If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   Evolutionary science gives us a good idea why chicks dig jerks   (nationalreview.com) divider line 108
    More: Sad, University of South Alabama, female sexuality, sex differences, academic journal, interpersonal relationship, bill hicks, Buster Douglas, Trait theory  
•       •       •

7372 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Mar 2012 at 3:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-05 11:13:21 PM  
Loveshies pandering to loveshies. Color me shocked.

/no, we don't "dig jerks". we might sleep with them once in awhile if we're horny at the bar, but we don't look to them for long term relationships
 
2012-03-05 11:51:58 PM  
Green? Ok, I know this thread. First we start with bashing the "jerks", then we bash the guys who are "friends" because they have ulterior motives, then we bash women for being hard to understand, then we post boobies. So I'm just going to cut to the chase here and go directly to #4.

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-03-05 11:56:35 PM  
There is absolutely no possibility at all that this author began this article with a preconceived conclusion, cherry picked a few quotes from some study abstracts, threw in a line that made some sort of vague reference to "numerous other academic studies that validate this position" without referencing any of them, and then just published the whole thing on a website predisposed to accept anything said on the topic.
 
2012-03-06 12:26:54 AM  

Pocket Ninja: There is absolutely no possibility at all that this author began this article with a preconceived conclusion, cherry picked a few quotes from some study abstracts, threw in a line that made some sort of vague reference to "numerous other academic studies that validate this position" without referencing any of them, and then just published the whole thing on a website predisposed to accept anything said on the topic.


It's NRO. You think that concepts like "journalism" mean anything to them?
 
2012-03-06 12:38:17 AM  
Evolutionary science also points out that rich guys are far more likely to "father" children that do not resemble them in any way.
cineplex.media.baselineresearch.com

/i'm looking at you Ringo
 
2012-03-06 01:11:34 AM  
Whoopee shiat, more evolutionary "science" from the same people who usually don't give a shiat about science. Can't they just join in the rising tide of derp and say sexual roles were ordained by god?
 
2012-03-06 01:14:21 AM  
It's not "assholes vs. nice guys," it's "strong guys vs. needy guys." The "nice guy" vs. "asshole" dichotomy seems to be perpetuated by insecure guys who worship and are thus terrified of women- they'd never imagine in a hundred years that simply having inclination to put women on a pedestal doesn't really make them all that "nice," and in reality, the behavior that these people tend to display usually is pretty manipulative and dickish. I was well into college before I figured this out. As a comfortably beta male among beta males, I'm dumbfounded how often this is lost on otherwise cognizant people.

Relax, dork. You're not a martyr for the cause of respecting women, but while you're wallowing, that dude did just chat up the cute girl at the bar you were creepily hovering around. I bet he's a dick. I mean, did you hear how he was talking to her like she was just some normal person? He's probably going to try to date rape her.
 
2012-03-06 01:23:54 AM  
You know, I've never had a problem with the opposite sex, they use me, I use them, it's a win/win scenario where, if you're confident enough to just take your chances and don't come off as desperate, you'll be fine. It's honestly funny watching some so called nice guys try to approach a woman, only for her to be in my car 5 minutes later. However this one girl has got to me. She's smart, funny, absolutely beautiful, and has rack that will make a grown man cry. She's the only girl I've ever truely cared about, yet she only wants me for someone to talk to. I hold her on the highest of pedestals, compliment her all the time on everything that she does, yet she's always going out with complete jerks who only want her for her body, and I'm always the one she comes to when she needs a shoulder to cry on, but next thing you know, she's gone and done it again, and again I'm the one to pick up the pieces. I just wish that she could see me for the nice guy that I am, and for the life of me I have no idea how I ended up in her friend zone, but there you go. There's just no understanding women sometimes, god damn biatches that they are. Why don't they recognise me for the unbelievable guy that I am? I swear if I just stopped being a nice guy and started being a dickwad, she'd be all over me in an instant, but I just can't do it - that's how much of a nice guy I am. The biatch.

So here I am, typing away on a tuesday evening, with my pants around my ankles and a tissue to wipe the tears away. I'll never understand you sluts, so it's back to the porn for me tonight. *sob*

www.fearla.com



/How's that Javacrucian?
 
2012-03-06 01:27:11 AM  

SJKebab: /How's that Javacrucian?


Oh my. You wouldn't happen to have her cell number and a copy of Phone Hacking For Dummies, would you?
 
2012-03-06 01:31:31 AM  
That's nice subby, now why don't you wiggle that ass on over to the fridge and get me a beer. And make me a sammich while you're in there.
 
2012-03-06 01:31:46 AM  
When you reach a certain age, you realize that you don't really dig the kind of girl who digs assholes.
 
2012-03-06 02:44:14 AM  
NRO can't get shiat right in politics, what are the chances they'll get this right?

//not clicking but guessing its zero
 
2012-03-06 03:10:41 AM  
That article was rambling and unfocused
 
2012-03-06 03:59:51 AM  
Ah, evo-psych bullshiat. The bread and butter of misogynist MRA's (I repeat myself) everywhere.
 
2012-03-06 04:06:57 AM  
"Normally, the NPR demographic is receptive to the wit and wisdom of Bill Hicks (another ugly and seldom-spoken truth: Bill Hicks had neither wit nor wisdom)."

F*ck this guy and his shiatty website. Oh, and found these gems in the comments.

[Approved commenter] BrandingIron5
03/02/12 08:24

Notice that liberals are quick to recognize homosexuality as a heritable trait among all the human behavioral traits when, by definition, it is the only genetic code physiologically impossible to inherit.

sinz54
03/02/12 10:39

I haven't heard liberals say that homosexuality is inherited. (They wouldn't want to say that, because it would imply that the child born of a lesbian has at least a 50% chance of being gay, which wouldn't help the liberal case for gay marriage.).
 
2012-03-06 04:43:06 AM  
AmorousRedDragon:

[Approved commenter] BrandingIron5
03/02/12 08:24

Notice that liberals are quick to recognize homosexuality as a heritable trait among all the human behavioral traits when, by definition, it is the only genetic code physiologically impossible to inherit.

sinz54
03/02/12 10:39

I haven't heard liberals say that homosexuality is inherited. (They wouldn't want to say that, because it would imply that the child born of a lesbian has at least a 50% chance of being gay, which wouldn't help the liberal case for gay marriage.).


Teh stoopids they burnzis.

/my precious.
 
2012-03-06 04:52:27 AM  

SPna15: Ah, evo-psych bullshiat.


And here I thought it was conservatives that were anti-science
 
2012-03-06 04:54:03 AM  
It's not that they dig jerks, it's that they like confidence. And unfortauntely, at first glace, confidence and arrogance look very similar.

colithian:
no, we don't "dig jerks". we might sleep with them once in awhile if we're horny at the bar, but we don't look to them for long term relationships

I think there is a degree of disparity between what makes a good mate in 2012, and what made a good mate a few thousand years ago. And at this point, instinct has yet to catch up. The aggressive, sure-of-himself, dominating man of early civilization was probably the best mate because he had the best chance to provide for and defend his family. And those alpha-male characteristics also gave him the best shot at beating other males in winning over females.

Now we have females who are still wired in some way to look for those attributes, and males who exhibit them...but in a world where they don't really matter any more. Furthermore, in a world where the concept of a loving equal relationship clashes with those attributes in almost every way. Modern love/romance based pairings where communication and equal caring matter are a pretty new idea. And our instincts really just are not geared for that.

Are all males who have these alpha-male attributes assholes? Of course not. But it goes back to my first statement. At first glance, the confident alpha male who is a decent guy and would make a good partner...and the arrogant alpha male who dominates and degrades are often very difficult to tell apart. Only through starting a relationship are many women able to figure out that the guy is the douche and not the confident yet caring provider. Which is why so many women seem to have a long string of short relationships with assholes. It's not that they're looking for assholes. They're looking for nice guys who outwardly display the same sexually attracting confidence assholes have in abundance, which leads to a lot of confusion, and even more heartbreak.

Really, I would say there are three kinds of guys, in this manner:

Assholes: Great ability to attract women. Make terrible partners.

"Nice guys": Might make great partners*, but have zero ability to attract women and thus won't ever really find out until they change.

Confident nice guys: Can actually attract a girl on the instinctual level and are decent enough men to sustain a real relationship afterwards.


*So long as the "nice guy" is actually nice and doesn't turn into a bitter, spiteful, and yet still-shy jerks due to years of loneliness and jealousy. That's not the kind of jerk chicks like. Unfortunately, too many "nice guys" end up turning into this and become their own worst enemies, and don't even know why.
 
2012-03-06 04:56:59 AM  

taurusowner: That's not the kind of jerk chicks like. Unfortunately, too many "nice guys" end up turning into this and become their own worst enemies, and don't even know why.



You see one day long ago a man named James T Kirk landed them on this planet....
 
2012-03-06 05:24:12 AM  
I can tell that this thread is going to go downhill really fast. Let me just say this: you should forget everything that you think you know about alpha-male-protecting-his-FAMUHLEE bullshiat and go pick up this book: Sex at Dawn (new window).

Fun fact: pre-agricultural human societies tend to believe that babies are formed from semen. Lots and lots of semen...from different dudes. Because the only thing better than one super-awesome turbo-alpha-dude protecting his family is every f*cking male in the village protecting their children.
 
2012-03-06 05:57:17 AM  

ThunderPelvis: Fun fact: pre-agricultural human societies tend to believe that babies are formed from semen. Lots and lots of semen...from different dudes. Because the only thing better than one super-awesome turbo-alpha-dude protecting his family is every f*cking male in the village protecting their children


I doubt the Jerks put up with that for long. Those same early cultures went on to develop concepts for female monogamy and extreme inequality of the sexes. I think they figured out eventually that lineage was more important than just bearing children, at least in the male mindset. The trick of mixing the gene pool didn't pan out once that secret slipped.

Women like abusive men because they can't tell them apart from strong, well adjusted, or "nice" ones. They come from a half of society that, for generations, wasn't allowed to touch a weapon or have any of the same rights the men did. They were forced to be socially and financially dependent on the other sex.
Not being around men as equals means women have a hard time spotting the difference between a normal guy and one that's got issues. With the old concepts of long term marriage gone, this just means one bad apple can attack more often.
 
2012-03-06 06:03:08 AM  
Old fart chiming in here. That's all wonderful, but now I'm of an age where I really don't feel the need to rescue some woman from her bad choices. Jerks tend to not really treat themselves any better than they do other people, that's because they are stupid. When you find jerk dead on the couch and have to stick him in the ground after he's saddled you with debt and/or left you with multiple mouths to feed or bruises to tend to, it's a bit late to realize he may not have been as "hot" as you thought.
There's another old phrase that comes to mind when a person stays with a jerk, it's called "biting off your nose to spite your face". Keep chewing.....
 
2012-03-06 06:14:47 AM  

taurusowner:


*So long as the "nice guy" is actually nice and doesn't turn into a bitter, spiteful, and yet still-shy jerks due to years of loneliness and jealousy. That's not the kind of jerk chicks like. Unfortunately, too many "nice guys" end up turning into this and become their own worst enemies, and don't even know why.



It sounds like we've met before.

/old and bitter.
 
2012-03-06 06:27:38 AM  
XKCD (new window)
 
2012-03-06 06:28:40 AM  

way south: I doubt the Jerks put up with that for long. Those same early cultures went on to develop concepts for female monogamy and extreme inequality of the sexes. I think they figured out eventually that lineage was more important than just bearing children, at least in the male mindset. The trick of mixing the gene pool didn't pan out once that secret slipped.


You're talking about post-agricultural society. Jerks couldn't be jerks in pre-agricultural society, or they'd get shunned out of the group (pretty much the equivalent of a death sentence). We're not talking biblical times here, we're talking about 10,000-100,000 years ago from a Eurasian perspective, or...this morning, for modern existent hunter-gatherer tribes.
 
2012-03-06 06:33:58 AM  
FTFA: Unfortunately for me, I read a great deal more social-science literature than fiction these days [...]

At that very point I thought "Oh, aren't you full of it?".

When I attempted to explain to her (that stupid liberal woman)
But you knew that already, if you are a homo even half sapiens and went to high school (oh the lulz)
The academic literature consistently finds that (ie: yeah, I've read all of it)
But you knew that.

When a cross between Mr Clean and Brian Thompson tells me there are books out there supporting his views, I have no choice but to go along, I suppose.

/not saying he's wrong but this is one poorly written article and it looks like it's his trademark Link (new window)
 
2012-03-06 06:34:16 AM  
Guy doesn't like Bill Hicks. Automatic douche.
 
2012-03-06 06:39:34 AM  

Quasar: When you reach a certain age, you realize that you don't really dig the kind of girl who digs assholes.


taurusowner: It's not that they dig jerks, it's that they like confidence. And unfortauntely, at first glace, confidence and arrogance look very similar.


Both of these.
 
2012-03-06 07:06:00 AM  
FTA:

"such traits may facilitate - especially for men - the pursuit of an exploitative short-term mating strategy............. conniving and selfish men have an easier time getting women into the sack"

Good Grief. Non-sequitur much?

There wasn't a single thing in the cited information that suggested women liked jerks, or that jerks had a better run rate - just that jerks pursued multiple women (and presumably avoided committing to one), hence upping the total number of unique partners (by avoiding repeats)

Also:

"a higher level of sexual success, defined in the literature as a larger number of total lifetime sexual partners"

That's a lousy way to operationalize "sexual success", particularly in evolutionarily terms. Sexual success == offspring, and conception doesn't work that way. An individual who has a lifetime total of 50 one night stands is not going to be even remotely in the running compared to a guy who has 3 long-term relationships each involving thousands of couplings, in terms of the probability of successfully conceiving a large number of children.

Evolutionary psych this study is not, and the article is worse.
 
2012-03-06 07:21:59 AM  
Women dig confidence. The ugly side of confidence is being an obnoxious jerk.
 
2012-03-06 07:22:01 AM  

thisman: "a higher level of sexual success, defined in the literature as a larger number of total lifetime sexual partners"

That's a lousy way to operationalize "sexual success", particularly in evolutionarily terms. Sexual success == offspring, and conception doesn't work that way. An individual who has a lifetime total of 50 one night stands is not going to be even remotely in the running compared to a guy who has 3 long-term relationships each involving thousands of couplings, in terms of the probability of successfully conceiving a large number of children.

Evolutionary psych this study is not, and the article is worse.


It's definitely (at best) an outdated definition of sexual success. It would have made more sense before the advent of widespread and effective contraception and, more specifically, the pill. There needs to be data for contraception use during 1 night stands and/or short term sexual pairing and the likelihood of a child conceived in those circumstances being born and similar data for long term couples. Something like...On average, how many individual women would a single man whore need to sleep with to produce the same number of children as an average couple in a long term relationship?
 
2012-03-06 07:32:22 AM  
Baryogenesis: On average, how many individual women would a single man whore need to sleep with to produce the same number of children as an average couple in a long term relationship?

Totally. Both the study and the article are effectively meaningless without knowing that (and knowing the size of the effect too, since "more" is not a measurement that's very amenable to analysis)

You would have to only consider relative success in the ancestral environment though, or in those few remaining societies that might be similar. The way we are now reflects only the relative success rates back then. The relative modern success rates, influenced by new factors like contraception, HIV, food stamps, medicare and so on, will in time determine which Homo Sapiens got to pass on their behavioural habits and therefore what people of the future act like, but those 19th/20th/21st century realities haven't really had time to change our genes much yet.
 
2012-03-06 07:47:12 AM  

thisman: FTA:

"such traits may facilitate - especially for men - the pursuit of an exploitative short-term mating strategy............. conniving and selfish men have an easier time getting women into the sack"

Good Grief. Non-sequitur much?

There wasn't a single thing in the cited information that suggested women liked jerks, or that jerks had a better run rate - just that jerks pursued multiple women (and presumably avoided committing to one), hence upping the total number of unique partners (by avoiding repeats)

Also:

"a higher level of sexual success, defined in the literature as a larger number of total lifetime sexual partners"

That's a lousy way to operationalize "sexual success", particularly in evolutionarily terms. Sexual success == offspring, and conception doesn't work that way. An individual who has a lifetime total of 50 one night stands is not going to be even remotely in the running compared to a guy who has 3 long-term relationships each involving thousands of couplings, in terms of the probability of successfully conceiving a large number of children.

Evolutionary psych this study is not, and the article is worse.


I think you have to remember that these behaviors were evolved for a different social and environmental milieu than what we have now. What seems like pathetic failure today might have resulted in one or two more offspring over the course of an aggressive male's lifetime in prehistoric societies--which is a considerable gain when you consider that historically males have had very poor chances of reproducing at all (the stat is something like you having had twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors over evolutionary history).

This is especially apt considering that hunter-gatherers tend to be more relaxed about promiscuity. A male's chances of fathering the progeny that he either cares for or abandons is related to his frequency of intercourse with the prospective mother (since human fertility is largely hidden) rather than ensured when he pairs off.

Besides . . . just because we have an explanation for a behavior does not mean that the behavior is justified. The only reason to be offended by evolutionary psychology or human behavioral ecology is if the people presenting the study or the reasoning are using it to say, "This behavior is natural, and since it's natural, it must be moral, and therefore tolerated." Which is ridiculous, since if you look at what's going on in the natural world, the way animals treat each other tends to be horrifying--you can't model a society on that.
 
2012-03-06 07:53:27 AM  

ThunderPelvis: You're talking about post-agricultural society. Jerks couldn't be jerks in pre-agricultural society, or they'd get shunned out of the group (pretty much the equivalent of a death sentence). We're not talking biblical times here, we're talking about 10,000-100,000 years ago from a Eurasian perspective, or...this morning, for modern existent hunter-gatherer tribes.


True, but the society we have evolved into is a post agricultural one. We are not the people we used to be (said people in secluded tribes possibly being excluded).
I don't believe evolution has stopped for us. So the lifestyle we live now tends to favor the jerks. Gene transfer matters more than protection of the local tribe because society will help take care of the children.
The Jerks are not cast out. Rather, they have been unleashed to be sperm donors for sometimes a dozen children or more. The ones that abuse are also more likely to keep a mate to themselves.

I think either case results in undesirable traits being passed on and surviving more than would have happened in a pre-welfare, long term marriage society where the abandoned and abused would be more likely to die.

For the small tribe, many mates, model to work you need to get rid of the safeguards along with the christian social construct.
 
2012-03-06 08:06:35 AM  

SJKebab: www.fearla.com



/How's that Javacrucian?


Does that girl have a face? Because if she does, it must be very pretty.
 
2012-03-06 08:11:19 AM  

Fair_Poopsmith: they'd never imagine in a hundred years that simply having inclination to put women on a pedestal doesn't really make them all that "nice,"


As I like to put it: "Nice guys aren't." The people who run around complaining that women only date jerks and not nice guys like them are, in my experience, always jerks. Heck, when I was young and inexperienced, I was that kind of jerk. I eventually grew out of being a teenager. Some people never do.
 
2012-03-06 08:21:51 AM  

way south: Women like abusive men because they can't tell them apart from strong, well adjusted, or "nice" ones. They come from a half of society that, for generations, wasn't allowed to touch a weapon or have any of the same rights the men did. They were forced to be socially and financially dependent on the other sex.


That's a very recent history, and I doubt it is consistent throughout all of history and every culture that ever existed. Seems to me that biology is more consistent and a much better predictor of human behavior than sociology.
 
2012-03-06 08:33:26 AM  
img.photobucket.com

/oblig
//guess this makes me a jerk
///the babes will flock to me like geese
 
2012-03-06 08:39:04 AM  

Fair_Poopsmith: It's not "assholes vs. nice guys," it's "strong guys vs. needy guys." The "nice guy" vs. "asshole" dichotomy seems to be perpetuated by insecure guys who worship and are thus terrified of women- they'd never imagine in a hundred years that simply having inclination to put women on a pedestal doesn't really make them all that "nice," and in reality, the behavior that these people tend to display usually is pretty manipulative and dickish.


Oh, for fark's sake. Ignorance and immaturity do not make one manipulative (frankly I'm not sure how someone lacking social skills can manipulate anyone); they can be cured but sociopathy generally can't be. I used to be intimidated by women and getting over that made me much more personable but it was nothing more than just gaining understanding -- it's not like I treat people fundamentally differently. Otherwise the main differences between me today and me ten years ago are A) I'm much more financially successful, B) I'm in much better physical shape, and C) I'm much more confident. Fark wisdom dictates I should have women fighting each other to fark me, but I'm still invisible to them. Which is fine, because now that I am confident I don't need their approval anymore. The skanks at the bars weren't interested in me before and aren't interested in me now but I don't have any interest in them either so it's a huge win-win. Married a gamer girl and the key was NOT doing the damned dating game ritual.

My advice to any guy who's intimidated by (or even just sick of) the game is, don't play. There are women out there who are the same way -- they are equally baffled at why all these men throw themselves at the stupid, vapid jerk-farking skanks. They don't try as hard to look good or play up the stereotypes but if you're willing to be open-minded about what people are really like, they're a lot more fun to be around. The bars and such are for one type of crowd and if you're reading this odds are it's not you.

Cinaed: Women dig confidence. The ugly side of confidence is being an obnoxious jerk.


Not really, there's just confidence, but the myths being perpetuated on Fark are that "confidence = asshole" and "confidence = woman magnet". Neither are true. Women are actually drawn to assholes -- the stupid ones, anyway. As I said, confidence didn't make me popular with skanks; it made me stop caring about them. Smart women aren't attracted to confidence so much as maturity; try to use them as a crutch for your self-esteem or personal issues and they won't put up with your crap. So while I can't give anyone the slightest bit of advice on how to score with a different skank every night, I can say what can get you a girl you just might want to settle down with: Stop biatching, get some goddamn catharsis for your woman issues, grow the fark up, get some empathy and learn to enjoy the company of others for who they are. If you just want some skank to tell you you're awesome and fark you on demand without any compromise or effort, hire a damn hooker.
 
2012-03-06 08:43:30 AM  
Nobody mentioned Game yet?

You guys are slacking today.
 
2012-03-06 08:47:48 AM  

Quasar: When you reach a certain age, you realize that you don't really dig the kind of girl who digs assholes.


In other words, you don't dig girls.

img535.imageshack.us
 
2012-03-06 08:55:22 AM  
This is entirely why I've never had much trouble getting laid.
 
2012-03-06 08:59:23 AM  
Yeah, I'm gonna read an article about evolutionary science posted on a site that doesn't believe in evolution or science. I'll get right on that after I get done hammering my nuts flat.
 
2012-03-06 09:05:19 AM  

t3knomanser: As I like to put it: "Nice guys aren't." The people who run around complaining that women only date jerks and not nice guys like them are, in my experience, always jerks. Heck, when I was young and inexperienced, I was that kind of jerk. I eventually grew out of being a teenager.


I grok but I wouldn't run away from that completely. A lot of what I saw was real, and I do think I'm a "nice" guy in that the effort was always there (if sometimes misguided). I just think I now have a better understanding of what "nice" means. And yeah, being "nice" didn't get me laid as a woman-fearing teenager and didn't get me laid as a stable bachelor. I still see women dating jerks; the main difference now is that I see women as individuals that run the gamut instead of some homogeneous, exotic species. When I was a teenager ("that kind of jerk"), the anatomy kind of drowned out all other details -- I was so stupid and horny I couldn't tell you what girls in my class were smart or stupid or what their interests were. It's rather unfair to myself to completely resent the overwhelming stupidity of my youth, but if my main HS regret in my 20s was lack of sex, my main lack of regret now is how little time I spent getting to know what might've been some fascinating people. All I saw were boobs. Now that I can tell the difference between a self-respecting woman and a vapid AW, I'm still a "nice guy" and still see the vapid ones chasing the jerks but with the "ZOMG FEMALE" novelty worn off they don't really occupy my mind anymore. They're fun to look at but they're uninteresting.
 
2012-03-06 09:18:44 AM  
"another ugly and seldom-spoken truth: Bill Hicks had neither wit nor wisdom"
I wish Chris Brown would date the guy who wrote this article.
/by date I mean punch in the face
 
2012-03-06 09:25:21 AM  
Normally, the NPR demographic is receptive to the wit and wisdom of Bill Hicks (another ugly and seldom-spoken truth: Bill Hicks had neither wit nor wisdom).

images.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2012-03-06 09:28:13 AM  

colithian: Loveshies pandering to loveshies. Color me shocked.

/no, we don't "dig jerks". we might sleep with them once in awhile if we're horny at the bar, but we don't look to them for long term relationships


[spock]Curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want.[/spock]

/nice guy
//usually finished last
 
2012-03-06 09:30:48 AM  

SurfaceTension: way south: Women like abusive men because they can't tell them apart from strong, well adjusted, or "nice" ones. They come from a half of society that, for generations, wasn't allowed to touch a weapon or have any of the same rights the men did. They were forced to be socially and financially dependent on the other sex.

That's a very recent history, and I doubt it is consistent throughout all of history and every culture that ever existed. Seems to me that biology is more consistent and a much better predictor of human behavior than sociology.


I agree that its only anecdotal evidence at best.
What I suspect tho is that the biological trait that makes a woman want a strong mate is being tripped up by their lack of experience or the freedom to choose one.

In a society that does arranged marriages, mates are decided by wealth or standing. Today the right kind of jerk can fake good standing with a haircut, an expensive watch, and some fast talk.
Maybe evolution is the wrong term. Its more like unnatural selection that's gotten us in this fix. The results are similar tho.
 
2012-03-06 09:31:18 AM  

Fair_Poopsmith: It's not "assholes vs. nice guys," it's "strong guys vs. needy guys." The "nice guy" vs. "asshole" dichotomy seems to be perpetuated by insecure guys who worship and are thus terrified of women- they'd never imagine in a hundred years that simply having inclination to put women on a pedestal doesn't really make them all that "nice," and in reality, the behavior that these people tend to display usually is pretty manipulative and dickish. I was well into college before I figured this out. As a comfortably beta male among beta males, I'm dumbfounded how often this is lost on otherwise cognizant people.

Relax, dork. You're not a martyr for the cause of respecting women, but while you're wallowing, that dude did just chat up the cute girl at the bar you were creepily hovering around. I bet he's a dick. I mean, did you hear how he was talking to her like she was just some normal person? He's probably going to try to date rape her.


I think in many cases you are spot on.

Then there are the other cases. I have female friends (real friends, who I have known for 15+ years, not "girls I want to date friends) and some of them do seem to go towards abusive asshats. They complain and whine about how rude and mean they are, but keep going back for more or another guy like this one.

I can't really explain it. But I also know guys who seems to prefer women who treat them like doormats too.

weird.
 
2012-03-06 09:35:33 AM  

dragonchild: All I saw were boobs.


You say that like it's a bad thing.

/Boobs
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report