Skip to main content

A Facebook debate regarding the "nice guy"

So, I saw a Facebook post today which aired a video clip of a guy reading a poem he had written about always being cast as the "nice guy" or in the "friend-zone" among the women he had been interested in either romantically or sexually. The guy said that if a man (a "nice guy" apparently) purchased a woman a gift in hopes that she would sleep with him in return, she didn't owe him anything. While I agree a woman never owes a guy sex, this video sparked a more elaborate debate on the whole "nice guy" concept and who exactly would be at fault if such a guy gets taken advantage of in any way. Here's what I had to say on the matter:

"The only thing women owe 'nice guys' is honesty. If he shows romantic interest in her or perhaps buys her something to indicate this, it's on her to be upfront with him and say, 'This was really sweet, but just so you know, I only see you as a friend.' 

If she says this and he continues to do such things, it's all on him when he gets turned down and hurt. However, if she isn't upfront and honest with him about matters, perhaps flirts with the guy and insinuates the romantic interest may be mutual, then in the end, she'll be giving the appearance that she's taking advantage of him on multiple fronts and when he finally confronts her on matters and asks how she feels about him, it likely won't end in a pretty manner.

When it comes to a 'nice guy' providing a woman with gifts in exchange for sex, a woman never owes a guy this, and I wouldn't refer to the before-mentioned guy as a 'nice guy,' considering the main objective of said gift was to get laid. I'd probably refer to him as a pseudo nice guy or something of the like. For a genuine nice guy, seeing the woman's joy and smile would be reward enough."

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...
2 comments
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more