Even though people can read and over-read into the whole 'nice guys vs bad boys' or 'betas versus alphas' dichotomy, at its core I believe this is the underlying principle.
I believe the one character trait more attractive to women than anything else is courage. (And courage by itself isn't moral or immoral, but it's still the primary trait that women are designed to find attractive).
Like it or not a woman's going to be more attracted to a courageous man who is evil, than a cowardly man who is not evil (this is why even Charles Manson can get a girlfriend but betas can't).
On the flip side beauty and submissive charm are the traits that men are hardwired to find attractive, and likewise these traits on their own aren't moral or immoral (this is why men would rather sleep with a hot girl at the club than... Queen Elizabeth the II even if she's an allegedly "better person").
---
The one thing pretty much every variety of 'nice guy' or 'beta' has in common is a lack of courage, and confusing conscience with cowardice, which is why they aren't even "nice" to begin with, just afraid of consequences.
Nice guys simply do 'nice things' but not based on any real moral principles, just out of fear of rejection, consequences, disapproval, etc - and many of them would have no actual moral problem with being a jerk if they knew they would get away with it. They then try to overcompensate for their insecurity by claiming it's about "virtue".
In reality nice guys are just "passively amoral" as opposed to jerks who are "actively amoral". So this essentially makes them the virtuous equivalent of the jerk, but minus the courage:
Let's say a nice guy and a jerk were each contemplating shoplifting a TV from a department store - in reality neither of them had a moral problem with it - the jerk however went along with it because he didn't fear consequences, while the nice guy simply didn't because he was afraid of getting in trouble. (But if he knew for 100% certainty that he wouldn't get in trouble, he would've shunned his fake 'moral' principles and lifted the TV in a heartbeat).
From a virtuous POV, this ironically makes him slightly worse than the jerk - because rather than a genuinely good guy, he's simply a jerk at heart who doesn't even have the brains or ambition to even become a jerk; he's simply a jerk who failed at being one rather than succeeded.
In the long run, nice guys are the kind of guys who would have stood buy and helped the gestapo round up the Jews while at the same time trying to convince themselves that it's "moral" just because the state or society of the time was permitting it.
So even from a purely consequentalist perspective, nice guys are responsible for more evil in history than jerks are - because while the worst jerks might commit crimes such as rape or murder, the worst nice guys are the ones responsible for allowing people like Hitler and Stalin to come into power, resulting in the deaths of millions more people than any lone serial killer or rapist ever has. In a world where every guy was a jerk, there would be much less bloodshed and violence, because jerks would stand their ground and fight it out, rather stand by while jerks like Hitler raped their wives and killed their sons. And yes, most of the so-called nice guys you see today lamenting their failure with women would easily vote a new Hitler or Stalin into power if they thought it would "get them laid".
I believe the one character trait more attractive to women than anything else is courage. (And courage by itself isn't moral or immoral, but it's still the primary trait that women are designed to find attractive).
Like it or not a woman's going to be more attracted to a courageous man who is evil, than a cowardly man who is not evil (this is why even Charles Manson can get a girlfriend but betas can't).
On the flip side beauty and submissive charm are the traits that men are hardwired to find attractive, and likewise these traits on their own aren't moral or immoral (this is why men would rather sleep with a hot girl at the club than... Queen Elizabeth the II even if she's an allegedly "better person").
---
The one thing pretty much every variety of 'nice guy' or 'beta' has in common is a lack of courage, and confusing conscience with cowardice, which is why they aren't even "nice" to begin with, just afraid of consequences.
Nice guys simply do 'nice things' but not based on any real moral principles, just out of fear of rejection, consequences, disapproval, etc - and many of them would have no actual moral problem with being a jerk if they knew they would get away with it. They then try to overcompensate for their insecurity by claiming it's about "virtue".
In reality nice guys are just "passively amoral" as opposed to jerks who are "actively amoral". So this essentially makes them the virtuous equivalent of the jerk, but minus the courage:
Let's say a nice guy and a jerk were each contemplating shoplifting a TV from a department store - in reality neither of them had a moral problem with it - the jerk however went along with it because he didn't fear consequences, while the nice guy simply didn't because he was afraid of getting in trouble. (But if he knew for 100% certainty that he wouldn't get in trouble, he would've shunned his fake 'moral' principles and lifted the TV in a heartbeat).
From a virtuous POV, this ironically makes him slightly worse than the jerk - because rather than a genuinely good guy, he's simply a jerk at heart who doesn't even have the brains or ambition to even become a jerk; he's simply a jerk who failed at being one rather than succeeded.
In the long run, nice guys are the kind of guys who would have stood buy and helped the gestapo round up the Jews while at the same time trying to convince themselves that it's "moral" just because the state or society of the time was permitting it.
So even from a purely consequentalist perspective, nice guys are responsible for more evil in history than jerks are - because while the worst jerks might commit crimes such as rape or murder, the worst nice guys are the ones responsible for allowing people like Hitler and Stalin to come into power, resulting in the deaths of millions more people than any lone serial killer or rapist ever has. In a world where every guy was a jerk, there would be much less bloodshed and violence, because jerks would stand their ground and fight it out, rather stand by while jerks like Hitler raped their wives and killed their sons. And yes, most of the so-called nice guys you see today lamenting their failure with women would easily vote a new Hitler or Stalin into power if they thought it would "get them laid".