Search the Community

I'm having trouble putting this idea in the right place, maybe even highly disagreeing with Stefan Molyneux on it. I don't know why, could be down to not fully understanding the context or perhaps this was a ' glitch ' (?) . The quote: (begins around minute 45') - the podcast "Do you have any nice guys who asked you out and you look back and you say: 'Well, that guy became a productive member of society. Boy, I sure wish I had gone out with him!' [...] - her response Yeah, cos I mean there are guys out there who can't find a girlfriend and you are getting knocked up by the fellon. Just, can be a little bit frustrating for the nice guys out there. Just pointing it out, so that they're validated. " My interpretation on what this could mean: Stefan Molyneux expressing sympathy and empathy for 'nice guys' who (weren't) aren't given a chance by women like her (with how she was back then). My issue with this is: In my mind, 'nice guys' ought to NOT go anywhere near(professionally, ok) women like her, nevertheless be sad or upset about not getting a chance. Because she was highly wreckless (combination of harsh 'up-fumbling' and personal choices, peer sabotage, ignorance from other parts of society, skewed cultural framework to some degree as well... a combination.) and the partner would have been constantly exposed to risks. And so, 'nice guys' engaging with her would have been (would be - ie. similar women) playing Russian roulette when there are actually girls/women who are doing the self-work, aren't predisposed to making progressively poorer decisions until disaster is reached... why give preference to the 'dodgy' over other women? Perhaps, 'nice guys' should, the fact that they couldn't get involved, should knock it down on wood. And even, if by exposure to a virtuous partner, women like her (in her past, respectfully) would take the pro-active approach to healing... Isn't it kinda too much risks involved, too high investment required compared with other women? (I can imagine specific, individual cases but the general idea is just too far of a reach for me.) Isn't it a(n all round) good thing that women, like she used to be, don't get involved with 'nice guys'? Shouldn't be nice guys warned, prepared, protected from wreckless women until those women started out (on their own) on the road to manifesting aware, virtuous behaviour, none of the 'passivity thing' and spreading potential misery with each relationship? If not, isn't it like sacrificing 'nice guys' and enabling toxic personalities spreading their genes, reducing the incentives that would force people to re-evaluate their thinking/value system? /respectfully, I don't mean to be rambling /