Why "Nice Guys" are often such LOSERS

[Jitterbug]

I define Jerk as what a woman calls her ex-boyfriend (guy who used to fvck her) or her current boyfriend who's done something to make her mad (guy who's currently fvcking her). Nice Guy is the guy she tells the story to (guy who doesn't get to fvck her).

Actual personalities of those guys may vary.

 

[Tazman]

These discussions become circular because it seems some people want to be rewarded for what they consider good and/or righteous behavior, and keep pointing to behavioral extremes to disprove the underlying reasoning of why women are drawn to jerks (moreso women in their prime).

There are no moral codes in nature or sexual attraction. Part of this game is figuring out how to get what you want, to some this comes naturally or with little effort, for others it may take a while or even become impossible. We aren't all dealt the same hand and good intentions (whatever your definition may be) just isn't enough.

I've never seen a recommendation to go out and become a psychopathic a--hole to get laid and any guy who believes such a thing is doomed from the start. Not everyone is going to be able to pick this stuff up and succeed. Not only has game changed my life for the better, I actually enjoy exploring the psychology behind it all. It's like a live experiment I can literally see unfold before my eyes in my everyday life.

 

[zekko]

I said before I was no hater, but I will say this. I don't care much for that Roissy/Heartiste/whatever it is blog, at least not the way it is currently. I don't see much use of logic there, but mainly I get a very bad vibe from that site. It's all way too negative, and there's too much focus on being an @sshole.

It rang true then and still does today. To understand the argument, you MUST define "nice" as INSECURE, DESPERATE, and DISINGENUOUS. And you must define "jerk" as ****Y, CONFIDENT, and SEXUAL

I agree with you here, but again the problem is that the labels are misleading. I don't see anything "nice" about being insecure, desperate, or disingenuous. Likewise, I don't see how being confident and sexual makes you a "jerk". Being ****y might be on the border, but all guys should have some swagger.

The terms suggest that you have to treat her and the people around you badly in order to attract women. If that isn't a lie, I don't know what is. If you and a girl are going into store, and you hold the door open for an old lady, do you think that is going to kill her attraction for you?

These are female-contrived definitions.

I've heard too many girls describe the guys they were banging as "nice" to buy into the idea that women define that term like PUAs do.
Some of them do, most do not. In my experience, at least.

There is no need to try to find some universal definition for "nice" and "jerk" that everyone will agree on. Just keep in mind the way women see it. They want the jerk that makes them laugh, turns them on, and nails them good. Or, if it makes you feel better, they want the nice guy that does the same.

Why does it have to be a jerk OR a nice guy? Why can't it just be a guy who makes her laugh, turns her on, and nails her good?

These discussions become circular because it seems some people want to be rewarded for what they consider good and/or righteous behavior, and keep pointing to behavioral extremes to disprove the underlying reasoning of why women are drawn to jerks (moreso women in their prime).

I happen to think being a jerk IS a behavioral extreme. I do not consider someone a jerk without good cause. Nobody on this planet is perfect, to rise to the level of jerk, you have to have more than a few minor flaws. Certainly wearing a marijuana leaf earring or using some C&F doesn't make you a jerk in my eyes.

I agree with you that morality has nothing to do with sexual attraction, just to be clear.

 

[Solomon]

Tonight a woman will come to my house it will be our 3rd date technically. I will have candles lit, and whine will be poured. I will make her laugh with my charm, and get her panties wet by my wit. i will be polite to her when I speak to her unless when I tease, but she will see the twinkle in my eye

after its all said and done I will be in bed with her, pulling her hair spanking her ass and calling her a "dirty w*ore" as I *** all over her buttchecks

which guy am I?

The nice guy or the jerk?

 

[Stagger Lee]

Have you ever seen "Sideways"? Paul Giamatti's character is a perfect example of the "nice guy" women can't stand. He's grovels, supplicates, white knights, and expects that women will (or should, at least, in his mind) reward him sexually for his behavior. He watches with jealousy and disgust as his friend (Thomas Haden Church) slings humorous insults and playful condescension at women, and as a result of his princely swagger has them eating out his hand. Church is the one that women would call a "jerk" to his face, with a big grin on theirs. Women would call Giamatti "such a nice guy," meaning "asexual friend at best."

The labels themselves matter little. Context matters.

Good example even if it is TV. But the thing is humorous insults and playful condescension isn't objectively being mean, dark triad, or an all out jerk that roissy seems to paint. Likewise, the "nice guy" could change things and be more successful and still be a nice guy. I agree labels nice or jerk matter little, but from a practical standpoint what you do matters. Rarely do I see when jerk game is advocated is it made clear that it is a fine line and balancing act that can be taken too far.

I guess my point is two-fold. PUA material, either through a lack of understanding or the limits of being able to describe "jerk" game, leads guys to an extreme end of the spectrum that does not help their cause. And the second thing is too much emphasis is put on the whole matter. If the above "nice guy" adopted the "jerk guy" game and vice versa, in reality you would find their results with woman while changing some wouldn't completely reverse. This is because it's not easy to change your approach effectively and there are other factors at play.

It's not really the negs, humorous insults or playful condescension that's causing the attraction or not per se. You really don't need them. If you are a guy with good appearance and signaling confident body language and nonverbals, what you say or don't say within reason makes little difference. You don't need "jerk" or "nice" but just stay in the middle ground and you'll rarely lose.

 

[zekko]

after its all said and done I will be in bed with her, pulling her hair spanking her ass and calling her a "dirty w*ore" as I *** all over her buttchecks

which guy am I?

The nice guy or the jerk?

You're the "cool guy".

Good example even if it is TV. But the thing is humorous insults and playful condescension isn't objectively being mean, dark triad, or an all out jerk that roissy seems to paint.

Totally agree. It's good natured flirting and teasing, on an even playing field instead of looking up. Why would a MAN look up at a woman? It's not really being mean, because that would not draw a positive reaction.

Have you ever seen "Sideways"? Paul Giamatti's character is a perfect example of the "nice guy" women can't stand. He's grovels, supplicates, white knights, and expects that women will (or should, at least, in his mind) reward him sexually for his behavior.

Sam, I haven't seen Sideways but I'll put it on my list. I've thought about watching it before.

Anyway, as soon as you say Giamatti's character "grovels", he is not being a man. Real men do not grovel. It's a pretty sad world we live in if people define "not groveling" as being a jerk.

 

[Rogue]

zekko:
Roissy loves jerk game, and will jump on anything to support the idea. Notice, however, that the scientific article he refers to says that the "dark triad" behaviors only help in short term mating situations, and are in fact a detriment to long term relationships…. Looking at that study again, I think it would be a huge mistake to read it and draw the conclusion "women prefer jerks". Roissy's article draws conclusions that simply aren't there.

And here is what Roissy (or whoever) said, "The Dark Triad works best for short term sexual hookups (the kinds of mating opportunities most men would jump at if they were easy to get). LTRs require a small but significant infusion of beta provider game to remain healthy and satisfying for any woman." In fact, he has even said:

If you run solid attraction game but your rapport is weak (usually due to time constraints or a loud environment not conducive to sitting down and getting more conversational with a girl), there is a higher chance she will flake not because she’s uninterested, but because she suspects you may be a player who will love her and leave her. The positive but superficial emotions that an exciting player instills in her quickly dissolve once she’s back home and decompressing. Emotions generated from rapport are longer lasting if for no other reason than that they are unique to her — most men will not have the skill or knowledge to successfully engage a girl in deep conversation on the first meet. This is why nearly all masters of seduction stress that the comfort stage (or “day 2 stage”) is 90% of getting a woman into bed.

One thing you’ll notice if you occasionally date women in their late 20s is an uptick in flaking brought on by a volatile psychodramatic mixture of getting burned in the past by badboys and their biological clocks pushing them to find stable, paternally inclined men. None of these things are conscious decisions; her actions are the manifestation of subconscious forces.

Beta provider has a bad connotation, but in fact women, especially those past a certain age and feeling the forlorn pangs of their empty wombs, have a part of them that is attracted to such men. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to identify which of the women you date are genuinely interested in signs from you that you would make a good husband and father, and to feign the signals that would peg you as a beta provider. This means attenuating your cad game and emphasizing your dad game….

Naturally, for most guys, acting like a beta provider isn’t much of a stretch. But if you’re good at attracting random girls you’ll find that in time you lose touch with the “softer” side of yourself. Newly graduated players often nurse an incoherent fear of seeming too beta, so they compensate too far in the other direction. This is why when men fail to get a woman into bed the cause is more often the result of a bad day 2, and not the initial meet.

I've axed your strawman.

 

[zekko]

I've axed your strawman.

I am not an advocate of beta provider game.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Ah...this is a familiar topic that never seems to get old, I see.

As has ALSO been said before by many here...the widest range of success in life and success with women is usually found by avoiding the "nice guy/jerk guy" or "good guy/bad guy" extremes.

Victory (pardon the pun) is usually achieved by marching towards the EQUILIBRIUM.

Personally,

I've found that the more "balanced" I am in the persona that I exude towards the women that I meet----------the more emotionally "balanced" the women "ARE" that I meet.

I've found that it's the best way to increase my success while at the same time avoiding inviting a bunch of "Unwanted", feminine flavored, DRAMA into my life.

 

[zekko]

I've found that the more "balanced" I am in the persona that I exude towards the women that I meet----------the more emotionally "balanced" the women "ARE" that I meet.

I've found that it's the best way to increase my success while at the same time avoiding inviting a bunch of "Unwanted", feminine flavored, DRAMA into my life.

Great point. The energies that you put out there get reflected back to you. Or, as they say, "You attract what you are".

 

[Blue Phoenix]

You guys are making a storm in a teacup!!

Well, the same way BPD is a disorder with many traits, why don´t we list here the traits of a nice guy?? It´s much easier to understand!

When we (or women) say nice guys, in general it means:

Pushover
Approval seeker
Always nice no matter what
Passive
Naive
Sloppy

Etc... We could break it down into both physical and personality traits, or we could bundle everything up. Although I believe nice guyism is more about personality. That is open to discussion.

 

[Alex DeLarge]

The nice guy is relative to the brown noser student in class. No one likes him because he tries to hard to suck up to the teacher for the grade, much like the nice guy sucks up to the girl for a piece of ass.. No one likes him for it because they see how he is.

The jerk has the same goals as the nice guy, except he goes about it in the opposite way. A lot of the time, a jerk is a recovering nice guy.. He realized he was holding the girls on a pedestal so he goes for the opposite approach and treats them like sh1t. This could be planned out through logic or could be a reaction after being hurt so many times in his "nice guy" days. The jerk winds up getting laid, but cannot keep a girl for long.

The cool guy is the guy who is COOL, CALM, and COLLECTED. He takes the girl out on a few dates to get to know her better, if he doesn't like what he sees then he doesn't get depressed or pissed.. He moves on. The cool guy has a lot going on in his life and has many goals accomplished as well as to be accomplished. He is rather mysterious, his time is valuable, and the girl KNOWS THIS. This guy loves himself, but not in a narcissistic way.. He does not find it necessary to put on an act or used these canned openers or any other PUA jargon. He just does what he wants.

 

[Bossman08]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LUkclL37vc

 

[countermart]

This is not so hard Jerk v's Nice guys are just names, where should you be on the spectrum...simple:

Go after what you want (Shows – Sexuality/Confidence/Ambition/Provider/Exciting/Security/Passion/Courage etc) + Outcome independence (Shows many options and therefore value, Alpha) = Girls.

Go after what you want: Think about it from a traditional historical female perspective, if you are a physically weaker women you need someone who is going to have to kill something for you to eat, does not give up easily, is not easily discouraged, is directed, offering you both security and direction against danger and the offspring the same.

If she can significantly influence you by her views and actions towards you (these often being tests) then she will assume that if you cannot deal with her you cannot deal with the world either. She will never stop testing you because she wants to feel secure in you.

Outcome independence: The natural result of being the above. She falls into line or you move on, because there are multiple choices because you have the above traits. Simply put, an Alpha with many choices would not care about the outcome with any single girl.

Countermart

 

[DanelMadr]

it all boils down to people (men,women, betas or whatever you want to call them) who haven't grown up and are still using the "child" model of the world.

The one that says if you be nice, and say the right thing, and be on your best behavior, somebody will reward you with "giving" you affection and attention.

unfortunately, that stops working with most people (except mommy) when you hit puberty.

Then the "adult" model kicks in and you only get what your behaviors will elicit.

Then it's man up or shut up.

Unfortunately, most people do neither.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is exactly it.

We are society of grown up children. Take a look around and comopare it to WW2 generation. That is what you have to pay for Prosperity and security.