More Attractive: Asshole Jock or Respectful Chess Nerd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I'm a little skeptical about the change of heart later in a woman's life. And the skepticism comes from a seed of doubt planted by the MRAs. Their contention is that women only pick "betas" (which I assume approximates the shy, smart guys) after their looks are starting to decline, their choices in men are or will soon become more limited, and their interest shifts from sexual attraction to more pragmatic concerns about long term loyalty and resources. In other words, "betas" only stand a chance when sexual attraction becomes a woman's secondary concern.

I don't know what "MRA" means OP, but you're not reading the posts here. Also not sure what you mean by "beta" either.

Most of us are saying we started to shift our attractions in our 20s. I don't know what women you know, but my looks were only getting better and better through my 20s and 30s! It's called growing up, not "running out of options". The healthy women date the self-centered, power-hungry, appearance-obsessed guys in their teens or 20s and guess what? They make shitty boyfriends. Why is that rocket science? Then you realize that you have more fun and would rather spend a meal, a day, or a week with that quieter guy who's actually much funnier and much smarter. And then you find out he can f*ck too!!! Maybe even much much better than the alpha-male jock!

Obviously you're looking at this through your own experiences OP, and since no one but you here knows what those are, no one can really address this dynamic from your perspective, but I guess what I'm saying is... individual guys also have their strengths and weaknesses. Some nerds still have chicks all over them. Some jocks only get the most desperate cheerleader wannabes because *everyone* can see they're losers. But just because a particular nerd never got "seen" or dated, doesn't mean that all the women who didn't choose him only had obnoxious, selfish jocks to choose over that nerd and chose that instead. There are so many shades of grey on that, and I'm not even talking sex.

So you can be skeptical all you want... this isn't about women only "shifting their attractions as a reproduction/survival response". This is about dating guys who look good on the outside, but then you realize why those characteristics often lead to a crappy boyfriend. Live and learn. Then you start to notice how it's actually cooler when guys are fun to be with, and yes, you start to realize why those guys are actually cute too!

By the way, just to prove it can really be about ACTUAL evolution (and not desperation), when I went to my 20th high school reunion and we ladies were looking over our yearbook, there was almost universal agreement on how hot a few guys were who we thought were weird, and eccentric, and nerdy when we were in high school, but looking at them now they actually looked SUPER HOT! Seriously, and there was no gain for any of us to see them that way because none of us know them now. But we were like "OOh, remember when he used to wear those reggae t-shirts?" or "he was so quiet but he was SO funny and look how cute he was, how did we not notice him then??"

Taste change and mature. There's a reason I never liked red wine until well after graduate school, and love it now...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I'm a little skeptical about the change of heart later in a woman's life. And the skepticism comes from a seed of doubt planted by the MRAs. Their contention is that women only pick "betas" (which I assume approximates the shy, smart guys) after their looks are starting to decline, their choices in men are or will soon become more limited, and their interest shifts from sexual attraction to more pragmatic concerns about long term loyalty and resources. In other words, "betas" only stand a chance when sexual attraction becomes a woman's secondary concern.

From my experience I've found that people who talk about "alphas" and "betas" are usually assholes who I wouldn't want to date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I'm a little skeptical about the change of heart later in a woman's life. And the skepticism comes from a seed of doubt planted by the MRAs. Their contention is that women only pick "betas" (which I assume approximates the shy, smart guys) after their looks are starting to decline, their choices in men are or will soon become more limited, and their interest shifts from sexual attraction to more pragmatic concerns about long term loyalty and resources. In other words, "betas" only stand a chance when sexual attraction becomes a woman's secondary concern.

Tucker Max, is that you? Seriously, there are many stops along the range from jock/big man on campus who has women throwing themselves at him and treats them like crap vs. insecure "average guy" desperate to get a date and women sense that. Anyone I have ever broken up with has never been about not being alpha enough, but more a situation that ran it's course or we just wanted different things after a while. I don't think my wife married me because she saw in me a stable beta and some more exciting guys earlier in her life dumped her. Men and women wind up with each other for all kinds of reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The healthy women date the self-centered, power-hungry, appearance-obsessed guys in their teens or 20s and guess what? They make shitty boyfriends. Why is that rocket science?

What always confused me is, why date those guys in the first place? It was never rocket science. Most of those guys had been dicks since the 5th grade.

Now, at least I got a clue as to why the girls weren't dating me back then. I wasn't talking to them. One thing the cocky assholes had over me is that they made it easy for the girls. The guy who is already talking to you is the path of least resistance.

It worked out for me though. I discovered beer, broke out of my shell, and met a woman who has made an excellent wife for the better part of two decades. Still, as my son is reaching the age where the girls start favoring the dicks over the shy, nice boys, I find that some of the old hurt over those awkward years hasn't entirely gone away. But, I imagine everyone has scars from growing up of one kind or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I'm a little skeptical about the change of heart later in a woman's life. And the skepticism comes from a seed of doubt planted by the MRAs. Their contention is that women only pick "betas" (which I assume approximates the shy, smart guys) after their looks are starting to decline, their choices in men are or will soon become more limited, and their interest shifts from sexual attraction to more pragmatic concerns about long term loyalty and resources. In other words, "betas" only stand a chance when sexual attraction becomes a woman's secondary concern.

Tucker Max, is that you? Seriously, there are many stops along the range from jock/big man on campus who has women throwing themselves at him and treats them like crap vs. insecure "average guy" desperate to get a date and women sense that. Anyone I have ever broken up with has never been about not being alpha enough, but more a situation that ran it's course or we just wanted different things after a while. I don't think my wife married me because she saw in me a stable beta and some more exciting guys earlier in her life dumped her. Men and women wind up with each other for all kinds of reasons.

I don't get the Tucker Max reference? But, in any event, I definitely recognize there is a huge spectrum of guys and it's always going to be a mixed bag. That's why I mentioned in the original post that obviously, if given a choice, a woman is going to prefer confident *and* nice. It's just that in an either/or situation, my experience (growing up anyway) was that the confident douchebag was going to win out over the shy, decent guy.

[Anonymous]

Neither. Since my divorce, I have almost exclusively dated military or former military guys. Many were HS athletes, but certainly not assholes. They tended to be the type of guy who wasn't particularly brainy but loved technical sciences, history, and politics. My partner would much rather build a piece of furniture from scratch in the evenings than play basketball, but he takes care of his body because he values health and his ability to protect me and my kids from crime or other threats.

[Anonymous]

My HS boyfriend (and who I am married to 22 years later) was the quiet, nerdy guy. But I have always thought he was crazy good looking - to me, he has always looked like a model from a magazine. He was really skinny in high school, but for a 42 year old guy, he looks better than 95% of guys his age now.

[Anonymous]

My DH was picked on in school and he was more of a nerd than a jock. I married a man who treats me with respect. I wouldn't give an a$$hole the time of day if he was the last man on Earth because I have too much self respect.

My cousin married a "famous" jock who used to beat her. Within a year she was divorced.

Some women are doormats and some think they have to put up w the jerk attitude bc he's "hot." What do you think happens when the looks fade? Why do you think divorce rates are so high?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, women would love a guy whose athletic and fit, just as men want women who are built like Barbies. If you can get the whole package, who wouldn't go after it.

But push comes to shove, different women look for different things in long term relationships. Some women put more importance on physical characteristics, and others don't. What's the ratio? I have no idea. But most of my friends look for stability and matching personalities in their long-term relationships. If the guy is not the best looking, that's fine, but there does need to be some physical attraction.

There are some women I know who only go for the alpha male jerks, and those women usually suffer the consequence of it. Some women are willing to put up with that sh!t. Others aren't, me included.

Breeding stock vs long-term partner

Why does it have to be either of those? Women can find both in the same person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've joked with him that I would have been happy to party with him in college but would never have dated him.

So you're telling DH you settled for him?

Hell, no, I didn't settle! I don't know why you're cherry picking from my post. This is what I said.

I was physically attracted to the jock or 'confident' type in high school and in college. It wasn't until I was in my 20s that I realized that kind of guy just didn't work for me. I met the guy who would be DH when I was 28. I've joked with him that I would have been happy to party with him in college but would never have dated him. If only I knew then what I know now!

As I PP said, I became far more attractive to men in my 20s and had a lot of dating opportunities. That's how I learned that what I thought was my "type" really didn't work for me. Had I actually married one of those guys, we would have been divorced a few years later. I'm glad I waited for the right guy - and have been married 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I'm a little skeptical about the change of heart later in a woman's life. And the skepticism comes from a seed of doubt planted by the MRAs. Their contention is that women only pick "betas" (which I assume approximates the shy, smart guys) after their looks are starting to decline, their choices in men are or will soon become more limited, and their interest shifts from sexual attraction to more pragmatic concerns about long term loyalty and resources. In other words, "betas" only stand a chance when sexual attraction becomes a woman's secondary concern.

Disagree. Women mature and see whats important. Stop w the Alpha/beta crap. Being an assertive guy does not mean be an a$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - I'm a little skeptical about the change of heart later in a woman's life. And the skepticism comes from a seed of doubt planted by the MRAs. Their contention is that women only pick "betas" (which I assume approximates the shy, smart guys) after their looks are starting to decline, their choices in men are or will soon become more limited, and their interest shifts from sexual attraction to more pragmatic concerns about long term loyalty and resources. In other words, "betas" only stand a chance when sexual attraction becomes a woman's secondary concern.

Tucker Max, is that you? Seriously, there are many stops along the range from jock/big man on campus who has women throwing themselves at him and treats them like crap vs. insecure "average guy" desperate to get a date and women sense that. Anyone I have ever broken up with has never been about not being alpha enough, but more a situation that ran it's course or we just wanted different things after a while. I don't think my wife married me because she saw in me a stable beta and some more exciting guys earlier in her life dumped her. Men and women wind up with each other for all kinds of reasons.

I don't get the Tucker Max reference? But, in any event, I definitely recognize there is a huge spectrum of guys and it's always going to be a mixed bag. That's why I mentioned in the original post that obviously, if given a choice, a woman is going to prefer confident *and* nice. It's just that in an either/or situation, my experience (growing up anyway) was that the confident douchebag was going to win out over the shy, decent guy.

Because Tucker's whole deal is that drinking and finding women that drink, along with being an a-hole are going to get you laid while being a good guy is a bad strategy. But then look at it this way, would you want to be involved with the type of woman who is interested in an arrogant jock/fratboy douche anyway? Let's say a woman is very good looking and is purely honing in on a guy who is on a sports team or a frat member who has money. Do you want someone that superficial? Would you expend energy to try and date one? I was a shy guy in college and started coming into my own during my mid-20s. My girlfriend for two years was average looking but one of the greatest people I have ever met. Why would I care what some jock or douchebag was getting when I was happy with my girl?

[Anonymous]

But, in any event, I definitely recognize there is a huge spectrum of guys and it's always going to be a mixed bag. That's why I mentioned in the original post that obviously, if given a choice, a woman is going to prefer confident *and* nice. It's just that in an either/or situation, my experience (growing up anyway) was that the confident douchebag was going to win out over the shy, decent guy.

Maybe in the short run but not the long run. There is a great partner out there for him. It just may take some time to find. Most of the attractive assholes I knew in high school/college have been divorced at least once. In fact, even the ugly assholes have been divorced at least once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The healthy women date the self-centered, power-hungry, appearance-obsessed guys in their teens or 20s and guess what? They make shitty boyfriends. Why is that rocket science?

What always confused me is, why date those guys in the first place? It was never rocket science. Most of those guys had been dicks since the 5th grade.

Now, at least I got a clue as to why the girls weren't dating me back then. I wasn't talking to them. One thing the cocky assholes had over me is that they made it easy for the girls. The guy who is already talking to you is the path of least resistance.

It worked out for me though. I discovered beer, broke out of my shell, and met a woman who has made an excellent wife for the better part of two decades. Still, as my son is reaching the age where the girls start favoring the dicks over the shy, nice boys, I find that some of the old hurt over those awkward years hasn't entirely gone away. But, I imagine everyone has scars from growing up of one kind or another.

Yes, if you were shy and never talked to any of the girls you liked or asked them out, then they probably never realized that you liked them - THAT'S why they didn't go out with you not because they liked "assholes" instead of you. I used to be shy, too (I'm a woman), it's tough to date when you're shy. But creating a story about nice guy vs. asshole jock is certainly a convenient reductionist way to blame women for your lack of dates.

As for why teenage girls might date "assholes" (certainly some do and some don't as has already been discussed ad nauseaum on this thread) - the same reason why anyone might date someone when they are young who turns out not to be right for them. We learn from experience - both personal and from seeing adult relationships modeled for us. Sometimes it takes a while to break out of that - this goes for men and women in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Judging teenage girls for their relationship choices certainly falls into the "asshole" category.

If you are the OP, many of your responses seem to point to your making broad generalizations about the behavior of a large and diverse group of human beings and an attitude of disdain for women who date people who are not you or similar to you - to me that points to an utter lack of respect for women.

Here's a great "nice guy" post that has a helpful flow chart at the bottom to identify if you really are a "nice guy": http://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/nice-guys-on-okcupid-are-the-worst

[Anonymous]

Yeah, yeah. If you want to get laid, you're not nice. But then the question becomes what are the characteristics of the not nice guys women want to have sex with and how do they differ from the characteristics of the not nice guys women don't want to have sex with.