Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Bad Planning Previous entry: Take The Alf Pen!  The Alf Pen!

Nice Guys® still not vindicated

As you read this, I’m in transit to Hollywood to film an interview for a documentary about the chastity movement.  To no one’s big surprise, I’m against it, but that’s neither here nor there.  The point is blogging may be spotty until Thursday morning, when I’ve safely returned from Gomorrah-on-the-Pacific.  (Sodom is San Francisco.)  In the meantime, I figured you all would be as disappointed as I am to see more choad-based “science” with this research that seems geared towards proving every Nice Guy® who claimed that women really like jerks, not realizing that if that was really so, he’d be rolling in the pussy just for saying that.  Jill’s take is well worth reading, but I have more to add, naturally. 

The article is a stellar example of choad-based science.  First, there’s the weird implication that having more sexual partners=having more offspring, which is actually anti-true nowadays (it’s easier to talk someone into having kids if you stick around), and I’m skeptical if it ever was a better strategy than actually cultivating relationships.  Second of all, they use movie characters as “evidence” for the theory, as if stories about James Bond are some great insight into human nature instead of a male fantasy that’s a fantasy precisely because of how unlikely it is. 

The theory is that jerks have more sex than nice guys.  Well, er, not more sex actually, though we can assume that’s going to be the erroneous assumption drawn by Nice Guys® around the world who use this research to justify their belief that women are too stupid to breathe, much less be trusted to select our own sexual partners.  But actually, the research shows that college-aged men that have a triad of ugly personality traits—-narcissism, callousness, and dishonesty, basically—-are more likely to claim a higher number of sexual partners on a survey.  As anyone who has both done the slutty single thing and the monogamous thing would tell you, slutty singles actually get laid less.  You know, because it’s so much more work.  But yes, you get more notches on the bedpost.  One of the allures of monogamy is the appeal of getting laid all the time, after all.  Of course, as commenters at Feministe noted, the immediate conclusion is that men who lie frequently outside of surveys are probably more likely to lie on a survey, which might be enough to explain this situation.


But even assuming that the jerks were remarkably honest on this survey, it’s hardly evidence that women like jerks more.  In fact, my initial sense was that they discovered that women like jerks less, and also that good men have an easier time forming relationships with women they prefer to keep around.  Instead of showing that jerks get laid more, I think the researchers might have shown the jerks get dumped more.  Or they have problems attracting decent women that they don’t want to dump.  Good, honest people find each other and slip into monogamy all the time, which means that they a) get more sex but b) with fewer partners.  And many of them would tell you that they prefer it that way, because you know, more sex. 

As much as the researchers interviewed in this piece strained to interpret the results in a way that insulted women and made it seem like we’re fools for men who mistreat us, I’m not seeing anything but evidence that people with low morals have problems forming long term relationships.  Like this:

“It is universal across cultures for high dark triad scorers to be more active in short-term mating,” Schmitt says. “They are more likely to try and poach other people’s partners for a brief affair.”

Do we really need half-assed evolutionary psychology to show us why relationships that start with an incident of infidelity tend not to last long?  Even if you poach with the full intentions of keeping the poached partner—-which many poachers do—-odds are that the ugliness and distrust your relationship started with will disintegrate it, especially after the poaching is successful and all the excitement of sneaking around is over. 

I josh, but there’s a serious side to this that I think people should really consider before they bandy around these misogynist, half-baked theories.  The Nice Guy® legend that women “really” want jerks is a way of saying that women are born masochists, and that we not only deserve but thrive on being abused.  It’s a short jump from there to justifying rape and domestic violence as the natural order between men who are dominant and women who just love jerks.  The intellectual fudging used to create these articles is funny, but the net effect isn’t.  When you live in a society that believes that being hurt and misused by men is your natural role and your fulfillment as a woman, you’re not going to get much sympathy after you discover that your boyfriend or husband is the kind of woman-attracting jerk who beats women. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 06:32 PM • (58) Comments

My theory has always been that Nice Guy’s definition of what makes a person a jerk is the fact that they date a girl they want.

Comment #1: Jonathan Hohensee  on  06/24  at  07:13 PM

I think the ‘chicks dig jerks’ trope get’s it’s start in High School and is a distortion of the fact that Self-Confidence is Attractive.  In those formative years self confidence can manifest itself in pretty jerky fashion, especially if you find yourself on the bottom of the social hierarchy. Maybe it’s choadery but I do think that ‘Alpha’ behavior makes one more attractive, regardless of gender.

So those who perpetuate the ‘chicks did jerks’ conventional wisdom were likely themselves picked on in their formative years by people who they perceived as getting laid, and this shaped their worldview.

Of course, it’s also a convenient excuse for why you can’t get laid.

Comment #2: Ex Nice Guy(R)  on  06/24  at  07:23 PM

I’m skeptical if it ever was a better strategy than actually cultivating relationships.

Some research on chimps and bonobos suggests that, while “alpha males” are more sexually successful than the rest of the males, more chimps are fathered by non-alpha males who foster ongoing relationships (often based on food-sharing) with females.

I can’t link to any of it right now, but I could have sworn I read it somewhere…

Comment #3: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  07:47 PM

Oh I don’t know. Some of those who are narcissitic, callous, and dishonest probably approach more members of the opposite sex (so finding those who are currently available for an immediate sexual relationship or one potentially starting soon) because of their narcissm, without being affected by rejection. At the same time, they should have less compunction about projecting an entirely false persona for the purpose of seduction, and if they are callous, then they should have less compunction about lying with respect to their goals, and how they match up with their (prospective partners).

So, all else being equal, I would expect those with those traits to have more partners in the time from adolescence into their early 20s, *on average*.

Comment #4: Marcin Tustin  on  06/24  at  07:53 PM

The article keeps saying that the “dark triad” is a more successful reproductive strategy.  But the study did not measure reproductive success (which can only be measured by how many offspring one has), it measured number of sex partners. A higher number of partners with a shorter duration of sexual contact would likely result in fewer children, not more. Can evo-psych dipshits get past the notion that sex=reproduction? In human beings this has never been the case even without modern contraception.

It goes without saying that a study which does not use women as subjects, in fact is not studying what women want at all.

Comment #5: history_mom  on  06/24  at  07:56 PM

Oh, and I’ve always seen the Jerk vs. Nice Guy (legit nice guy, not Nice Guy) as being similar to the “girls you do/don’t take home to mother” continuum.  I have no problem sleeping with jerks because, well, I can just ditch them and never talk to them again if it turns out they’re a jerk.  It’s the good guys, however, that I want to have a relationship with.  And those are the ones that are going to get way more sex, and way better sex, than that jackass I slept with that one time who never called me again.  If jackass wants to make a big deal about it in the psych department over the free lunch you get when you volunteer for a study, it’s no concern of mine.  But seriously?  If he’s trying to get regular access to quality sexual contact, then EPIC FAIL.

Comment #6: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  07:58 PM

I think Ex Nice Guy may have put his finger on it; a lot of these impressions are formed back when the only people who have enough self-confidence to have any success with the opposite sex are the assholes.  Didn’t y’all ever wonder why the boys were so willing to put up with so much crap from the manipulative queen bees just because they were pretty?

Comment #7: Seraph  on  06/24  at  08:17 PM

  Some research on chimps and bonobos suggests that, while “alpha males” are more sexually successful than the rest of the males, more chimps are fathered by non-alpha males who foster ongoing relationships (often based on food-sharing) with females.

So I watched something on PBS about animal sex a few weeks ago, and in all sorts of species with high rates of forced sex (I’m not trying to speak euphemistically, just hesistant to use a word like rape to talk about snakes), the matings that are forced are far less likely to result in actual offspring. The females have evolved all sorts of ingenous ways to (apparently unconsciously) block the sperm they don’t want to let through. Some of this stuff was just crazy - like ducks have these twisty, turny vaginas (and penises that look like corkscrews to match) - and something like 50 percent of duck sex is forced, but forced sex accounts for just 3 percent of duck pregnancies. The working theory was that the twisty vagina made it difficult for the sperm to get deposited very close to its intended target unless the female duck cooperated. Crazy shit.

Now, some assholes obviously would try to use this to claim that rape doesn’t result in pregnancy, which obviously isn’t true (even for ducks) and isn’t my point - my point is that if you want to look at an evolutionary basis for aggressive sexual behavior, it sure doesn’t seem to be a very successful reproductive strategy.

Comment #8: chingona  on  06/24  at  08:26 PM

But even assuming that the jerks were remarkably honest on this survey, it’s hardly evidence that women like jerks more.  In fact, my initial sense was that they discovered that women like jerks less, and also that good men have an easier time forming relationships with women they prefer to keep around.  Instead of showing that jerks get laid more, I think the researchers might have shown the jerks get dumped more.

You’d think that would be the prevalent conclusion to a survey like this. And, at least in my own experience, it goes both ways. One of my sort-of friends - who tends to treat most of the people around her like shit - has had plenty of short-lived affairs, but complains constantly about how none of them want to date her. Bottom line, women and men both have sexual needs, and yeah, they’ll have flings to fulfill them, but most of the time they’ll drop those in a second when they see an opportunity to have the sex AND have it with someone who’s not narcissistic, callous, and dishonest.

Comment #9: Joy  on  06/24  at  08:28 PM

These people we are calling Nice Guys fall into the larger category of People Who Still Blame Other People For All Their Own Self-Inflicted Problems. I quit believing any of these “women like jerks” tropes around the same time I got over the blaming other people thing. A long winded way of saying “grow up already!” I suppose.

Comment #10: Theron  on  06/24  at  08:30 PM

Don’t forget that the lament of the Nice Guy (TM) is usually heard by his female friends, who sit there thinking, “Hello, dude, I’m a girl, I’d like to get some action here.”

It’s not that “girls like assholes.”  It’s that there is a very small pool of girls that guys in their teens/early 20s will consider having sex with, while the rest of their female peers are wondering why we can’t get a date if there are so many Nice Guys who can’t find a girlfriend.

(Not that I’m still bitter about college.  Why do you ask?)

Comment #11: Mnemosyne  on  06/24  at  08:36 PM

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that amoral selfish assholes get laid more.  While we’re assuming that, let’s also assume that they live longer, make more money, and generally score higher on every single measure of life satisfaction and attainment.  They are still amoral selfish assholes.  It seems to me that not being an amoral selfish asshole is a significant reward in and of itself.  When you start throwing in side benefits like having friends who are not amoral selfish assholes the strategy begins to show some real advantages.

Comment #12: togolosh  on  06/24  at  08:36 PM

This reminds me of a King of the Hill episode when Bobby asks Boomhauer (sp?) advice on how to become successful with the ladies because he was a “ladies man”. What he showed Bobby is that he hits on every female he sees, and while most would reject him, there were always the few or one that would go home with him.

So maybe it’s that assholes try more and will spend all day trying to where someone down. Or that they just get dumped more like the post says. They might have sex with more people because no one wants to be in a relationship with them, while nice guys have regular sex in a monogamous relationship. This is actually the experience my friends and I have had…

Comment #13: riotgrrl  on  06/24  at  08:47 PM

I have to admit that a lot of the best sex i’ve ever had is with guys i would consider utter and complete assholes outside of the sack.

Comment #14: pablo  on  06/24  at  08:55 PM

Don’t forget that the lament of the Nice Guy (TM) is usually heard by his female friends, who sit there thinking, “Hello, dude, I’m a girl, I’d like to get some action here.”

It’s not that “girls like assholes.” It’s that there is a very small pool of girls that guys in their teens/early 20s will consider having sex with, while the rest of their female peers are wondering why we can’t get a date if there are so many Nice Guys who can’t find a girlfriend.

QFT

Comment #15: wondering  on  06/24  at  09:00 PM

I have to admit that a lot of the best sex i’ve ever had is with guys i would consider utter and complete assholes outside of the sack.

I can’t remember who she was, but one stand-up comedian had a routine where she said that she was strangely attracted to really sleazy guys, but she could never actually sleep with them because if anyone ever found out, she’d have to move off Earth.

Comment #16: Mnemosyne  on  06/24  at  09:02 PM

Not only are jerks more likely to lie about their sex lives, they’re more likely to lie about other aspects of their lives and personalities in order to get women.  AND, since they’re usually narcissists with big egos and a lot to prove about their masculinity, they’re more likely to spend all their free time trying to get laid.  When you look at it that way, you realize that it’s a numbers game and OF COURSE the jerks are going to “win.”  Decent men probably aren’t at dance clubs five nights a week hitting on every woman they see, so they’re not going to have as many sex partners.

Comment #17: SarahMC  on  06/24  at  09:35 PM

Furthermore, it’s exactly the fact that number of sexual encounters (much less number of sexual partners) has, in modern times, next to nothing to do with total reproduction, that lets jerks into the potential hookup pool for most/many women.

Comment #18: paul  on  06/24  at  09:43 PM

We actually have a Drinking Liberally event in LA tomorrow night if you’re around.

info here.

Comment #19: dday  on  06/24  at  10:13 PM

On top of all that, when you’re looking at 18-22 year olds number of sexual partners correlates a hell of a lot better to “early start” than to “getting some now”.  The late bloomers haven’t had time to catch up.

Comment #20: jfpbookworm  on  06/24  at  10:47 PM

what a funny post. amanda the superskank is dissing nice guys. you know, amanda with the racist book cover.

Comment #21: Hugo  on  06/24  at  10:52 PM

I completely agree with “Ex Nice Guy”. I’ve dated a LOT of jerks and, to be honest with myself, I dated them because… they asked me out. It’s that simple. Whereas the nicer guys in the room held back, didn’t try to get my number, and then couldn’t understand why I’d go out with “that jerk” - as if I was supposed to know they were a jerk 5 minutes after I met them.

After having my heart broken by a jerky alpha-male AGAIN, I’ve going to try try TRY to be more selective next time. Somehow. Although, to be fair to myself, it’s hard to know from the get-go that a guy has huge, hidden commitment issues. Outside of asking him to marry you on the first date, anyway, and that never works out.

Comment #22: Faye  on  06/24  at  11:19 PM

Chingona, horrifyingly I was talking about the corkscrew duck trivia today.  Something I swear I remember:  males and females are like opposite screws—one clockwise, one counter-clockwise.  They don’t exactly match—meaning it’s even worse in awkwardness and forcedness.

Comment #23: lb  on  06/24  at  11:21 PM

‘Don’t forget that the lament of the Nice Guy (TM) is usually heard by his female friends, who sit there thinking, “Hello, dude, I’m a girl, I’d like to get some action here.”

It’s not that “girls like assholes.” It’s that there is a very small pool of girls that guys in their teens/early 20s will consider having sex with, while the rest of their female peers are wondering why we can’t get a date if there are so many Nice Guys who can’t find a girlfriend. ‘

I don’t know, I went to an 80% male college (science/engineering) where all the things these types of guys said about “any woman can get any guy she wants,” as much as they’ve been rightly criticized, were to a degree true, although that may be a completely different discussion (we had a topic on women in engineering here a few days ago, but it didn’t really dovetail towards that.)

hugo—STFU.  I actually have had a hard time with these discussions in the past because they do end up drifting towards conflating people who are just shy/late bloomers/etc with those with actual NG personality failings, but this topic has avoided that.  And I read the chapter on this topic behind the so-called “racist book cover” and it similarly stayed on topic—it was important how it also dovetailed into these men’s interest in mail order brides, and (although Maureen Dowd should’ve been mentioned by name) how some women develop the NG mentality it but not in the same degree.

Comment #24: calvinhobbes  on  06/25  at  12:12 AM

lb, you don’t even want to know how many conversations I’ve had about duck sex, pig sex, chicken sex, dog sex. Peace Corps ... rural village ... lots of animals ... lots of time. I’ve actually known about the corkscrew duck dick for years. Pigs have them too. But I didn’t know about the corkscrew duck vagina until PBS enlightened me. I think you’re right about the clockwise/counterclockwise thing.

Comment #25: chingona  on  06/25  at  12:37 AM

“Even if you poach with the full intentions of keeping the poached partner—-which many poachers do—-odds are that the ugliness and distrust your relationship started with will disintegrate it, especially after the poaching is successful and all the excitement of sneaking around is over.”

Let’s just face the truth: some “good” and “nice” people (the Jennifer Annistons of the world, let’s say) are fucking boring. People (Brad Pitt and Angeline Jolie) cheat on them and develop seemingly committed relationships to other cheaters in the process. And I don’t see anything ugly or distrustful about being attracted to someone other than your partner. I think it is natural…

Why or why must people be so moralizing about sex??

Comment #26: Foucault  on  06/25  at  01:17 AM

Foucault, because the honest, fair thing to do is say, “Jennifer, I really like you, you’re a sweet and wonderful person. But I realize I’m not in love with you anymore, and it isn’t fair to you for me to keep you emotionally tied to me when I know I have to move on. Somewhere out there, the right man for you is waiting.”
Then, after a few days, call Angelina and see if she’s interested.
It’s tacky and unfair to run around on someone, and it’s just plain awful when you are sure to end up being recognized and gossiped about.

Comment #27: Samantha Vimes  on  06/25  at  01:58 AM

LOL@foucault using a rhetorical question about the moralisation of sex when in the preceeding sentence he was doing just that by stating, “And I don’t see anything ugly or distrustful about being attracted to someone other than your partner. I think it is natural…”

Way to make an ethical evaluation about something as not “ugly” or “distrustful” and then arguing that if it is natural it must be good. Clearly, you haven’t read much philosophy and are not familiar with the is/ought problem.

Learn some logical argument and ethical theory you continental, critical theorist nutball.

Comment #28: no  on  06/25  at  03:40 AM

I don’t know, I went to an 80% male college (science/engineering) where all the things these types of guys said about “any woman can get any guy she wants,”

That’s because when they think of “woman”, they think “cross between Jessica Simpson and Pamela Anderson” and not so much “the mousy, shy girl sitting next to me in class I don’t notice”.  The problem of the Platonic ideal kicks in very quickly when people are asked to imagine a standard “woman”—-and since the Everywoman conjured in the imagination is perfect, of course it’s easy to imagine that she has an easy time getting laid.

If you started pointing out actual women—-her? her? her?—-I’m sure they’d readjust their assessments of how women can supposedly snap our fingers and get laid.

Comment #29: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/25  at  03:58 AM

Well they did notice that girl in class next to them, but that didn’t mean they were going to date her, no. I spent my first two years in college at an engineering school where the male-female ratio was 7-1. There was a strong social pecking order based on the average starting salary of your major. A lot the guys there were convinced they were masters of the universe, and weren’t going to spend a lot of time on women beneath their station. Misogyny played no small part—you can’t date a woman who is a better engineer than you (oh the humiliation) nor can you date one who is a worse engineer than you (because she’s clearly beneath contempt). And of course, you can’t date the geeky engineer girl anyway, because then you’re playing into way too many super-geek stereotypes you’ve been running away from for so long and god forbid we date a woman our intellectual equal…So, if you weren’t a deeply self-absorbed jerk, the dating scene was actually fairly normal - that 7-1 ratio melted away pretty fast, as a lot of guys just, umm, priced themselves out of it.

Comment #30: Theron  on  06/25  at  04:59 AM

“LOL@foucault using a rhetorical question about the moralisation of sex when in the preceeding sentence he was doing just that by stating, “And I don’t see anything ugly or distrustful about being attracted to someone other than your partner. I think it is natural…””

Mindless idiot, I was quoting Amanda’s original post, which uses this moralizing terminology to speculate on the success of relationships that originate in infidelity: “Even if you poach with the full intentions of keeping the poached partner—-which many poachers do—-odds are that the ugliness and distrust your relationship started with will disintegrate it, especially after the poaching is successful and all the excitement of sneaking around is over.” I was borrowing *her* moral-laden terminology, and stating my own theory that humans are often attracted to diversity and to new things. Without that attraction to trying new things, we would all still be living in the cave.

And Samantha, I agree with you that there is of course of kind and ethical way to let people down. But not everyone has the emotional maturity to do that. To condemn young (high school or college-aged) men and women as jerks for being unable to do so is to be an asshole oneself. I typically ended my relationships poorly (though not always by cheating) while in college. I didn’t have the confidence or the tact to say to people, “Look, I have no interest in you. There is some nice girl out there who will flatter your ego but I think you’re a moron,” so I stopped returning calls or went out with other people. I think it takes a while—certainly beyond one’s undergrad years—to figure out what you want in a partner, and cheating is part of the learning process. It may not be nice, but it is a part of reality.

Get over it, shy mousy people with no apparent ability to make the first move and ask out the people you like.

Comment #31: Foucault  on  06/25  at  08:14 AM

“Foucault, because the honest, fair thing to do is say, “Jennifer, I really like you, you’re a sweet and wonderful person. But I realize I’m not in love with you anymore, and it isn’t fair to you for me to keep you emotionally tied to me when I know I have to move on. Somewhere out there, the right man for you is waiting.””

Also Samantha, not to be nitpicky or anything, but what if your perceived standard of “honesty” and “niceness” causes someone to tell lies? What if what they actually *feel* like saying this to Jennifer: “I really dislike you. You’re a narrow-minded, emotionally fragile, and generally unattractive person. I realize I’m not in love with you anymore, and I want to move on. I don’t know if there is a right man or woman out there for you, but I know it’s not me. So good luck, and good night.”

That’s often the thing that needs to be said, but of course people don’t want to say this or hear this. So why lie? But it is hard to be that honest, so I suspect that many people cheat and pray for the other person to catch on so that there is a viable exit strategy.

Comment #32: Foucault  on  06/25  at  08:25 AM

Foucault, you don’t have to lie to be nice.

My mother simply cannot tell a lie, but she’s always very nice. She was informing me yesterday that, when confronted with an ugly baby, she exclaims, “Oh, look how tiny s/he is!” instead of “cute”. It’s always received just as well, and she sleeps with a free conscience.

Me, I don’t mind lying to be nice, as I think it’s an important social ability, but I’m just saying. smile

Comment #33: Faye  on  06/25  at  09:13 AM

I don’t think there’s any particular reason to be “nice” to the people you’re dumping. The point is often to get them out of your life, and any sign of “niceness” can be misinterpreted as a possibility that you will date the nice guy or girl *again* one day.

I have honestly found that *sometimes,* with extremely persistent “nice” people, the only way to get someone out of your life is to cheat on them and let them catch you. Nothing else short of murder works, because they are *so* nice that they will rationalize away all of your other subtle hints.

As a relatively mature person, I do agree that directness is the best approach. But in my teens and early twenties, I had a hard time being honest about breakups and just preferred to let folks get the message on their own. I wonder if there is any coincidence in the fact that the age group that people seem so traumatized about is only a few years out of high school: 18-22 year old men and women are immature and self-absorbed. It’s mainly about experimenting and developing a sexual identity. At least that’s how I remember this early phase. It wasn’t about malice or hurting people, but that is often what happens when people who are inexperienced at communicating openly about relationships get together.

Comment #34: Foucault  on  06/25  at  09:37 AM

Foucault, like campsites, try to leave people in better condition when you leave than when you arrived.

Comment #35: Tyro  on  06/25  at  10:14 AM

Word, Tyro.

Foucault, you sound incredibly arrogant and self-absorbed. Your ridiculous statement that some nice people need to be cheated on so that they will “get the hint” also notes that you were only HINTING that you didn’t want them around, rather than making it clear that you wanted out. What, you couldn’t take five minutes to sit them down and say, “I don’t want to see you ever again. I’m now going to go sleep with someone else.”? That’s pretty damned straight-forward.

And, yeah, blame immaturity on your part all day long, but don’t slough off responsibility on the “nice” person because they didn’t get the hint that you were sort of kind of trying to leave and were hoping they’d notice and make it easy on you and break up with you for you so you wouldn’t have to bother doing it yourself. Geez.

How is it a problem of “nice” people that, when you’re a dick to them, they give you the benefit of a doubt that maybe you’ve had a rough day, as opposed to maybe you’re cheating and you hoped they’d notice? If you really want someone who dumps you at the drop of a hat, I’m sure you can find plenty of people who will oblige, but it sounds like you just want everything to be made easy for you. Good luck on your hunt to find a nice telepath to date.

Comment #36: Faye  on  06/25  at  10:29 AM

I’m married Faye, thank you very much. I’m just reflecting on my twenties, when I didn’t have the experience yet to tell people, “Look, I think you’re nice and all, but not my type.” I think many young people who are just getting started in relationships take a while to learn the etiquette ropes. It is easier to run away when you get cold feet, or to start a new relationship on the side as “insurance,” in case the original one fails.

The other thing I recall about most of my college-aged relationships is that the person and I had totally different expectations of what we were doing. I tended to date slightly older (or even much older) people who were hoping for longterm things, whereas I was interested in gaining experience and getting to know people.

And yes, I may sound callous, but I actually did date a psycho woman who was a 37 year old virgin when I met her. She kept telling me what a “gem” she was and how her friends all thought I was so lucky to meet her because she was so giving. By the end of it, I basically had to say, “What can I do to make you hate me?” She said, “Sleep with someone else.” So I did. And now we are married. Case closed.

Comment #37: Foucault  on  06/25  at  11:11 AM

Amanda—actually, even after you account for “the mousy, shy girl sitting next to me in class I don’t notice” and “actual women—-her? her? her?” that statement was still indisputably “to a degree true.”

Comment #38: calvinhobbes  on  06/25  at  11:36 AM

Meant to add that I guess that it didn’t help that the college was one of the most conservative “good” colleges around, which fueled a tendency for a lot of other male students I knew who were frustrated over dating and relationships to let that frustration boil over into worse things.

Comment #39: calvinhobbes  on  06/25  at  11:44 AM

You can’t just fault the Nice Guys for being too passive in approaching girls though. I think the fear girls have of looking like a slut has done at least as much ‘damage’ by making them passive as well. These ‘Nice Girls’ are exemplified by the passive voice in these comments:

Don’t forget that the lament of the Nice Guy (TM) is usually heard by his female friends, who sit there thinking, “Hello, dude, I’m a girl, I’d like to get some action here.”
(maybe she should have just said it? people accept that kind of comments from men all the time!)

and

I completely agree with “Ex Nice Guy”. I’ve dated a LOT of jerks and, to be honest with myself, I dated them because… they asked me out. It’s that simple. Whereas the nicer guys in the room held back, didn’t try to get my number, and then couldn’t understand why I’d go out with “that jerk” - as if I was supposed to know they were a jerk 5 minutes after I met them.

Most men I know would be able to tell jerks from non-jerks in 5 minutes. I don’t expect women to be able to do this, since men behave very differently towards women in a dating setting than towards men in a social setting. I think actively approaching men could be a lot more supportive towards weeding out the jerks: you catch them on the defensive. A study about the dating habits of women (ratio of truly nice guys in relationships with women who approached them) would be much more interesting than this tripe for that reason.

The vilification of outgoing men Ex Nice Guy talked about happens in a similar way with women by vilification of outgoing girls (sluts). I think the focus shouldn’t be on blaming either sex for their common prejudices. We should instead strive to see sexual interest as common to all people and as something you have to take personal responsibility for.

Comment #40: peterdevore  on  06/25  at  11:48 AM

Peterdevore, it’s not that I don’t approach men, but if you’re at a party and a nice, self-confident guy beelines over to you and engages you in witty conversation at the end of which he asks for your number, how is it my fault for accepting or for not going after the guys who wouldn’t make eye-contact with me?

I realize YOU aren’t blaming me for that, but I hear a lot of ‘nice’ guys whining about girls who “go out with jerks”. Then you did into the details and see that the “jerk” was/is a socially competant guy who goes and gets numbers, while my “nice” friends hang around on the sidelines and avoid the girl because she “might” reject them. When she dates the jerk, that just reinforces that she WOULD HAVE rejected them, so their choice was a wise one.

As for “getting” some action, I actually DID ask a guy like that out, only to find that he was REALLY only interested in a blond with 38DDs. Since I wasn’t, I didn’t count. I hear he’s grown up since then, but I’m doubtful… A nice guy, though, just very shallow.

Comment #41: Faye  on  06/25  at  12:09 PM

A selection bias seems obvious. There is a cross-section of women who are attracted/interested in choad-ish behavior, and they tend to gravitate towards places where choads tend to congregate. Makes it easy for them.  As well, I think that exaggeration is a given in this case. Actually going by the numbers, by this view, is worthless.

There’s also societal pressures that a Real Man needs to prove himself by being able to attract numerous women, and that by limiting himself (I.E. getting into a committed relationship), he’s proving how much of a wimp he is. But in reality, he’s going up against an illusion.

Unfortunately, I do have to say that choadism is very influential in the male social society right now, which is why you see a lot of these problems. Those of us who are not “aspiring” to that type of lifestyle are viewed in a negative light.

Comment #42: Karmakin  on  06/25  at  12:13 PM

It’s interesting that Jonason’s work comes out of a poli sci / communications background. I wonder if he has studied enough population genetics (or biology in general) to really understand what he’s talking about. And when did communications majors start being interested in physical attraction? WTF?

(OK, to be fair, the “women prefer jerks” twist was probably added by the news reporters. The original research wasn’t about women’s preferences.)

<a href =“http://web.nmsu.edu/~pjonason/”>
Area of study: Experimental Social Psychology

Emphasis: Adaptive Individual Differences, Conditional Mating Strategies, Sex/Dating Research, & Personality Research

Education:
  B.A., Political Science and Communication Sciences, 2000, UConn
  Advisor: Dr. Ross Buck

  M.A., Communication Sciences: Nonverbal Focus, Minor: Psychology, 2003, UConn
  Advisor: Dr. Ross Buck
  Thesis: A cultivation analysis of physical attractiveness

  Ph.D. (ABD), Experimental Social Psychology, Minor: Biological Anthroplolgy, Expected 2009, New Mexico State University
  Advisors: Dr. Laura Madson and Dr. Michael Marks
  Mentors: Dr. Norman Li, Dr. David Schmitt, and Dr. Gregory Webster
</a>

Comment #43: outlier  on  06/25  at  12:20 PM

“Don’t forget that the lament of the Nice Guy (TM) is usually heard by his female friends, who sit there thinking, “Hello, dude, I’m a girl, I’d like to get some action here.”
(maybe she should have just said it? people accept that kind of comments from men all the time!) “

To add my 0.02, I’ve been in the situation where a Nice Guy is lamenting (in this case in our dorm common area in University) and turned around and said “well, why don’t we give it a try” only to have him turn purple, explain that he’s not really into ‘my type’ and choose to avoid me for a week before realizing that I’d moved on in 30 minutes and didn’t care about the drastic lengths he was going to trying to make me feel unattractive and in the wrong for daring to presume he might find me attractive (and yes, he actually did start a failure of a whispering campaign among his buddies about how I was a loser who was begging for it and in no way good enough/hot enough for him… which ended with one of them deciding to figure out who this girl they were talking about was and after a two hour conversation about old-school gaming asking me out…)

short version, don’t assume that us “mousy quiet” types don’t ever speak up, and don’t assume that all a Nice Guy needs is someone to ask him out for a change… that’s really not the probelm.

Comment #44: kodiak  on  06/25  at  12:22 PM

I know a girl who is unattractive in almost every sense of the word. Many of my cute, shy friends marvel at the fact she is almost always in a relationship but that is because she asks EVERYONE she meets out.  If you ask out a 100 people, someone is bound to say yes. However, all of these relationships are short lived, sometimes because she cant get into a “I’m in a Relationship” mindset and continues to fall for every person she meets.

I have seen girls who go for jerks because they want to be THE ONE to change them into good guys. If you can transform the cheater into a homebody its because you are that special that he will only be good for you. The nice guy will be nice to anyone so no big deal. This is more college age girls & it doesn’t last long because bad boys get old really fast.

Comment #45: AmandaPanda  on  06/25  at  12:38 PM

Some of these misconceptions between men and women can be worked out with a little honest conversation.  I was once interested in a guy (now married to my best friend!—no drama, he and I never dated, and when they started dating they were both really careful not to hurt my feelings) who thought that women (including me) got asked out semiconstantly.  At that point, I was in my early 20’s, and hadn’t been asked out in YEARS.  He was really surprised.  But I think it helped him understand that women don’t have it as easy as men (sometimes) think they do.  And since I eventually asked him out, and he said no, it was good to know that he thought I was ask-outable.

For me, asking men out was a really good experience.  My first two relationships came from asking men out.  And getting rejected, and learning how to read the signals was good for me as well, because I realized how HARD it can be, when you really like someone, to tell the difference between them liking you, and well, liking you.  I did learn, as things progressed, that me contacting a guy online never led to a first date (I had to wait for them—some guys are still traditional, I guess), but nevertheless, I think my experience in asking guys out made me more tactful.

I think what rejected/broken up people sometimes forget is that there doesn’t have to be a bad guy for a relationship to never get off the ground (or fail).  Sometimes, we just don’t meet eachother’s needs.  The guy I asked out who married my friend?  As I saw their relationship grow, I realized that he and I would never have worked out, but he and my friend are really great for eachother.

I think sometimes nice guys (tm) don’t learn this, because no one tells them, and because they don’t brush themselves off after things go wrong.

Comment #46: Ismone  on  06/25  at  12:46 PM

“This is more college age girls & it doesn’t last long because bad boys get old really fast.”

Exactly, this is why a survey based on college-aged people is hardly indicative of how so-called “mature” people behave in relationships.

Comment #47: Foucault  on  06/25  at  12:47 PM

There’s also the possibility that women who date jerks are jerks themselves.  The Nice Guys are always making assumptions about women, always based on their fantasies of how we’re supposed to be.  The possibility that we’re individuals with our own good and bad traits never seems to enter their minds.

It’s ever present in the old trope of why did the cute cheerleader date the asshole jock in high school.  Any high school girl has the answer:  the cute cheerleader heaped as much abuse on her female peers as the asshole jock heaped on his male peers.  They’re together for a reason.

Comment #48: keshmeshi  on  06/25  at  02:42 PM

something like 50 percent of duck sex is forced, but forced sex accounts for just 3 percent of duck pregnancies. The working theory was that the twisty vagina made it difficult for the sperm to get deposited very close to its intended target unless the female duck cooperated. Crazy shit.

Now, some assholes obviously would try to use this to claim that rape doesn’t result in pregnancy, which obviously isn’t true (even for ducks) and isn’t my point - my point is that if you want to look at an evolutionary basis for aggressive sexual behavior, it sure doesn’t seem to be a very successful reproductive strategy.

chingona, the twisty vagina evolved precisely because forced sex was a successful reproductive strategy for males, but not for females that were forced. Now it’s less successful because of the defenses that evolved in the females. Time will tell if the “arms race” continues or if there is now selection against male ducks that waste time with forced sex.

This particular study about humans looks like crap (the sample was 200 college students?) but having different sexual strategies in a population is not theoretically implausible.

Comment #49: windy  on  06/25  at  02:46 PM

What he showed Bobby is that he hits on every female he sees

How could anyone tell?

Comment #50: hf  on  06/25  at  03:37 PM

something like 50 percent of duck sex is forced

I will never see Howard the Duck the same way again.

...not that I ever planned on watching Howard the Duck again, but still.

Comment #51: MH  on  06/25  at  03:53 PM

” ‘Don’t forget that the lament of the Nice Guy (TM) is usually heard by his female friends, who sit there thinking, “Hello, dude, I’m a girl, I’d like to get some action here.”  “

Yeah, plus the guy is legally obligated to put out now because the girl is listening to his problems, right?

Really, I think the Nice Guy’s lament get’s translated into “I am whiney and pathetic.”  but there are probably plenty of girls who also find themselves in the ‘just friends’ trap.

Kodiak - you rock, girls who ask guys out all rock, your experience reminds me of another facet of NiceGuyhood: “The Unattainable Perfect Female.” (UPF)  See, it’s kind of like the celebrity crush you’ll never meet. You can fantasize and feel romantic infatuation about this person without any of the stress of having to grow a sack and talk to them. You don’t have to get to know this UPF. and can fill in the blanks of your knowledge with whatever makes them more perfect. Talking to people you have a crush on is scary as hell, why bother when the fantasy is low maintenance? The ‘Chick’s dig Jerks’ trope then becomes a convenience shield to protect you from both rejection and the possibility that the UPF would speak to you, turn out to be human, and ruin your fantasy. 

I guess this applies to both genders, we can call them Unattainable Perfect Persons (UPP) if ya’ll want.

People agree with me! I think I deserve a column in the NYT.

Comment #52: Ex Nice Guy(R)  on  06/25  at  04:22 PM

See, this is exactly what I was saying about how the topic always drifts towards conflating the issue with people who are just shy, etc.  Although I guess there can be some connection (and I liked a link I saw on one of the earlier discussions on this, which always seem to come in groups, about how there’s a continuum between being “nice” and actually “good” and people develop from one to the other.) 

“On top of all that, when you’re looking at 18-22 year olds number of sexual partners correlates a hell of a lot better to “early start” than to “getting some now”.  The late bloomers haven’t had time to catch up. “

Well, the thing is that our society punishes slow starters disproportionately, whether it’s needing work experience to get work experience, things that already show good credit/luck in order to get good credit, or in this case needing confidence with either opposite sex (or, heck, same sex) in order to build confidence, etc.

Comment #53: calvinhobbes  on  06/25  at  04:25 PM

Another confound is that our society absolutely does *tell* women, over and over, that they should date jerks, that it is rewarding to date jerks, and that jerks will stop being jerks once they Fall In Love With You. To be fair to women, even those of us who fall for that usually have learned better by the time we’re 24 or so. But, see, because in the average dating couple the man is older or the same age as the woman, the men in *college* are not dating the 24-year-old women who have learned better than to follow the social script that says they *should* like jerks.

Teen girls and young women are likely to believe shit like “if he’s jealous and possessive, he’s passionate about you!” and “you can change him”. So couple the fact that it’s hard to tell the difference between a self-confident man and a jerk if you’re young, the fact that you have been told over and over that you, personally, are a slut if you make the first move on a guy you like, and the fact that teen girls are lied to by the romance and movie and TV industry *constantly*, and it shouldn’t be any surprise that they will end up dating a disproportionate number of sociopaths and general assholes. This gives them the experience to recognize such people, get over the social programming, and seek out the men that actually make them happy… in their twenties, after college is over. So surveying college-aged men proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what *women* want; it proves what teen girls and very young women will accept when it’s handed to them (inasmuch as it proves anything, given how problematic it is to accept as your data the word of guys who are self-selected as liars.)

Interview these “dark triad” assholes when they are 45. Ask how many kids they had, vs. how many kids the genuinely nice guys had. Somehow I’ve got a suspicion that there will be fewer kids in the picture, and if you drilled down on the quality of life for the kids, you’d find out that the good guys’ kids would be less screwed up, doing better financially and socially, and probably in better shape to have their *own* healthy kids.

Or, you know, if you wanna know what women want you could *ask* them. I’m sure there are ways to construct surveys to get at the question “what kind of man do you actually date” rather than “what kind of man do you think you should be dating”.

Comment #54: Alara Rogers  on  06/25  at  05:36 PM

surveying college-aged men proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what *women* want

The New Scientist article says “the correlation only held in males”, which sounds like both sexes were sampled: in that case the correlation is probably based only on 100 or so males.

By the way, it’s funny that the guy who had a sample size of 200 has central billing in this article, and the guy who had a sample size of 35,000 only gets one mention. Only the second guy claims that he found a link with “reproductive success”. So it might theoretically be possible that he actually looked at numbers of kids instead of sexual partners. One can hope…

Comment #55: windy  on  06/25  at  07:14 PM

BTW, the question of the proponderance of “nice guys” vs. “nice gals” has come up from time to time on this blog, I think. Anyway, I just though I’d note I saw <A >this book</A> in the bookstore a while ago. I wonder how many people buy it. Just a data point.

Comment #56: Julian Elson  on  06/25  at  07:32 PM

Whoops. Here’s the URL pasted into the URL box. Didn’t realize HTML didn’t work here.

Comment #57: Julian Elson  on  06/25  at  07:39 PM

Woops, after reading Windy’s comment I realised that my reading comprehension may need some tweaks. I saw that there were two studies but didn’t figure out they gave details about both. From the article’s details, though, it looks like they are both getting at pretty much the same thing, with the 200-sample-size study implying the reproductive success angle in the quote about James Bond rather than directly stating it like the other study. It’d be nice, though, if science reporting actually consistently gave all the relevant information about the studies they use in making their pop-soundbyte conjectures - like hypothesis, some statistics or numbers in general from the data, the conclusions the researchers themselves made from the study - maybe even clearly delineated from the journalist’s conclusions in the article. Apparently this is too much to ask.

Comment #58: MaeBell  on  06/25  at  09:25 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.