Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Nice Guy Syndrome
This topic contains 68 replies, has 25 voices, and was last updated by 
Anonymous 1 year, 9 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
If they say that you are a ‘nice guy’, this is not a good sign. It means that you are seen as potential prey.
Better to be a porcupine. You’re not bothering anyone else, and no-one had better bother you.
Nice guys ain’t actually nice. They are people pleasers so they get their needs met. Usually in the form of approval.
I spent many years seeking the approval of others. While I think I’m still a pretty nice and funny guy, I do it because that is who I am, not what I think others expect of me. Now, I spend time making sure that there is something in the equation for me. It doesn’t ever have to be 100% about me, but there should be some return on the investment.
I see a lot of people attacking me in this thread, as if I’m asking from a personal point of view. I’m not.
Could have fooled me. You certainly presented your question as a personal opinion and you continue to do so in the post I’m quoting.
Why do feminists and women and these two assholes here think a relationship should operate under different rules than any other investment?
Because, as I already explained to you, life is not a series of business transactions and should not be treated as a series of business transactions.
I mean, is it as simple as trying to use logic on illogical people?
You’re not being logical because you’re following your premise to it’s logical conclusions. Narwhal tried to explain that to you in his post but you failed to comprehend his point just like you failed to comprehend mine.
For the sake of the example, let’s accept your contention that “investing” in a relationship guarantees a certain “return”. You’re looking at it only from the male perspective in that a man providing resources, time, and attention should be guaranteed certain returns like sex, devotion, and whatnot. What you need to do is flip the script, if you’re even able to think in that matter.
At the very least, a woman will be “investing” time and attention in the relationship too. What should she then expect as a “return”? Maybe some sort of maintenance or payoff when the relationship ends? And shouldn’t the “return” increase in proportion to the length of the relationship? She “invested” too, so it’s only fair that she receive a “return”.
Congratulations, Warlocc. Your sperg-like “logic” just made an argument for alimony.
Do you have some glimmer of understanding now?
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
Little new here Warlocc……to be calling out other, very respected, members.
Might want to step a bit lighter.
Perhaps- I am newish here. I’ll take any feedback and tips offered.
When someone just slings insults though, it doesn’t matter to me how long you’ve been around, I’ll figure you’re just a douchebag.
Sorry.That said, there have also been some good replies too.
Perhaps- I am newish here. I’ll take any feedback and tips offered.
No worries brother! I myself have triggered another brother, on here some time ago, for just my point of view. No anger towards him. You will come across different personalities. At the end of the day, I try my very best to listen to ALL brothers, regardless of this.
Putting our differences aside in the name of suicide prevention.
A tranquil mind is neither happy nor sad, it is uninfluenced by external conditions.
I see a lot of people attacking me in this thread, as if I’m asking from a personal point of view. I’m not.
Could have fooled me. You certainly presented your question as a personal opinion and you continue to do so in the post I’m quoting.
Why do feminists and women and these two assholes here think a relationship should operate under different rules than any other investment?
Because, as I already explained to you, life is not a series of business transactions and should not be treated as a series of business transactions.
I mean, is it as simple as trying to use logic on illogical people?
You’re not being logical because you’re following your premise to it’s logical conclusions. Narwhal tried to explain that to you in his post but you failed to comprehend his point just like you failed to comprehend mine.
For the sake of the example, let’s accept your contention that “investing” in a relationship guarantees a certain “return”. You’re looking at it only from the male perspective in that a man providing resources, time, and attention should be guaranteed certain returns like sex, devotion, and whatnot. What you need to do is flip the script, if you’re even able to think in that matter.
At the very least, a woman will be “investing” time and attention in the relationship too. What should she then expect as a “return”? Maybe some sort of maintenance or payoff when the relationship ends? And shouldn’t the “return” increase in proportion to the length of the relationship? She “invested” too, so it’s only fair that she receive a “return”.
Congratulations, Warlocc. Your sperg-like “logic” just made an argument for alimony.
Do you have some glimmer of understanding now?
For the sake of argument, I’m approaching this from the perspective that the woman is honest and loyal, even though we know better. We’re getting into the head of a blue piller here, in a sense.
She’s investing her time and devotion as well, and her return is the things that the man is investing. One person’s return is the other one’s investment, if the situation were fair and logical, I’d think?Alimony doesn’t make sense at all- you don’t divorce if you want to live with the benefits of the relationship. If you’re divorcing, clearly you don’t want those things anymore.
I’ll figure you’re just a douchebag.
It doesn’t matter what you figure as long as you start to think.
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
Alimony doesn’t make sense at all- you don’t divorce if you want to live with the benefits of the relationship. If you’re divorcing, clearly you don’t want those things anymore.
Yup, it does not make sense to us men. To women it is otherwise.
A woman who feels that she can, and wants to do better, as per her Sexual Market Value (SMV), will “monkey branch” up to a man who can provide such resources. If she cannot scope out a man who is willing to provide her with better resources than her current partner, then obviously she will stay put until such an opportunity arises.
A tranquil mind is neither happy nor sad, it is uninfluenced by external conditions.
Perhaps- I am newish here. I’ll take any feedback and tips offered.
No worries brother! I myself have triggered another brother, on here some time ago, for just my point of view. No anger towards him. You will come across different personalities. At the end of the day, I try my very best to listen to ALL brothers, regardless of this.
Putting our differences aside in the name of suicide prevention.
Yeah, we all signed up here for the same reasons.
I have no anger either- I only give what I get, and I just happen to like a good debate from time to time, and I do enjoy playing devil’s advocate.Nice guys ain’t actually nice. They are people pleasers so they get their needs met. Usually in the form of approval.
I spent many years seeking the approval of others. While I think I’m still a pretty nice and funny guy, I do it because that is who I am, not what I think others expect of me. Now, I spend time making sure that there is something in the equation for me. It doesn’t ever have to be 100% about me, but there should be some return on the investment.
I understand BoB. There is a difference between good guy and nice guy.
Be a good guy. The qualities of fairness, justice, courage etc. Meet your own needs.
I learned that nice carries an agenda.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape, finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Alimony doesn’t make sense at all- you don’t divorce if you want to live with the benefits of the relationship. If you’re divorcing, clearly you don’t want those things anymore.
Yup, it does not make sense to us men. To women it is otherwise.
A woman who feels that she can, and wants to do better, as per her Sexual Market Value (SMV), will “monkey branch” up to a man who can provide such resources. If she cannot scope out a man who is willing to provide her with better resources than her current partner, then obviously she will stay put until such an opportunity arises.
Yeah, that’s one thing where I can’t even try to see their point of view.
Little new here Warlocc……to be calling out other, very respected, members.
Might want to step a bit lighter.
Perhaps- I am newish here. I’ll take any feedback and tips offered.
When someone just slings insults though, it doesn’t matter to me how long you’ve been around, I’ll figure you’re just a douchebag.
Sorry.That said, there have also been some good replies too.
The beauty of this place and feedback like that Old Bill gave is that it is meditative and certainly straightens out our thoughts.
Take all constructive criticism graciously.
Like a student under tutelage.Masters are not always right. But as a rule they tend to be.
This place can generate great debate and Old Bill is a Master.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape, finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
I understand BoB. There is a difference between good guy and nice guy.
Agreed. This is a distinction worth making, Doc! I resolve to be continue to be good.
I’ll figure you’re just a douchebag.
It doesn’t matter what you figure as long as you start to think.
Precisely.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape, finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Alimony doesn’t make sense at all- you don’t divorce if you want to live with the benefits of the relationship. If you’re divorcing, clearly you don’t want those things anymore.
Again, your premises are flawed.
First, it takes two to marry, but only one to divorce.
Second, and again for the sake of argument, let’s accept your “The Woman is Honest and Loyal” premise as a given. She invests in a marriage, the “transaction”, and then her husband files for divorce, breaking the “transaction”. Following your line of “reasoning”, she’s now owed a “return” on the “investment” she was making to the “transaction” between herself and her husband. What’s more, because breaking that “transaction” was not her choice, she is “owed” not only a “return” but also “damages” from the party breaking the “transaction”.
Congratulations, Warlocc, you just made an argument for alimony again.
No matter how you spin it, if you argue that “returns” are “owed” for “investments” in relationships, you end up arguing for alimony, palimony, and all the rest.
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
I understand BoB. There is a difference between good guy and nice guy.
Agreed. This is a distinction worth making, Doc! I resolve to be continue to be good.
But primarily good to yourself or you won’t be much good for the few who deserve your goodness. 👍
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape, finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Alimony doesn’t make sense at all- you don’t divorce if you want to live with the benefits of the relationship. If you’re divorcing, clearly you don’t want those things anymore.
Again, your premises are flawed.
First, it takes two to marry, but only one to divorce.
Second, and again for the sake of argument, let’s accept your “The Woman is Honest and Loyal” premise as a given. She invests in a marriage, the “transaction”, and then her husband files for divorce, breaking the “transaction”. Following your line of “reasoning”, she’s now owed a “return” on the “investment” she was making to the “transaction” between herself and her husband. What’s more, because breaking that “transaction” was not her choice, she is “owed” not only a “return” but also “damages” from the party breaking the “transaction”.
Congratulations, Warlocc, you just made an argument for alimony again.
No matter how you spin it, if you argue that “returns” are “owed” for “investments” in relationships, you end up arguing for alimony, palimony, and all the rest.
Okay, I’m running with you on this. The question then becomes why should the returns continue after the investments aren’t coming in anymore? On either side? It shouldn’t be different than a subscription based service, should it?
Okay, I’m running with you on this.
No, you’re not because you’re still failing to understand my point. I’ve been using the results of your own “logic” to illustrate how illogical it actually is.
The question then becomes why should the returns continue after the investments aren’t coming in anymore?
Following your own flawed premise, only one party has decided that the investments-returns transaction has stopped. Therefore the second part shouldn’t be punished for the choice made by the first.
In business transactions – which you’re arguing all human interactions should be reduced to – when one party decides to either end or break the contract, there are penalties written into the contract which the party wanting out must pay.
On either side? It shouldn’t be different than a subscription based service, should it?
So marriage is prostitution? He puts in, she puts out, and whenever either party decides to stop it’s over?
Sorry, life isn’t a Sims game.
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
See, that’s what I’m saying.
Why do feminists and women and these two assholes here think a relationship should operate under different rules than any other investment?Because she never agreed to provide whatever service you think you’re buying. Even if you’re going to argue that it’s some sort of implied transaction, dinner = BJ, when have women ever agreed to those terms?
What your saying is that if you go to a car dealer and a sales guy gives you a test drive, free coffee, and spends an hour telling you how great the car is, then you are now obligated to buy a car from him. He put in the time and effort right? The sales guy may have improved his odds of making a sale tremendously, but it still does not put an obligation on the buyer. I know he put in the effort and I know what he wants, but I don’t want the car.
You put in time, you put in money, you put in material resources. Those of us that know better know that you’re just p~~~ing it away when you do that with a woman,
Yes, for the most part, I agree.
but it still doesn’t make sense to me.
I can’t understand how it could possibly not make sense.
I mean, is it as simple as trying to use logic on illogical people?
No. it could be a semantics though. If you’re implying that putting time and effort should increase your odds of ‘making a sale’, then I agree. If the sale doesn’t happen though, you don’t blame the customer. You learn from the experience, change your strategy, read customers better, or just get out of the sales business.
Ok. Then do it.
Alimony doesn’t make sense at all- you don’t divorce if you want to live with the benefits of the relationship. If you’re divorcing, clearly you don’t want those things anymore.
Yup, it does not make sense to us men. To women it is otherwise.
A woman who feels that she can, and wants to do better, as per her Sexual Market Value (SMV), will “monkey branch” up to a man who can provide such resources. If she cannot scope out a man who is willing to provide her with better resources than her current partner, then obviously she will stay put until such an opportunity arises.
Women are as loyal as whatever options they think they have.
(I caveated it, because some women who appear loyal may simply not realize they have options to monkey-branch and would be disloyal otherwise)
All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
