-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Forgive me if I take the last part as a personal attack, something I've been chastized about on more than one occasion. But what the hell, she's a moderator so who the **** am I to say anything about it
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nice Guy Syndrome and Misandry
- Thread starter CynthiaCypher
- Start date
Forgive me if I take the last part as a personal attack, something I've been chastized about on more than one occasion. But what the hell, she's a moderator so who the **** am I to say anything about it
If you are implying she would use her position as moderator to deal unfairly with you, now it's you who don't know her. Besides which, I don't think she was attacking you. Perhaps you're reading more into her statement than was there.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
I'm not just implying anything. I'm outright saying that I'd be chastised for her little comment about the dangers of relationships with guys like me yet I'm willing to bet that she will get away with it.
Last edited:
What comment are you referring to?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Sharp and pokey rather than blunt I assume.
Sure thing... but I'll not drink the yucky stuff. I'll stick to rum. :beach:
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
And here you have a great example of "nice guy syndrome" in action!
Couldn't have asked for better. :bow:
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
What are you kidding me? I'm trying to "stick it to the man" here, don't be calling me a coward
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
No, you are implying that the irrational woman can't handle power so naturally she would use it to punish the poor defenseless man. Clearly she can't be professional. :tsk:What are you kidding me? I'm trying to "stick it to the man" here, don't be calling me a coward
Not to mention the fact that rather than listen to her opinion you outright dismissed it. Your use of the terms "allowing the woman to do things" in a discussion about relationships is problematic at best. Especially in a discussion on something like "nice guy syndrome".
wa:do
Gentoo
The Feisty Penguin
I would completely resent it if I was "allowed" to make decisions by my "nice guy" as if he has the final word in our relationship. Absolutely not. A relationship is a partnership, with neither having more overall power than the other.. I simply could not be with someone as patronizing as that... All that said, I LOVE getting into fun "power plays" with my "nice guy"...
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
"Nice guys" don't say anything at all when they feel they've been wronged. They just nod their heads and apologize for something they deep down feel they didn't do. Then they just suppress that rage and let it fester in their hearts for the rest of their lives or one day snap and by opening fire in a mall
Last edited:
Gentoo
The Feisty Penguin
That's not a "nice guy".. that's a "whipped guy". A "nice guy" does not let someone else walk all over him like a door mat, he has the intelligence to convey his feelings in a non-aggressive way.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Oh, dear. Nice guy syndrome?
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
I qualified all of my statements with "If you..." You seem to have missed that.
Is reading for comprehension a violation of internet discussions?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Except to all their friends and all over the internet. :sarcastic
"Nice guys" tend to whine about how mean those girls are to them and how dare they.
Without ever pausing to consider that:
1) they aren't really "nice" guys at all
2) the problem isn't with the girls it's with them
wa:do
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Your "qualifying statement" in this instance is like some minute technicality buried on the fifth page of a contract in print so small you'd need a microscope to read it.
I almost never have inclinations or a desire to take charge in any kind of relationship, neither am i particularly attracted to people (or at least that attribute in people), who like to be taken charge of.
I don't view that as a healthy relationship, and in fact start feeling worried if i think that this is happening in any relationship i'm a part of. I'm uncomfortable with it if its a constant thing. That is, if i'm always in charge.
In my relationships with others, i'm only genuinely interested in relationships where both sides provide on a close pattern to each other, on all or almost all aspects. And when i imagine in particular what i'd like about a romantic relationship (thats all the experience i got in this regard i'm afraid; fantasies), i imagine one where i can whenever i need to completely let myself go to my partner (which is something i need often) without worrying about appearing too weak, submissive or things along those lines. Put differently, one where i can get to be 'contained' when i need to, in every sense of the word.
And i would (and do in other kinds of relationships) do the same for my partner. Other kinds of 'partner ships' work in that each partner have some aspect that the other is lacking, and in that sense they complete each other. Which is fine. The only problem in regards to the 'in charge' part is that it sort of nullifies that partner ship in my view, the term of partnership i mean. If one side is always in charge. In other factors however it doesn't have to be so closely balanced or even present in both the people involved (despite my preference being different than this).
Basically, what i'm trying to say is that i don't see how anyone can say whats attractive and whats not about a man, and whether or not 'nice guys' (under whatever definition) are attractive, when people need all sorts of different things and prefer different attributes than each other, and different from the common stereotypes of both what men are supposed to be and what women supposedly like in them.
This includes the kind of nice guy that is getting referred to in all sorts of negative ways here (understandably). People who don't stand up for themselves very often. That is in my view a negative attribute, but that doesn't mean that its necessarily unattractive. To all people i mean.
I don't view that as a healthy relationship, and in fact start feeling worried if i think that this is happening in any relationship i'm a part of. I'm uncomfortable with it if its a constant thing. That is, if i'm always in charge.
In my relationships with others, i'm only genuinely interested in relationships where both sides provide on a close pattern to each other, on all or almost all aspects. And when i imagine in particular what i'd like about a romantic relationship (thats all the experience i got in this regard i'm afraid; fantasies
), i imagine one where i can whenever i need to completely let myself go to my partner (which is something i need often) without worrying about appearing too weak, submissive or things along those lines. Put differently, one where i can get to be 'contained' when i need to, in every sense of the word. And i would (and do in other kinds of relationships) do the same for my partner. Other kinds of 'partner ships' work in that each partner have some aspect that the other is lacking, and in that sense they complete each other. Which is fine. The only problem in regards to the 'in charge' part is that it sort of nullifies that partner ship in my view, the term of partnership i mean. If one side is always in charge. In other factors however it doesn't have to be so closely balanced or even present in both the people involved (despite my preference being different than this).
Basically, what i'm trying to say is that i don't see how anyone can say whats attractive and whats not about a man, and whether or not 'nice guys' (under whatever definition) are attractive, when people need all sorts of different things and prefer different attributes than each other, and different from the common stereotypes of both what men are supposed to be and what women supposedly like in them.
This includes the kind of nice guy that is getting referred to in all sorts of negative ways here (understandably). People who don't stand up for themselves very often. That is in my view a negative attribute, but that doesn't mean that its necessarily unattractive. To all people i mean.
Last edited:
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
My - several - qualifying statements were plain in three very short paragraphs. I encourage you to re-read them a few times. Sometimes when we initially get offended at what we think are insults can be understood more accurately when we go back and read the comments carefully.
That you immediately took offense is a little ironic in this thread.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
I almost never have inclinations or a desire to take charge in any kind of relationship, neither am i particularly attracted to people (or at least that attribute in people), who like to be taken charge of.
I don't view that as a healthy relationship, and in fact start feeling worried if i think that this is happening in any relationship i'm a part of. I'm uncomfortable with it if its a constant thing. That is, if i'm always in charge.
In my relationships with others, i'm only genuinely interested in relationships where both sides provide on a close pattern to each other, on all or almost all aspects. And when i imagine in particular what i'd like about a romantic relationship (thats all the experience i got in this regard so far i'm afraid; fantasies
And i would (and do in other kinds of relationships) do the same for my partner. Other kinds of 'partner ships' work in that each partner have some aspect that the other is lacking, and in that sense they complete each other. Which is fine. The only problem in regards to the 'in charge' part is that it sort of nullifies that partner ship in my view, the term of partnership i mean. If one side is always in charge. In other factors however it doesn't have to be so closely balanced or even present in both the people involved (despite my preference being different than this).
Basically, what i'm trying to say is that i don't see how anyone can say whats attractive and whats not about a man, and whether or not 'nice guys' (under whatever definition) are attractive, when people need all sorts of different things and prefer different attributes than each other, and different from the common stereotypes of both what men are supposed to be and what women supposedly like in them.
This includes the kind of nice guy that is getting referred to in all sorts of negative ways here (understandably). People who don't stand up for themselves very often. That is in my view a negative attribute, but that doesn't mean that its necessarily unattractive. To all people i mean.
You're a good example of someone I admire for the "nice guy" traits I listed - intelligent, unassuming, guileless, sweet. I do adore you, Badran.