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.
Semantics
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.