1325: "Rejection"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:29 pm UTC

EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
Karilyn wrote:...it's just fucking dating... I don't owe you sex while we're dating.

Image
Clearly the beings of Oa and you have different definitions of those two terms.

We stand by our earlier decision.

Hey. Fucker. No one owes you a fucking thing while you're dating except for their attention while you're actively on a date.

That's it. And even then, it's your job to keep their attention, just as it's their job to keep yours. But that's all you owe each other - your time.

And don't fucking bring the Oans in to this shit.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
EpicanicusStrikes
Random Boners = True Attraction
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:36 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby EpicanicusStrikes » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:41 pm UTC

Spoiler:
SecondTalon wrote:
EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
Karilyn wrote:...it's just fucking dating... I don't owe you sex while we're dating.

Image
Clearly the beings of Oa and you have different definitions of those two terms.

We stand by our earlier decision.

Hey. Fucker. No one owes you a fucking thing while you're dating...

Image
We beings of Oa would agree with you if not for the precise type of dating that was referenced. We beings of Oa recognize all forms of 'dating' ranging from 'casual dating' through 'serious dating' and all the way to what we refer to as 'Science Cell dating'.

Your species is not ready for that level of commitment yet. Please do not ask.
And don't fucking bring the Oans in to this shit.

We beings of Oa go where we are needed, and will not be denied. Please prepare yourself for an early introduction to 'Science Cell date'.

... that's a thinly veiled rape joke. And that shit doesn't fly around here. Do not make the same mistake again.

And while we're at it, why not a thread ejection?

- Az

schismtracer
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:35 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby schismtracer » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:54 pm UTC

Given my experience in the "possesses no value to any woman on the planet, for any reason" camp, I might be able to help. Whenever you feel the urge to claim that women only want [whatever], instead mentally repeat "women want literally anyone other than myself" until said urge passes, then find something constructive to do with your time (meaning, not whining endlessly on the internet about how you can't get laid because bitches and whores and RAGE).

Seriously, though, the biggest common thread among MRAs/PUAs/incels/Ladder Theorists/whatever is that they're self-obsessed/loathing ragemonsters that instantly isolate themselves through sheer misanthropy, generally without even realizing it. I imagine most are too pathological to change that without sinking a small fortune into psychological counseling, so they're really just better off giving up, getting over themselves, and accepting that relationships are things that happen to other people. It's not the end of the world or even particularly difficult to do (again, I'm speaking from personal experience here).

drazen
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby drazen » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:08 pm UTC

Wait what?

Well, that's officially the first I've ever heard of that among a friendzoner before. Forgive me for mistaking your argument for the overwhelming most common argument. You never specified you were referring to people who had already been dating. The vast overwhelming majority of times this argument comes up, it's because a guy asks a friend out on a date, then gets rejected by a girl who is not interested, and thus had never dated in the first place.


I never referred to anyone, or myself, as a "friendzoner," nor have I once invoked the term "friend zone" (other than perhaps discussing its comedic use in a season 1 episode of Scrubs) In fact, neither did Randall, in the comic. He only cites "nice guys."

Whatever you call it, I am arguing that it is generally unhealthy and unproductive to remain close friends with someone to whom you are strongly romantically attracted. It clouds your judgment and makes you feel lousy, so my answer to that was always "Get away from the situation."

First off: Dating someone is not a promise of moving onto engagement and marriage. Dating is testing the waters. It's seeing how things work out. It's a no strings-attached, no-harm no-foul, end at any time thing. Until you are seeing each other steady or exclusively, it's just fucking dating, nothing more, nothing less. And no I don't owe you sex while we're dating.


I still never said any of those things. I said that if you're dating someone and they would rather be friends than seek something more serious, and you don't feel the same way, it's better to move on from them, rather than try to be friends while still harboring romantic feelings for them.

I will note this: Of the people I've gone steady with, but broke up with later (a much more serious stage than dating then breaking up), two of them I'm still friends with. Both of which are in the 8+ years category of friendship category. We just didn't fucking have compatibility, and yet their still my oldest friends. That's not an inferior friendship.


Presumably, though, you BOTH feel this way - and after a prolonged period of being exclusive, and both realizing it wasn't going to work. And if you can handle that, great. But as you point out, some people can't. And that's OK, too. But it's not an inferior friendship if you BOTH have the same perspective on the situation -- which isn't the case I'm describing at all.

An "inferior friendship" arises out of a rejection when:

(a) The "friend" never accepts your invitations, and rarely, if ever, extends any to you; and/or
(b) The "friend" constantly complains about their romantic life to someone they've rejected, and/or
(c) The rejected party does other favors for the "friend" (rides, networking, whatever), but this is rarely, if ever, reciprocated.

...

Dude, I'm actually engaged and happy, but I remember these days, and I'm just trying to give folks some unsolicited advice to, in fact, not be bitter about it and to just man up and move on entirely from people who aren't interested in them. And the best way for them to do that is to stay far, far away from a situation that's just going to make them miserable.

You can only be "just friends" once the desire is gone. Like I said, I have plenty of female friends (still more than men, actually, although it's getting about even these days) -- but they were never a dating pool. Hell, they were never even dating prospects.

But at some point I concluded that I was simply never going to seek out friendship with someone if I was interested in them romantically. And when I did that, I felt a LOT better. Rejections still happened, and they still sucked, but at least I didn't have a reason to dwell on them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:37 pm UTC

drazen wrote:I still never said any of those things. I said that if you're dating someone and they would rather be friends than seek something more serious, and you don't feel the same way, it's better to move on from them, rather than try to be friends while still harboring romantic feelings for them.
That's true, but there's still the possibility that this is a very emotionally immature way to handle things, and that what grownups do is get the fuck over it and maintain a friendship with someone they *used to*want to date.

In cases where you won't be able to get over it, and I admit that this can happen even to emotionally mature adults, then sure, move on and don't try to maintain an asymmetrical relationship. But *don't* follow that up with a lifetime of incessant whining about how the people you're attracted to are mistaken or misleading when they talk about what they want in a relationship.

Wanting a nice guy means niceness is desirable or even necessary, not that it's sufficient on its own. So being a nice guy, even a genuinely nice guy rather than a Nice Guy, just means that if you're rejected, it will be on different grounds than your being not nice. In my experience, describing someone first as "nice" is like saying they mean well: perhaps there's no specific fatal flaw you could point to, but there's also not a lot of other good qualities to point to beyond that niceness. And faced with a choice between someone who is smart and funny and attractive and interesting and exciting but perhaps not all that nice, and someone who is not smart or funny or interesting or exciting but is at least nice, none of should really be surprised by the choice that is inevitably made.

If a woman laments being unable to find a nice guy to date, she means a nice guy who is also those other things.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:49 pm UTC

drazen wrote:Whatever you call it, I am arguing that it is generally unhealthy and unproductive to remain close friends with someone to whom you are strongly romantically attracted. It clouds your judgment and makes you feel lousy, so my answer to that was always "Get away from the situation."

Is it possible for you to work as a team with a romantically-attractive colleague?

drazen
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby drazen » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:22 pm UTC

That's true, but there's still the possibility that this is a very emotionally immature way to handle things, and that what grownups do is get the fuck over it and maintain a friendship with someone they *used to*want to date.

In cases where you won't be able to get over it, and I admit that this can happen even to emotionally mature adults, then sure, move on and don't try to maintain an asymmetrical relationship. But *don't* follow that up with a lifetime of incessant whining about how the people you're attracted to are mistaken or misleading when they talk about what they want in a relationship.


I still say it's healthier to get out than to "get over" it. People don't usually just put things behind them immediately like that. It's going to take time, and it's going to take a lot longer to move past it if you're constantly hanging around a person who rejected you.

And in none of my posts have I complained anyone has been mistaken or misleading about what they want. The only "complaint" I've had is about an extremely specific behavior that I have encountered in the past: rejecting someone, and then frequently complaining to the rejected person about the poor behavior of someone deemed more desirable (even after being specifically asked NOT to do that). That's just being a clueless jerk and/or rubbing it in someone's face. Who'd want to get turned down for a job, and then have the CEO call up just to complain to them about how the guy they hired is a lazy worker and they think he's probably stealing - instead of just firing him? (oh, and you still can't have the job!) I wouldn't want to hear about the lazy thief who got the job I wanted; I'd bid that CEO adieu, and find a better use of my time.

Is it possible for you to work as a team with a romantically-attractive colleague?


Not applicable; I always considered co-workers off-limits. Too messy for everyone. You can't use a "move on" tactic effectively if the person's going to be at your office all the time; better to not go down that road at all. Heck, forget rejection -- even if it worked out, do you really want to bring your fights and personal baggage to the office? Yuck!

That's probably a good reason not to date from your closest friends, too. But again, that's not anything I've ever really done, so I can't speak to that phenomenon.

I likely wouldn't befriend a romantically attractive colleague (I suppose if I were leaving for a new job, I might ask them out, but that isn't "befriending"). I have "work friends," and I also have some friends from work who eventually became real friends with whom I hang out elsewhere, from time to time. But there wasn't any romance involved.

jpvlsmv
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby jpvlsmv » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:27 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
drazen wrote:Whatever you call it, I am arguing that it is generally unhealthy and unproductive to remain close friends with someone to whom you are strongly romantically attracted. It clouds your judgment and makes you feel lousy, so my answer to that was always "Get away from the situation."

Is it possible for you to work as a team with a romantically-attractive colleague?

Nope, that's why you
Spoiler:
Image

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:29 pm UTC

hdhale wrote:Hermione marries Ron, not Harry.

Harry's kind of a drama queen, and every time he had to spend time with Hermione without Ron, it was pretty dang cold and there was no chemistry whatsoever.

It's only facepalm worthy if you think he "deserves" the main female character because he's the main male character. It was obvious that Ron actually valued Hermione as a person and friend, rather than just part of his coterie, since the second book.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:31 pm UTC

drazen wrote:
I will note this: Of the people I've gone steady with, but broke up with later (a much more serious stage than dating then breaking up), two of them I'm still friends with. Both of which are in the 8+ years category of friendship category. We just didn't fucking have compatibility, and yet their still my oldest friends. That's not an inferior friendship.
Presumably, though, you BOTH feel this way - and after a prolonged period of being exclusive, and both realizing it wasn't going to work. And if you can handle that, great. But as you point out, some people can't. And that's OK, too. But it's not an inferior friendship if you BOTH have the same perspective on the situation -- which isn't the case I'm describing at all.

[...] I'm just trying to give folks some unsolicited advice to, in fact, not be bitter about it and to just man up and move on entirely from people who aren't interested in them. And the best way for them to do that is to stay far, far away from a situation that's just going to make them miserable.

You can only be "just friends" once the desire is gone. Like I said, I have plenty of female friends (still more than men, actually, although it's getting about even these days) -- but they were never a dating pool. Hell, they were never even dating prospects.

Of the two, in one case it's mutual we're fine with it. In the other case, I am still in love with her, and we're ALSO fine with that. She knows this. It hasn't hurt our friendship despite us having broke up 6 years ago. And I'm not bitter about it. I'd date her again yeah, wouldn't have to even think twice about it. But I'd rather have her as a friend than not have her in my life at all, and I can't be bitter towards her for loving or not loving who she says. What's the point in becoming bitter about not having the "honor" of being in a relationship where only one person loves the other? It's not like she broke up with me outta some petty vendetta to hurt me or some shit, so why should I be upset at her? Because I'd rather have her be happy than shackled to a relationship she just wasn't that into. I'm hardly so delusional to think that I'm the only person she could ever be happy with, nor that she is the only person I could ever be happy with, after all, I'm quite happily married now.

Maybe men aren't capable of handling "just friends" like women are. Or maybe it's a bisexual thing, where you're more accustomed to people of the same sex that you're attracted to potentially not being attracted back and that's okay. And you know what, now I'm blessed to have a partner who loves me back in equal measure as I love her, and my ex has a partner she loves in equal measure, and we're all at a greater state of happiness than we would've been otherwise. And after all, being happy "is literally the only thing that matters in this stupid world."

So yeah. You're wrong in the case of at least one person. You can be "just friends" even if the desire isn't gone. And I'm willing to bet that I'm hardly the only one in the world who's mature enough to handle it.

EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
Karilyn wrote:...it's just fucking dating... I don't owe you sex while we're dating.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/GuardiansSTAS.jpg/200px-GuardiansSTAS.jpg[img]
Clearly the beings of Oa and you have different definitions of those two terms.

We stand by our earlier decision.


That's entirely fair, everyone has different definitions of dating. I typically view it as being sorta, several stages.

1. Dating: Let's see how this works out, no harm no foul, break up anytime if it isn't working out. (Usually like 6-12 months)
2. Long-term/steady: This has potential and I see it lasting for the next few years. (Usually around like 3-5 years)
3. Hopefully-lifelong-partners/husband/wife/whatever: This is probably going to last the rest of our lives, let's hold hands and see what we can make outta life.

Roughly parallel to the old guard BDSM collar meanings but for vanilla relationships.

That's the general flowchart of how relationships go. People who are like "Oh we're going to be together for the rest of our lives" early on a relationship are fucking scary because it shows they have no grasp on realism and the actual stage of the relationship they are in. They are the reason why the divorce rate is so insanely fucking high. They are the reason the Twilight novels are bestsellers. Historically if I encountered someone say that, I'd lecture them about it once, and if they continued to do it, I'd wind up dumping them, because it's better to get out earlier rather than later.

Generally speaking I don't consider dating to be the part of the relationship where I have sex with other people. If you do, that's entirely okay but I don't; it is not what is right for me. Different people have different things which are right for them. Every person is an individual. I don't have sex with someone I'm dating, not until we're in sorta the more emotionally entangled long-term/steady stage. Sex is too emotionally messy for me and a lot of other people (even if it isn't for you) for me to have sex casually without someone with a long term emotional investment. Casual sex isn't for everyone. Neither is holding off on sex. I think waiting until you're married to have sex is a bad idea, but I also think having sex in the first few months of dating is also a bad idea. Everyone's mileage may vary. There's no reason to rush things.

gmalivuk wrote:In my experience, describing someone first as "nice" is like saying they mean well: perhaps there's no specific fatal flaw you could point to, but there's also not a lot of other good qualities to point to beyond that niceness. And faced with a choice between someone who is smart and funny and attractive and interesting and exciting but perhaps not all that nice, and someone who is not smart or funny or interesting or exciting but is at least nice, none of should really be surprised by the choice that is inevitably made.

This is astonishingly well put, and frankly I'm sitting a bit in awe of it. No offense intended. I just felt that needed to be acknowledged.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:47 pm UTC

Karilyn wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:In my experience, describing someone first as "nice" is like saying they mean well: perhaps there's no specific fatal flaw you could point to, but there's also not a lot of other good qualities to point to beyond that niceness. And faced with a choice between someone who is smart and funny and attractive and interesting and exciting but perhaps not all that nice, and someone who is not smart or funny or interesting or exciting but is at least nice, none of should really be surprised by the choice that is inevitably made.

This is astonishingly well put, and frankly I'm sitting a bit in awe of it. No offense intended. I just felt that needed to be acknowledged.

Wow. I'm so nice.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:58 pm UTC

In my experience, describing someone first as "nice" is like saying they mean well: perhaps there's no specific fatal flaw you could point to, but there's also not a lot of other good qualities to point to beyond that niceness. And faced with a choice between someone who is smart and funny and attractive and interesting and exciting but perhaps not all that nice, and someone who is not smart or funny or interesting or exciting but is at least nice, none of should really be surprised by the choice that is inevitably made.

I can't agree with this at all. My Numero Uno requirement for a partner, or even friend, is that they are good, moral people -- they can be slower than me, they can look "regular", they can have a very different or no sense of humor, but if they're not Nice, then they're out; and honestly, when I was single I was more attracted to people I would just define as "nice" then I was to any of the other things. There's no situation in which I would have given the time of day to someone I couldn't describe as "nice", as a friend or as a partner, no matter how brilliant or sexy or hilarious they were. Like, if David Tennant said something racist in front of me, I would say "Well you can go fuck yourself, David Tennant, I'm out of here."

To be fair, tho, I'm very nearly asexual, so that might be why the surface impressions don't leave such a big mark on my affection for someone.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:10 pm UTC

I thought that EpicanicusStrikes' post was just a joke about "fucking dating" involving sex by definition. Presumably versus "not-fucking dating", which wouldn't. I didn't think it was a statement about what anyone was *actually* owed. Am I crazy?

Aliquid
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:42 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Aliquid » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:17 pm UTC

drazen wrote:I still say it's healthier to get out than to "get over" it. People don't usually just put things behind them immediately like that. It's going to take time, and it's going to take a lot longer to move past it if you're constantly hanging around a person who rejected you.

I agree. For many people the initial stages of “falling in love” with someone can be very overwhelming. You can’t get the other person out of your mind, you can’t focus on anything else, and you get giddy just thinking of a potential future together.

A person can’t just “turn that off”, and listening to that person going on about their relationship with or interest in someone else is pure torture.

If you were simply interested in someone and never reached that overwhelming “falling in love” emotional state… then sure “moving on” is easy to do. If you were in a relationship with the person for a while and you emotionally moved past that obsessive stage, then it might be possible to “move on” when they say “hey… maybe we should stop this and just be friends”

If you have never experienced that obsessive overwhelming stage of an early romantic interest… then I guess this is never an issue for you.

The only "complaint" I've had is about an extremely specific behavior that I have encountered in the past: rejecting someone, and then frequently complaining to the rejected person about the poor behavior of someone deemed more desirable (even after being specifically asked NOT to do that). That's just being a clueless jerk and/or rubbing it in someone's face.
Yes, I have witnessed that scenario more than once...

Who'd want to get turned down for a job, and then have the CEO call up just to complain to them about how the guy they hired is a lazy worker and they think he's probably stealing - instead of just firing him? (oh, and you still can't have the job!) I wouldn't want to hear about the lazy thief who got the job I wanted; I'd bid that CEO adieu, and find a better use of my time.
Good analogy (assuming that you are actually qualified for the job)


I always considered co-workers off-limits. Too messy for everyone. [snip] I likely wouldn't befriend a romantically attractive colleague
Exactly. Either you don't befriend them in the first place, or you emotionally close yourself off from the beginning. If you associate with a person with the understanding that they are “off limits” from the start, then it is less likely for you to ever hit the state of being overwhelmingly attracted to them (less likely, but not impossible).

NOTE: All my comments have been genderless, and that was on purpose. I have seen men treat women this way, and women treat men this way. It is a human phenomenon for people with certain personality types.
Also, both people in the “relationship” are at fault for the problem.
- One for not accepting reality. They should “get over it” and/or “walk away” instead of letting themselves be tortured.
- The other for either being too self-absorbed to even notice the other person’s suffering, or noticing it and taking advantage it.

Prometheus
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:58 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Prometheus » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:18 pm UTC

As a chronically rejected nice guy myself, I can say with confidence, that's not the problem!

Queue rant:
First and foremost, a good portion of self-described "nice guys", aren't. They seem to think that they're owed something for not being an obvious ass. They did something nice for the pretty girl, that's fine. Would they have done something equally kind if she'd been ugly, or an elderly man, or a homeless person? Did they expect anything beyond maybe gratitude? A lot of "nice guys" fail this test.

As for what women want... Most women seem to value boldness and confidence above many other traits, both positive and negative. Naturally, someone with these traits is far more likely to approach women, and gets an advantage on that alone. While being bold and confident are often associated with being a jerk, that is certainly not exclusive.

I know a number of men who are nice, bold, and confident, and they do just fine with women. This applies even if they have other detrimental traits, such as obesity or poverty.
End rant.


In regards to the number of people who griped about how they get 'friend zoned', then listen to the woman gripe about her relationships, so what? You'd listen to your male friends bitch about the women they're dating. Now, when a woman that previously rejected your gripes about how the guy she's dating isn't more like you, that's messed up. When she does it with him sitting right there, it's hilarious.

As for what my problem is, it's not being nice, but I'll be damned if I can tell what the real issue is. Apparently I'm 'run from the room screaming' creepy (no, seriously, this has happened, twice), but no one seems to be able identify what's creepy about me. But that is a whole separate rant, that's off topic.
Well I thought it was funny.

Soultaker~
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:06 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Soultaker~ » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:44 pm UTC

A pot shot at sexually/romantically frustrated guys that just happens to highlight the author's own moral superiority: not my favourite kind of XKCD.
Karilyn wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:In my experience, describing someone first as "nice" is like saying they mean well: perhaps there's no specific fatal flaw you could point to, but there's also not a lot of other good qualities to point to beyond that niceness. And faced with a choice between someone who is smart and funny and attractive and interesting and exciting but perhaps not all that nice, and someone who is not smart or funny or interesting or exciting but is at least nice, none of should really be surprised by the choice that is inevitably made.

This is astonishingly well put, and frankly I'm sitting a bit in awe of it. No offense intended. I just felt that needed to be acknowledged.

I agree. I wish that Randall would acknowledge this sometime, rather than just go with the lazy implication that anyone that thinks they are nice is actually not, which I think is only sometimes true.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:47 pm UTC

drazen wrote:
Is it possible for you to work as a team with a romantically-attractive colleague?

Not applicable; I always considered co-workers off-limits. Too messy for everyone.

I'm not suggesting to sleep with your co-workers. I'm just modelling your relations with your friends after your relations with your colleagues.

So, we can discard the idea that it's the romantic attractiveness itself that doesn't allow you to be in close but not romantic relations.

So, what is it then? I see two possible explanations:
1. You feel insecure around someone who have rejected your request[s] for romance.
2. Or, on the opposite, you feel insecure in sharing the knowledge of your romantic preferences with people you cannot easily leave.

Or do you have a better idea?

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:49 pm UTC

Aliquid wrote:
drazen wrote:I still say it's healthier to get out than to "get over" it. People don't usually just put things behind them immediately like that. It's going to take time, and it's going to take a lot longer to move past it if you're constantly hanging around a person who rejected you.

I agree. For many people the initial stages of “falling in love” with someone can be very overwhelming. You can’t get the other person out of your mind, you can’t focus on anything else, and you get giddy just thinking of a potential future together.

If you were simply interested in someone and never reached that overwhelming “falling in love” emotional state… then sure “moving on” is easy to do. If you were in a relationship with the person for a while and you emotionally moved past that obsessive stage, then it might be possible to “move on” when they say “hey… maybe we should stop this and just be friends” If you have never experienced that obsessive overwhelming stage of an early romantic interest… then I guess this is never an issue for you.

I used to experience such obsessive overwhelming stuff. Generally speaking I don't anymore, and I generally perceive it as a neon sign of emotional immaturity. It's something I associate with teens and young adults. Most (but definitely not all) older folks seem to not do that. Which is good, because nowadays I consider that to be a redflag "DO NOT DATE" sign, where I'll tell them they need to cool themselves, that this isn't a fucking Twilight novel, yes we've been together for a week, and I'm really zero tolerance for that "Oh we're going to spend our whole lives together, I can't live without you," stuff. When I see people in that overwhelming "falling in love" emotional state, I see Bella Swan. And I have no interest in dating Bella Swan. I've been there, done that, have the t-shirt, never doing it again. And usually my single number one dating tip for younger folks is resist the urge to be like that, and don't date someone else who's like that.

It can work out. But you're basically throwing all your emotion in at a point where throwing all your emotions in is still a crapshoot. And that's just asking for intense heartbreak. YMMV, that's just the advice I give you youngsters.

EDIT: And yes there are male Bella Swans too, and I've personally encountered more male Bella Swans than I have female Bella Swans. YMMV.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

thelonesoldier
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:34 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby thelonesoldier » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:56 pm UTC

Plutarch wrote:I have some sympathy for the first speaker, if he's young. There are plenty of young men (including me in the past) who simply have no idea how to find a girlfriend or lover, just because they lack experience of the world. So they end up being as nice as they can to the girl they like, and then become distressed when she disappears over the horizon with the bad guy on the motorbike. Which then leads to them saying stuff like 'Women say they want nice guys etc.' But it's much too harsh to then condemn that young man as someone who's 'belittling a woman's judgement and self-awareness.' He's just fed up because he can't find a girlfriend, and the only behaviour he can think of to rectify the situation, which is to be as friendly as he can, doesn't seem to be working.

I do understand the 'friend zone criticism,' that is to say, just because you've become really friendly with a woman doesn't mean she has any obligation to start dating you. That's obviously true, but it's not as if most young men who end up in that situation have cunningly planned it out in some sinister fashion beforehand. Quite the opposite - they're just blundering along being as nice as possible to the girl they like because they have no idea what else to do.


THANK YOU. Sometimes I feel like nobody understands this.

They should teach this shit in school.

And usually my single number one dating tip for younger folks is resist the urge to be like that, and don't date someone else who's like that.

Ah yes, the ol' "relationships are a really big deal to you, therefore you aren't allowed to have one"

Soultaker~
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:06 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Soultaker~ » Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:03 pm UTC

Prometheus wrote:They did something nice for the pretty girl, that's fine. Would they have done something equally kind if she'd been ugly, or an elderly man, or a homeless person? Did they expect anything beyond maybe gratitude? A lot of "nice guys" fail this test.

I'm pretty sure a lot of guys that are successful with women fail that test too. It's not like Nice Guys™ invented giving women preferential treatment in order to get something from them. Then is it really the reason these guys are rejected? Or is it just a convenient excuse?

Apparently I'm 'run from the room screaming' creepy (no, seriously, this has happened, twice), but no one seems to be able identify what's creepy about me.

I mean this in the nicest way, but it's possibly you are just ugly. I think a lot of people would rather call you creepy which carries the implication that your behaviour is at fault, than admit they are shallow enough to be turned off by your appearance (which is both perfectly natural, and somewhat of a taboo in our society). People like to externalize blame.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:07 pm UTC

thelonesoldier wrote:
And usually my single number one dating tip for younger folks is resist the urge to be like that, and don't date someone else who's like that.

Ah yes, the ol' "relationships are a really big deal to you, therefore you aren't allowed to have one"

More like: Relationships are awesome, don't be a psycho about it, because noboody likes a psycho and that's an easily avoidable way to ruin something before it has a chance to start.

But you know, whatever, have fun. It's your life, your relationships. Maybe you'll get lucky, maybe you won't. Most people don't. The really unlucky ones get married after having known each other for like six months because "We are totally in love!" and then get divorced before five years because they've convinced themselves that their relationship is at a far deeper level than it actually is. Then EVERYONE gets hurt from easily avoidable pain that could've all been avoided by not lying to yourself about the depth of your relationship.

I wish you luck and hope you'll get lucky and not destroy your life. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. No sarcasm. The amount of broken hearts and broken marriages is too damn high.

But yeah, telling someone they shouldn't gamble because you'll usually experience bigger hurt that way, is totally the same thing as saying you shouldn't be allowed to have a relationship. Nice binary thinking (That was the sarcasm)

Soultaker~ wrote:
Apparently I'm 'run from the room screaming' creepy (no, seriously, this has happened, twice), but no one seems to be able identify what's creepy about me.

I mean this in the nicest way, but it's possibly you are just ugly. I think a lot of people would rather call you creepy which carries the implication that your behaviour is at fault, than admit they are shallow enough to be turned off by your appearance (which is both perfectly natural, and somewhat of a taboo in our society). People like to externalize blame.

That's /probably/ not what it is. Generally speaking, women have a much higher degree of tolerance for ugliness in men than men have for ugliness in women. There are exceptions of course, but if it wasn't generally true, most women would be lesbians cause the average man on average is waaaaaay uglier than the average woman is on average.

Average Australian Woman Amalgram and Average American Man Amalgram
(Sorry don't have one for the same country on hand)
http://s14.postimg.org/53pcppvu9/Malevs_Female.png

Once again I admit bisexual bias may be coming into play, but IMO on average most men are WAY uglier than most women. People ain't dating men because they are pleasing on the eyes.

When someone is described as creepy, more often than not it's specific behaviors that you are not consciously aware that you are doing, which is giving the person ambiguity about whether or not you're a threat or not, and many women will chose to play on the safe side rather than take the risk. Usually things like body language, or facial expressions, the sorta shit that autistic people have problems with (not saying that you're autistic). This is something which is entirely addressable IF you don't get defensive about it. I have known some legitimately awesome people that accidentally gave of creepy vibes that, once they figured out what behaviors were triggering that response, were able to not be seen as creepy anymore.

It's never anything personality changing. Usually just things like, how close you're sitting to someone, or how much you're staring (even if you weren't meaning to).

You, judging by the things you've said, probably aren't actually creepy, you're just accidentally giving off low level "not sure if creepy" which is indistinguishable from real creepy. And that's not your fault anymore than any of the difficulties I have with my autism are my fault. But just because that shit ain't our faults, doesn't mean that we can't use our awareness of the places we are struggling in to go out and be the most totally righteous person that we can be dude.

Bah I'm probably not explaining this well.

The magic thing to know is that: Saying it's not something you can do anything about, or getting defensive about it, won't improve your situation. And this is for ANY situation.
Last edited by Karilyn on Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:34 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

Blimix
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:19 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Blimix » Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:12 pm UTC

Please excuse the n00b (but long time reader) piping up: I registered just to post this, since I think it might be valuable both to lonely "nice guys" and to those who those who take pleasure in denigrating "nice guys" and the "friend zone". My essay, "Fixing Nice Guys, 'Nice Guys,' and the Friend Zone" (which you'll have to find by web search because the forum won't let me link to it) describes what I hope is a considerate and (much more importantly) helpful view on the subject.

tl;dr: "Why do women like jerks?" may be asked by either a "nice guy" or real nice guy (I've done my time in both roles), and the question is problematic in far subtler ways than people like to pretend when they make straw men to attack the questioner. Often, the nice guy's loneliness stems from a genuine but misguided attempt to be respectful by not making any advances.

User avatar
Khaz
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Khaz » Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:45 pm UTC

Rare xkcd strip that I don't entirely agree with.

Women are people and people are all different so broad generalizations are always going to be wrong, but still. My life experience suggests a somewhat different rule. Women, and all people by extension, want people who are nice TO THEM.

I cannot count the number of females I have observed in a pair bonding relationship with a male that could adequately be described as an "asshole" to just about everyone EXCEPT them. And though they are aware their significant other is a dick to people, they don't seem to mind because he's the sweetest thing on earth to them specifically.

Regardless of that I'm going to say that I have been an extremely nice guy for the majority of my life and I have neeeeever felt wanted. Which probably has something to do with why I'm not as nice anymore.

Must be easy to dismiss and insult the frustrated single guy as someone who no longer knows how that rejection even feels.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:02 pm UTC

My reaction to one of the strands of this thread: "You know you're maturing when you stop seeing Romeo and Juliet as the epitome of romance, and start seeing it as a cautionary tale..."
A friend's response: "...which explains so much of Twilight - Meyer still sees R&J as romantic"

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:31 pm UTC

drazen wrote:I still say it's healthier to get out than to "get over" it. People don't usually just put things behind them immediately like that. It's going to take time, and it's going to take a lot longer to move past it if you're constantly hanging around a person who rejected you.
Needing a bit of time to yourself to get over it (you'll note that I never once said "immediately") is very different from "moving on", which suggests that you cut the person out of your life and don't rekindle the friendship later on.

The only "complaint" I've had is about an extremely specific behavior that I have encountered in the past: rejecting someone, and then frequently complaining to the rejected person about the poor behavior of someone deemed more desirable (even after being specifically asked NOT to do that). That's just being a clueless jerk and/or rubbing it in someone's face. Who'd want to get turned down for a job, and then have the CEO call up just to complain to them about how the guy they hired is a lazy worker and they think he's probably stealing - instead of just firing him? (oh, and you still can't have the job!) I wouldn't want to hear about the lazy thief who got the job I wanted; I'd bid that CEO adieu, and find a better use of my time.
Yes, and others have already agreed with you that that particular personality flaw can indeed be a serious one and that such a person would indeed be better removed from your social life.

Karilyn wrote:In the other case, I am still in love with her, and we're ALSO fine with that. She knows this. It hasn't hurt our friendship despite us having broke up 6 years ago. And I'm not bitter about it. I'd date her again yeah, wouldn't have to even think twice about it. But I'd rather have her as a friend than not have her in my life at all, and I can't be bitter towards her for loving or not loving who she says.
Yeah, I've had cases like this myself. I suppose some people may not be able to deal with this, but in my experience one way to get over it is to simply acknowledge that the friendship is reciprocated but the romantic feelings aren't, and to be happy for her without being too jealous of the people she dates later, and to make sure what pangs of jealousy may occasionally arise don't affect how I actually behave toward either of them, because that's my own issue and I'll deal with it on my own.

gmalivuk wrote:In my experience, describing someone first as "nice" is like saying they mean well: perhaps there's no specific fatal flaw you could point to, but there's also not a lot of other good qualities to point to beyond that niceness. And faced with a choice between someone who is smart and funny and attractive and interesting and exciting but perhaps not all that nice, and someone who is not smart or funny or interesting or exciting but is at least nice, none of us should really be surprised by the choice that is inevitably made.
This is astonishingly well put, and frankly I'm sitting a bit in awe of it. No offense intended. I just felt that needed to be acknowledged.
Why would offense be taken at a compliment like that? But if you must be in awe, can you please pretend that the added "us" was there from the beginning? :-)

KrytenKoro wrote:
In my experience, describing someone first as "nice" is like saying they mean well: perhaps there's no specific fatal flaw you could point to, but there's also not a lot of other good qualities to point to beyond that niceness. And faced with a choice between someone who is smart and funny and attractive and interesting and exciting but perhaps not all that nice, and someone who is not smart or funny or interesting or exciting but is at least nice, none of should really be surprised by the choice that is inevitably made.

I can't agree with this at all. My Numero Uno requirement for a partner, or even friend, is that they are good, moral people -- they can be slower than me, they can look "regular", they can have a very different or no sense of humor, but if they're not Nice, then they're out; and honestly, when I was single I was more attracted to people I would just define as "nice" then I was to any of the other things. There's no situation in which I would have given the time of day to someone I couldn't describe as "nice", as a friend or as a partner, no matter how brilliant or sexy or hilarious they were. Like, if David Tennant said something racist in front of me, I would say "Well you can go fuck yourself, David Tennant, I'm out of here."

To be fair, tho, I'm very nearly asexual, so that might be why the surface impressions don't leave such a big mark on my affection for someone.
Okay, so for you niceness is a strict necessity rather than being simply desirable. I still strongly doubt that niceness alone is sufficient for you to want to be with someone, which means my previous point still stands and even if you wouldn't choose the amazing-but-sometimes-asshole person, you would definitely choose the amazing-and-nice person over the just-nice person.

Khaz wrote:Rare xkcd strip that I don't entirely agree with.

Women are people and people are all different so broad generalizations are always going to be wrong, but still. My life experience suggests a somewhat different rule. Women, and all people by extension, want people who are nice TO THEM.

I cannot count the number of females I have observed in a pair bonding relationship with a male that could adequately be described as an "asshole" to just about everyone EXCEPT them. And though they are aware their significant other is a dick to people, they don't seem to mind because he's the sweetest thing on earth to them specifically.
That is a different rule than what, exactly? What rule is suggested by the comic, apart from that women don't want "guys who respond to rejection by belittling their judgment and self-awareness"? Examples of women who date guys that are mean to other people but nice to the woman in question aren't relevant here. You'd need to find women who like guys who respond to rejection by belittling their judgment and self-awareness.

Regardless of that I'm going to say that I have been an extremely nice guy for the majority of my life and I have neeeeever felt wanted. Which probably has something to do with why I'm not as nice anymore.

Must be easy to dismiss and insult the frustrated single guy as someone who no longer knows how that rejection even feels.
While Randall is married, many of us criticizing the Nice Guy mentality in this thread and others every time it comes up remain very single.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Prometheus
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:58 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Prometheus » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:54 pm UTC

Soultaker~ wrote:I mean this in the nicest way, but it's possibly you are just ugly. I think a lot of people would rather call you creepy which carries the implication that your behaviour is at fault, than admit they are shallow enough to be turned off by your appearance (which is both perfectly natural, and somewhat of a taboo in our society). People like to externalize blame.


No offense taken. You don't know me, and it's a reasonable interpenetration of the facts, but no. Not saying I'm particularly good looking, but I'm no goofier looking than average. It's probably a body language thing, since people that I spend time with stop noticing it, and I don't seem to trigger people with autism spectrum disorders (relevant, as a common symptom is trouble with reading body language). Thank [insert deity here] for sci-fi conventions, where being a freak doesn't make you a social reject.
Well I thought it was funny.

Soultaker~
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:06 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Soultaker~ » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:15 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:What rule is suggested by the comic, apart from that women don't want "guys who respond to rejection by belittling their judgment and self-awareness"?

The comic is frustrating exactly because it implies that people who realize that being nice does not automatically make you attractive (which I think is true) are implicitly “belittling the judgement and self-awareness of women” (which I think doesn't follow at all).

Prometheus wrote:Not saying I'm particularly good looking, but I'm no goofier looking than average. It's probably a body language thing [..]

Ok, I am obviously in no position to judge, so I'll take your word for it. :)

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:19 am UTC

Karilyn wrote:More like: Relationships are awesome, don't be a psycho about it, because noboody likes a psycho and that's an easily avoidable way to ruin something before it has a chance to start.

...

But yeah, telling someone they shouldn't gamble because you'll usually experience bigger hurt that way, is totally the same thing as saying you shouldn't be allowed to have a relationship. Nice binary thinking (That was the sarcasm)


This is hilarious in context of the earlier thread.

Okay, so for you niceness is a strict necessity rather than being simply desirable. I still strongly doubt that niceness alone is sufficient for you to want to be with someone, which means my previous point still stands and even if you wouldn't choose the amazing-but-sometimes-asshole person, you would definitely choose the amazing-and-nice person over the just-nice person.

Sure, sure...but never in a million years would someone be able to say about me "well he SAYS he wants nice girls, but..."

There's no "really what I'm into is confidence" etc. about it -- I'm into nice girls, full stop. There's a good bit that narrows that down --after-- the fact, but niceness is far and away the most important factor. The niceness is what --makes-- them amazing.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:21 am UTC

Khaz wrote:Women are people and people are all different so broad generalizations are always going to be wrong, but still. My life experience suggests a somewhat different rule. Women, and all people by extension, want people who are nice TO THEM.

I cannot count the number of females I have observed in a pair bonding relationship with a male that could adequately be described as an "asshole" to just about everyone EXCEPT them. And though they are aware their significant other is a dick to people, they don't seem to mind because he's the sweetest thing on earth to them specifically.

Just saying, just cause someone's an asshole to almost everyone, doesn't mean they are an asshole to everyone, or that they don't have other redeemable traits.

Me and my spouse are both kinda assholes in our own way. I'm kinda, excessively blunt and enjoy pissing people off. I'm also excessively loyal, and generally funny. Me being an asshole isn't mutually exclusive with me having good traits. We've passed the 5 years of statistical improbability mark, so we're doing pretty good, and I think we're both happier now than we were before, even though we're both assholes.

Reality is, everybody's a dick in their own way. Nobody is perfect.

Love is when you've found that special someone that you can spend the rest of your life trolling the shit outta each other, and not even keep tabs.

If you'll allow me to stereotype a little, I'd think men of all people would understand the ability to enjoy the company of people that you're all total dicks to. It's pretty common in male friendships.


KrytenKoro wrote:This is hilarious in context of the earlier thread.

I'm legitimately curious, I haven't participated in an xkcd thread in a while.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

Farabor
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:46 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Farabor » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:34 am UTC

Amusingly enough, I AM the proverbial universally regarded nice guy who's (almost) always been alone/out of a relationship...and frequently am the one who's shoulder is cried upon. The niceness part comes from feedback I get from others....and I can tell you this, there is NOTHING more frustrating than the 2700th time you hear "You're such a good person, they'll be someone for you".

On the flip side, I also realize that the reasons I'm alone have very little to do with female psychology of any sort. It's far more due to my own psychological weaknesses combined with just how abnormal I am. The former is being worked on. The latter...well, maybe they'll be an inverted hybercube shaped slot for this tesseract tab somewhere out there....

User avatar
Khaz
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Khaz » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:39 am UTC

Karilyn wrote:If you'll allow me to stereotype a little, I'd think men of all people would understand the ability to enjoy the company of people that you're all total dicks to. It's pretty common in male friendships.

Well that's the problem right there, is that I don't fit or really understand that stereotype. It makes it hard to relate to most men.

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Invertin » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:01 am UTC

drazen wrote:Randall has left out one very important element: the girl who rejects a guy, says "let's just be friends," then proceeds to endlessly complain to the guy who was interested in her about how the bad boy is constantly mistreating her.


So friends aren't allowed to talk to other friends about their problems, or is it only when you didn't get a relationship out of it first? Explain to me the situation here because what I'm seeing is 'if someone makes a relationship mistake they aren't allowed to ever be upset about it out loud'.

Soultaker~ wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:What rule is suggested by the comic, apart from that women don't want "guys who respond to rejection by belittling their judgment and self-awareness"?

The comic is frustrating exactly because it implies that people who realize that being nice does not automatically make you attractive (which I think is true) are implicitly “belittling the judgement and self-awareness of women” (which I think doesn't follow at all).


No that's not what the comic is talking about at all did you read it
the comic says if you feel like you are a victim of the 'nice guy' phenomena (which requires doing the opposite of what you say there) then what you're saying is that you understand women better than they do, thus belittling their human spontaneity and intelligence to a sequence of patterns and buttons that you have to push to get sex.

adavies42
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:52 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby adavies42 » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:09 am UTC

Prometheus wrote:Thank [insert deity here] for sci-fi conventions, where being a freak doesn't make you a social reject.


Ha, if only. The con scene ain't what it used to be....

adavies42
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:52 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby adavies42 » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:19 am UTC

So, um, how about we substitute “lonely” for “desperate” and “sad” for “angry”, and try to have a little compassion? The thing that really blows my mind about these debates is how rarely anyone shows sympathy for people whose main complaint is that they’re missing out on what everyone else tells them is one of the most important parts of life.

adavies42
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:52 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby adavies42 » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:24 am UTC

schismtracer wrote:Given my experience in the "possesses no value to any woman on the planet, for any reason" camp, I might be able to help. Whenever you feel the urge to claim that women only want [whatever], instead mentally repeat "women want literally anyone other than myself" until said urge passes, then find something constructive to do with your time (meaning, not whining endlessly on the internet about how you can't get laid because bitches and whores and RAGE).

Seriously, though, the biggest common thread among MRAs/PUAs/incels/Ladder Theorists/whatever is that they're self-obsessed/loathing ragemonsters that instantly isolate themselves through sheer misanthropy, generally without even realizing it. I imagine most are too pathological to change that without sinking a small fortune into psychological counseling, so they're really just better off giving up, getting over themselves, and accepting that relationships are things that happen to other people. It's not the end of the world or even particularly difficult to do (again, I'm speaking from personal experience here).


… Really? Why don’t you just tell them to slit their wrists now and put themselves out of your misery? Most of the posts here so far have been monumentally unhelpful, but yours is the only one I’ve seen so far that actually encourages people to become sociopaths. Yes, I’m alone and lonely, but the day I give up on changing that is the day my life stops being worth living.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:34 am UTC

Soultaker~ wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:What rule is suggested by the comic, apart from that women don't want "guys who respond to rejection by belittling their judgment and self-awareness"?

The comic is frustrating exactly because it implies that people who realize that being nice does not automatically make you attractive (which I think is true) are implicitly “belittling the judgement and self-awareness of women” (which I think doesn't follow at all).
You're right, that doesn't follow at all. So it's a good thing nothing even remotely like that is implied by the comic.

The kind of people who are criticized as responding to rejection by belittling women's judgment and self-awareness are only guys who start sentences with, "Women say they want nice guys, but what they really want are--"

That's it.

There is nothing in there about the people who realize that being nice doesn't automatically make one attractive, and there's nothing implicitly about what people who realize that are doing.

Did you even read the same comic as the rest of us?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Magnanimous » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:48 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Wanting a nice guy means niceness is desirable or even necessary, not that it's sufficient on its own. So being a nice guy, even a genuinely nice guy rather than a Nice Guy, just means that if you're rejected, it will be on different grounds than your being not nice. In my experience, describing someone first as "nice" is like saying they mean well: perhaps there's no specific fatal flaw you could point to, but there's also not a lot of other good qualities to point to beyond that niceness. And faced with a choice between someone who is smart and funny and attractive and interesting and exciting but perhaps not all that nice, and someone who is not smart or funny or interesting or exciting but is at least nice, none of should really be surprised by the choice that is inevitably made.

If a woman laments being unable to find a nice guy to date, she means a nice guy who is also those other things.

Women do want nice guys, but nice as in The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch.

User avatar
mythago
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby mythago » Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:08 am UTC

adavies42 wrote:So, um, how about we substitute “lonely” for “desperate” and “sad” for “angry”, and try to have a little compassion? The thing that really blows my mind about these debates is how rarely anyone shows sympathy for people whose main complaint is that they’re missing out on what everyone else tells them is one of the most important parts of life.


When that complaint is expressed as "all members of group X are liars, either because they're malicious or colossally self-unaware, possibly both," then you really shouldn't be surprised at a lack of sympathy from people who are X, or people who have loved ones and friends that are X.

If you want your mind blown, consider the bizarreness of telling people who've just been insulted and belittled that what they ought to do is overflow with sympathy for a perfect stranger who is insulting and belittling them, because they're probably just very sad.
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs

Soultaker~
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:06 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Soultaker~ » Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:12 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The kind of people who are criticized as responding to rejection by belittling women's judgment and self-awareness (A) are only guys who start sentences with, "Women say they want nice guys, but what they really want are--" (B)

There is nothing in there about the people who realize that being nice doesn't automatically make one attractive (C), and there's nothing implicitly about what people who realize that are doing.

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning. I'm arguing that people who realize C might well say B, but are not automatically A. You have to admit the comic is indirectly about C, unless you think that people who realize C would never say B. But if they do, then they get painted as A. I don't see how one might not draw that conclusion, unless you want to argue that the stick figure on the left is not actually a stand-in for any person that says B, but that is my usual interpretation of stick figures with no identifying marks.

It is reasonable and not at all belittling to women to point out that, despite popular cultural tropes, being nice does not make you automatically attractive. I'm not sure if that's a statement you disagree with (it seemed to be what you wrote, earlier), or just my interpretation of the comic. Feel free to explain.

Did you even read the same comic as the rest of us?

Do you find asking passive-aggressive rhetorical questions promotes mutual understanding?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:50 am UTC

Soultaker~ wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The kind of people who are criticized as responding to rejection by belittling women's judgment and self-awareness (A) are only guys who start sentences with, "Women say they want nice guys, but what they really want are--" (B)

There is nothing in there about the people who realize that being nice doesn't automatically make one attractive (C), and there's nothing implicitly about what people who realize that are doing.

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning. I'm arguing that people who realize C might well say B, but are not automatically A. You have to admit the comic is indirectly about C, unless you think that people who realize C would never say B.
What the comic is saying is that people who say B are automatically A. This does *not* imply that everyone in C is A, nor does it make the comic indirectly about C as a whole.

This argument has the same form as yours: "Straight men in general might well say B, but are not automatically A. You have to admit the comic is indirectly about straight men in general, unless you think that straight men would never say B."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mscha, Raidri and 95 guests