Being slightly evil ensures a prolific sex life

July 3, 2008 7:27 AM

'Bad is good as a mating strategy' (NewScientist PDF | plain text). "Nice guys knew it, now two studies have confirmed it: bad boys get the most girls." Being slightly evil ensures a prolific sex life according to a survey of more than 35,000 people in 57 countries. (ABC News: Why Nice Guys Finish Last).
posted by stbalbach (121 comments total)

*picks up chair, throws it*
posted by jimmythefish at 7:29 AM on July 3, 2008 [7 favorites]

*sticks his dick in the mashed potatoes*
posted by splice at 7:34 AM on July 3, 2008 [5 favorites]

Comments to follow:

- "Yeah, but they lead unfulfilling lives!"
- "Hey, I'm a nice guy and I still got plenty of action."
- "Sure, I slept with plenty of jerks, but now I'm married to a nice guy and I wouldn't change a thing! They're selfless lovers too!"
- "It's not because they're necessarily evil, it's because they're confident, and nice guys are insecure."
- "Next on NewScientist: Oceans Wet, Deserts Dry"
- "Hey, some guys wearing goggles and a burka told me about an exciting story about a fight outside between two girls, so I slept with him."
posted by Christ, what an asshole at 7:35 AM on July 3, 2008 [21 favorites]

*puts on leather jacket, chews gum*
posted by DU at 7:36 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]

Do "promiscuity" and "infidelity" count as "bad"? Because, yeah, this just in: Sluts get more action.

(Incidentally, an article about sex titled "Why Nice Guys Finish Last" should be about something else entirely.)
posted by Sys Rq at 7:36 AM on July 3, 2008 [5 favorites]

Shocked. Shocked, I say.
posted by cccorlew at 7:37 AM on July 3, 2008

*stocks up on hair product, bike chains, and poli-sci courses*
posted by Navelgazer at 7:39 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

*farts on a crippled manatee*
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 7:39 AM on July 3, 2008 [21 favorites]

*moonwalks on rollerskates*
posted by Sys Rq at 7:39 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]

I'm much too lazy to find the actual research and see if they addressed this. But isn't this a discrete survival process where the hazard varies by personality traits? Say the data-generating process is one in which everyone accumulates relationships until they find someone to settle into an LTR with (let's assume this is true to a first approximation). If you suck, it's going to take more tries until you "fail" and end up in a relationship which stops incrementing your counter. If you don't suck, this happens more quickly.
posted by shadow vector at 7:40 AM on July 3, 2008

The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive,
thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful
and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism.

Rove must be a playa.
posted by DU at 7:40 AM on July 3, 2008

*joins the Dark Triad, half-heartedly sacrifices goat*
posted by naju at 7:41 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]

Nice guys are there to pick up the pieces and rear those kids that the bad boys fathered. As always, the contrast between what people want and what they say they want is telling. Let's not forget the studies about how, depending on different parts of their cycle, women might prefer the more chiseled jaw and deeper brows that go with a little extra testosterone. I know that there will be the "we needed science to point this out?" comments, but there's always someone saying, "This is wrong, I like nice guys, I wish I could find one in between all of these jerks I keep dating." Yay for science confirming cynicism!

I will now wait for this thread to devolve into pointless PUA-bashing.
posted by adipocere at 7:41 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]

It doesn't matter how many women you sleep with. It matters how many women you impregnate. Especially after you've given them a fake name. Yeah, try and get child support from Nathaniel Delano Cent baby.
posted by ND¢ at 7:42 AM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]

Slightly evil? Pfft.

Make no little plans; they have no terror to stir men's fears and probably will themselves not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in sin and heresy, remembering that a vile, monstrous atrocity once recorded will not die.

(I'll bet you didn't know Daniel Burnham was also H.H. Holmes)
posted by aramaic at 7:43 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

It doesn't matter how many women you sleep with. It matters how many women you impregnate. Especially after you've given them a fake name. Yeah, try and get child support from Nathaniel Delano Cent baby.

ANd to think I was calling you North Dakota's Penny this whole time.
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 7:43 AM on July 3, 2008

It matters how many women you impregnate.

Actually, it matters how many of those children go on to reproduce. I'd like to see this study cross correlated pregnancy and STD rates. And infant mortality. And so forth.

Although if the dark triad persists, it must be at least somewhat successful. (Doesn't the fact that the dark triad isn't the majority mean it is actually less successful overall?) Then again, maybe it's a constantly recurring mutation because it's so "tempting" in a population of nice guys.
posted by DU at 7:45 AM on July 3, 2008

The truth of theis "study" is that nice people are nice and therefore don't talk about their sex lives, or at least are honest, while jackasses tell all about "all the chicks they've banged."
posted by Pollomacho at 7:48 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]

Secretly get your kid paternity tested shortly after they're born. The mother never even has to know. Beat the "bad boys" at their own game.

Mating strategy, my ass.
posted by Afroblanco at 7:51 AM on July 3, 2008

Yeah, yeah, tell me something I didn't know already. I still managed to get married and procreate, even if the lights were off and everyone had left the stadium.
posted by tommasz at 7:51 AM on July 3, 2008

The key is to develop a crystalline shell of bitterness and schadenfreude. Here are some situations and the correct responses.


Examples:
"Hey, Guy Who Asked Me Out a Year Ago, let's go out!"
"You [have a kid|are pregnant] now, right?"
"Well, uh, uh, yes."
"Fuck off."

"Let's just be friends."
"No, no, I wouldn't want to be a burden. I'm sure Biff will meet your emotional needs."

"I just don't see you in that way."
["Would it help if I got you drunk first?"|"Would it help if I slept with your 'friend?'"]

"Hey, Single Nice Guy, why don't you ever get a woman?"
"Because I wasn't lucky enough to get to one of the nice girls who mate for life in high school, so I am doomed to an existence in an environment I was never suited for: the serial monogamy game."
"That's just an excuse. There are plenty of women out there!"
"I don't want to raise another man's kids."
"Your standards are too high."
"I don't want to deal with ten years' worth of emotional baggage."
"Your standards are too high."
"I don't want herpes."
"Your standards are too high."
"Fuck off."

Disclaimer: None of these scenarios are in any way autobiographical.


Really, though. What introverted, slightly shy intelligent guy didn't realize this before the end of high school? Hell, we were probably at 75% before the end of middle school. I wish I got paid a lot of money to say obvious things.
posted by sonic meat machine at 7:53 AM on July 3, 2008 [19 favorites]

So when a girl says "Christ, what an asshole" she's being flirtatious?
posted by TedW at 7:54 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

'sup bitches? Cute girl like you would enjoy ironing my shirts, amirite?
posted by orthogonality at 7:59 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]

Personally I just love a good cackle. I said cackle, right?
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:59 AM on July 3, 2008

Yeah, I've had firsthand experience with this pretty much since I started noticing girls, but every time one of these articles comes out it still depresses me.

Reminds of the relationship the ended as a direct result of me sending her flowers. How do I get into these situations?
posted by backseatpilot at 7:59 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]

It couldn't be that women like physically attractive men, and that physically attractive people tend to be more narcissistic. Because everyone knows that women aren't "visual."

(I know the study found that narcissistic women don't have more partners, but having more partners isn't held up as the ideal for women; in fact, it's more like the anti-ideal.)
posted by transona5 at 8:01 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]

Hey bitches, I just skinned a kitten! Now who wants some cock?

(I am approached by women 6-7 times a day)
posted by biffa at 8:04 AM on July 3, 2008 [8 favorites]

You don't get laid if you're not bold enough to indicate interest.

The reality of the situation is that there is a variety of traits -- some chosen by genetics, some in utero, and some during rearing -- each of which leads in different circumstances to superior reproductive success over their antitheses. It's how a species -- any species -- survives a challenging and changing world. Monocultures die out when challenged; any long-term viable ecosystem not only has backup survival patterns, it continually experiments with new patterns to see if there is a more successful approach.

So, you know, there will always be assholes, because there are some occasions where being an asshole is a superior survival strategy.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:04 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]

I choose to steal what you chose to show
And you know I will not apologize
Youre mine for the taking
Im making a career of evil

posted by bastionofsanity at 8:08 AM on July 3, 2008

Ok, I'm done joking for a second because I think I few of you have missed the damn point. One of my majors in college was psychology, and the first thing they told... the very first thing I learned in my Statistics course was the following:

Correllation does not indicate causality

Ok. You all see this deal where there's a correlation between dickheadsmanship and number of sexual partners and say to yourself "Ah, so chicks go for assholes!". That way you can have a personal justification for those years you were perpetually single. I have my head far enough out of my ass to know that isn't necessarily the case.

Women like dicks. Whether the dick is attached to a nice guy or attached to a jerk varies from day to day in relation to where they are in the cycle.

The reason why assholes have more partners is because they are less likely to practice fidelity. Whereas nice guys say "I could never do that to my wife/fiancee/partner/cousin", the jerks say "I don't want my wife/fiancee/partner/cousin catching me do that." And so they pick up a whore, bang the ugly secretary, or bone the maid of honor.

The other thing jerks do that nice guys don't is take stupid risks: they hit on the waitress, they flirt with the bank teller, or they mess with the boss. They do all the things all of us recognize as socially retarded. By taking more risks, they receive a few more takers.

Don't project dumb qualities on the women, and assume the girls don't go for nice guys. That falls into the "If A, then B, thus we can conclude C" fallacy. Just recognize assholes have more options then nice guys because they have fewer personal limits. Sorta like the crook to saint ratio in American Business and Politics.
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 8:08 AM on July 3, 2008 [34 favorites]

Lots of "nice guys" are jerks in disguise.
posted by Skorgu at 8:11 AM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]

I really wish I had the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behavior of a psychopath, as is I'm just a manipulative, egotistical, pussy. Oh well off to donate sperm without telling my wife (I cheated on the IQ test to make my jizz more attractive.) I aim to wheedle my way to evolutionary fitness.
posted by I Foody at 8:15 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]

I'm much too lazy to find the actual research

Here's some of it - Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures 15 page PDF. Jan 2008. Lead author is the same guy (or maybe these are many of the same findings).

List of countries on 'page' 173. Some interesting graphs on 175 and 176.
posted by cashman at 8:18 AM on July 3, 2008

Oh they mean bad as in James Dean or whatever, this whole time I thought they just meant to be terrible at everything. Shit.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:20 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]

Being slightly evil stupid ensures a prolific sex life

Earth, meet Idiocracy.

Idiocracy, Earth.
posted by Avenger at 8:20 AM on July 3, 2008

Thank you for dropping some much needed clue.
posted by device55 at 8:23 AM on July 3, 2008

Not directly on point but a little tangentially relevant.
posted by WCityMike at 8:23 AM on July 3, 2008

I'm clearly way, way too good for this world.
posted by DreamerFi at 8:23 AM on July 3, 2008

*buys flowers*
*holds door open*

Hey, wait, where you going? What'd I say?
posted by marxchivist at 8:24 AM on July 3, 2008

Correllation does not indicate causality

Pssh... that kind of thinking's for nice guys. Get a sociology grad student alone, whisper "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" in her ear, and you're guaranteed to score.
posted by logicpunk at 8:24 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]

Following up on what DU said (I think): What's in it for the girls?

Impregnating lots of women is a good strategy for the fellas (in terms of gene propagation), but less so for the ladies. Children need to survive and reproduce for genetic legacies to carry on. This seems less likely in the absence of a father.*


---------------------
*In the context of biological explanations of human behavior, our predispositions were encoded, as I understand those explanations, over many thousands of years, back when we resided in the State of Nature, long before we had the capacity to effect our own natures. Our modern, young, probably ephemeral, State of Socially-Mediated Nature allows for all sorts of behavior, such as single motherhood, that the old world sanctioned viciously.
posted by notyou at 8:25 AM on July 3, 2008

I'd rather be a nice guy and get the occasional decent girl, than sleep with lots of shallow, soulless women and be a douchebag. So far it's worked out fine for me.
posted by Dark Messiah at 8:31 AM on July 3, 2008 [6 favorites]

Bathtub Bobsled, given that most relationships end in failure--a breakup or a divorce--I would still say that it's likely that "jerks" will still tend to be single much less than "nice guys." It's not as if we are all allotted one (1) mate for life at the end of schooling; the risk-taking behavior allows the "jerk" to "play the field" while the "nice guy" painstakingly works his way one by one through the harvest, looking for the grain amongst the chaff.

Two issues: first, the "jerk" playing the field ruins some of the grain. (Baggage!) Second, even after a nice guy finds some grain with which he would like to make delicious bread, the jerk will feel no compunction about pissing on it.

Saying that "correlation does not equal causation" in this case assumes that the "jerk" behavior doesn't affect "nice guys" in any way, which is mistaken.
posted by sonic meat machine at 8:31 AM on July 3, 2008

Well, I'm just a sample size of one, but I certainly did get a lot more action back in the day when I was professionally building puppy launching catapults. Of course, that could just be because those see-how-far-you-can-fire-a-puppy-into-the-sea rallies end up attracting a lot of groupies, and the sight of a dog receding into a small dot in the distance really gets the blood pumping, so that might have something to do with it as well.

(Should you ever decide to compete, use chihuahuas, they are very aerodynamic.)
posted by quin at 8:34 AM on July 3, 2008

Did they, uh, create a scale of evilness that could be objectively measured, then follow around the evil people and then measure how many partners they had? 'Cause if they didn't, they didn't prove this.

The New Scientist is infamous for this sort of crap.

Plus, everybody is "slightly evil" in mating. This is more about self-perception.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:51 AM on July 3, 2008

The study found that those who scored higher on the dark triad personality traits tended to have more partners and more desire for short-term relationships, Jonason reported at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society meeting in Kyoto, Japan, earlier this month. But the correlation only held in males.

So, in other words, guys who are temperamentally more included to value indiscriminately banging lots of chicks are more likely to bang lots of chicks. Also, guys with more manipulative personality traits are more successful at manipulating potential sex partners into the sack.

Also, wouldn't you expect the worst kinds of assholes to self-report date rape as consensual?
posted by saulgoodman at 8:51 AM on July 3, 2008 [5 favorites]

In high school my nice-guy friends and I called our little group "public transport" because all the girls told us we were so nice and would be great boyfriends, but none of them would date us, just how folks say, "I'd be great if everyone rode public transportation, but then you see all those cars jammed up on the highway."
posted by Pollomacho at 8:58 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]

The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism.

Like Skorgu said, most self-described "nice guys" are like that too, they're just the spineless version of the jerk. Honestly, jerks are less fucked up than the "nice", their sense of entitlement is innate and just another manifestation of the self-centeredness they'll often happily cop to. "Nice guys" delude themselves into believing they've earned it because they're "nice guys". That mask slips off pretty damn fast once they think someone's going to welsh on the debt.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:39 AM on July 3, 2008 [5 favorites]

"more included" --> "more inclined" (WTF?! Must be these damn meds.)
posted by saulgoodman at 9:45 AM on July 3, 2008

We're not talking about guys that skin kittens here. Nor are we talking about wife-beaters or assholes that leave a trail of fatherless kids behind them.

Here's a hint: insensitive guys are happy. We (your results may vary) like happy guys - we like guys that don't look to us for validation - we like guys that aren't still mourning that hot cheerleader that "only wanted to be friends" from high school. A lot of guys that have labeled themselves as "nice guys" are the most passive aggressive, whiny, picky, needy dudes on the planet.

Here's the problem: insensitive guys are insensitive. What is fun in the short term tends to suck in the long term - which is why we eventually put our earplugs in and marry the "nice guys."

Baggage? Me? Nah....
posted by The Light Fantastic at 9:47 AM on July 3, 2008 [8 favorites]

Women don't date "nice guys" if they also happen to be bitter and boring. Confidence is key, and jerks are, unfortunately, very confident.
posted by chowflap at 9:49 AM on July 3, 2008

In related news, you catch more flies with vinegar.
posted by prefpara at 9:49 AM on July 3, 2008

Women who bitch about assholes also have more lovers.
posted by srboisvert at 9:52 AM on July 3, 2008

most self-described "nice guys" are like that too,

No, lots of assholes self-describe as nice guys, and yeah, those are the worst kinds of pricks.

The Ross Gellers of the world, who somehow always seem to do the most self-serving things while all the while portraying themselves as victims of their own incompetence or inadequacy.

Hell, pretty much anybody who self-describes either way should be suspect (self-described assholes are often compensating for the fact that they're really too sensitive, stunted in their emotional development or otherwise vulnerable in some way). But, no, real nice guys (not self-described, but in practice) are not just wimpier versions of assholes. Where'd you get that theory? This guy?
posted by saulgoodman at 9:52 AM on July 3, 2008

Nice guys jerk.
posted by aftermarketradio at 9:57 AM on July 3, 2008

Nice Guy[TM]s.
posted by transona5 at 10:00 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]

Where'd you get that theory?

If you reread my comment and then your own, you'll see that we said pretty much the exact same thing, just mine had more quote-marky goodness.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:01 AM on July 3, 2008

If you reread my comment and then your own, you'll see that we said pretty much the exact same thing, just mine had more quote-marky goodness.

Oh--misunderstood you then. So long as you do allow for the rare existence of actual nice guys. Cause I've known a couple over the years. They'd be the last to describe themselves that way, though. So if that's all you meant, I guess we're in agreement.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:20 AM on July 3, 2008

Nice Guy[TM]s.
posted by transona5 at 1:00 PM on July 3

The explainer is a doucebag. He still can't get beyond the concept that some (breeder) men want more or even less than sex from women. Here's a tip for the explainer: some strait guys actually like to hang around with women and not fuck them.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:30 AM on July 3, 2008

You may get laid if you're a nice guy.

You probably won't get laid if "nice" is the best thing that can be said about you.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:41 AM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]

The "evil triad" personality trait is found in men and women. There are "bad boys" and "bad girls" (gone wild). The research didn't seem to support this, suggesting it was a male only strategy, but that doesn't make sense.
posted by stbalbach at 10:42 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]

Being slightly evil ensures a prolific sex life.

So many low-hanging politics jokes...
posted by ersatz at 10:42 AM on July 3, 2008

This thread needs more discussion of my enormous penis.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:45 AM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]

The explainer is a doucebag. He still can't get beyond the concept that some (breeder) men want more or even less than sex from women. Here's a tip for the explainer: some strait guys actually like to hang around with women and not fuck them.

What are you talking about? He talks about normal, platonic friends right in this quote, for one: "So's your friend who comes over on Tuesdays to watch bad movies. They're not looking to get physical, and if they ever changed their mind, they'd let you know."
posted by Snyder at 10:49 AM on July 3, 2008

In my experience, the dynamic isn't so much "nice guys vs. bad boys" as much as it's "guys who give off the impression of being needy puppy dogs vs. guys who present themselves as something of a challenge".
posted by The Gooch at 10:56 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]

Don't bad girls also get more sex than nice girls?
posted by jabberjaw at 11:00 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

Don't bad girls also get more sex than nice girls?

Absolutely.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 11:23 AM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

Actually, it matters how many of those children go on to reproduce.

No, it simply doesn't matter. After every generation the average amount of your genetic information that will transferred to your kids is 50%. Next generation, 25%. After that, 12.5%, 6.25%, 3.1%, 1.5%, 0.7%, 0.3%, etc.

After two generations you're contribution is pretty trifling. But let's say you carry the Serious Player gene, and you crank out 20 kids. So do your kids. 20, 400, 8000, 160000... woah. So exponential return is fun, but it cuts both ways. You've got a ton of progeny, but the amount of "you" that carries over is still the same for the more conservative breeder. So, several generations hence, do you want a thousands of people with 3% "you" or merely a few dozen. Seems like a meaningless distinction to me.

You're one of several billion test beds for a smattering of individual genes. Try to realize that life goes on within you and without you.
posted by phrontist at 11:28 AM on July 3, 2008

(Incidentally, an article about sex titled "Why Nice Guys Finish Last" should be about something else entirely.)

I can attest to that reading of the headline.
posted by Caduceus at 11:31 AM on July 3, 2008

After every generation the average amount of your genetic information that will transferred to your kids is 50%.

Wrong! My shit is like Attack of the Clones! I do a girl and nine months later an exact copy of me hops out and starts macking on ladies. My romantic life is like a zombie infestation, except where zombies reproduce primarily by biting, that is only part of it with me.
posted by ND¢ at 11:37 AM on July 3, 2008 [5 favorites]

The consensus in society is that a man who wants to fuck a lot of women and tries to is a bad person. It seems likely then that more men who are already 'bad' people by society's standards are going to have less problem with doing bad things. What we need is otherwise moral men to stand up and realize that if women are responding to these bad boys sexually and sex is an okay and perfectly normal thing to want, then suddenly being an ass to potential mates is not immoral. Actually, this may already be happening; isn't that what "the game" is about?

I'd rather be a nice guy and get the occasional decent girl, than sleep with lots of shallow, soulless women and be a douchebag.

Is it a given that the women who the bad boys get are "shallow, soulless women" and that the nice guy when he succeeds eventually gets the occasional decent girl? I would say I've generally seen the reverse.
posted by kigpig at 11:40 AM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]

Another essay about the difference between "nice guys" and nice guys.

The term "nice guy" is basically shorthand for "I deserve a relationship by virtue of wanting one, and if other people are in one instead of me it's a problem with them and a problem with the women choosing them." I know nice guys and I know "nice guys." The nice guys don't have problems with women - maybe they're not getting as laid as often as the "slightly evil", but it seems like the deal there is low standards and promiscuity more than anything. The "nice guys" kind of suck.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:42 AM on July 3, 2008 [9 favorites]

I'd rather be a nice guy and get the occasional decent girl, than sleep with lots of shallow, soulless women and be a douchebag.

That's pretty fucking judgmental for a "nice guy."

fail.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 11:56 AM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]

Actually, it matters how many of those children go on to reproduce.

No, it simply doesn't matter. After every generation the average amount of your genetic information that will transferred to your kids is 50%.

I don't think that's what's meant, phrontist. The point is whether a) children result from the sex; and b) whether the children go on to reproduce at all.

I think in this case, it could mean that although 'bad guys' have sex more often, it may not result in any more offspring. This may not have been true back in the day, but when women have control of their reproduction, they may choose to have sex with 'bad guys' and children with 'good guys'.

Therefore, 'good guys' would actually have higher reproductive fitness, than 'bad guys' even though 'bad guys' would be getting more.
posted by hydrobatidae at 12:19 PM on July 3, 2008

Solon, isn't saying "I deserve a relationship by virtue of wanting one" called "self-confidence" if it comes along with an unemployed, tattooed amateur drummer with a drinking habit?
posted by sonic meat machine at 12:33 PM on July 3, 2008

I'm renaming mine "the dark triad."

get it?

*cries*
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:35 PM on July 3, 2008

Solon, isn't saying "I deserve a relationship by virtue of wanting one" called "self-confidence" if it comes along with an unemployed, tattooed amateur drummer with a drinking habit?

I'd call it arrogance in any situation.

Self-confidence revolves around being comfortable with oneself; a self-confident person might want a relationship and be well-adjusted enough to go after one. That's not the same as feeling you deserve a relationship and that there's a problem with women who won't be involved with you; something that the "nice guy" mantra seems founded on.

A self-confident person can be arrogant and can perhaps have "nice guy" tendencies, but I entitled arrogance and self-confidence are usually different things.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:02 PM on July 3, 2008

"I think entitled arrogance..."
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:03 PM on July 3, 2008

So, in other words, guys who are temperamentally more included to value indiscriminately banging lots of chicks are more likely to bang lots of chicks. Also, guys with more manipulative personality traits are more successful at manipulating potential sex partners into the sack.

Also, wouldn't you expect the worst kinds of assholes to self-report date rape as consensual?

Guys with more manipulative personality traits are more successful at manipulating people's money away from them. Does this imply that manipulative people are on average richer? Even if yes, isn't it a responsibility of society to stand up against this?

Guys with more manipulative personality traits are more successful at manipulating people's opinions...

Guys with more manipulative personality traits are more successful at manipulating people's spiritual beliefs...

I think we should not give our money to hucksters and those who do need to take some criticism for empowering them with money and encouraging this. I think people whose opinions are swayed by manipulative opinions (say right wing radio) are generally the cause of a lot of political strife and are far from beyond reproach. The spiritual remark...are we ready to absolve all the people who hate others not of their denomination, hate the gays, etc. because they were manipulated? So if women choose manipulative men as potential mates, or if men choose manipulative women (I don't think that's a problem but haven't considered it before) then don't we need to hold them accountable.
posted by kigpig at 1:06 PM on July 3, 2008

1. Teenage girls, like teenage boys, are largely idiots. So fer the luvagod, please stop equating "all women" with "girls who treated me like dirt in high school." Some women stop there, yeah. Thankfully, many have tastes that mature! It's amazing, I know.

2. There is no "evolutionary" reason why women would seek out men based on their ability to provide--that's a feature of patriarchy. Women could just as easily support themselves in groups that share childcare and work, and see men as traveling fun/genetic donors/occasional food-suppliers (for one example). Only when women are controlled by threats of violence, etc., from pursuing self-supporting activities do they have to choose between "boring dude who will help me feed my kids if I put out" and "hot guy who is only looking for a good time." Which is nice for those guys who might not fit either of those categories.

The easier we can make it for everyone to choose however many partners they want whenever they want, the more *everyone* gets some. The good guy/bad guy setup is largely an artifact of a society that enforces lots of rigid gender roles, imo.
posted by emjaybee at 1:08 PM on July 3, 2008 [8 favorites]

So if women choose manipulative men as potential mates . . . then don't we need to hold them accountable.

That's right ladies! When you sleep with douchebags it hurts America! Stop it now!

So . . . uh . . . now that you're not doing anything tonight . . . uh . . . do you want to . . . I don't know . . . hang out or something?
posted by ND¢ at 1:48 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

So when a girl says "Christ, what an asshole" she's being flirtatious?
Depends what she's looking at.
posted by 999 at 2:07 PM on July 3, 2008 [4 favorites]

Solon is right.

Try to get this "Nice Guys" (of which I have many times in the past (and most likely will many times in the future) count myself a member)....

NO ONE OWES YOU A THING.

No one.

You are not owed a relationship with a hot girl based on your own personal enthusiasms and accomplishments she doesnt share. What you find interest and value in does not always translate to other people. Sometimes it doesnt translate at all to a large swatch of people we would consider to be physically attractive.

Relationships are an exchange like everything else, so have something of value that the other person wants.

Unfortunately, alot of guys think that it should be enough that they are "nice." Yet theres just as many perfectly "nice" homely/fat/whathaveyou girls out there that would love a "nice" guy in return, but they dont count. After all, why should you be the one who has to lower his physical standards right? Going to the gym, buying nice clothes, learning to dance, etc. might be seen to yourself as selling out your oh so cerebral ideals of Pratchett and programming languages but, get this, you can do both and girls will accept the "less cool" stuff.

Example:
My friend Chris is 32 and has a ROOM full of Star Wars toys (amongst many other nerdy pursuits), but he gets with hot chicks because that isnt all he is. He doesnt assume the clichéd role of the B.O. and Febreeze-smelling fat dude that lets himself go because its some kind of bullshit badge of Nerd Honor. Now of course thats but one very specific example, but that strain of social ineptitude translates to other personality types.

What I see from alot of guys in this trap (and remember, I AM one of them/you) is the idea that you should be able to get whoever you want without coming across even a little. But why? Sure, you dont have to change for anyone, but conversely no one else has to care.

Again, relationships are an exchange. Have something to trade.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 2:12 PM on July 3, 2008 [5 favorites]

I think it is super-difficult to understand the sexual aspects of relationships between people under the rubric of "nice guys and "jerks." Throw in the needs of ego and self-identification and you are talking a real mess. I've played just about every role on that spectrum and with anyone I've dated for any length of time, multiple roles in the same relationship. This article is more about people wanting easy answers than anything else.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:29 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

Briefly: Women are attracted (on an animalistic, lizard brain, I-wanna-snorgify-you level) to men they see as equal or better social value than they are. Nice guys tend to act insecure around women, constantly trying to prove they're good enough, putting women up on a pedastal -- they're saying OMG pretty gurl ur so awesome, PLEASE love me cuz I know I'm not good enough!! Female lizard brain sez, "DO NOT WANT!"

I have a (female) friend who is, physically, a "9.5" or a "10". She looks like a cuter Cameron Diaz from her prime. We live on the opposite coasts, so we can talk frankly and openly about this "attraction game", if you will. If you could only see the pathetic neediness that men project at her on a daily basis, you'd want to puke. "Oh I know we just met, but I'm in love with you and want to marry you!!" GAHH!!! I want to reach across the country and CHOKE those men!

All you have to do is not be needy. Seriously, nice guys, I know it's easier said than done, but this is all in your head. Even a non-needy asshole is more attractive to the female lizard brain than a needy nice guy.

See, if you view yourself as a "4", you won't ever attract a woman that you see as above a "4". Any time you're around a "5" or better, you'll give off dozens of subconscious signals that tell the women that you're not good enough for her. She'll pick up on them, on an unconscious level, and decide you're a choad/creepy/icky guy. See yourself as an "8", and you can attract some pretty hawt women, but you'll still strike out with a Jessica Biel/Alba/Simpson/whatever, cuz you'll still be radiating the WANTWANTWANT signals. See yourself as a "10", really, truly see yourself as Brad Pitt level, down in your soul, and the world of women is available to you. You then either be a bad boy and use women night after night or a nice, sweet, but confident, guy and pick for yourself who you want... and marry her if you want.

Don't blame women for wanting confident guys any more than you blame yourself for wanting hot women -- it's how we hoomans are wired. Work on yourself, purge your insecurity and become the man you want to be, deep down inside, and women will flock to you. Hope this helps; everybody deserves love.
posted by LordSludge at 2:50 PM on July 3, 2008 [5 favorites]

And there's always a place for the angry young man
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks
And his honor is pure and his courage is well
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man

- Billy Joel
posted by ZachsMind at 2:57 PM on July 3, 2008

Wasn't there a decent discussion of this in meta at some point?

If you had a plot that looked like

                 Boring
                   |
                   |
Asshole -----------+----------- Nice Guy
                   |
                   |
               Interesting

The guy who is going to get the least amount of action is in the upper right, because not only is he dull, he's unassertive about it.

The guy in the upper left will get a bit more action (but probably not anything long-term) just because he's more likely to press his case.

The guy in the lower left will probably get quite a lot of action, and even long-term relationships, because, depending on how interesting he is, it might be worth putting up with a decent amount of shit from him. As a potential bonus, he could be seen as just "needing a bit of fixing" to move him more towards the right on our scale, which is an irresistible challenge for some people (this is my gut reaction as to why "House," the TV character, is a sex symbol).

The guys on the lower right are the ones I suspect women would really like to find and keep when they do discover them, but their rarity in the marketplace makes it easier to substitute one from further left on the scale.

I suspect the vertical axis is stronger than the horizontal axis (especially the younger the woman is) so a mildly interesting asshole is a "better" catch than an utterly boring but super-nice guy.

This, of course, is just personality, there is physical appeal as well. I think a lot of unappealing guys label themselves "nice" as a way to avoid facing the fact that they just aren't getting as much as they'd like because their sex appeal is limited. That said, you can be ugly as sin but still have to beat potential sex partners off with a stick if you're super interesting.

Anyway, I'm a dude who has whined about the nice guy thing in my past, so I have no idea if this is at all accurate. Still, I got to use the "pre" tag and sound sorta what I know what I'm talking about, which I hope is interesting. And since I'm married, my desire to be seen as interesting kinda makes me an asshole. Email's [not] in profile, ladies.
posted by maxwelton at 3:19 PM on July 3, 2008 [7 favorites]

Killed a swan. Did a shit on it. Right on it.
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:24 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

Swans are assholes.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 3:35 PM on July 3, 2008

Seriously though:

One major side effect of narcissism is caring about one's appearance. Another is confidence.

"Thrill seeking" is a good sign of someone exciting, and their fearlessness, or willingness to overcome their fear, will translate into taking risks with women (or men) where others might shy away.

"Machiavellian" nature requires knowing what people want, what you want, and how to leverage the one to get the other. It also requires an understanding of people, for you cannot manipulate what you don't understand.

Any one of these is a clear advantage in finding a short-term mate. Why would we expect any less out of the trifecta?
posted by Navelgazer at 3:48 PM on July 3, 2008

Not to beat anyone with the clue stick (lightly spank, perhaps?), but we are not talking about:
- guys who are "happy" because they are insensitive
- guys who are confident because they are insensitive
- guys who are successful manipulators

At least, not if this is supposed to match up with the plethora of personal experience out there that gets semi-bitterly spit out whenever these studies come up. In the first two cases, we're not talking about guys being jerks to the girl which is usually what we on the sidelines see happening, and in the third case, she doesn't realize he is a jerk, so once again, completely different.

Actually, I was going to try to describe the behaviours I'm talking about but someone upthread mentioned "The Game" and really that's pretty much it. Subtle put downs, power plays, ordering her around, self-aggrandizing behaviour and talk, etc. Nobody confuses this with "happiness" or "confidence", and it's been part of the whole unfortunate culture of thought that at one time saw women as somewhat masochistic (along with women who stay in abusive relationships or find new ones). All the while, of course, she says she wants a nice guy (+ other qualities, obviously), and then hangs on for dear life to the jerk, and then finds another, and another. Anyone who wants to stay clear of the damage zone learns to pay attention to what women (and men) do, rather than what they say. And that's pretty much that.

maxwelton: interesting theory, but I think it falls into the whole (often intentionally-)confused extraneous variable where you say "it's not that nice isn't attractive, it's that nice doesn't trump _____" (in your case, "interesting"). Which is fine and true. Lots of boring guys use "nice" as a cover -- in which case their complaints really require more honesty in response -- "oh, I do want a nice guy. I want a nice, handsome guy with a fast car. That's not you." (or whatever) But no one would ever say that. So they get told that Girl X really wants a nice guy, period, and they fume. Aside from which, it doesn't explain why Girl X would rather have handsome jerk rather than handsome nice guy, if this is just about a mix of qualities. The suggestion seems to be here that jerkiness is a quality unto itself.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:00 PM on July 3, 2008

Aside from which, it doesn't explain why Girl X would rather have handsome jerk rather than handsome nice guy, if this is just about a mix of qualities.

This, of course, is the inherent problem in discussing something as subjective as "nice guys" vs. "jerks". To the "nice" guy who is spending his Saturday night alone with his X-Box and whose dry spell can be counted in years as opposed to months, the "handsome nice guy" is an oxymoron. They're all "jerks"
posted by The Gooch at 4:11 PM on July 3, 2008

You are not owed a relationship with a hot girl based on your own personal enthusiasms and accomplishments she doesnt share.

See, I don't think nice but homely guys start out thinking they're somehow owed the "hot chick". They come to believe it over time, because they're told, time and again, that that's what these women want. Basically because no one wants to own up to anything else. It's not that complicated.

Although one really good insight I remember from MeFi a little while back was one reason why someone talks on and on about wanting "the nice guy, the funny guy" (or the nice girl, the funny girl) and that is that they can't get the hot girl/guy, so this is part self-justification (and justification to others) -- I don't really value looks all that much -- that's shallow.

Gooch -- I get the dilemma of evaluating these things but hell this is only spitballing. Yet we can't seem to do it without reaching for an alternate explanation to the obvious: "nice" doesn't rank particularly highly for men or for women compared to other traits. When we pay attention to what people do rather than say, this becomes rather clear. (though age changes a lot)
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:16 PM on July 3, 2008

Can we at least try to treat "nice" as a variable here (though yes, a hard one to measure)? We have no problem with this in other threads. It seems pretty clear that the proposition here is that, for any mix of qualities and flaws, "niceness" is a net minus. NOT because he also plays XBox all the time, or because he's otherwise boring, or because he thinks he's owed something. If the variable truly works that way, we're talking about

jerk + (qualities - flaws) > nice guy + (those same qualities - those same flaws)

Say that's bullshit. Throw in your data point. But let's stop playing the "but what if he's also ____" game. That just seems like a rather desperate attempt to ignore a finding we don't like.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:26 PM on July 3, 2008

jerk + (qualities - flaws) > nice guy + (those same qualities - those same flaws)

Say that's bullshit. Throw in your data point. But let's stop playing the "but what if he's also ____" game. That just seems like a rather desperate attempt to ignore a finding we don't like.

If you could reduce sexual attraction down to an equation, all of the geeks would have figured out how to get laid by now. "Jerk" and "nice guy" are far too subjective to be any real type of variable. If you would refer back to the article, you find 3 types of behavior listed: self-obsessive, impulsive/thrill-seeking/callous, and deceitful/exploitative. All three of these behaviors have a common element - and that is self-centeredness. So the "jerk" is self-centered and the "nice guy" is other-centered. Women definitely prefer self-centered guys for sexual relationships - because who wants the drama? It's just as simple as that. When kids come along - it skews the other way, and that makes sense too. So why the hand wringing? Because a lot of guys are closet jerks - but they're too chicken/socialized to actually admit it - so they claim nice guy status. But they're not really nice guys either - so they lose either way.

The moral of the story - be true to yourself, kids.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 4:51 PM on July 3, 2008

I've come to think of herpes as the great equalizer when it comes to the debate of asshole guys getting more pussy than the "nice" ones.

But agreed that most "nice guys" who can't understand why they aren't getting laid are actually just boring. Women and men are both programmed by society to say certain things, and for gals, one of these things is "I really wish I could just meet a nice guy." As mentioned, "nice" by itself doesn't really mean anything. Nice coupled with a decent bod or talents (preferably with nunchuks, obviously) goes a long way. (Since nobody asked me, I'd have to say some abilities with music and cooking can work wonders when it comes to meeting and impressing women enough so that they'll sleep with you.)

I became a much less bitter human being once I figured these things out in my late 20's. Wish I'd figured it out sooner, but that's life.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to a 4th of July key party.
posted by bardic at 4:51 PM on July 3, 2008

Former Nice Guy here.

I don't know how common this might be among Nice Guys, but my upbringing left me with the idea that women dislike sex. It wasn't a conscious idea, I don't think, but it was there. This certainly affected the way I pursued sexual relationships—I'd find myself attracted to a girl, so I'd want to show attention to her, but, y'know, not "I want to have sex with you" attention, because Girls Don't Like That, and I wanted to demonstrate that I respected her feelings, because I wanted to have sex with...oh. Shit!

I eventually figured out that this is nonsense. But I'm still kind of pissed that my impressionable young brain was filled with that nonsense.
posted by greenie2600 at 4:52 PM on July 3, 2008

Aside from which, it doesn't explain why Girl X would rather have handsome jerk rather than handsome nice guy, if this is just about a mix of qualities.

I believe it was Scody (?) in the thread I'm trying to recall who pointed out (paraphrasing) that "girls with low self esteem go with the [handsome] jerks and self-confident girls go for the [handsome] nice guys."

In other words, this is all way more complicated than my silly diagram or anything you can try to map out. We cannot assume the consumers of men, so to speak, are all rational players. They may have any number of hangups/fetishes/issues that cause them to make decisions in sex partners that are unpredictable.
posted by maxwelton at 4:56 PM on July 3, 2008

You just gotta ask the damned broad to the sock hop. Pick her up an hour late, riding your motorcycle, smelling like bourbon, and smoking a cigarette from the pack rolled up in your sleeve. Nice ain't got nothin' to do with it.
posted by clearly at 4:58 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]

Bein' bad ain't so bad.
I've known more pretty women than most men have.

/AC/DC
posted by dobbs at 5:01 PM on July 3, 2008

If you could reduce sexual attraction down to an equation, all of the geeks would have figured out how to get laid by now.

It's called "The Game" and supposedly has a decent rate of success.

Women definitely prefer self-centered guys for sexual relationships - because who wants the drama?

... I'm not trying to be snarky, but I fail to see how "self-obsessive, impulsive/thrill-seeking/callous, and deceitful/exploitative" doesn't bring the drama.

IMHO bad girls = teh hot, and the drama is part of it. And also the reason why you don't want it for any kind of lasting relationship.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:03 PM on July 3, 2008

Wher the fuck is Mystery when we need him most?
posted by bardic at 5:07 PM on July 3, 2008

Good point, maxwelton. We are not rational players.

But really, actions speak a lot louder than words. Once you realize that, people really aren't so confusing. We're almost as good at deceiving ourselves as we are at deceiving other people. Better, maybe.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:10 PM on July 3, 2008

From some of the comments I've seen here over the last couple of weeks, I've actually been considering reading The Game, but I've been forgoing the experience because I fear that it will anger me so much, that it will trigger some kind of psychotic episode that ends in huge quantities of spilled blood.

I'm wearing new boots, and I really don't want to have to get them cleaned.
posted by quin at 5:12 PM on July 3, 2008

The reporting of this study, the interpretation of the results, and the response to it here are all insane. Seriously.

Actual study results: Men who are narcissistic, manipulative thrill-seekers are more likely than others to be involved in multiple short-term relationships.

Conclusion: Girls like jerks.

Of course, the obvious interpretations are nothing of the sort. Maybe, let's see ... people who are more likely to seek out multiple short-term relationships are more likely to get them? No? OK, how about ... manipulative people are sometimes skilled at manipulating others into sex in the short term, until the facade becomes apparent? Doesn't work for you? Thrill-seekers get bored with their partners more quickly and move on? Narcissists have trouble maintaining long term relationships? None of this makes any sense?

It feels like somewhere, a researcher looked at this data and thought ... Hmm. If these guys are more likely to have multiple short-term relationships ... then that means ... they have had more sexual partners than me! Just as I always suspected -- GIRLS LIKE JERKS!

And the media echoed -- WE KNEW IT! GIRLS LIKE JERKS!

And Metafilter cried out -- OBVIOUSLY! GIRLS LIKE JERKS!

No.

And it has nothing to do with whether "nice" guys are boring, or less confident, or less attractive, or in lesser supply, or whatever. It has nothing to do with whether women are deceptive, or self-deluded, or lust for "bad" boys, or whatever. It certainly has nothing to do with the stupid naive evolutionary biology father-vs.-parent that everyone likes to trot out for this crap whenever it comes up. It has nothing to do with those because the study does not actually say what people seem to think it says. It does not actual say that girls are more attracted to bad boys.

What it says is that guys who are more likely to seek out short-term sexual relationships, and less likely to be able to hold onto long-term sexual relationships, are more likely to have ... wait for it ... short term sexual relationships. Wow. Shocking.

(Yes, that technically means that they had sex with more people than you, including that girl in high school. Get over it and move on. According to this study, she certainly did. Sheesh.)
posted by kyrademon at 5:47 PM on July 3, 2008 [10 favorites]

Actual study results: Men who are narcissistic, manipulative thrill-seekers are more likely than others to be involved in multiple short-term relationships.

Because nobody likes a jerk, so these girls are doing the rational thing and dumping them? Yes, clearly that's what's going on here, both in the study and anecdotal evidence.

Congrats. You get a cookie.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:54 PM on July 3, 2008

Meh, this is silly. I don't have a dog in this fight, anyway. I just think it's cute the way people happily conflate all kinds of notions so as to avoid having to admit anything remotely unpleasant. Carry on.

kyrademon -- you might find the earlier referenced study, and another on the same lines, interesting, the one mentioned about menstrual patterns and mate selection, and the other short-term versus long-term mate selection and testosterone-positive characteristics. All correlation, of course, but interesting. It's not all about chips on shoulders, just in case you weren't attempting to bolster your argument unfairly with an ad hom. Cheers.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 6:06 PM on July 3, 2008

Durn Bronzefist -- I wasn't, really ... well, I was using an ad hom, but not in an attempt to bolster my argument. I was just frustrated by the way that everyone tends to interpret these studies to mean whatever they want them to mean, whatever the actual conclusions say.

I am aware of the studies on mate selection and long-term vs. short-term relationships, but frankly, while they are interesting, I tend to find the conclusions people leap to about them somewhat suspect, just as with this one. I have noticed a distinct tendency to apply currently fashionable bioevolutionary models to the results of studies whether the data really supports it or not.

I recall a study conducted some years back that examined when college women were more likely to have sex. It posited all sorts of conclusions about cycles and ovulation and such like until someone re-examined the data and pointed out that what it really showed was that they were more likely to have sex on weekends. That is far from the only example.

Leaping to conclusions based on poorly understood research is something that particularly annoys me. It seemed particularly bizarre in this case when there were two sides vehemently arguing ("I knew it!" "No, this is what's REALLY going on!"), neither of which seemed to be paying any attention to what the study results actually were.
posted by kyrademon at 6:20 PM on July 3, 2008

I often wonder what "being a nice guy" really means, and at the end of the day a "nice guy" = a wimp, or someone who is inherently weak, while the "assholes" are typically somewhat harder-edged, somewhat tougher, somewhat more opportunistic, that is, a heartbreaker.
posted by KokuRyu at 6:55 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

that is, a heartbreaker.

Perhaps even a dream maker?
posted by maxwelton at 8:09 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

the plethora of personal experience out there that gets semi-bitterly spit out whenever these studies come up.

Just wanted to repeat that, so maybe people can realize they don't need to say things like:

From some of the comments I've seen here over the last couple of weeks, I've actually been considering reading The Game, but I've been forgoing the experience because I fear that it will anger me so much, that it will trigger some kind of psychotic episode that ends in huge quantities of spilled blood.

Relax. Read the book with an open mind. Take it in. Think about it. Try to relate to the author, ask yourself "Why did he write that?"

Then, by all means, develope a narrow definition of the book in your mind. Spew your rage and indignation. I'm sure your chivalry will be applauded by many.

Until then, you just don't know.
posted by P.o.B. at 8:13 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

wow. as soon as this thread got framed in terms of "nice guys" v "jerks" it turned into the bizarrest mishmash of projections, strawmen & pop psychology, highschool gripes & stereotypes. thanks to kyrademon for returning a little sanity to the proceedings.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:17 PM on July 3, 2008

hehe - next song up on shuffle after i posted that comment was Nick Cave & Grinderman: The No Pussy Blues.

My face is finished, my body's gone.
And I can't help but think standin' up here in all this applause and gazin' down at all the young and the beautiful.
With their questioning eyes.
That I must above all things love myself.

I saw a girl in the crowd,
I ran over I shouted out,
I asked if I could take her out,
But she said that she didn't want to.

I changed the sheets on my bed,
I combed the hairs across my head,
I sucked in my gut and still she said
That she just didn't want to.

I read her Eliot, read her Yeats,
I tried my best to stay up late,
I fixed the hinges on her gate,
But still she just never wanted to.

I bought her a dozen snow-white doves,
I did her dishes in rubber gloves,
I called her Honeybee, I called her Love,
But she just still didn't want to. She just never wants to.

I sent her every type of flower,
I played her guitar by the hour,
I patted her revolting little chihuahua,
But still she just didn't want to.

I wrote a song with a hundred lines,
I picked a bunch of dandelions,
I walked her through the trembling pines,
But she just even then didn't want to. She just never wants to.

I thought I'd try another tack,
I drank a litre of cognac,
I threw her down upon her back,
But she just lay up and said that she just didn't want to.

I thought I'd have another go,
I called her my little ho,
I felt like Marcel Marceau
must feel when she said that she just never wanted to. She just didn't want to.

I got the no pussy blues.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:23 PM on July 3, 2008

When I was much younger, a teenager, I had a bit of the "nice guy" syndrome, but in my case it was slightly different. I thought to myself, "Well, I'm a nice guy, why can't I get girls?" I generally believed that I was missing some key element, some social skill that prevented me from being seen as boyfriend material or whatever. Now, fortunatly for me, I never fully made the leap from, "I'm a nice guy, why can't I meet girls," to "I'm a nice guy, which means I can't meet girls," because while I occasianally had thoughts in that direction, I knew it was absurd. I had friends who were dating, and they were as nice as anyone else, so I knew that "girls love to date jerks" was not a universal truth.

The bigger irony of this, for me at least, is that while I wasn't some babe-magnet, I did date in high school (not as often as I would want, but more than many others,) but I still thought I was deficent in the lady-wooing somehow. I wonder if a lot of kids, girls and boys, have similar thoughts in high school, that to be a teen is to have constant sex, and not to be doing that is somehow deficent. This really weighed on my mind at the time, that there was something wrong with me, and I wonder if some of this "nice guy-ness" (and associated "nice girl-ness," which hasn't been discussed here, but I've encountered a little bit from some friends,) is a result of similar thoughts. I'm not ashamed of my dating and sexual activity from my teen-age years, and I know many teens can have intense and real libidos, (I know I did,) but I wonder if I, or other teens, might've been served better if there was less emphasis placed on sexual behavior and dating as a signifier of maturity or emblem of growing up.
posted by Snyder at 9:44 PM on July 3, 2008

While I don't see any correlation between my evil/nice behavior and my dating history generally, I will say that the most long-lasting and passionate relationships I had involved me being, for the most part, an ass, and that my marriage was threatened for a bit because my wife felt I was being too accommodating and she felt I wasn't standing up for myself like I used to. So there might be something to this, who knows?
posted by davejay at 11:43 PM on July 3, 2008

Hm, I recall that I was never without a pretty girlfriend and even had reserves queueing up in the wings when I was an incredibly arrogant, generally emotionally distant & uncommunicative bastard.

These days I like to think I'm reasonably emotionally balanced, communicative & considerate (whatever you call it when you mature a lot, without resorting to the "nice" label), and the interest from women seems much fewer & further between.

I don't know what that says about anything, other than that college-aged kids are all rampant sex fiends & don't show a lot of discrimination.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:18 AM on July 4, 2008

meh. Read The Game.

Nice guy: Tell a woman she's great. Make her like you by being kind to her. Maybe she will "reward" you with sex. Fail.

Asshole: Fool a woman into thinking she needs your approval. Force her to trade sex for validation. Succeed.

Being the "bad guy" is supremely sinister - and most nice guys I know can't imagine themselves acting like this toward a woman (their parents raised them to be kind to women.) fwiw i think i'm a nice guy.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:05 AM on July 4, 2008 [2 favorites]

fwiw i think i'm a nice guy.

Yes, but you dodge teargas cannisters, so you are exempt from the nice guy curse.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 4:00 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]

"Nice" largely means "conflict-avoidant" and nothing much more on any moral plane. Don't be nice, be good. Sex is irrelevant to that, except as another context in which good, or evil, behavior may be chosen. Being good will tend to lead to courteous behavior (ie, caring about others' thoughts and feelings), which will tend to lead to polite behavior, which will tend to lead to the good parts of being "nice" while avoiding the overwhelming downside of being weak.

Be good. Sometimes that will mean a punch in the eye for somebody, or worse, but only if it's really necessary, not just convenient or desirable. Sometimes that means a kiss on the cheek and goodnight, instead of going in. Sometimes that means going in, having casual sex, and never calling them again, because that really is, sometimes, the most good thing to do. Most of the time, it means you don't gain much, because a lot of those things you could have gained, you would have gained because someone would have suffered more. And always, it means being aware that your personal gain from something, even just fulfilling your personal desire to do something, does not make that thing morally right. Or morally wrong; you are allowed some joy in life, just not at the cost of others' pain.

As to hetero-male sex appeal, being flirtatious, being fun, being interesting, being valuable and worthwhile as a partner, being in good shape physically, dressing well, being confident, are all things that one is entirely free to be as a good man, but is unlikely to be as a "nice guy". There's a useful set of distinguishing characteristics.

But whether good man, or nice guy, or some struggling combination of the two, you will never get laid as much as a lying asshole does. Deal with it.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 9:47 AM on July 4, 2008

wow. as soon as this thread got framed in terms of "nice guys" v "jerks" it turned into the bizarrest mishmash of projections, strawmen & pop psychology, highschool gripes & stereotypes. thanks to kyrademon for returning a little sanity to the proceedings.

The thread was framed that way from the beginning - the ABC News report in the original post is titled "Why Nice Guys Finish Last", for one example. I think many of us read the report and found it didn't exactly say that, as kyrademon emphasized, but wanted to weigh in it the incredibly prevalent idea that "Nice Guys Finish Last" and what being a "Nice Guy" means. I don't think there's anything insane about that, I enjoy metafilter threads where people discuss something other than the exact story of the post (whatever that may be.)
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:04 PM on July 4, 2008

This story obviously resonates with a lot of men who, in high school, where SEX really matters more than anything, didn't get any. They...um, we...noticed that the boys who pissed on social norms seemed more attractive.

Well, I was more attracted to the girls with the frisson to be transgressive. I was, however, a little more interested in expressing my dissatisfaction in more socially acceptable ways: letter, demonstrations, etc. I'm not surprised I was considered "just a friend" to my hippie wannabe girlfriends.

Agressiveness - and unpredictable behavior - is obviously more fun in a love partner than ernest Eugene McCarthy ardor...you oldsters know what I'm talking about.
posted by kozad at 10:14 PM on July 4, 2008