Sex and Science
May. 30th, 2007 08:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bluegargantuaHey,
So what kinds of people get the most sex?
Strangely, both assholes and nice guys get lots of sex.
So, asshole or nice guy, which one are you?
Tom
So what kinds of people get the most sex?
Strangely, both assholes and nice guys get lots of sex.
So, asshole or nice guy, which one are you?
Tom
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 01:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 01:08 pm (UTC)I think Option C is "not so much sex".
Tom
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 01:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 01:15 pm (UTC)I'd go with "nice guy", it's the safer bet.
Tom
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 01:36 pm (UTC)Option C:
Date: 2007-05-30 03:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 03:27 pm (UTC)Semantics
Date: 2007-05-30 02:33 pm (UTC)Your use of those terms raises an interesting distinction in my mind, actually, and I think it's a good one for discussion. Not because I think you're 'wrong' or anything but because I think it's a good roundtable topic.
Classically, I've heard the phrase 'nice guy' used to refer not to socially dominant friendly types, but to shy or submissive friendly types. When the stereotype that "girls always choose nice guys over assholes" comes up, it's generally referring to two polar opposites: warm, friendly submissives versus antagonistic dominants.
So... what does that make the socially dominant warm/friendly type? My first instinct was to say 'fun guy', which I think might work; it's about as shallow as the 'nice guy' appellation, and makes a distinction between soft kindness and boisterous warmth.
(what, then, is the submissive antagonist? 'iconoclast', maybe?)
Kinda makes me want to draw up a grid. Or an OKCupid Quiz.
Re: Semantics
Date: 2007-05-30 02:36 pm (UTC)... yeah, obviously this is supposed to be reversed. Mai baddo desu.
Re: Semantics
Date: 2007-05-30 03:10 pm (UTC)I was being deliberately sloppy with my phraseology.
So... what does that make the socially dominant warm/friendly type?
My first instinct was slut (mainly so I could make the asshole-slut-asshole-slut Rocky Horror Reference).
later
Tom
Re: Semantics
Date: 2007-05-30 03:14 pm (UTC)The only constant in your dissatisfying relationships, etc.
Re: Semantics
Date: 2007-05-30 05:55 pm (UTC)(The why of that is obviously another complex question... Are they social submissives who have trouble believing that they deserve better? Did they have charismatic asshole fathers? Do they just have really terrible taste? I imagine their reasons vary quite a bit.)
I personally take amused umbrage at "nice guys finish last", since I married a nice guy, and prefer not to be considered a consolation prize. ;)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 03:27 pm (UTC)I'll let history be the judge.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 05:31 pm (UTC)It's an interesting article. I'm a little dubious on the inference about "avoiding monogamous relationships". I'd have to see more of the data to have any ideas myself but this one just sounds wrong.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 11:49 pm (UTC)[click, click, read, amused snort]
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 05:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 06:31 pm (UTC)You can be my salad chef any day.
:)
Tom
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 07:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 06:34 pm (UTC)cross-hatched for her something something.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-30 10:52 pm (UTC)To quote Wayne's World:
Eeewwww!