Would you remain a Nice Guy if...

[Rollo Tomassi]

Be honest.

Let us say, in a strange alternate world, women would LOVE you if you were a Nice Guy. In this world, you could do all the things you wanted to do. You could be sappy. You could write her poetry and SHE WOULD LOVE IT. The more of a Nice Guy you were, the more women in general would love and appreciate you.

And in this alternate world, the jerks and players would be the ones sneered at by women. If you were a jerk in this world, no women would like you. If you were ****y, they would dismiss you immediately.

Would you remain a Nice Guy if you were in this alternate world?

 

[squirrels]

If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle??

The hypothetical is ridiculous. If the value system were different, you would be raised differently and be a different person. You'd probably be unable to integrate and end up hanging yourself, like Injun John in Brave New World.

 

[Nkognito]

Not sure I am either. I think there is medium to my mentality. I know what I want, what I won't stand for and how far I would compromise based off of the needs of the relationship.

I think the question within the question is what is jerk/douche and what is a "nice guy". I have read stories where this reaction is "alpha" and this reaction is "beta". But I guess a situation is needed to understand the types of charatcers that depict jerks.

 

[Blackmm]

It isn't an alternate reality. Its called Europe and South America.

 

[azanon]

I'd still be a jerk. Jacking it is only slightly less fun than the real thing, so not a major loss.

IMO, this is like asking if the price were higher, would you sell your soul.

 

[zekko]

First off, I object to the labels. I know they've been used here and in the seduction community for a long time, but I don't really believe in the stereotypes. I'm not a nice guy or a jerk or a bad boy. Having said that and cleared the air, let's go back to the stereotypes:

How many guys came here to this forum as "nice guys"? They were probably perfectly happy with themselves and only decided to change so they could do better with women. So they became *******s. Just to please women. I don't see why they wouldn't do the opposite in this "alternate reality".

I think the question within the question is what is jerk/douche and what is a "nice guy". I have read stories where this reaction is "alpha" and this reaction is "beta". But I guess a situation is needed to understand the types of charatcers that depict jerks.

Yeah, like I said before, I don't care for the stereotypes. Half the guys on this forum think a "jerk" or a "douche" is a desireable thing to be. Something's wrong with this picture. Somehow a "jerk" has become a guy with backbone who stands up for himself.

The definition of a "nice guy" should just be a man who respects others as well as himself. But instead, in dating circles, "nice guy" means wimp.

 

[bish0p]

I just started reading Sticky Fingers pdf file and he said something along the lines of, "Those who are the most successful learn to adapt."

That makes a lot of sense to me.

So, to answer your question, if I lived in your alternate reality, then I'd be studying how to be a "Nice guy."

 

[Jamo]

People who are successful don't do different things, they do the same thing differently.

So yes, you adapt your strategy to get what you need.

 

[Razor Sharp]

This is a funny question.

All I can say is that the binary assumption that we must always fit in one category is a huge mistake. I know because I've worn both hats as full-time supplicator followed by overtime assh*le. At some point you will reach some cognitive dissonance once your behavior is stuck to rigid views instead of the situation at hand.

To put it simply, I've learned that there are girls you can be nice with, and others you have to be a prick with. All of these girls will get a taste of both sides at some point.

My pattern typically goes like this:

1. We meet. I am civil, but kind of uncouth and tactless. First impression is that I might be a jerk, but they are not sure.

2. We hang out. I bust her balls a little, screen/make her jump through my hoops. When she complies I am a sweetheart. When she resists I'm a d*ck.

3. We've f*cked. I am paying extra attention to see how she reacts to me. If she ever tries to use her p*ssy as leverage I'm a jerk or she gets flat out rejected. If she is cool, and is able to just enjoy spending time with me without the head games, she gets to see more of my sweet side.

4. We are seeing each other. I reward her good behavior with romance but am not afraid to spank her when she is out of line. She loves me for it.

I've just come to terms with the fact that I am not one type of person. My behavior in a given circumstance depends on the situation and people involved. It's pretty one-dimensional to assume that I must always be either "this" or "that". It's just not natural.

So to answer your question, regardless of what is considered desirable/acceptable to society, I will always pretty much do whatever the f*ck I want, whenever I want.

 

[PokerStar]

before I discovered this site - yes.
now that i know the truth, I would be ashamed to come back and be that type a person again.

so NO i would not remain a nice guy. In fact, i like being mean.

 

[Colossus]

It isn't an alternate reality. Its called Europe and South America.

HA! It's kinda true.

As to the original question, I dont think I'd change too much. I'm sort of a mixed bag of nice guy and azzhole already. Not in the poetry and flowers sense, but there are times when I come off too eager. On the other hand I've been called an azzhole (in jest and in anger) so many times....we're talking powers of 10. It's kind of an art form knowing when to be nice and when to be mean. I've had success and failure with both.

 

[jtlancer]

Whatever works. I currently vacillate between the two and it seems
to work for me. When something stops working I change it up.

 

[DJDamage]

Would you remain a Nice Guy if you were in this alternate world?

Yes.

To quote Shakepeare: "All the world is a stage and we are merely players"

Whether is being nice to a woman or acting like a jerk, in the end of the day they all are still trying to bed women.

 

[DMEDFISIK]

In today's world, there are certain rules and principles I live by, and a few of these run contrary to "jerk game" or whatever fancy post-modern name one would choose to call it.

I have tweaked or adapted a few things based on experience and sound advice but I'm still much of the same person. In an alternate world I would tweak a few things as well in response to my reality, so long they didn't run in direct contrast to some of my principles of life.

So my reaction would be a mix of resistance and adaptation in an alternate world.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

It is truly one of the cosmic ironies of the universe that women should completely lack the capacity to truly appreciate the niceties of men – yet still perpetually claim to desire those niceties.

With the notable exceptions of natural born Alphas, men would overwhelmingly default to being compassionate, empathic souls, steeped in romantic notions of chivalry, dedication and honor. In fact they’ll make silly attempts to redefine raw, natural, Alpha masculinity to come into accord with all these noble qualities. Tragically women and reality prove them wrong at virtually every instance.

Men are simply never rewarded for displays of these higher-self aspirations with the genuine appreciation of women. If anything they're punished for them, either in the instance or progressively over time. The only way to garner true appreciation, true valuation, truly inspired displays of affection, from women is to covertly imply the risk of losing a high-value Man. Whether the man is even truly of a higher value is irrelevant, only the perception needs to be reinforced for her. Risk of loss is all that factors. Risk of loss is why her imagination furiously spins the wheel in her head.

That sounds horrible, but the truth often is. Women’s lack of appreciation for the more compassionate natures of men, and their consuming regard for rewarding men that appease their hypergamy is so well proven it’s become predictable enough to develop techniques and behavior modifications to exploit it (i.e. Game). Most guys would like nothing better than to play the loving white knight romantic women bemoan a lack of in the world. Yet for every sonnet composed, every provision met, every compliment delivered and every well planned candlelit dinner conversation, there’s a woman feverishly ƒucking her Alpha bad boy for fear of losing him to the competition.

 

[Warrior74]

I think Roissy style is rubbing off on ya Rollo. Had to check and see what site I was reading again. Well said though.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

The "what if?" scenario is very useful in sales.

Hopefully Rollo has sold us all on squashing the inner white knight.

Caveat: White Knight Game can actually be a game-changer for you, as long as it is never directed towards the object of your affection. For instance: you help the old lady across the street (which does not make you "beta" UGH) and the girl you are with thinks you are Superman.

But if you help her directly, she'll make you a Clark Kent.

 

[Jeffst1980]

There's a lot of truth here, but I don't think it's that simple. You can be compassionate and kind without supplicating--and the whole "nice" thing isn't really about kindness, it's about supplicating and expecting something in return. "Nice" is really just synonymous with needy, unattractive behaviors, as I see it-it's not even GENUINE kindness, as when you expect nothing in return.

To me, being an alpha "bad boy" just means going after what you want. It means pushing the envelope and being aggressive in pickup. It doesn't mean being antisocial or violent, or being a d!ck to people. It often happens that an aggressive guy has these tendencies, but I don't think they contribute to his success with women unless they bring him some fame, too. I think women DO have a capacity to appreciate kind gestures, and will certainly judge a man by how he treats his family, etc. The "protector of loved ones" is an attractive archetype to women.

The guys that lose out are the ones that do "nice" things in the hopes that a woman will grow attracted to them. They let the women control the frame in this case, and act like children trying to please their mother. This is always an attraction killer--it doesn't matter if they're a jerk or an alpha in every other aspect of their life. Lots of really tough dudes are complete wussies around women.

I think most, if not all of us, started out as AFCs, then went in the opposite direction and became too much of a jerk upon discovering game. It's only natural that you overshoot your aims initially, and I see it as a valuable experience. Still, the danger with viewing "nice" and "bad" as an either/ or proposition is that you fail to separate your sexual dealings from the rest of you. To get really good at pickup, you have to be willing to ignore the comfort levels of others. To maintain a relationship, you have to be willing to give away some value to your loved one.

I have the same problems with Ayn Rand's view of altruism. At some level, the theory breaks down, and our survival becomes entangled with the survival of others. Therefore, I don't really accept the idea that one must put himself first in all situations, without exception. I'd rather be a well rounded individual than some kind of pickup robot.

I do like the idea of connecting with core masculinity during the attraction process--I find that to be the time that you need to be your most caveman-like.

 

[backbreaker]

No, becuase I am more than just women and my life has just as much to do with my personality as getting tail does.

 

[Boilermaker]

This is a funny question.

All I can say is that the binary assumption that we must always fit in one category is a huge mistake. I know because I've worn both hats as full-time supplicator followed by overtime assh*le. At some point you will reach some cognitive dissonance once your behavior is stuck to rigid views instead of the situation at hand.

To put it simply, I've learned that there are girls you can be nice with, and others you have to be a prick with. All of these girls will get a taste of both sides at some point.

My pattern typically goes like this:

1. We meet. I am civil, but kind of uncouth and tactless. First impression is that I might be a jerk, but they are not sure.

2. We hang out. I bust her balls a little, screen/make her jump through my hoops. When she complies I am a sweetheart. When she resists I'm a d*ck.

3. We've f*cked. I am paying extra attention to see how she reacts to me. If she ever tries to use her p*ssy as leverage I'm a jerk or she gets flat out rejected. If she is cool, and is able to just enjoy spending time with me without the head games, she gets to see more of my sweet side.

4. We are seeing each other. I reward her good behavior with romance but am not afraid to spank her when she is out of line. She loves me for it.

I've just come to terms with the fact that I am not one type of person. My behavior in a given circumstance depends on the situation and people involved. It's pretty one-dimensional to assume that I must always be either "this" or "that". It's just not natural.

So to answer your question, regardless of what is considered desirable/acceptable to society, I will always pretty much do whatever the f*ck I want, whenever I want.

best post so far.

I couldn't agree more!