I don't think it has anything to do with dating, or getting girls. It just means that if you're passive and not determined to accomplish what you want, then you wont, and someone else will. So get motivated and do things for yourself!
I don't think it has anything to do with dating, or getting girls. It just means that if you're passive and not determined to accomplish what you want, then you wont, and someone else will. So get motivated and do things for yourself!
It means both.
People say 'bad boys are only trouble' and stuff but at the end of the day they get the girls.
And I don't think being nice is about being passive. It is about not being aggressive and stepping all over others to get what you want. It is about actually giving a damn about someone else than yourself.
Yes, I think nice guys finish last. In this world niceness is a character flaw.
First of all, fabulous thread topic. This is a very interesting statement (nice guys finish last). I'll start with saying that the quote is mostly wrong, imo.
The reason there is truth to the quote, is that I think it has something to do with aggression being a little different than kindness. If a guy is very nice, he is more likely to not try to have sex with a woman. If a guy is aggressive, he is more likely to be a jerk at times (or often for some guys), therefore he is more likely to try to have sex with a woman because he doesn't care about the woman's feelings, he just wants to get laid.
I think it has to do with aggressive, jerky guys wanting sex more than a relationship. Sure, they'll take the relationship if it involves sex, which it does like in 99% of relationships or whatever the number is. A nice guy is more likely to be passive, and not push the girl into a relationship or sex, he wants the woman to make her own decisions. He wants to let it happen, instead of make it happen like the aggressive guy wants to do.
This may sound weird, but I think that many nice guys don't want to offend a woman by trying to get with her. Hitting on a woman isn't in their nature nearly as often as it is with the aggressive jerk.
I hope that made sense to you all. I'm kind of an unorthodox thinker.
I don't agree with the quote because most nice guys don't finish last, they finish first. In the long haul, nice guys tend to have longer, healthier relationships with women because they respect the woman, are great listeners and are good fathers. I think the nice guys have good karma for their kindness that they spread to society, and it pays off in the long run.
As for the too nice thing, I guess if a guy is unassertive he'd have problems with his life. I'd still say it's better to be unassertive than an aggressive, misogynist prick, though.
First of all, fabulous thread topic. This is a very interesting statement (nice guys finish last). I'll start with saying that the quote is mostly wrong, imo.
The reason there is truth to the quote, is that I think it has something to do with aggression being a little different than kindness. If a guy is very nice, he is more likely to not try to have sex with a woman. If a guy is aggressive, he is more likely to be a jerk at times (or often for some guys), therefore he is more likely to try to have sex with a woman because he doesn't care about the woman's feelings, he just wants to get laid.
I think it has to do with aggressive, jerky guys wanting sex more than a relationship. Sure, they'll take the relationship if it involves sex, which it does like in 99% of relationships or whatever the number is. A nice guy is more likely to be passive, and not push the girl into a relationship or sex, he wants the woman to make her own decisions. He wants to let it happen, instead of make it happen like the aggressive guy wants to do.
This may sound weird, but I think that many nice guys don't want to offend a woman by trying to get with her. Hitting on a woman isn't in their nature nearly as often as it is with the aggressive jerk.
I hope that made sense to you all. I'm kind of an unorthodox thinker.
I don't agree with the quote because most nice guys don't finish last, they finish first. In the long haul, nice guys tend to have longer, healthier relationships with women because they respect the woman, are great listeners and are good fathers. I think the nice guys have good karma for their kindness that they spread to society, and it pays off in the long run.
As for the too nice thing, I guess if a guy is unassertive he'd have problems with his life. I'd still say it's better to be unassertive than an aggressive, misogynist prick, though.
Ah, that was so refreshing to hear. Thank you for that. 🙂
it holy-mother-on-the-hill-of-Satan's-side-of-Saturn.. depends
and even then... who cares when you 'finish'?
.. That's another thing that very much depends.
like, bloody hell... you can do basically anything.. anything at all.
Not sure how people let silly slogans and bumper stickers prevent themselves from realizing this incredible and very real potential. Like, of all things to be limited by... choose the Mafia or a sociopathic ninja or something, anything awesome.
and even then... who cares when you 'finish'?
.. That's another thing that very much depends.
like, bloody hell... you can do basically anything.. anything at all.
Not sure how people let silly slogans and bumper stickers prevent themselves from realizing this incredible and very real potential. Like, of all things to be limited by... choose the Mafia or a sociopathic ninja or something, anything awesome.
I mean... the entire idea of "nice guys finish last" is essentially a verbally administered Rorschach test. It's totally ambiguous, which is, I think, why it is so universally poignant;we make it work for us, then attribute our own insight into our mind to the phrase's genius. That's not a butterfly you're seeing, it's you.
Nice guys, as we see on here every day, is a totally empty term that is really only used by jerks.. in sometimes very creative and deceptive ways.
Since life doesn't work like a race, finishing isn't usually the goal. If, in fact, life were like a race, everyone would choose last first.
I think the label 'nice' is very misleading and I believe nice in the context of this thread actually refers to a suffocating infatuation that is built on insecurity and jealousy. In that sense, 'nice' can be very selfish, manipulative, and infantile.
Being genuine, warm and strong is the goal, at least for me.
Yes, I think that sums it up nicely. Especially the last part of the post. There is something called 'nice guys who arent so nice'... meaning exactly what you have said.
Passivity and insecurity does not necessarily equal nice, I have always thought it was about confidence and assertiveness that is attractive...
I'm sorry coyote but I disagree that people who use aggression to get what they want, will never be kind or decent. To me aggression is just as bad as manipulative passivity.
1. characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like; militantly forward or menacing: aggressive acts against a neighboring country.
2. making an all-out effort to win or succeed; competitive: an aggressive basketball player.
3. vigorously energetic, especially in the use of initiative and forcefulness: an aggressive salesperson.
4. boldly assertive and forward; pushy: an aggressive driver.
5. emphasizing maximum growth and capital gains over quality, security, and income: an aggressive mutual fund.
not all aggressiveness is at the expense of others
Well I guess that all depends on how one defines aggression.
"In psychology, as well as other social and behavioral sciences, aggression refers to behavior between members of the same species that is intended to cause humiliation, pain, or harm."
Aggression is pretty universal and also pretty universally revered...
as you said, Kiwi, that's the kind of aggression you were thinking of. Yes, that's a kind or sort of aggression, but by no means the definition of it. Aggression is basically the driving force behind every change that ever occurs.. (well, every additive change, you can be utterly passive and 'cause' changes of sorts... if doing very little can even be considered causing)
but yeah.. the way you interpreted 'aggression' is pretty much how everyone thinks of aggression, unless otherwise specified.
verbally administered Rorschach test. It's totally ambiguous, which is, I think, why it is so universally poignant;we make it work for us, then attribute our own insight into our mind to the phrase's genius. That's not a butterfly you're seeing, it's you.
Now and then a commercial on TV will make a reference to providing to me the product that "I deserve" or some such. In response, I always think "How do you know what I deserve?"
Aggression is basically the driving force behind every change that ever occurs.. (well, every additive change, you can be utterly passive and 'cause' changes of sorts... if doing very little can even be considered causing)
Its ok, sorry I didnt mean to make a big deal out of it or anything, I was just thinking of the classic interpretation of aggressive rather than the more competitive/bold type definition of the word. Moving on..
#41
#42
#43
#44
#45
#48
#49
#50
#53
#59