Why Nice Guys Have Better Relationships Than Jerks!

This is the current, most popular definition [1] [2] [3], and - wish it as women do that the NG definition Pro holds was true - it doesn't describe a NG. A NG is nice, kind, compassionate, patient, and fundamentally an instrumental personality used to guilt women into a continued relationship or sex. I think I'll differentiate between NG and good men using GM vs NG from now on. But there are a few holes in Pro's opening argument. First, are women truly using GM/NGs when they turn to them for emotional support? I doubt they have malicious intent in mind when they turn to someone (who just so happens to be a guy, if that's her sexual preference) to talk to. Isn't this something that friends do? Second, kind to everyone? Men, women, as*holes, people who denied him jobs, people who snubbed him, people who would gladly take their money and livelihood? Pro is describing a saint, and I can't say that someone so selfless exists. Sure, a GM can do kind things, but he's not just the paragon of saintitude and altruism. He doesn't have to be. However Pro is describing a trait in NGs that makes them undesirable: they can be pushovers. Nice to everyone? Letting them walk all over them? That's not attractive in the least.2- I'm going to have to concur with Pro on the first question he asks. Relationships can stand the test of time for all kinds of insidious and abusive, and that's (ironically) why it's good that the divorce rate is so high. But Pro also neglects the fact that women stay with abusive men for not just financial reasons or that she can fix them. For a brief example, since it is not entirely the subject of this debate: I often said I had an abusive relationship with my first job. I despised my job. But I occasionally had good days, and that unfortunately put within me the hope that it would get better. This is a mere fraction of the psyche of someone who experiences spousal abuse, but it is the most succinct way of putting it.3- I also agree with Pro's second question. In fact, I think Will Smith's relationship with his wife is adorable (have you seen him just present her like he has no idea how on earth he got a woman like her? Goals). But he's not a NG. He's a GM. Good men are not faultless. They are not unconditionally selfless. They may not even be the best listeners, nor always have time for you. But they are genuine. They have no ulterior motive, no sense of entitlement when it comes to their behavior. They are good at heart.4- Now, knowing the two distinctions: NG vs "Jerks," Pro is entirely right that I didn't address which has the better relationship. I intend to rectify that now. Remember that "Jerks" fall about on the same place as "alpha males/narcissists" on the Dudebro Continuum. The Jerk Pro outlined is "[n]arcissistic, selfish, apathetic, dishonest, and completely rude in conversations; BUT makes six figures a year (over $100,000), owns his own car and house, high position in work, and has PACKED OUT parties. "The NG definition most people accept is a pushover, listens and provides compassion for women in emotional need to get into their pants, and expects compensation for being nice. Who has the better relationships? Considering that being a NG is one of the first ways to get rejected (or guilt your way into a second date), Jerks win by default. They can provide for a woman, have previously shown that they are loaded, and probably have some likable trait as they've apparently got the party of the milennium at their house. Since they are assertive and give a taste of danger and excitement, they're probably going to keep a woman longer. NGs fumble over themselves, self-aggrandize, and believe they're entitled to a woman by being nice. Jerks 1, NGs 0. [1] . http://geekfeminism.wikia.com...[2] . http://www.urbandictionary.com...[3] . https://www.bustle.com...