My friend says the "Good guys come last" theory is BS

[jonnosferatu]

Now, first of all, she's in a relationship, has been for years now. She says that that the ideals that some guys have about good guys getting the cold shoulder by girls is bs because if they were really that good, they would be taken already, that plenty of females are looking for a stable relationship with a reliable guy.

Her opinion on the fact that "girls often prefer guys that are bad boys" is this, they are far more confident, in themselves and in thier abilities so they stand out more and if one considers themself a good guy, they should prove it by demonstrating that they are within thier ability to be a dependable boyfriend / husband.

So what do you guys and girls think? Does she have a point, or is she missing something?

She's missing the meaning of "Good" or "Nice" in the statement. The whole POINT is that they're not actually that, and that there's a difference between being a "nice guy" and being good relationship material.

 

[jonnosferatu]

I dunno my dad is not a "bad boy" by any stretch of the imagination, he's a fairly devout catholic and pretty quiet. Yet he found a girl and has been married for 20+ years. I'd say that theory doesn't hold water then.

Is he underconfident, clingy, possessive, and suspicious?

"Quiet and religiously inclined" does not in any way mean he is "nice." "Nice" here is not a positive term, and it doesn't just mean that the person in question treats others nicely.

 

[Darkauthor81]

These are broad generalizations but under all the logic, reasoning, hopeful thinking. You might think, hope, pray that we're more evolved than this but psychology studies have proven time and time again that we're not.

Adapting a clever study and its results to your rather restricted, hetero-normative notions of a person's 'worth' is not science. It is irresponsible.

It is silly.

Alright. Prove me wrong. What scientific studies can you quote that shows that we are beings of a higher grade where money, attractiveness, and social standing don't play a significant part in the process in which we find mates.

Because I don't even need this study's result to tell me that people of similar levels of attractiveness end up with each other. I just have to look around. Yes, there are the exceptions, but the vast majority of people are paired up with someone of a similar level of attractiveness as them. We've come a long ways but our free will will always be undermined by our basic instincts.

 

[Tsunimo]

I like to think I'm a nice guy.
I have 0 self confidence however.
That is why I will never finish anywhere except last.

 

[jonnosferatu]

Snip

You missed the point in the same way she did.

Snip

You too have missed the point, but are being misogynistic about it.

snip

You missed it by the barest of margins.

The Bitterness is Strong with This One.

First off, there's a difference between being confident in who you are and what you can do and broadcasting this in how you carry yourself and how you interact with others, and being arrogant and narcissistic. The difference between what you believe you can do and what you can do is completely irrelevant to the type of confidence in question.

Secondly, the fact that they found occasion to say something to that effect means you almost certainly fit somewhere in the "nice guy" category.

Thank you so much. I prefer my male companions to have more balls than me, thanks. If you aren't self confident and strong in who you are, you don't come off as a poor little nice guy. You come off as a pansy without the social skills for a devoted relationship.

And hey, if a girl really does prefer 'bad boys' who are really total dicks, why the hell would you want her? She's either a high schooler or an idiot, possibly both.

This one gets it.

 

[conflictofinterests]

It's all about how you carry yourself.

I'm definitely a good guy, but that doesn't mean I'm not confident about who I am or what I do.
I'm very confident in myself and what I'm capable of.

So, I think it's all an insecurity that those 'good guys' have and need to overcome, just like any mental hurdle. So, she right in the fact that these ideal 'good guys' would be taken in a second if they were exuding more qualities than just being nice. People hate this anwser because it means effort that guy's part to better himself instead of a 'They just don't see how great you are' pat on the back.

This guy.

 

[Ultrajoe]

It is silly.

Alright. Prove me wrong. What scientific studies can you quote that shows that we are beings of a higher grade where money, attractiveness, and social standing don't play a significant part in the process in which we find mates.

I don't need to, your definitions of attractiveness and personal worth are skewed to support what you want out of this study. Split-second glances and math are about as analogous to relationships as soggy bread is to ship design. Can you sum up a person's wealth, charisma and class (your given factors) with the same glance you can determine a number in? Even accepting your rather depressing summation of what makes a person appealing, this observation on celebrity and privilege isn't applicable to lengthy relationships or even a five minute conversation. Wordless, instant evaluation isn't how people foster relationships, it's how people can choose who to address, certainly, but if you think it's an insurmountable barrier you've got a problem.

Furthermore; In the study, people were told to aim for the highest number, rather than to work out their own given objectives. What if they have a thing for fours? What if they like closet negatives and need to go through a whole bunch of bring positives to find that special 'some-one' (get it?)? Your smoking gun study has no emotional attachment, no human element and deliberately restricts choice to a single factor of worth. People search for their best match, we know this. They go through dozens, perhaps hundreds of potential relationships from the stages of first meetings to extended partnerships... it's what they do. People, however, are not numbers.

I don't need to provide an alternate study, your assessment is observably baseless on its own.

This study is good at demonstrating privilege, or perhaps it makes for a fun pub game, it's not a microcosm for human interaction. If you can work out a consistent and reliable one of those, please tell the sociology, psychology and neuroscience laboratories of the world.

Because I don't even need this study's result to tell me that people of similar levels of attractiveness end up with each other. I just have to look around. Yes, there are the exceptions, but the vast majority of people are paired up with someone of a similar level of attractiveness as them. We've come a long ways but our free will will always be undermined by our basic instincts.

From this, it seems I've misunderstood what you're trying to say. I thought you were oversimplifying human personal evaluation, where as it appears what you mean to imply is that people feel that being in a fulfilling relationship is less important than being seen with a 'better scoring' individual.

 

[Darkauthor81]

It is silly.

Alright. Prove me wrong. What scientific studies can you quote that shows that we are beings of a higher grade where money, attractiveness, and social standing don't play a significant part in the process in which we find mates.

I don't need to, your definitions of attractiveness and personal worth are skewed to support what you want out of this study. Split-second glances and math are about as analogous to relationships as soggy bread is to ship design. Can you sum up a person's wealth, charisma and class (your given factors) with the same glance you can determine a number in? Even accepting your rather depressing summation of what makes a person appealing, this observation on celebrity and privilege isn't applicable to lengthy relationships or even a five minute conversation. Wordless, instant evaluation isn't how people foster relationships, it's how people can choose who to address, certainly, but if you think it's an insurmountable barrier you've got a problem.

Furthermore; In the study, people were told to aim for the highest number, rather than to work out their own given objectives. What if they have a thing for fours? What if they like closet negatives and need to go through a whole bunch of bring positives to find that special 'some-one' (get it?)? Your smoking gun study has no emotional attachment, no human element and deliberately restricts choice to a single factor of worth. People search for their best match, we know this. They go through dozens, perhaps hundreds of potential relationships from the stages of first meetings to extended partnerships... it's what they do. People, however, are not numbers.

I don't need to provide an alternate study, your assessment is observably baseless on its own.

This study is good at demonstrating privilege, or perhaps it makes for a fun pub game, it's not a microcosm for human interaction. If you can work out a consistent and reliable one of those, please tell the sociology, psychology and neuroscience laboratories of the world.

Because I don't even need this study's result to tell me that people of similar levels of attractiveness end up with each other. I just have to look around. Yes, there are the exceptions, but the vast majority of people are paired up with someone of a similar level of attractiveness as them. We've come a long ways but our free will will always be undermined by our basic instincts.

From this, it seems I've misunderstood what you're trying to say. I thought you were oversimplifying human personal evaluation, where as it appears what you mean to imply is that people feel that being in a fulfilling relationship is less important than being seen with a 'better scoring' individual.

Of coarse you don't feel you need to provide a study. Because there aren't any. You're just raging against something you don't want to hear.

I'll put your fears and insecurities to rest so we can all get some sleep.

We are all beautiful and unique snow flakes and everyone has a shot with everyone else because we are beings of purely high minded concepts soaring above the baser instincts of "find someone with good genetics to make babies with".

There, now that we've fooled ourselves into a false sense of security we can all sleep better knowing that tomorrow suddenly and without explanation we'll all pair up based on personality alone and live happily ever after devoid of shallowness.

 

[Mcupobob]

I once though I was a nice guy. Then I realized I was actually being Self-loathing doormat, who was creepily Putting women into a different specis or something and not just talking to them as people and being forward with my feelings. Also -
Just saying.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Of coarse you don't feel you need to provide a study. Because there aren't any. You're just raging against something you don't want to hear.

I'll put your fears and insecurities to rest so we can all get some sleep.

We are all beautiful and unique snow flakes and everyone has a shot with everyone else because we are beings of purely high minded concepts soaring above the baser instincts of "find someone with good genetics to make babies with".

There, now that we've fooled ourselves into a false sense of security we can all sleep better knowing that tomorrow we'll all meet super models who see our inner beauties and find our social awkwardness and rusted out old cars cute and endearing. We'll live happily ever after.

Actually Rambo, I do want to hear this. The reason I'm in this thread is because gender issues and, specifically, its relationship to young males is of extreme importance to me. I feel that in a great deal of Feminist rhetoric, specifically that of 'Nice Guys', we/they overlook the fact that guys get their silly appraisals of how sex works from somewhere. I didn't write the following, but have a read of this; http://emporiasexus.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/nice-guys

It's looking at how younger, more sensitive males can fall into casual misogyny because of a marked preference at that age towards dominant men. I'll not get on my soap-box, but the point here is that there's more merit to a lot of the concerns in this thread than people give credit to. Does it make venomous male friend-stalking any better? No, but it's a better reason than 'Boys make it up'. Compare and contrast one of sources of that previous list, something by the brilliant Mr Schwyzer; http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/02/19/im-not-like-the-other-guys-nice-guys-self-flattery-and-the-myth-of-uniqueness/

My point, you rude little fellow, is not that everyone lives in a sexually liberated paradise of equal partner opportunity. Far from it, I agree that the way many people look for partners are fucked the fuck up to fuck and back (That's three fucks worth of messed up). People 'aren't' unique, their over-dependence on the assumption that they are is bullshit.

My point, at the core, is what I said right at the start;

These are broad generalizations but under all the logic, reasoning, hopeful thinking. You might think, hope, pray that we're more evolved than this but psychology studies have proven time and time again that we're not.

Adapting a clever study and its results to your rather restricted, hetero-normative notions of a person's 'worth' is not science. It is irresponsible.

It is silly.

A game of celebrity heads is not science.

 

[Darkauthor81]

Of coarse you don't feel you need to provide a study. Because there aren't any. You're just raging against something you don't want to hear.

I'll put your fears and insecurities to rest so we can all get some sleep.

We are all beautiful and unique snow flakes and everyone has a shot with everyone else because we are beings of purely high minded concepts soaring above the baser instincts of "find someone with good genetics to make babies with".

There, now that we've fooled ourselves into a false sense of security we can all sleep better knowing that tomorrow we'll all meet super models who see our inner beauties and find our social awkwardness and rusted out old cars cute and endearing. We'll live happily ever after.

Actually Rambo, I do want to hear this. The reason I'm in this thread is because gender issues and, specifically, its relationship to young males is of extreme importance to me. I feel that in a great deal of Feminist rhetoric, specifically that of 'Nice Guys', we/they overlook the fact that guys get their silly appraisals of how sex works from somewhere. I didn't write the following, but have a read of this; http://emporiasexus.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/nice-guys

It's looking at how younger, more sensitive males can fall into casual misogyny because of a marked preference at that age towards dominant men. I'll not get on my soap-box, but the point here is that there's more merit to a lot of the concerns in this thread than people give credit to. Does it make venomous male friend-stalking any better? No, but it's a better reason than 'Boys make it up'. Compare and contrast one of sources of that previous list, something by the brilliant Mr Schwyzer; http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/02/19/im-not-like-the-other-guys-nice-guys-self-flattery-and-the-myth-of-uniqueness/

My point, you rude little fellow, is not that everyone lives in a sexually liberated paradise of equal partner opportunity. Far from it, I agree that the way many people look for partners are fucked the fuck up to fuck and back (That's three fucks worth of messed up). People 'aren't' unique, their over-dependence on the assumption that they are is bullshit.

My point, at the core, is what I said right at the start;

These are broad generalizations but under all the logic, reasoning, hopeful thinking. You might think, hope, pray that we're more evolved than this but psychology studies have proven time and time again that we're not.

Adapting a clever study and its results to your rather restricted, hetero-normative notions of a person's 'worth' is not science. It is irresponsible.

It is silly.

A game of celebrity heads is not science.

So you are using blog posts as evidence in an argument against the findings of scientific psychological studies.

I think I'm done here. Have a good night.

 

[Ultrajoe]

So you are using blog posts in an argument against the findings in scientific studies.

I think I'm done here. Have a good night.

Blog posts that better display evidence and evaluation of the phenomenon you are trying to adapt this 'study' to demonstrating. Putting aside the fact that 'Nice Guy' dynamics aren't a science in any sense, and the fact that once again your study lacks any relevance to the issue, these posts are by individuals with decades upon decades of academic intrigue into the field of genders studies and sociology. I am not throwing up opinion pieces hacked out by anonymous authors, these are posts by dedicated, respected and educated experts with both experience and recognized authority.

A little more valid than inferences from how people work out the value of cardboard, I think.

Touting the word 'Science' like a washing powder commercial does not make a test of simple, numerical value-appraisal any more relevant.

 

[Saelune]

Problem is, people, (men and women) want too much. Though not to the extent they go to, many people are neurotic the way the cast of Seinfeld is. They get a good thing, but one flaw gets to them and they ruin it.

 

[The Stonker]

Well, I consider my self to be a good guy, right now?! I have low self esteem.
But most of the time, then I can do anything I want and I smile at it.
Heck, I even sucked a dude's nvm! *walks away*

 

[spartandude]

I think the reason that this idea has come around is because it seems that girls do tend to either date jerks or complain about their boyfriend.
I have 2 examples.
The first is something every 'nice guy' knows. You like a girl and she constantly date jerks while saying how nice you are and any girl would be lucky to have you and such, but then every time gos out with another jerk.

my second point is something 2 of my friends, heather and david discussed once.
(btw i cant remember exactly what was said but this is more or less how it went)
David: How come girls always seem to date jerks?
Heather: do they? I cant say i have or any of my friends.
David: Yh but then how come girls always talk about how their boyfriends treat them like shit?
Heather: Oh yh, i dont get that either. They just complain even when they shouldnt.

So from what i understand is that mostly girls don't date 'mean guys' they just complain constantly about their boyfriend regardless. Ok some girls do date jerks and dont pay attention to nice guys but oh well.

and i do agree with the OP about girls liking men with confidence. I used to have none and while i was and still am a nice guy, until i became more confident girls generally ignored me, now it seems i get quite a few dates.
Whether your confident or not also affects whether i girl thinks your good looking or not. again ive only recently gotten confident but for the past few years ive generaly looked the same. but back then i was quite timid while now i'm more confident by talking to people and what not and girls seem to check me out alot more.

 

[Johann610]

You're missing something, which I'd like to clarify. The question you SHOULD ask is, "what does a nice guy DO that defines him?" Answer? He hangs out with girls, in hopes of bagging them. His best trait--perhaps his ONLY good trait--is being nice. He's missing a critical thing here:
Women and Men couple in the intimate / couple sense at RANDOM, and factors that decide IF or WHEN are maddeningly complex and hard to define, BUT they are easy--and quick--to tell: I call it "the spark." When boy meets girl with "the spark," intimacy ensues. Bad Boys know this, and when "the spark" does not strike right away, they pay for their drinks and go.

"Nice guys" deny it, and figure they can generate "the spark" themselves, with time and effort. This almost NEVER works.

A guy who fails the initial encounter has to change who he IS, at a fundamental level, to have another chance to strike "the spark," and the Nice Guy never even tries this.
While the Bad Boy is racing off to his next "the spark," the Nice Guy is still trying to light a fire without matches. You can argue that the Bad Boy is also probably packing more in the way of attraction factors like money, power, vehicles, etc., but his biggest advantage is trying to strike "the spark" wherever, and whenever, and not looking BACK when it fails to appear.

 

[binvjoh]

I REALLY thought this was going to be sexual.