that his ideas are almost exactly what is taught to Catholic school boys. He’s basically saying women are pure and men’s motives impure but framing it with pop-feminist sociology instead of religion. Instead of eternal damnation, he and his fellow feminists threaten a more worldly type of “shaming” (shame being a huge thing in the church). I’ve been noticing parallels between feminism and Catholicism for a long time, but this makes it clearer than ever. I guess now that the church doesn’t have enough influence to be the Junior Anti-Sex League, the feminist crew has stepped in.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Actually, I noticed that too. Feminists attack Christian abstinence-only forces, and those Christian forces attack feminism. But I don’t understand why they think they are opposites of each other. It’s just a new antisex movement attacking the old one. Both will kill freedom and mess with people’s private lives. They should instead shake hands and quit pretending there is anything but superficial difference between them.

  5. I am absolutely loving your blog. I feel like the women in the manosphere display a greater amount of intelligence than feminists could even DREAM of in their community!

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Heheh, thanks.

      In terms of raw IQ, I think modern feminists can be just as smart, but somehow it doesn’t translate into wisdom. When I read modern feminist writings, it feels like entering an alternate dimension. I believe GirlWritesWhat said that, and I can second that description. High IQ might give you novel genius ideas, but it might also make you fall for things even stupider people won’t believe. Lower IQ people can teach higher IQ people something. Common sense. A mixture of deep thinking AND common sense is the best.

  6. David says:

    The main problem I had with this “hate against ‘nice guys’ ” is that it is fundamentally shizophrenic.

    Now what do I mean by that? I’m a young student. I grew up in the post-PC(which means something else than what Apple thinks it does) world, where feminism was in our breat milk(luckely my mother was never brainwashed, so that saved me a lot of emotional scars early on. I had a much more realistic view of the world).

    Nevertheless, feminists constantly trumped up the necessity of men to be nice/good. The problem is that women behaved ENTIRELY different from the saw I saw in clubs and even in school. The loud, obnoxious guys, often poor in school, captured the interest of girls. Even the smart girls.

    Second, by attacking the ‘nice guys’ so much, the feminists feed into the narrative of the PUA/manosphere people who say that feminists theorize about a man they think they want, but their primal instinct pulls for another. My own theory about this is that the so-called ‘nice guys’ are actually, generally speaking, pretty nice. But they’re not idiots. So they notice this bifurcation and they’re embittered, they were told one thing all their life and now they’re 25-30 and haven’t had much success at all and feel like they were lied to. Which they were(but it was technically not a lie because they people who told them the lies believed it themselves).

    And feminists at some level recognize this. They probably have many failed relationships with “alpha” or even “quasi-alpha” guys, while skipping past the genuinely nice guys. So they get guilt from this, and when the ‘nice guys’ remind them of their incoherence, they flip out. They lash out.

    But their lashing out only confirms that the feminist experiment has mentally and emotionally damaged many, many men. I’ve met these men. They at times devolve into genuine womanhater. Many so-called ‘alphas'(who claim they are alpha but are just really obsessive about picking girls up and if you practice more at something than every other guy, guess what, you’ll get better at it. Doesn’t mean you’re ‘alpha’ but I disgress) are also misogynists.

    From my perspective, I only see a lot of irrationality by women who have bought the whole ‘gender is a social construct’ myth hook, line and sinker. But that isn’t the problem in of itself. If they delude/hurt themselves, so be it. The issue becomes when they start hurting others, often young boys who can’t defend themselves.

    • John says:

      I liked your comment but one thing I’d also like to add in there is that these nice guys aren’t looking for sex at all a lot of the time. These nice guys are looking for genuine relationships. They want to find happiness in life and in that happiness there is love. A lot of them are perfectly normal guys. I remember having a friend saying to me “I just want to know how it feels like to be in a decent realtionship. We don’t need to have sex, kiss or even hold hands. Just talk and get closer to eachother”.

      Yeah I’m young and I know most dating under the age of 20 usually happens based around sexual attraction first and other really poor judgements but in university looking around at a variety of people even ten ears older than me there still seems to be this problem.

      I think feminism misses the point to this problem. There really is no entitlement involved. Yes there are some fake “nice guys” I’ll admit but I think a lot are just looking for love. The problem is that majority of the time people seem to be looking for a fun time and not a relationship. Sometimes I get personalities just don’t clash.

      Thing is the more you tell a nice guy there’s something wrong with them or hate nice guys the more they’ll either be push into the a-hole, pua or mgtow category. I think suggestion on how to improve chances at finding a relationship may help. From what I witnessed with friend’s though, when a guy gets rejected by a girl and decides being friends would be ok, it gets very confusing when a woman says “I wish I could find someone just like you” or stuff similar to that because then a guy wonders ‘What the heck is wrong with himself’ or ‘If you wanted a guy like me then why did you turn me down’.

      Thing is though in the end, I’ve seen a lot of women date people who were blatant jerks but the thing is quality women will always choose a nice guy. So in the end I disagree with the “Nice guys finish last” statement and tend to agree with the “Nice guys finish” statement.

      • MrJohnny says:

        Under 20 sexual attraction dating is the most obvious example of this rule in play, that nice guys finish last. because nice guys arent sexually attractive. the jerks are.

    • Bill says:

      Women want Alpha males, thugs and bad boys. Guys need to see women as they are, not how they wish them to be. If you want a loyal and loving companion, go to the shelter or animal rescue and adopt a cat or a dog. Don’t look to a female for love. Wake up gentlemen.

  7. ironically feminists ask to be respected by men. and when the women are respected, they treat the guy like crap ( friend zone him ) and the guy with no respect for her gets sex and just views her as a sex object. i think feminism in and of itself promotes rape culture if you didn’t promote rape you would fuck Mr..nice guy ( reward good behavior) not ridicule and make fun of him for thinking if i am nice she will be nice.” you know the golden rule treat someone how you want to be treated.” but 50 shades of rape says allot too about how feminism promotes rape culture

    • MrJohnny says:

      Sadly true and ironic. Promote good behavior, dont condemn it. Instead, good behavior is met with distrust and even hostility, while bad behavior IS rewarded.

  8. Bob says:

    It is a sick, disgusting and perverted world. Life is ugly. Get used to it.

    • Bill says:

      Bob, remember women want Alpha males, thugs and bad boys. These guys give them the “tingles.” The rest of the guys (about 80%) are treated like trash by women. Guys need to see women as they really are, not how they wish they were.

  9. Willow says:

    It’s just trying to legitimize being a nasty vindictive cunt

    • Bill says:

      In the movie Taxi Driver, it was summed up perfectly by Robert DiNiro’s character when he said, “Women are cold and distant. Theyr’e like a union.”

  10. MrJohnny says:

    Here’s my issue with the nice guy hate mentality.

    Being nice is supposed to be a good thing, and end in itself. Usually, when you’re nice, good things happen for you. There’s a Dalai Lama saying ” if we wish to be truly selfish, we should be wisely selfish rather than foolishly selfish. ” which means giving in order to receive, if you desire to receive. It’s the same in Taoism. To receive you must first give.

    Here’s the selfish “nice guy” setup. They give, and yet never receive. The person who always receives is the jerk or asshole, the “bad boy”, etc. Paul Elam had a few things to say about how women would leave the guy with flowers standing there while hopping onto a harley to ride bitch with a guy who didn’t give a shit.

    Now, the guy who doesn’t give a shit is very likely to be primarily interested only in sex. It’s pretty much all they care about, and I think that’s another narcissistic trait of women; the desire to “tame the uncontrollable” so to speak. Nietzsche observed that women desire another man when he’s already taken. Being taken is a sign of value just like kids at a playground want the toys other kids have, not the toys that are hand-me-downs or in the trash.

    I’ve experience this effect before. The moment I actually had a girlfriend and my body language told women I had one, I would be targeted by females, even attractive ones, and I had a female friend who told me I don’t look attractive. This is just my own personal validation of Nietzsche’s words, which otherwise would be called misogyny .

    Females do enjoy and want sex, even casually. Males do as well, so where’s the harm come in for a male who wants to receive sex and goes to find someone? For a female, all it takes is sitting out there exposed and waiting to be “picked up”. The male does the picking up, or occasionally, a female will be the one to initiate.

    So where does it go wrong? When the “nice guy” tries to be nice, and never can pick up the girl. When they’re left doing bitch work or getting a peck on the cheek while they go off with the arrogant, cocky guys that want the exact same thing. Then the “nice guy” complains that they never get to “play” like the other kids, and one gender of those kids who do get to “play” then tells nice guys they’re feeling entitled, and they’re just using niceness to get laid, etc, all while they’re underneath a different guy who just wanted to get laid, but had a more “I don’t give a shit about being nice or giving to receive” mentality.

    Now, the same thing happens when a “nice guy” actually wants a romantic interest. They often get passed over or friendzoned for a one night stand or an “asshole boyfriend” that, in the case of the latter, will be completely selfish and controlling about the relationship, yet the female often sees the relationship as good, even if they consciously or not acknowledge the guy is in control.

    It’s like the other poster said, they have a list of things they say they want in guys they date or casually have sex with, but they nearly always pick the opposite. Niceness doesn’t inspire sexual feelings. The thing is that when you act a certain way, a female responds positively, and this response tells you she’s interested in the possibility of having sex with you. This gives you the signal to go further and escalate it to that point. When playing as a “nice guy” this never worked out for me. When being more arrogant and not giving a shit, especially about being fair or giving to receive, or considering their feelings, I get a lot more of that “signal”.

    Playing into the hands of PUA and “game” is a completely apt description. I don’t practice that stuff because I have a moral disgust about it, but I have tested the waters just to see if it would hold true. I’d rather people can be themselves and hook up or have relationships, without resorting to peacocking, manipulation, and what I can only describe in the current dating/sex scheme as “mutual exploitation”.

    There’s a number of other theories around why women “hate nice guys”. It shows them what they lack in themselves. It shows them their hypocrisy about what they profess to believe and what their actions show they really believe. It stems from innately female traits of narcissism and wanting to control/manipulate the male population to “shut up and take it” instead of pointing out women’s flaws.

    To me the idea that females want to sleep around with the “hot alphas” at the bars and campus, and then settle down later with a “nice guy” after they’ve gone through all that, but also castigate guys who complain they cant get a date or even sex (in an age where females I PERSONALLY KNOW actively seek casual sex partners or “fuck buddies”) sounds more like entitlement. In fact, it sounds like a complete role reversal of male-female sexual dynamics. Wasnt’t it the guy who “sowed his oats” and then settled down, and now its the women?

    • Bill says:

      Women want Alpha males, thugs (including those who have served time) and bad boys. These guys give women the “tingles.” Decent guys get treated like trash. I say let the women have the bad boys. Why chase them at all? You will end up alone in the end.If you don’t chase these women you will not have wasted your time and money.Guys need to see women as they really are. Don’t hate them , just walk away. If you are a decent guy, it is easy to walk away. You know why? Women don’t want you anyway. The only thing you are walking away from is rejection and bad treatment. I don’t want to be around people who treat me badly.

  11. MrJohnny says:

    “That’s what the essays in this book do. They encourage you to say yes to yourself, yes to your desires, and yes to the idea that you have a right to a joyful sex life..”

    and in the name of equality, if they deserve that, shouldn’t men also?

  12. philoshopher_stone says:

    In all of this discussion on feminist logic, it appears that most feminist women are simply too corrupt and hypocritical to address the problem of rejected nice guys honestly! For better worse, these women lie even to themselves!

    • Bill says:

      Women want Alpha males, thugs (including those who have served time) and bad boys. Period. The sooner the decent guys wake up the better. See women for the way they really are, and walk away. If you want a loyal and loving companion, adopt a cat or a dog from a shelter or a rescue group. They will love you until the day they die.

    • Bill says:

      I wonder how many nice guys are left. They must be as rare as Powerball winners. Unless a guy has been living under a rock he knows there is no point in being nice to a woman. I learned that at the age of 16. Women are hating nice guys but you are only talking about a handful of men. Maybe women have re-categorized anyone who is NOT an Alpha male, thug or bad boy as a “Nice Guy”

  13. Craig Knapp says:

    Sex is not something a woman has, it is something that two people “make” together.

    The feminist and modern view of sex is skewed from the perspective of the woman. Why are women not encouraged top speak inn terms of enjoying sex, of pursuing mutual orgams, of enjoying sex.

    Why do we say “he got lucky”?, perhaps “she got lucky” should be part of the discussion.

    Want to see a woman go crazy? When she starts complaning about her friends, family, co-workers, boss, etc., and expects you to listen to her tell her this….”I really had a rough day today at work, lunch was lousy, the car ran rough on the way home, and though I know you would like me to listen to you vent 2-3 times per day, I am really only interested in it about once a month, therefore, I will not take the time to listen and be supportive today, perhaps we can compromise since we are mis-matched in this area and I can listen and be supportive once a week”. If you cannot immediately realize that this is how women with a low libido sound to men with a high libido, please skip to the next post because you are clueless as to what I am saying.

    Craig Knapp

    • caprizchka says:

      I don’t think that whining is necessarily indicative of a low libido–often quite the contrary. Whereas men may be, generally speaking, more “action-oriented” than women at least in youth, and one of those actions (particularly in youth) may be sexual, while women may require more “comfort level” (particularly when fertile) than men for their disproportionate reproductive cost (as described by Karen Straughan), the social pressure for “innocence” as a commodity puts downward pressure on women’s libido.

      That “innocence” commodity is on a social (female-peer enforced), religious, and evolutionary basis–what man wants to invest time and resources in the possible offspring that might not even be his in a woman who may be “promiscuous” if her standards for having sex are lower than other women in her social class? Therefore, every time a young woman has sex she is reducing her “innocence” commodity that may result in real dollars and cents loss in terms of hypergamy. Rape is a double-whammy in that it results in loss of innocence *and* reduction (hopefully temporary) in sex drive in most.

      Presumably, in marriage, a husband is able to persuade a wife to discard her “innocence” commodity in favor of complete sexual availability. However, that dynamic only applies if such a man does not require “innocence” in order to achieve arousal (not uncommon). There are plenty of couples where the sexual desire dynamic completely reverses with the wife being now extremely enthusiastic and the husband being less so. That would be a case of the husband refusing to discard the value of the “innocence” commodity. In some societies, such a dilemma results in polygamy–a new crop of “innocence” increases his sex drive (and makes him feel “youthful” again).

      Whereas the reward to a woman who has a high sex drive and commits to one man is dubious. More than likely, his sex drive will decrease with age whereas hers is likely to increase. This is a recipe for polyandry of some sort–whether official or not.

      It would seem to me that a woman desiring to remain monogamous would have the incentive to suppress her own sex drive. Such may be the motivation of those women and girls who actually choose circumcision as an economic strategy that results in their future husbands being less likely to spend their resources in the pursuit of fresh meat. If men truly want highly sexual women in their lives (other than on a purely temporary or transactional basis) they ought to come up with ways to produce “tribal” sexual orders whereby everyone gets multiple partners and opportunities for both “innocence” and “experience”.

  14. Bill says:

    I gave up on women at the age of 30 after a bad breakup.I came to the conclusion that I would never have a girlfriend or wife and accepted that fact. I didn’t resent women, I simply accepted the fact that they did not find me attractive. Then I felt a great feeling of peace. Like most guys I had been obsessed with women since my teen years. Pursuing them was like a second job and it was exhausting. It is wonderful to opt out of chasing women. You don’t have to project “confidence” and you don’t care what they think of you. Then a strange thing happened. I started getting a lot of female attention and started getting dates. When I cared about women, I couldn’t buy a date for a thousand bucks. When I wrote off women they were interested in me. I am not lying to you. Since I was no longer chasing women I had time to obtain my MBA and focus on my career and moved up to an extremely secure, high paying job. In am married now (my higher status was the cause of it). The decision to stop pursuing women was the best decision I have ever made. My advice to guys who keep getting rejected is this: Stop chasing women. Focus on furthering your education and your career. By doing this you will acheive a tangible return. You may find someone, you may not. But you are not finding anyone now and you are wasting valuable time.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Interesting perspective, Bill. I’m glad it worked.

      • Bill says:

        Thanks. I wanted to add one big difference I noticed between Nice Guys and Bad Boys. Nice Guys are looking for love. Bad Boys are looking for sex. Guess who wins? I don’t need to tell you the answer.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Hmm, not sure I can agree. Nice Guys want sex too. But I think many are convinced it’s not nice to only want sex from a woman, and she won’t like that. And others have this scarcity mentality, so they maybe feel they have to offer their heart, to get anything at all (and they hold onto almost any girl who has sex with them, just to avoid being sexually deprived). What do you think?

      • Bill says:

        Well, I think you are right. The Nice Guy being human wants sex also. I have not dated for 23 years so I am out of touch. On a positive note we booked Frequent Flyer tickets for Kauai for next September. One of our favorite vacations spots.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Ah, I hope you have fun 🙂

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s