Do nice guys really finish last?

Recommended Videos

H1shAsh1

New member
Mar 6, 2011
3
0
0
Being nice or not isn't really the issue imo. Women just want a confident guy who isn't co-dependent or clingy.
Guy's who are douchebags tend to be confident and not give a fuck about the girl. So girls chase with the hope that they can change him and he'll be nice.

If you are super nice but don't smother her; don't wait on her hand and foot, don't try to talk to her multiple times a day (or even every day); you will avoid the friend zone.

Also, don't reek of desperation. Just be cool and give 'em space. Girls want boyfriends just like boys want girlfriends. But no one wants a needy shadow.
 

Garret866

New member
Aug 17, 2011
35
0
0
Women who don't want nice guys are idiots, and being a nice guy you wouldn't want to be with these bitches
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
EverythingIncredible said:
Daddy Go Bot said:
Trying to change natural human behavior and gender as a whole has certainly not borne fruit and I doubt it ever will.

Did you know women are more miserable now than they were 50 years ago?
Change is what makes us who we are today. And not just a bunch of apes. Or microscopic organisms. We grow, evolve and adapt. And in the end, we were better for it.
There is a difference between cultural and genetic change/adaption.

What he is talking about is the fact that in the last few decades, cultural change has happened at an increasingly rapid rate, to the point where our genetics can't keep up and adapt properly.

It's true that culturally the roles of men and women have changed a lot in the last many years. But genetically, we haven't, and that's what's causing the "miserable" problem he is talking about. We, as human beings, aren't 100% genetically ready for the change of path our culture has taken in the last many years, and (like it or not), our genetics is what determines our drives and desires. At the genetic level, the man is still the provider, the leader and the protector, and the woman is still the mother and housekeeper. This is not misogynistic, this is pure fact. Strip us of our culture for a minute, and we are no different than animals, which functions the way i just described in almost every case.

The thing is, he is actually right about most of what he is saying. Women are generally still hardwired on a genetic level to feel attraction for guys who shows that he still posses the so called "male" instinct, you know the instinct that was meant to help us survive and protect the family back when that was still necessary. And yes, it's also true that most women don't know what they want, because what they want is drives that are layered on a subconscious level. Women are naturally attracted to several things and personality traits, including wealth, good looks etc. (physical attributes), and on the personality side they are attracted to mystique, excitement and confidence. And confidence DOES typically mean a man who takes control, someone who can bring her excitement and stability at the same time, which is a very unusual combination in this day and age (a few centuries ago, 'stability' would also imply the ability to protect her from dangers, which is hardly relevant nowadays).

It's important to note that just because a man have the qualities you seek if you want to fulfill your dream of a 50/50 relationship, that doesn't mean he is going to attract you, now is it? You are yourself in control of your dreams and hopes for how your life should be, but you are not in control of what ATTRACTS you. Attraction isn't a choice. It's a trait that is primarily controlled by genetics. Hell, if all you truly wanted was a 50/50 relationship to each others mutual benefit, you could marry me. I just doubt it's what you want :eek:)

Edit: It should be noted, of course, that exceptions still exist and always WILL exist. If you happen to be one of the exceptions, then all the more power to you, but what i just said apply to most of the worlds population. I can't give you any specific numbers, but I'd say that 95%+ isn't too far off.
 

TheRightToArmBears

New member
Dec 13, 2008
8,674
0
0
Hey, I'm a nice guy and it takes me ages to finish. *giggles*

I don't really think it's true. I think the bigger problem is that 'nice guys' have less confidence and so they never get anywhere in starting relationships.
 

socialmenace42

New member
May 8, 2010
392
0
0
brainslurper said:
Next time, say a lot of mean things to her and she will tell another guy she doesn't love him, and she will get a gang of kids to jump herself. Is that how it works? Only one way to find out!
I like this guy.

OT: simple rule: two people who are actually invested in a relationship, care about each other and try to make things work (this involves BOTH partners looking past each others shortcomings and focussing on what makes them like spending time with each other)and most importantly are honest with each other have the best chance of having a lengthly fulfilling relationship.

Alright, this is the 21st century and I realise that not everyone is interested in that. No problem, if you are completely convinced of that that's absolutely fine. It's possible to be a decent person and have short relationships which aren't based on strong emotions. Basically what I'm saying is being a 'nice guy' doesn't mean you're a weedy sensitive guy who writes poetry and practices it in front of the mirror, being a nice guy means nothing more than exactly that: a nice guy. If you're honest with you intentions from the start, know exactly what you want and remain adamant in your respect for the boundaries and limitations on what other people see as a 'relationship' then you seriously are a nice person(I'm including women in this definition btw)

If however, you misuse any of the criteria above, say pretending you are interested in more than just sex or, use your gifts of persuasion to get someone into something they don't want or even if you simply refuse to accept someones definition of a healthy relationship and pervert that to your own ends

you are a tool
and you loose.
 

Captain_Fantastic

New member
Jun 28, 2011
342
0
0
as my group of friends say im a nice, amazing, talented, funny guy.
i try my best to treat women fairly i don't "worship" girls im attracted to
im nearly 19 and i had my first kiss last week. by a girl who isn't even interested in me
my only ever girlfriend moved away and forgot about me
every other girl ive ever liked in this shithole i live in has turned to hate me. or thinks im just another piece of shit.

im not usually this blunt but im just cynical today
so yeah to follow up nice guys may not allways finish last but you get farther ahead if you just use girls
 

tobyornottoby

New member
Jan 2, 2008
517
0
0
Athinira said:
There is a difference between cultural and genetic change/adaption.

What he is talking about is the fact that in the last few decades, cultural change has happened at an increasingly rapid rate, to the point where our genetics can't keep up and adapt properly.

It's true that culturally the roles of men and women have changed a lot in the last many years. But genetically, we haven't, and that's what's causing the "miserable" problem he is talking about. We, as human beings, aren't 100% genetically ready for the change of path our culture has taken in the last many years, and (like it or not), our genetics is what determines our drives and desires. At the genetic level, the man is still the provider, the leader and the protector, and the woman is still the mother and housekeeper. This is not misogynistic, this is pure fact. Strip us of our culture for a minute, and we are no different than animals, which functions the way i just described in almost every case.

The thing is, he is actually right about most of what he is saying. Women are generally still hardwired on a genetic level to feel attraction for guys who shows that he still posses the so called "male" instinct, you know the instinct that was meant to help us survive and protect the family back when that was still necessary. And yes, it's also true that most women don't know what they want, because what they want is drives that are layered on a subconscious level. Women are naturally attracted to several things and personality traits, including wealth, good looks etc. (physical attributes), and on the personality side they are attracted to mystique, excitement and confidence. And confidence DOES typically mean a man who takes control, someone who can bring her excitement and stability at the same time, which is a very unusual combination in this day and age (a few centuries ago, 'stability' would also imply the ability to protect her from dangers, which is hardly relevant nowadays).

It's important to note that just because a man have the qualities you seek if you want to fulfill your dream of a 50/50 relationship, that doesn't mean he is going to attract you, now is it? You are yourself in control of your dreams and hopes for how your life should be, but you are not in control of what ATTRACTS you. Attraction isn't a choice. It's a trait that is primarily controlled by genetics. Hell, if all you truly wanted was a 50/50 relationship to each others mutual benefit, you could marry me. I just doubt it's what you want :eek:)

Edit: It should be noted, of course, that exceptions still exist and always WILL exist. If you happen to be one of the exceptions, then all the more power to you, but what i just said apply to most of the worlds population. I can't give you any specific numbers, but I'd say that 95%+ isn't too far off.
I'd say it is, although I don't have the numbers at hand either.

It's also not black-and-white. While highly feminine men and highly masculine women are indeed rare exceptions, so are ubermasculine men and uberfeminine women. Most men have some degree of fimininity, and vice versa.

The change has indeed given all the more power to the exceptions, so saying it hasn't borne any fruit is just wrong.
 

somonels

New member
Oct 12, 2010
1,209
0
0
Yes. Because they were holding the door open for everyone else.

A big <3-cone to all the support players out there.
 

DoomyMcDoom

New member
Jul 4, 2008
1,411
0
0
I was once a "nice guy" I spent 8 years without pussy because of it, I figured out what I was doing wrong, changed my outlook, and now when I want a woman, I get one.

Thing is, buying stuff for a woman all the time, paying for everything, comes off as you trying to buy her affection, spending should be a 50/50 split if possible.
Also attraction is different for women than it is for men, realizing this and keeping it in mind is essencial.
Men are generally very visually attracted, it's natural for us to find certain things attractive, we don't all like the same things, but we are usually attracted by sight first, then other things.
Women obviously don't have anything against good looks, in fact they can help, but generally there are many many other things going on before they matter, your attitude, your posture and your scent, are far more important than your looks, if you have a confident positive attitude, and stay in control of yourself and your general situation, that goes a loooong way, if you have a decent flexible sense of humour, also helps a lot(same with in any kind of relationship, people like people who know how to be funny or make things funny), if you stand tall and lean back(not towards her) when sitting together, that helps a lot too, and seriously if you smell like ass that is gonna hurt your chances of getting within arms distance of any woman without turning her so far off that it kills 100% of your chances instantly.

Now on the topic of scent, you don't HAVE to wear cologn, in fact most guys wear too much if they wear any so it's a nose violating air impurity rather than a nice smell.
Usually I've found a good cologn helps, but you realy just hafta smell clean, so shower and wash the sweaty bits on your body TWICE, maybe use a good body wash, I've found the old spice odour blocking body wash to have a nice lingering fresh smell, the blue stuff is the best stuff(can't remember the name), also axe body sprays though they are usually totally horrible smelling, essence is a good one if you can find it, it has a relatively mild odour, but it smells nice, and isn't too fruity or weird smelling.
If you do wear cologn, for the love of all things holy unholy or living, please use only a dab, generally dabbing it on your inner wrist then rubbing your wrists together then rubbing those wrists on the sides of your neck is the best way to apply it, after all, that gives you good coverage where a woman is likely to smell you in close, without violating her sense of smell.

Just a few guidelines there, but even following those guidelines, I've gone from wussy bastard with no clue to getting dates/phone numbers with ease, I'm only ever alone by choice, or by freak circumstance, like all the best drinking establishments are closed and all the women i have numbers for are out of town or dead or something... I have yet to experience this, but I will not deny the possibility, because I know as soon as I deny it, it'll happen at the worst time.

Oh, and dental hygene is important beyond mention(which might be why i almost forgot to mention it), taking care of yourself first is a sign of independance and strength, this is importance, women generally don't like a wussy mama's boy or a man child who can't take care of himself.

also important fassion tip, if you wear a belt and are wearing leather shoes, same colour guys, a brown belt with black shoes(ore vise versa) is tacky and uncoordinated looking, women sometimes(hell depending where you live and the female demographic you are looking at, often if not always) notice this kinda thing, so it's a good thing to keep in mind.
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
tobyornottoby said:
I'd say it is, although I don't have the numbers at hand either.

It's also not black-and-white. While highly feminine men and highly masculine women are indeed rare exceptions, so are ubermasculine men and uberfeminine women. Most men have some degree of fimininity, and vice versa.

The change has indeed given all the more power to the exceptions, so saying it hasn't borne any fruit is just wrong.
I'll have to disagree with your last paragraph. The exceptions haven't been empowered. Rather, they have been accepted (which is equivalent to becoming empowered in a way, but not quite in the way you meant i suspect).

As a matter of fact, if we compare our society today with the middle ages about six centuries ago, people back then we're more compelled to find their partner by culture and living standards, rather than attraction (based on genetics). Back then, a lot of women for example were forced or decided to marry people they didn't find attractive at all, just because it could improve their life quality to the point of it being far preferable to being single (which back then was almost equivalent to 'useless' once you were an adult). The poor were fighting hard, either for survival or to be able to feed themself and their kids, and as a woman, you pretty much needed a husband who could work and provide for you, even if said husband was more or less an asshole. And when you found a husband, you stayed with him for a lifetime, unlike today where you can get divorced in record time if you want.
 

SUPA FRANKY

New member
Aug 18, 2009
1,889
0
0
Actually, for what I've seen, nice guys seem really annoying. Women don't like assholes, but at the same time they won't really like the guy who always has a creepy grin and goes out of his way to be nice to them. ( Though not all owmen are the same...)
 

tobyornottoby

New member
Jan 2, 2008
517
0
0
Athinira said:
tobyornottoby said:
I'd say it is, although I don't have the numbers at hand either.

It's also not black-and-white. While highly feminine men and highly masculine women are indeed rare exceptions, so are ubermasculine men and uberfeminine women. Most men have some degree of fimininity, and vice versa.

The change has indeed given all the more power to the exceptions, so saying it hasn't borne any fruit is just wrong.
I'll have to disagree with your last paragraph. The exceptions haven't been empowered. Rather, they have been accepted (which is equivalent to becoming empowered in a way, but not quite in the way you meant i suspect).

As a matter of fact, if we compare our society today with the middle ages about six centuries ago, people back then we're more compelled to find their partner by culture and living standards, rather than attraction (based on genetics). Back then, a lot of women for example were forced or decided to marry people they didn't find attractive at all, just because it could improve their life quality to the point of it being far preferable to being single (which back then was almost equivalent to 'useless' once you were an adult). The poor were fighting hard, either for survival or to be able to feed themself and their kids, and as a woman, you pretty much needed a husband who could work and provide for you, even if said husband was more or less an asshole. And when you found a husband, you stayed with him for a lifetime, unlike today where you can get divorced in record time if you want.
I don't quite follow you, what are you saying exactly?

With 'empowered' I was thinking the women who are ambitious and want to study/work now have an easier time doing so for example.
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
How this hasn't been posted is beyond me. Watch.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfeys7Jfnx8&feature=related[/youtube]
 

Indeterminacy

New member
Feb 13, 2011
194
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
You're giving his chauvinism way too much credence. His suggestion is that the world isn't all peaches and cream (as it so clearly was 100 or so years ago) because we aren't adhering to 'traditional family values'. He actually referred to our new outlook on gender roles as, and I quote "disgusting and perverse."
Yeah, and I'm quite happy to disagree with him on that without thinking that this, in and of itself, invalidates the position that the conventional gender division still exists and that sticking to it is a successful strategy.

Abandon4093 said:
On to your more valid opinions. Dandies and Fopps would like a word with you.

Traditionally it's not the ident of masculinity itself that women found attractive. But the suggestion of security it brought with it. By the opposite swing of the pendulum. Those who identified as being rich by wearing gaudy clothing and draping themselves in vulgar finery also brought with them the suggestion of security. Not through strength or masculinity but in wealth.

But I'd hazard a guess that actual attraction was as varied and unique back then as it is now. Even if social proclivities prevented such 'nonsense'.
This comment is interesting; it links in with modern day Bling and similar Status Symbol tropes. I suppose the very idea of high fashion has this connotation in either gender; someone who dresses well is presumed to have the disposable income to afford it. I take the point that the practicalities of a partnership often extend beyond character traits and people of both genders take this into account in such a way that tight conformity isn't strictly necessary.

But I can't shake the feeling that Dandies aren't great examples for men being desired other than for their masculinity, largely because they're a class that aggressively embrace the ideas of entrepeneurialism and competitiveness and flaunt the gains they make from said activities. Isn't that very manly indeed?

Abandon4093 said:
There's no completion of a whole because individually we're not really missing anything. We don't all share the same traits and idiosyncrasies and very often opposites do attract. But I think especially now, there's no accurate guideline as to what is feminine and what is masculine.
As I proposed, though, I think the reason this division is blurring and people are "missing" less is that much of the traditional functional social roles that mandated the gender divide have been usurped by the march of technology. Masculinity still sees the need to govern, build, regiment, acquire and triumph. Men before might have been the labourers and financiers, the clerks and the generals, and in such domains of life, particular skill sets and characters would have been seen as a vita part of doing good business. The softer skills to counterbalance that specialisation would be needed for social interaction outside of the workplace - this was something that the feminine domain would be able to assist with, and thereby making codependence more standard.

These things are still there in our culture. If you need confirmation, check out the magazine rack of your local newsagents.

But with the growth of free media, social interaction is much easier. With vastly increased levels of personal entertainment, it's also much less actually called upon. So the more social function that the counterbalancing skills would have served is less a specialisation of its own accord, and more something that integrates with broader professional practice and personal development. Thus men don't need women to cover this weakness for them any more. On the other hand, since there's less of a need for core manual labour, since computer development has caused a revolution in business organisation and financial transaction, and since military functions are (in theory) greatly reduced, the specialist masculine skill set also appears largely redundant. So women don't need men any more either to do the same work. (I'm using Woman and Man here as gender terms, rather than sex terms)

So we're agreed that a split in gender roles in current social structure is at best ambiguously specified. That doesn't mean there's similar ambiguity in culture.
 

AnotherAvatar

New member
Sep 18, 2011
491
0
0
novixz said:
I was talking to a friend of mine who doesn't really have the best of luck with girls. He's had 5 GF's this year and I have 1, one that lasted 11 months. (He says it give him more experience with girls, but if you ask me 11 month GF > 1 month GF) Anyway, he say's that nice guys finish last because the majority of his girlfriends end up leaving him for some tool. Now from my perspective he treats his girlfriends like princesses, calling them beautiful 24/7, all that stuff. I'm sure most of you having relationships like that. I've seen how most people who can be called "deuce bags" relationships, and they get the girl because they are willing to come down to her level and just talk. So my question is, Agree/Disagree: Nice guys don't finish last, guys who are bent on the fact that they have a girlfriend finish last. Why/why not?

Edit: Maybe this might clear things up a bit. The girl I dated for 11 months was always quite and not very social. So I asked her out knowing that it was either her or spending my time alone. I always would treat her like a princess and everything. I didn't want her to leave, but now I realize, I didn't love her, I loved the fact I had a girlfriend. So basically when I say nice guys, I mean people who talk to their GF 24/7 complementing her, treating her like a celebrity, not really knowing who their dating, they just know their dating somebody, and that's good enough for them.

Edit 2: It may be worth mentioning that the reason I broke up with this girl (and did it in a totally dick way (ignoring her)) is because I finally did come down to her level to see what she was like (boring and homophobic) I found out how wrong we are together. Plus there was another girl, so...

Edit 3: When I say "come down to their level" I mean they stop praising her for a while and just talk, and hold a conversation.

First: I don't judge you at all for leaving one girl because you didn't like her and there was another. The heart is a fickle son of a ***** and the sooner we all learn this the better, maybe then people will stop caring so much about relationships, as while they can be very powerful in someone's life, they aren't really that great and more often than not they hold back the growth of the people in the relationship through complacency.

Second: Nice guys generally do finish last, but that's simply because they're usually pussies (Myself included on this by the way, sometimes I'm such a little ***** it blows my mind). Girls need a MAN, someone who will fight for them etc. Mind you not all girls feel this way, but the majority do, and there's nothing that dicks like to do more than fight over something pointless, so yeah, girls mostly go for dicks simply because the nice guys are the one's hiding in the corner too shy to even speak to the woman they find attractive. (As was the case for me for a number of years, though after a major bit of heartbreak it's now more apathy than being afraid of rejection)

Best example I can think of for this: Number of sweet nerds getting laid tonight vs. Number of idiot dick-head bros getting laid tonight. Though honestly last night would have been a way better example due to all the halloween parties.