>>28 Ok, I think talking about sexuality was a bad idea, because the word is too loaded and everyone understands it differently. Basically what I meant is that the failure of the "nice" guy is that he behaves in a gender neutral, assexual way. And this is what prevents him from raising (sexual) interest, as is obvious. There is the confused belief that behaving in a sexually charged way means that you are a slut if you are a woman, and a jerk if you are a man. But it's not the same thing. Behave in a sexually charged way is a behavior that clearly shows interest for the opposite sex (in the case of hets): make eye contacts longer, touching the other person, talk about sex, etc.

If a "nice" guy avoids this behavior (because he is shy, or associates it with being a jerk, or whatever), then he has much less chances of eliciting interest from a woman. But behaving in this way is not being a jerk. Being a jerk is when you abuse the other person, which has nothing to do with what I just described.

>Furthermore your definition of masculinity seems to imply that shy guys aren't masculine, that a guy being afraid to ask someone out or liking being chased themselves isn't manly and therefore they don't deserve a relationship.

Shy guys (or girls) are always disadvantaged in the game of seduction, simply because they refuse to make the first step, and rely non-shy people to do the job. This automatically rules out shy-shy pairings, and puts them in a disadvantage in a competition with a non shy person. It's not that shy people do not deserve a relationship, but it's harder for them to get one, just like it's harder for people with other disadvantages (handicapped, severely sick, with mental problems). It has nothing to do with justice.