As I said further down, I'm sure his caustic attitude was the justification they used when suspending him. Is that how the mods work here? They only analyze what's being reported? I'm not trying to insult them, as I'm sure with busier forums it's just not practical to read through all the posts. Well I'll just report the post where the girl calls guys "controlling dickheads" and see what comes of it. I'm pretty sure that's breaking the rules.Mr.K. said:
Do nice guys really finish last?
- Thread starter novixz
- Start date
The thing is that nice guys usually aren't really that nice at all. They feel like we owe them something just because they were nice to us. If they are rejected the woman is 'such a *****'. The typical nice guy has an incredibly dysfunctional relationship with women. I'm nice to everyone, yet I don't expect them to have sex with me. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Except that we have, and i can answer both of those.z121231211 said:
There are more "nice guys" because nurture triumphs over genes when it comes to modifying our behavior. We have so many countless examples of how our environment changes us, and how a childs personality can be molded in almost any way if you start out from they are very young. Genes still triumph over nurture when it comes to selecting a mate, however. This is why nice guys are out of luck much of the time.
Your examples with the feminist movement doesn't really hold up, because the feminist movement isn't relating to relationships. Listen: Nobody is saying women want to be slaves or servants, but in a relationship they unconsciously want the male to be the driving factor of the action, while the women control the subtleties.
Let me tell you something interesting here. What i just explained in the last paragraph actually relates much to womens psyche, because women somehow (even if they don't realize it) have a fascination with the secret fantasy that they are "letting" the guy do the work. If a guy seduces a woman, she likes having the idea that she is 'letting him do it'. If the guy is the more controlling part of the relationship, the woman likes having the idea that she is letting him have control, and that he only has as much control as she is allowing him to have (even if it isn't true). Somehow over the period of human evolution, womens brain started playing the above deception on them, perhaps to give them a sense of purpose (read: mental-selfsatisfaction).
I'm sorry, but you are more or less wrong about nurture being the dominant factor. Nurture controls a lot of our behavior, but it doesn't control the most important one in the mating game: Attraction.
If it did, then nice guys would be laid a lot more. They aren't, because what sparks attraction is something you can't control, no matter if you're a man or a women. It's not something that's governed by logic. It can differ from person to person, because our genes are all different (even to the point of being bi- or homosexual, which scientists actually agree is mostly controlled biologically), but i can guarantee you that your attraction to dominant and competent girls isn't something that would have changed if you, say, where brought up in a different area of your country or in a different country. At best, culture can through tradition (religious or otherwise) change how we get married and how much control we have over who our wife gets to be, but marriages aren't necessarily borne through attraction (see forced marriages and peer pressure in more primal areas of the world).
I'm sorry, maybe I'm taking it wrong, but your post came off as incredibly sexist :/Athinira said:
more to the point, I think the things you mention (ie attraction) have way more to do with nurture than you think.
A child will look to his parents for guidance. He will want to act like his father, and will look for a partner with the traits of his mother (or vice versa for girls). when a child looks at their father, unconsciously they think "that's how to be a man" when they look at their mother, it's "that's what a woman is like". since the social norm has been dominant men and subservient women for so long people have mistakenly labelled that as a normal part of nature. a woman (or man) will usually be unconsciously looking for men with the same traits that her father has, and if the 50s were anything to go buy, dominant male was the normal father figure, so girls look for dominant males. this subconscious preference can be broken by larger exposure to the world and conscious effort but it is extremely pervasive.
another way to look at it is 75% of a child personality is made up by age 5, so 75% of what he expects of woman, 75% of how he thinks a man is supposed to act, is already imprinted.
Honestly though, it will be a long time before the nature vs. nurture thing is completely figured out, because to directly test these theories is evil
Well the thing is that the bad boys actually do represent the alpha male type who would, in a more hunter/gatherer society, be the dominant driving force. They actually exude this attitude and woman are attracted to it. It's not just what he says and does, but extreme subtleties in his mannerisms, attitude and even scent. Of course, the free-wheeling, devil may care attitude these men have is actually designed to help them spread their seed around because, well, they're dominant. You'll notice that these men will often have rather good genes. Woman are naturally attracted to these for the same reason. They're unconsciously recognizing his good genes and wish to have him bear their child. It's all about survival. However, in our modern day society, these men are no longer as necessary they once were. Sadly, woman, who still have the same natural instincts they always have, are still attracted to these men, despite many consciously recognizing he's no good for them.Darkmantle said:I'm sorry, maybe I'm taking it wrong, but your post came off as incredibly sexist :/Athinira said:
more to the point, I think the things you mention (ie attraction) have way more to do with nurture than you think.
A child will look to his parents for guidance. He will want to act like his father, and will look for a partner with the traits of his mother (or vice versa for girls). when a child looks at their father, unconsciously they think "that's how to be a man" when they look at their mother, it's "that's what a woman is like". since the social norm has been dominant men and subservient women for so long people have mistakenly labelled that as a normal part of nature. a woman (or man) will usually be unconsciously looking for men with the same traits that her father has, and if the 50s were anything to go buy, dominant male was the normal father figure, so girls look for dominant males. this subconscious preference can be broken by larger exposure to the world and conscious effort but it is extremely pervasive.
another way to look at it is 75% of a child personality is made up by age 5, so 75% of what he expects of woman, 75% of how he thinks a man is supposed to act, is already imprinted.
Honestly though, it will be a long time before the nature vs. nurture thing is completely figured out, because to directly test these theories is evil
There is nothing sexist about my post. What I'm stating is simply how things work from a genetic standpoint. If the term "truth hurts" is appropriate, it's here. Stating truth doesn't make me sexist.Darkmantle said:I'm sorry, maybe I'm taking it wrong, but your post came off as incredibly sexist :/
more to the point, I think the things you mention (ie attraction) have way more to do with nurture than you think.
A child will look to his parents for guidance. He will want to act like his father, and will look for a partner with the traits of his mother (or vice versa for girls). when a child looks at their father, unconsciously they think "that's how to be a man" when they look at their mother, it's "that's what a woman is like". since the social norm has been dominant men and subservient women for so long people have mistakenly labelled that as a normal part of nature. a woman (or man) will usually be unconsciously looking for men with the same traits that her father has, and if the 50s were anything to go buy, dominant male was the normal father figure, so girls look for dominant males. this subconscious preference can be broken by larger exposure to the world and conscious effort but it is extremely pervasive.
another way to look at it is 75% of a child personality is made up by age 5, so 75% of what he expects of woman, 75% of how he thinks a man is supposed to act, is already imprinted.
Honestly though, it will be a long time before the nature vs. nurture thing is completely figured out, because to directly test these theories is evil
You are giving way too much credit to a childs parents in a childs upbringing. Children aren't molded by their parents, they are molded by their environment most of the time because their parents let them out. The only times when children ARE molded are their parents is when the parents seperate the children from the outside world (as there have been cases off).
At any rate, you are mistaking what you believe to be nurture, with genetics. You say that children like to look for mates who has the same traits as their parents. This, in fact, has been proven by scientists to be genetic, by the simple fact that this included children who didn't grow up with their biological parents. Also, if that was truly nurture, then todays world would have changed that. You used the 50s as an example, but the point is that girls more or less STILL crave the same traits as the women born in the 50s did. Nice guys were out of luck back then, are still out of luck now and will still be out of luck in 50 years when our society might look entirely different.
The animal world is the perfect proof that attraction is a genetic trait. Every single animal on earth with absolutely no exceptions has mating rituals which are pre-programmed from genetics, and humans are no exception. The only difference is that we, through culture and intelligence, can decide to ignore our instincts and go for what is culturally fit. That still doesn't make our 'cultural' choice the attractive one, and as proven, most people in the modern world (males and females) choose to heed the attraction instead, which is why nice guys is still out of luck.
The problem with your argument is that as long as nice guys are out of luck, that serves to disprove your idea. The day nice guys start getting laid én masse over the more confident men is the day that you can actually argue that culture finally won over genetics. The dominant males being the more succesfull has it roots further back from the 50s, it's the entire life story of all human beings and animals.
it's my experience that in the guy that is most assertive and doesn't really matter what the girl wants ussually gets what he want, at least in bars etc. The vast majority, if confronted with someone that is self confident and direct will just go with it, resulting in kissing within minutes rather then hours. I know this because a budy of mine is a pro at that sort of thing. Is he a bad guy, well not really he just doesn't care.
So I think most "good guys" problem is that they are to self aware, worry to much and think in terms of romance in situations were people don't care about romance. Eventually if you get to know someone outside of bars and such I think it starts to matter less and less and good guys have equall chances.
So I think most "good guys" problem is that they are to self aware, worry to much and think in terms of romance in situations were people don't care about romance. Eventually if you get to know someone outside of bars and such I think it starts to matter less and less and good guys have equall chances.
"Women want money, Men just want the best bang for there buck"
-Bigwon
As i agree that people in general follow that 'ladder theory', i don't think it's right. Discussing anything beyond that is going down a very steep slope into the deeps of metaphysics i figures.
-Bigwon
As i agree that people in general follow that 'ladder theory', i don't think it's right. Discussing anything beyond that is going down a very steep slope into the deeps of metaphysics i figures.
I understand that to be a "nice guy" is to be agreeable, which is to do and say things that another person wants. That's an "ingratiate myself and don't offend" tactic, and I'll come back to that later.
The bit I don't get is "finish last". It seems to assume that there's a race to a fixed objective. I understand the reproductive race (to get someone desirable before they get another partner), but what does it mean to "finish" (other than the obvious and crude pun we might make about that)?
If you want a life-long relationship with someone there's no end-state except that one or another of you dies. To hold a relationship that long (mine has lasted 28 years, so I feel I can claim to know something about it), requires far more than just being agreeable (though that helps).
I think it's a mistake for men to talk about women as a different species; they're not, and it's demeaning to see the reproductive dance as sort of Real-Time Strategy game in which we farm the other for pleasure, satisfaction, security or what-have-you (though that's certainly there, there's much more than that). We are complementary parts of the same species, and I think that's the key: most people want a good complement to themselves. That's what attracts, and I feel it's what keeps relationships viable.
So what is a complement?
I think that a complement is someone who gets who we are, and can give us the space to be that, but at the same time can interest us in becoming more than we are -- and can see who that is. A complement is fascinating because it's similar enough to be recognisable, but different enough to remain unexplored terrain. A complement is sympathetic to our insecurities and weaknesses, yet strong enough not to be prone to them, and independent enough to demand that we don't let ourselves stay victim to them.
As far as I can tell, we all want our complement regardless of whether we're guys or gals and who we're attracted to. But being a good complement is far more than being agreeable or disagreeable. Being a good complement is strategic, while being agreeable or disagreeable is just a tactic. The strategic question is not how to farm the other for maximum pleasure, but how to build and nourish a partnership big enough to let the other partner grow, yet intimate enough and challenging enough that we grow together.
So from my middle-aged perspective I have a suggestion and a challenge for you.
Here's the suggestion: if you want to be someone that someone else can fall in love with, try first to be a person that they can stay in love with. Kind words and shows of affection are nice -- even necessary -- but in the longer term if that's all you've got then it's just flattery. We need to be authentic, adaptable, interested and (potentially at least) committed -- and that's really what I think both guys and gals want from each other.
And here's the challenge: can you see what another person needs for themselves (not what you need them to be, or what they always want, but what they need), and are you capable of recognising when you systematically get in your own way? If you can do the first then you can be a good complement to someone else; if you can do the second then you can recognise a good complement to you.
Good luck!
The bit I don't get is "finish last". It seems to assume that there's a race to a fixed objective. I understand the reproductive race (to get someone desirable before they get another partner), but what does it mean to "finish" (other than the obvious and crude pun we might make about that)?
If you want a life-long relationship with someone there's no end-state except that one or another of you dies. To hold a relationship that long (mine has lasted 28 years, so I feel I can claim to know something about it), requires far more than just being agreeable (though that helps).
I think it's a mistake for men to talk about women as a different species; they're not, and it's demeaning to see the reproductive dance as sort of Real-Time Strategy game in which we farm the other for pleasure, satisfaction, security or what-have-you (though that's certainly there, there's much more than that). We are complementary parts of the same species, and I think that's the key: most people want a good complement to themselves. That's what attracts, and I feel it's what keeps relationships viable.
So what is a complement?
I think that a complement is someone who gets who we are, and can give us the space to be that, but at the same time can interest us in becoming more than we are -- and can see who that is. A complement is fascinating because it's similar enough to be recognisable, but different enough to remain unexplored terrain. A complement is sympathetic to our insecurities and weaknesses, yet strong enough not to be prone to them, and independent enough to demand that we don't let ourselves stay victim to them.
As far as I can tell, we all want our complement regardless of whether we're guys or gals and who we're attracted to. But being a good complement is far more than being agreeable or disagreeable. Being a good complement is strategic, while being agreeable or disagreeable is just a tactic. The strategic question is not how to farm the other for maximum pleasure, but how to build and nourish a partnership big enough to let the other partner grow, yet intimate enough and challenging enough that we grow together.
So from my middle-aged perspective I have a suggestion and a challenge for you.
Here's the suggestion: if you want to be someone that someone else can fall in love with, try first to be a person that they can stay in love with. Kind words and shows of affection are nice -- even necessary -- but in the longer term if that's all you've got then it's just flattery. We need to be authentic, adaptable, interested and (potentially at least) committed -- and that's really what I think both guys and gals want from each other.
And here's the challenge: can you see what another person needs for themselves (not what you need them to be, or what they always want, but what they need), and are you capable of recognising when you systematically get in your own way? If you can do the first then you can be a good complement to someone else; if you can do the second then you can recognise a good complement to you.
Good luck!
The problem with what you are saying is that nice and confident are not mutually exclusive. I'm a nice confident guy, and I get girls.Athinira said:There is nothing sexist about my post. What I'm stating is simply how things work from a genetic standpoint. If the term "truth hurts" is appropriate, it's here. Stating truth doesn't make me sexist.Darkmantle said:I'm sorry, maybe I'm taking it wrong, but your post came off as incredibly sexist :/
more to the point, I think the things you mention (ie attraction) have way more to do with nurture than you think.
A child will look to his parents for guidance. He will want to act like his father, and will look for a partner with the traits of his mother (or vice versa for girls). when a child looks at their father, unconsciously they think "that's how to be a man" when they look at their mother, it's "that's what a woman is like". since the social norm has been dominant men and subservient women for so long people have mistakenly labelled that as a normal part of nature. a woman (or man) will usually be unconsciously looking for men with the same traits that her father has, and if the 50s were anything to go buy, dominant male was the normal father figure, so girls look for dominant males. this subconscious preference can be broken by larger exposure to the world and conscious effort but it is extremely pervasive.
another way to look at it is 75% of a child personality is made up by age 5, so 75% of what he expects of woman, 75% of how he thinks a man is supposed to act, is already imprinted.
Honestly though, it will be a long time before the nature vs. nurture thing is completely figured out, because to directly test these theories is evil
You are giving way too much credit to a childs parents in a childs upbringing. Children aren't molded by their parents, they are molded by their environment most of the time because their parents let them out. The only times when children ARE molded are their parents is when the parents seperate the children from the outside world (as there have been cases off).
At any rate, you are mistaking what you believe to be nurture, with genetics. You say that children like to look for mates who has the same traits as their parents. This, in fact, has been proven by scientists to be genetic, by the simple fact that this included children who didn't grow up with their biological parents. Also, if that was truly nurture, then todays world would have changed that. You used the 50s as an example, but the point is that girls more or less STILL crave the same traits as the women born in the 50s did. Nice guys were out of luck back then, are still out of luck now and will still be out of luck in 50 years when our society might look entirely different.
The animal world is the perfect proof that attraction is a genetic trait. Every single animal on earth with absolutely no exceptions has mating rituals which are pre-programmed from genetics, and humans are no exception. The only difference is that we, through culture and intelligence, can decide to ignore our instincts and go for what is culturally fit. That still doesn't make our 'cultural' choice the attractive one, and as proven, most people in the modern world (males and females) choose to heed the attraction instead, which is why nice guys is still out of luck.
The problem with your argument is that as long as nice guys are out of luck, that serves to disprove your idea. The day nice guys start getting laid én masse over the more confident men is the day that you can actually argue that culture finally won over genetics. The dominant males being the more succesfull has it roots further back from the 50s, it's the entire life story of all human beings and animals.
people confuse arrogance for confidence far too often
Well my apologies then, that wasn't what i intended to communicate.Darkmantle said:
It's true that the expression "nice guys are out of luck" isn't literally correct. Hell, if your self-description is accurate, then you are a living proof of that. The reason the expression has become popular, however, is that nice behavior still isn't something that sparks attraction in girls. In fact, it either sparks affection (which is a very different thing, and is entirely useless if your goal is to take a girl beyond friendship level) or even scares her away. Sure it's possible to be a nice guy and get girls, but the thing is that you very rarely do so by expressing your nice side for first impressions.
That's the problem right there. Most nice guys show too much off with their nice guy behavior, and that isn't doing themself any favors. They need to start off showing their more confident and dominant sides first (if they even have those), because that is the most important thing to communicate early on, as there will be plenty of time later on to show that you are a nice guy (or even better: to hint it, because women will pick up on that). First you steal the show, then you invite her out. Not the other way around, if you catch my drift.
It's a shame we don't know each other, because i would actually love to watch you at work on a girl. I'm sure there are plenty of out-of-luck nice guys who could learn from you
See, the other problem with the whole "nice guys finish last" saying/belief is that half of these "nice" guys aren't genuinely nice, they're acting that way to garner interest, affection or... 'points'. Ironically those "nice" guys are actually more of a dick than the guys who openly claim they're a "dick".
It's amazing how many users in this thread seem to believe they (or anyone for that matter) is even remotely capable of summing this phenomenon up with a sentence. Hell, that it's even possible.
I wonder how many more days it'll be before the next "nice guys" thread pops up.
It's amazing how many users in this thread seem to believe they (or anyone for that matter) is even remotely capable of summing this phenomenon up with a sentence. Hell, that it's even possible.
I wonder how many more days it'll be before the next "nice guys" thread pops up.