In my experience, most dudes who go around describing themselves as ‘nice guys’ are actually anything but.
Usually, they are predatory opportunists just looking for an ‘in’; some token act they can perform or gift they can give women that will automatically afford them a “coochie coupon™.”
*Credit to Montana Taylor, the comedienne that coined that phrase.
What annoyed me back when I lived in the dorms were the girls (women most of us were under 21… anyway) would come in to the shared tv area kvetching ‘men are assholes’ and I would be like excuse me and then they replied ‘no not you you’re nice’… 
(and to be honest the ones that did that were not really ones I wanted to date anyway still good kids but not ones I wanted to ask out)
However it did give me the learnin’ to treat them as just other people and it’s no big deal if they say no to me asking them out.
“Everything is sex, except sex, which is power. You know power is just sex. Now ask yourself who’s screwing who.”
Oh, damn; they gave the ‘you’re one of the good ones’; that’s messed up.
But when women identify a guy as nice, it doesn’t mean undateable/unfuckable; it means ‘not a predator.’
When men go out their way to describe themselves as ‘nice’, it can often be an early warning sign…
It’s like being “very smart.” If you genuinely embody that quality then you don’t have to tell everyone because other people will say it about you. If not, then…
If you want to be a nice guy, act like a nice guy. Saves time announcing it to everyone.
[same goes for being a gentleman, a liberal, a feminist, etc., etc.]
Eh. I survived. Ended up dating a not quite ex of a friend… From what I understood he had permission but she didn’t know till I confirmed then she pounced on me. Then I got teased cause I was 21 and she was 17…
Yep; don’t talk about it, BE about it.
Isn’t the idea that women are uninterested in sex compared to men a fairly modern (I want to say 19th-century, but I’m not sure) invention, presenting them as “pure” and innocent and needing to be sheltered? If I remember correctly, in Medieval times, for example, it was taken as a given that women were more horny and prone to adultery than men, due to Eve’s sin or something along those lines.
(The reality, I think, is that men and women are about equally interested in sex, though how that manifests is obviously affected by cultural expectations and, possibly, by actual sex-based differences… though I wouldn’t be surprised if those turned out to be an insignificant factor.)
Men don’t just masturbate 2x - 6x more than women, they think about sex twice as much as women, on average, too:
In the study, the median number of young men’s thought about sex stood at almost 19 times per day. Young women in the study reported a median of nearly 10 thoughts about sex per day.
More study data here.
Per the biological differences, men are (much) more aggressive about it, as well. I believe that velocity disparity plus aggression plus profound social ineptitude in the smartphone-rules-the-world era can manifest as this incel bullshit too.
I wouldn’t say PUA or Jordaddy are the ‘gateway drug’. Those two things are two of the more harmful parts of the whole ‘community’.
If you have to carry the result of a sexual encounter for (at least) 9 months, you tend to be more picky 
It was definitely a different (and much worse) world before pervasive and cheap birth control.
They are both awful, though still not as toxic as the incels. The reason I see these charlatans as gateway drugs is that both PUAs and Jordaddy tout themselves as ways that these young dweebs can get the women to which they’re “entitled”. When, as often happens, this doesn’t work out the incels are ready to catch them.
I remember having read the same story. Women were the “weak” sex, not necessarily more horny (text of the time did not write about that concept), but more likely to fall into love.
The concept was more that “the weaker vessel”, based on the “evidence” of the Bible, was more prone to succumbing to sexual temptation and, worse, to leading a naturally virtuous male into it through her wiles. Female libido wasn’t always a given in these scenarios.
A lot of chivalry involved upright men setting a good and wholesome example for these sinful creatures, and this evolved into putting women on a pedestal of purity or in gilded cages (as you describe). Madonna or whore became the only choices, with men making the judgment. One can trace the various threads of that line right up through the toxic masculinity expressed in the manosphere today.
It’s an excellent analogy because, as with sex and masturbation, people eat for all kinds of reasons that are entirely unrelated to appetite.
Social situations and celebrations often involve food. There is ample documentation that a lot people eat as a coping or self-soothing mechanism- some even eat in their sleep. An individuals choice of portion and diet are referred to as habits, because they are habitual.
Some people starve themselves to death. And while all of this documented behavior is related to a biological function, none of it is determined by biology. It is all the result of social and mental conditions.
Some of it is, with statistical variation around the norm. The open question is, how much?
I ask this in all honesty and respect: why do we have to quantify, classify and generalize human sexuality in the first place?
Numbers are nice, sure, and I suppose there’s some comfort in trying to figure out why people act the way they do. But I’m not comfortable with statements like “men are more/less {x} than women”-- especially when it’s about something so messy and inherently personal as attraction and desire.
If you look at one person’s life over the course of time, sex drive can wax and wane, from a desperate need for companionship to “naw, I don’t have the time or patience to date anybody right now.” So if attraction can’t be defined as a constant for one person, how can it possibly be defined as a constant for an entire gender??
Moreover, doesn’t the attempt to quantify some degree of “normal” and “outlier” convey some form of judgment on anyone who doesn’t fit the average? Why would we want or need to do that?
Generalizing on sex and/or gender just doesn’t sit right with me. To assume “men want sex more than women because biology” feels awfully close to the same kind of stereotyping that incels use when they condemn women-- or better yet, the way PUAs think they can use “one sure trick” to manipulate their prey into their beds. There’s plenty of responses above mine that point out how they had more enjoyable and successful relationships when they got to know people as individuals, not some sample of a monolithic gender ideal. Given that, why should we be so concerned about defining humans with numbers? Why can’t we just appreciate people as they are?
Easy answer; it can’t.
Second easy answer:
That’s too much like ‘right’; it makes way too much sense.
People can dig up stats to support whatever they want to believe all the live-long day; it still doesn’t make the data that those statistics were based on accurate. Subconscious bias, the methodology used and personal agendas can and do affect the outcomes of any study.
What’s that acronym those brilliant tech dudes who know everything are always saying?
Oh yeah, it’s ‘GIGO’: garbage in, garbage out.
