In modern dating in today’s society, there are usually two different archetypes: Mr. Nice Guy and Mr. Nonchalant. The nice guy is seen as agreeable, emotionally available and accommodating. In contrast, the nonchalant guy is seen as detached, unbothered and calm. The clear difference is that one cares too much and one cares too little, one tends to be the “safe choice” and the other the “risky” one.
But really, a nonchalant guy does not seem to need validation, while some “nice guys” are not motivated by kindness at all, but by the desire of approval or fear of being rejected.
Nonchalance does not mean the person lacks apathy, just as niceness does not necessarily entail sincerity.
When the “Good Guy” Is Not Actually Better
A show I’ve been watching with the most accurate, dictionary definition examples is Sex and the City, with a clear distinction between Aiden Shaw and Mr. Big. Before I go into my explanation, you should know that in no shape or form am I team Big; it’s just a perfect example.
At the beginning of season three, Aiden is obviously seen as the better option. Aiden is depicted as warm, affectionate and emotionally present, while Big is frustrating, inconsistent and mostly avoidant. Watching the show, there is an obvious choice, but the show complicates that assumption. Aiden frames himself as the superior partner. After getting back with Carrie, after she cheated, he (understandably) does not fully forgive her. Who would forgive someone so readily after you’ve been cheated on for three weeks? But don’t get back together with that person, you will never forgive.
Instead of addressing his emotions, Aiden expresses resentment towards Carrie through guilt tripping and passive-aggressive comments.
Big is flawed — but he never pretended not to be. He does not present himself as this great boyfriend or claim moral superiority. His behavior can be rather messy and disgusting, but he’s honest about who he is.
The partner who looks like the healthier choice is not always the one who is healthier. Big wasn’t in any way the right choice, but neither was Aiden, because his need to be the “right choice” for Carrie comes off as controlling rather than caring.
Nonchalant versus Uninterested: Confusing Calm Personalities with Carelessness
Nonchalant: (of a person or manner) feeling or appearing casually calm and relaxed; not displaying anxiety, interest or enthusiasm.
Nonchalant is one of the most misunderstood personalities in dating culture. We often claim that we dislike “nonchalant men,” but really we mean men who are indifferent and uninterested. In such cases, people are reacting to disengagement disguised as a personality, when nonchalant is supposed to simply be a composed and calm attitude or feeling.
I’ve seen posts online where they see a person as not nonchalant, but just unapproachable. I mostly see comments not actually criticizing calm personalities, but rather performative detachment, wanting to be seen as different than most men. Nonchalance itself should not be something that’s negative or a flaw.
Hence, the use of the example of Big; yes, he can be dry and mysterious, but he wasn’t necessarily nonchalant – he was just flawed and not the right person for Carrie.
The Psychology Behind the Archetype
It’s understandable to idealize nice guys when they’re associated with reliability, which feels comforting, and predictability that feels secure. But niceness can be a facade. Sometimes, a “good guy” can use their reputation as a nice person to deflect criticism and not accept accountability. With that, kindness stops being generous and becomes a leverage, making their partner feel obligated to be obviously grateful for them, despite their flaws.
Truly nonchalant personalities can be misread. Calmness can be mistaken for indifference when it could actually be emotional self-regulation. A reserved partner will just simply move and communicate differently, not care less.
The Pattern Shows Up in Many TV Couples
This romantic dynamic is not limited to just Sex and the City. Television usually revisits the same archetype, and it reaches the same conclusion. (Sorry in advance to those who are team Dan, Stefan or Jeremiah.)
- In Gossip Girl, we see in the beginning that Dan Humphrey is the thoughtful, clever good guy compared to Chuck Bass, who is openly morally grey. Yet, Dan often judges Serena, shames her lifestyle and regularly manipulates the people around him. Chuck is problematic, yes, but at least he’s transparent about who he is. Dan, on the other hand, hides behind his righteousness.
- In The Vampire Diaries, Stefan Salvatore is the protective “good brother,” while Damon Salvatore can be reckless and selfish. However, Stefan is controlling at times, and likes to withhold information and make decisions for Elena, rather than let her make her own. Damon, despite his troubled lifestyle, supports her decisions and respects her self-determination.
- In The Summer I Turned Pretty, Jeremiah Fisher is warm and affectionate, while Conrad Fisher appears emotionally withdrawn. However, viewers learn that Conrad is actually going through too much and just needs space mentally. (If you ask me, Belly should’ve ended up by herself.)
Across all three examples, the supposedly “safe” romantic option is not always the emotionally safer option.
The Two Distinctions that are Actually Relevant
It’s not really between nice and nonchalant. It’s between authentic and performative.
- Authentic respects boundaries and accepts your differences.
- Performative seeks validation and control over a partner, even if it looks kind.
A person who appears to be the ideal partner can still be incompatible, and a person who is flawed can still be emotionally safe.