Several months ago, I had a conversation with Yale about Gia and girls in general. Yale was frustrated that girls (and Gia in particular) had the proclivity to date worthless men (criminals and sloths). Yale, an upward bound college student, found it perplexing that they would prefer someone with no discernable future over someone with better long term prospects. The irony that he was complaining about this and yet focused his complaints on such a vapid, spoiled rich girl like Gia was lost on him, but that's a story for another time.

The conversation came up again with some acquaintances this week. One of them was in a science class dominated by girls that spent one three-hour lab complaining about their worthless boyfriends. They asked why women were attracted to jerks and I commented that you could get to know a lot about a girl (including but certainly not limited to whether or not they're worth your time) by the men they choose to date. I made a reference to The Ladder Theory, which they read and spurred more conversation on the matter.

But the question is why. Having been a repeatedly spurned nice guy in a former life, and having discussed the matter with scores of females since then, I have come up with what I believe is the most probable reason in large part because it explains guys' romantic failures as well as girls'. They make different mistakes, but I believe they come from the same general failure to be proactive about determining what they're truly looking for in a relationship and the unconscious motivations that guide them until they start being more decisive about what they're looking for.

Generally speaking, adolescence is a time of frivolity. Our romantic actions rarely have concrete consequences. You get together, you break up. Somewhere along the line you may lose your virginity. A few get pregnant or acquire STDs, but they are the exception. As dramatic and important as it all seems at the time, it's mostly a construct of our imaginations and neuroses. The problem is that this age of frivolity often sets our course well past the time when our actions don't have consequences. Some people don't wake up until they're thirty - or even later.

So our actions are guided by our experiences and scars acquired during a time of general irrelevence. So if we aren't motivated by the consequences of our actions during that period, what does motivate us? Instant gratification.

Men and women, in my experience, are generally gratified differently. Whether this is genetic or a product of social conditioning I'm not sure of and in either case, until the contributing factors change we will continue to achieve gratification with different goals in mind. Yes, there are exceptions (and at times I am one of them, as is my significant other). Yes, I'm painting with broad strokes. Duly noted and now moving on.

On the subject of Yale's lament, girls are more generally motivated by validation. Many of the most successful relationship books ever written acknowledge this and one of the reasons that they sell so well is that they work. A girl wants to feel appreciated and to feel special. The more special she feels, the more gratification she experiences. So lets take Joe Nice. Joe is a darn good guy who treats everyone with kindness and respect. If Joe dates a girl, he's almost sure to treat her kindly. He's likely to give her flowers and hugs and kisses. To a girl, this ought to sound absolutely great. The problem is that if Joe is nice to everyone, and is nice to his girlfriend, then while she is experiencing a degree of appreciation, she's not experiencing much in the way of feeling special. What's so special about being treated nicely about someone who treats everyone such? So her validation is somewhat limited in that regard.

Then she meets John Cool or Michael Jerk.

John communicates an air of superiority. Maybe he's a good athlete or his parents are wealthy and he can afford better clothes. Perhaps he's just really good looking. Maybe he's a decent guy and just a loner by nature or not particularly good at presenting himself (though these factors generally require some sort of benefit to keep him from being John Dork). Regardless, John keeps everyone at a distance with either wry cut downs or simple silence.

Michael Jerk also has an air of superiority, but it's generally more aggressive. He may relentless in cutting down those that are below him or he's someone that confuses individuality with assholery and being a rebel with being an individual. Or he's just extremely self-centered and solely concerned with his own gratification. Regardless, he doesn't universally treat people with any respect.

So if the problem with Joe Nice is that his affection towards her doesn't give her a feeling of being special since he is so nice to everyone, then imagine what a thrill she might get when John Cool or Michael Jerk show her positive attention. Considering that they are cool or cruel towards everyone they know, it makes her de facto special that he treats her differently. She is not only appreciated, but also special. That gives her a level of validation that Joe Nice is incapable of.

Of course John Cool and Michael Jerk will rarely actually change for a girl's hand in a relationship, but they'll show the flicker of a chance of treating her differently (and when no one is looking, might well truly treat her differently). But ultimately they will generally revert to form. She, meanwhile, sees the promised land. The chance at ultimate validation. The chance to be treated like a princess by someone guaranteed not to treat many people that way. So she'll put up with a whole lot in order to demonstrate her worthiness for his affections (whereas with Joe Nice, she'll wonder why he's such a jerk to her when he's so nice to everyone else).

So now let's take a look at guys. Guys have a word for women who treat everyone coolly or cruelly and it's not even remotely a nice one. They don't seek validation from girls in the same way that girls do from guys. All of the things being equal, guys would prefer a girl that is nice to people than one that is unnice. In fact, if a girl is supernice she's a flirt, and being with someone flirty can give a guy a height all its own on his own criterion: accomplishment. Why? Because she could get any guy she wanted and she chose him. Woohoo!

This is its own sense of validation, of course, but it's not so much based on intimacy than it is based on having a trophy. It doesn't really matter who she is or what she likes to do or even, to a degree (see paragraph below), how she treats him in private. It matters that she looks good and her stock is high (other guys want her).

This feeling of accomplishment is bolstered when he feels that she looks up to him. This is why young men are not, generally speaking, remarkably concerned about a notable lack of intelligence on her part. In fact, a lack of intelligence can be an attractive trait because if she's dumb as a bag of bricks, she'll just see him as being that much smarter. This is also a motivation behind guys being attracted to ladies that are younger than themselves. If he's 16 and she's 13, he's almost guaranteed to have more relationship and sexual experience than she is (and if not, because he lacks experience, it's an even bigger motivation because he's going to feel much smaller compared to girls his age). As such, he's more likely to be in the superior place in the relationship and she's less likely to challenge him, which gives him a greater sense of accomplishment.

The problem with these desires is that while they may be gratifying in the shorter term, they're bound to lead to long term failure. A jerk will still be a jerk if he's being rewarded for that behavior. A dumb girl will remain dumb because she, too, has no incentive to change. Eventually the girl will get so frustrated with her jerk and the guy so bored with his ditz that they will let the relationship go. Oftenly, they'll then pursue the same relationship over and over again.

Why? Why not. They're seeking gratification and, for a little while at least, they see the promise of achieving it. It didn't work that time, but who's to say that it won't work out the next time?

This attitude is particularly prevalent in younger men and women, though you run in to a wall enough times eventually you'll figure out that there isn't a door there. Some sooner and some later.

At some point during their 20's and 30's, their actions start having consequences. Even if the only consequence is wasted time, that time becomes more valuable with the biological clock ticking away and more and more of their friends settling down. So when people start really looking at what they want not for immediate gratification but for a partner, people become more particular. Joe Nice starts looking like a much better candidate for the father of her children than he did when it came to a high school boyfriend. Jane Ditz doesn't look to be a particularly good mother of his children and somewhat embarassing at dinner parties. So whereas the guy and girl were previously looking for something that made them feel good, they start looking for someone to build a life with.

Some boys and girls grow out of this early while it takes others a little longer. Some, of course, never do and others never really fell into it in the first place (or set their gratification with a different set of criteria).