So I've read some of the recent posts and seen that there's an underlying debate on the effectiveness of nice guys "in the field". I feel that there is a very important distinction to be made here as I believe that the "nice guy" category is more diverse than the group that that they seem to be being dumped into.
The main distinction that needs to be pointed out that a nice guy can in the end be the strongest contender. This all comes down to the approach. The main reason why "nice guys finish last" is because of their proverbial lack of backbone. It's already been mentioned as a reason why some nice guys recover. I however argue that it's not the fact that the guy was nice, but that he lacked backbone that he finished last. Thus the important distinction to be made is that "nice guy" does not equate to "no backbone". Of course girls will have their attraction to the bad boys, but more often than not (and again this has been documented in previous posts) the asshole side is observed and any chance for a real relationship is lost.
There can be situations where having backbone essentially compromises the ability to be nice. I however argue that no man should be considered to be less of a "nice guy" for letting backbone and confidence take priority over the "nice action" when the situation warrants it (when it warrants it is an entirely different subject that will have to wait for a different post).
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
