Nice guys finish last

We all know, just from looking around, that nice guys finish last, that women reliably make extremely bad sexual choices, that female sexual autonomy is a really bad idea.  Now that the left have given up on socialism, except to the extent that they accidentally and unintentionally stumble into socialism through disastrously stupid laws like Sarbanes–Oxley, female sexual autonomy is the worst idea of the left.

Scott has done the hard work of collecting some statistics on this question.  But he has buried it in his usual pile of pious politically correct rationalizing, so I am copying his little bit of good stuff without his vast pile of @%!&.

Scott tells us:

I will have to use virginity statistics as a proxy for the harder-to-measure romancelessness statistics, but these are bad enough. In high school each extra IQ point above average increases chances of male virginity by about 3%. 35% of MIT grad students have never had sex, compared to only 13% of the average high school population. Compared with virgins, men with more sexual experience are likely to drink more alcohol, attend church less, and have a criminal history. A Dr. Beaver (nominative determinism again!) was able to predict number of sexual partners pretty well using a scale with such delightful items as “have you been in a gang”, “have you used a weapon in a fight”, et cetera. An analysis of the psychometric Big Five consistently find that high levels of disagreeableness predict high sexual success in both men and women.

No, disagreeableness predicts that men are sexually successful.  A high notch count on the bedpost is success for a man, failure for a woman.  For a man, a high notch count on the bedpost means that the women keep coming.  For a woman, it means the boys do not stick around.

That male assholes are attractive, female assholes unattractive, is part of the reason why men should have sexual autonomy and women should not have sexual autonomy.

If you’re smart, don’t drink much, stay out of fights, display a friendly personality, and have no criminal history – then you are the population most at risk of being miserable and alone.

Scott is, of course a nice guy.  He is only able to be nasty when it is mandatory for progressives to be nasty to people with certain beliefs.

I, however, am an asshole, who would have a criminal record were it not for good lawyers and willingness to pay them what they are worth.

25 Responses to “Nice guys finish last”

  1. Bill says:

    If you are basically a Nice Guy here’s my advice: Stop being nice to women. Treat them with the same common courtesy that you would treat anyone, male or female. If you are a decent human being , women basically regard you as trash on the sidewalk. Don’t reward their shitty behavior. Expect NOTHING from a woman. Don’t expect love and affection from them or you will get your head handed to you. Don’t compliment them and don’t kiss their ass. Don’t chase after them. By the way, Alpha males, thugs and jerks don’t chase women; women chase them. I have seen it. Doing what I recommend may not get you a date but I am sure that being nice to them didn’t get you a date either and you wasted a lot of time and felt awful afterwards. If you want to learn about women take a good, hard look at the guys they date. You will learn everything you need to know. I did. When I learned the truth women fell off the pedestal and landed in the gutter. Accept women for what they are, not how we wish they were, and realize that they are a perfect match with the jerks they date.

  2. […] guys finish last. Related: Study: Men are more […]

  3. apunkbandnamedluckeyhaskins says:

    Hm. When I leave my pets alone when I need to be away for a few days I can’t leave enough food for them to last the whole time so they are quite hungry when I get back. When I do return they are extremely friendly for a week or so even when I am feeding them regularly. Eventually they become complacent and don’t pay as much attention to their meal ticket.

    Obviously, they have no control over when I leave or for how long but behave in much the same way as battered women.

  4. Zach says:

    Oh look, they’re getting along.

    How biutiful! (good movie)

  5. peppermint says:

    100 years ago anyone who didn’t behave like a normal White man or woman was obviously defective or diseased, needing treatment. This included Negroes, who needed less punishment and more care from the cradle in order to act like normal Whites. This included Jews, whose only problem with acting like normal Whites was that they were excluded from White society in many ways

    Trying to treat Negro children like White children mostly ended up hurting the Negroes. Trying to treat Jews like Whites ended up hurting us, though. Because in fact, the reason normal White behavior was the socially dominant, “alpha”, strategy was due to a complex system of social incentives designed to ensure that normal White behavior would be socially dominant – and this system was so successful, other strategies were unthinkable.

    It turned out that the Negroes, left to their own devices, would follow Negro strategies, and the Jews, left to their own devices, would try to destroy White civilization as much as possible. Liberals mostly see the sociopathic strategies Whites develop to get theirs in the sexual marketplace and in the labor marketplace, and would like to see less of it.

    But those strategies aren’t going to be marginalized until Whites are willing to recognize that there are social reasons for one behavioral strategy or another to be dominant. Either that, or the whole system comes crashing down and White communities rebuild as White communites.

  6. Dave says:

    Both sexes desire sex, but which sex is more afraid of sex? Historically, women were always more cautious than men. Was this instinct, or because they rationally feared the shame and poverty of unwed motherhood?

    Let’s do an experiment. Tell women to have all the sex they want, and let them choose to abort their babies or raise them with generous public assistance. Meanwhile, hunt down the fathers, jail them, take their paychecks, drain their bank accounts, and revoke their licenses and passports. Also, fire any man who says anything in the presence of a woman that she deems inappropriate.

    Would rational men not just resist marriage, but avoid women entirely? Baffled that decent men won’t speak to them or even make eye contact, would educated women seek out the company of marginally employed thugs? Would female teachers start taking advantage of horny underage boys (who may later be forced to pay child support)?

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      If God was in the society, it would be one of convents and monasteries.

      If it were depraved and in decline (such as certain “fashionable” societies of today), it would be a society completely made of lesbians and sodomites. In other words, a one generation society with no-one to serve at their funerals…


      • Dave says:

        In the first case, are you not describing Shaker society? How did that turn out?

        • Lars Grobian says:


          Their theology is beyond insane, but I’ve visited the place, and in every way but the theology it’s a better place than pretty much every other settled acreage in the country.

          • Dave says:

            Some anthropologist discovered a near-perfect inverse correlation between a society’s overall productivity and time spent having sex. At the opposite extreme from the Shakers are the primitive polygynous warrior tribes where every man has at least one young wife to ravish any time he wants. Why bother building or inventing anything when you have that?

            Very Bad Things happen when men are denied any hope of ever having sex, but Shakers over age 21 were always free to leave. Most men did, and with the skills learned in a Shaker village, they fared quite well in the outside world.

    • Zach says:

      More afraid of sex? How about more afraid of casual sex?

      The studies are funny. Females want their men to act according to the social rules, but if not, then not acting according to the social rules is status worthy. Such as men in bands, or really popular folks who say ghey and retarded things, but have many followers.

      Men would fuck anything. Women, they’re intimidated by a naked male.

      • Dave says:

        In a society that no longer practices lifelong monogamous marriage, all sex is casual sex. Some men will fuck anything; family courts have no sway over a man with no job and no assets who sees jail as a welcome break from street life.

        Social rules are imposed by high-ranking men upon low-ranking men. A man who flouts the rules *and does not die for it* is obviously a high-ranking man, and therefore extremely desirable (e.g. Dzokhar Tsarnaev), whereas a rule-breaker hanging lifelessly on the gallows is not.

  7. J says:

    It’s all about security. Protection. It is like a beardless boy is incarcelated with adult criminals, he soon understands than his only choice is to become the bitch of a bad moronic Negro.

  8. ndf says:

    Was hoping to see some comments from Jim over at Scott’s site.

    • jim says:

      Permabanned for endorsing the principle that more and better is expected of men than woman, and more and better should be expected of men than women.

      • Thinkingaboutit says:

        AMEN. I’m in the medical field where there are a lot of women. I’m always struck by how at each level men seem to be better than the women but still share equal status in the hierarchy. You need to be twice as good if you’re a man to be equal in status to a woman.

      • Adolf the Friendly Wolf says:

        Expected by whom?

        A woman should want her man to only have attention for her.

        A father should want his son to be sexually successful.

        Their expectations are different, and should be different. They will run into conflict sometimes, but they have some overlap, too. Both want the man to be sexually dominant.

        The wife wants less promiscuity, especially after marriage. The father wants lots of sex for his son, and a high partner count is not the only way to achieve that.

        The Amish probably have more sex than nearly all other American religious group, given their young marriage, and Patriarchy.

  9. Dave says:

    Theodore Dalrymple has an insightful take here:

    I have little sympathy for battered wives. Either marry a tough guy and expect to get slapped when you step out of line*, or marry one of those nice guys that other women keep rejecting.

    *Dalrymple points out that some men draw the lines such that no point is inside all of them, and women seem especially attracted to such men.

    • Thanks Dave for that link. I had been looking for that story but forgot that it was Dalyrmple.

    • Lars Grobian says:

      I know a girl who grew up in rough company. She claims that the girls in that environment want a man other men are frightened of. He’ll knock her around a bit, but he has an ownership stake, so his abuse has limits. He’s a stationary bandit, so to speak, to protect her from mobile bandits.

      Female autonomy creates chaotic conditions which require women to submit to abusive men. Revealed preference.

      • Red says:

        Some women get off being beaten. I’ve known a couple of girls who went from man to man who hit them and when they were with a guy who wouldn’t hit them, they worked very hard to piss them off enough to get them to hit them.

        Also men really pull their punches when they beat their women. Given the physiological differences most men could kill a women in 5 or 6 blows if they were going full force, but I’ve personally witnessed a women being hit 10+ times with little more damage than a few bruises and a fat lip.

        • jim says:

          This does not necessarily indicate they get off on being beaten. They challenge the guy to dominate them, and it gets physical.

          • Alrenous says:

            Not necessarily, but likely.

            “But why does the woman not leave the man as soon as he manifests his violence? It is because, perversely, violence is the only token she has of his commitment to her. Just as he wants the exclusive sexual possession of her, she wants a permanent relationship with him. She imagines—falsely—that a punch in the face or a hand round the throat is at least a sign of his continued interest in her, the only sign other than sexual intercourse she is ever likely to receive in that regard. In the absence of a marriage ceremony, a black eye is his promissory note to love, honor, cherish, and protect.
            So convinced is she that violence is an intrinsic and indispensable part of relations between the sexes, however, that if by some chance she alights next time upon a nonviolent man, she suffers acute discomfort and disorientation; she may, indeed, even leave him because of his insufficient concern for her. Many of my violently abused women patients have told me that they find nonviolent men intolerably indifferent and emotionally distant, rage being the only emotion they’ve ever seen a man express. They leave them quicker than they leave men who have beaten and otherwise abused them.”

            I could dig up lastPsych on this too. The emotionally damaged go for variance. The difference between having a door opened for you and being whipped is a rush. The difference between kind and extra kind isn’t.

          • Red says:

            I talked this over with my friend who’s mother was beaten on a regular basis while growing up (I personally witnessed one beating). He’s pretty sure it’s the dominance that his mother craved, but she was quite turned and happy for months after being hit. In the both the cases of wife beating I’ve observed it was the women who initiated verbal and sometimes physical violence first and often in great depth.

            In the case of my friend’s mother I watched her follow her husband from place to place loudly belittling him until he snapped at hit her. She kept it up for close to an hour before she got a reaction. I surmise that at least a portion of wife beating is trigger deliberately by the woman. This man otherwise wasn’t given to violent streaks, didn’t drink, and treated his children well. My friend confirms that his father never struck his mother without her berating or physically attacking him.

Leave a Reply