The Big Picture: The reality of "Nice Guys" and altruism
Pook, you need to give a clear definition of exactly what a "nice guy" is. It is a very ambiguous term and can lead to many obstacles when attempting to have a quality discussion. Further, definitions for what constitutes as a "nice guy" varies between individuals.
Now what that being said, I honestly do not believe there is, nor has, ever been such a person who genuinely could be called a "nice guy." Please bear with me as I try to elucidate on this.
To me, describing someone as a "nice guy" presupposes that the notion of altruism truly exists -- and this I have a serious problem with. Does such a thing as an innate human goodness truly exist? When people do charitable acts, is it truly a display of no-strings-attached genuine altruism? Surely these do-gooders must gain *something* in return. Just because they are not rewarded in any material sense (i.e., money), does not mean they do not recieve anything for their supposedly genuine acts of kindness or bravery. And if they do recieve something positive in return for a good deed, how can we be sure that what motivated the person to do "good" was to simply do what was "right", and that it was not in any way affected/tainted by whatever positive benefits they'd recieve in return?
Though a bit off-topic, but to illustrate a point, consider a rather cliched scenario of a man rushing off into a burning home to rescue a baby trapped inside. He comes out alive having rescued the baby. The crowd cheers, and in return he recieves something positively different (perhaps admiration, publicity, fame, a token of appreciation, etc.) than what he'd normally be used to in his everyday humdrum life.
Or, the rewards for "good" behavior doesn't even have to be materialistic. For example, for those who've watched the movie The Reindeer Games, recall how in the end, Ben Affleck's character gives away and puts all of the stolen money into everyones' mailboxes for Christmas. Those people do not know who is responsible for their gift, but this does not exclude the fact that Affleck's character recieves something in return for his act. (I know, I know...this is a movie and it's entirely fictional. But to point out to slow readers, I'm speaking from a point as if those events actually occured.) He may not be rewarded in a materialistic sense, but no doubt he'd recieve emotional satisfaction for his actions.
Because the very definition of alturism means a "selfless regard for the well-being of others", it cannot truly exist in this world. Just like how chastity is not a natural state in a woman's innate nature (i.e., there is no genuinely chaste woman), alturism does not exist except only within our own mind. Alturism cannot exist because for every action there is a reaction, and with every supposed act of charity or good deed, the person recieves something positive -- whether in materialistic form or emotional form -- and *because* that person recieves something back for their actions, it is not selfLESS.
Now, to finally get back on topic to "Nice Guys" in the mating world and how this also applies to the topic of altruism, consider the example of a desparate guy who's managed to get a phone number from an HB. He'd probably call her every single day, and chat away the hours, basically allowing himself to be used as an emotional tampon. Upon every interaction with her, he makes certain to say something that'd be considered "thoughtful" or "caring", and he does everything which makes him seem as a kind and giving person. One day, the HB is sitting at home, bored out of her mind because all her girlfriends happen to be at work that night. But don't worry because she has a backup plan...and bingo! *the phone rings* She picks it up...and surprise, surprise, it's the so-called "nice guy." She hints that she is bored and has nothing to do, the guy suggests maybe they should head out and do something. So for the rest of the night, she uses him for free food, free ride, and free entertainment. All along, the poor sap thinks he's making progress.
Now, with that scenario out of the way, let me ask you: Is this guy in question truly a "nice" guy? Was he doing all of that (making a show of being caring, thoughtful, giving free food, ride, etc.) simply out of being nice and he never had selfish motivations? If you'd allow yourself to be honest, then you know the answer is a definite "no". So now, how can we label him a "nice guy" when such a label would imply altruism (which I've just discussed)? Labeling him an AFC would be more accurate, I should think.
Nice guys don't exist, and correlated to this, altruism does not exist.
Moving on to the next question: How is it that "nice guy" behaviors generally get a positive response in interactions with people in everyday matters, but fail miserably in matters of attracting women? No doubt, the generalized rule of the thumb in everyday interaction is that in order to be respected, you must make a show of respecting others, and being considerate and giving, is for the most part, warmly recieved in business matters and everyday casual interactions.
All of this works for the most part because order and feelings of security and safety are deeply rooted and sustained by acts of giving and reciprocation. People do not give nor go out of their way in appearing to be considerate and thoughtful because of some romanticized notion of altruism. We give in order to recieve; and whether what we recieve be of material nature or emotional does not matter, but what matters is that ultimately by giving, we help establish a sense of security and order in our lives. To further explain, we give and by doing so we indirectly put the reciever in a state of unspoken indenture to return the same sort of "kindness." Through this act of giving of ourselves or material goods, we are somewhat assured that we will not be hurt/harmed in any form, but rather most likely we'll recieve the same positive sort of treatment back.
This "positve sort of treatment" is just what we naturally crave/need because life is unpredictable and the world is often chaotic, hence by giving we recieve some psychological comfort in likely hope that we'd also benefit from the reciever. This is how human lives are largely ordered. Of course, there always will be individuals who do not care for such rituals of "giving and reciprocation", so to protect our best interest as a group from such people, there are laws.
Finally, to get back to one of the main issue: Then how is it that such rituals of giving and reciprocation does not also work in attracting women? The fact is, this principle of reciprocation may work in everyday matters, but is ineffective when applied to sexual matters and attracting women. Because the supposed "nice guys" does not know this, they believe that by being giving and seeming to be considerate and thoughtful, it'll also work in attracting the women they desire. And why not? It normally works in everyday interactions with people.
When it comes to sexuality, it is an entirely different ballgame. Humans are not a tabula rasha (a clean blank slate at birth); society does not program/mold us into whatever it wishes. There is an INNATE set of instinctual characteristics in our nature that artificial constructs of society can never touch nor change. Basically, there is an innate common set of traits each gender desires in the opposite sex. And these traits are what triggers attraction, and unfortunately for the so-called "nice guys" giving themselves away and kissing ass is not what triggers that button -- though unknown to them. No, instead, they come across as desperate-needy-losers.
To sum up some thoughts, there is no altruism, and there is no such thing as an unconditional love -- they are romanticized notions existing only within our mind. I've read somewhere (perhaps on this board) that we do not fall in love with someone, but we fall in love with what we can get, or *imagine* we would get. Likewise, there has never been a genuine nice guy, only that he was simply ignorant of what attracts women.
Pook, if you've read everything up to this point, I hope you have an idea of why I do not like this simple yes or no question, and further, why I think such a question is a bit misguided to begin with.
Now, for me personally, a better question would be: Knowing women for what they are and are not, if given an opportunity to somehow erase all I know and go back to ignorance as in my AFC days, would I do it? Knowing what I know, I can never romanticize them as I was once so prone to. I can never have one-itis again, and looking back, honestly, I miss that at times.
P.S. Even if in a fictional world, women were instinctually attracted to a "nice" guy, I'd be whatever I am. And further, as long as a woman's nature remain the same as it is in reality, they would not motivate me -- as they once did -- to go out of my way in some attempt to please their fickle emotions. Sex is cheap and common, and it is no longer an ethereal experience it once was.
P.P.S. Edited for clarity...hopefully.
