Why "Nice Guys" are often such LOSERS

[zekko]

Great use of Randy Moss as an example, Lexington.

Here's a quote from the Book of Pook. It's somewhat shocking to note that Pook here says that jerks do not have confidence, since we are so often told that jerks are the epitome of confidence. But I think Pook is right in this regard, the jerk is probably faking the confidence, and exaggerating it into a kind of swagger. After all, what does a jerk have to be confident about?

"Jerk

These and the Nice Guy are but one of the same, while a Nice Guy introverts himself, the Jerk extroverts himself. While the Nice Guy is constantly passive, the Jerk is constantly aggressive.

While the Nice Guy hides his sexuality and can't get chicks to be attracted to him (but are good long term relationship material, as girls confirm by saying to Nice Guy, "You're not the type of guy I'd date, you're the type I'd marry") the jerk erupts his sexuality everywhere, gets chicks attracted to him, but can never keep them.

The jerk has no confidence, which is why he is a jerk in the first place. True criticisms sting him and collapses his spirit.

Notice how the Jerk may get chicks long enough for sex, he fails completely in life. He ends up being a janitor or something similiar. The girls he bedded with? All of them insecure little girls. It is pathetic and very very sad."

 

[st_99]

The nice guy is a loser or the a$$hole is the winner label is just people putting too much emphasis on words and behaviors which aren't really the active ingredient in attraction, but falsely believing it is.

EXACTLY, its the symptom people focus on too much and NOT the disease.

Picture a girl meeting a guy that she's smitten over. If she said either one of these statements you wouldn't think twice about it because there isn't anything unusual about each line of thinking..

"OMG, I can't stop thinking about this guy, he is so perfect and he is so nice to me. I can't stand a-holes its refreshing to date someone like him"

"OMG, I can't stop thinking about this guy, he is so perfect, he's kind of d*ck but I don't know, I kind of like it, heehee. Nice guys are so boring"

The point is, its a confluence of factors that ultimately makes this girl attracted towards you and she will convienently make any so called bad attributes magically good all of a sudden.

If you only heard the first statement you'd say, "see, i knew it, being a jerk is not the way to go, its all bullsh*t" or if you heard the second statement you'd say "yep, nice guys always finish last, i really need to start being a bad boy" You are now foolishly blowing in the wind because you listen to what a girl says and run with it like its gospel truth.

 

[Poonani Maker]

Notice how the Jerk may get chicks long enough for sex, he fails completely in life. He ends up being a janitor or something similiar. The girls he bedded with? All of them insecure little girls. It is pathetic and very very sad."

Pook was pretty spot on. I feel like I fit the "Jerk" to a T nowadays. I was Such a jerk last night all the way up unto fvcking my little insecure girl, and afterwards. She may have been put off by me for good even though we've fvcked in the double digits since mid-June (I've lost count). We fvcked soooo hard last night mainly at the end. She has one mirror and in doggie as I hitched up higher on her as5, I could see it going in though it was semi-dark. So beautiful to watch me dogging her in the mirror.

Basically my voice tone is "jerk." I know it is, just screams I don't really care about you. That why I sent a text this morn telling her how she made my week go better (nice guy), but she may not take what I said genuinely. I make fun of her quite a bit. I'm a jerk. I fvck her amazingly. I'm a jerk. I never call/text her all week. I'm a jerk. I asked her further about bad sh!t that's happened to her in her past last night. I brought up a past girlfriend to compare (not nice). She subsequently brought up her boyfriend whom she had a child with 5-6 years ago (she's 24) who she "would have Died for." I think that she said this to me to tell me that she wouldn't "die" for me.

She did say that I was NEVER boring after I said that I was last night. Like I said, she never "says" anything untoward towards me. She may be restraining her negativity. Oh, she Did say that I had a big ego and then motioned to her head with an expansive hand motion around her head. I laughed at that and said that I regularly get women wanting me to fvck them, and I think that she Really got put off by that statement. I couldn't think clearly because I'd just fvcked her brains out, and in turn, my brain was fried. I couldn't think sensitively to her being a woman (especially one I'd just fvcked).

Our sex is the main component to our relationship and it just keeps getting better and better.

She Did tell me to call her as always, and we'll probably fvck again next weekend, and every other weekend until she stops telling me to call her or wants to move in or get married. While she has the best feeling breasts and as5 and silky arms (though a little too thin as is her waist (ribs are very feelable), she'd have to change a sh!t-ton for me to ever consider taking her in. One thing that I really like about her that I wish I had in me is a Deep respect for people. She's Real in that sense, yet at the same time, she'll slash people behind their backs with her words (but probably justifiably). She probably does this to me too, but I have no proof.

 

[Mike32ct]

I'll give the nice guy perspective. We certainly understand that some guys are only good for s@x, while others might be better for LTR or marriage. Men rate women the same way. Of those we are attracted to, there are also ones we'd F and ones we'd date or marry. But here is the big difference, I still want to F both types of women, almost equally. Women, however, aren't that way with men.

There is the bad boy that women have ONS' and FB arrangements with. They become physical and have s@x very quickly with little to no effort on the guy's part.

BUT, if she's dating the nice guy, she MAKES him wait, take her on dates, spend money, and pretty much try to "earn" the s&x, while still "claiming" that she is attracted to him.

Do you have ANY idea how insulting that is to the nice guy? It makes it seem like s@x with him is a CHORE that she is putting off. (Humans don't procrastinate on pleasant tasks.). So the nice guy questions whether she is TRULY even physically attracted to him. My guess is the physical attaction is minimal at best.

It reminds me a woman that is married to a nice guy. These were her words:

"He cooked me a romantic dinner for Valentine's Day. I GUESS I'll HAVE to give him some s@x tonight.".

 

[BlackwaterPark]

Guys who pride themselves on their niceness have nothing else going for them.

 

[sharkbeat]

"Jerk

These and the Nice Guy are but one of the same, while a Nice Guy introverts himself, the Jerk extroverts himself. While the Nice Guy is constantly passive, the Jerk is constantly aggressive.

While the Nice Guy hides his sexuality and can't get chicks to be attracted to him (but are good long term relationship material, as girls confirm by saying to Nice Guy, "You're not the type of guy I'd date, you're the type I'd marry") the jerk erupts his sexuality everywhere, gets chicks attracted to him, but can never keep them.

The jerk has no confidence, which is why he is a jerk in the first place. True criticisms sting him and collapses his spirit.

Notice how the Jerk may get chicks long enough for sex, he fails completely in life. He ends up being a janitor or something similiar. The girls he bedded with? All of them insecure little girls. It is pathetic and very very sad."

This is so true. Jerks aren't really that much confidence than nice guys, and nice guys aren't really losers. Hell, I bet you there are hundreds of millionaires out there who still can't get chicks. Isn't that why there is such a thing as a "Millionaire Matchmaking"? Why do women calling these millionaires losers then? Just because they are nice toward them?

Nice guys care too much about other people's opinions, which is fine in a business environment, where the more perspective you have on a problem the more likely you are at solving it correctly. Cooperation is the key to survival. However, you can't apply this to a relationship. Women don't want to be asked for their opinions on what to do in a relationship. They are the receiving ends. Jerks and narcissists get chicks because they are always the aggressors.

 

[Buddha_Mind]

I think some of the statements in this thread are a little extreme...but here's a question for you:

WHY do nice guys act the way they do? Is it really insecurity?

I wonder to myself, WHY I have such trouble being an *******. There isn't much of an easy answer. WHY do I have such trouble being a d!ckbag to people, even those who deserve it?

There is this part of me that continually highlights the good in a person...I focus on that...and give that credit over the bad...this is not always entirely wise, as the bad is still in existence and very real; but I'm not sure if all nice guys are necessarily pvssys...as in, unable to be confronted or perform a feat of mental strength...rather, I just have trouble being an @sshole..I like most people easily, care about most people easily (all people), and have trouble carrying or living with strong hatred...in the DJ perspective, this sets me up to have a weak frame...*understanding*, etc...how do you slap this **** out of you...is this inherent fault...how can it be preserved while taking a greater hold of life...these thoughts are what this post inspires...

We definitely live in a world full of selfishness...I'm not sure the answer to a lot of the troubles we all face is more of that same thing. There's gotta be some way to be good with women but have some open-minded understanding to things.

 

[zekko]

BUT, if she's dating the nice guy, she MAKES him wait, take her on dates, spend money, and pretty much try to "earn" the s&x, while still "claiming" that she is attracted to him.

Do you have ANY idea how insulting that is to the nice guy? It makes it seem like s@x with him is a CHORE that she is putting off. (Humans don't procrastinate on pleasant tasks.). So the nice guy questions whether she is TRULY even physically attracted to him. My guess is the physical attaction is minimal at best.

See, I don't really buy this stereotype either. I don't believe much in labels.
I've called myself a nice guy with a backbone. I'm pretty selfish, I take care of my interests first. But I treat people with respect. I'm no jerk. If I'm going to label myself, I will say I'm a man.

I'm definitely the type of guy women want to marry. I'm financially successful and I won't fvck around on you if you don't. I'm loyal.
My girlfriend definitely wanted to marry me - we live together. So by the stereotype she shouldn't be physically attracted to me. But she is.

She didn't make me wait. I had sex with her the second date. She was completely ready to give it up the first date, but I actually made her wait because I wanted to stretch the experience out. We fooled around on the first date, pretty much everything but intercourse.

Even now, eight years later, she is ready for sex with me at the drop of a hat. In fact, she will often initiate it. So again, in my life I'm not seeing the stereotypes come true. They hardly ever do, that's why I don't put much stock in them.

I may not be a "nice guy" as far as being a wimpy pushover, but I'm definitely the type of guy women want to marry. And that hasn't been a turnoff for my girl, whatsoever. All this "fvck the bad boy, marry the nice guy" stuff is useless garbage. If you're a successful masculine man, why the hell wouldn't she want to marry you? The labels are BS. It seems like the pickup world only believes in the two extremes.

 

[Zunder]

See, I don't really buy this stereotype either. I don't believe much in labels.
I've called myself a nice guy with a backbone. I'm pretty selfish, I take care of my interests first. But I treat people with respect. I'm no jerk. If I'm going to label myself, I will say I'm a man.

I'm definitely the type of guy women want to marry. I'm financially successful and I won't fvck around on you if you don't. I'm loyal.
My girlfriend definitely wanted to marry me - we live together. So by the stereotype she shouldn't be physically attracted to me. But she is.

She didn't make me wait. I had sex with her the second date. She was completely ready to give it up the first date, but I actually made her wait because I wanted to stretch the experience out. We fooled around on the first date, pretty much everything but intercourse.

Even now, eight years later, she is ready for sex with me at the drop of a hat. In fact, she will often initiate it. So again, in my life I'm not seeing the stereotypes come true. They hardly ever do, that's why I don't put much stock in them.

I may not be a "nice guy" as far as being a wimpy pushover, but I'm definitely the type of guy women want to marry. And that hasn't been a turnoff for my girl, whatsoever. All this "fvck the bad boy, marry the nice guy" stuff is useless garbage. If you're a successful masculine man, why the hell wouldn't she want to marry you? The labels are BS. It seems like the pickup world only believes in the two extremes.

She sounds like a 'keeper' Zekko.

 

[Nutz]

Exactly. You are on to the real matter. Women are attracted (or not attracted) to a certain guy for reasons other than or inspite of him beng an "a$$hole" or "nice". The nice guy is a loser or the a$$hole is the winner label is just people putting too much emphasis on words and behaviors which aren't really the active ingredient in attraction, but falsely believing it is.

A guy who is not attractive to girls for those other reasons who behaves like an a$$hole thinking it will get girls is considered by girls as an a$$hole, and if he acts like a truely nice guy he's still not attractive. So the nice guy who may truely be a nice guy gets demonized in the PUA theory. And if a guy is attractive to girls for those other reasons and acts like an a$$hole he is not considered an a$$hole by girls and if he acts nice he's still attractive and probably simply considered also LTR material.

I think it is the PUA community in its faulty attribution of what causes attraction along with seeing attractive guys behaving like a$$holes because they can get away with it and seeing guys who are unattractive failing with nice behavior, concludes that the difference is in being an a$$hole vs. a nice guy. Further, they justify this by redefining nice as really bad and a$$hole as really good. You know what, plenty of guys put on the a$$hole act and fail even worse than before.

And as others mentioned women really do despise guys they are not attracted to and despise them even more when they happen to be good, nice guys and the women have even less justification for hating them. And as FMK demonstrates women come to this conclusion quickly based on appearance and what they visual see mostly. Talk about judging a book by it's conver and jumping to conclusions.

Having said that there is some truth to women not appreciating nice and eating up a$$hole behavior. But it is not the fundamental universal attractor. And it's not all because a "nice guy" isn't really nice and an "a$$hole" isn't really an a$$hole. It's more to do with her feeling some anxiety, jealousy, wanting a challenge, she wants to be a treated liek a slut etc. Not exactly virtuous things.

Nah, it's not the "PUA community" that's got it wrong, but pretty much everyone. The nice guy/bad boy debate has been around long before pickup came around. In fact women LIKE nice guys...they just have to be attracted to them first! You guys need to understand something perfectly clear here:

Nice as a pejorative for beta, wuss, coward, etc is what's really being told here. Nice, as in a nice guy that people like spending company with is completely different. Ditto for the so-called bad boy. I've collected some women's perspectives on this here:

http://funandsocial.blogspot.com/2008/05/nice-guy-and-why-hes-not-nice.html

http://funandsocial.blogspot.com/2008/06/nice-guys-part-2.html

http://funandsocial.blogspot.com/2008/07/nice-guys-part-3.html

 

[Lexington]

I don't think the PUA community has it wrong. Most of the pick up gurus don't actually advocate being an a$$hole. They just point to the a$$hole chick magnet as an example because it's somebody that everyone can relate to. They recommend adopting his positive qualities (confidence, masculinity, directness) but not necessarily adopting the negative qualities (abusiveness, bad character etc.)

Unfortunately, a lot of guys have these concepts mixed up. You have to read these terms etc. in context. It seems a lot of guys just latch onto the terms without a clear definition of what exactly they mean.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I don't think the PUA community has it wrong. Most of the pick up gurus don't actually advocate being an a$$hole. They just point to the a$$hole chick magnet as an example because it's somebody that everyone can relate to. They recommend adopting his positive qualities (confidence, masculinity, directness) but not necessarily adopting the negative qualities (abusiveness, bad character etc.)

Unfortunately, a lot of guys have these concepts mixed up. You have to read these terms etc. in context. It seems a lot of guys just latch onto the terms without a clear definition of what exactly they mean.

I agree to a point, but the PUA community claims ****y and funny,negs, and words cause "attraction". Confidence, masculinity and directness are good and some what necessary, but won't cause attraction themself and are useless without atraction. Attraction I believe is mostly the visual totality of appearance. The PUA community is largely responsible for the concepts of attraction being mixed up. The PUA material is vast and endless and proposes about everything so of course a lot of it is going to be right, but there's very little actionable that can be extracted from the use of labels of nice guy and a$$hole.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I think it's important to look at the roots of the terms "Jerk" and "Nice Guy." Lets not forget these characterizations exist because women gave them these names and classifications based on their own common evaluations. Women defined these terms, guys simply made the association with them. We tend to see these as parodies or caricatures now; abusive wife-beating Jerk or doormat Nice Guy. These are two extreme ends of a spectrum and when considering them after candid assessments, the mistake becomes falling into a binary all-or-nothing interpretation.

"So I haffta be more of a Jerk then,..well, I'm just not like that." says the AFC frustrated at what seems like women's duplicity of words and actions, but this misses the point. The problem is that if you think of a center point between that Jerk and Nice Guy spectrum, most guys lean towards (if not half way over to) the Nice Guy. That's the "get in touch with your feminine side, believe women's words instead of actions" default for the vast majority of men. This is what women are used to because it is so common, and women only enourage it because it suits their gender's imperative best. The real extreme Jerk is as rare as the real extreme Nice Guy, so it's necessary to look at things in order of degrees in this respect. Most men opt for the nice, accommodating, supplicating side of this spectrum - for the majority, they've been socially conditioned to supress any masculine impulse in favor of accommodating and identifying with women's imperatives (or at least what they're led to understand as their imperatives).

It's just this conditioning over the last 50+ or so years that makes the nice side of the spectrum the default. That doesn't mean all Nice Guys are pathetic symps without a spine and groveling at the feet of any ONEitis they happen to attach themselves to. It is to say that, by comparison, and because the overwhelming tendency to "go nice" is the standard, the guy who leans just marginally to the Jerk side of the spectrum becomes wildly attractive.

He's attractive on two levels, the first being the rudimentary, biological level for a guy who's decisive, in control, confident and has an attitude of caring less about her, since he realizes (to some degree) his value as a commodity that comes from his having options. The second is that the Jerk-leaning guy is a Purple Cow in a field of bland, colorless Nice Cows. He's notable, and this too, makes him a male worthy of female competition, which then reinforces his sense of having options. He's not an abuser, he's not a manipulator per se, but he tends to put himself before and above (if just slightly) the women who are attracted to him.

Now the irony of all this is that the AFC thinks that this situation is in reverse. He believes that Nice Guys are the anomaly in a sea of Jerks. Of course he believes this because it's all his female-friends talk about; their "Jerk BFs", and how Nice they are for being good listeners. So his self-image gets validated and he believes he's unique and valuable for being "not-like-other-guys" and his patience and sensitivity will eventually pay off - which it very well could once the object of his obsession has had her fun (and possibly bred) with the Bad Boy.

 

[zekko]

She sounds like a 'keeper' Zekko.

She has been so far. I believe in taking things day to day, though. When dealing with women, you never know what might happen. You always have to be willing to walk away if necessary.

Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule, but I've seen enough "exceptions" that these stereotypes are basically meaningless to me. People are individuals, the world is not divided into jerks and Nice Guys.

The stereotypes are only useful as a way to teach lessons. Mainly: don't be a creepy wuss.

http://funandsocial.blogspot.com/200...ys-part-2.html

Pretty good links there, Nutz. They sum up the whole nice guy/jerk thing in a fairly sensible way. I like when the girl points out that the "nice guy" isn't a nice guy at all - he's a selfish, clingy, bastard.

I agree to a point, but the PUA community claims ****y and funny,negs, and words cause "attraction".

I've found that women do respond well to C&F remarks, and negs. It's not because you're being abusive to them, it's a form of flirting. But I guess your point is that you have to have a certain baseline of looks/physical attraction for them to buy into your flirting.
I agree with that, although I still think looks are not as important to women as they are to us.

 

[Buddha_Mind]

Having been a traditional NICE GUY my life I can say that truthfully, I'm not a b!tch -- I stand up for myself, I've been confronted and do confront -- I try to work to defend my path in life, pursue my path, and push the BS aside.

But there is a side to me that is accommodating to other people -- understanding -- will go out of my way for social things and make personal sacrifices. Call it compassion, empathy, understanding. These goals are what some in the eastern world pursue and believe to be the highest attainable goals. But in our society, this can place you on the most bottom rung -- because we live in a competitive, capitalist-based world, and being "sentimental" isn't going to get you your next quarterly returns...it's aggressive sales or aggressive action and a self-prioritization that is going to get the bills paid.

I definitely don't think women want to be treated like ****. But they also don't want to walk all over you. And some women want both of these things -- they don't want to be treated sh!tty, but are willing to walk on you -- and these are the women to weed out. I've learned, part of being a man, is having a baseline in regards to respect as to how you ought to be treated. The LTR I came out of that I've pined over a bit on this forum I had MADE THE MISTAKE of lowering the bar as to what degree I ought to be respected...I dealt with her b!tch fits...went out of my way to accommodate our relationship...thinking this was the right thing. What I ought to have done is grabbed my balls, looked at her as sexy as she was and said NEXT, KNOWING that I DESERVE that level of respect and that also through my HARD WORK fiscally, physically, etc, I will have other OPTIONS.

Being a d!ckbag is not a good thing. Being a pvssy is not a good thing. I agree these are extremes. The hard part is being a goddamned good person and having class and respect, but not allowing yourself to be manipulated by others. And we know, women will work very hard and steadily to see if they can manipulate you...how much will you bend..and how will you respond without losing her respect...this is the hard part. But I've had a small number of serious LTRS, so this only comes from my finite experience.

 

[wait_out]

"Nice" is one of the most meaningless words in the English vocabulary. It was used as a specific example of poor writing choices in a creative writing class I took in high school.

"Guy" is almost equally bad. So here we have 2 of the most non-specific words we could possibly find, applied to the impossibly complex world of attraction, dating, and relationships. Any possibility for confusion here? The phrase should be banned so everyone is not drowning in semantics every other month trying to pin down what this phrase actually means. And then we have "bad boy"... hmm that's awfully specific isn't it. Trying to claim these terms is a waste of time.

But these terms are very useful for dumping someone as Sam Spade wrote, simply because they are so non-descriptive... they are so empty they can't be held up to critical analysis (and fail). People don't need to understand that process to recognize their utility.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Good analysis Rollo. Absolutely it is about being in the middle ground. For example just not telling the attractive girl you approach that she is beautiful is all the "neg" you oftentimes need. Going to the extreme and saying, "are your nails real?" or "my mom has that same dress you're wearing" might work if you have attraction from your appearance already but is just as liable to put her off and work against you more than for you.

.


I've found that women do respond well to C&F remarks, and negs. It's not because you're being abusive to them, it's a form of flirting. But I guess your point is that you have to have a certain baseline of looks/physical attraction for them to buy into your flirting.
I agree with that, although I still think looks are not as important to women as they are to us.

I agree that women do respond well to C+F done right and it's a form of flirting and displaying confidence. I'm not so sure about the neg. When I say appearance I'm being broad because that's how women are sizing you up broadly and I don't mean just looks/physical attractiveness. Appearance encompasses that but just as importantly it's body language, nonverbals and facial expressions, style etc and basically how good of an actor one is more than the script. This is what I believe fundamentally causes attraction or not . The material you use C+F etc is more about amplifying attraction that is already there from the other (appearance) factors and is more about creating interest and leading the encounter towards a romantic/sexual vibe.

My point is C+F and negs aren't entirely necessary and do not cause attraction in the sense of flipping the attraction switches in her brain. They might amuse or surprise her and prevent you from being seen as a "nice" guy, but that does not equal attraction and make her sexually into you. Some PUA material present C+F and negs as being attraction creating as if it is the same thing as having an attractive appearance.

So men who are not attracting women think I just need to go around and C+F and neg girls and that will attract them. Because looks don't matter, age, height and weight doesn't matter, just the material and tactics in PUA material matter, right? That is how it is presented a lot, so no wonder it gets misinterpreted.

I agree that men put more focus on physical looks almost exclusively, but at least for hook ups one could argue mens' looks are more important to women. Again, maybe not in the strictly physical sense, but in overall appearance. And consider that men will lower their main requirement of physical looks for women and have sex with her. Women will rarely lower their looks requirement as they don't have to. Women even unattractive ones will rarely have sex with an unattractive man, but even unattractive men often will have sex with an unattractive women.

 

[Stagger Lee]

"Nice" is one of the most meaningless words in the English vocabulary. It was used as a specific example of poor writing choices in a creative writing class I took in high school.

"Guy" is almost equally bad. So here we have 2 of the most non-specific words we could possibly find, applied to the impossibly complex world of attraction, dating, and relationships. Any possibility for confusion here? The phrase should be banned so everyone is not drowning in semantics every other month trying to pin down what this phrase actually means. And then we have "bad boy"... hmm that's awfully specific isn't it. Trying to claim these terms is a waste of time.

But these terms are very useful for dumping someone as Sam Spade wrote, simply because they are so non-descriptive... they are so empty they can't be held up to critical analysis (and fail). People don't need to understand that process to recognize their utility.

Exactly, and that being the case since nice guy and bad boy are so vague anyone can continuously change the definition and argue what a bad boy and nice guy is or isn't so that their premise can never be wrong. If someone says, "well doing xyz a$$hole behavior doesn't work" the a$$hole advocate will say "Oh that's not what an a$$hole/bad boy really does". If you keep pinning it down you eventually end up with the succesful bad boy/a$$hole really is just being a good looking, confident guy and the unsuccesful nice guy is really just an unattractive, unconfident guy. The labels themself are vague and useless and causing the confusion, sometimes intentionally and sometimes out of ignorance.

And let me throw out out a third category (or maybe 4th), in addition to the successful a$$hole guy, unsuccessful nice guy (and the unsucessful a$$hole), the successful nice guy lol. The guy who is always in a relationship with fairly attractive relationship type girls. His game is successful if you want to be in relationships. And he's borderline nice comparitively to what the PUA material recommends to pick up different girls. Of course he can't be too nice even in a relationship and the concept of middle ground applies. This probably deserve another thread, and it's not really the focus of SS. But what do both of the successful guys "bad" boy and "nice" guy have in common? I'd say it's what that causes universal attraction, primarily appearance.

 

[Tazman]

Lets not forget these characterizations exist because women gave them these names and classifications based on their own common evaluations.

I think this is the key.

When you understand these terms as they were meant by the people who coined them, there will no longer be any confusion, atleast there shouldn't be.

 

[zekko]

When you understand these terms as they were meant by the people who coined them, there will no longer be any confusion, atleast there shouldn't be.

First off, I'm skeptical of the idea that women came up with the pickup definitions and terms "Nice Guy" and "Jerk". I think they come just as much from the male's lament. As samspade puts it:

The term "nice guy" is what it is because it gets used in two particular circumstances.

Rejection by Female. "I think you're a really nice guy. I just want to be friends."

and

Self-denial by Male. "I don't get it. I'm a nice guy. Why don't women want me?"

That said, there IS a lot of confusion about these terms. Largely because they are poorly named terms - the "Nice Guy" is not nice at all. As the girl in one of the articles stated, he is a needy, clingy, selfish, jerk. Oops, the Nice Guy is the real jerk. Who'd have thought?

When Rollo said:

the guy who leans just marginally to the Jerk side of the spectrum becomes wildly attractive.

my first instinct is to call this at least a bit of an exaggeration. It's going to take more than a slight lean to the jerk side for a guy to suddenly become "wildly attractive". And he's going to have to have more than that going for him, regardless.

But if I translate all this "pickup speak" into what I think Rollo REALLY means, then I don't have much objection. Because the guy Rollo says is leaning slightly to the jerk side is probably the guy I would describe as "What a man really should be". I actually think Rollo and I are in a lot closer agreement on things than might be immediately apparent. It's just the pickup terminology and how we define it that gets in the way.