A different rebuttal

Still very short on posting time, and sleeping time. I hope to make some time to write because I've got a number of things I'd like to talk about. Right now I want to make a quick comment on something while it's still somewhat topical; Andrew Klavan's I Blame Women article in which he claims that women encourage mistreatment by lots of amorous attention for men who treat them poorly, and Anwyn's response, about how it's untrue of women in general.

I agree that it's untrue of women in general, though there seems to be a sufficient number of women who reward mistreatment to make it seem advisable. But I have a different comment to make on this. My comment is that I don't care if it works or not. The reason to treat women well is not that it makes women want to sleep with you. It doesn't even work when done with that motive; the motive is what makes women despise "nice guys." It's because it is the right thing to do.

Maybe done with the right motive it does work, certainly I've had some friends offer to have sex with me in plain English. Maybe on the other hand it's because I'm tall, or presentable, or unattainable. But that's not the point; you do right because it is right, not because it gets results.

****
P.S.

I recently found out from my Hindu coworkers that doing your work or duty because it is right, not because of the reward, is in fact the Hindu principle of Karma. It is in stark opposition to the "what comes around goes around" idea of Karma we have in the West. "If you expect fruits for your actions, you will have to come back into this world to enjoy such fruits. You will have to take birth again". Or, "Do all works without expectation of fruits." (source)