Nice Guys and Love, what's your take on the issue

Post Reply New Topic

"Nice guy" is some sort of unrealistic ideal, I think. Just like I think the generalization that girls prefer going out with jerks is an over generalization - besides I've never met a girl who actually liked jerks for the sake of their jerkiness. It comes off as sort of sour grapes to say that about women. I've gone out with a fair number of guys and none of them were jerks - they were individuals with feelings, not flimsy nice guys or overly pushy knobs. They all had delightful qualities.

Shyness doesn't equal kindness, either.

Although I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, there is nothing unrealistic about the existence of this pattern. (..Ideal? what?)

In the context of this thread, and typical L&D-type discussion, A 'Nice Guy' is not a generalized term, not a vague ideal, or an abstract idea. It is characterized in >a number of very specific ways with extremely strong patterns.
This thread, and this idea, is not about random men who just happen to be pleasant to be around, and considerate. It's not about men who are not jerks. That's not a 'Nice Guy,' per the colloquial use of the term within this context, and is not the thread subject(beyond establishing definitions).

Bare in mind that nearly any discussion within the L&D umbrella works according to trends(and stereotypes, generalizations, foreseeable outcomes, etc) By Necessity. To talk about multiple people is to generalize. There is always variance. But that does not remove the potential for strong trends, nor the rational reasons to act and think according to those useful and rather accurate stereotypes.

The existence of the 'Nice Guy' pattern does not mean that women want to date jerks. It's acknowledged to be more complicated than that. If anyone goes on to assert that women like jerks and jerk-like behavior, it betrays an oversimplification of the issue, and a lack of understanding the big picture.

If we're gonna make a gross over-simplification, though, here's a somewhat more accurate one:

Well adjusted men > Jerks > 'Nice Guys'
Meaning a man who does not possess the anti-social, self-centered behavior of a jerk, nor the social disconnects and lack-of-spine of a 'Nice Guy' is preferable for nearly all women.
However, very often, if a woman is denied the option of a well adjusted man, they tend to prefer jerks since the anti-social, self-centered, openly negative behavior is usually more engaging or tolerable than the lack-of-spine, awkwardness, and hidden negativity of the 'Nice Guy.'

....Although, I'm compelled to mention that Nice Guy-behavior is more curable than Jerk-bevhavior. So that's at least a silver lining, a light at the end of the tunnel for so many of the guys on this forum, since there are more 'Nice Guys' than jerks here.

Nice guys don't get given a chance because usually they don't tick all the boxes regarding what a woman is looking for in a partner. A so-called jerk might. There are other factors of course, confidence being one, competition being another (a man will be considered more attractive if he has more women interested in him)

An alternative theory I thought of whilst in my previous relationship was this. Women won't give the nice guys a chance because they know they won't do anything untowards them, meaning they then don't have an easy excuse for getting out of the relationship later on. If they are involved with a nice guy and want out then the following happens either a) she cheats on him or dumps for the next guy to show any interest, or b) they treat him so badly to the point where he ends up walking away.

Whilst both suggestions might sound assumptious, having been on the recieving end of both I think they hold some weight to them.

[quote="Daemonic-Jackal]
An alternative theory I thought of whilst in my previous relationship was this. Women won't give the nice guys a chance because they know they won't do anything untowards them, meaning they then don't have an easy excuse for getting out of the relationship later on. If they are involved with a nice guy and want out then the following happens either a) she cheats on him or dumps for the next guy to show any interest, or b) they treat him so badly to the point where he ends up walking away.

Whilst both suggestions might sound assumptious, having been on the recieving end of both I think they hold some weight to them.[/quote]

In a way...yes (sometimes). Only marriage is a true commitment. A woman (or a man) shouldn't have to give a reason for breaking up that the "nice guy" finds acceptable. "This isn't working anymore" is all that's required. So if a woman thinks that it will be exceedingly difficult to extricate herself from a relationship once it isn't working for her anymore, she's better off not getting into the relationship in the first place.

From a woman's perspective here, I like nice guys. However, I don't like wimps. Not saying I'm drawn to body-building types at all. But there's a lot of evolution in how the sexes have chosen their mates. Traditionally, women have chosen men they thought would be good providers. It's not the niceness that loses guys women, but jerks are more prone to be aggressive, be "fighters", be the classic heroes.

Wimps are not appealing. Jerks aren't appealing either. But it's not the niceness or lack thereof that's the real factor. It's the brawn, the attitude.

While a woman certainly wants a man she can connect with and be friends with, she also doesn't want a man she has to mother or coddle on a daily basis. That's simply not attractive. She'll have children she'll have to raise, she doesn't want a husband to raise too.

Get a nice guy who also has a certainly manliness about him and that's the ideal. But there's certainly nice guys out there who don't get the girl, not because they're nice, but because their weakness (for lack of a better word and not to be insulting) is not appealing.

For all the equality of the sexes, the sexes ain't equal. And each sex has some traditional traits they look for in their mates. In a dog-eat-dog world, a woman intuitively wants a man who can be her hero and gives that impression with his demeanor.

Sophist I remember you, let me know if you still want my brain. I could put it in the will, nice brain surprise for sophist.

Thanks, always appreciate new brains.

Although admittedly the brain bank idea is on hold. But do hold onto it for me just in case!

Sophist, what you're describing is not a Nice Guy, per the context of this thread. You're describing a well adjusted man who is nice.

Using "nice guy" to equate to the topic of this thread is misleading, despite that I understand what is meant and have heard it used before. It continues the misconception that nice = not getting the girl.

I wont argue that it's a sub-optimal term.

I find arguments based on evolutionary psychology (never mind appeals to tradition) highly questionable, but otherwise I think there's something in Sophist's distinction. Which doesn't really bode well for me, because I'm a wuss in many respects.

Whatever sense evolutionary argument does or does not make, it's a helpful framework of interpretation. However, a big downside, not unlike trying to piece fossils back together, is that you can't empirically measure certain aspects of it, especially behavior, because none of us can travel back in time to test the hypothesis.

Except when using genetics, and even sometimes then, evolutionary interpretations will always be suspect. But that doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. There can, though, be ways of putting together interpretations that fit with the evidence that is available, e.g., human's current modes of behavior, DNA evidence as mentioned, cultural trends, known history, remaining communications from more recent past (artwork, manuscripts, etc.). So it's not like pulling a Flying Spaghetti Monster out of your butt and saying "This is what happened..."

But evolutionary hypotheses and the like should always be viewed with appropriate caution. Although not ignored completely, because if you're waiting for enough evidence for it to be "proven" then I'm afraid you'll be waiting forever. Science does its best with the evidence available.

--Sorry for the thread derail btw!

It may not be a Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it's still easy to run into inconsistencies, as I see it, because naturally implicit in evolutionary psychology arguments are significant logical fallacies (each step in an evolution -> natural instinct -> behaviour inference involves a big jump). Like, say, take the line of reasoning you have for why women prefer men who are not "weak". I shall provide, for the sake of argument, a line of reasoning for the contrary that is similar to yours.

The argument from sexual selection for prioritising strong-willed men, as I understand it, is:

For the sake of sexual selection, women prioritise the capacity of their partners to defend their prospective children. Strong-willed men are far more likely to have stand-out "masculine" traits than weak-willed men. These traits are dominant among those that would have the capacity to defend their prospective children. Thus, women are attracted to strong-willed men because they are far more likely to have stand-out "masculine" traits, and thus more likely to have the capacity to defend their prospective children.

Here is an argument of the same form, based on premises that are perhaps about as shaky as the ones we've already been speaking of, leading to a contradictory conclusion:

For the sake of preserving the species, women prioritise the physical and mental well-being of their prospective children. Strong-willed men are far more likely to be sociopaths than weak-willed men. Sociopaths are dominant among the few people to truly have no apparent interest in protecting their children as an end in itself (as opposed to a means to an end). Thus, women are attracted to weak-willed men because they are far less likely to be sociopaths, and thus more likely to not be a destructive force in the physical and mental well-being of their prospective children.

The above argument is a weak one, reaching a conclusion that seemingly neither of us agree with, but as far as I can tell it is no weaker than numerous arguments made to explain human behaviour by means of evolution. It makes the fallacy that the right way to do things is the natural way (evolution -> natural instinct), the fallacy that instinct entails behaviour (natural instinct -> behaviour), and some reasoning by default (assuming that there are no contravening factors).

You're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. I find that the "nice guy" issue that women have is nothing short of a myth. Women love men with a plan, pure and simple. That is why a number of women love the "bad boys," because they have a plan even if it is getting into trouble and breaking the law. That's why women tend to avoid "nice guys" who have no plan whatsoever. Why do you think it is that women are drawn to quarterbacks, camp directors, and so many others who have a plan? Think about it.

Indeed I have thought about it a lot. But correlation is not causation. I believe that it's not the plan, it's a man's leadership potential, position, and strength within the social hierarchy and framework of your community/society. Supporting this, the capacity to gain those positions of power/dominance/influence/respect/whatever tend to require a set of supportive traits, such as confidence and skill with charisma. That they might make a 'plan' follows from their confidence, and the power invested in them through leadership and charisma. A 'plan' is a side-effect of what is attractive, not a direct cause.

In contrast, if a socially awkward, un-respected member of a group attempts to make a plan an lead, he will tend to get rebuked. If that man would just garner respect, charisma, social awareness and influence first - in other words to exude qualities of leadership - then he would be in a position to begin leading. He will get more attention at that point, but not so much before.

The fact that we are looking at the result of evolutionary trends rather than a cause should be taken into account. An organism, for instance, does not choose or not choose to do something in order to preserve the species. It does not necessarily even do so in order to preserve itself, although it clearly behaves in ways which tend to maximize its survival rather than not. But that is coincident. The behaviors present in women and men today are there because of selection, not there in order to ensure it. And because everything boils down to replication of DNA, the question becomes "What is it about women choosing 'as*holes' and not the 'nice guys' that has been more evolutionarily beneficial than the other way around?"

There's enough to speculate about, but since sexual and natural selections are the driving forces to inheritance one would rationally put that question in this context. True, there may not be a good rhyme or reason to why human females have continually chosen jerks over nice guys, such as just a passing fancy and then once a few females chose strongmen jerks all the other ladies, in traditional competition, wanted the same also to keep up with the precivilization Joneses. Or it could very well be a behavioral kluge.

However, placing it in the framework of Survival as opposed to Random Feminine Fancy, strongmen-- whether they're jerks or not-- are likely to be better at competing for and keeping women. If you take a look at other species, particularly mammals, you can see such trends.

One can of course, as you say, interpret it many different ways. However, some ways would hold more clout simply by sheer probability than others.

--I don't, however, deny there are some fallacies inherent in the theoretic science, but I believe I stated that in my earlier post as well.