I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear.
Put it this way: if a man is confusing his masculine presence by being overly 'nice,' the odds are that the female won't be sexually intrigued by the 'niceness.'
'Nice' to a large extent (though need not be) means denying a man's natural sextual instinct and identity. When a woman calls a man 'nice,' that's usually a euphamism for 'sexually nonthreatening.'
So the next time a male is 'complemented' as being 'nice,' realize she is telling you that you have stripped yourself of most of your sexual idenity - you are a 'non-threat.' You have no penis or testicles to speak of. One of the girls. There is no reason to expect most women would be sexually smitten by such a male.
A woman can't meaningfully recognize a man as gentle until she has seen him be tough - and that includes being tough with her. Not in a violent, domineering, or overbearing way, but in the way that shows masculinity, confidence, dominance (as in being a dominant, and not a weak, male), and character.
The truth is that given choice, a woman will naturally choose to be with a more dominant and unambiguously masculine male than a less dominant and more ambiguously masculine male.
The fact that the male in the second case intentionally made himself ambiguous, or somehow thinks himself as superior, is strange.
The truth is that it is not a choice between being a nice guy and a jerk. Limiting it to that choice isn't productive. You have more choices than being 'nice' and 'jerk.'
The 'kind of woman' who is drawn to a masculine presence is the large majority of women. I don't blame them - they instinctively don't want to pass their DNA onto a next generation with what is considered (though perhaps wrongly so) as a weak male's DNA.
Those men are inferior, in that they undermine their masculuine traits to the point where they are sexless wonders, or girlfriends with a penis. It's very hard for a woman to be excited by a male who has divorced himself from his sexual nature (which for purposes of what I am saying is what I mean - and what many women mean - by 'nice').
Those men are routinely rejected, even if they consider themselves superior in some way to men who embrace their sexual identity. I applaud women who reject those males - those ladies understand that while those sexless wonders are really nice to have around when they need to be picked up at the airport in the poring rain, they rarely reward those men with their sexual goodies because, when you get right down to it, they aren't sexually very exciting.
They reserve those goodies for more unambiguously male. And that's a good thing.
Hitman, I wouldnt call that being nice, I call that being a milquetoast.
We are on different definitions of nice.
Some of the toughest men I have ever known were very nice men, and I have long hoped to emualte them.
You got it exactly right.
There's an evolutionary advantage to this preference. A pregnant woman is very vulnerable, likewise a woman who has to care for a young child. Historically, the ideal man is somebody who can be depended on to protect his woman and children against all threats, and aggresively secure resources for them against all competitors. The "nice guy" does not fit this profile
Down here in Washington DC alot of women are attracted to wimps and many of them are liberals. Strong masculine, conservative and moral types intimidate them because we do not share their naive-laissez faire attitude.