I think people are generally not attracted to jerks. I suspect people are often attracted to folks with positive qualities, and that jerks/abusers/whatnot are good at emulating those qualities (or perhaps genuinely possess those qualities at times). So I think your example doesn’t really work, because I suspect the majority of women in the example really aren’t just forgetting or unable or unwilling to enunciate that they enjoy being smacked around. They DON’T enjoy it. But they may be, for whatever reason, attracted to guys with other specific qualities, some of whom also happen to be assholes.
My point is that I think there’s a distinction between that and what you described.
But that doesn’t follow from your example. Obviously these women don’t enjoy being smacked around. It’s undoubtedly even more distasteful than your seeds. But the point is that there’s clearly something about these abusive-type people that these women find attractive, even if they don’t articulate it, or even are unaware of it. So you can’t always go by what they say, which is what we’re discussing here.
The problem with your statement that “they may be, for whatever reason, attracted to guys with other specific qualities, some of whom also happen to be assholes” is that it ignores a repeated pattern of being attracted to such people. If a women hitched up with one guy and he turned out to be abusive that’s not what we’re discussing. What I’m discussing is women who have a pattern of hitching up with such people, in which case it’s not likely that it’s just a coincidental “happen to be …”. To return to your example, it’s like if you tried a variety of sandwiches in several places and it always turned out that you’re favorite one “happened to” have seeds. My assumption would be that despite your professed dislike for the seeds, that either you actually liked them on some level, or possible that the type of bread/sandwich that gets made with these seeds is better for you, or something like that - basically that it’s not a coincidence that you find yourself liking those sandwiches, and that there’s something which correlates to the seeds that you do like.
And if there are a lot of people in that circumstance, it would strengthen that impression.
But possibly you disagree with this concept and don’t believe there are women who tend to be attracted to abusive personalities. It was just an example. I chose it as an example because it seems to be pretty widely accepted.
Yeah, that’s where it gets tricky. When a large contingent of a defined population reports having XYZ experience, my inclination is to listen, to take them at their word that they had that experience. But we can’t assume that experience applies to all members of that defined population.
I have no doubt, for example, that sexual assault threats and death threats are a common experience for women rejecting men… but that’s not a thing that has ever happened to me. I can think of a boatload of reasons why I might be an outlier, ranging from my limited experience in the dating world to the fact assholes are less likely to be attracted to me because I’m not particularly pretty, thin, or superficially desirable. Have I been threatened and/or abused by sexually aggressive men? Hell yes, the majority of them were adult men when I was between the ages of 10 and 17. I’ll be honest, I do think that’s pretty much universal for women, not because men are inherently worse but because it’s human nature for the strong to exploit the weak.
I think some men hear women’s reports that they have been threatened or victimized and interpret that as a claim that most men would be willing to threaten or victimize a woman, and I don’t think that’s the case at all. It’s usually a minority of assholes doing this shit, but they are prolific at it, and it’s a large enough minority that caution is warranted.
I think that’s hugely open to debate. Being particularly easy to manipulate and exploit into an abusive relationship might make one more vulnerable to abusive partners, but I don’t think it follows they are therefore more attracted to abusers, any more than you can say a child who is serial molested is more likely to be attracted to adults who molest them.
I’m of two minds here. The first is that all social psychology research on the subject of human perception indicates that humans, generally, are terrible at perceiving their own reality. Our assessment of our own skills, life satisfaction, calculation of risk, likelihood of future success, etc. are pretty much abysmal. We are idiots floundering in an idiot world, using tools like science and rationality in a desperate attempt to compensate for our own natural incompetence, but our behavior is consistently irrational, contradictory and self-defeating.
On the other side, I think it can be downright dangerous to assert women don’t truly know what they want. It is, as spam pointed out, a hallmark of rape culture. That’s true of any historically oppressed minority – note the slaveowners who historically opined that slaves really didn’t know what was best for themselves. Research on rapists and domestic violence perpetrators indicates they place greater than 50% of the responsibility for their actions on the victim. Rapists do not view themselves as rapists. It’s these games women play, see, and how they don’t actually know what they want.
I think most rational people can distinguish by degree here - like understanding that a lady who thinks she doesn’t like cocky men but clearly does is not the equivalent of her consenting to sex with all cocky men regardless of what she might actually say she wants. But a pathetic number of people actually aren’t able to make that distinction and that is why we must be very careful when we make generalizations about what women want.
And this is where the point about men as married or partnered becomes very important. If you say “women don’t like nice, they like jerks” but then you look around at the large contingent of married/partnered men, do you see a jillion jerks and a tiny handful of nice? Because that’s the exact opposite of what I see. Most married men I’ve ever met have been nice people. Good people. Not flawless people, but good, kind people.
It’s true they may not have been sleeping with 10000 supermodels a year. So, if someone wants that, they might need a specialized template. But if what someone is seeking is dating, maybe long-term relationships, maybe marriage, well, that template doesn’t seem to require any jerkiness at all.
But you can. As Asimovian said, women are not attracted to abusive guys or jerks. Women are, however, often attracted to guys who possess other qualities that are highly correlated with being a jerk, or abusive, or whatever.
Think of it this way: some women are very attracted to guys who are into outdoor activities, like camping, hiking, climbing, and so on. Such guys are highly likely, far more likely than the average population, to own a muddy, beat up, stinky, ugly pair of hiking boots or three. Does it make sense in any way to say that “some women are attracted to guys with gross hiking boots”? Sure, it’s technically an accurate statement: some women are attracted to these guys and these guys own gross hiking boots. But it’s also a statement that strongly implies cause and effect, that women are attracted to these guys because of their gross hiking boots. And that’s obviously false.
Similarly, some women are very attracted to guys who fulfill their particular vision of “highly attentive”, “devoted”, and “romantic”. This might include behaviors such as stalking or aggressively pursuing the woman (“He loves me so much he says I’m like a drug to him! He’s just *addicted *to me!”), placing the woman on a pedestal (“He’s dated lots of other women, but says they’re all whores and bitches. He says I’m different and special!”), displays of jealousy and possessiveness (“He loves me so much, he can’t even stand to have another guy *look *at me!”), isolating the woman from her friends and family (“He loves me so much that he wants me all to himself”), and controlling her activities (“He’s my soulmate - he knows what’s best for me.”) These are the behaviors that some women find attractive. Unfortunately, such guys are highly likely, far more likely than the average population, to also be physically abusive (and indeed, these behaviors themselves sometimes constitute abuse). So does it make sense to say that “some women are attracted to abusive partners”? No more than it makes sense to say they’re attracted to guys with stinky shoes.
Women are attracted to what they say they’re attracted to. We can take them at their word. The fact that what they’re attracted to may be highly correlated with something negative does not mean that they’re attracted to that negative thing. It means they’re attracted in spite of it.
And of course, there are always exceptions, as Spice Weasel points out, like the hypothetical woman who says she doesn’t like cocky guys, but seems to exclusively date cocky guys. But even then, there could be more than one thing happening there. It could be that she genuinely doesn’t recognize this about herself, or it could be that she has a different definition of cocky that these guys don’t fit, or it could be that, as I said above, there are other qualities that are highly correlated with being cocky that she’s so attracted to she’s willing to overlook the cockiness.
I think it’s generally a good policy to take people at their word whenever possible. And if that causes a missed connection, that’s better than the alternative.
(It’s also always funny to hear some men complain that women talk in code then insist that women don’t mean what they say.)
Marriage and superficial attraction aren’t necessarily reflective; sort of like the love vs. lust debate. There’s a saying - I’m trying to remember, will have to paraphrase - basically to the effect of: Many men get aroused by supermodels, but ultimately prefer a nice, more ordinary woman as a marriage partner; many women get aroused by jerks, but ultimately prefer a nice, more ordinary man as a marriage partner.
Well, people seem to be talking at cross-purposes here, because some people seem to think it’s about men trying to get laid, and others seem to think it’s about men trying to find life partners, and ‘‘it’’ either refers to Nice Guy Syndrome or the PUA movement or both. That’s leaving aside the issue of whether or not women have useful advice for men trying to achieve either or whether sexual aggression by rejected assholes is a warranted fear, or whether women know what they want. Perhaps we should be more clear about which of the things we’re discussing.
But remember the context of this discussion: the Nice Guy who says, “I can’t get a girlfriend because women don’t like nice guys like me, they only like jerks.” This person is indeed implying that any guy with a girlfriend is a jerk. If not - if they allow for the possibility that there are some nice guys who somehow managed to get a girlfriend despite being nice - then it logically follows that being nice cannot be the reason they don’t have a girlfriend.
Willing to provide me with a regular supply of fine cheeses.
Sr. Weasel gets bonus points because not only does he keep me in regular supply, he’s allergic to dairy, therefore I never have to worry about him hogging the cheese cache.
(ARE YOU TAKING NOTES, GUYS??? It’s very simple. Be allergic to cheese but also willing to spend a lot of money on it. I should write a book.)
All I have to say is: Cremeux de Bourgogne. Supposedly made from cows’ milk, but as far as I can tell it actually uses the pure, sweet nectar that exudes forth from the breasts of angels.
I think even the most unreasonable, narrow-minded “nice guy” in the world would acknowledge “some this, some that, not all, not none,” etc.
What is probably baffling them is why, to them, a negative trait (jerkishness) is an asset and a positive trait (niceness) is a liability. Whether statistically all, most, or some women prefer jerks is besides the point to the “nice guys”; they’re questioning why jerkishness is even lauded to begin with.
There’s also the fact that (irrespective of whether or not this is “pretty widely accepted,” which is a funny metric when it comes to domestic violence; go do some looking into what else is culturally acceptable) abuse is something another human being is responsible for, and that other human being has agency in the matter, and so it isn’t exactly something someone does on a first date.
Women who are repeatedly abused aren’t abused because they like what they see in batterers in particular. Women who are abused are abused, for the most part, because batterers are predators, and they actively identify and predate upon people they believe they can assert power over. Part of that process is acting like what the victim wants. Obviously so, if you stop to think for a second about what actually happens in these dynamics in the real world. You can’t batter and subdue somebody who has no investment in you. And you can’t get anyone to invest in you by battering them. So what do you do? Act like something else: a non-batterer. And get her to fall in love with you that way. Stupid fucking strategy since women love abusers, am I right?
Six months into a relationship, when the guy puts his hands on the woman for the first time, it’s all well and good to say “see? She needs this kind of drama, she’s attracted to it.” What about the first six months, when she was deciding whether or not she liked the guy and he was doing everything that wasn’t this? Guess she’d have been super disappointed if that guy had turned out to actually be the real guy, since that’s not what she’s into.
OK, but what I was talking about in the part you quoted is when it’s not “a large contingent of a defined population”, but rather a few people from the defined population, in one particular MB discussion.
FTR, I think the latter is also likely true, for some serially abused kids. Whatever “grooming techniques” molesters use are more effective on some kids than others, e.g. kids from broken homes looking for father figures and the like. A kid of that nature or with that background is more likely to be attracted to an adult who uses those techniques than one who does not, because they fill some need that they have.
But even if it can be “downright dangerous” to assert something, that doesn’t make it false. (It might be, as in the case of these rapists, or it might not be in another case.)
You also need to distinguish between how you treat an individual person who says he or she wants or doesn’t want something, and how you market yourself to that class of person.
If you go into a restaurant and order something and the waiter brings you something else because he determined that that’s what you really want, that’s obviously inapropriate. But if a guy is contemplating opening a restaurant and a survey shows that people say they want X but based on looking at which restaurants are successful versus unsuccessful he decides that they really want something else, that’s his business and his decision.
While the vast majority of discussion has been about nice guys, I think this thread has done a good job of not exaggerating the virtues of jerks, either. Some discussions are so quick to praise them as sensual, handsome, witty, confident, ambitious, intelligent, unpredictable, athletic, funny, interesting, etc. that it’s almost comical - why, they might as well not be jerks.