Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Most often they seem to be referring to men who treat their partner as an object or as subservient. The really bad ones abuse and manipulate emotional attachment.

Note that I really don't think that sort of behavior has anything to do with gender. Women do it too.



And of course, some people misappropriate it to justify their jealousy of their crush going out with someone else.

[Graknorke]

I'd put it as closer to maliciously manipulative probably, at least in the context of this thread.

But all of these words to describe abstract concepts are confusing and limiting. Bring on telepathy ASAP.

[Leafsnail]

It's something like "someone displaying unacceptable behaviour".  It means something different to everyone really, and it's started to become a bit of a buzzword.

[Putnam]

It's something like "someone displaying unacceptable behaviour".  It means something different to everyone really, and it's started to become a bit of a buzzword.

Starting? A bit? No, it's a gigantic one right about now.

[kaijyuu]

Well I think you'd have a hard time saying it means any sort of unacceptable behavior. It generally requires hurting someone in some fashion.

[Pnx]

Well jerkiness is pretty relative, and there is a sliding scale of jerkitude to nice-guy-ness. Generally speaking in my book someone is a jerk if they do jerkish things, and since I know someone is going to respond by asking for examples, here's a few jekish things people have done to me in the past.

• Slandering me behind my back (while being nice to my face).
• The full range of childish bullying (stuff like randomly hitting me, insulting me, harassment, hazing etc... I experienced a lot of this stuff during a lot of my earlier school years (and some of it in later years), you would be amazed).
• Showing a gross lack of empathy, by that I mean stuff like, for example, when a group of kids were giggling about how the seizure some guy had had a while back was "hilarious".
• Issuing a thinly veiled death threat because I refused to let you copy my math homework (which was sort of more ridiculous than it sounds because I'd spent the entire year basically tutoring this guy at the end of class, he apparently got really annoyed when he was having trouble picking it up towards the end of the year and started trying very hard to get me to just give him the homework answers).

[Duke 2.0]

 Addressing this topic is a bit odd for me. I'll have to explain how relationships would work for me.

 So my family has a tradition of arranged marriage. That thing you just thought right now? That judging? Throw that right out, it's not like that. The process is just the parents of the couple introducing them and giving them some time to get to know eachother. This period is non-physical or romantic, it's just getting to know eachother and where they want their lives to go. Figuring out if the relationship would work in the long term. After both members of the couple agree to take things further it becomes romantic, and with the consent of all involved it becomes a committed relationship. Nobody is forced to be with anybody else.

 My sister went through the early process with several young men before finding a guy that worked out with her lifestyle. I'm pretty confident in this system not having the problems associated with arranged marriage.

 I'm not explaining this to convince people that this is right, it's there so you can understand where I'm coming from here. Relationships for me are made with ones partner/their families in mind. Whenever I think about a woman I would want to be with it's always tempered with trying to make myself capable in those aspects. I want her to be happy, and I want to be able to love anybody.

 My thoughts on who I should be with have been weird. My focus primarily is dealing with my own habits that would make me difficult to live with. But in my experience dealing with women I'm more at ease with a confrontational attitude like what my sister has. But it needs to be tempered with the ability to know when to step off and not keep poking the same exposed nerve over and over again. My parents are locked in this weird antagonistic situation where they just don't interact with eachpother or address things. I want to avoid that with whatever woman I'm with, so her not putting up with my bullshit is good.

 It's hard keeping these thoughts organized all at once like this. I may need more time to muse this over. I'm still far from ready to be in a relationship with a woman, even if my body is screaming for it. I'm not in a mature state to give her what she deserves, whoever she is.

[Zrk2]

1. Welcome back, Vector.

2. It's because (IMHO) "nice" guys aren't nice. They're just "beta." they don't project confidence, they don't seem "manly." However they're "nice." Of course for them "nice" means basically being walked all over by their partner. While they think this is what women want (AFAIK) it isn't. They want a man who is nice to them, but they also want a man who will take charge because the lingering gender roles in our society dictate that men should do that. These "nice" guys don't do that because they don't want to seem overbearing. But that is what women want; a man who can lead but not make them feel completely helpless, just protected. The "nice" guys project a lack of confidence and thus appear to be the antithesis of what a woman wants.

Of course I could be completely wrong. I'm not exactly experienced in this area.

[Graknorke]

Duke, that arrangement isn't really that strange at all. At least, in upper-class families in history and almost certainly still, people'd throw parties and invite their offspring and people they thought suitable for aforementioned offspring to make the weddings and babies with.
And then repeat until all offspring are sufficiently socialised, and are ready to continue with rich-people things. Then I forgot the point I was making>

[Vector]

The truth is inconvenient, but that doesn't mean it... isn't the truth... :/

The problem is that it's only the truth when you pretend women aren't dominant, active, or aggressive, which I would argue is an opinion that can be taken only by people who don't know many women.

Well, for reference, I like leading.  I like paying, I like choosing (while keeping the other person in mind), I like deciding, I like seducing.  I'm also fine with men who can't physically protect me, because with guns on the table it really doesn't matter (and I've been in way more physical altercations than most of the men I know around here).  But I need someone who can react to all that and say "no, I don't like what you chose" or "I'd rather do this other thing" or "Vector, you're being a shithead."  I can't lead well without having that input in return.

[kaijyuu]

2. It's because (IMHO) "nice" guys aren't nice. They're just "beta." they don't project confidence, they don't seem "manly." However they're "nice." Of course for them "nice" means basically being walked all over by their partner. While they think this is what women want (AFAIK) it isn't. They want a man who is nice to them, but they also want a man who will take charge because the lingering gender roles in our society dictate that men should do that. These "nice" guys don't do that because they don't want to seem overbearing. But that is what women want; a man who can lead but not make them feel completely helpless, just protected. The "nice" guys project a lack of confidence and thus appear to be the antithesis of what a woman wants.

Of course I could be completely wrong. I'm not exactly experienced in this area.

The problem with that view Zrk is you're generalizing. You're right about some women. Not all. There are women that like "weak" or "feminine" men. And for a "weak" or "feminine" man, those are the type of women he should be pursing, not trying to change himself to fit what some other theoretical stereotypical woman wants.

Quote marks are around those words since I'm referring to colloquial stereotypes, not literal definitions of those words.

[Duke 2.0]

Duke, that arrangement isn't really that strange at all. At least, in upper-class families in history and almost certainly still, people'd throw parties and invite their offspring and people they thought suitable for aforementioned offspring to make the weddings and babies with.
And then repeat until all offspring are sufficiently socialised, and are ready to continue with rich-people things. Then I forgot the point I was making>

 Those sort of arrangements are sorta weird because the purpose is political gain. The purpose of this arrangement is purely for the couple. I really want to stress this aspect of it, because I fully understand people who are uncomfortable with it. Our stories are filled with arranged marriage being a barbaric practice that forces together people that don't love eachother. Getting the shallow discussion out of the way because going deeper would be a spiritual discussion that nobody wants in this thread. Focusing on the topic at hand, the expectations a couple has for one another, primarily in terms of dominance and aggression.

[Korbac]

Vector : It's an oversimplification / stereotype of things, I'll give you that. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that women couldn't be dominant, active, or aggressive. It's just that traditionally / historically this is mostly a man's domain.

Kai : Yes, he is generalising - but I think what he's saying is right in most cases.

I apologise in advance for any people who feel I have insulted them. 

[kaijyuu]

Kai : Yes, he is generalising - but I think what he's saying is right in most cases.

I wouldn't be very confident in saying such. A correlation? Perhaps. A very strong correlation? I doubt it.

Thing to do here is stop looking at this stuff from a Mars and Venus perspective. Both sexes are human. Everyone, male and female, have unique desires and wants. You go up to any random woman and assume they're submissive, and you deserve to be slapped. Don't assume these stereotypes about any individual person, please.

[Korbac]

Okay, fine. I guess I'm back where I started then.