I'm so glad I get to use the following phrase, thus lending some form of use to my sociology classes:
Your entire presumption is based in a heteronormative worldview. Yay for me.
But, more broadly, here's the issue:
You begin with an assumption for how "men" act, and then proceed to prove your point through a simple recitation of that core belief. Even ignoring your obvious "no true Scotsman" fallacy (in which you posit that a man acts a certain way, and any deviation would render someone "not a real man"), you still don't bring any real evidence not predicated on your initial assumptions.
Your read of the landscape, while perhaps valid, is shaded wildly by your worldview. Instead of rendering an impartial assessment of what's actually happening, you begin with an assumption, and your analysis of other "facts" both stems from and "proves" your original assertion. Circular logic at its best.
And, not for nothing, but your logic of "men don't respect women, and so are able to open up to them/be nice guys/show sensitivity, ect" cuts both ways. If what you say is true, wouldn't it be just as likely that because men don't respect women, they feel no need to get a woman's input, don't open up to them at all (because they don't want to show weakness toward potential mates), and instead only open up to their male friends?
You're going over the well-trodden ground of "why do women like bad boys" and doing so without having looked at really *any* of the sociological or psychological research, and that makes you a bit of a hack. Anecdotes, while amusing, cannot count as evidence for the kind of generalization you want to make. If "nice guys finish last" there should be no nice guys after a few generations, whereas evolutionary psychologists now believe that the difference is in the stage of a woman's life (and fertility cycle) she's in. "Bad boys" are more successful in adolescence and early adulthood. "Nice guys" (to use phrases I personally abhor) are more successful in terms of marriage and settling down in families.
Admittedly, many evolutionary psychologists also admit that the optimum solution for a woman, then, would be to procreate with the "bad boy" (for his genes), but settle down with the "nice guy" (for his child rearing). This, if she were successful, would get the nice guy to raise the jerk's kids, which would mean he finishes last, but paternity tests are brilliant things.
Finally, to address the entire "nice guy" vs. "bad boy" issue:
Why do we assume that this is the only salient detail of the choice between dating two individual men? If two men were perfectly equivalent in all other ways (physical attractiveness, intelligence, humor, ect.) do we really believe that a woman would decide to date the "bad boy" 100% of the time? Or, are we accepting that nice guys (like Avis) are second best, so they try harder? If that's true, then don't talk about the divide in terms of "nice guys" and "bad boys"; if it's about physical looks, talk about "ugly" versus "Adonis".
If I were to posit a theory, it would be that the so-called "bad boys" are that way simply because they are attractive enough to not have to put as much effort into getting girls. The "bad boys" don't get girls because they're bad, they're bad because they don't have to be nice to get girls. Nice guys are less attractive (for whatever reason) and thus have to put more effort into getting girls. Aloofness itself isn't attractive, rather one has to be attractive to be aloof.
I get that it's more pleasant (given that most men on sites like this would put themselves more squarely in the "nice" grouping) to believe the factors to be either something outside of our control, or even the girls simply being wrong about their choices, but there's no evidence beyond bare speculation to support that assumption.
