Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    re .0
    
    Spot on, Doctah.  You've pinpointed one of the paradoxes of
    contemporary society.
    
    I had a friend in Oz who suffered from this.  He's a nice bloke.  But
    he was getting more than a little fed up with women who wanted to 'just
    be friends'.  He referred to it as the 'little brother syndrome'.
    
    On the other hand, my younger brother has considerably more success
    with women than me.  Mention being a 'nice guy' and he'll laugh in your
    face.  He says you have to treat them like <expletive deleted>.
    
    I'm now waiting for the women to leap in and indignantly declaim how
    untrue this is, but everything you said ties in exactly with my
    experiences.

	Well, speaking from the perspective of a nice woman -
	the excitement about "bad boys" is adrenalin, which can be
	just as addictive as any other chemical substance. (Just as the 
	excitement about "bad girls" is adrenalin.) 

	Getting involved in an addictive relationship isn't worth it.
	That's not to say they're not attractive, though. (IMO)

	On the other hand, the excitement about nice men is sincerity, 
	honesty, commitment, caring, concern...I could go on and on. 

	I don't think it's necessarily true that niceness is the "kiss
	of death, romance wise." Nice people have romances, lust after
	each other, and stir the hearts and libidoes of each other.

	If I had an acquaintance who only used me for solace/comfort - 
	emphasis on "used" - I wouldn't consider that person a friend. 
	I'd consider that a one-way relationship, and frankly I'd limit
	my contact with that person, be it man or woman.

	Lynn

    Doctah,
    
    Didn't you know there was a sign reading "Confide in me -- I don't have
    enough problems of my own" on your forehead?
    
    8-)
    
    Daniel

    Maybe a solution is to cultivate danger and excitement without losing
    the niceness.  Prove that you can be nice without being bland.  Take up
    hobbies like bungy jumping, race car driving, or high stakes gambling. 
    Make amateur porno movies in your home.  That sort of thing. 
    :-)
    
    -- Mike

>    Maybe a solution is to cultivate danger and excitement without losing
>    the niceness.

 I thought that might do the trick. It doesn't get the desired results, though.
They just worry about you, like a little brother playing with firecrackers...

    	Good note.  Someone said that this is one of the biggest paradoxes
    in society.  That's right.  The guys who seem to be what women keep
    pushing for (supportive, sensitive, etc.etc.etc) are the ones who they
    avoid, romantically, like the plague.  What I've heard women say is
    "Oh, he's a guy you marry not one you'd like to sleep with."  Gee I 
    wonder then why so many women are so demanding in that they demand that
    men be both the 'good' and 'bad' guy in one.  It just ain't possible
    ladies.  Luckily, I'm married and don't have to worry about this now!!
    
    
    Tom

    I can't deny that the phenomenon exists. How widespread it is, I'm not
    sure; observers tend to notice when the women they're interested in
    seem to prefer the "bad guys", but they may not notice what all the
    women they're *not* interested in prefer. So, is the problem that most
    women want Mr. Danger instead of Mr. Nice, or that Mr. Nice has a habit
    of falling only for women who don't want _him_? [Urk - I may have
    stumbled into the "hard to get" quagmire. If it's true that being seen
    as unattainable tends to make one appear more attractive, then the
    "Danger Men/Women" of the world will continue to be more sought-after
    than the nice folks...]

    (btw, "nice" isn't necessarily an adjective of quality for women,
    either. Does "she's such a nice woman" or "..she has such a nice
    personality..." cause anybody's heart to pound lasciviously? And
    perhaps it's understandable; during my childhood years, whenever Mom
    said "Don't do that, it isn't nice," or "Be _nice_ to your little
    sister, now," it seemed to mean "quit doing whatever's fun and be
    long-suffering and bored instead." If there were a way to associate
    "nice" with "fun" in childhood, maybe we <relatively> nice people
    would have an easier time of it romance-wise!)
    
    -b

    
    
    Mark,
    
     I cannot explain the nice guy syndrome, I have always been the bad
    guy. My experiences have lead me to believe that nice guys finish last
    because they are either not meeting some physical appearance
    standard,or even if they do they are to much like Daddy?? I am sure
    there are far more possibilities than I can imagine ..All in know is
    when I used to go to parties the nice guys would always help to clean
    up, and the bad guys would always score?? This is of course in my
    past before I began to have a heart..
    
    David

    Speaking from *my* perspective, being a nice guy makes me feel good
    about myself.  Being a "bad" guy has left me afterward feeling like
    slime.  I think scoring per se is tremendously dehumanizing.  Although
    I won't deny that I like the physical part of my life a whole lot, I
    still find that in the long run a relationship - even as friends - is
    more valuable than any number of notches in my figurative gun handle
    could be.
    
    -dick

    	re. 7
    	That's a good observation.  It could just be a perception thing.
    Selective perception, illusory correlation and all that.  And also
    regarding the reply a couple of replies back about physical appearance,
    I don't think that that is a big factor in the 'syndrome'.  I've known
    guys that women find attrative but because they're not 'dangerous' (like
    married or doesn't give them the time of day) they have trouble too.
    Like I say, I'm married so it can be overcome!!  I don't think it's one
    of the big problems in society either, I just think it's a little
    strange the way women seem to want things both ways some times.  Hell,
    greater minds than mine haven't had any better luck figuring women out,
    so I an't hope to!!!!  Viva la differance!!
    
    Tom

    One possible solution to the "nice guy syndrome" is to remind the lady
    in question that nice guys finish last.
    
    Mike

    How true that is.  Try on the caring sharing synsytyve stuff and you'll
    most likely end up with a brainless Aquarian who thinks sex would only
    spoil things and would you like some more lentil soup, if you end up
    with anyone at all.
    
    Come to think of it, Bly talked about this.  What the Doctah calls nice
    guys Bly calls soft men.  When women start wondering where all the real
    men have gone he reckons they're all over there being nice, just like
    the wymyns said they wanted.

    Yep.  Just shows to go ya that them wimmins don't know what they want.

    
    
    > I think scoring is tremendously dehumanizing
    
     True.. I eventually began to feel an emptiness inside and grew to
    realize the shallowness of this behavior. As I look back I realized
    that it was the loneliest(sp) time of my love.. I did not love, I
    conquered, and it was a lonely victory 
    
    David

>    most likely end up with a brainless Aquarian who thinks sex would only
>    spoil things and would you like some more lentil soup, if you end up
    
    But sex _does_ spoil lentil soup.
    
    Ray

    re .0, don't worry, Mark, I'm sure there have been women who thought
    you were a bastard.
    
    Lorna
    

    Besides -b's very good points, I'd like to add that many guys I know
    who consider themselves "nice" don't seem particularly so to me.  And
    some of them seem downright arrogant, spoiled, clingy, fecklessly
    horny, and generally like someone you might be able to handle as a
    friend as long as they're kept at arm's length.
    
    Ray

    RE: .17  Ray Davis
    
    > Besides -b's very salient points, I'd like to add that many guys I know
    > who consider themselves "nice" don't seem particularly so to me.  And
    > some of them seem downright arrogant, spoiled, clingy, fecklessly
    > horny, and generally like someone you might be able to handle as a
    > friend as long as they're kept at arm's length.
    
    I know what you mean.  (I think Ann Landers did a column about this
    once.  The 'nice guy' who complained about the 'nice guy' syndrome
    didn't sound all that nice to her either.  It was something on the
    order of [paraphrased] 'Hey, what is the problem with these bitches
    who don't like me?  I guess I'm just too nice a person and these
    women are such idiots that they prefer jerks when they could have ME
    instead.  Well, they deserve to be treated like sh*t.')
    
    I think societal influences on men and women sometimes have the effect
    (in romance) of men wondering what's wrong with the *women* who don't
    like them, while women wonder what's wrong with *themselves* when some
    men don't like them.

> Where do women run after "he" doesn't call? To the nice guy friend. After he 
>cheats on her, she comes running to the nice guy friend. And we listen. And
>offer advice which is never followed. But that's ok, because the next time
>he hurts her she'll be back, looking for more emotional support. I sometimes 

	From my experience listening to and observing men, it seems to me
	that women have no monopoly on this type of stupidity (i.e. sticking
	with someone who treats them badly).  

	Di

    Re: .0
    
    Interesting topic.  Hits right home for me, it does...
    
>  Isn't it funny the way we cringe when we hear a woman describe us as being 
> "nice"? It's the proverbial kiss of death, romance wise. I think that the nice
> really means "safe, unexciting, emotionally supportive, platonic." As in "let's
> just be friends."

    I've often been called a "nice guy."  Long ago, I used to take that 
    as a compliment, now I'm not so sure.  Like you, I'm starting to believe
    it's a curse.
    
    Starting relationships have always been tough for me anyway, but now 
    I'm starting to believe that "niceness" has something to do 
    with it.  I've tried to maintain the belief that women _are_ 
    interested in "nice guys", so I try to be nice.  It makes lots
    of sense to me that the attributes of nice guys (patient,
    safe, emotionally supportive, etc. from .0) would be temendous 
    assets in long-term relationships.  It's tough to watch "bad" 
    guys having all the fun, while I sit on the sidelines wondering 
    why nobody's interested in me.
    
    I too refuse to compromise my principles and become "bad" -- I wouldn't
    be happy with myself that way, and it goes totally against the
    way I was taught.  It's true about finishing last -- I'm 28
    and have only been in one relationship, and that one lasted only
    a few months.  Just being nice does _not_ attract women.
    
    So, can we be nice and exciting, but not bad?  Is there some 
    combination of attributes that will make nice guys attractive to 
    women, without giving up the credo of niceness that we live by?
    
>  If being a bastard didn't go entirely against my grain, I think I'd start a
> group for recovering nice guys. I was brought up to be nice. To care. To listen.
> To treat women "properly." To be a safe friend. The indoctrination was hugely
> successful. Except I hate to finish last...

    "Recovering" from being nice maybe isn't the right approach -- it 
    would be far better to convince women that nice guys are worth 
    giving a chance, wouldn't it? :-) :-)
    
    /Mitch.
    
    

>    I think societal influences on men and women sometimes have the effect
>    (in romance) of men wondering what's wrong with the *women* who don't
>    like them, while women wonder what's wrong with *themselves* when some
>    men don't like them.
    
    Somewhat, maybe...  Possibly due to the competition aspect? 
    
    But, while not putting their distaste / envy in terms of "while I'm
    such a nice guy", I _have_ heard women complain about how many men are
    gathered around an "obviously manipulative airhead bitch".  I think I
    detect some similarities in motive there.  
    
    The difference may just be due to different techniques of putting
    someone off.  Women may be more likely to say "You're such a good friend
    and such a nice person but..." than men are.
    
    Ray

    The problem isn't with "nice guys" ... it's with all the emotional
    baggage that nice guys usually carry with them.
    
    Also, "he's a nice guy" is sometimes a way of saying "he's a real
    toad" without actually saying it.

    �So, can we be nice and exciting, but not bad?  Is there some 
    �combination of attributes that will make nice guys attractive to 
    �women, without giving up the credo of niceness that we live by?
    
    IMHO, yes, men can be "nice and exciting".
    
    The guy that I am involved with is a perfect example of this, to me, at
    least.  He is sensitive, charming, sexy, responsibile, intelligent,
    witty, caring, polite, wonderful sense of humor, and all of
    that I find EXCITING and stimulating.  (Heck, what can a gal say when
    this guy had a dozen roses delivered to her at work, hm? :-)
    
    Lorna mentioned earlier that she was sure some women found the Doctah
    to be a "bastard"...what that is saying is that there are women
    out there that will find each guy *exciting* in his own right.  
    
    Thankfully, no one had found my guy before I did!  :-)
    
    Shilah                                 
    

    I have been called a nice guy on occasion, but I fight that appelation
    tooth and nail, cuz I know that coming from a woman, she is really
    saying she wouldn't give me the time of day, romantically speaking.
    
    Mike

  >>  tooth and nail, cuz I know that coming from a woman, she is really
  >>  saying she wouldn't give me the time of day, romantically speaking.

	Bosh.

	Diane

    You mean, I still have a chance? :-)
    
    Mike

    Most definitions herein of "exciting" seem to center around the man
    being a jerk and treating the woman badly. I can't imagine having much
    in common with a woman who felt like that.  But if that's what you
    *think* desirable women want, then whether you consider yourself 
    "exciting" or "nice", you will no doubt spend a lot of time around 
    such women -- as lovers, or as little brothers, to your joy or sorrow.
    
    On the other hand, if you think "nice" and "exciting" are not mutually
    exclusive, you'll find plenty of woman that fit the bill. 
    
    Kit

    I think the problem stated in .0 starts when girls are in their young
    teens. They want the rebel. Maybe to rebel against their parents, maybe
    to add some excitement in their lives. Probably because of low self
    esteem.
    
    I am of the opinion that schools should teach (as part of sex ed
    probably) ways to build and control self esteem in all kids and
    especially young girls. Young girls (IMHO) do seem to suffer more from
    this than boys. The fact that they tend to mature and grow at that
    awkward age faster and have more tendencies towards weight problems
    only adds to the problem.
    
    Steve

  >>  You mean, I still have a chance? :-)
    
  >>  Mike

	Well, let's just say that I can't imagine your niceness being
	an issue.    8^)

	Di

    But, I think boys and men are the same way.  How many times have a seen
    boys or men mooning over some (in my opinion) manipulative, shallow,
    but goodlooking bitch??  Women like that always have plenty of men. 
    That's why so many men get burned so bad in divorces.  They marry
    shallow, manipulative bitches just because they want someone with big
    tits or nice hair.  Then, they lose everything in some horrifying
    divorce and come crying to (relatively) nice "guys" like me.  
    
    The sad fact is that shelfish, shallow, manipulative people, whether
    male or female, never seem to have a lack for dates so long as they are
    also goodlooking, dress attractively and are good dancers or good at
    bowling and have sporty cars or some other such crap.
    
    We all want to screw something out of a beer ad and then when we get
    treated like shit we wonder why we aren't dating Mother Theresa or the
    male equivalent.  So, what else is new?
    
    Lorna
    

'nice guys' and 'bad boys' analyses don't center on what to me is the
cogent point.  Mark, I recognize the guy you sketched in the basenote,
too.  At one point in my life, I had the same complaint.  And I didn't
have to change any of those values to come to a different realization
about the dating scene and interpersonal relationships, and to change 
that picture substantially.

First of all, I decided that basing my definitions of success and happiness
primarily upon the relationships I was seeking (had been lead to seek by
the invasive, manipulative media culture we endure) was a no win game.  I
am not, cannot define myself and my search for happiness in terms of other
people, the 'right' woman for me.  I had to start living for myself.  I had
to let go of the search for Ms Right and start living happily alone; doing
things that pleased me, structuring my activities to be good to myself.
It was a zen sort of thing; when I finally relaxed and started looking at
other people as just other people (instead of potential Ms Rights) than I
finally started enjoying some real friendships; started getting happy with
myself, and confident that someday I'd meet someone, but I'd sure as hell
enjoy myself meanwhile; that's when I became attractive to other people.
That's when I started getting smiles back from people in the street.  That's
when women started watching me in bars, and eventually coming over to ask me
to dance.  I was happy.  That was attractive.

I didn't have to become a bad guy.  I didn't have to lose any of the friends
who chose to confide in me; in fact, there are more such, now.  Focusing on
becoming the man I really want to be was the trick.

My two cents.

DougO

    
>>    The sad fact is that shelfish, shallow, manipulative people, whether
>>    male or female, never seem to have a lack for dates so long as they are
>>    also goodlooking, dress attractively and are good dancers or good at
>>    bowling and have sporty cars or some other such crap.

    Good at bowling?  Lorna, this is a bit over-idealistic, wouldn't you
    say?  8^)

    Otherwise, I'd have to agree with you.
    Di

    

    re .33, you know what I mean, tho, don't you?  :-)  It's that social
    thing, that makes people seem attractive, desirable & popular to others.  
    Bowling was just an example.
    
    Lorna
       

  >>  re .33, you know what I mean, tho, don't you?  :-)  It's that social

       Yes, I do.  I just thought it was quite a humorous choice. 
       
	   Her:  The guy's a dweeb.       
	   Him:  Yeah, but he can bowl up a storm.
	   Her:  Alright, I'll meet 'im.


	Di

    re: .30
    
    Ah, I see.  Actually, I am quite a bit nicer than my efforts in notes
    would suggest.  Honest!
    
    Mike

    re .35, funny.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    
    ps - incidentally, one of the best looking guys I know told me he
         belongs to a bowling league, and I thought, "well, i guess it 
         takes all kinds"  :-)   (there's nothing wrong with bowling, 
         I just happen to hate it, that's all)
    

    
    I did a lot of study on this subject a few years back in the 
   "dark ages".  I have long noted that what a woman says she wants 
    and what "flips her switch" may well be two totally different things.
    
    Now before you go dumping all over me as a "woman hater", that is
    not true.  Both genders have their fair share of screwed up people.
    Lets just say that I finally woke up to the fact that not all women 
    are "sugar and spice and everything nice".  You have to realize also
    that in the bar scene, there is likely going to be a much higher 
    ratio of this type of people.  Most of the good ones have already
    been nailed down and don't have to go "looking for love in all the
    wrong places".
    
    There seem to be several reasons for the type of behavior in .0.
    Most of it has to do with the self esteem and security of the
    female in question.  And no, I am not responsible for her self
    esteem and security.  While you are looking for Miss Honeybunch,
    she is looking for Mr. Hunk.

    One is the female "conquest" syndrome.  The "jerks" are more of
    a challenge.  It's a big ego trip when she can "get him to change
    for her" (fat chance, but that's another note), or if he treats her 
    "nice" but treats everyone else like &^$#.  The "nice guys" aren't 
    such an "accomplishment" since "anyone could have him".  "Love" for 
    these women is defined by how much he spends on her or how much he 
    gushes all over about her looks.
    
    There is the "lets be friends" thing.  That was/is always made me
    feel used and put down (sort of like a Kleenex).  My interpretation 
    of that is "you don't quite measure up to my 'standards'".  She wants 
    me for friendship and understanding and wants my affection, approval, 
    and support to massage her ego while she goes looking for "Mr. Right".
    
    Then there is the "familiar" syndrome.  What is familiar is not as
    threatening as what is unfamiliar.  This holds true even for abusive
    situations.  They know how to deal with an abusive or alcoholic
    situation, but being in a situation where they don't know what may be
    coming next is very unnerving.  How many times have I hear women wail,
    "Why do I always end up with such scum".  The answer is that is what
    she knows how to deal with, and she finds anything outside of the
    familiar uncomfortable to deal with.  I heard somewhere that people 
    tend to be attracted to people who have the same _bad_ characteristics 
    as their father, mother, brother, sister, or someone close to them
    while they were growing up.  Although this is not alway the case, I 
    have found that it is, more often than not, true.

    And then there is the "security" thing.  If he treats her nice
    (for how long) but treats everyone else like c##p then that makes
    her feel more secure.  If he lavishes gifts and money on her she
    feels more secure and gets a big ego boost.  If he has the world by 
    the b**ls and is getting ready to squeeze, then by association so 
    does she.  One thing that I found was the absolute kiss of death--
    never, ever let on that you have any sort of problem or have anything
    bothering you (most newly divorced men make this mistake).  She wants 
    someone to take care of _her_ problems for her.  In spite of the 
    _equality_ and _feminsim_, there are a lot of women out there that want 
    it _both_ ways.

    I have to agree with Lorna that men have at least their fair share
    of those who go chasing after the b**ches.  Armed with the above 
    info, I've been married for over eight years to a woman who still
    has Roy Rogers as a hero (now how can you beat that).
    
    fred();

    re .28
    
    what you said!!!

    Being a nice guy can mean several things.  
    
    One:  it's a polite refusal (or disinclination) to enter into a
    romantic/intimate relationship with you.  
    
    	Being a 'nice' girl, I would always tell someone he's nice over
    saying "You know, Joe, you're really unattractive to me, and no, I
    really wouldn't like to date/mess around with you at all."  Frankly, I'd
    rather be told I'm "nice" than the size of a small whale myself. 
    Doesn't mean I didn't get the drift in either case, but there's
    something to be said for tactfulness.
    
    Two:  You're actually a nice person.
    
    	Nice being subjective, it's left to the reader to formulate if
    being a nice guy always means you're soft and squishy and very much
    like Alan Alda characters, or if nice means you're sensitive, caring
    and a really cool dude.  
    
    
    As for the nice vs. bland topic, I'd like to put my two cents in: Nice
    does not automatically equate attractive, not to this
    writer.  Speaking for myself, I would prefer nice and exciting vs. nice
    and bland anyday.  
    
    What is bland then?  What's the secret?  Does one have to be sensitive,
    caring, warm, cuddly *and* a Grand Prix driver?   No.  I do think many
    women are looking for a guy who sort of goes beyond the 'nice'
    adjectives, beyond sensitive, caring, warm and cuddly.  Maybe that's
    where the confusion enters.  I don't think it's just a case of sheer
    hypocrisy, I think it's a case of nice being offered up as this generic
    sort of ideal as What Women Want without consideration that each
    woman's definition of nice entails more than just the Standard Basics
    that seems to be assigned to the word.  My nice (the "I would consider
    a relationship with this guy" kind of nice) is probably different from
    the women who sit around me's nice.
    
    Don't men look for women whom they can describe as more than "Well,
    she's sensitive, warm, caring and cuddly.  And that's it."?
    
    
    Jest musing,
    
    kim
    

    re:.31
    
    That's only true when the shallow, manipulative women are good
    looking.
    
    Men don't actually LIKE shallow, manipulative women, but they are
    willing to risk a few bruises to be with one.
    
    I bet the same is true for women.

    How are you being "used" when someone says they want your friendship
    but don't want to have sex with you?  How is it any more being "used"
    than when someone _does_ want to have sex with you? 
    
    Would you say that friends you aren't sexually attracted to (your male
    friends, for example) "use" you?  Would you insist that any members of
    the appropriate sex be willing to shtup mit you before they could be
    considered candidates for friendship?
    
    Sorry if the questions sound harsh, but they're what I'd be asking
    myself...  I can remember getting in this state in college once, and in
    retrospect it seems clear that my feeling of being "used" was just a
    frustrated refusal to deal with the fact that I had ulterior motives in
    the friendship, which weren't shared.  Hardly the other person's fault.
    
    Ray

    there was a program at danyhew (sp?) on TV on this about a year ago, they
    showed this jerk with a beautiful woman next to him, and he was saying
    how easy now it is to go out with women, any one he wanted, since
    he changed to be a jerk with them, danyhew asked him about it, and the
    guy is writing a book about directions for guys on how to treat women
    bad so that they go out with them.

    i flipped over and under when i saw the program, i think there is
    some truth to it, BUT why would a man want'a go out with such a woman
    in the first place? even if the women is the most beautiful thing in the
    world, the most exciting thing to me in a women is her personality and
    intelligence, and a woman who like to go out with jerks who treat
    her bad because they are a challenge, is not an intelligent person in
    my book, so you better off not going out with them in the first place,
    actually they are doing you a favor by saying to you "i'd like to 
    see you, you are really nice,but iam seeing this jerk tonight", there
    are many more interesting and important thing you can do than waste
    your time on such women.

    offcourse this applies to men too, the men who go after women who
    are good looking but shallow and have no two beans in their heads.

    and if i hear more women complaining to each others that all men are
    jerks iam gonna scream and blow a fuse.

    i like men/women topics, they are fun to chat over.
    
    /nasser
    

    To me, it still comes back to the question of why a "nice" guy would be
    interested in a woman who only wanted an "exciting" (read "bad") guy,
    unless there were no "nice" (*and* "exciting" *or* "bland", take your
    choice) women to be had.
    
    There are. Plenty of them.  I'm partial to the "nice and exciting" type
    myself, and think of myself in that category as well, and have never
    noticed a lack of attention. 
    
    Besides, I'm too lazy or selfish to expend energy dealing with the
    screwed up psyche of the kind of person described by Fred in .38 who
    says "The 'nice guys' aren't such an 'accomplishment' since 'anyone
    could have him'", as if 'nice guys' are incapable of saying no. Dream
    on, sweetheart.
    
    Kit   

 re: Lorna

>    re .0, don't worry, Mark, I'm sure there have been women who thought
>    you were a bastard.

 No question about that. The real issue for me is which behavior predominates.

 re: Kim

>I do think many
>    women are looking for a guy who sort of goes beyond the 'nice'
>    adjectives, beyond sensitive, caring, warm and cuddly.

 It seems that they are much more willing to compromise on the nice part than
the exciting part. That is to say, they'll probably (appear to) be 10 times more
likely to date a guy who seems exciting even if he doesn't seem to be nice a
bit than they would a guy who seems nice but doesn't seem exciting. So I guess
the issue is the priorities involved. It really seems as if they say one thing
but feel something completely different. I am open to other explanations, of
course.

re: Ray

>    How are you being "used" when someone says they want your friendship
>    but don't want to have sex with you?

 I don't think that platonic friendship necessarily implies being used. But
it certainly seems as though some platonic opposite sex relationships can
be described in that manner in the same way that some sexual relationships
can be described so. I suppose an argument can be made that all of our 
relationships entail people using one another for one purpose or another,
but I am not _quite_ so jaded. :-) 

>    To me, it still comes back to the question of why a "nice" guy would be
>    interested in a woman who only wanted an "exciting" (read "bad") guy,
>    unless there were no "nice" (*and* "exciting" *or* "bland", take your
>    choice) women to be had.

 I think the answer is clear. At least some men find other factors to be
more important that niceness. I'd say the ideal would be to find a woman who
was nice, attractive, intelligent, lustworthy etc, but such specimens are
more than a little rare and generally have so many suitors that the average
nice but not bland guy has little if any chance. Insufficiently brilliant
plumage, or whatever.

>    There are. Plenty of them.  I'm partial to the "nice and exciting" type
>    myself, and think of myself in that category as well, and have never
>    noticed a lack of attention. 

 Could be that your threshold of sufficient attention is lower, or that you are
more attractive to the types of women that attract you, or a host of other
explanations.

 It sounds as if you are very secure with who you are, and are happy with 
your life. I don't suppose it needs to be said that this is not universally 
true.

	>>I'd say the ideal would be to find a woman who
	>>was nice, attractive, intelligent, lustworthy etc, but such
	>>specimens are more than a little rare...

	Just curious - do you think that such specimens are equally
	rare in the male of the species?

	Di

    re .47
    
    No!  This conference is littered with that type!

    re rare specimens.

    	I don't think that there are so many rare specimens as there
    	is a rarity of specimens _available_.  A friend of mine was
    	bemoaning the fact that everyone she knew was running around
    	on their spouse or s.o.  I pointed out the fact that, in the
        bars, she was getting a rather narrow sample of the overall 
    	population.  She wasn't seeing all the _vast_ majority that
    	were going home to their families every night.

    re being used.

        I thing a "nice" person gets used (works either gender) when
    	the "other" person knows that there is a definite sexual
    	attraction, but continues to use the "nice" person for friendship,
        reassurance, and esteem "refueling" with disregard for the feelings
        of the "nice" person.  Also there is a certain amount of "keep
        them in reserve just in case" while I go chase after Mr/Ms right.
    	Also the "let's be friends" person can also be seeking some level
    	of assurance that they are not being a "bad" person by dumping
    	the "nice" person.

    	The "nice" person has to take some responsibility in this case.
    	Trying to hang around and be nice to someone who is treating 
    	you like dirt and hope that someday they will notice what a
        nice person you are rarely works.  "Nice" usually isn't on
    	the priority list of these people. Life is too short.  Putting
    	up with someone else's c**p is not a requirement for being a
        nice person.  I try to be a nice person, but I'm not "good ol' Fred". 

        fred();

    re .47, I think they're damn rare in the male of the species!  (and the
    older everyone gets the worse it gets!!!!!!)   :-)
    
    
    re .42, I like your reply.  I've known men that I genuinely liked and
    wanted to be friends with, yet had no interest in having sex with.  I
    thought these men were nice.  I didn't think they were sexually
    attractive.  In my opinion, that's just the way the cookie crumbles
    sometimes.  Occasionally, a man that I place in this category has
    wanted to have sex with me, and I haven't wanted to.  It can turn into
    a difficult situation.  They may feel rejected or even used, but I've
    sometimes felt that I lost a good friend just because I didn't want to
    have sex with him, and that can be very sad, too.  I was recently
    accused of "using" someone because I had taken a trip with them and not
    had sex with them.  I was accused by someone I told this to, btw, *not*
    the person who actually paid for the trip!!!  I simply admitted that we
    hadn't wound-up "doing it" and this other guy said, "The poor guy!  He
    pays for your trip and you won't even have sex with him!  How can you
    use him like that?"  I said, "I didn't use him!  He wanted to take a
    trip with me, and I didn't have the money.  He offered to pay and I
    accepted.  We are *friends*!  We were exploring our feelings for each
    other.  I'm not a hooker and I don't have to have sex with anybody I
    don't want to have sex with!"  He said, "You don't have to defend
    yourself to me."   Impossible!!!!
    
    And, anyway, it always takes two for one person to use another.  If a
    person feels they're being used, they should get out.  I think the fact
    is that sometimes women just like certain guys only as friends, with no
    sexual interest.  Sadly enough, sometimes these guys have a stronger
    interest in the woman.  It doens't mean anybody is a jerk.  It just
    means love and even sexual attraction isn't always mutual.  It's like
    the old J. Geils song, "Love Stinks."
    
    Lorna
    

>	Just curious - do you think that such specimens are equally
>	rare in the male of the species?

 Well, actually, I don't really make a practice of going around and rating
other men, but I'll still take a stab at your question. :-)

 I don't think they are really any more or less common, but I am familiar
with more of them because I know more men than women. As a man, when I hang
out with other men, we can all let our guards down and just be ourselves (this
is especially true when there are no women around.) So I get to know men
fairly well. This is not the case with women- as a group they don't seem to 
let their guards down (around men.) So it's more difficult for me to get to
know women (though particular women do sometimes let their guard down around 
me.) Because people tend to be more on their guard around the opposite sex,
I think I know more men well than women. Know what I mean? But no, I don't 
think that there are tons and tons of really awesome guys and hardly any 
really awesome women. After all, the real world isn't like engineering school.
(Amen!) :-)

 The Doctah

> It sounds as if you are very secure with who you are, and are happy with 
> your life
    
    Yes, I think the secure-with-self thing is important for getting what
    you really want, rather than getting twisted up trying to get what
    isn't really what you want but which you think you want, or what you 
    will settle for in place of what you really want, etc.
    
    This doesn't necessarily mean life is a breeze, just that you are more
    at ease with your choices, whatever they are. For example, I have never
    minded living alone or doing things alone, and would rather be alone
    than be with someone who had major traits that annoyed me. So, I
    shucked off lots more women who were attracted to me than shucked me
    off, but I did spend a lot more of my early manhood alone than the
    average guy would put up with.  I didn't like that, but accepted it as
    the better alternative.
    
    And at 33, I fell in *real* love for the first time, on a first date.
    Within 6 weeks we had decided to spend our lives together. That was 12
    years ago, and I'm still crazy about her. Case closed, as Ross would say.
    
    Kit 

Re: .45

Yes, there are many women who are looking for something "other than nice."

There are also many women who are looking precisely for "nice". 

"Nice" doesn't necessarily equate to just "sensitive, caring warm and cuddly"- 
it doesn't have to be as bland as that statement makes it sound.

An alternative explanation that comes readily to mind is, you're hanging out 
with the wrong type of women.

    
  >>>  No!  This conference is littered with that type!

	Granted.  8^)


	It does seem to be more difficult to find this combination
	than one would think though.  Rarity's not such a bad thing
	however, I guess.  It would be pretty boring if everyone were
	nice, attractive, intelligent, and lustworthy.  (The one key
	item missing here for me being sense of humor.)  Hard to say
	which would be worse - an intellectual with no sense of humor
	or a funny guy who takes more than 5 seconds to figure 15
	percent of the tip.

	Di

    
    Gee, what an interesting topic.
    
    By and large, "nice" is not the first quality I look for in a man.
    
    FASCINATING is the number one quality. If he has it, he's got a chance,
    if he doesn't, he's out. Fascinating usually includes intelligent,
    articulate and knowledgeable about topics which I'm also interested in.
    It means that he can talk to me for hours and I don't get bored. It
    means he can call me at 11pm and we'll still talk for 2 hours, even if
    I have to go to work the next day. It means we can go out and do things
    and then give each other new insight on them.
    
    If ALL a man has going for him is that he's nice, that's just not
    enough for me. If a man is NOT nice... I have to weigh how "fascinated"
    I am. 
    
    The guy I'm dating right now is not always nice. But he is always
    fascinating. I cope.
    
    As for having problems being the kiss of death, no. I love helping my
    lovers get through their problems. Takes my mind off my own. Can you
    say "co-dependence"?
    
    When I look back at my relationships: my very first one, the guy wasn't
    nice, AND he wasn't that interesting. I dumped him for another guy who
    WAS nice, but wasn't that interesting. I dumped him for a third guy who
    was nice and somewhat interesting. That lasted for a few years, til I
    ruined it with a fling with an absolutely fascinating man who was truly
    evil. Yes, I regret it. After a year of mulling around, I was
    aggressively pursued by a nice guy whom I found interesting. He dumped
    me. I found another guy; he was nice, but the fascination wore off. I
    dumped him. Found another guy; he was an incredible sexual thrill and
    otherwise a complete mystery. I was challenged. Went into pursuit over-
    drive... my sister watched this and dragged me away from him kicking
    and screaming. When I came to my senses, I was grateful. The next guy
    was absolutely and totally fascinating. He dumped me for religious
    reasons. His successor was nice and fascinating. When it went
    long-distance, I let it go. The next guy was not nice. Another
    "mystery" type. Fortunately, he disappeared. I was crushed but got over
    it. The next one was fascinating. He also struck me as a bit racist. A
    mutual dump. The next one is the one I've dated off-and-on for 4 years.
    ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING... a bit lacking in the nice department. In
    between, I've met two nice guys who didn't know how to hold my
    attention. Oh well...
    
    If I ever meet a man who is fascinating AND nice, I'll probably hold on
    for dear life. Survey says sexual thrills are short lived and not worth
    pursuing. But I'd rather have my mind engaged than have my hand held.
    The funny thing is, I do bitch about not having my hand held. Even
    though experience tells me its second priority. Moreover, my
    fascinating man is getting better at being nice... if he gets much
    better, I'll drug him and drag him down the aisle. (Hmm, is that the
    opposite of date rape? No... but to some men, I'll bet it sounds
    close!)
    
    As for crying on the shoulders of single male friends, I do NOT do
    that. Never, ever, ever. I cry on the shoulders of female friends and
    male relatives or married men. That way, I know that I'm not rubbing it
    into a guy's face that he's just a friend, but "X" has my heart, even
    if he steps all over it. 
    
    
    P.S. My fascinating guy THINKS he's nice. And used to complain to me
    ALL the time about all the women who looked upon him as a younger
    brother whose shoulder they could cry on. So, maybe he's nice to
    them... Go figure.

    
    You know, when I stop an think about it, if the ONLY thing a guy has
    going for him is "nice", then that's not much.
    
    When I think about how men are usually visually attracted, I have to
    laugh. I've never known of a man who hunted down "nice" girls except
    when he needed someone he could introduce to his mother.
     
    I think women are similar. Women go after a man because they've noticed
    something about him, something about the way he acts. Now, maybe its
    gallantry or chivalry that catches her eye. But that goes beyond common
    "niceness". 
    
    At the same time, I think the person who called "nice" a euphemism was
    most accurate. Most women don't want to tell a guy WHY he's out of the
    running. Its easier to suggest friendship. And Heck, there are SOME
    guys we don't even want to be ***friends*** with!!! So, "nice" has its
    advantages unless the ONLY thing you want from a woman is sex &
    romance. 
    
    In fact, I'm puzzled here. Is there something wrong with having women
    as friends? Especially if you DO have one special woman in your life?
    Heck: women friends can introduce you to other WOMEN!!! And you come
    well recommended! I think some of you guys just aren't taking advantage
    of women friends as an opportunity to meet Ms. Right. Buy hey, if you
    prefer the meet market (or is it meat?), that's your perogative! :-)
    
    While I have SOME friends who say they don't want to date my
    "discards", most women recognize that a blind date set up by a GOOD
    friend has serious potential. Maybe some of you "nice guys" are
    seriously lacking in the initiative department... or don't like blind
    dates. (If not, I'd better not see you in the SINGLES file! :-)  )

> This is not the case with women- as a group they don't seem to 
> let their guards down (around men.)
    
    I wonder if that might somehow be related to the complaint in the base
    note...  (: >,) 
    
>	Hard to say
>	which would be worse - an intellectual with no sense of humor
>	or a funny guy who takes more than 5 seconds to figure 15
>	percent of the tip.
    
    How about us intellectuals who take three minutes to figure out 15
    percent?
    
    Ray

    
   >> How about us intellectuals who take three minutes to figure out 15
   >> percent?
    
	Oh, now you're talking _genius_ level, Ray.  That's different.  8^)


	Di

    re: the Doctah's question back some:
    
    
    paraphrased:  Why does it seem that women are willing to favor exciting
    over nice?  (I read it as why not the nice but low key over the
    not-nice but exciting)
    
    Well, shallow human nature being what it i :), I think the answer lies in
    the fact that excitement of any type is usually better than well,
    non-excitement.  I think .55 (ASDG::FOSTER) said something in (her?)
    reply about 'holding my attention'. That's probably key.  
    
    Again, I would assume that men would rather have a woman who was nice
    and exciting over nice but bland and would also compromise in the
    nice department if it meant an eventful relationship.  
    
    Your mileage, of course, may vary.
    
    
    kim

    
    re .59
    
    I guess if you weren't in it for the long haul, it wouldn't matter 
    of they were "nice" or not.  Just exciting.  However, over the
    long haul "exciting" wears off eventually.  Then what?
    
    fred();

 As an aside, I'm really, really psyched at the level of discourse in this topic.
Nary a sideways glance has been cast in this whole topic. Thank you, one and
all!

    re .60, actually, I'm still looking for an exciting guy who will stick
    around long enough for "it" to wear off!!  My experience has been that
    the truly exciting ones usually move on to another conquest long before
    the excitement wanes.  (what with there being so few of them, and them
    being in such demand & all, I assume)
    
    The happy-mediums - sort've exciting (at least once'n'while), usually
    nice, seem to be the ones who stick around long enough to get boring. 
    :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    re  .59
                                                       
    Gee Fred, why does it have to wear off? You don't think a person can
    excite you for a lifetime? To be honest, I hope you're wrong. Its hard
    to have good sex if you aren't excited... ;-)
    
    Given the choice between someone who gets you excited and someone who
    makes you feel nice, whom would you rather share a life-long cot with?
    
    And EVEN if you pick the latter, does it surprise you that some people
    want spark and pep in their relationships?
    
    I personally consider it my responsibility to help maintain sparks.
    The guy who is dating me 5 years from now isn't going to want to hear
    me say: "I'm tired of creating sparks", if he has always liked my sparky
    personality.  And he's not going to like it if I say: "I've decided
    that I don't want to excite you any more, I'm just going to be nice to
    you."
    
    I can't think of ANY man who would want to marry and stay with and be
    faithful to a woman who didn't excite him. It may not be in the vows,
    but you're not supposed to up and decide 10 years into the marriage,
    that you don't want to be an exciting partner any more... and I always
    thought that if you loved someone, part of the enjoyment in interacting
    came from being able to create sparks with them. Why would ANYONE want
    to stop?
    
    I guess, having never been married, I must have a very idealistic
    view...
    

    One major problem I see in today's world is that the "bad" ones, be
    they male or female, are statistically likely to find that "exciting"
    wears off on the day that their doctors tell them they've contracted an
    incurable STD.  This likelihood is real, because "exciting" is a type
    that takes risks.
    
    -dick

    
    Nah...
    
    There are many of us youngsters who played Russian Roulette as
    teeny-boppers, but are more than willing to be "monogamously exciting"
    in the '90's and the hereafter. 
    
    And when my fertile imagination runs dry, the Kama Sutra and Joy books
    are only a few pennies away.
    
    Doing it in the bushes with the one you love may get you in trouble
    with the police (they're envious!) but you can't catch a disease that
    way.

    well, what is it that women mean when they say exciting? is it in the bed
    thing? or what? how does the flipper does a woman know that a man
    is exciting or not so quickly like? is it like gold chains and
    sport car makes a guy exciting? may the dude the woman dont think is
    exciting can be more "exciting" than michael jackson or even hawai-5-O,
    so what does an "exciting" dude looks/is like to a woman?

    inquiring minds want know..

    /nasser

    
    Excitement for ME is mental stimulation. This can include a love of
    games, fun with the English language, quick wit, thought-provoking
    conversation. I will not bother to explain what any of this has to do
    with sex.
    
    Excitement, like beauty, is probably in the mind of the beholder. So,
    you know have one data point out of 2 billion. Good luck with your
    study... :-)

.66> so what does an "exciting" dude looks/is like to a woman?

.66> inquiring minds want know..
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     /nasser,

     I would wager that you answered your own question...

     Myself, I am having trouble with this topic.  Being that I am happily
     married, all my relationships with women other than my wife have to be
     platonic so I would want them to see me as a "nice" guy.  Some of these
     guys that are married yet still on the make, well, they can't be very
     "nice"...  Once a Man/Women "bag" one another, they owe fidelity as well
     as the commitment to "challenge" each other.  I believe this was the
     "spark" that Lauren and others were talking about.  And don't forget,
     much work (but it's fun) is required to keep the fire going...

    
    
    Who says a nice guy can't be exciting???  I think that most women
    really want nice guys but are not willing to really accept that
    these men are nice cause our experiences have been with guys who
    appear to be nice but who in truth really are jerks. 
    

    i thought of something, may be women can make a letsemt (sp?) test that
    guys can try out and if he passes it, he is a nice dudes and if not
    then he is a jerk dude and challenge.

    now, if some imaginative person can come up with such a test, life
    will be so much easier like.

    /nasser

    re:.48
    
    What he said.
    
    Not sure if "littered" is the best choice of words, tho ... ;')

    
>>    Not sure if "littered" is the best choice of words, tho ... ;')

	Yeah, that was screaming for some sort of wisecrack, for sure.
	A test of the old restraint.  8^)

	"rife" might have been nicer.


	Di

    re .63

>    Gee Fred, why does it have to wear off? You don't think a person can
>    excite you for a lifetime? To be honest, I hope you're wrong. Its hard
>    to have good sex if you aren't excited... ;-)

    Probably depends on what you value as "excitement".  I've seen a lot
    of women that mistake "excitement" for "dangerous" or "challenge".
    Bad news.  One thing that I found was that the women that valued the 
    kind of "excitement" in .0 weren't worth messing with.

    >    Given the choice between someone who gets you excited and someone who
>    makes you feel nice, whom would you rather share a life-long cot with?

    Again depends on the given brand of "excitement".  Most marriage 
    counselors will tell you that "sex" and "infatuation" will wear off 
    sooner or later.  I seriously doubt that I can explain in one note
    what they have written books about. To maintain the life-long 
    excitement takes conscious work by _both_ partners.  The kind of 
    "excitement" in  .0 is usually the "_you_ have to make _me_ happy" 
    kind.  The kind of "excitement" that the women of .0  are looking 
    for is generally phony to start with. Especially if you are dealing 
    with a jerk to start with.  The "trick" for both genders is to know
    how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    >    And EVEN if you pick the latter, does it surprise you that some people
>    want spark and pep in their relationships?

    Never said it had to be.  As Roger Staubach (sp) once floored Phyllis
    George with in an interview a few NFL seasons ago, "Hey, I enjoy
    sex as much as Joe Namath--(pick Phyllis up off floor)--I just enjoy
    it with one woman".   

    >    I personally consider it my responsibility to help maintain sparks.    

    Good for you.  But as I said earlier it takes a conscious effort
    by _both_ parties.  If one isn't holding up their end of the
    relationship (and how many times have I heard both parties blame
    the other) then the relationship won't last.  The one holding the
    relationship together will eventually wear down.

    My wife and I have been together for 10 years.  Married for 8, and
    the sparks are still there.  My wife's-aunt's- husband's-parents will 
    be married 70 years this month.

    fred();

    
    Fred, I'm glad you're still sparkin'...
    
    I admit, my guy doesn't ALWAYS excite me. When he gets into a long,
    animated conversation with himself about the virtues of the Houston
    Oilers, I can't always get into it. But sometimes I CAN... and I never
    thought I'd live to see the day when a man could get ME excited about
    football.
    
    Can ya tell I like him? Can ya?  :-)
    
    (Mark & Lorna, don't say a WORD!)
    
    I guess I just see aspects of myself in the basenote. A friend of mine
    asked me today about some random male I'd already forgotten about. I
    met him this summer. He "excited" me. Wasn't nice. After a few phone
    calls, I stopped wasting my dimes. I may not be the most together
    person in the world, but I *know* that I have too much to offer a man
    to squander it on some bozo who doesn't know how to be nice or doesn't
    know how to have a good time WITH ME! I deserve both. Nice alone isn't
    enough. Nor is exciting.

>>	or a funny guy who takes more than 5 seconds to figure 15
>>	percent of the tip.

	Sorry, just realized that should have been _for_ the tip.

	Phew.  Now I can work.
	Di

    transplant notion from Womannotes.
    
    :-)
    
    L
    

    re .77, she had to.  Ken was just too bla.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

<<< Note 847.77 by DELNI::STHILAIRE ...
re .77, ....
    
    duhhh

    I meant to reference .76.  Sorry.
    
    Lorna
    

    it is evident from the new Ken some "friend" gave my daughter that Ken
    has been seriously abusing steroids.  Ken probably has nothing left for
    Barbie, even if she wanted that overmuscled, genetalia-challenged oaf.
    
    At least the old ken looked something like a human.
    
    Meg

    Gee, I didn't know that poor Ken ever even *had* genitals.
    
    -- Mike

    Ken is not now, and has not ever been, anatomically correct - even if
    we disregard his moulded plastic codpiece - any more than Barbie has
    been a representation of a real human.
    
    -dick

    The 60's, '70's ken doll had no genetalia, but he had some semblance to
    a human-type body as far as proportions.  
    
    The 80's, 90's sensitive new-age ken has a body that many quarterbacks
    would die for, and a few body-builders have achieved. Hence my
    accusations of steroid abuse.  he is about as realistic a man as Barbie
    is a woman.  All he requires is oil and some "buffing" to explode into
    Mr. Universe, (without those nasty anatomically correct parts, of
    course)
    
    Meg 

    this reminds me of an insult one of my male colleagues taught me-
    
    'He's smooth....like a Ken doll'
    
    I got a giggle or two outta it

    i have not seen this Ken doll one, i think i saw brabie one day when
    i went to toye'N'Us near here to see if i can buy iron filling to
    play with the new magnet i got when i wanted to see if a coil with current
    in it will actually produce a magnetic dipole with moment proportional
    to the current in the coil and perpendicular to the surface area
    encircled by the coil, but when i was young i played mostly with little
    cars and superman and Boatman magazines and the building blocks to build
    the little houses with the ones they clip together, those were really
    fun, because i like to build little models up but now i dont do it too
    much any more.

    /nasser

    re:.83
    
    Oh oh ... that's gonna cause a whole generation of men to grow up
    and get muscle implants (yes, they really have those) and abuse 
    steroids.
    
    MEN!  WE MUST CALL IN AND GET THE PRODUCTION OF THIS DOLL TO STOP!!!
    
    Let's organize a boycott before a whole generation of young men throw
    their lives away because of Ken.

re .86:

We should insist that the talking Ken say "Gym is tough."

 Nah, he says "gyns are tough." ;^)