Nice Guys—Do They Really Finish Last?

[IndiReloaded]

The sky is blue in daytime, and if there are no clouds.

The average mass of a carbon atom is 12.011

Water is wet.

These are also truths. But are they relevant?

[bluesummer]

What women (most anyway) seem to want is a delicate balance between hyper masculine and metrosexual. They want the guy who can talk about his feelings without being needy about it. Who still has the confidence, but is respectful.

I was about to protest in favour of the 'nice guy'....until I read this. I have to agree with Lite.

I am engaged to what I consider a 'nice guy'......but he's not so in the context of being whiny needy and pathetic. He's just.....a good guy. However, he does have his overtly masculine traits that I appreciate. If they weren't there, he'd be more like a woman and I may as well be a lesbian.

Bad boys were a turn-on to me when I was much younger, and they are to most young girls who don't realize how much they can hurt you. I've been stung and I learned. Some people don't learn, but that's their path to walk in life. There are plenty of good guys out there with equally great women.

The only guys that seem to ponder this question are the guys who consider themselves good guys but can't score. My guess is these guys are insecure, needy, or unmotivated. Not attractive traits no matter how 'nice' they are.

Thanks, we needed another one of these threads...

Fras, you took the words right out of my mouth. Saved me some typing though, so thanks.

[Junket]

The sky is blue in daytime, and if there are no clouds.

The atomic mass of carbon 12 is 12.0107

Water is wet.

These are also truths. But are they relevant?

His statement was very relevant.

What else needs to be said?

[IndiReloaded]

Well, as I said, I think it really depends on what the OP means by 'nice guy'.

I don't actually agree that 'nice guys' finish last. I think that the ones who respect women, respect themselves, know their own self-worth and expect & demand likewise from an equal partner will do just fine in a relationship (my definition). This is not how I would define an asshole, which is really what Lite's post is describing.

[Junket]

That was Lite's point.

Most of these guys aren't even aware of how scummy their actions are because they feel justified in what they do because they're always on the bottom.

Many of these nice guys also fit the "shining knight" description as well. They have this overwhelming sense that they are God's misunderstood gift to women.

[IndiReloaded]

I guess I didn't understand Lites post. Thanks Fras.

[starbuck]

I want to add to something that Blue touched upon above. What this so-called "bad boy" might have that perhaps the "nice guy" doesn't is confidence. Loads of it. Especially since the BB is probably using it to overcompensate for his assholic qualities. Self-confidence is a pretty big aphrodisiac in women and men, correct? So it makes sense that a woman would be attracted to the bad boy if he's super-confident. (and once she's had enough of his bullshit, she'll leave.)

I mean, guys, how many times have you been turned off by a "clingy" insecure-seeming woman whose world seems to fall apart without you? A woman with no confidence is not attractive at all.

The guys that really finish first are the nice guys with loads of confidence and self-assurance.

[Gigabitch]

Lite's post basically says that "asshole" comes in many flavours.

Eeew. I'm trying to drink my coffee, here.

The guys that really finish first are the nice guys with loads of confidence and self-assurance.

Exactly, and bad boys, to me anyway, don't seem truly confident as much as desperate to prove something. I've never found them attractive, nor has the classic "nice guy" done much for me either, if you're referring to a beta-male.

I think being nice should just be a given. I'm not talking about those sniveling, I-wrote-you-a-poem-during-math-class, please-make-me-your-bitch kind of "nice" qualities, but just decent behavior.

Is a "nice guy" the kind of person who knows how to use a ****ing telephone and shows up on time for dates? Is he the kind of guy that will make sure I get a chance to orgasm when we have sex before he rolls off? Does he refrain from grabbing the cocktail waitress' ass when we're out? Or am I describing some baseline, reasonable expectations?

[DoesntMatter]

The atomic mass of carbon 12 is 12.0107

You're wrong. The atomic mass of carbon 12 is EXACTLY 12

That's a very important fact, because carbon 12 is the benchmark by which the masses of other atoms are measured (relatively measured)

[Only-virgins]

Nice Guys—Do They Really Finish Last?

What is the race?

[Only-virgins]

You're wrong. The atomic mass of carbon 12 is EXACTLY 12

That's a very important fact, because carbon 12 is the benchmark by which the masses of other atoms are measured (relatively measured)

I gave you a thanks for trying. Though it really is around 12.011. The .011 is so negligible that it does not matter so it is rounded to 12 in science. Specifically 12.0107 amu to be accurate. Though the last two numbers are so small they are different in almost every lab they are weighed in and in some cases blamed on the scale.

Here you go:

Source: University of Virginia physics department.

"So why is the atomic mass of carbon listed as 12.011 on the periodic table? Most elements consist of two or more isotopes. Isotopes are atoms of the same element, but with different atomic masses. Carbon has three isotopes: carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14. All of these isotopes of carbon have atoms that contain 6 protons in their nuclei. The difference between these isotopes is the number of neutrons in their nuclei. Carbon-12 atoms have 6 neutrons, carbon-13 atoms have 7 neutrons, and carbon-14 atoms have 8 neutrons. Any sample of carbon will contain all three isotopes. This is why the atomic mass for carbon is 12.011. Which isotope of carbon do you think is the most common?"

[Gigabitch]

What is the race?

Maybe it's the "Who gets to reproduce?" race.

[Only-virgins]

Maybe it's the "Who gets to reproduce?" race.

Than I think nice guys have a safe bet in the bank for that one don't you?

[Gigabitch]

Definitely, if they don't mind that their babymama usually has some bad boy's baby for them to raise as well. If they tough it out, they can have many more kids with her, long after the bad boy has stacked his motorcycle up on a telephone pole.

[DoesntMatter]

I gave you a thanks for trying. Though it really is around 12.011. The .011 is so negligible that it does not matter so it is rounded to 12 in science. Specifically 12.0107 amu to be accurate. Though the last two numbers are so small they are different in almost every lab they are weighed in and in some cases blamed on the scale.

Here you go:

Source: University of Virginia physics department.

"So why is the atomic mass of carbon listed as 12.011 on the periodic table? Most elements consist of two or more isotopes. Isotopes are atoms of the same element, but with different atomic masses. Carbon has three isotopes: carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14. All of these isotopes of carbon have atoms that contain 6 protons in their nuclei. The difference between these isotopes is the number of neutrons in their nuclei. Carbon-12 atoms have 6 neutrons, carbon-13 atoms have 7 neutrons, and carbon-14 atoms have 8 neutrons. Any sample of carbon will contain all three isotopes. This is why the atomic mass for carbon is 12.011. Which isotope of carbon do you think is the most common?"

I gave you a thanks for trying. Though it really is around 12.011. The .011 is so negligible that it does not matter so it is rounded to 12 in science.I]

Don't you fuccking try to correct me on this you dumb ass piece of shit. You really are fuccking stupid. I can't say this enough. YOU ARE A FUCCKIGN IDIOT O-V

Carbon-12 is the ONLY isotope to have an atomic mass that is an integer number, that of 12. That is how the mass of atoms are measured, RELATIVE to carbon-12. The mass of carbon-12 was DEFINED BY CHEMISTS TO BE EXACTLY 12 AS A BENCHMARK FOR MAKING RELATIVE MEASUREMENTS. Can't understand something so simple?

The number YOU gave was a WEIGHTED AVERAGE of the naturally occuring isotopes of carbon in nature, including carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14

Don't fuccking talk condescendingly to me on something SO FUCCKING SIMPLE that YOU ARE TOO FUCCKING STUPID to understand. Indi did the same fuccking shit in some other thread claiming to understand some guys BULLSHIT ANSWER to a math question that didn't answer the fuccking question, as well as in other threads. You two are made for eachother: You both believe you are so smart, yet every chance you guys have to show any amount of intelligence reveals the opposite

The day I'm corrected by a dumbshit Polski prick.... not gonna happen