Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Do Jerks Get Laid More?

Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe at 8:00 AM on June 24, 2008.


Ev psych strikes again.
mammoth

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Sex and Relationships in your
mailbox!

 

Apparently.


Two hundred college students took personality tests and were also asked about their number of sexual partners. Only the young men showed a direct correlation between ‘dark’ traits,’ like narcissism, and notches on the bed post.
Another study of 35,000 people across 57 countries found a similar correlation ‘between the dark triad and reproductive success in men.’ This data says little about whether these guys are also capable of long-term, lasting relationships, though; it simply what bad boy behaviors will allegedly woo someone into bed.

Unfortunately, this study is being interpreted as “women like assholes.” Well, no. Let’s think this one through: This isn’t about how often someone gets laid, it’s about how many sexual partners someone has — those aren’t the same thing. If you’re in a relationship, chances are you’re sleeping with fewer people than a sexually active single person (yeah, there’s cheating and there are open relationships, but generally, couples at least attempt to be monogamous). People in relationships may be having more sex than single people, but that doesn’t matter for this particular study. And, considering that this
study was conducted on college-age men (meaning, generally under the age of 22), the ones with large numbers of sexual partners probably haven’t been in a whole ton of committed relationships — that is, they just haven’t had enough time for their numbers to rack up through serial monogamy. In other words, these are the dudes that chicks want to fuck, not date seriously (and likewise, they’re also dudes who just want to fuck and not date anyone seriously). Further, as people in the comments to this post immediately noted, narcissistic assholes are also likely to over-report the number of sexual partners they’ve had.

And we’re supposed to be shocked that a disproportionate number of them demonstrate “dark” traits like narcissism?

Now, I’m not saying that people who bone a lot of different people are narcissists; simply that when you’re 20, having a large number of sexual partners is probably an indication that you’ve spent a decent amount of time being single or in a non-monogamous relationship. And, not that single people are more likely to be narcissists, just that
narcissists are by virtue of being narcissistic probably less likely to be in relationships and more likely to seek out sexual attention from others. So of course their numbers of over-represented in the “guys who have had lots of sexual partners” category — especially when that category is already tainted by guys who lie about the number of sexual partners they’ve had.

It has almost nothing to do with what women like, unless by “like” you mean “like to bone once or twice.” I know it’s easy to forget that sometimes women have sex just to have sex and not because they actually like you that much, but it happens. It’s not always a matter of bad boys wooing vulnerable women into bed and then leaving them; it’s often two people who are both interested in just sex picking each other and calling it a day. Of course, there are no doubt some women who are suckered in by narcissistic jerks; there are also some dudes who are suckered in by narcissistic jerks (just as a Nice Guy). But sex isn’t always a trick men play on women. What kind of men women choose to partner with is probably a better indication of what women actually like.

Digg!

Tagged as: politics, sex, evolution


MSNBC's Brewer Adopts Anti-Gay Rhetoric
Anchor Contessa Brewer's introduction of a segment about Maine's repeal of a law allowing same-sex marriage is right out of the right-wing playbook.
Post by Jamison Foser. November 4, 2009.
Meet the 28 (Male) Anti-Choice Dems Who Are Stalling Health Reform
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) claims he's recruited over 40 anti-choice Dems to sabotage the current bill.
Post by mcjoan. November 3, 2009.
Sex for World Series Tickets?
A Craig's List ad goes sadly wrong.
Post by Richard Blair. October 28, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
But What Do I Know?
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jun 24, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like someone should do a study where the AMOUNT of sex is taken into consideration, rather than just the number of partners.
Better yet, what kind of guy do women stay long-term with?

My bet is on: all kinds of men. Yes, lots of women DO really love jerks.
And a lot of men really do like nasty women. (I don't.)

I just saw some article where it was contended that, yes, women really do like jerks more than nice guys. Why? Because nice guys seem to be too needy and weak.
Along those lines, I wonder if liberal women are more likely to date conservative men rather than liberal men dating conservative women, controlling for the greater number of conservative men and the greater number of liberal women.
My guess: If women don't like "weak" men as much as "strong" men, then I think there might be a tendency for liberal guys to not get as much as conservative guys (who also tend to be richer).
Also, liberal women are probably less scary to men in general than conservative men, since conservatism is "masculine", and liberalism is "feminine" to a lot of people.
Still, even though I haven't myself done a survey, I bet lots of liberal guys get laid plenty. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But What Do I Know? Posted by: QQOblivion
» RE: HA! Posted by: QQOblivion
» RE: HA! Posted by: Plexius2
» Ugh! Posted by: Libertine
» RE: But What Do I Know? Posted by: hms2004
Umm umm ummm
Posted by: carolcarre on Jun 24, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hey, before we get all hot and bothered, remember this was a SURVEY taken of young people and the young men were reporting the number of sexual partners...and how much do you want to bet the narcissists were lying?

This wasn't even scientific,let alone a proof of anything except maybe some people aren't very honest. and the more your ego depends on being perceived as a "boinker' the more likely you are to lie about it.

Honestly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sometimes A Cigar is Just a Cigar
Posted by: Libertine on Jun 24, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm one of those guys who has had a large number of sexual partners since I first became sexually active in the mid-1970s. I'm unmarried and have been for my entire adult life, barring one brief misadventure into marriage in the early 80s.

I don't think I'm a jerk or a narcissist, however. I just have a high libido and I prefer casual sex with a variety of partners, rather than settling down into a monogamous relationship with just one partner.

I'm not a jerk, as I'm honest with women and tell them up front what I'm all about -- they have a chance to walk away if that's not their cup of tea.

Though I'll occasionally have a one night stand and I do have more serious relationships (never monogamous), I'm mainly the "friends with benefits" type for several women concurrently.

That is, there are a lot of women who, for whatever reasons, don't want a serious relationship at various points in their lives, but they still have sexual needs they want fulfilled. These are the kinds of women whom I typically choose for my partners. There's lots of great sex with no strings attached on both sides. And though the cast of characters continues to shift over the years, it's worked well for me -- and for them, too.

And that's what it's all about. People still have sexual needs even if they don't have the time or inclination to pursue a full-blown relationship, monogamous or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who cares?
Posted by: countingdaisies on Jun 24, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another idiotic article about sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who cares? Posted by: LeeAnnG
If you follow this logic,
Posted by: Quannah on Jun 24, 2008 10:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush and Cheney must be gettin' it like crazy.

(That thought just made me throw up)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheaters are just lame
Posted by: xmvince on Jun 25, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article makes it seem like its OK to cheat. If I ever found out my girlfriend cheated I would immediately kick her out wherever I was (even if we were on a road trip 5,000 miles away). I would never cheat on anyone either, as it's just plain stupid and wrong. If you have the desire to cheat, then you obviously aren't satisfied with your relationship and should just get out of it anyways. In a good relationship, one should never even have the desire to cheat. Or maybe most humans just aren't meant for relationships? Let's just act like monkeys and fuck whatever comes near us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clear Posted by: Landbaron
ba
Posted by: mnstra on Jun 25, 2008 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sexual relationships take place below the Higher centers of the brain, the Cerebral cortex, in the limbic system . They are not logical or rational. If they were logical or even rational, there would be far fewer STD s around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that's why birth control is such a good thing
Posted by: Jasonix on Jun 25, 2008 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It gets used to prevent pregnancies from casual partners. Long-term relationships produce the offspring. With good birth control, we'll breed the jerks out of the human race in a couple of generations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

22-year old males are not men, that is the central issue
Posted by: Vince Coit on Jun 28, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article neglects the central issue. Twenty-two year old males are not men, so to call them “young men” invalidates the argument being made. In short, this reporting of males students’ proclivities indicates the transition their lives are going through, the final point in this transition is manhood. They aren’t there yet, for most, almost all, their behavior changes, changes in many ways including the way relevant to this story. Review what a “right of passage” always is. Review, if possible, the popular term, “boy toy”; it all is very consistent. Secondly, those who comment should quit ridiculing Anne Coulter, I am feminist enough to respect a women at the biological level even if I disagree with their thinking in politics. She believes in something, it is not important to agree with what that is; the swinger community is comprised of a larger fraction of nihilists than the rest of society I will claim, and therefore Anne Coulter is better than them. Generally it is a confusion or conflation of ideas to equate political views of conservatism or liberalism with behavioral patterns that are relevant to this story. I will picture you slathering over the statement I, while very politically liberal, remain very behaviorally conservative, and I choose to not be promiscuous for the reasons I described. I never run a race, I laugh at those who do, and would rather be alone than to ruin a women’s life which is too often a result reinforced by studies/press release (and what’s the difference there? - lol) that accord 22 year old male children the status of being men. Women become adults much earlier in their chronology, probably how they learn to survive through the oncoming decades-long reality of patriarchal oppression everywhere; they can’t escape it, they realize it and adapt by growing up fifteen years earlier than males - anyone want to give example of that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yea but is he father material?
Posted by: cyr3n on Jun 28, 2008 11:20 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because a jerk gets laid doesn't mean a woman would want to bear his children. I know a fellow in particular who was such a scumbag that at least three date rape victims and ex-gfs (who got knocked up) aborted because they'd never want him in their life.

Then there are other guys who've dated and hurt so many women in their early 20's.. that now in their late 20's can't find a suitable partner. Arguably because every prospect they meet is 'ruined' (abandoned with children out of wedlock) and emotionally scarred from heinous past relationships.

Isn't that a trip? The guys that churn out of relationships higher ultimately become victims of their own sport.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]