I don't know if this is the right forum but hope that I can get some answers to a topic I am struggling with.

The way I see it, MB concepts require a husband to act in ways which are consistent with being a nice and decent person. By meeting EN's, eliminating LB's and following the PJA he is basically behaving towards his wife like a nice guy. He is being understanding, supportive, emotionally expressive, compliant, attentive, etc.

Over time his wife would perceive him as a nice guy who is willing to meet her needs and modify his behaviour to please her. He could also become somewhat predictable and maybe even boring.

However there is an argument that women are not intuitively attracted by "nice guys". Instead they are attracted romantically by the alpha male type. This type of man likes to take charge, make the decisions and to dominate. There could be instances where he may not meet all of his wife's needs or commit LB's because he is unable or unwilling to be overly compliant. Nevertheless the wife would still retain her subconscious attraction for him because of his show of emotional strength and power.

Could following MB principles over the long term not result in a wife perceiving her husband as a "nice guy" who therefore is less attractive to her at an intuitive level. She may regard him as more as a friend than a lover and possibly overly compliant and even wimpish.

This might lead to a loss of emotional attraction and passion in the marriage.

While I understand that friendship is an important component of a strong marriage, there surely must be a certain level of passion and sexual attraction to sustain the marriage and reduce the possiblity of future infidelity.

For example Robert Glover, in his book "No More Mr Nice Guy"
describes cases where chronically nice guys finally decide to put their needs first (in a way they regard as selfish) and suddenly find that their mate is far more sexually attracted and available to them. Being overly nice was previously a big turn-off for their mate.

How can a husband apply MB principles without becoming too "nice" or overly compliant while still maintaining some level of dominance and strength which remains intuitively attractive to his wife.

my quick take

By not conflict avoiding (including outside the marriage)

AND

Perhaps, POJA'ing with some swagger.

Seriously

I think the "nice" guy getting the short end of the stick thing doesn't work with MB principles. An male MB enthusiast or practitioner should know that allowing his wife to push him around doesn't work for THEM.

But if 'sexual attractiveness' is a emotional need of the wife perhaps they can together figure out how to obtain it...the actions they figure out CAN preceed the feelings. Maybe a fist fight or two. lol

Mr. Wondering

Being nice is not a problem. Being a doormat is.

Read the thread on here somewhere about the roles of wives and husbands in marriage. Good article. Plan A is not about being a doormat (there is a stick and a carrot, not just a carrot, read this). Having boundaries, principles, values and not compromising those when right is strong. A lot of BS's end up looking like doormats because they will do or say anything to get the WS to come home even if it means begging, crying, pleading, etc (been there done that and it doesn't work). In my case, my M did not survive but once I found my b*lls again I was a better man for it and made the best decisions for me and my son and let my Ex WW follow her path of destruction on her own.

Peter, clearly you need to do more studying if this is your understanding of MB principles. You don't have a clear picture or you wouldn't correlate being respectful and meeting a spouse's needs as "wimpy" or "compliant." Showing me affection does not mean I get to order my H around like my b*tch and he complies. And vice versa. My H wouldn't tolerate that crap for 2 seconds. Nor would I try. Respect is a two way street. I respect him and meet his needs, he does the same for me.

In fact, the POJA pretty much PRECLUDES doormatitis because nothing happens unless there is ENTHUSIASTIC AGREEMENT. In a BUYERS MARRIAGE, one does not make sacrifices for the other because that only causes resentment and bigger problems down the road.

Check out Dr. Harley's basic concepts,
http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3550_summary.html

Policy of Joint Agreement: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3500_policy.html

and this thread about Buyer, Renters and Freeloaders: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/sho...e=0&fpart=1

You are correct in your assertion that women don't like OVERLY NICE guys. What we don't like are wimpy guys who allow us to run over them and who HAVE NO BOUNDARIES. We don't respect guys like that. But be assured that Dr. Harley is recommending NO SUCH THING, just the opposite. He is teaching men and women to protect their own boundaries and avoid sacrificing them for the peace.

A must read, Givers and Takers: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3550_give.html

Peter,

You bring up an issue that I have been talking about for 20 years regarding male-female relationships in general.

Women love nice guys but will go absolutely crazy over a bad guy.


I think it has to do with the fact that everyone wants to be treated "special". If a woman is married or in a R with a truly nice man, after a while that starts to be discounted "because he treats everyone that way". Now a bad guy gets painted by the " look how much better he treats me than everyone else. I must be special"

On the opposite tack, men behave uniquely in their own way. Every woman can make them feel "special" because they can't imagine that woman( or any) wanting to have sex with them. If she does, she is already treating them in that "special" way. Sort of like the recipe for seducing a man....get naked and bring food. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

The way I see it, MB concepts require a husband to act in ways which are consistent with being a nice and decent person. By meeting EN's, eliminating LB's and following the PJA he is basically behaving towards his wife like a nice guy. He is being understanding, supportive, emotionally expressive, compliant, attentive, etc.

I dont understand your definitions used here....

do you think that people husband or wife should be
non understanding
unsupportive
unemotionally expressive
non compliant
and
non-attentive...

Over time his wife would perceive him as a nice guy who is willing to meet her needs and modify his behaviour to please her. He could also become somewhat predictable and maybe even boring.

what does behavior modification have to do with this..
do you believe that men are NOT these things....
and that they modify to become them

I honestly don't understand your post...

I married a nice guy...
I wouldn't have done so if he wasn't

He doesn't and I don't reciprocate
pleasing one another because he is modifying his behavior...(or mine)

It is done reciprocally out of great deep love and respect for one another....

there's no wimpyness about a man that works hard for his family...

what makes you think that (to use your words)
being understanding, supportive, emotionally expressive, compliant, attentive, etc. [/b]

cancels out or suppresses intimacy and or passion...

there is nothing in marraige builders principles about cow-towing to a spouse

it is about continual connecting and engaging one another on many levels....

My husband has lots of strength....he opens every jar of olives I hand to him when I can't get the lid off...

honestly I don't understand why you think being a nice guy cancels out being a strong man...firm in his beliefe and conviction
or why being a nice guy excludes passion and intimacy
or why being a nice guy takes away a man's place of dominance in certain aspects...

why do you believe that they all can't co-exist...

ARK

Okay Cy, two out of three ain't bad...."Get naked and bring food" ha ha ha ha ha

I would add brewskis and the remote control. Do this and we are at your becon call.

We, the weaker sex, really are simpletons aren't we.

I understand the confusion. Women in a lot of cases like the bad boy. The guy that can't be caught, or controlled. It really helps create that infatuation. But for a long term relationship that can't continue. It is a balance.

The question is a very good one. How do you balance being nice and being interestingly distant? That is the tough part. Women will say over and over again, I want a nice guy. Then they date jerks.

People always want something that has a bit of a chase in it. Problem is, to have a good marriage you can't live on that kind of fuel. That should give way to a deeper more mature love. Right?

One reason I believe affairs are attractive is because of the chase, the excitement that does not thrive in a marriage. It is really an immaturity on the part of the WS. Keep in mind, that if a WS is just dumped and given the OP, that R will turn into the normals too. In effect it will become boring.

In most cases when we start dating someone there is always this chase. Then it changes. People become bored. I think that overtalking a relationship can create wimpyness. Sad but true.

I do think that women want both things and that they are opposite. That's why men go nuts.

Bert

I've never thought of this as "nice guy" versus "bad guy". I've always viewed this as confidence.

I think when people talk about the "alpha male" what they mean is confidence.

At first glance, bad guys appear more confident than nice guys for a variety of reasons. This changes as you get to know them. I've been friends with a lot of bad guys. Some were confident, others were just screw-ups.

While the attraction to confidence may have something to do with "I must be special because they could be with anyone, but they chose me." I think it has just as much to do with "They must be really special since they are so confident they can be with anyone" Something akin to when a person thinks the higher the price, the better the quality. i.e. this thing must be really great if they expect people to pay so much for it.

Finally, I think Mel hit it on the head when she refers to boundaries. You can be a completely nice person, but boundaries are what demonstrate your confidence to others. Boundaries say this is how I expect to be treated, I'm quite confident that I'm worth it, I'm quite confident that others would agree.

you should post this over on the Emotional Needs forum.
there are several "nice guys' over there who can't seem to figure out how to get their W's interested in meeting their needs.

I think I understand what the confusion is here. I think the thing about a "nice guy" that is unattractive is when someone is nice out of fear. Fear is not attractive, and being completely controlled by fear is that much more unattractive. If a man does something because he is afraid of what will happen if he doesn't, his actions may be technically nice, but the motivation is fear. On the other hand, an alpha male type is nice because he wants to be, not because he's afraid of what will happen if he isn't. This is where it's critical that both partners be autonomous and complete because it's this encouragement of the wife to define her husband in order to relieve his fear of not fulfilling her expectations that maintains this slavery to fear that's so unattractive. Relationships are supposed to be about love, love that's demonstrated in action, defined by action. If the motivation is fear, it's not love. And it's not attractive or fulfilling. The woman might get what she wants in materialistic terms, but what she really wants is the connection - and there's little benefit to connecting and sharing a moment with someone filled with fear.

Lots of stuff about this being a woman thing, but my perception is that men have a similar issue. Men want a nice girl to take home to Mom but will go crazy for the young hottie who's "easy." I've seen it referred to as the Madonna/wh*re complex.

Not exactly the same thing, but it seems pretty close to me.

Interesting discussion...

I read a book entitled something like "The 9 mistakes nice people make".

I thought it was an illuminating read - although I disagree with the author about a few things.

I'm sure that my (former) marriage suffered to some extent from my relative lack of backbone in the face of the unexpectedly bad stuff that my ex-wife dished out.

The key thing is that POJA does not say that you have to do whatever your spouse wants you to do. You only do what you want to do - what you really want to do. I think this is the key - give and take. You must take as well as give. If nothing is offered for you to take, you stop giving. Respect is essential - and holding firm to your own needs/desires/standards is an important part of earning and keeping that respect. That is a long way from the bad guy tirant do-it-my-way-or-else husband.

I think this attitude works in business and other relationships as well.

One of my ex-wife's friends manages an appartment complex. She is a very nice lady, and she always seems bubbling with happiness. But if the rent is late, you will pay a late fee - friend or not. And she can smile warmly while informing you of that fact. She is a genuinely nice person, but she doesn't roll over and let people take advantage of her.

I had a neighbor who was also a good example. He was a wonderful, friendly, humble man, but one time a boy who was doing some yard work for me, made a pile of brush on my neighbor's property (due to ignorance of the location of the property line). My neighbor came over (probably bringing something from his garden in his hands) and told me about it - asked me to move it. I replied that I would have the boy move it next time he was there. Well, the boy didn't come for a few days - and the neighbor came and reminded me that I needed to move that brush off of his property. He was nice about it, but he knew where the boundary was and made sure I knew too. The boy still didn't come - and the third time the neighbor reminded me, I moved the pile myself - right then. There was no rancor, no anger, no shouting, no threats, insults, etc. in any of this. It was friendly. He's the best neighbor I've ever had.

We all, men and women, should be like that.

I don't think a woman will find that kind of behaviour unattractive.

-AD

Pete:

You may be new here, and not really getting the point.

I can be the "Alpha Male" and still be a nice guy about it.

IF I have a plan, I discuss it with my W and get enthusitic agreement. The plan may be changed, modified and adjusted according to the very excellent ideas that W brings to the table.

And IF she has a plan, then the same thing applies in reverse.

It ain't confidence. It caring for the other person and they know that thay have a voice in what is going on.

No more independent behaviors....

When a woman shifts her loyalties to her affair partner she is often not sexually attracted to her husband.

I think many WW whose brains have turned to mush need first to be attracted to their BH before being at all open to having their ENs met.

For instance, a woman might have loved receiving compliments on her appearance before her affair. She tumbles into an affair and she suddenly feels like real hot stuff. One morning her cuckolded husband spots her and, having identified her Most Important Needs, is prepared for this opportunity. He straightens up and smiles and says, "You look beautiful today". She responds by thinking... what a pathetic loser.

Maybe she loved spending time with her husband before. Maybe that was her top EN. But now, the poor sucker, trying to be Peter Plan A, says, "Hey darlin' let's go have a picnic". The woman thinks.... what a loser.

He might as well say these things to a total stranger, for all the good it does him.

These sorts of things happen often, especially to men, and MB does not address this aspect of affairs very well, outside of a somewhat generic suggestion to be cheerfully oblivious when your attempts to meet ENs are spurned.

Women are usually attracted to men who are charming and gutsy and behave in a way consistent with having high social status. Being kind and giving towards someone who is cheating on you, regardless of whether it might meet some need they had when they were comfortable with you, can be a disaster. It can easily show that you're eager to please them, and being "eager to please" is not a sign of status. It's the opposite.

When it comes to sex appeal, the way a man carries himself, the signals he gives with his attitude and body language, are often more important than his specific actions. Men who have been married a while may have forgotten the importance of this aspect of their character, if they ever understood it in the first place. But when your wife is cheating on you, this "alpha male" stuff can be very important if you want to keep your marriage together.

GC

Yup, it seemed like the harder I tried over the past two years, the worse it got for me. I still don't think I have this right. Its hard to think that your wife thinks you are a loser when you're trying so hard to "meet her needs" but she definitely did and she treated me that way.

Its really tough to get this right because when your spouse has an affair it really tests your self esteem, confidence, etc.

I kind of agree with GC.

Also bmmg who is posting on this thread seemed to have some success by telling his wife if she was "in love" to go for it. Something like that anyway.

I don't remember the source of the research, but it has been documented that employees value admiration and praise from some people more than others. It has to come from someone who they respect, otherwise it has no meaning.

My take on this (as an FWW) is that it's not "good guy" v "bad guy", it's "strong man" v "weak man".

When my very laid back, gentle H dug his heels in, told me he'd D me without looking back if I ever saw the OM again, wouldn't waste any time on me if I wasn't prepared to get over the OM and get on with our marriage (the A had been over for 6 months before he found out), told me I might think he (H) was a pushover but he wasn't, he was a man to be reckoned with.

I was completely taken aback and I begged him not to D me, I begged him to work on our M. I'd never seen such strength. I knew he had quiet strength and had always been his own man but his complete non wimpiness (ba**s as our DD said) was the turning point for me.

He did all this at the same time as going to MC with me, reading HNHN and doing a damn good Plan A.

GC, you are also spot on on what you have said. You understand the WS VERY well. The only thing you may have a little wrong is that the WS doesn't think "what a pathetic loser" they think "I am numb and dead and this means nothing to me".

I'm convinced, and always have been, that there has to be a lightbulb moment for the WS. It can be a 5w bulb lightbulb moment but it has to be there. I also believe most WS's have that 5w bulb moment. That 5w is what needs to be worked on. Without it, I believe recovery is impossible.

Now I'll wait for the shock, horror responses.