The paradox of being a "Nice Guy"Follow

It really is true what they say; nice guys finish last.

Have mercy on me
I got girl trouble up the ***
have mercy on me people
I got girl trouble up the ***
and don't tell me no joke
cause I'm not gonna laugh
I need the cure
only one cure in this world
I need the cure
only one cure in this world
hey james brown
I need a woman or a girl
hit me in the morning
hit me in the night
hit me when I'm wrong
hit me when I'm right
hit me when I'm up
hit me when I'm down
hit me hit me hit me hit me
all over town
girl trouble
I got girl trouble up the ***
and don't tell me
cause I'm not gonna laugh
I'm not trying to fool you people
I'm not giving you no jive
make me feel I'd rather be dead than alive
take a look around
what's shoving up my behind
problems drive me out of my mind
girl trouble
I got girl trouble up the ***
and don't tell me no joke
cause I'm not gonna laugh

Say "I'm not such a nice guy" and kick her in the cunt.

And didn't you have things worked out beforehand with your buds? You've got to at least be able to tell them "hey, mind laying off Beth tonight? I'd like to try and hit it". If they just disregard your request then, well, you ought to kill them.

Overcoming "Niceguy-itus" Series

By John Russell

Article 1 - "Nice" Doesn't Always Mean "Moral"

There are some men who angrily write in here (and at other sites), or complain to me in person that they are overlooked sexually because they are so-o-o-o nice. I used to feel that way, so I can attest that it's not hopeless if you want to grow out of it.

Those men feel being "nice" makes them BETTER men than those men who might find themselves at odds with their wives, girlfriends, or society sometimes. They seem to have the behavior termed "nice" confused with ethics, morality, love, and true graciousness; and when they are told by some women they are "too nice" to be sexually attractive they almost always console their wounded hearts by donning the mantle of the saints and martyrs being misunderstood and under-appreciated in some sick sad world of women who love abuse.

They couldn't be more wrong, being "nice" has nothing to do with ethics or morality in any logical sense as defined in any of the major religions (or Ethical Humanism), I know this because I stopped being "nice" years ago and my moral and religious convictions have actually become more intense. Confused? Only if you think that the world consists of only "nice" men and wife-beating jerks as the polarity of "good and evil", but I hope to clarify that it really isn't that way. If you think that when you stop being nice, you have to be a selfish jerk, think again and read on. There doesn't need to be any moral compromise, in fact there will be LESS moral compromise if you give up being "nice".

First, lets look into the true definition of the word "nice" so that there isn't any confusion of what people really mean when they call you nice:

The original meaning of the word "nice" meant being precise or exact to fit something else, it had no moral quality. In time colloquial forces in the late Victorian era made it common to misuse the word to abbrevaite appreciation for something that was pleasing because it was harmonious. For instance, a "nice" day was a day that was enjoyable because it was precisely fitting what could be considered harmony to human comfort in terms of moderate temperature, abundant sunlight illumination, and low humidity.

Eventually it was a term applied to people, but it never lost the implied original meaning of being an exact or harmonious fit. In the sexist society of that Victorian era, a "nice" woman was one with a personality subserviant enough that she made herself an exact fit to her husband. Victorian society was also caste oriented, a man might be referred to as "nice" by a another man of higher social station who found him similarly dependible, selfless, and in accordance with his dictates. So you might hear a man called "nice" if he is a shop clerk, shoe shiner, or cab driver. However, you wouldn't have a man called "nice" if he were a competant and moral prime minister, religious authority, CEO, entepreneur, thinker, individualist, or any free man... other terms would be used expressing their positive qualities without the implication subserviance such as "noble", "gallant", "righteous", "dynamic", and "heroic" even if they veiw their authority with humility as a form of service to humanity or to God.

So, when you are called nice, or when you pride yourself on being nice, the quality you are claimingto embody is that you are a person who makes yourself the exact fit to harmonize with the wishes and needs of others in total subserviance. You do not want disharmony at any expense, or to offend people, at all times you keep up the appearence of not being contentious. I have noticed that men who are insecure of their charisma, income level, lack of talent (or failure to implement their talents -especially among the lazy), that they pride themselves on being "nice". Though the effort of pleasing people can sometimes be exhausting, the endeavor is more or less risk-free than any other so one need not develop qualities such as bravery or responsibility in the pursuit of being nice. It is almost to take pride in the accomplishment of not standing in anyone's way or interfering with anything, "I didn't make waves in my life ever, why can't the women find me sexy?".

Is that moral? Is that something to be proud of?

Is that an expression of love?

I doubt it. There are times when a moral person should seek harmony and resolution with people, but with a moral person it is not always desireable to be a people-pleaser. If Jesus were "nice" he'd be worried about offending the Pharasees, he wouldn't have been crucified, and he probably wouldn't have even been important enough for either their esteem much less their contempt. I doubt we could think of him as much of a savior if such were the case. Same goes for Martin Luther King and others like him, what he did and said was moral, and standing up for what was moral offended some people and brought out many angry reactions against him. If he would have tried to flatter, water down his stance, and avoid offending those who were full of sh*t in the name of being "nice" some people today would probably still be riding in the back of the bus in Birmingham.

On the contrary, "nice" people find themselves going along with and doing horrible things, because they want to "fit in" and do not want to offend people. For instance, when racists say offensive things, I have seen nice people who disagree remain silent or pretend to go along so as not to embarass the racist speaking or themselves for contending with it. Some of the testemony of ***** on trial for war crimes held in Nuremburg revealed men with the mentality of automaton clerks who's defense was that they were just following orders; and that they were well liked in their community, supposedly gentle family men, men who did "nothing wrong" of their own accord. Some claimed that if they refused to obey orders, they might lose face, position, they'd be inconvenienced or perhaps be jailed themselves. The desire to "fit" made them so spineless that even though they must have known that gassing people to death was wrong, the did it because they were more worried about approval from their superiors and community and decided that their moral objections would never be understood. So, the desire to be "nice" and the desire to be "moral" can go into direct opposition with one another.

So "Nice" is not moral, "nice" is Orwellian style immasculation, "exact fits" harmonious with other people are only valuable traits to have in a society which is totalitarian. In our case (the western democracies), the only part of our relatively free society where this trait is valued is in low paying jobs where a spine and facility of decision and leadership is not needed, only obediance. This is particularly in jobs where managment underpays, bullies, or even violates labor law regularly. A moral person won't stand for that treatment and find a better place to work, only a "nice" person will keep jumping through hoops and whining about how they are not appreciated but be resigned to the illusion of job security in their one "skill" of being willing to take abuse.

Think guys: you don't have to be a woman to understand that if you choose to live like a passive drone in a "free" society where you don't have to be a drone, you aren't sexy. It doesn't make you a better person that you are passive, just a coward. There are many fowl vices a man could have and still be attractive in spite of it, but the vice of not being able to take a stand is to be made utterly worthless to all except those who enjoy status and power at the expense of you and other men (and women) like you for not claiming your own power and the responsibility and risk that goes with it.

If you have read the articles that the "Heartless ************* have made against "nice men" it is clear that it is not their intent as feminists to see that men are immasculated, either self-inflicted or by sociological forces. To the contrary, it appears that when they encounter a man that willingly embodies and flaunts the very qualities of subserviance and passivity that women were once forced to adopt in archaic gender stereotypes, it appears disgusting and a denial of true adulthood. Women were once kept as perpetual children under sexism by their having to be "nice" and obediant, it was never the intent of modern feminists to see men become children. They want men to have their manhood on an EVEN FOOTING of accountability and self-respect with stong and enlightened womanhood.

Perhaps then "Heartless ******* International" has gone beyond being confined to a feminist movement to being an ADULTHOOD MOVEMENT for both genders. The extreme spectrums of men fronting their testosterone like they are God's gift to whores, or whining and crying for some woman to be their permanent mommy and psychiatric nurse are in both cases men that do not accept responsibility for adult behavior. HBI is just as rough on daddy's girls, or nihilistic sluts for the same exact reason, so we can't say that this is unfairly directed against men only. In the spirit of my desire to help the cause of this "adulthood movement" I wish to contribute a series of articles from a man's perspective to help some men who are no longer satified with being "nice" and want be something more than merely nice (as an alternative to getting bitter and becoming something less than nice). If you are "nice guy" no longer happy playing the martyr, the old defense mechanisms feel like a prison, and you want out permanently this is the series for you.

Next Week: Article 2- How "nice men" are made, and when are they ready to change.

I'm honestly suprised that this made 20 posts without a mention of the "ladder theory". Not because I subscribe to it but because people are usually falling all over themselves to be the first to link to it.