The word agentic—derived from agency—has been floating around in my head after reading Hugo Schwyzer’s recent piece at Jezebel arguing against a couple of blog posts published on the websites In Mala Fide and Heartiste (full disclosure: both guys are on my blogroll).
Schwyzer decries the arguments put forth at those sites suggesting that women like assholes, bad boys, and jerks:
Never mind that the research on what heterosexual women actually want doesn’t bear this out. For years, studies have shown that women do rate kindness as a particularly attractive quality in a man. Along with humor and intelligence, generosity is a particularly valuable trait; as one study showed earlier this month, guys become more selfless (read: less assholish) when in the presence of women they find attractive.
Seems to me that everyone is right; it just depends on the starting point. Instead of fostering the trope that women like bad boys, jerks, and gangsters to the detriment of nice guys; I tend to believe that women, on average, prefer agentic men—men who act. All else being equal, women prefer men who act in a positive direction. But maybe we should put some stock in that common cultural trope attributed to women: “All the good ones are taken.” Women prefer agentic nice guys, but maybe all of them are taken.
Agentic men are straight-forward, assertive, goal-oriented, and principled. They could be perfectly friendly, emotionally available, altruistic, and presentable to parents, but in a society where assertive behavior and competition are watched with a discerning eye, men with end-games outside social norms are more willing to employ their assertiveness.
Being direct, being unafraid to ask for something, taking what you want: these are all qualities that women find attractive – even when it involves the man’s expressions of sexual desire. For a majority of women, their choice of mate is directly related to the resources that mate can provide, and what a man can provide is a function of his action. A nice guy who has access to resources brings two things to the table: he can get “stuff”, and he’s likely to share a lot of that “stuff” with his partner. An agentic bad boy has at least one Ace in his hand: he can get “stuff.” Being more self-centered, he’s more likely to keep a larger proportion for himself, but his woman indirectly benefits from a larger pie. Since women want resources, it would make sense that if given the choice, women would choose the nicest guy possible—as long as the nice guy has access to resources. The problem is that lines don’t form so neatly.
It would be instructive to drill down and look at general examples of the various groups of men. We can compartmentalize men into 5 camps in order from most desired by women to least, and I’ll provide examples of each type:
1. The Nice Guy You Know. Example: George Clooney. Agentic Nice guys. The male equivalent of the Platinum Preferred American Express. Their assertiveness pushes them into traditional alpha male territory which increases their attractiveness, and they are generally in control of most situations. Agentic nice guys smile and exude confidence because they are actually happy and confident. They are altruistic and good-natured towards women because they want to be, not because they feel a sense of shame for not providing. They are internally-driven.
2. The Dick You Know. Example: Don Draper. Pimps. Drug Dealers. Charlie Sheen. Roissy. Agentic Bad Boys. These men fall into the asshole and jerk category, but they’re real and their women know what they’re getting. Agentic bad boys are assertive and exude confidence and high status. Like the group above, these guys are usually in control of the situation. But they often work outside the confines of polite society to get what they want. For the most part, they don’t lie about what they’re doing or who they’re doing it with. In extreme cases, these men behave viciously and possibly abuse their women, but the women come back for more because they at least know what to expect from their man and many enjoy the drama.
3. The Dick You Don’t Know. Example: Tiger Woods. Opportunistic Bad Boys. These guys are the douchebags of the world. The narcissism that begets their douchebaggery oxidizes as confidence and high status helping their attractiveness to women—although situational control begins to erode at this altitude. Their drawback is that they are afraid to expose their true nature for fear that they won’t be accepted by women. Their outward displays of narcissism overshadow their internal wish to do good leading to a convoluted self-image. When the mask is removed, women become bitter because they thought they knew their Dick.
4. The Nice Guy You Don’t Know. Example: Tiger Woods if he weren’t a billionaire. George Costanza as presented on ‘Seinfeld’. Supplicating nice guys. These guys have been trademarked by some; they are the ones who have received 100 “You are such a nice guy” remarks for every peck on their rosy red cheek. Everything they do with regards to women is a reaction to what they think they should be doing and not what they actually want to do; control is out of their hands. Since they aren’t in control, their desires aren’t manifested. This particular type of guy has fleeced himself of his sexuality because he thinks that’s what he should do. They lie to themselves about what they actually want. They tell themselves they do nice things because they are nice and not because they want to move towards a sexual relationship.
Tony Clink, who offers dating advice:
It’s not because women like jerks. Women prefer polite over rude, and attentive over distracted. The problem is the way nice guys present these positive characteristics. In order to appear friendly and romantic, these ‘nice guys’ think they have to turn off their sexuality. They hide their desires in order not to offend, presenting an androgynous, asexual persona. The first impression they give is one of emasculation, weakness, and lack of desire. At best, they confuse the woman as to whether they even find her attractive. That’s what jerks offer women that nice guys don’t: they’re not afraid to be sexual.
5. The Dick You Don’t Care to Know. Example: George Costanza if he weren’t made-for-TV. When you get this far down the list it doesn’t really matter what’s going on. My main purpose in putting this here is to at least give NGYDK some assurance that they aren’t the dregs. This last group are men who are negative, foul-spirited, and lacking in confidence. “Sour” is a good word to describe them. “Hater” is another. They are petty and don’t at least offer a smile while behaving that way. They seek to tear people down at every turn—not out of some strategy for their own upward mobility, but because they seek company.
Women don’t want bad boys if given a choice. But agentic nice guys sell out quickly, and they usually go to the highest bidders. There are also fewer of these types of guys because our society places curbs on their manufacture—in fact, it punishes agentic behavior early on. The men best poised to capitalize are the men who aren’t opposed to ruffling society’s feathers a little bit in the first place. And nice guys—or the 80% of them who finish last—fall down the ladder because they aren’t willing to compete.
Read Jonatan Bäckelie’s response to this post:
Being in Control vs. Keeping it Together
—Photo Jon Åslund/Flickr
About Chuck Ross
Collins, Women want what they can’t have. It drives them nuts when the assholes ignore them. When you approach them realize that you willhear No and walk off before they have the time to reject you
Wow… what a weird and horrible thing to say about women. I have never desired someone who is mean, elusive, a player, etc. A dated stereotype.
I concur with CBS. This is a stereotype of woman that is completely wrong.
You seem to demonize men of African descent allude to the fact that men of African descent are what comes to mind when we think “dicks”, Drug dealers or Pimps? Why not these crooked suicidal all street brokers or or child molesters? Tiger Woods and Chris Brown are examples of the demise of men? Why not all these Caucasian male child actors who have done far worse.
I like the mission of this blog but there is an underlying theme to reappoint the Anglo-Saxon male as an ideal man for women.
There are men of other cultures that exhibit qualities that women want. These men don’t always look like Tom Hanks.
Did you miss the part where he said Don Draper and Charlie Sheen are dicks and do terrible things to women? And how made-for-TV George Costanza, who is mentioned in the last two/most unfavorable categories is a sour bastard?
You’re reading what you want to read into this post. I didn’t mention Chris Brown btw, you did. Seems you’re falling victim to the very thing you’re arguing against. I mentioned people or characters who are widely recognized. Roissy, Don Draper, and Charlie Sheen are all white; drug dealers and pimps are not all black. If you want to play on statistics I probably overly demonized whites.
Both men and women have been known to make really bad choices with lovers
. The thing about choices is I have the option to not settle, to be alone, to deal with the aloneness. But, there are times in the past I could not deal with the aloneness and I was very aware of settling, and it didn’t feel good. So now I am willing to be alone, put myself out there and not settle. It’s not easy out there. One has to be fluent in BS, because with us men and women we can be fluent in it.
“Both men and women have been known to make really bad choices with lovers”
I plead temporary insanity for wife #2. Fortunately #3 makes up for that mistake in spades. Life is good!
You seem to demonize men of African descent allude to the fact that men of African descent are what comes to mind when we think “dicks”, Drug dealers or Pimps? Why not these crooked suicidal all street brokers or or child molesters? Tiger Woods and Chris Brown are examples of the demise of men? Why not all these Caucasian male child actors who have done far worse.
I like the mission of this blog but there is an underlying theme to reappoint the Anglo-Saxon male as an ideal man for women.
There are men of other cultures that exhibit qualities that women want. These men don’t always look or act like Tom Hanks.
I don’t know many women personally who actively throw themselves at jerks. The women I *do* know have experiences more like this: Meet attractive Guy and start up a flirtation. Date Guy a few times, no huge red flags. Start falling for Guy. Get into an involved relationship with Guy. Discover Guy is an asshole over time, but want to believe otherwise to justify the romantic feelings, or believes he can change. Break up & make up, over and over again (there’s some merit to what the author says, that some women do get a rush out of such drama). Eventually either leave him for good, or settle for “He’s an asshole but I love him so I can overlook that.”
I think assholery is more of a pattern of behavior than something you can detect right off the bat. I think most guys who are assholes are not assholes 100% of the time – that would be exhausting! They can seem pretty normal on the surface – no major red flags. But over time as a relationship grows and they spend more time together, the asshole traits might come out. Maybe he’s really rude to service people. Maybe he breaks all his promises. Maybe he has no problem with shoplifting. Maybe he’s disrespectful towards other women in his life like his mom or sister, or a female coworker. These are not things the woman always sees & knows right off the bat, they’re a pattern of behaviors that really only become apparent over time. And for some women, it’s already too late by the time they connect the dots, they’re already emotionally entangled and start justifying it any way they can.
To be fair, I think the same thing can happen to men, too – they can get into a romantic relationship with a woman who seems fine on the surface only to eventually learn she’s a bitch. That doesn’t mean they’re attracted to bad girls; it means someone they were attracted to turned out to be a bad girl.
Wouldn’t it be oh-so-helpful if bitches and assholes came with a warning label?
Seriously, though, if we all had to wear labels on our foreheads that said whether or not we are “bad” or “good” or “somewhere in the middle,” I don’t think there would be a lot of Good women crawling all over Bad men. I’m not saying it wouldn’t happen at all – there are some men in this world who wear the Asshole Hat loud and proud and some women are attracted to them. But I’d wouldn’t say those women represent some kind of universal feminine appetite for bad men.
Don’t think I’ve seen anyone comment on this yet but here goes.
The extremely agitating part is when “nice guy” tells her he is an asshole, gets ignored and she finds out first hand. Or when she is upset, goes to nice guy for emotional comfort, gets it and then finds a new guy to go after. It’s about the frustration of the nice guy that wants more than a friendship but can’t get it, and the frustration of some women who know this, who will use the guy for his comfort and basically treat him as a bf without the intimacy at times. It’s quite hard to explain and it’s more a feeling you get but it’s a bad feeling, the girls who flirt with the nice guys but then cut them down with the typical friendzone words which can shatter hopes in seconds. Feeling close to someone, like you have a chance, they flirt with you and it looks like they see you as more and you want more with them only to find they think of you as a brother? That is painful.
The “Nice guy” problem is as much a problem of the women who quite literally mess around with them, it’s often assumed to just be about the guys who see girls dating others and thus they get upset but sadly it’s often more sinister. The current nice guy situation I see at the moment amongst friends has a very flirty young female who stirs up the feelings of the guys, but claims she doesn’t know she’s flirting. This could be true but these guys have had quite a few women mess with them and a few of them are now very bitter over it, the girls are confusing the hell out of them.
Sorry to say it ladies but the “nice guy” problem isn’t the fault of the guys alone, there are quite a few women who’ve contributed bigtime to the problem, the ones that are after attention, know the guy likes them but will gladly use them for that attention without reciprocating intimacy, comfort, etc. The women who will gladly cry on your shoulder for hours about the latest “jerk” yet if the niceguy needs someone to talk to about stuff, she won’t be there or will be too busy. It becomes a one-sided relationship, niceguy feels used, bitter, angry, sexually and romantically frustrated. It can give birth to new jerks, it can send some to want to be pickup artists, it can shut others down. The fault isn’t on the nice guy alone, there is a lot of responsibility in the “bitches” that will gladly use those guys.
“I like you as a friend.”
Painful words to hear Collin.
Women and men are primates and behave accordingly. Female sexual attraction to assholes isn’t universal (as in each and every woman every time), but it is true female tendency (as in most women, most of the time). There is no such tendency in male primates.
Men aren’t attracted to obvious bitchiness, but women ARE attracted to obvious assholery.
“Nice will get women way more laid than bitchiness, whereas as obvious assholery will get men way more laid than being nice. Sex with alphas (assholes) is a staple of female primate sexuality. That’s just the way it is. Women denying this is like men denying we (as a group) love young, buxom hotties.
No-one’s said anything about the elephant in the room. There’s a reason for this. They’ve probably not recognized it as an elephant because it has pink stripes and purple dots, and it has a crimson bow tied around it. We are coming up against the oldest questions in all of human history. If prostitution is the oldest profession, then here is perhaps the oldest question:
The answer? Because female sexuality, when released from its cultural confines, predisposes women to ridiculous choices in men. Why is this? Different cultures present different solutions, for example, parents choosing marriage partners, as in India. Let me propose an answer for our own unique zeitgeist.
Female sexuality is motivated principally in surrender and submission. More specifically, violation. In love, this manifests in intimacy, the idea of offering up oneself to one’s beloved. From the perspective of primal arousal, however, this manifests in the thrill of the forbidden – betrayal of one’s beloved, for example, becomes tinged with excitement. A tall, attractive man with terrific marriage prospects might be great relationship material, but in the modern zeitgeist, he is old and stale. He does not light a woman’s fire. What really gets women off, especially in this era of progressive, raunch liberalism, is being sullied. That’s why rape often features in women’s fantasies. Tall handsome dudes with terrific marriage prospects need not apply. Enter troglodytes with attitude, stage left.
Here’s the deal. Men and women do not understand one another. While young Collin is busy focussing on developing his career prospects, another young woman (let’s call her Gloria) is out there making out with the exciting trodlodytes that hit on her. Because she, like other women, does not understand men, she finds out what men are like from the trodlodytes to whom she gives air-time, and so she develops this self-fulfilling understanding as to what types of men are “hot” – and while they need not even be good-looking, they do need to be a “type” (e.g., bad-boy). Gloria just has to “turn up” in order to get laid. Meanwhile Collin, for whom “turning up” in and of itself presents no options, does not get laid. Ever. Collin must always, at some level, initiate. Sure, if he presents well and creates a good visual first impression, he will get noticed by women. But he needs to act on women’s cues – the hair-toss, the longing glances. He needs to realize his manhood, and he needs to enjoy acting on those cues, because he needs to be bold and confident. If he’s not having fun, then he’s doing it all wrong. That’s why Game is so very important. A dude that presents a terrific first impression can only progress so far. He needs to expand on his visual first impression, to deliver on a more comprehensive context relating to character and type.
Thus derives the oldest question in all of human history. We are blessed, in this modern era, to witness the ramfications of female sexuality unleashed in all its glorious horror, as manifest in women’s ridiculous choices. The solutions that are available for men like Collin, especially in our modern zeitgeist, are not always pretty. They amount to him understanding what’s going on, and incorporating “Game” – e.g., Roissy’s methodology. Which is, at its essence, abusive and disrespectful of women. But that’s ok, because as we’ve seen above, abuse relates to violation, women’s arousal, and men’s success.
Collin, end of problem. You didn’t understand what was going on, but now you do. You now know what has to be done. Stake your claim, and make your impression. Go forth and multiply. But be warned. This is a solution unique to our zeitgeist, characterized by the pedestalization of women in the tradition of chivalry. In a culture where every man is worshipping at the altar of the vag, you have to do the same in order to compete, otherwise you miss out. If you don’t like it, leave – different cultures will present different solutions – which is in fact what many men do.
Yes, men also make ridiculous choices. But there’s a difference… a woman’s submission to a man implies also submission to what he stands for. Women choose “types” of men, men that stand for something (e.g., lawyer, CEO, bad-boy, politician, poet, rebel, biker, surfer, etc). A woman from the wrong side of the tracks is more likely than a bad-boy to become a fine, moral and loyal partner (hence the common fantasy of women being “rescued”). A bad-boy is too busy asserting his type to make any such compromise. In fact comprise is a sign of weakness and only serves to erode his type and the statement that he is making.
ahem… “comprise” should be “compromise”.
This essay and many of the responses to it appear to be presenting “just so” explanations of human behavior. What evidence is there that these narratives are useful or true?
I think it’s more complex than just “Well, all the agenic men are gone. Guess I’ll have to settle for an asshole.”
For me, it was that I started looking for qualities that I didn’t know wouldn’t sustain a relationship. For instance, one guy I was into for a while was charming, assertive, sexy, very smart, hilarious in social situations, etc. What I found out after a year of being dewy-eyed was that his assertiveness had turned into him being extremely conceited. So, that same direct/can-get-things-done attitude that I first attracted me to him showed me that he can’t work well on a team, would be impossible to get along with my family and siblings, and would make me miserable.
The next guy I dated was much less conceited. He was gentle, affectionate, wicked smart, straightforward, and had been friends with me for a long time. Well, as I found out after a year of dating, that same gentleness caused us to have fights because BOTH of us were trying to be the more passive person in the relationship. He was me in male form.
So, at least for me, the traits that initially brings me in can backfire later. I had to try a few times before I figured out what I *needed* and what would pair with my personality, instead of what I thought I *wanted*.
I agree with the article completely. Not to deny any guy their personal experience but I never got this ‘nice guys finish last’ idea.
Mostly because my definition of a nice guy is the one described in no. 1 & they are never at a loss in terms of female companionship. (In fact that has been my life’s tragedy, that whenever I meet 1, they’re taken, damn!
).
In MY (& I stress this MY) experiences the other guys who typically call themselves ‘nice’ are really not all that nice. Either they have been needy approval seekers (in a man or woman this is an unpleasant trait) or they are not genuinely nice but do nice things in order to get inside your pants, & then get mad when you don’t let them.
That said I don’t deny that some women use these guys, which I do not condone & would never do.
And on a sidenote in this life it is confident, assertive people who succeed in any avenue of life. Even in relationships. The reason bad boys get what they want is indeed because they go for it, but 1 needn’t be a bad boy to get what they want, just more pro-active.
LMAO. George Clooney is not nice. He serially dates his daughters and women of lower star rank. Plus ALL men do things to get in women’s pants. George Clooney is no exception. Just sayin.
Haha! I wasn’t talking about George Clooney, don’t know why that’s the example! I just mean the description, men who are confident & internally motivated to be nice/kind because that’s who they are (& they do exist!), as opposed to those who need/seek approval or are just being manipulative (& get angry ’cause IT DOES NOT WORK!).
Ohhh.
Of course you like those kind of nice guys… all women do. And yes they will be surrounded by women, but not sleeping with them. Those kind of nice guys do all women’s heavy lifting (sometimes literally) and are low maintenance. But they definitely finish last in the way guys mean last. Gregarious celebrities also attract huge entourages, but they rarely have true friends.
Once again MOST men… even internally happy guys …do things to get in a woman’s pants. And most men, unless they are pushovers, get angry at women who just say they like a certain type of guy, but then don’t act like it sexually.
My point was you don’t have to be an asshole to get laid.
You can be a genuinely nice guy and get laid, but it’s not “being nice” that will get you there. Especially if being nice means acting “asexual”, which won’t get you laid for obvious reasons, ie the girl will really believe that sex is not what you want. Hence friendship
lol
Getting laid does require that you have a ‘sexual presence’, confidence & an assertiveness. The guys described in number 1 have that in addition to being nice & without being assholes.
That’s game
being ‘nice’ does not mean pushover/acting asexual, that WILL most likely guarantee you finish last, for obvious reasons!
I hope that makes a little more sense
Absolutely. Being nice will NOT get men laid! Awesome that you both understand and admit that.
But far too many other women pretend that it does (“I like nice guys”) and then get all bent out of shape that many guys are calling them on it. And as far as the definition of “nice’ you already said the opposite of “nice” are guys who don’t make waves or get angry…and that of course is a guy who is a pushover.
And actually, good game requires being an asshole.
Being sexual and not nice gets men laid the most. Being sexual and nice gets men laid a little, but also taken advantage of quite a lot. Being just nice will not get men laid at all despite what so many women say.
Most guys that identify themselves as “nice” as in “you just turn me down because I’m a nice guy, nice guys finish last” usually are not that nice. They feel entitled to a shot at you simply for the overarching fact that they are “nice”. They act like by being “nice”, they’ve paid their dues and are now owed something in return. It is manipulative, and I’ve had so many friends that are guys pull this stunt on me as in “look at all the times that I was there for you, I was the nice guy, now you owe me”. I think “nice guys” who have this attitude like they are cheated from what they deserve are assholes in their own right.
I see some guys like that, others I see hear the “women want nice guys” line, see the women date guys that aren’t very nice at all and wonder what is going on. Thing is we all want different things, and what people SAY they want doesn’t always apply to their life and their version of nice might be different to others.
The big problem nice guys usually get is those women who don’t mind using the guys for the attention and other things, string the guy along with a bit of hope and then take it away…bitterness n resentment soon follow.
Growing up hearing women want nice guys alll the time the nice guys probably try to act EXTRA nice thinking it will directly increase their chances and make them a better mate so to find out it doesn’t work that way can be quite crushing.
I’ve had some of the nice guy resentment before but that was mostly to do with a few young women that would use me for attention n comfort, but not reciprocate those things in our friendship. The biggest problem I had was I had become quite close to a few women who abused my trust, weren’t there for me as a friend as I was there for them. I was just being myself, I would listen to their problems n offer advice or just listen, got told heaps how I was such a nice guy, such a sweet guy, so caring, etc. Yet I noticed they only talked to me when they wanted something, and when they weren’t upset or needing comfort/attention they would disappear for a few weeks or months.
For a little while I had expected some benefit from being extra nice until I realized it was stupid to expect more, what did confuse me for a while was hearing that being nice was such a great trait yet there wasn’t any romantic interest to prove it, it made me realize that being a nice guy isn’t guaranteed to get you a woman. I do notice now that many women do like nice guys, but as far as I can tell every couple I know had the man chasing the woman, asking her out etc which is something I myself avoided due to shyness and know other guys do as well. I’ve heard from women that they can be confused at the intentions of the men if the men aren’t indicating their interest clearly.
These days I only expect 1 thing from women, and I expect the same from men, that is to be a decent friend/respectful and not try to use me and I do my best to avoid doing it to them. I see in some of my friends their anger n distrust of women (for the guy friends) and men (for the girls who are my friend). It seems a few bad ones can really spoil the dating game and the only reason I got rid of my own distrust and general negative views of women was meeting women who were decent, kind, respectful and who are great friends to me. I find it easier to know if a male is a good friend or not but with women it becomes harder to judge, but these days I will get rid of those who are bad to me and only keep the positive ones around.
I don’t think of myself as a nice guy, I can be a real asshole at times to those I dislike, I am just me but I do know that being nice without standing up for yourself WILL get you walked over very quickly by some and this can cause mega resentment. I also realize that not making your intentions known is bad, you won’t be lucky with every girl you like and you need some level of confidence to be successful in the dating game (as a male especially).
Guys, just be yourself, you don’t have to go above n beyond for her and act extra nice, remember also that everyone likes different things and there is no universal attraction. That bad boy she is dating could have acted like a totally charming and sweet guy at first, maybe she likes bad boys but that doesn’t mean ALL women like bad boys. Don’t expect to get laid for being nice, there’s no rule that being nice gets you laid and girls DO NOT take advantage of guys (and vice versa). Communicate what you want, take the chance, if you fail then try again. Don’t hate someone who rejects you and being rejected isn’t always personal, they might be married, might have a crush, might have a hard time in life at the moment, or maybe they just aren’t interested in you (which is fine because you aren’t interested in every single person are you?).
I hate to break it to you, but everything ever done by a man in the history of the world was to get into a woman’s pants. If women were as “easy” as men humans would have never left their caves.
What a dim view of men you have there, Jimbo. Talk about misandry.
If you adopted the view presented by Abraham Maslow instead, once your sexual needs were met you’d be able to pursue other motivations, such as bettering yourself, increasing your knowledge, and improving the world.
In any case, your hypothesis doesn’t account for the motivation of women. Why do these sexual gatekeepers do anything?
Who do you think cave woman wanted to hook up with? The guy who went and killed an animal to eat or the guy who kicked back in the cave doing nothing? You don’t think the first man to tame fire had his pick of the women in the group? Do you really think he figured this out just better himself? No! He did it to have access to women.
Why do the sexual gatekeepers do anything? Chuck says in his article, “access to resources”.
Do you think men, many of whom wake up in the morning and go to jobs they hate to work for a boss they despise are doing this for self-improvement? You talk about “bettering yourself, increasing your knowledge, and improving the world”. These are all things you can do without having your sexual needs met. You don’t need a woman to read a book, take a cooking class, or to invent something. You could also do all of these things with very little need for personal capital. Access to a woman however requires personal capital (knowledge, wealth, fashion, food, shelter, technology). Understand that and you understand the motivation for a man to better himself, increase his knowledge, or improve the world. Access to sex.
I figure back in the day, the women weren’t sittin around lolling about either. They were gathering, hunting small game, and so forth. But the dude in the cave lazing about might have been super fun to play around with while the other man was out hunting. My guess is it wasn’t really some kind of “marriage deal” back in the caves, but lots of different pairings and working together to survive. Maybe the chicks out hunting small game got it on with the dude hunters and the folks at the camp got it on and then they switched it up the next day.
Heather N would know.
I really wish everyone would just read Sex At Dawn already.
Your view of a transactional nature of sex is quite myopic. But I’ll put it to you simply: people only need to be paid to have sex with people they wouldn’t otherwise have sex with. I can guarantee that if Julie were into me she wouldn’t need me to buy her as much as a drink – she’d likely just need to spend time with me and determine if I were her type. And I suspect if I were a particularly good match for her in bed she’d be buying me dinner later.
(I hope you’ll pardon me using you as an example, Julie).
whoops, gotta remember to close my tags…
Not at all!
Nope
Pro athletes LOVE the sports they play yet still have agents to get them millions of dollars for playing something they have done for free all their lives.
You are wrong about prehistorical transactional sex. It’s quite efficient to have a partner you really desire and also get resources from them with the sex. Sex at Dawn is a joke. I know many modern professional women who sleep with a guy and who also makes him pay for dinner so imagine resource starved women from the beginning of time. They surely would be looking for sex and food. It is just smart survival.
I presume, then, that The Myth of Monogamy is also a joke, as is Bonobo Handshake and The Way We Never Were and any other book that disagrees with your worldview. I also presume all of the research they’ve cited in the extensive end notes is likewise a joke. Because you, unlike the authors and the researchers they rely upon, are the true expert that you can dismiss the work with a casual comment tossed off as though its utterance made it self-evident.
And exactly how do you know I am wrong about prehistoric transactional sex? What part of the word “prehistoric” gives you special insight that is unavailable to me? What scholarly research provides you with the ability to make a more accurate inference about our existence one thousand centuries hence? What makes your anecdotes about modern athletes and professional women the best approximation we have to prehistory?
Do you know what makes something valuable? Scarcity. Diamonds are expensive because a cartel has convinced us they are very rare, and so people hoard them, keeping them off the market and keeping prices artificially high. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being invested in making a machine to detect the difference between natural and artificial diamonds, all to keep prices high.
If food is not scarce, if feeding ourselves consisted of a couple hours gathering tubers, nuts, and berries, and trapping small animals, of what value is it? You appear to have a view of women as hapless and helpless creatures, ready to put out to the first guy who throws a bloody carcass at her feet. As if eating were such a rare treat that she of course will spread her legs, however reluctantly, at the chance to feast.
One of the interesting things about getting paid to do something is that it reduces our intrinsic motivation to do it. Alfie Kohn wrote a book called Punished By Rewards that summarizes three decades of research showing this effect. Think about that for a bit.
Don’t know if those other books are a joke or not… haven’t read them, but I suspect that lumping them into the same category as S.A.D. is shoehorning. Yeah, they all might be non-monogamy books, but non-monogamy occurs as shades of grey and the specific shade of grey put forth in S.A.D. is a bunch of hooey.
As for research, you give the S.A.D. authors too much credit. The authors of books oftentimes aren’t interested in science any more than prosecutors are in justice. Both simply gather facts to make a case. And this juror has more than a reasonable doubt about this book, which is an example of marketing excellence, not an example of anthropological brilliance.
As for why you lack insight into prehistory. I am confounded. There are a billionish hunrgy people on the planet and it’s 2012! And oh yeah. If I I dropped you off in a jungle you would be dead in 7 days. Why do you think women store more fat than men. Why do you think they store it where they do? Why do you think humans store it at all. What percentage of a women’s DCI are dedicated to pregnancy. Come on man think. Procuring food is tough. The reality is that prehistoric life is hard and no amount of you pedestalizing women as strong, independent divas is going to change that.
Even uber feminist Hillary Clinton realized “it takes a village”
Do you understand now?
Not to mention that women are smaller, slower, and not as strong as men. They needed to find a strong and “agentic” mate to provide resources. Also these women were risking pregnancy with every sexual encounter. Pregnancy is physically tough in 2012, imagine what pre-historic women had to endure. If the guy is kicking back in the cave as I described above that’s not going to do her much good when she’s pregnant or has a child to raise post-pregnancy.
It’s about providing resources. No prehistoric woman walked up to the smallest, weakest, and laziest man in the group and said “let’s go have no strings attached sex!” He had nothing to offer her.
I was just in California where among other things I visited with a friend of mine who actually spent a couple of years living in the jungle. Aside from the occasional bout of food illness, my friend appears not to have died in the seven days you’ve prescribed. Strangely enough, my friend encountered plenty of people living in the jungle who also weren’t dead, but that may be because part of my friend’s job was to ensure that death didn’t visit upon the naïve Westerners dropped there. My friend’s experience convinced me that we are, if nothing else, a highly adaptable species.
So yes, based on her experience I think my odds very good that I’d survive longer than seven days (particularly if I had her with me). I can’t say whether you would survive or not, but I know my own skills and fitness level and and fairly confident about my ability.
You used the word “survive”. I think you get it now.
I don’t get your point, I don’t accept your premises, and I think you’re wrong on the history. So we are in agreement.
The tired old saying “all the good ones are taken” is incredibly insulting, if you think about it. It is an insult to every man not currently in a relationship. After all, if he’s not “taken” that must mean there’s something wrong with him, right? What an anti-male crock that is. It is no less insulting than a man saying “bitches are always single.” And just as completely inaccurate.
I can’t talk about this. It brings up every conflict in my life. I’m a very sexual man in an asexual relationship, trying desperately to hold on to my principals. I flirt. I skate around the edges. I tease. I do not engage because that would require me to lie. I tell you that I’m married. You choose to sleep with me or not knowing that I’m not available for more than just this moment. I choose not to sleep with you because I won’t sleep with you if I don’t like you and liking you will lead me to want more. How many women can one man love at the same time? What’s wrong with you guys? Getting “laid” is the easy part. The hard part is all the convoluted crap that comes with it. Gee – I wonder if this is why prostitution is the oldest profession?
You should probably check out Dan Savage. He would agree with me that you have every right to seek out your physical needs elsewhere.
Ah Jimbo – It has nada to do with my rights and everything to do with my personal view of the world. Good sex has everything to do with feelings and feelings lead to involvement and being involved with multiple partners leads to complications. Savage would say explore polyamory. Sure, I say – as long as we decide that together……….no lad – it’s na easy when you want to be happy AND selfish at the same time. (and no they are not necessarily the same…….
“…taking what you want: these are all qualities that women find attractive – even when it involves the man’s expressions of sexual desire”
Does this not strike anyone else as sounding a little off?
Because I’ve seen this backfire something fierce before.
A couple of things I think are relevant, that I don’t see anyone mentioning above:
1) Whether or not a guy is assertive or agentic or dominant (three similar but distinguishable things…) in his interactions with other men, or with women he isn’t paired-up with, doesn’t necessarily relate much to how he is with a mate. I mean, how he is generally with a mate, not just how he is in bed. This can play out in a lot of different ways, as, for example, someone who is very considerate to everyone and you only find out when you sleep with him that sex turns him into an asshole — or someone who is very much a diamond in the rough in the rest of his life but treats his partner very gently. To perceive what’s really going on in somebody else’s relationship, you would have to know about these patterns, which is usually impossible.
2) If you’re female, and you’re looking for a guy who’s serious relationship material, one of the important things you have to know about him is how he interacts with other men. This has a bunch of aspects, and one of them is how he fits into the (to a female eye, or at least, to my female eye) baffling and irrational dominance games some men like to play with each other. I think one of the big sources of confusion between men and women is the fact that many men don’t understand how opaque these male-male interactions are to most women. As a woman, you end up being expected to act on information about your guy that you don’t have, and that is hard to get because he thinks you already know — somehow the expectation is that you were born with the Magic Female Gene that makes all relationships easy to understand. (This is probably the flip side of people believing in a Magic Male Gene that makes you able to repair machines you’ve never seen before and pull money out of your hat.)
From my point of view, at least, the most desirable guy is one who isn’t too interested in male-pecking-order stuff — for several reasons — but who can hold his own with other men in a pinch — also for several reasons. The “isn’t too interested” matters because 1) relationships can run into trouble when one partner is obsessed with something the other doesn’t understand, and 2) for some reason, guys who care a lot about this often seem to think they can impress other men by being disrespectful toward women, and 3) often, in a male crowd that has a strong pecking-order dynamic, the guys higher up on the ladder tend to hit on women associated with the guys lower down on the ladder — so unless you’re dating the alpha, you have to deal with that, which is a pain in the ass. So, all that being said, a girl wants to stay away from guys who get really invested in the pecking-order thing. BUT, it’s also the case that men who really can’t deal with the pecking-order stuff have a hard time, generally, in life. Which can mean that they come home from being yelled at by their dominant-asshole boss and take it out on their partner. And it can mean that they get depressed and spend their lives playing video games in a bathrobe and expecting their partner to support them — which is no more fun for a female partner than it is for a male.
So, yes, by far the safest choice for a woman is a guy who, when it comes to male-male conflict, wins without trying too hard. This is probably why 90% of the heroes of romance novels are guys who either inherited money & position or made a killing before the story started — not guys who are struggling when the heroine knows them. And of course, in real life, people who have won without trying are often hopelessly spoiled, so there’s a whole other set of issues that goes with that.
Not saying any of this is fair, just that this dynamic does exist, and you don’t need some complicated theory about women preferring jerks to explain it.
Grins – Gotta hand it to you man – you just spoke the truth – the dynamic does indeed exist and it is complicated and every situation is different to one degree or another and life is not fair and when all is said and done it’s up to the individuals concerned to make it work. So it all comes back to intent. If our intentions are in alignment, our results will most likely also be in alignment. This is one of the benefits of a long term relationship where a couple work through the inevitable issues instead of running away and pouting like spoiled children at the first sign of adversity. It does, however, take two to Tango and no one can make a relationship work all by their lonesome. Most of us don’t start out with all our dicks (ducks?) in a row. Hence the time honored truth that an unexamined life is not worth living………
Here is the deal. “Agentic men” whether they are douchebags or are nice, ask women out. Let me reframe: Agentic men pursue women. I re-iterate, these men, pursue, ask out, and engage women. The non-agentic men get mad at agentic men, but the problem is they sit on the sidelines. They do nothing. They wait for women to pursue them. And that is where the problem lies. I have countless books written for women giving women instructions to “never pursue a man” because you will emmascualte him and ultimately both the man and women will be frustrated with the relationship. (See Dr. Pat Allen.) The problem is, Agentic men are mostly taken. They don’t have long lag times in being single or out of a relationship. People want to wag their fingers at women for “encouraging assholes”, but Chuck is right on the money when he states that women just want a guy who takes action. And let’s be clear. We want a nice guy who takes action.
Nah. Your excuse has been debunked ad infinitum. Nice guys take action just as much as jerks. But nice guys get rejected. People wag their fingers at women for “encouraging assholes” because that’s so often what women do, not because all you poor lonely women only have assholes to pick from.
After only making it halfay down the commentss section. Maybe instead of women saying they are attracted to “nice guys” or “bad boys”. They should just use assertive or passive,nice is NOT a requirement. That would allow the guys to be more of themselves while still giving the ladies what they want.
I read this today from twitter (not my words!) and I thought it summed up some of the conversation we have had here:
“Some men convince themselves that the world is against them, when the truth is they just aren’t happy with themselves. They project their insecurities onto every woman that doesn’t reciprocate interest, and make it about women only wanting thugs and assholes. If you’re a “nice guy”, you don’t really have to profess it. Just be it and women will notice.”
Quotes are from TAFKAPP79 on twitter.
I thought this really speaks to what is being said here, and to my experience- all my guy friends that have pulled the “you don’t like me because I’m a good guy” card have all been really insecure, and outraged that I didn’t “reciprocate”. The reason I didn’t reciprocate for the most part? I don’t think I “owe” you sex or a relationship for you being nice to me, and it makes me uncomfortable that you think I do. A lot of these guys just feel like everything is against them and they have no control over the situation. I’ve discussed this with girlfriends many times before, and we all agreed that it is a pretty common experience to have a “nice guy” feel like he is “owed” something in return. Doesn’t sound all that “nice” to me…
Jenna, I’ll ask a big favour n behalf of those men. It may not work but a small hope is better than none. Try to in a calm, cool, collected way to point that out to the nice guys. If a “nice guy” does it to you, tell him what you think. I say do it in a nice way to avoid triggering defensiveness as much as possible since that will leave him not listening most likely. I don’t think many of them purposely do it, they need to be told not every woman wants the same thing and acting extra nice doesn’t make a person sexier.
It’s a confusing world out there for guys (and girls too) and the stuff we hear can be conflicting, one big problem I see is people try to make out there is a universal attraction, ie being nice, being rich, etc. One aspect of the nice guy syndrome is that many have been quite nice but it hasn’t eventuated into a relationship, if you hear x is what women like, when you act X you get no success but you act Y and you do get success then you’d be right in being confused. I hear a lot say when they act like an asshole they get success, but I don’t hear HOW they are being an asshole. Anyone know what exactly they do to be an “asshole”?
Yeah, it is a sensitive topic, but maybe next time I’m discussing this with my girlfriends we should all brain storm a better response that is informative, but not damaging. It is a good idea, and probably a little honest will help more in the long run even if it might have a sting at first.
That is so true about guys saying they “act like an asshole”. My current boyfriend told me he had to “act like an asshole” to get my attention at parties, when really all he did was talk louder and actively seek me out and make it obvious he was looking for me. How is that like an asshole? He thought it was aggressive, which is a total misconception- he was just being assertive. He’s a shy guy, so by being assertive he was actually having an even bigger impact. Kind of like saying “Hey, you know this is hard for me, but I’m putting forward this much effort because I think you are interesting and I want to get to know you”. It was effective, clearly- we’ve been dating happily for five years (that being said, I had tracked him down myself originally and initiated our contact, haha, so it works both ways!).
Yep, I hold back and can be shy, sometimes guys get so caught up in what nice is meant to be that they don’t take action. What we think is an asshole move could just be assertive, it can be quite confusing especially when it’s behaviour that actual assholes do. Eg the asshole the party is assertive which can be good, but he’s also got negative behaviour so guys might see this as ALL asshole behaviour instead of just some.
Teaching people the difference between aggressive and assertive would help, I know I could sure use the training as I don’t want to harm, annoy, or make people uncomfy which for the moment has left me never touching a woman first (yet quite a few touch me on the arm etc without hesitation) and not even asking out people I like (it’s extreme I know). I’d say many “nice guys” simply need more training in socializing appropriately, I think many have good intentions but hold themselves back or try to initiate/mimic what they see is successful which could truly be an asshole move.
I don’t think my boyfriend would fall into any of those categories. He’s sincere and kind and yet also very shy and reclusive. I’m a rather assertive woman myself and I prefer to pursue rather than to be pursued. I usually shy away from really assertive outgoing men, for some reason those qualities just aren’t that attractive. Thoughtful wallflowers on the other hand…they make my little heart go pitter-patter.
Did you ask him out first?
We met online. But yes, I made the first move to initiate correspondence.
That’s awesome! Need more women to take the lead
Nice one…
@collin:
Ive read all your comments and ive found them poignant and frank; i cannot disagree with a word that youve said.
Having said that though-and keeping with chucks theme of this article, that of being a man of agency, i must ask:
Now what?
I mean, youve made clear your issues, problems, etc. The thing now is: what are you going to do about it? Ive seen julie and steph suggest a number of things to you and you summarily shot them all down. So, it seems to me that you either have better ideas than theyve presented, or, that you dont feel that you need to do anything differently, that indeed its women who must/should change.
I dont know which, and would like very much to know what position you take.
Holla back
O.
They’ve suggested I take a 2 month vacation and to move to a smaller city. I’m not sure how those are viable options. Finding a different circle of people to hang out with is a great idea… how? I know many of the “whats” but how and what are two very different things. So a shy guy is just going to randomly go out there and start trying to shove himself into groups of people to make friends? What is irrelevant if there is no how.
Perhaps you should, as Sitidos suggested, curse God and die. Or, you know, try and change things. If your current behavior and attitudes aren’t working to help you achieve your goals the world isn’t going to bend to accommodate you.
But yes, a shy guy can just go out there and start making friends. I’ve seen kids do this when they go through adolescence. They try on new and different personalities to do so. For an example of this, listen to Episode 449 of This American Life for the story of The Mimis.
Collin…if you truly only knew how many women would like to talk to you. As the guy, you need to make the first move. (I don’t make the rules! Blame God or society, I don’t care, but that’s the way it is. Unless of course you want a woman to pursue you. If you want a woman to pursue you, then you have to send women the same signals that a woman would send a man. But then you need to decide, do you want to be the passive energy in the relationship or do you want to be the assertive energy in the relationship.) But back to what I was saying. Women want you to talk to them. Look for their signals. Also, if a woman is not “receptive” to your advances, don’t be crushed by this. This is the difference between Agentic men and non-agentic men. A man of agency is just gonna move on and laugh it off. He’s gonna keep talking and flirting with women. He is not going to think he is a failure. Just say hi. Just look a girl in the eyes. You know why I am telling you this? Because your future girlfriend is waiting for you to ask her out.
And YES, a shy guy IS going to shove himself up to people to make friends. And girlfriends. That’s how it is done my friend. That is exactly how it is done.
Collin is shy and nice. Even if he were to overcome his shyness, he still has his niceness to overcome. Agency is indeed required of men for the simple reason women don’t ask men out, but agency is not what makes a guy successful with women despite your protests to the contrary. The real deal is that agentic jerks do much better with women than agentic nice guys who are only slightly better off than non agentic nice guys.
I have no idea how many women would like to talk to me… no women ever talk to me! What signals? I don’t know what these “signals” look like. They don’t wave a flag in my face and say, “hey, you, come talk to me!”
Oh, but there are signals. Except when they’re not signals.
Some people do them intentionally. Things like making eye contact, then looking down for a second or two, and then re-establishing eye contact.
Or making eye contact, smiling, then turning away slightly while touching their hair.
Then there’s touch the arm!
Or a host of other body language that isn’t necessarily standard but might mean something or might not because ultimately it’s all a lot of mind reading.
That’s the problem with non-verbal communication. But if you’d like a primer Google is your friend. Here’s a head start: SIRC Guide to Flirting
Can I make a suggestion? Do you know a reasonably hip older woman, someone who is definitely not in the population you might date, but more like the person you’d like to be married to in forty years when you’re her age? If so, could you talk with her about this? Because I’m getting the feeling that somebody who knew you in person would have more insight about how women you meet are likely to perceive you. I mean, there’s a lot of variation in how shy guys present themselves. It’s really hard for anybody to assess his own demeanor. And it’s impossible to assess someone’s demeanor from blog comments. So this group can provide an ear, and encouragement maybe, but for advice on the level of “You’ve got spinach in your teeth”, you need a face-to-face meeting.
Hmm, this is actually a good idea. I’d love to know what others think of me based on first impression as it would be handy, eg if I don’t smile enough and look intimidating. In high-school I was considered strange, odd, and could never understand why…my only guess is that I use to try talk to people or hang around and lockup, brain would go blank and I’d eventually get frustrated n move on. I guess that could look scary.
But to Collin, I have social anxiety disorder and found it incredibly difficult to talk to people face to face, ESPECIALLY WOMEN. I spend most of my time alone however these days I am pushing my boundaries with the help of therapy and getting out there into the world, I am in a local club which has older women in it who over the years I have found easier to talk to. It has helped reduce the anxiety because you have a topic of convo already, in my case photography, so you get to learn communication in a relaxed and safe atmosphere. It helps for me with the older women as they are married and there is no sexual/romantic feelings in the way so I can learn how to communicate easier. It’s actually helped me communicate with women of all ages.
So I suggest finding a club, a hobby or sport that is mixed genders as it can help increase confidence. Shyness I believe can be overcome, first you have to work out why you are shy? If it’s a confidence/self-esteem issue then therapy can help with helping you overcome that. In the last year my confidence has increased dramatically, I was far far more anxious and avoided talking to people but now I am naturally becoming a chatterbox and I LOVE IT.
I still have work to do though, especially to ask someone out but with practice, patience and persistence (to overcoming the problem, not harassing someone) it will happen.
“A hip older woman”? “forty years”?
Yeah, asking menopausal women for tips on what single women in their 20s want is a great idea. Probably more important than demeanor (only because this part of it comes first), is your clothing. Find a woman with a good sense of fashion who will help you get a new wardrobe. Your demeanor will change once you feel good about looking good.
Not to mention women are even more superficial than men they will just never admit it. How you dress is important to them.