New study seems to prove women don't like nice guys

steve55 · Post by **steve55** » September 30th, 2012, 11:35 pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162- ... 91704.html

Nice guys turn women off, sex study shows: Who turns them on?

CBS) Lose the smile. For guys eager to attract a mate, that might be a killer strategy, according to a surprising new study from the University of British Columbia. It showed that women find swaggering, brooding "bad boys" a lot more attractive than "nice guys."

Time to update your profile photo?

The study - published in the journal Emotion - revealed dramatic differences in the way men and women rank the sexual attractiveness of potential mates who display common emotions like happiness, pride and shame.

Though smiling is often considered essential when trying to make a good impression, the study showed that "men and women respond very differently to displays of emotion, including smiles," study author Jessica Tracy, a professor of psychology at the university, said in a written statement.

For the study, more than 1,000 adult participants were asked to rate the sexual attractiveness of hundreds of images of the opposite sex. The images showed people in displays of happiness (broad smiles), pride (raised head, puffed-up chest), and shame (lowered head, averted eyes).

Who did the gals go for? The study showed they preferred guys who looked proud or moody and ashamed. But the guys were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to those who appeared proud and confident.

Tracy and her co-author, graduate student Alec Beall, said women may have evolved to find proud guys attractive because pride implies status, competence and an ability to provide for a partner and offspring. And previous research has linked smiling with a lack of dominance - which men seem to find attractive in a mate, but not the other way around.

But Beall pointed out in the statement that the people in the study weren't asked to evaluate men on the basis of whether they might make a good mate. "We wanted their gut reactions on carnal, sexual attraction," he said.

What do you think? Ladies, do you go for bad boys? And gentlemen, do you prefer nice girls?

steve55 · Post by **steve55** » October 2nd, 2012, 1:01 pm

I think I titled the thread wrong before. BUt of ocurse this study is based on Wetsern women. Would be VERY interesting to see what the study would say about women of foreign cultures. But then again, lookingbad boy is one thing, I imagine that when it comes to relationships, normal healthy women (like that of abroad) still prefer the nicer guy.

OTB · Post by **OTB** » October 2nd, 2012, 5:39 pm

Steve, yes I do like nice girls. I love a girl that carries herself with a pleasant and very feminine demeanor. A girl who is easy to talk to and easy to get along with. A girl who doesn't feel the need to show her attitude and fly off with her mouth as a way of telling me she won't be taken advantage of. Nice girls are a breath of fresh air and the type of woman, I'm sure, every decent, good-hearted man wants in his life.

bennandsarah · Post by **bennandsarah** » October 2nd, 2012, 6:19 pm

otb -- nicely said.

i live in a small city -- here in kentucky -- and the foul mouthed nasty women are everywhere -- worse than a big city....

ChosenTraveler · Post by **ChosenTraveler** » October 2nd, 2012, 6:40 pm

Well, this is a no-brainer. Women aren't genetically programmed to respond to "nice" guys. You must cultivate a mean streak with women, no matter who she is. Every woman will test you somehow, and a man must put his foot down. Being nice to women doesn't work, and will get you nowhere with them.

Post by **fschmidt** » October 2nd, 2012, 6:44 pm

I agree with steve55, not with ChosenTraveler. This is based on my experience. Women in feminist countries are attracted to the most immoral men for reasons I explain in Human Evolution.

ChosenTraveler · Post by **ChosenTraveler** » October 2nd, 2012, 6:59 pm

fschmidt wrote:I agree with steve55, not with ChosenTraveler. This is based on my experience. Women in feminist countries are attracted to the most immoral men for reasons I explain in Human Evolution.

While I agree that women in feminist countries( especially the West) are backwards in their thinking when it comes to men, women all over simply aren't attracted to "nice" guys. I'm not advocating for a man to emulate a bad boy( i.e. get tattoos, produce twenty kids, get a criminal record), but I'm saying that a man must be more dominant when it comes to women. We can romanticize how we want to be all day, but we must embrace the reality that women are attracted to men that display strength, and that strength comes in not accepting the least maladaptive treatment from women

Post by **fschmidt** » October 2nd, 2012, 7:04 pm

ChosenTraveler wrote:While I agree that women in feminist countries( especially the West) are backwards in their thinking when it comes to men, women all over simply aren't attracted to "nice" guys. I'm not advocating for a man to emulate a bad boy( i.e. get tattoos, produce twenty kids, get a criminal record), but I'm saying that a man must be more dominant when it comes to women. We can romanticize how we want to be all day, but we must embrace the reality that women are attracted to men that display strength, and that strength comes in not accepting the least maladaptive treatment from women

It is Western/liberal/feminist thinking to believe that there is a conflict between being nice and being strong and dominant. Probably the last example of a nice, strong, and dominant American was Ronald Reagan. These days, only assholes get respect (or elected) in America.

ChosenTraveler · Post by **ChosenTraveler** » October 2nd, 2012, 7:14 pm

fschmidt wrote:
ChosenTraveler wrote:While I agree that women in feminist countries( especially the West) are backwards in their thinking when it comes to men, women all over simply aren't attracted to "nice" guys. I'm not advocating for a man to emulate a bad boy( i.e. get tattoos, produce twenty kids, get a criminal record), but I'm saying that a man must be more dominant when it comes to women. We can romanticize how we want to be all day, but we must embrace the reality that women are attracted to men that display strength, and that strength comes in not accepting the least maladaptive treatment from women
It is Western/liberal/feminist thinking to believe that there is a conflict between being nice and being strong and dominant. Probably the last example of a nice, strong, and dominant American was Ronald Reagan. These days, only assholes get respect (or elected) in America.

You're misunderstanding me. "Nice", in my belief is placing women on a pedestal. It's fine to be caring/compassionate for friends, parents or others that you consider close. However, when attracting women, nice isn't the best option. Again, I'm not saying that you should become a full blown aggressor type, but in order to attract women, you must be a bit of Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader.

A woman must know that she has to EARN decent treatment from you. It should't be simply handed out because she has a vagina.

Post by **fschmidt** » October 2nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

ChosenTraveler wrote:You're misunderstanding me. "Nice", in my belief is placing women on a pedestal. It's fine to be caring/compassionate for friends, parents or others that you consider close. However, when attracting women, nice isn't the best option. Again, I'm not saying that you should become a full blown aggressor type, but in order to attract women, you must be a bit of Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader.

A woman must know that she has to EARN decent treatment from you. It should't be simply handed out because she has a v****a.

Well the article just described "nice" as a guy who smiles. Ronald Reagan smiled a lot, so he probably would have failed to attract women in the study. The main point is that decent guys are not attractive to women from feminist cultures, only jerks are.

djfourmoney · Post by **djfourmoney** » October 2nd, 2012, 8:34 pm

I don't need additional affirmation of the truth. Okay nice guys finish last UNLESS, you rescue some mid-30's woman from the redundancy pile...

You know something is up when women over 40 contact you and look at your profile when I have clearly stated several times that I am looking for women no older than 32 and as young as 25 (I will go younger).

Older White women especially crack me up, they associate single, never married Black man must be a looser, so I can get him. Some ugly 40 year old Russian woman with 2 kids contacted me out of nowhere...

Women over 35 are not popular for lots of reasons.

ChosenTraveler · Post by **ChosenTraveler** » October 2nd, 2012, 8:41 pm

fschmidt wrote:
ChosenTraveler wrote:You're misunderstanding me. "Nice", in my belief is placing women on a pedestal. It's fine to be caring/compassionate for friends, parents or others that you consider close. However, when attracting women, nice isn't the best option. Again, I'm not saying that you should become a full blown aggressor type, but in order to attract women, you must be a bit of Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader.

A woman must know that she has to EARN decent treatment from you. It should't be simply handed out because she has a v****a.
Well the article just described "nice" as a guy who smiles. Ronald Reagan smiled a lot, so he probably would have failed to attract women in the study. The main point is that decent guys are not attractive to women from feminist cultures, only jerks are.

As we know with these "studies", many of them are conducted to portray men in the most extreme negative light. I was discussing a larger context into which this fits, which is, women aren't genetically programmed to respond to nice guys. A man must be dominating in order to attract women.

The Reagan example is an invalidated point because Reagan was an actor( a perfect tool for the system at the time), who acted his way through the Presidency. It's similar to a hunter that knows certain techniques will attract prey. A man must adopt the attributes that attract women( which is a dominating/less needy attitude).

All_That_Is_Man · Post by **All_That_Is_Man** » October 3rd, 2012, 8:22 am

I know plenty of needy, weak, dependent simps who never have trouble dating or having an American woman in some extent. Hell, the ones I know even have wives, ex-wives, and even multiple children. Could this be a "midwest thing"? While this mangina behavior doesn't get women's attention in your neck of the woods, midwest America is the place where whores simply settle down with betas, pu$sies, and human ATM machines after they've done all of their "bad boy hopping". I'm in the wrong part of the country. Apparently an alpha male like myself has absolutely no shot here in Chicago/the midwest because whores specifically move to the midwest to settle with ONLY the most beta of beta simps so that they can satisfy their inner control freak and take all of their misandric attitudes out on Poindexter. While the study conducted MAY have some truth to it for American women, it certainly DOES NOT apply to American women who are burnt out from whoring and who then settle with Poindexter McSimpleton in the "simple life" of the American midwest to grow fat, saggy, racist, and snobby (but financially comfortable on all of Poindexters hard-earned money). Of course, most American women revert back to their whoring anyway, except now as Poindexter's wife, seeking men in the area who will give her the slightest attention so that she can be reminded of when she was in her prime and could get badboys and when men would pay for her vacations all around the world to places much more exotic than midwest America. If you live in the midwest, don't be an alpha male or black and you will have no trouble getting multiple American women here. So I am moving.

Teal Lantern · Post by **Teal Lantern** » October 3rd, 2012, 9:04 am

All_That_Is_Man wrote:I know plenty of needy, weak, dependent simps who never have trouble dating or having an American woman in some extent. Hell, the ones I know even have wives, ex-wives, and even multiple children. Could this be a "midwest thing"? While this mangina behavior doesn't get women's attention in your neck of the woods, midwest America is the place where whores simply settle down with betas, pu$sies, and human ATM machines after they've done all of their "bad boy hopping". I'm in the wrong part of the country. Apparently an alpha male like myself has absolutely no shot here in Chicago/the midwest because whores specifically move to the midwest to settle with ONLY the most beta of beta simps so that they can satisfy their inner control freak and take all of their misandric attitudes out on Poindexter. While the study conducted MAY have some truth to it for American women, it certainly DOES NOT apply to American women who are burnt out from whoring and who then settle with Poindexter McSimpleton in the "simple life" of the American midwest to grow fat, saggy, racist, and snobby (but financially comfortable on all of Poindexters hard-earned money). Of course, most American women revert back to their whoring anyway, except now as Poindexter's wife, seeking men in the area who will give her the slightest attention so that she can be reminded of when she was in her prime and could get badboys and when men would pay for her vacations all around the world to places much more exotic than midwest America. If you live in the midwest, don't be an alpha male or black and you will have no trouble getting multiple American women here. So I am moving.

If you want to be Poindexter's wife's boyfriend, there are plenty of chances for you. She still likes alpha boyfriends.

Plus, you'll know the freight is already covered.

The racial issue may be specific to your area. My town is mixed and, like DJ4$ mentioned, the older white ones WILL strike up conversation (for some reason, it makes me chuckle when they do that). They are often friendlier than the black ones.

ChosenTraveler · Post by **ChosenTraveler** » October 3rd, 2012, 3:24 pm

All_That_Is_Man wrote:I know plenty of needy, weak, dependent simps who never have trouble dating or having an American woman in some extent. Hell, the ones I know even have wives, ex-wives, and even multiple children. Could this be a "midwest thing"? While this mangina behavior doesn't get women's attention in your neck of the woods, midwest America is the place where whores simply settle down with betas, pu$sies, and human ATM machines after they've done all of their "bad boy hopping". I'm in the wrong part of the country. Apparently an alpha male like myself has absolutely no shot here in Chicago/the midwest because whores specifically move to the midwest to settle with ONLY the most beta of beta simps so that they can satisfy their inner control freak and take all of their misandric attitudes out on Poindexter. While the study conducted MAY have some truth to it for American women, it certainly DOES NOT apply to American women who are burnt out from whoring and who then settle with Poindexter McSimpleton in the "simple life" of the American midwest to grow fat, saggy, racist, and snobby (but financially comfortable on all of Poindexters hard-earned money). Of course, most American women revert back to their whoring anyway, except now as Poindexter's wife, seeking men in the area who will give her the slightest attention so that she can be reminded of when she was in her prime and could get badboys and when men would pay for her vacations all around the world to places much more exotic than midwest America. If you live in the midwest, don't be an alpha male or black and you will have no trouble getting multiple American women here. So I am moving.

I'm in comportment with this statement. A man must be dominant when it comes to women, and until some men understand that perspective, they'll continue to have foibles with women of any creed, color or ethnic background. Even the best women have to be checked from time and time, and need a dominant man's direction.