However, these men are often punished by being socially labeled as "jerks", "players", or even "creeps", unfit for socially-defined relationships.

Furthermore, their tactics are often designated as "sexist" (Hall & Canterberry, 2011).

This week, I will discuss how that double-bind for women may have resulted in a double-bind for men as well.

Today, men are given confusing and contradictory advice.

These men may further be regarded as "just friends"—expected to pay for all of the costs of a relationship, without the physical and intimate benefits (see here).

In contrast, if men shun social pressures to be "nice" and follow what is biologically attractive, they have a higher likelihood of getting "sex partners".

If they follow what society tells them to do, they often end up "good guys" who are taken advantage of, mistreated, and disrespected.

In contrast, if they follow more "assertive" biological imperatives, they are labeled "jerks" and "players"—who may get sexual gratification, but not love or respect from what they would consider a "good woman".

Many of these tactics, however, primarily attract women who are focused on short-term flings with attractive men (see here).

Therefore, the relationship needs of the men using this strategy may be less fulfilled in the long run.

Men often define these women along evolutionary psychology lines—women who are sexually-selective, faithful, physically attractive, and have a pleasant, respectful disposition (for more on these qualities, see Buss, 2003 and my own articles here and here).

Unfortunately, these qualities are again part of women's double bind, with social norms sometimes guiding them away from these biologically feminine characteristics.

We are all motivated to seek out rewards and avoid punishments (Skinner, 1974).