Studies Confirm That Bad Boys Get More Girls

seattlle foodie sends along a New Scientist article outlining two recent studies that confirm what many have long suspected: bad boys get the most girls. "The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the 'dark triad' persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs. The traits are: the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking, and callous behavior of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism. At their extreme, these traits would be highly detrimental for life in traditional human societies. People with these personalities risk being shunned by others and shut out of relationships, leaving them without a mate, hungry and vulnerable to predators."

Comments

That's nice

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is not an excuse. Women who repeatedly get used in these types of relationships and then go cry to their geek friends deserve no sympathy. They should be smart enough to figure it out.

Re:That's nice

[packeteer]

Then you shoudl be smart enough to not fall for a cute chick who is gorgeuos and seems cool but really just used you for your money right? Look it happens to the best of us because it is ingrained in us. Women who are abused are not the ones to blame. They are the ones who have the power to stop it but they are not really to blame.

Re:That's nice

[6Yankee]

Amen. More than once I've been there to pick up the pieces after some Neanderthal has done his work. Nothing burns like having someone you care about in your arms, in tears, and hearing her say, "I wish I could find someone like you..." Like me, only an ape. Yeah, I know. (Bitter? Me?)

Re:That's nice

[vertinox]

They should be smart enough to figure it out.

I'm not sure if this was something from a Buddhist monk, but I always took it to heart:

"The first step to having free will is to admit you have none"

The point is that if you ignore your instincts(or 300 years of evolutionary programming) you will never over come it. You first must become aware of your limitations and natural impulses so that you can deal with them.

If you become aware of such things then you are able to take a 3rd person view of yourself when such natural instincts arise and then are better able to deal with the situation with a clear head.

Re:That's nice

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll revise the grandparent post for your benefit: Geeks who repeatedly get used in these types of relationships and then go cry to their geek friends deserve no sympathy. ;) It's too harsh, but, seriously. Re-evaluate your relationships.

Re:That's nice

[vertinox]

Or, in other words, you should be smart enough to figure it out.

Not exactly. "Aware" is a better word that "smart". You could have a PHD in financial forecasting or evolutionary biology and still fail to see a person is using you due to emotional feelings.

Simply being aware of your biological limitations doesn't solve the issue either but its a start. It doesn't require any intelligence other willingness to pay attention to yourself and to question your own actions which many in western society see as a character flaw.

But in truth, once you start asking "Why am I doing this?" you see how stupid you can be sometimes.

Of course telling people that love is a chemical that can be synthesized makes you unpopular with the ladies, but I've gotten out of unhealthy relationships with that mentality.

Re:That's nice

[vux984]

Or maybe, the women that do end up with nice guys actually stay with them.

This would trivially explain why bad boys get more women. Nice guys get fewer, but keep them longer.

I was rarely single in the 10 years I was dating before marriage. But I can count the women without using up all my fingers. It didn't hurt that I actively avoided brainless sluts, with only one very breif exception.

Re:That's nice

[aliquis]

If she really do say that isn't that more or less an invite? Have you tried kissing her once she say it? If not the blame is on you my friend.

Re:That's nice

[Gewalt]

and hearing her say, "I wish I could find someone like you..."

Ya, see, thats the point where you're supposed to put your tongue in her mouth. Failing to do so results in you not getting laid, and her continuing her search elsewhere.

Re:That's nice

[cayenne8]

"Nothing burns like having someone you care about in your arms, in tears, and hearing her say, "I wish I could find someone like you..."

I think at this moment Ted Nugent said it best "When in doubt, whip it out...."

Re:That's nice

[mgblst]

It is simple. The reason that bad guys do better, is that bad guys don't waste their time with people who aren't interested in them, whereas people like you do. How are you supposed to get anyone else, if you are wasting all your time chasing someone who doesn't want you.

Re:That's nice

[vux984]

Not to be mean, but you wasted your best fuck years in your teens and twenties....

1) Virtually all studies agree conclude that the vast majority of heterosexual males go a lifetime with fewer than 15 partners. And many conclude numbers half that. Look it up. I'm -possibly- slightly below average in partner count, but I doubt it.

2) Its not like a low number of partners predicts a low frequency of sex. In fact, most studies conclude that sexually active couples in their teens and 20s generally have far more sex than 'sexually active singles'.

3) I think most people who've tried both agree that 'one night stand sex', especially while intoxicated, is actually generally pretty lousy.

Thanks for your concern, but I really didn't 'miss out' on all that much.

Re:That's nice

[tloh]

....or 300 years of evolutionary programming....

So... umm... how was replication implemented before that was coded?

*duck* *runs away*

Re:That's nice

[ppanon]

• Press the Reply button
• Click in the comment text entry field to give it the focus
• Press the RMB to get the pop-up menu
• Navigate to Languages->Add Dictionaries...
• Select a UK or Canadian English dictionary
• Get into trolling arguments about the spelling of colour, honour, etc. claiming you must be right because your spell-checker confirms it

Re:That's nice

[h4rm0ny]

And I've done empirical testing - parent is right and if not, it's hardly the worst thing in the world to have kissed someone :)

I think this is another story of dubious merit. There are two ways you can deal with the risk of approaching someone else. One is to not really care about the other person and the other is to have some courage. Lacking people with the latter around, a girl may settle for the former (because everyone needs someone). But of the two options, you're way better off bringing yourself to take the chance through courage, rather than through trying to be callous.

Re:That's nice

[QuoteMstr]

See, that's where I think you're wrong. Here's my reasoning: as geeks, we pay more attention to the specifications and documentation than normal.

But as the guide for writing unmaintainable code says, bad documentation is worse than no documentation

We geeks read about how we're supposed to act around women. All that material is a product of a feel-good, postmodernist feminism that utterly fails to reflect what women actually want. It's the sociological equivalent of a single female saying she wants the nice guy and screwing the jock.

Speaking of these stereotypical jocks: they don't read. They don't think. They just act on their biological impulses. And thousands of years of evolution have honed these biological impulses to match what females want.

So, in short, society is telling anyone who will listen feel-good, egalitarian, and utterly wrong information about how to act around women. The successful ones, for once, don't read the documentation.

Re:That's nice

[thegnu]

Women who are abused are not the ones to blame. They are the ones who have the power to stop it but they are not really to blame. Yeah, but when people tell me that all acts of sex with a man are violence, it makes me think about statistics like these. It's pretty much consistently women who have the final say in mating; men make the overture, women accept.

Therefore, this is being biologically ingrained in us by women. Which is not to say that it's not biologically ingrained in them, too.

The other thing I find offensive about calling sex with men violent is that presently 50% of the males born right now in this country get some of the most sensitive parts of their penis removed in a routine medical operation (furthermore, when the "sex with men is violence" meme arose, it was closer to 80% of male babies). This is mutilation, even when there are no complications, such as the skin ending up too tight, or the shaft getting damage, resulting in a dysfunctionally bent penis, or part of the glans being removed, or hemmorraging. Anyway, best-case scenario, you desensitize the penis, which makes guys like rougher sex with unnatural levels of friction.

It's hilarious when a feminist tells you that circumcision isn't genital mutilation. Maybe next time one does, you can slap her and get laid. :D
(disclaimer: don't slap the bitches)

Re:That's nice

[vux984]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19374216/
29% of men 9% of women have had 15 or more partners. (meaning 71% have had less)

http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2004Content.asp?intQid=401
average around the world 10.5

http://www.physorg.com/news10824.html
this ones neat because men claimed an average of 31. but 21% of those admitted to lying, to boost their numbers on the the same survey, and of the group that claimed more than 50 partners over 50% of them also admitted to lying.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/HSP/97trends/sd4-4.htm
69% of sexually active teen males reported http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6204119
"Almost one in three American men say they've had sex with at least 15 partners in their lives, triple the rate of similar behavior found in interviews with women, according to a government survey. "

Meaning 2 in 3 have had less.

"The average number of female sexual partners for men was 6.8, said Kathryn Porter, a medical officer for the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics in Hyattsville, Maryland, and one of the study's co-authors. Women reported an average of 3.7 male sexual partners, she said."

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1100
This one is neat too, because it breaks down by country, the USA is ~10.5 (it apparently is based on the same data as the durex link.) Turkey ranks highest at 14.5.

The numbers are apparently going up though, when you compare 1960s and 70s surveys to more recent surveys... or maybe people just lie more. After all the sixty's was the era of 'free love'.

Apparently it also varies heavily based on where you live. I think I read somewhere that New York city is apparently double or triple the national average.

Re:That's nice

[TekPolitik]

There is a large amount of time difference in the time a 'nice' guy will spend trying to seduce... and the amount of time a 'bad' guy will take to brush off the one who's not putting out.

Indeed. Many years ago I had a friend who was not what one would call handsome, but was one of these "bad boys" who slept with many, many, women. He even revealed one how he did it - if he asked 50 women in a night, he knew he'd get at least one. Clearly he was not in the least bit emotionally invested, and to cover that number of women he'd be spending maybe 5 minutes on each one before moving on.

The "nice" guy on the other hand is more likely to obsess on one woman the entire night (if he gets that far), and might cover 50 women in a year or two. He gets emotionally invested very quickly.

Of course the "nice guy" might not find it particularly appealing to succeed in the same manner the "bad boy" does since the "nice guy" may be more about quality rather than quantity. The number of diseased, drug-f***ed women and emotional wrecks he got involved with was scary.

This is not to say you need to adopt the "bad boy" approach if you want to succeed either. Merely adjusting expectations can do wonders - think of the person as just a person rather than as a prospective mate.

Re:That's nice

[SiriusRegalis]

A geek who is married. I will agree with this. I got lucky, My wife was having a hard time in her life when I met her, she was out of place and in a foreign country. I stepped in as the "nice" guy I had always been told by women and books that I should be. Months went by, and suddenly one night I had this terrible day, I was stressed out, and ready to kill someone. She came by for help with an english paper.

I without thinking, already on edge, suddenly kissed her. Suddenly, I stopped being the nice guy, and turned into the guy who unexpectedly kissed her and grabbed her rear end.

Over time, I found out that polite, tame, and watered down was not what she wanted, and she claims no girl wants that. It makes them feel that they are with a weak man that will not protect or provide in rough times.

I learned that they want a manly man. I don't mean the jock. They want a man who cares, loves, and is kind to them. But is strong, powerful, and "manly".

The jocks give them the part that makes them get attracted. But they lack the decency of a good character and temperament that provides a life long mate. We can do the second part, but many of us do not have the instinctual understanding of how to act dominate. And that dominance shows a safe place to raise children, have a home that is protected. Or we have become afraid that we will be seen as a brute.

But being strong does not mean being brutish. This applies in many situations when interacting with women. Have a heart, but let it be strong and conquer. This applies to many situations, in conversation, relationship, and the bedroom.

They come to you to cry because you are a man, but a if you never act like it, the signal of sexual attraction will never come through the static.

You must combine that jock "take what I want" and "I don't need you" composure and actions, and then after you have them on the hook, let them see that you will be a caring, loving protector.

Re:That's nice

[neomunk]

*smile* This thread has progressed in furthering the explanation (of how the time difference in rejecting a prospective date as unobtainable) very quickly. In fact, this whole post is filled with a large amount of courteous replies and honest problem solving.

That's funny to me, we've found the topic where geeks and nerds everywhere, regardless of political persuasion, regardless of operating system choice, irrespective of text-editor preference, come together to truly put our heads together, for the 'common good' of course. *chuckle*
 

Re:That's nice

[thegnu]

I've never heard of women claiming sex with men would have anything to do with violence

I think it comes from 2nd wave feminist era propaganda. But I'm not sure.

circumcision is NOT a genital mutilation.

Your example is excellent. I never meant there weren't extenuating circumstances necessitating the procedure. However, doctors botch it at a fairly high rate--the quoted 1 in 10,000 only counts problems that arise in the week or two following the procedure. They don't take into account mutilated glans, excess skin removal, or anything that would arise at puberty.

Equaling

Who said that calling male circumcision genital mutilation (which it is, by definition) means that it is equal to female genital mutilation?

removal of a completely unnecessary piece of skin

yeah, well the main symptom of the removal of an eyeball is decreased sensitivity. Same with the foreskin. go figure.

which - by coincidence - is also found shit ugly by most women I know

Coincidence? You mean that these women who live in a culture where roughly a high percentage of the male population has a specific genital mutilation find that specific genital mutilation to be attractive?

They found in a survey of the southern USA that 80% of women preferred circumcised men. They also found that 75% of those women had never seen an uncircumcised penis.

And for what it's worth, I think that you shouldn't mutilate your child to increase his sexual attractiveness. And women who mutilate their little babies because they think an unmutilated body is ugly are bad people.

regardless of the reason this removal was done

I don't. I just wasn't clear enough.

to the *real* genital mutilations performed on young girls in Africa, practically crippling them for the rest of their lives, is actually an unbelievably ignorant thing to do!

You misuse the word real. You might mean 'more egregious.' However, the women in that culture were quite happy with the procedure. Also, some of the cultures just trim the labia minora, which is quite similar to male circumcision.

Crippling only occurs in some cases. Same as with the males.

It seems like you think that if I stand up for a man who is beaten by his wife, I'm detracting from the efforts of those who stand up for female victims of *real* spousal abuse. Who's ignorant now?

Especially nowadays, that the pretty direct connection between the foreskin and the cervical cancer has been pretty much (statistically) proven.

I think that the fact that the foreskin makes the penis a more hospitable environment for HPV, which HAS been directly linked (statistically) to cervical cancer might be what you're talking about.

Also, they've found that removing the labia minora decreases the likelihood that a woman will contract HIV, which has given anthropologists pause in reforming cultures where HIV is rampant. However, it seems like you could inform people of the increased risk, rather than strapping babies down and cutting a part of their body off for no reason whatsoever.

Not to mention that there isn't a single medical association in a modern developed nation that recommends circumcision. Look it up.

I guess you also don't "mutilate" your fingers by the barbaric act of nail clipping, do you?

What the fuck are you talking about? It's not a living part of your body. I can't believe I just got suckered into explaining that to a grown man.

Oh, one more thing. Go find a good physician. The rabi should keep his fingers away, that's for sure.

Physicians are in general as incompetent as the next guy. The procedure is treated as a trivial one, and not with the care it should be.

This "operation" is such a routine around here in Europe, that I've NEVER heard of the complications you mention in your post.

The ci

Re:That's nice

[Metasquares]

You bring up a good point, but I still think vi is better :)

Re:That's nice

[uniquegeek]

As a woman, and having had experience this, I would like to add other possibilities:

a) she thinks he's too much of a pussy
b) she's tired of getting mixed signals (often goes along with item a )

Decent women don't want to be "sorta liked, kinda". Shit or get off the pot. Don't play games. We get way too much attention to entertain any one person's twaddle for an extended period of time.

Someone earlier suggested heartlessbitches.com I'm going to suggest it again.

Re:That's nice

[NMerriam]

Who equates all sex with violence?

It was Andrea Dworkin in the 80s who really pushed the idea in academia that any penetrative sex was inherently violent (though I don't recall if she ever directly addressed the question of male-male penetration). there were a number of second-wave feminists who sort of rallied around that concept, elaborating that because women were disadvantaged economically and socially that it was difficult if not impossible for a woman to truly give consent to sex.

This ultimately led to the false idea that Dworkin and McKinnon or others had claimed all sex was rape, which they hadn't, although they certainly seemed to think a large majority of heterosexual sex was nonconsensual and violent, so depending on your point of view it may simply be splitting hairs either way.

This all set up the stage for the third-wave "sex positive" feminists, who were largely in reaction to the earlier group, and it's a pretty deep philosophical schism that continues to be debated in almost any large group of women today. That's how you can have some feminists arguing that all pornography is inherently advocating violence against women, while at the same time the Suicide Girls consider themselves to be striking a blow for feminism.

Re:That's nice

[corbettw]

"I don't want to ruin our friendship" The best response to this line is: "I don't have time for these games, call me when you grow up." Then get up and leave.

The hard part? Not calling her again, ever, for any reason. She might call, she might not, but either way your sense of self-respect will shoot through the roof.

Re:That's nice

[corbettw]

I think I read somewhere that New York city is apparently double or triple the national average. So you're saying there are lots of sluts in NYC? Someone should make a TV show centered on that.

Re:That's nice

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Please mod parent up. Performing unnecessary cosmetic surgery on tiny infants is barbaric by any rational standard.

A man can always choose to get a circumcision as an adult. The fact that, given a choice, nearly all men choose not to do so can be taken as evidence that, once informed consent is available, the procedure is undesirable.

Yes, I realize that women find a circumcised penis more attractive. Take a step back and try to be objective; that's a horribly weak rationalization for surgery.

The bitches like it

[Harmonious Botch]

...that's why it works

What about...

[orionop]

boys with bad karma?
Trolling /. will get me all the chicks

Re:What about...

[Yvanhoe]

You are currently modded +3, try harder, nerd.

Re:What about...

[exley]

Sure. Just as soon as Slashdot gets some chicks.

but..

[__aardcx5948]

But I'm not nice! I hacked into my school servers many times and got suspended because of that! I use public wlans all the time, that is not nice! Why don't I get the girls :(

Re:but..

[alex4u2nv]

Its not really the "bad boy" like the article claims.

Girls are attracted to that guy who steps on everybody's toes for his own personal gains. A go getter, powerful person who aims high. These are people with leadership qualities, and in the "badboy" circle, they're "ring leaders."

Girls run after these guys because with such a mate, her offsprings would have a better chance of survival.

Re:but..

[Lane.exe]

Yeah, that's totally what women sit around discussing. "Oh, I like Tim! He's an ideal genetic match, and if I mate with him, our children will have all the advantages they need to edge out those mutants from down the block!"

Re:but..

[smittyoneeach]

These are people with leadership qualities Indeed. One seemingly stupid definition of a leader I once heard is: "Someone with followers".
Look at all of the nitwits in the culture, of all genders and races, who have attention lavished upon them because of bad behavior.
The word 'leader' is used so often in a positive context that no one thinks on nitwits as leaders, albeit of a negative sort.
In a capitalistic society, where money is the only meaningful metric, there is no incentive for these leaders to improve behavior.
Kevin Federline and Eminem (because accusations of racism are a total bore when trying to discuss responsibility) are going to continue to behave as nitwits as long as they're getting paid to do so.
So let's give all these useless fellows a healthy dose of "ignore" and instead celebrate responsibility in manhhod.
[10 seconds later, the destructive trends reassert themselves...]

Re:but..

[synaptic]

Most women do not consciously realize they select a mate on these criteria, but they do. So do men. There is a lot more compulsive, animal behavior in humans than we care to admit.

Women do sit around and discuss it, just not necessarily in terms of genetics. But when women think or say "he's so strong", "he has a big dick", "i can control him so he'll stick around and help with the baby", etc.. Think about what these ultimately mean to a female and why she may be attracted to them.

Whether you are aware of it or not, these cues tell you that your children with that mate "will have all the advantages they need to edge out those mutants from down the block"!

Re:but..

[Anpheus]

Doesn't matter. If it gets more women, more children are likely to result. Any behavior that results in more children is likely to be selected for because we have such a low mortality rate and competition for survival is low. Competition for resources is not, but it's pretty hard in today's society to well and truly not be able to survive. There are lots of people who "go hungry" but much rarer to have people starve.

This is an unfortunate situation for humanity. On one side, we have to treat everyone as humans, we are all in the same boat together. On the other, we have a variety of incredibly negative selective pressures that could drown our species. We can't advocate social darwinism, we know what that leads to, so I think it's time for science to go up to bat for our future. Not eugenics or darwinism, rather, our goal should be to improve -everyone-. If so-called stupid people reproduce more, and we don't do anything to make everyone smarter, through widely available gene therapy or better schooling or whatnot, then we will eventually have far, far too many of those stupid people.

I don't mean to make any accusations here or insult anyone, but there are a number of traits that are widely agreed upon to be negative that seem to be correlated with reproductive rates. Humanity has been so dominant for so long that there are no selection pressures for the opposite traits, and we're going to be left with the consequences unless some radically successful genetic modifications take place. We cannot, should not ever punish anyone or infringe on the rights of anyone who we think is dumb, or is mean, or is a narcissist merely because of those reasons. I cannot stress enough that isn't a position I advocate. But we can encourage widespread adoption of genetic advancements. It needs to be fair, it needs to be free, and it needs to be global. We managed to eradicate small pox with something remarkably close to gene therapy, it's time to do it again.

The longer we wait the harder it will be to accomplish.

Re:but..

[kaizokuace]

"i can control him so he'll stick around and help with the baby" hmmm. The back of my hand can answer that one.
Also more generally instead of going into genetics and stuff women like guys who are confident and can take charge of situations. It's an attractive quality. This quality isn't found very often in "nice guys". Most nice guys are too afraid to cross any lines with others. From my experience girls really want nice guys but confidence takes priority and confidence is found easily in jerkfaces.

Re:but..

[Snocone]

Naaah, you're wrong.

Well, you're kinda close. What you mean is girls like guys who are nice to them. Telling off everybody else as the mood takes you is just fine. If there's any woman who isn't attracted to you for her being the only one you bother being polite to, I haven't met her yet.

Of course, if you *really* want to attract them, the correct approach is to treat most everybody with barely restrained contempt, her with casual indifference, and another prettier girl with impeccably debonair politeness. Once you get those competitive instincts going, whatever qualities you may or may not possess become all but utterly irrelevant. Funny how that works...

Re:but..

[cp.tar]

Girls are attracted to that guy who steps on everybody's toes for his own personal gains. A go getter, powerful person who aims high. These are people with leadership qualities, and in the "badboy" circle, they're "ring leaders."

I know a guy like that... he's in college with me; very intelligent, rather charismatic, extremely eloquent and well-educated -- and at the same time very arrogant, narcissistic and even a bit Macchiavellian. Oh, and either very insecure, or very threatened by me. Or both.

Unlike him, I'm rather anti-social and quite geeky and nerdy. When we met, I was in a stable relationship, which has ended in the meantime. He had some short flings, of which I've heard from his ex girlfriends.
Now, when my relationship ended some year and a half ago, we were near the point of mutual disdain; I don't know what exactly about me bothered him, but I find it convenient to simply reciprocate other people's attitudes. Anyway, at that point he was trying to establish his macho identity, juggling around four girlfriends at any given time, though never really getting to sex. That is why some of the single girls he was toying with dumped him. But mostly, he kept trying to steal other guys' partners; I know of at least three relationships he tried to destroy.
Then I got involved with my current girlfriend, who is in college with us, and who is almost as anti-social as I am, and a far better judge of character (so what you're reading is in great part her analysis, as presented to me). And he tried for a coup de grace: stealing his arch-nemesis' girlfriend. I had been pretty broken up about my first break-up, so the second one should have destroyed me, I guess.

Needless to say, my girlfriend would never suffer the likes of me if she weren't madly in love. So his advances were unsuccessful; even more so because I do not act jealous, especially when there is a possibility that I am simply being provoked. She saw through his plan, too (his previous actions with other couples were a dead giveaway), and outright rejected him.

He ended up with a freshman girl, and now appears to be monogamous.

Now, what was this lengthy and probably fairly boring story about: even the so-called bad guys, with everything working for them, don't end up with all the girls.
Most of the girls my colleague had been juggling were quite entranced with him; one of them told me she'd been considering breaking up with her boyfriend for him. But apparently, the bad boy failed to steal a single good guy's girlfriend.
BTW, I don't know whether I qualify as a good guy; I don't care much how people perceive me, but I do know that I tend to come off as arrogant and cynical until you get to know me better.

Point is, bad boys spend quite a bit of energy on getting girls. I watched some of my colleague's efforts, I heard rather more about them, and I know I would never invest so much energy in such a venture. The reason they get more girls, when they do get them, is also correlated with the amount of energy they invest.
I invest my energy in one girl at a time. That means that if I do not succeed, I fail 100%. My colleague, juggling four girls at any given time, fails only 25% whenever he is rejected. And even if each of us courts the same number of girls, he will have gone through his girls much faster than I. This alone gives him "more girls".

Re:but..

[structural_biologist]

My problem with the article is that it doesn't directly examine females' attraction. The study merely looks at how many sexual partners "bad boys" v. "good boys" have. Not surprisingly, the "bad boys," who desire more relationships of shorter duration, have more relationships than the "good boys," who do not desire such promiscuity. So yes, people who seek more sexual relationships have more sexual relationships. That's the duh factor of the article. It's up to future studies to determine whether these bad boys are actually more attractive or desirable to girls.

Re:but..

[lena_10326]

Some girls like nice guys, you know. Not weak guys. Nice guys.

Bingo. Not weak guys.

By the way, weak can mean a number of things.

• physically puny, or smaller than her
• shy
• no confidence
• begging
• missing the most glaring of signals and cues
• trying too hard
• being desperate
• being transparent
• never making the move
• bad timing
• awkwardness

Re:but..

[Das Modell]

Who the fuck wants to be with a 'sweet girl'.

I would imagine a 'sensitive guy' would, but not all of us are that way...some of us want to be as in touch with our physical nature as we are our emotional ones. Generally girls that are considered sweet don't pay much attention to the physical side of things. They believe it is bad or wrong...they don't want to get fucked in the elevator and they think holding hands is 'orgasmic'.

I've gone out with a few of these over the years. Utterly boring.

Yes, because fucking in the elevator is exactly what mentally stable people do all the time.

Sweet Girls are the ideal for guys on this site because they are so afraid of a woman with any depth to their personality that they need someone that isn't going to harm them in any way. Unfortunately, most people have emotional depth that goes beyond the pure 'nice guy' approach...

So you're a self-destructive masochist? I don't see why any normal person would deliberately seek out a relationship that will harm him. Are you perhaps into "strong women" who manifest their alleged "strength" by being bi-polar or sociopathic?

I can understand why women don't go for nice guys...just the same as most of us out there that actually talk to real living people don't want one dimensional women. Get away from your computers. Get a life. Meet people. Make emotional bonds.

And here comes the obligatory "get a life just like mine" speech, because obviously you're the one who defines what constitutes a life, and obviously anyone who wants a nice girl is some nerd who does nothing but play WoW.

Beyond this, take risks. A good friend always reminded me what is the worst that is going to happen if you approach a woman and are turned down? Well, you've been turned down. Thats it. You might have a bruised ego, but thats it...and even then, you quickly learn not to worry about it. We *ALL* have criteria...some more than others. Women have more criteria than men on average. Take the risk anyways and realize dating isn't an all or nothing approach. Can't get one...move on to the next.

Please punch your friend in the face, because that's stupid advice. It's not going to help someone who effectively has a phobia towards approaching women. Everyone rationally knows that approaching a women and getting turned down doesn't really matter, but phobias are by definition irrational. Your friend's advice is about as useful as telling a depressed person to cheer up.

Arghhhh!

[gardyloo]

I know that's the only reason I would ever pirate software---chicks dig a nice new copy of Leisure Suit Larry.

On with the posts

[Gatekeeper444]

I foresee a balanced and fair thread with little to no flaming from this article.

translation

[jaemmer]

let me translate this... so their self-confident, exciting, and maybe appear to be rich

Re:translation

[gardyloo]

Which language did you translate it into?

Women are somewhat masochistic...

[cayenne8]

Is this new really to anyone?

Women always say they want a man that is nice, helpful, respectful and will treat them right. But, you see it time after time...they go for the guys that are assholes, abusive (sometimes even physically).

I personally like to be a 'nice guy'. But, in my early years...I would often find myself ending up as the "friend" of the girl, and ended up listening to them go on and on about how much of a jerk this guy or that guy was, yet they still went with and slept with these guys. And, once you are in the friend zone before sleeping with them, you generally never get out of that zone.

I tried after all that, to emulate somewhat the actions and attitudes I saw the successful 'assholes' did towards women, and guess what? Yep...I started getting more 'lucky'.

If you are a bit aloof, and difficult...they for the most part won't leave you alone.

Women generally don't seem to really want what they say they want in a man.

Oh..they may eventually grab the steady, meeker nice guy, and have kids with them because they are stable, but then they will often go out and cheat....with the bad boy they meet and find they are sexually attracted and excited by.

Re:Women are somewhat masochistic...

[REJOSU]

Precisely, I first figured this out to some extent in High School where my strategy at time time evolved to make fun of the girl I liked at the time the most to no end.

It turns out, women are so self-conscious in High School that, even seeming that you are at some point where you are able to display that you better than them, they immediately want to latch on.

I have since grown from this pattern, which works, for a select purpose.

Some women will never grow up, and if you want to have one like that, what worked in High School, will probably work now.

For the most part, however, women do mature to a point where a good provider is the best choice for her.

Re:Women are somewhat masochistic...

[Hannah E. Davis]

I would like to point out that a woman's idea of how she wants to be treated might be different from yours.

Too many self-described "nice guys" seem to believe that a woman should be put on a pedestal and treated like a delicate flower. The man in her life should hold doors for her, give her gifts, and obey her every whim. He should listen to her, support her no matter what, and never let slip the slightest criticism or contrary opinion.

The problem is... a lot of us don't actually want to be treated like that -- to be quite frank, it's annoying as hell. Yes, we want a man who's nice, helpful, respectful, etc., but we'd rather have someone who pays attention to what we really want than some guy who thinks that acting like a puppy dog will get him laid.

I like guys who aren't always there for me because it means they have lives of their own. I like guys who are not afraid to express their opinions -- criticism can be useful, and I love a good argument. And I like guys who don't pretend that I'm a flawless godly being, but instead acknowledge that I'm a regular human with as many faults as anyone else.

Does this mean I like assholes? Perhaps, if you define an asshole as someone who treats me the way I want to be treated rather than the way guys like you think I should be treated, but I certainly have no desire to date a "nice guy."

Re:Women are somewhat masochistic...

[DriedClexler]

Sorry, directly asking for sex doesn't work, unless you're well into the relationship. Try giving advice that won't turn guys into the pariah who "omg did WHAT?"

Btw, the theory I have formed is that women give romantic advice in order to cull the dating field of the guys so genetically unfit that they would do what a woman tells them.

Crazy theory, but I won't reject it until I find a theory that better fits the data. I'm a stickler like that.

Re:Women are somewhat masochistic...

[Esteanil]

For the most part, however, women do mature to a point where a good provider is the best choice for her.

For feeding the kids, yeah. For making them she'll still turn to the 'bad boy' alpha male. In her fertile period, her taste in men changes at the most basic levels - big muscles, hairy chests and the like.

But look at the genetic statistics tests have shown sometime (google it, I'm too lazy to find it at the moment) sometime. There are amazing numbers of children whose fathers are not whom they think.

Although, in many ways this does not really matter. But if widespread testing of fatherhood becomes the norm, our society will pretty much collapse.

Re:Women are somewhat masochistic...

[cayenne8]

"The first was that I filled the quota of 'male friends who are not trying to get into my pants'. This is key. This means that you now have a stable, non-insane (read non-female) influence in your life. These are the people I go to when I need actual advice, not just a sounding board to bitch at. If they were trying to get me into bed, I couldn't trust their opinion."

But by and large...I'd say don't kid yourself. Given the chance any of these guys would bed you in a heartbeat if you gave them any chance whatsoever. That is just a fact.

Re:Women are somewhat masochistic...

[mikael_j]

I think one problem is that women are a lot worse at sending hints to men than they think they are, and another is that a lot of women, for all the talk of empowerment and taking charge actually enjoy sitting back and having guys do all the work since it gives them an advantage in that they're the ones who are making the decisions, it also makes rejection easier to handle...

If you go up to someone and talk to that person and get rejected then the defeat is obvious, but if you just sit back, blink a little, smile and maybe twirl your hair between your fingers then you can always tell yourself that "Maybe he just didn't notice...".

And then there's this weird perception some women have that just because a man isn't screaming like Tarzan and starting fights with people for stepping on his shadow then this must translate into him being bad in bed, sexual prowess doesn't decrease just because a man has a brain and manners enough not to act like a loud idiot.

Final point, a lot of the guys women see as "leaders" and "alpha males" aren't. A hint to the female slashdot readers, next time some guy looks like a "leader" to you by "taking control" and all that bullshit, don't stare at him and drool, observe his friends, do they actually follow his lead? or do they shake their heads and look like they're considering ditching him and going somewhere else?

Studies confirm...

[Excelcia]

Studies confirm that studies confirming something everyone already knows tend to be highlighted on Slashdot more than other studies.

Great.

[DurendalMac]

Well, now that science has figured it out, maybe we can find some kind of cure for stupid chicks that go after guys who are going to treat them like shit.

Classic prisoners dilemma

[LordZardoz]

If you have a large enough population of players where nearly everyone plays co-operate, the 2 or 3 assholes who play to betray do quite well. They only pay the price if they play the same opponent a few times. Without paying the price, they will do quite well.

END COMMUNICATION

Next month's headline:

[Schwartzboy]

"Water is Wet", proclaims billion dollar study. We've also inadvertently discovered a relationship between financial status and attractiveness to women, as well as confirming that there just might be something to that theory of gravity thing.

Re:This is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

sex Good one! Give your self a hand.

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[the_humeister]

What may seem "obvious" does not necessarily make it so upon further testing. These studies are performed to confirm or deny such notions. If the study had found the opposite, you would not be having such a reaction. People used to think it was "obvious" that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. Turns out that they were wrong.

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[green1]

Although this is common knowledge to most males, women constantly state that this is in fact false, and not only do they say it, they seem to truly believe it. Of course this "belief" seems to have no basis in reality as they talk to their "nice" guy friends about how they wish they could just find a "nice" guy, all the while ignoring him to chase the guys they constantly complain about...

yes... I've had that speech from women far too often "you're so nice, why can't the guys I date be more like you?" (ummm... maybe you would consider dating the person you want your guys to be like???)

Quantity ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say go for the Quality instead - all you need is just one, for the long term.

Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

The nicest bunch of guys anywhere on the net.

Re:This is why...

[gardyloo]

At least some lotion, too.

OK fine

[Ranger]

But how does this explain hot chicks with ugly dudes?

Re:OK fine

[pembo13]

Money (not all the times, but most)

Re:study doesn't comment...

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

That's too bad--it sounds like all the data about sex life is self-reported, so if they did comment on whether the sex was consensual, I'm sure it would totally be a valid conclusion. After all, bad boys would never be inclined to lie about their sexual conquests and prowess on a study questionnaire.

dating books

[Yold]

There are some how-to books for dating that advocate being a complete asshole. I download (pirate) books more than anything, and occasionally I'll see a dating guide that I'll skim over. Anyone with a social life has probably noted that there is a serious art in treating women like crap, and it will get you laid quickly.

    To speculate why this trait would be advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint, many people who treat women like crap have a "me-first" attitude, and are skilled manipulators of their social surroundings. To use an anecdote, I have a friend who is very good at picking up smokin'-hot young women in college bars (hes in college too). Despite having a relatively-low GPA, being a serious pot-head, and alcoholic, he has managed to finagle scholarship after scholarship out of his department. People like him; but I have never met anyone that the adage "familiarity breeds contempt" applies to more. I unfortunately know him well enough to understand that he is a borderline psychopath in regards to his empathy for other human beings.

Back to why this is an evolutionary advantage, his "me-first" attitude will become an "us-first" attitude when he gets married, he will have no problem fucking-over his friends, co-workers, bosses, and neighbors for personal gain, because people will tolerate it to a certain extent. This is because he is largely like-able, although he avoids people enough so that they don't grow tired of his constantly selfish attitude.

To sum my point, so-called "bad boys" that women like are skilled social manipulators that pull no punches. They probably are impressed by that, although this person has few desirable traits, people seem to like him, and also he gets what he wants by asserting social dominance through being well-liked.

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Straight guys get that talk from women too? Weird.

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[Original Replica]

as they talk to their "nice" guy friends about how they wish they could just find a "nice" guy, all the while ignoring him to chase the guys they constantly complain about...

Speaking as someone who was a "nice guy" all through highschool, it's the fault of the nice guy as well. Why buy the cow if the milk is free? If a "nice guy" is going to be a "good friend" and supply emotional support/fulfillment then the cute girl doesn't have to have that need met by her conceited prick boyfriend. Girls who date pricks will always want to have a nice guy friend, because girls need emotional fulfillment in the same way that guys need sexual fulfillment. So all you nice guys out there stop giving it away for free, get your needs met as well or get out of that relationship. When they say "you're so nice, why can't the guys I date be more like you?" point out that emotionally they are dating you, they just happen to be fucking someone else.

Well, I RTFA

[BlueParrot]

Bullshit conclusion. I have not had many partners during the last couple of years, but it wasn't because nobody was attracted to me, rather it was because I was in a relationship that lasted more than 3 years. The findings in the study could just as well be explained by suggesting women don't stay in a relationship with an asshole, or that the assholes don't bother with long term relationships, resulting in "bad guys" having multiple short relationships while the "nice" guys have fewer longer ones. You really can't conclude much about women's preferences from this.

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[cayenne8]

"So all you nice guys out there stop giving it away for free, get your needs met as well or get out of that relationship. When they say "you're so nice, why can't the guys I date be more like you?" point out that emotionally they are dating you, they just happen to be fucking someone else."

I could not put it better. Please...someone with mod point hit the parent up here.

The sad thing is....SO many guys don't learn this till much later in life. You blow it in your teen years when you can do your most and best serious fucking....

I wish to hell I'd learned this lesson early in life when I was 16+....I did pretty good, but, nowhere NEARLY as well as some of my friends, and I just never knew why back then. Thankfully I figured it out in my 20's.....

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[SanityInAnarchy]

yes... I've had that speech from women far too often "you're so nice, why can't the guys I date be more like you?" Here's my favorite illustration of this:

DragonflyBlade21: A woman has a close male friend. This means that he is probably interested in her, which is why he hangs around so much. She sees him strictly as a friend. This always starts out with, you're a great guy, but I don't like you in that way. This is roughly the equivalent for the guy of going to a job interview and the company saying, You have a great resume, you have all the qualifications we are looking for, but we're not going to hire you. We will, however, use your resume as the basis for comparison for all other applicants. But, we're going to hire somebody who is far less qualified and is probably an alcoholic. And if he doesn't work out, we'll hire somebody else, but still not you. In fact, we will never hire you. But we will call you from time to time to complain about the person that we hired. So, to all the nice guys out there -- read this, and remember it. At a certain point, you have to call them on it -- say "I'm sorry you got hurt, but it's your own fucking fault." Or, when you get the "nice guy" speech, say "I'm right here."

Not only will this make you less of an emotional bitch for her, but it will also show at least some of the qualities that she seems to like -- assertiveness, bluntness...

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[pokerdad]

I've had that speech from women far too often "you're so nice, why can't the guys I date be more like you?

I suspect many of the guys here have heard that, and I am no exception. I used to joke that I was the most attractive guy in the world to women who weren't looking for a relationship because of how frequently married women had wonderful things to say about me. (the most painful was when they implied I must be fighting off the women because I was so wonderful; that certainly never matched my experience)

Since I have gotten married I these comments haven't stopped, though they are now made to my wife instead of me. My wife is constantly being bombarded with "You're so lucky!", "How on earth did you find him?", "Where was he hiding?" and the like. Like others here, not only was I not hiding, but couldn't get a date for the life of me (I can count the women I dated on my thumbs, and interestingly they both asked me out, meaning that exactly 0% of the women I ever asked out said yes).

I don't know why it should be so shocking that if the criteria you use to choose your dates doesn't have anything to do with what you are looking for that the chances of getting what you are looking for are slim. However, it seems that for most people (women and men) the idea of screening candidates by qualities that actually match the things you want is alien.

Re:study doesn't comment...

[Neoprofin]

After all, men in general don't frequently lie about their sexual conquests, incomes, penis size, or the size of the fish they just caught.

"brainless sluts"

[da5idnetlimit.com]

You wouldn't still have her number, would you ?
8)

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[FlagMan666]

Why buy the cow if the milk is free?

To butcher and use for it's meat later on?

The problem, in a nutshell

[Weaselmancer]

Bad people are more focused than we are.

We started off talking about women, and inside of four posts we're discussing the merits of different browser types.

Re:The problem, in a nutshell

[bky1701]

"News for nerds. Stuff that matters."

Since when do women matter? Now, browsers on the other hand...

Re:The problem, in a nutshell

[toddestan]

I laughed. Then I looked four posts down to see this: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=591135&cid=23887619. Then I cried.

Re:The problem, in a nutshell

[Dragonslicer]

I followed your link, and I laughed. Then I saw that it got modded Interesting, and I cried.

Re:The problem, in a nutshell

[UnixUnix]

"The best lack all conviction/ while the worst are full of passionate intensity" [William Butler YEATS]

Re:The problem, in a nutshell

[Sj0]

It's easy if you use your amazing powers for evil instead of good.

Who else but a nerd could understand the long scientific explanations of the locations of nerve clusters and evolutionary biology which explain the proper use of a vagina?

Shit man, if I can figure out vi, I can figure out a vagina.

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[cp.tar]

When this topic arises, I often, if not always, link to the article What Happened to All the Nice Guys? .

Every nice guy's recommended reading.

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[eh2o]

Whatever... IMHO younger partners are quite frankly not as good in bed. Yeah there are some limits to be sure, but in general it just gets better. There is nothing special about being young.

What - no Hans Reiser references yet?

[capnkr]

Come on /. - you can do better than *that*!!!

;D

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[neomunk]

That's what happened to me in High School. I was the stereotypical 'nice guy' until I realized that I wasn't being nice as much as I was being horney and (unsuccessfully) using 'nice' as a way to fulfill that need. So, I based my social interactions on the truth, that I was in fact horney, and nice (but not nearly as nice as I had acted before). The nice learned it's limit fast, the horney made itself obvious, but not desperate (lude jokes, obvious sexual passes, but not lamenting about a lack of sex life) and I stopped caring so much. I ended up losing a couple female friends. I also ended up loosing a couple female friends. (my first joke based on a typo! yay!) Overall, just the refreshing honesty of being myself was a relief, the fact that it WORKED, CONSISTENTLY, was outstanding. In fact, by the time I settled down, I was picking and choosing between women.

I still wore glasses, I still was fat (250 or so on a 5'11" frame, I didn't lose any weight until I was nearly married), but I was witty (like most nerds can be when not overwhelmingly nervous) I was seemingly confident (it was actually apathy, at first) and I was laid on a regular basis.

There ya go, neomunk's nerd-dating testimonial. You can live your dreams, I'm living proof... Beefcake!

Slashdot Pseudo-Science, again

[Futurepower(R)]

You said, "Women who are abused are not the ones to blame. They are the ones who have the power to stop it but they are not really to blame."

Yes, women are to blame for what they do. They have the same responsibility for their own actions as men.

This is just more of the same old Slashdot pseudo-science that is posted as a real story.

"Bad boys" communicate that women have no responsibility toward them. That's what women want when they just want to have sex. Only that. Try it yourself. If you communicate that women have no responsibility, they will want sex with you, too.

You might need considerable practice, because at present you may have no idea what you are actually communicating.

Yes, it is a compliment when a woman wants to be intimate with you. But, after a lot of that, it gets annoying. Only a real, responsible relationship with a woman who wants to be true partners will give you what you need as a human.

If you communicate that you want a real relationship, then it will be difficult to find a woman in the United States, because the culture in the United States is going through a period in which women are very negative toward men.

Try different countries. Things can be very, very different in a country other than your home country. Put on a backpack and hitchike through Europe during the summer. I recommend the Greek island of Ios in July. (But, I haven't been there in a long time.) The Greeks are nice but the real attraction is other travelers from all over Europe. Two-thousand-five-hundred women and an equal number of men, with nothing to do but socialize.

Take buses and trains in less-developed countries. Stay in cheap hostels for backpackers. Read Let's Go: Europe. Read the Lonely Planet guides. You will meet women travelers who are a bit different because they also have decided to do a little more with their lives than stay home.

If you want a wife, try looking in Brazil, where women are a little less religious about avoiding responsibility. If you look in Brazil, don't just marry the first Brazilian woman who seems wonderful. Talk to your woman about responsibility. If you don't get good answers, try other women. Learn the Brazilian culture. Learn the Brazilian social sophistication.

You might also try Thailand, but you would probably need to learn to speak and write Thai, and you would need to learn an Asian culture, and it would be more difficult to find a truly mature woman. Remember the lyrics of the song "One night in Bangkok". Don't just fall in love with the first Thai woman who is nice to you.

Quote from the song: "One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble. Can't be too careful with your company."

The song is about a real event. One year the world chess championship was held in Thailand. The men went out at night, and were not prepared for the experience of being treated with gentleness. The Dalai Lama says that Thai people are gentle, and he's right.

I've seen it myself. One night, a long time ago, standing on the corner of Patpong road, a western woman was trying to get control over her western man again after he had seen in a Thai bar that a woman could be truly gentle with a man. All the man had known in his entire life, apparently, was women being harsh with men.

Again, don't marry the first Thai woman who is nice to you. Learn the culture. Learn the special challenges of being multi-cultural yourself and having a multi-cultural relationship.

A good idea, if you are in a country in which the native language is not English, is to hang around a school that teaches English. When you see a woman who is interesting, offer to have a conversation in English with her, so that she can practice, if she will teach you the Thai culture. In Thailand, you might try visiting the

Re:Slashdot Pseudo-Science, again

[h4rm0ny]

This is just more of the same old Slashdot pseudo-science that is posted as a real story.

You got that right. And your entire post is interesting when compared to the actual article which I don't think many people have read (surprise, surprise). The study concluded that people with certain negative traits had more partners in a given time. Conclusion: They can't or wont keep a relationship going. We can presume that people without these traits are more capable or simply happier being with one person. All your suggestions are about how to find such a person. The "bad boys" in this study are seemingly after casual sex.

The headline is a little less inflammatory when you translate it as "self-centred people are more likely to bounce from partner to partner than to have one particular partner."

Re:Slashdot Pseudo-Science, again

[thegnu]

i think a big part of it is nice guys try to be nice, whereas "bad boys" are just themselves without reservation, for good or bad. so the bad boys seem more honest.

being honest will get you laid. it will also get you scoffed at, laughed at, rejected, etc. but it will find you what you're looking for. it's hard to be honest and considerate. just get lots of practice flirting.

Re:Slashdot Pseudo-Science, again

[Ptraci]

It's not always bullshit. Here's a site that has a lot to say on the subject.

Re:Slashdot Pseudo-Science, again

[ScrewMaster]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Many women in the U.S. claim to want "equality" when what they really want is to offload any responsibility for their own existence onto their partners of the moment. Oh sure, that's a generalization of Biblical proportions, I know. But there is more than a little truth to it, I think.

For my part, I finally found someone that truly understands what "for better or worse" means and is in it for the long haul. More to the point, she is totally focused on making life better for both of us, not just herself. In turn, that frees me to give without reservation. I've been trying for a couple of decades to find someone like her, and it's a remarkable experience and I don't want it to ever end. Honestly, it took some time for me to realize just how different she is from all her predecessors, but once I did I realized I had to do whatever it took to keep her. That meant making some big changes, but they were all worth it.

Unlike yours truly, she wasn't born here, but you know what? I couldn't be happier ... and I'm not looking back.

Re:Slashdot Pseudo-Science, again

[kklein]

Okay, there is a little stuff in there I'm uncomfortable about, but let me talk about what I agree with:

If you're looking for a wife, get out of the US. Our angry, second-wave-feminist, crybaby boomer mothers raised our generation for men to hate themselves and women to hate men. For no good reason. Find me a man who says "women should stay home, barefoot and pregnant!" or "women make great secretaries, but that's about it." No. One. Thinks. That. But we all have to grovel and supplicate to prove we're not one of those sexist straw men our mothers made up.

As a result, American, and most Western, women have become, in my opinion, untenable as life partners. I want equality in my marriage. By that I mean social equality. I don't want to be the bad guy. I just want to be someone's husband. Partner.

Why do American guys flip over Asian women? Just as the parent says, it's because it's the first time most guys have ever had a woman treat him kindly. On the other hand, why do Asian women often flip for Western guys? Because for them, it's often the first time a guy has treated them kindly. This is why you see so many successful married couples with Western guy and Asian woman. The cultures' gender roles, in the current generation, are complementary.

BUT...

And this is where the parent has kind of fallen down...

Don't expect it to stay like that forever. It won't. It can't. It shouldn't.

East Asian households are basically run by the women. They expect to control the finances. However, in my experience (my wonderful wife is Japanese), and that of my friends, they're pretty damned good at it. It bothered me at first, but then I had to admit we were living very comfortably, I had plenty of money for toys, and we were saving over a third of our income! So I let that go. YMMV.

In the West, we've been programmed to think that a housewife or stay-at-home-mom is a slave. She's not. My wife doesn't work, and even though we could get more money otherwise, and it would of course be fine if she wanted to, it's awesome. I now see why that's been the dominant model in every society since the beginning of time. I work outside of the house, she makes sure the house is operating correctly. We get to spend a lot more leisure time together that way. We don't have to spend our weekends cleaning the house and doing laundry. We eat healthy, home-cooked food that bonds us socially. She's not a slave, she's my best friend and partner. I gladly work my ass off to make sure she's comfortable, and she gladly works her ass off to make sure I am. That, my friends, is a partnership. Just because I'm the one making the money doesn't mean I'm in a higher position. I'm in an equal position. We're taking the entire job of life and splitting it up and assigning roles.

For the record, if she could make more than me, I'd be delighted to stay at home and do the housework.

I guess what I'm saying is this:

1. If you are looking for a nice woman who wants a partnership, that's still in vogue in Asia.
2. As the parent said, don't be a dick. Learn the language and culture. This will ensure that you're not getting into something you don't understand.
3. Your preconceived notions are probably not complete. Asian women are strong and strong-willed. They expect to be given control of certain domains in your life, and you may need to go along with that, or work out a different deal, for your relationship to proceed harmoniously. Just because they don't treat men like crap doesn't mean they are Madame Butterfly. If that's what you want, um, well, you deserve to be unhappy and alone.
4. Realize that in a culture where women are nice to men, that niceness may or may not actually be indicative of anything special. I got really burned with my first girlfriend (only have had 2) in Japan. I fell head-over-heels for her, wanted to marry her, but found out

Re:Slashdot Pseudo-Science, again

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm one of those women who reads Slashdot (occasionally), and I'm not offended.

I think it is important to realize, however, that there are some American women (feminists, even!) who are actually looking for a partnership such as you describe.

(Really, there are lots of different kinds of feminists, and lots of different kinds of feminism out there -- which is something that even some feminists tend to forget.)

While personally, I can't see myself being a permanent stay-at-home wife and mother (I'm one of those lucky people who has a job that she enjoys and finds intellectually stimulating), I think that it's great that some women choose to do so. The whole point of feminism, I thought, was ensuring that women were able to choose. (Men, too, by the way.)

I just wanted to clarify that I don't - nor, I believe, should other women - have a problem with the idea that a woman might choose to be a homemaker, as long as that is not her only option.

(However, the rest of society obviously still has a long way to go - I hope the earlier AC who responded to your post was only trolling, but there are some people who actually seem to believe his shit, or at least, in the general misogynist sentiment behind it.)

Re:Slashdot Pseudo-Science, again

[kklein]

But generalizations are generally true.

That's why they call them generalizations.

They don't disallow variation within them; in fact, they expect it. Of course people are different. My wife happens to be good with finances. One of my friends' Japanese wives is abysmal. So he takes care of it. But generally speaking, when you're raised in a culture that says "women will be in charge of the finances," women learn how to handle finances.

I made generalizations about people in certain cultures. If you don't think people can be grouped, generally speaking by culture, then... Well, maybe you need to get out and see the world a bit.

What I was specifically talking about was gender roles within cultures. I was specifically addressing the "ladies first" culture of the West and the "men first" culture of much of East Asia. I was pointing out that this is why you see so many successful pairings of these people. The gender roles go together nicely and lead to two people being nicer to each other than they expect.

Of course individual people are different.

But that doesn't mean they aren't also kinda the same.

Finally, after 7 years with my wife, I think I have a pretty good idea what she's like. I also think I have a pretty good idea what my sister-in-law is like. And my father-in-law. And even though I never got to meet her, I even have a pretty good idea what my late mother-in-law was like. I know what my friends are like. I know what my coworkers are like. I know what my students are like. I am fluent in Japanese and have lived here for the better part of the last decade. I have a degree in Asian Studies. I teach international communication and comparative religions at a university. Believe me, I know what Japanese culture is like, and I know what individuals are like.

In fact, I'm pretty offended that you would imply that I see my family as generalizations. As stereotypes. They're my family. Just because they fall under rather broad cultural trends does not mean they aren't individuals.

Get that through your head, and you'll find it a lot easier to understand other cultures.

Re:Slashdot Pseudo-Science, again

[level99]

I'm one of those women who reads Slashdot

Pictures or it didn't happen!

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[Blackhalo]

Here is my favorite illustration http://www.laddertheory.com/

Re:Captain Obvious Strikes Again

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just starting to figure out this technique myself. I'm 23, and a recovering nice guy. Not only was I aloof during high school, I didn't figure it out in college either. But now, I'm starting (crosses fingers) to make up for lost time.

Here are a few things I've learned in the short time since I started to "get it":

1. When texting, use "*shrug*" whenever you receive any criticism. She may stop talking to you. She may not. What do you care?
2. "If you don't like I what I say, stop talking to me" makes them talk to you more
3. Don't assume a woman won't want you. They're often flattered
4. If she touches you, she's interested
5. If she's touching you a lot, especially if she's drunk, don't get her number and ask her on a date. Kiss her then.
6. Don't give up on the first try. "No" often means "yes". Be careful: stop on a forceful "no"!
7. Women love obscene language in bed.
8. Learn to give good backrubs. They're a good excuse to make women comfortable with touching you.
9. Ignoring point 5, if you do call her, always have a date, time, and activity to suggest. In fact, have several alternates. Never ask "okay, so what do you want to do?"
10. Expanding on the last point, women prefer the man to take the lead. I don't like taking the lead. Maybe I'll meet a woman someday who will do that. But until then, I force myself to come up with plans, outings, conversation topics, and so on.
11. Never commit to anything if you can help it
12. Strike up conversations at random. I'm shy, so I have to force myself to get over my nerves and do it. But even if the conversation goes nowhere, observers think you're confident.
13. Never say "I love you" first, and don't say it all the time. There's a reason the exchange between Han and Leia at the end of Empire is as famous as it is.

Overall, cast a wide net. The probability of success is not quite 0. The more women you talk to, the greater the chance of succeeding with one of them.

Ladder Theory

[nitehawk214]

I read this years ago, and it still holds true today. In fact it has probably held true ever since most marriages are no longer arranged, and will continue to do so for many years.

Ladder Theory

Oblig. Family Guy

[Dachannien]

Brian: You wanna know how to get women? There's only one place to observe. (They go outside and look over at Quagmire's house.) Just watch.
Woman: (runs out the front door) I am not doing that, Glenn!
Quagmire: Come on, beautiful! Keep an open mind!
Woman: You're a sick man!
Quagmire: (yells) Hey, keep it down! I don't want my neighbors seeing a fat, old, dirty whore screaming at me on my front lawn.
Woman: Whore?! (pauses, then more calmly) Well, maybe I should come inside.
Quagmire: Well, maybe you should.
Stewie: What the deuce? Why the hell would she respond so positively to such a negative comment? Unless... Brian, do women like it when you treat them like crap?
Brian: Well I don't know if you wanna be so black and white about it -
Stewie: Wait, that's it! Women respond when you treat them like crap!

Re:Amen!

[LS]

Sorry you've been so scarred by politically correct thought. I hope you get laid one day.

Re:What I need as a human???

[courseofhumanevents]

I know it was harsh, but you gotta get over her, man.

Intellectual Whores

[NaishWS]

Most nice guys are used as intellectual whores. Basically this means that whenever a girl gets in an argument with their boyfriend, they will go complain to their intellectual whore, who thinks by listening to her whine will get him in bed with her, when he is sadly mistaken. "An Intellectual Whore is a man who a woman keeps around for intellectual purposes. She is uninterested in him sexually and considers him a friend. He probably wants to sleep with her, so he pretends to be her friend in the hope of one day getting sex." Link Here, it appears to be down at the moment.