Here I expound upon what I feel are limitations in discourse about Good Men that have been imposed specifically by the introduction of the Nice Guy^(TM) narrative. This is the commonly accepted definition of Nice GuyTM which is on Urban Dictionary:

Not to be confused with a nice guy (that is, a male that is nice)

- When used as a noun instead of an adjective, Nice Guy refers to people (men or women) who believe basic social expectations are currency for sex.

*Nice Guy^(TM): I don't understand, I'm a good listener, I help carry his/her groceries, and feed the cat while he/she is away, and he/she won't even let me touch him/her!*

Sympathetic ear: Uh, because as a human being you should be doing those things in the first place, and OH YEAH: nobody has to have sex with you, and probably won't want to because it's obvious you think basic decency is sex money! To be clear: you are trying to trick people into thinking your Niceness is generosity, when they can clearly see your transactional intent. It's gross. Stop acting like a Nice Guy.

Contrary to the stereotype of the Nice Guy^(TM), we believe there are genuinely good men (monogamous or non-monogamous) with attractive, virtuous, desirable traits and can still fall short in the dating world. Because of the Nice Guy^(TM) stereotype, it's affected genuinely good guys as well (Good Men), even though the people who criticise the former always make out like it doesn't. For example, you could have a guy that:

  • is genuinely kind, empathetic, compassionate, etc. and therefore does not use acts of kindness to get into a woman's pants
  • has genuinely attractive qualities and therefore only seeks to date women of the same league
  • still struggles with dating

But because of Nice Guy^(TM) stereotyping, Good Men can't talk about their struggles and also people will assume the worst about you: that you are a Nice Guy^(TM), that you are an "incel" (hateful involuntary celibate), that you are an "NEET" (not in employment, education or training) "neckbeard" (basement dweller who doesn't shave correctly), etc.


Why is this a problem for Good Men

When I bring up the sentiment that you could have a guy that:

  • is genuinely kind, empathetic, compassionate, etc. and therefore does not use acts of kindness to get into a woman's pants
  • has genuinely attractive qualities and therefore only seeks to date women of the same league
  • still struggles with dating

People often say that's not who the Nice Guy^(TM) stereotype is directed at, blah, blah. I already know this. My position/critique is that talking about Nice Guy^(TM) stereotypes puts guys in a position where it is hard to talk about dating issues if they have attractive, virtuous desirable traits because people will say:

  1. "Well if you had those traits you'd find dating success"


  1. "Must be a Nice Guy^(TM)"

The impact of the Nice Guy^(TM) narrative on this kind of restrictive dialogue is undeniable. That's why I am trying to promote the idea that there are guys who struggle in dating that aren't like this. Why would I start making platitude-y type posts stating the obvious? I'm trying to promote the opposite idea about genuinely good men, hence starting the foundation for real constructive advice.


Why Don't I just Keep the Conversation About Good Men?

In my Clarification About Nice Guy^(TM) Stereotype I emphasise that you could have a guy that:

  1. is genuinely kind, empathetic, compassionate, etc. and therefore does not use acts of kindness to get into a woman's pants
  2. has genuinely attractive qualities and therefore only seeks to date women of the same league
  3. still struggles with dating

So why don't I just mention points 1. & 3. and leave it at that? Because while it is true there exist people who aren’t completely terrible, yet have trouble dating anyway, more to the point we have other things to contribute to relationships than just being good men. Because it is true when our detractors say "it is not sufficient to just be good men". However it is not true when they say "being good men is the only thing going for you, that's why you cannot find success, there has to be more to you".

In my case I know I have cool hobbies, a sense of style, I approach women, I have fascinating things to talk about, have travelled the world and I would say I look better than average. Hence "just being nice" is not the only thing.

That is why I do not just say you can have guys that are

genuinely kind, empathetic, compassionate, etc. and therefore does not use acts of kindness to get into a woman's pants

But I say that you can have guys who also have

genuinely attractive qualities and therefore only seeks to date women of the same league

Personally, I do not walk around telling people I am a "Good Man" in real life. My statement is simply that people want to have a conversation about Good Men falling short in dating and that social conditioning often provides men with the message that virtuous qualities are sufficient for dating success (women being the just, non-superficial gender) which, evidently is not always the case.


Isn't Attractiveness/Desirability Subjective?

In a nutshell, no. Women are mostly evolutionarily evolved to select the alpha male type - hunter, and possibly provider so that they will feel safe and protected from outside threats, be well provided for and the offspring can survive in this world. Nothing about "niceness" (genuine or otherwise) here and also no coincidence therefore that studies have shown women prefer benevolently sexist men. This also explains why dominant, aggressive men can be sexually and romantically successful even - in some cases - where they provide a direct threat to the woman. This isn't to say men fail because of niceness, but rather they can fail in spite of niceness but women generally have higher standards than men and there are definitely women out there who ask for a lot.


So what traits can be seen as attractive/desirable?

  • Virtue: compassion, empathy, kindness, generosity (just not sufficient alone)
  • Social prowess: Social awareness, communication, charm, understanding
  • Worldliness: culture, intellect, fascinating conversationalist
  • Masculine attractiveness: height, muscularity, chiselled jaw line, deep set eyebrows, thick hair, penis size
  • General social status: popular, cool, witty, interesting, entertaining, relaxed, extraverted
  • Masculine social status: masculine, charismatic, socially dominant, slow & bold movements, competitive, high testosterone
  • Economic status (virtues): ambitious, either successful or good potential, hard-working
  • General attractiveness: facial symmetry, nice eyes, nice smile, good shape, clear skin
  • Intelligence: scientific, mathematic, logical, analytical
  • Responsibility: financially independent, financially prudent, diligent, parental qualities
  • Creativity: musical, artistic, passionate, soulful
  • Belonging to a preferred ethnicity
  • Preferred ideological convictions (same politics, religion, ethics, etc.)
  • Economic status (possessions): excellent career, material possessions (house, car, etc.), excellent business contacts, large bank account
  • Appearance: fashion, grooming, hygiene, skin-care, etc.
  • Emotional stability: maturity, serenity, excellent conflict-resolution

In particular, women's biological requirements are exaggerated, in my opinion in a society which juxtaposes the requirement for men to balance the delicate and contradictory traits of the following:

  • feminist ideals (communication, empathy, compassion, social skills)
  • traditionalist gender roles/stereotypes (masculinity, dominance, assertiveness, initiative)


Isn't the Reason Good Men Have Dating/Sexual Difficulties Because They Mistakenly Believe What Makes Them "Virtuous" also Makes Them Sexually Attractive To Women?

From my perspective, the social context has to be understood to explain this. A big part of the problem is that in western society there is a contradiction of values. Unlike how feminists see society as still mostly patriarchal, or how traditionalists see society as becoming increasingly feminised, by and large there is a contradiction between the two major gender based ideologies. Men are expected now to maintain a very delicate balance between a feminist ideal of virtues (compassion, empathy, communication and social skills) versus the traditional masculine gender roles (assertiveness, dominance, initiative and physicality). Increasingly this is extremely difficult and what leads to a lot of disenfranchised men.

As far as genuine Good Men go, I think they can fall into two camps, the one being led astray because of exclusively feminist schools of thought, thus they believe only working on virtues is necessary to be attractive. However, I believe there are also Good Men who may have taken something more of a masculine approach thus working on the values mentioned above but still find themselves left behind or disenfranchised by dating. Since I identify with the need to incorporate both ideals of what is attractive in men, that is the lense I see modern dating through and therefore the lense through which I provide a social and evolutionary justification of sorts to my theory of what is recognised as "attractive".

In short, the reason why both ideals plays a role in attraction from my perspective is because of women's preference for the hunter-provider role model, i.e. someone with fundamentally alpha male characteristics and thus having the "hunting" aspect covered. This kind of man can also demonstrate responsibility, empathy, compassion and so forth therefore sticking around to look after his own kids, however. These are my meanings of "virtue" and "attractiveness": I am not trying to make a statement about an objective moral virtue or that different people cannot have differences in opinion about attractiveness. Simply put, my explanation is that human society has evolved in such a way and that it can continue to evolve in a way that people see as desirable, functional and ethically sound or, perhaps not.

The simple reason why I put so much emphasis on whatever other traits - "attractive", "desirable" and whatever - is that in discussions about Good Men, our detractors would say not simply that we are not genuinely nice but also that if we are "nice", or the extent to which we are nice, we probably don't have anything else to contribute in a relationship (sexual or romantic). Because if we did, then surely we would be successful. And I think understanding society in terms of the contradictory clash between traditionalist and feminist values explains this as exemplified above and as I am about to go into further detail about.

Promiscuity does need to be discussed as well because typically for men the problem has not been so much that women are promiscuous, since not all genuinely Good Men are ethically monogamous by necessity (in my view). However, the problem is more that we are just unable to date who ever it was that would match us in terms of league (attractiveness, social status, or whatever) even (for some of us) if we were to date "down". This is what can lead towards disenfranchisement for those who have made it to their 30s. And a lot of this is because of the traditionalist versus feminist paradigm also, since the demands from both tend to rationalise women's high demands. This is either from the perspective of being the nurturer and primary child rearer in a monogamous relationship, or from the perspective of "sex positivity", namely that strong, independent and empowered women should have whatever damned standards they want in whatever damned relationship. As we can see it's the hypergamy that leads to sticky situations later in life, for both genders because it's not like men don't value loving relationships at some point in life or that they want things to end up with women posing the Big Question (the good ones). I would say this disenfranchisement happens from around 35, give or take 5 years.


What do you mean when you say the discourse has been limited for Good Men?

What I mean is that there are conversations Good Men want to have about:

  • the fact that there are so many Good Men falling behind in the dating world now and what can be done about it
  • what the problems are in this sort of society, and what it means for future generations if we cannot pass on intelligent & virtuous genes
  • what roles gender politics play in this (I discuss the clash between feminism and traditionalist gender politics on my subreddit, both of which I see as being equally harmful to Good Men)
  • the biological and social conditions of women that contribute to this
  • our individual experiences and struggles in the dating world for which we should be able to refer to ourselves as Good Men and whatever virtuous or otherwise desirable traits we may have as it is useful background information
  • the warning of the Big Question which is posed by post-wall hypergamous women, a fate that no woman wants to end up with when, after years of ignoring and neglecting Good Men, ridiculing us, calling us "Nice GuysTM", they turn around and ask "but where have all the Good Men gone?" ... the same Good Men that already pursued and were rejected, often harshly by these same women, and the same self-respecting Good Men that no longer want anything to do with these same women.

... but cannot due to the shape the Nice GuyTM narrative has taken, and attempts from our detractors to derail us (typically straw man arguments, red herrings, ad hominems and baseless assumptions about us that prevent sensible dialogue):

  • "you're not a genuinely nice guy" or "Nice GuyTM!"
  • "it's not enough to just be nice!"
  • "you have covertly sexist attitudes"

And from an other kind of detractor:

  • "you need to man up"
  • "ethics have nothing to do with it"
  • "pull your boot straps up son, because the world doesn't owe you!"

Here is an example of a discourse that has been limited because of the Nice GuyTM narrative:

Person A: "I am a nice guy and - "

Person B: "You sound like a faker."

Person A: "No, I am a genuinely good man and -"

Person B: "Just being nice isn't enough"

Person A: "Please listen to me. I am a genuinely good man and I have attractive and desirable traits."

Person B: "How do you define attractive and desirable traits? They're subjective."

Person A: "Yes there is subjectivity, there are also theories of evolution *cites a bunch of articles*. Anyway, please let me finish. I am a genuinely good man and I have attractive and desirable traits but I still struggle with dating."

Person B: "Bah! Entitlement. Misogyny. Rape."

Person A: *gives up and walks away*


So what if some Good Men can't get find intimate relations ... they aren't entitled and besides isn't that their problem?

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it is only their problem.

To quote a conversation I had,

[T]here [isn't] necessarily anything wrong with 'good guys' not being in relationships. If no one is entitled to a relationship, then there fundamentally is nothing "wrong" with people not being in one for any reason. That said, you are entitled to feel frustrated, and it's very normal to do so. That frustration however again isn't evidence that anything is 'wrong' (however that's defined) and that NiceGuys(TM) is the root cause.

And my response:

[This all] depends on the context of who thinks there is something 'wrong', or treatment required. Evidently for some SRUPs [sexually/romantically unsuccessful people], they are not happy with their circumstances, and indeed there is something 'wrong' ... [I]f men with intelligent, desirable and virtuous traits with high reproductive fitness are not able to pass on their genes and values to the next generation, again this could be a huge problem for social evolution and could go some way to explain the asocial, anti-intellectual and machiavellian traits that we can see in society. So the SRUP problem can indeed be seen as a 'problem' from that perspective. If women who end up asking the Big Question "where have all the good men gone" - because they rejected all these same men in their twenties who now want nothing to do with them - then again, it could be seen as something that's 'wrong'.[If you make these assumptions, then] you are only looking from a limited perspective of who or what could consider something wrong with the 'problem' of SRUPs. So sure, you can play the "surely it's subjective card" if you want but that doesn't help anyone. More specifically, the way the Nice GuysTM narrative has been shaped is clearly causing problems for Good Men. So again, that is something which needs to be addressed.

Besides, it doesn't matter who's problem it is. The point is that Good Men should be able to discuss their issues (mentioned above) without being subjected to the following derailing tacks:

  • "you're not a genuinely nice guy" or "Nice GuyTM!"
  • "it's not enough to just be nice!"
  • "you have covertly sexist attitudes"
  • "you need to man up"
  • "ethics have nothing to do with it"
  • "pull your boot straps up son, because the world doesn't owe you!"