Nice guys finish . . .?

by Rudy Cheeks

Send me your problems in care of Dr. Lovemonkey at the Providence Phoenix, 150 Chestnut Street, Providence, RI 02903, or by e-mail to lovemonkey[a]phx.com.

---

Dear Dr. Lovemonkey,
I'm a confused youngster with some love problems that need fixing. I'm in love with this girl, or should I say woman, 'cuz she's 25, and I'm barely 22. But that is not a problem (or maybe just partially). The thing is that she already has a boyfriend, but that isn't really the main problem. She's desperately in love with her ex, and thinks of me as of a young and a confused, but a very good friend, because I'm that nice, supporting kinda guy, and this happens to me all the time. Really, my question is, why can't I win a girl's heart just by being nice to her? It seems to me that whenever a girl finds a nice guy, she just wants to be his friend, because he will not hurt her, and she let's some idiot do the hurting, and then comes crying to the friend. Really, is it just my imagination, or is it so? Thanks.

-- Confused

Dear Confused,
I feel your pain. It frequently happens that women (and men, too) are attracted to and pursue people who are thoughtless and cruel, while maintaining friendships with kinder and more thoughtful people. I know that you're hurting about this, but the person who is truly confused is the woman you have strong feelings for. You say she already has a boyfriend, and is still in love with her ex? I'm assuming that these are two different people.

Well, she certainly isn't doing her current boyfriend any favors if she's pining away for another. But her real confusion stems from her pursuit of losing relationships. Unfortunately, this is something she must learn on her own: that romantic relationships work best when you're each other's best friend, confidante, and sounding board. By functioning as her friend, confidante, and sounding board, you're allowing her to maintain her confusion about intimate relationships.

You should create some distance between yourself and this confused woman. She may eventually get it and come to you, or she may not. In the meantime, there are more mature women out there who will appreciate what you have to offer, and you should be looking for them.

There's probably something to the notion that you're attracted to, and have been pursuing women, who aren't likely to respond to a guy like you. Go back and think about some of the women you've desired in the past, and see if they fit this pattern. If so, you need to discover why you're attracted to women who are attracted to thoughtless or abusive men, and not nice guys like yourself. Good luck.

Dear Dr. Lovemonkey,
I enjoy your column, but wanted to raise a point about a recent one (the "dog crapping column"). I'm pretty unimpressed with your comment:

"Isn't it interesting how Republicans are always reminding those who make far less money than they do what a good life they have. Perhaps your neighbor would be willing to switch lives with you, allowing you to be the recipient of all of that money inherited from his slave-trading ancestors."

This seems to be a gratuitous ad hominem attack. For the record, I'm not a Republican, and don't vote Republican, but I think it's disgraceful that it has apparently become acceptable to, even somewhat jokingly, insinuate that a large class of people are racists, classists, etc. This is just name-calling, pure and simple, and degrades into caricatures what could be legitimate debates on politics. As with the whole pro-life/pro-choice debate, where both sides have valid points (to wit: "four cells are not a child" vs. "an infant three hours from delivery is a person") that have been ignored in favor of name-calling ("baby killer"/"woman killer"), I think attempts like this, to entirely de-legitimize one side of a debate, even if inadvertent, are immature, wrong-headed, and likely to result in more division and hatred in society, not less.

Feel free to disagree with Republicans on lots of topics (I certainly do), but I think it makes a lot more sense to attack the beliefs, even in a humorous manner, than it does to falsely attack the entire class of people. To make an analogy, not that one is needed, I'm equally sick of people attacking Greens for being smelly dreadlock-ed hippies. I don't vote Republican because of the war on drugs (and lots of other reasons), and I don't vote Green because of socialized medicine (and lots of other reasons). I realize that you're writing a humorous column, and there are a huge number of humorous ways to mock these positions, without resorting to lame attacks. Anyway, that's my 10 cents. By the way, other than the above objection, I liked the column a lot (I'm a dog owner myself, and my dogs are never allowed to shit on other people's property).

-- TJIC

Dear TJIC,
You're right -- it was a gratuitous ad hominem attack. On the other hand, Dr. Lovemonkey has a sneaking suspicion that most people are reading this column for reasons other than profound political analysis. Yes, Dr. Lovemonkey was being unfair, but since that is a very Republican thing to do, I really don't feel very apologetic. By the way, I voted Green because of socialized medicine (which I'm all for) and I'm not a dreadlocked ex-hippie, or smelly. Well, I'm not a dreadlocked ex-hippie, anyway.

---

Email Dr. Lovemonkey

---

Dr. Lovemonkey's archives

---