# It's Official Women Like Bad Boys! (Nice Guys Please Read)



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Jennywocky said:


> So why do you think that is? What makes a woman who is compliant, boring, and with low self-esteem a better choice for you than with a woman who will fight you? (Or, specially, what do you mean by "bitch"? Just so we know what we're talking about here?)


A very good point. I think that the majority of people who seek out those that are compliant, boring and with low self-esteem are preying on easy prey and it's not so much bout the person underneath. If a person had all of those qualities she would need some pretty impressive compliments to balance it out to make her appealing to me.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

So if I exercise a girl might want me because my stink is stinkier???? :O


*runs outside to jog a while*


----------



## valentine (Feb 25, 2009)

Quite possibly the best piece of advice ever xD

I guess the stance I take for this is that we're all responsible for our own problems, and it is quite likely that no one else can fix them for you. I mean my lovelife is far from perfect (loveless is a good adjective), but it basically all my fault. I've had my fair share of confidence issues, so I hit the gym to fight them. I'm more than a little opaque, so I try and be clearer. My biggest problem is that I'm somewhat avoidant. I'm working on that now, but it really is no one's fault but my own. I'm fairly certain that women worldwide aren't conspiring against me somehow.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> So why do you think that is?


I'm think it's part evolutionary heritage and part culture that western women objectify via status and persona, whereas men objectify via looks.



> What makes a woman who is compliant, boring, and with low self-esteem a better choice for you than with a woman who will fight you? (Or, specially, what do you mean by "bitch"? Just so we know what we're talking about here?)


I seem what you are assuming. I don't prefer compliant women, you said you'd choose a bad boy, over a 'doormat' guy. No way I'd personally make that choice.

She was a bitch because she would play mind games, was manipulative (in her portrayal of me to others, got an abortion without telling me) and had anger management issues (non violent). It wasn't a long relationship but it put me off bitches for good. I don't think I could date a 'maxim hottie' if I got a whiff that they were bitches, I'd chose the 'girl next door' with a meek personality - given the option between the two.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

android654 said:


> A very good point. I think that the majority of people who seek out those that are compliant, boring and with low self-esteem are preying on easy prey and it's not so much bout the person underneath. If a person had all of those qualities she would need some pretty impressive compliments to balance it out to make her appealing to me.


So you'd choose a bad boy over someone who is 'nice' but has low self esteem too?


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> She was a bitch because she would play mind games, was manipulative (in her portrayal of me to others, got an abortion without telling me) and had anger management issues (non violent). It wasn't a long relationship but it put me off bitches for good. I don't think I could date a 'maxim hottie' if I got a whiff that they were bitches, I chose the girl next door with a meek personality - given the option between the two.


Well, like I insinuated, you're setting up a false dichotomy and then dragging me into it.

I wouldn't date a violent abusive guy = your equivalent of a bitch. 
I also wouldn't date a wussy guy with no backbone either.

If that was all I had to choose from, I'd rather be alone and find other ways to spend my time. 

I simply prefer a decent guy with some level of personal drive.

let's say you had a choice between a very compliant, boring, esteem-less woman vs no one. Would you choose her, or would you redirect your energies elsewhere?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> So you'd choose a bad boy over someone who is 'nice' but has low self esteem too?


Well I wouldn't choose any boys, but I do prefer a troubled girl with a personality to a girl who's nice but isn't much of a person.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

valentine said:


> I'm fairly certain that women worldwide aren't conspiring against me somehow.


So you seriously think that's what the articles and I are implying?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

android654 said:


> Well I wouldn't choose any boys, but I do prefer a troubled girl with a personality to a girl who's nice but isn't much of a person.


I don't think you've been out with a true bitch yet.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

There are some people who would view me as 'bad' and some people who'd view me as 'nice' -- don't our definition of these terms change wildly? I have a very distinctive character and it has aspects that some people don't like: viewing them in a vacuum makes me look bad, and visa versa for good. Anyone I'm attracted to is the same. That's why I don't care for this dichotomy.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> I don't think you've been out with a true bitch yet.


I have, and I prefer a bitch to someone who expresses themselves less effectively than my dog. If you're just shy and quiet with nothing much to offer in terms of personality there's nothing to entice me. If you are a bitch but at the very last posses some qualities which I find interesting I'd prefer that. It could make the difference of a short period of time where there are some enjoyable moments to a long period of time where you're so bored that you forget you're even seeing someone.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> Well, like I insinuated, you're setting up a false dichotomy and then dragging me into it.


Dichotomies get the best responses.



> I wouldn't date a violent abusive guy = your equivalent of a bitch.


She wasn't violent. I made that clear. A guy can be a 'bad boy' without being violent. ie. playing mind games, alternating between being caring, neglectful or verbally abusive, not meeting you when he said he would regularly.



> If that was all I had to choose from, I'd rather be alone and find other ways to spend my time.


That's not what you said before.



> let's say you had a choice between a very compliant, boring, esteem-less woman vs no one. Would you choose her, or would you redirect your energies elsewhere?


Depends. 

If I was looking for a casual relationship I'd choose her.

If I was looking for a serious relationship... Of course not.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

android654 said:


> It could make the difference of a short period of time where there are some enjoyable moments to a long period of time where you're so bored that you forget you're even seeing someone.


Masochist.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> She wasn't violent. I made that clear. A guy can be a 'bad boy' without being violent. ie. playing mind games, alternating between being caring, neglectful or verbally *abusive*, not meeting you when he said he would regularly.


yes, that's abusive. That was on my list of deal-breakers. I don't need that crap.




> That's not what you said before.


That was before I knew you'd misconstrue my comments to satisfy your conclusions.




> Depends.
> If I was looking for a casual relationship I'd choose her.
> If I was looking for a serious relationship... Of course not.


I wouldn't even do the casual relationship.

So you'd do it for sex? Or for some other reason?


----------



## valentine (Feb 25, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> So you seriously think that's what the articles and I are implying?


I'm saying that they are seeking external blame (and making it general) rather than internal (and specific).


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Masochist.


Not really, I can cut ties with people at a moments notice with no thought of the repercussions. Things get too crazy and I'll cut ties. In order for the "nice girl" to get my attention there has to be a lot beneath the surface, hinting at a very complex person that I'm compelled to know, but without a very specific set of circumstances where I get an inkling that it's there and I only have superficial appearances to go on I wouldn't be aware that it's there.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

What you should be discussing is what personal qualities are a. ) objectively bad for relationships b. ) generally desirable in relationships _anyway. _That's not a dichotomy and it is important; this dumb topic about bad/nice guys isn't useful or interesting.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> yes, that's abusive. That was on my list of deal-breakers. I don't need that crap.


So you don't like bad boys at all, I've got it. 



> That was before I knew you'd misconstrue my comments to satisfy your conclusions.


Cool.



> I wouldn't even do the casual relationship.
> 
> So you'd do it for sex? Or for some other reason?


Yeah sex, and companionship. Like I said I think 'persona' and 'status' is how most women objectify, so it's not surprising you wouldn't.

In the casual dating scene or hook up culture, as long as the girl is attractive men generally don't care what her personality is like. Whereas women will be 'turned off' if the guy says something that shatters her perception of his persona 'witty' 'bad boy' etc.

That's what I've witnessed, and think about the 'casual dating scene. And I've known ladies men who say many 'hotties' have appalling personalities but they find them attractive so they bear it.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

valentine said:


> I'm saying that they are seeking external blame (and making it general) rather than internal (and specific).


I disagree. The first article advised men to develop some of the characteristics of bad boys (in a positive way) that women like.


----------



## valentine (Feb 25, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> I disagree. The first article advised men to develop some of the characteristics of bad boys (in a positive way) that women like.


It says to have high testosterone and confidence. Nothing more.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

qingdom said:


> I am patiently waiting on the
> 
> *"It's Official Men Like Good Girls! (Naughty Women Please Read)"*
> 
> ...


Really ? I'm pretty sure both genders have a tendancy to be attracted to pricks.


----------



## phony (Nov 28, 2012)

TL;DR. My thoughts:

I wouldn't date anyone I wouldn't be friends with. I'm not friends with asswagons.


----------



## StaceofBass (Jul 1, 2012)

phony said:


> TL;DR. My thoughts:
> 
> I wouldn't date anyone I wouldn't be friends with. I'm not friends with asswagons.


Pretty much my whole stance on the issue.

I used to date assholes, but they had somehow convinced me they were good men. Charm? I don't know how they did it...I don't think I want to know. But a guy pretty much has to become friends with me first before anything romantic can happen.

Though, if I start feeling like he's _only_ being my friend because he thinks he may have an opportunity to get in my knickers somewhere down the line then that's it...


----------



## paperbrain (Jan 4, 2013)

RSDNation.com is really designed to be successful for extraverted men (though they try to sell their product to introverted men) telling their clients no matter how they look or how rotten they are inside can use the class clown approach to score drunk vulnerable women at bars and clubs. 

Ultimately it’s the Evelyn Wood School of dating. This redhaired leprechaun shyster is taking you for $3000 for a class he actually tells you he dropped out of college to develop that basically teach men how to more accurately shoot fish in a barrel and there is no guarantee you get laid. Do you know how much fun you could have buying an airline ticket to Nevada and hanging out at the Mustang Ranch for$3000 and you’d be guaranteed to get laid? That’s half your IRA funding for a year. I could take a six month screenwriting class and have $2000 left overfor that price. And as soon as leprechaun boy starts talking in said video he tries to upgrade you, and bullying you and telling you this is the novice class and if you work your way up to the advanced class you can be like some of these men who claimed to have slept with 500 women (and now have a medicine cabinet full of penicillin and are enrolled in a program for sex addicts). This guy has more than memorized the watch speech form “Glengarry GlenRoss”. 

In other words, Captain Ass Clown is going to show you how to go to a club or a bar where women are looking for men anyway and how to be brazen physically and verbally to get their attention. This kind of situation is more often than not going to be a disaster for an introvert. First you’re out of you’re out of your element and you’re going to make a colossal fool out of yourself, secondly there is no guarantee this crap works for everyone, though I’m not going to say it doesn’t work for some. Not to mention it might get you arrested or punched in the face and thirdly it’s really designed to get drunken vulnerable women into bed. It has nothing to do with getting a girlfriend. And there is no science involved here. These are guerilla dating tactics. I watched some of this RSDNation’s videos and the con their proposing. And let me tell youif some creep tries this with me the first thing that going to go through my mind is somewhere around here is this guy’s Volkswagen with a heavy blunt instrument in it, cat tranquilizers, rope, duct tape and a self-made map of the woods where there are little red X’s all over it to mark the best locations to burry a body. In other words I am immediately looking around my surroundings for large rocks, loose bricks, broken glass, beer bottles, sticks, nails, the mace in my purse, the dowel on my keychain and any and all weapons to use to beat the shit out of this creep and to plan an escape so I can get as far away from this psycho date rapist as fast as I can. But most likely of all I’m not going to be at one of these stupid loud places where these sharks swim in the first place. 

And I’ll tell you why the women in their videos take the bait (assuming half this crap isn’t scripted). When this joker gives you his ways to pick up women he’s capitalizing on two things: women’s maternal instinct and daddy. By teaching you to act like a class clown he’s teaching you how to channel your inner asshole child. A male acting teacher once told our class woman look for the little boy in the man. That is precisely what these women in these videos do on an instinctual level. Just watch the movie “Roger Dodger” and how Jennifer Beals and Elizabeth Berkley respond to Jesse Eisenberg except ironically in that film he’s a very nice guy who should have women hitting on him. 

Some women are more aware of their maternal instinct than others and some may have a somewhat stronger maternal instinct than others and some have very little maternal instinct but as a sweeping generalization most women have at least some maternal instinct to some degree no matter how dormant it may lie. So when you act like an obnoxious class clown women see this as elements of a precocious little boy. They remember the one they knew in childhood, because let’s face it each and every one of them knew one. This kicks in the maternal instinct. They want to take care of the little boy and give him what he wants. 

The other thing this bozo teaches you is to be assertive. That triggers the need for daddy. Somewhere in the subconscious authority translates to daddy in many women, though not all. So when this guy tells you things like assert a decision of where the two of you are going to eat and don’t give the woman a chance to make a choice or teaches you to grab her by the arm and start hauling her off somewhere, that’s daddy. That’s why his crap works on many women. You take advantage of the women’s base instincts you get laid. That’s basically what he is selling you for $3000. 

Now let’s talk about these fuckers on Nightline from Simple Pickup that you posted in the other thread. I lived in NYC for a couple of years. Other people who lived there longer may have a different point of view on this. But if some guy walks up to me in a costume in NYC or is sleezy enough to wheel up to me in a wheelchair he doesn't need...hell, if he walks up to me looking normal the first thing that goes through my head is he’s going to mug me. The second, albeit lesser thing is he’s selling drugs. Usually they just walk by and say “smoke,smoke, smoke” or whatever. The third thing I’m going to think is he’s going to rape me. And the last thing I’m going to consider, but not lightly, is this son of a bitch is going to kill me. I’m not going to give him any personal information. I'm not even going to talk to him. I’m going to grab my stuffand leave as fast as I can. 

And these guys are hard sell con artists. They get these girls' phone numbers and then never call them. And they say in the interview, oh, our flirting with them made their day. Bullshit. They just lied to these women’s faces and presented expectations they have no intention of following through on. These women would do better to head over to Broadway and play the shellgame with the little fuzzy red ball and the cardboard box. At least they know that guy is fucking them over. 

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

This thread gave me cancer.

Well, almost.

Phew!


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

oh yeah big surprise that women are attracted to confident men


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

TWN said:


> I get so tired of men clinging to this idea that women like bad boys, or even slightly abusive men.
> 
> Women like men that are mature adults that know how to communicate their desires clearly.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Thank heavens I fall for individual women as opposed to women in the abstract then eh?


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

There is a distinction between what will "get you laid" or "turn you on" in purely biological, evolutionary terms, and what will give you a lasting sense of happiness.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> She was a bitch because she would play mind games, was manipulative (in her portrayal of me to others, got an abortion without telling me) and had anger management issues (non violent). It wasn't a long relationship but it put me off bitches for good. I don't think I could date a 'maxim hottie' if I got a whiff that they were bitches, I'd chose the 'girl next door' with a meek personality - given the option between the two.


The way you categorize women into neat little categories, like "bitch" and "Maxim hottie" and "girl next door," like categories on a porn site, is really weird and kinda creepy.


Diphenhydramine said:


> What you should be discussing is what personal qualities are a. ) objectively bad for relationships b. ) generally desirable in relationships _anyway. _That's not a dichotomy and it is important; this dumb topic about bad/nice guys isn't useful or interesting.


"You see, dating and relationships are pretty easy to understand. The first thing you have to realize is that all people can be boiled down to certain types, like 'nice guy' or 'girl next door.' For an analogy, think of it like classes in World of Warcraft..."


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

qingdom said:


> I am patiently waiting on the
> 
> *"It's Official Men Like Good Girls! (Naughty Women Please Read)"*
> 
> ...


I'm a good girl!


... sigh, no, I'm lying.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> Yeah sex, and companionship. Like I said I think 'persona' and 'status' is how most women objectify, so it's not surprising you wouldn't.
> 
> In the casual dating scene or hook up culture, as long as the girl is attractive men generally don't care what her personality is like. Whereas women will be 'turned off' if the guy says something that shatters her perception of his persona 'witty' 'bad boy' etc.
> 
> That's what I've witnessed, and think about the 'casual dating scene. And I've known ladies men who say many 'hotties' have appalling personalities but they find them attractive so they bear it.



I'm left wondering where all these people are that you are describing, because they don't really exist in the circles I move through, not to that extreme. It sounds like a meat market to me.

I feel bad for such people. It would honestly suck to have one's well-being focused on persona, image, and other transient things that won't lead to anything enduring. Every day, I'd be wondering who would drop me because I no longer conformed to their self-gratifying image.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

I could date a very attractive woman with no substance if only for a very short period. Any longer and an association like that can be hazardous to your health and scarily enough, your money.

I wouldn't say I'm a "bad boy", but I do have confidence and understand the game to act accordingly.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Jennywocky said:


> I'm a good girl!
> 
> 
> ... sigh, no, I'm lying.


And that's why we love ya.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Shahada said:


> The way you categorize women into neat little categories, like "bitch" and "Maxim hottie" and "girl next door," like categories on a porn site, is really weird and kinda creepy. "You see, dating and relationships are pretty easy to understand. The first thing you have to realize is that all people can be boiled down to certain types, like 'nice guy' or 'girl next door.' For an analogy, think of it like classes in World of Warcraft..."


blah blah blah


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@paperbrain

I think that most women think that PUA is a joke in general so your perspective doesn't surprise me.

The cultural norm in the west is that men have to approach, ask for numbers, or ask women out on a date. (My ex-wife asked for my number, but she was also raised in an Islamic culture). Introverts especially can have a hard time doing this, so PUA teaches socially awkward introverts social skills and internal validation.

But like you point out it's business, and anyone looking into it should be aware of that. Especially when they try to peddle their convoluted 'systems'. 

I think that INxx women like you are probably the least likely to be open to being picked up by a guy they don't know, and dislike the casual dating/hook up culture in general.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> I'm left wondering where all these people are that you are describing, because they don't really exist in the circles I move through, not to that extreme. It sounds like a meat market to me.
> 
> I feel bad for such people. It would honestly suck to have one's well-being focused on persona, image, and other transient things that won't lead to anything enduring. Every day, I'd be wondering who would drop me because I no longer conformed to their self-gratifying image.


Like I said wocky... Extremes and dichotomies get the best responses. :wink:

But I believe that in the world of 'hook up' and the casual dating seen men and women generally objectify each other, because they aren't looking for anything of substance. And many women I've known like 'powerful men', 'men in uniform', 'bad boys', 'athletes', 'actors' - it's objectification. In the same way that a man will objectify a woman based on face, tits, and ass. 

If you do want to see these extremes with your own eyes though...

Hang around in shitty clubs more.

Or get a willing 'hottie' friend and make a profile with some sexy pics on the free dating site plenty of fish. Write a profile that makes her seem like one of the most stuck up, bitchy women a man could come across. And see how many men ignore the profile and message her daily.

A man has to have 'game' or 'status', a woman has to look good. Everything I say applies to the 'hook up' 'causal dating' scene though.






Girl at the start is a Maxim hottie @_Shahada_


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Introverts especially can have a hard time doing this, so PUA teaches socially awkward introverts social skills and internal validation.


PUA teaches social skills and internal validation the same way The Secret teaches personal accountability and self-empowerment.


----------



## milti (Feb 8, 2012)

tl;dr (okay, I skimmed thru)

All I can say is: "bad" can get awfully boring too. In my culture, it's seen as cool for men to be "bad", and it gets really old real soon. After a while it's nothing but bravado, and it's pathetic.

That being said, HOWEVER, the more a guy (any guy) whines about being such a "nice guy" that he's amazed he can't find a girl to lose his virginity to or whatever, the less impressive he actually is. Those guys should grow up.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Shahada said:


> PUA teaches social skills and internal validation the same way The Secret teaches personal accountability and self-empowerment.


Don't forget to mention the buzz words misogyny and patriarchy next.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Women want guys who are interesting, not some agreeable servant that lacks of individuality. You can be introverted, even a bit shy, but if you're not having anything interesting to show or that you're lacking so much confidence that you can't even say what you want or pursuit anything, or even have some self respect or demand respect from others, then please don't be so surprised that you're not too attractive.

Many women are attracted to *ssholes not coz they are mean to them, but rather coz of their interesting individuality. But yeah, this is dumb and they are actually being immature or unable to filter *ssholes. Just like how many men are actually dumb and ends up with pretty b*tches, coz they desire beauty but are unable to filter b*tches.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

I can't read all 11 pages guys, but here is my imput....

I think we need to show a difference between 'bad' boys/gals in as such as cheaters, abusers, drug and alcohol using...you know what I mean, vs. the pierced, tatted, leather wearing, motorcycle riding type. To me, one is a 'bad' boy, vs. an inmature ass. 

I had this one girlfriend that wore a gun(legally), she would unholster at night, take off her shirt, unload the gun and lock it in the gunsafe. I tried to talk her into wearing it during sex, but she was afraid that it would not be safe, so that was that. I got SO hot just watching her take it off.....

I think bad guy/girl types give us a chance to be out of control and that is desirable to women who are almost always in charge. I however, did marry a nice girl, who indulges my 'bad gal' fetish once in a while.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

there are two premises on which the "women like bad boys" conclusion is drawn:

1. all women are the same.
2. all studies involved were conducted on population samples that are truly representative of women at large, and the results drawn from the research were accurate.

Premise #1 is definitely false, which means the conclusion is, of necessity, false. 
Premise #2 is inconclusive and falsifiable. statistics can be bent to say what people want them to say, and not including all contributing factors in research studies can supply misleading results.

i would encourage anyone who believes this ABC news report to look around at the married guys they have encountered, and count the number of nice guys among them, and then your perspective will be immediately corrected. many women may _date_ bad boys, but not many women _marry_ them. that tells you what women REALLY like, when they're that serious about the relationship.

and, for the record, i'm a woman and am completely and totally repulsed by bad boys, and only date nice guys. so not all women are the same, and not all women like bad boys. and i'm not rare, and i didn't used to like bad boys before i realized who they really were. 

no self-respecting woman wants a guy who treats her like trash, and if she falls for one, it's because she naively trusts his "being nice" act, and then becomes disenchanted when his true character is displayed. 

any success on the part of "bad boys" merely proves that they are effective con artists when it comes to dating; they manage to trick women into thinking they love them and care about them, and connive their way into her pants and then drop her out of their lives after they have used up that which is most precious to her. she is devastated by being left with nothing after giving all her heart, by the fact that he never actually loved her. sounds like a typical con artist scheme, eh? well, that's because that's what it is. and it is not what society should be recommending as romantic strategy, to its men...unless society actually wishes to propagate cruelty.

spreading the idea that you have to be a "bad boy" to get girls is not only misleading to men, but also multiplies the abuse of women, and encourages men to be narcissistic, con-artist-manipulative, and users of women. 

it is a fact that many women date bad boys, and _some_ emotionally troubled women actually end up marrying them (and find themselves in abusive relationships, because "bad boys" are often emotionally abusive, sometimes due to narcissism, if not also abusive in other ways). i find this very sad, not only because of the pain involved in such relationships, which i hate to see these women go through, but because of what it reveals about the deficiency of self-respect among women. 

if this article proves anything at all, it proves that our culture has an epidemic of self-degradation on the part of women (largely a result of the unachievable and emotionally-devastating beauty ideals propagated by the media) - a dangerous lack of self-respect - which attracts abusive men and fosters an interest in men who do not respect them.


----------



## Candu (Jul 29, 2010)

It is a shame, that men have drifted so far from their masculine strength that some women are attracted to assholes...if men would follow their masculinity (for its own sake) women wouldn't need assholes...


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Candu said:


> It is a shame, that men have drifted so far from their masculine strength that some women are attracted to assholes...if men would follow their masculinity (for its own sake) women wouldn't need assholes...


----------



## DarkWarrior (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm quiet I'm gentle and kind. I like to listen to and console people, I'm a very gentle person. But I'm not a fucking pansy lol. Stand up for yourself show you're worth something prove to yourself that you're good at something, build confidence, and be a man. If the only way you can be a man is to be an asshole then I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Belrose (Dec 23, 2011)

People in general, not just women want someone who is kind. "Nice guys" don't fit into that niche.

Legitimately kind people do the things they do because it's in their nature to care and haven't an ulterior motive. They also can be assertive and because they don't have that ulterior motive- don't have much of a concern over what others think of them. 

"Nice guys" have the tendency to think "I am nice, so I can get something in return" and have a fiercely co-dependent personality. They have to tell themselves they are nice in order to gain favor, to convince themselves they are this good person so they have some shred of their self-esteem. Truly kind people don't need to resort to these.

People in general want someone who is kind and able to have some backbone. Someone who just placates to you in order to avoid conflict is poisonous and that is what a self-professed "nice guy" tends to be. There is a reason why the "Nice Guy" label is toxic. Anyone who gets a relationship and is male is an enemy- a threat to their ego and they compare themselves to men who are successful constantly.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

A) doh, confidence and willing to express is more attractive. How attractive would a flower be if it hid, couldl not be seen, and withered because it didnt fight for enough nutrients?

B) opposite attract, so if a women is very competitive, this instinct or emotional pattern you are talking about, could be offset by the opposites attract thing

C) a girl might opt for a less confrontational guy for obvious reasons


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> We don't share the same sense of humor then baby. I love being trolled by funny people, I didn't find him funny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's what I thought it was. Women learn when to give away the goods, and when not to, if you're in it just to get "a little tail", a little action satisfaction, you're better off calling an escort, or at least go to internet forums where people are looking for casual sex. But I think a regular person, is going to not appreciate being used for a little tail, and just that.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Simply put, good women like good men, and vice versa.


----------



## How Do You KNOW (Jan 9, 2011)

My girlfriend likes nice guys, judging by her past relationships and myself, but she wants me to get all sorts of tattoos and piercings, and she seemed more okay than I expected when I told her I was thinking about the military. From this, I can say girls (at least mine) do like the bad-boy character, but not exclusively.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Brian1 said:


> That's what I thought it was. Women learn when to give away the goods, and when not to, if you're in it just to get "a little tail", a little action satisfaction, you're better off calling an escort, or at least go to internet forums where people are looking for casual sex. But I think a regular person, is going to not appreciate being used for a little tail, and just that.


Nonsense. One night stands happen all the time, many are happening right now as you read this.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Nonsense. One night stands happen all the time, many are happening right now as you read this.


That's why I made the breather space for internet forums where you can hook up one-night stands. I know they exist.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Brian1 said:


> That's why I made the breather space for internet forums where you can hook up one-night stands. I know they exist.


Way beyond the internet dude. Clubs, parties, chatting up people in the street - people are hooking up everywhere. People don't mind just having a 'hook up' contrary to what you believe, when you wrote;



> But I think a regular person, is going to not appreciate being used for a little tail, and just that.


Many people I've known have had casual relationships based on sex, or a one night stand.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Ophilia said:


> The thread title states that women _like _these guys. But now you seem to be backpedaling, and (just) saying that these guys get women to engage in sexual acts with them more often. (Heck, for those so inclined, they probably get men to engage in sexual acts with them more often as well. This quote, '_Researchshows that men who rate high in narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism (traits cinematically called the "Dark Triad") do get more tail_' doesn't actually specify what kind of 'tail' they're getting.)
> 
> And I've agreed with you, repeatedly, on the that latter point. It's the first one, about women _liking_ these guys, that I'm taking issue with. There's a difference between _having_ women, and _having them like_ you, let alone having them respect you in the morning. But I'm not going to argue that point with someone doesn't understand that distinction, or for whom that distinction is irrelevant, especially not just for the sake of argument.


Semantics game.

IMO if you voluntarily sleep with someone generally you have to like them in some respect. Even if it's short term. 

However the 'experts' do agree that the bad boys get more short term relationships, but not necessarily long term. That's why I put at the end of the post that nice guys can wait for women to get dissatisfied with bad boys and then seek out them.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

emerald sea said:


> i would encourage anyone who believes this ABC news report to look around at the married guys they have encountered, and count the number of nice guys among them, and then your perspective will be immediately corrected. many women may _date_ bad boys, but not many women _marry_ them. that tells you what women REALLY like, when they're that serious about the relationship.


That's what the articles say. They like bad boys for short term fun, and eventually settle down with a nice guy.



> spreading the idea that you have to be a "bad boy" to get girls is not only misleading to men, but also multiplies the abuse of women, and encourages men to be narcissistic, con-artist-manipulative, and users of women.


Good point. I agree. 



> if this article proves anything at all, it proves that our culture has an epidemic of self-degradation on the part of women (largely a result of the unachievable and emotionally-devastating beauty ideals propagated by the media)


I think the epidemic of self hatred and psychological issues is more severe with men. 

Men have the higher suicide rates in many countries Gender and suicide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The objectification of women is something feminists (rightly) have criticized, however many people don't think that men are objectified because of career, wealth, social status, etc. Which we are IMO. The female objectification of men manifests itself in; men in uniform, wealthy men, men who drive nice cars, famous men (social status), bad boys, etc.


----------



## Nessie (Jan 6, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Semantics game.
> 
> IMO if you voluntarily sleep with someone generally you have to like them in some respect. Even if it's short term.
> 
> However the 'experts' do agree that the bad boys get more short term relationships, but not necessarily long term. That's why I put at the end of the post that nice guys can wait for women to get dissatisfied with bad boys and then seek out them.


 Im usually fascinated by expert articles claiming bad boys big advantage over nice guys. What is most entertaining is, that in no ones mind in such cases tend to come, that more short term relations arent equivalent of success rate or higher attractivity in dating market.

How many guys sleep with females, who they find for example dumb, therefore not attractive for long term relationship, but still attractive speaking physical appearance and/or performance in the bedroom. Why so many people expect it would be very different with females?

Furthermore, what is also funny tend to be definition of bad guy. Could I find attractive impulsive extroverts doing adrenaline sports? Yup. After all, Im one, so Im not going to claim them non attractive for my own good.....but here is to say, that I often like guys having other features also. And not less.

Do I find attractive anti socials, with their limited capacity to feel/read emotions, apart of other lovely traits?* Hell NO.*


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nessie said:


> Im usually fascinated by expert articles claiming bad boys big advantage over nice guys. What is most entertaining is, that in no ones mind in such cases tend to come, that more short term relations aren't equivalent of success rate or higher attractivity in dating market.


Many nice guys feel like women only are interested in them after they've been 'burned out' by bad boys, ie. they look for a sucker to settle down with.



> How many guys sleep with females, who they find for example dumb, therefore not attractive for long term relationship, but still attractive speaking physical appearance and/or performance in the bedroom. Why so many people expect it would be very different with females?


Most men will admit to liking looks in casual dating and hook ups. But very few women will admit to liking assholes and bad boys, even if it was early on in life. Some seem to claim they were tricked.



> Furthermore, what is also funny tend to be definition of bad guy. Could I find attractive impulsive extroverts doing adrenaline sports? Yup.


A bad boy by definition doesn't have a generally positive character.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

I find it amazing that this is debated. 

To say that women like anything or any type at all is rather ridiculous. There are so many types of women that each one is completely revolted and will go ape shit suicidal insane in the presence of what the other one will oil themselves up and bend over for happily every single day. Bad boy good boy bad girl good girl - WTF - it takes all kinds.

You cant even say that people like maturity, I freaking promise you. I have commonly been more mature at every stage of my life than my female peers (yes I know how bold and insane that sounds). I was too mature for a long ass time. The mostly immature women in the dating pool around me were not ready for that. Sometimes I think I grew backwards because I started mature and now I feel really hedonistic and expressive. But its not the same. It's still more mature, an integrated Soren Kirkegaard style 3rd stage. What - evah!

The point is - square peg round hole is fail. Then again you'll find some folks obsessed with that style of awkwardness as well. You know PC posters! 

Each woman is a complex melange of emotions, goals, and experiences, just like each guy is. There are so crazy many connection points. As an example, I was an uber nerd nice guy in my early years and I am still polite on the surface. But the women that leave me so far have done so because I am too much to deal with, too intense, and often too much of a bad boy. For me it takes a woman who expects and appreciates public nice boy, but wants to be owned lovingly behind the scenes. Yet and still there are women out there who are very mature and want a man who is balls out bad boy publicly, and shuts the hell up when he come sin the door and does what mama says. 

I am not saying that its not a good idea to be aware of your testosterone levels and what constitutes a healthy male hormone level and libido, but after that, let your personality be as is and find the right fit mate for you. That person is out there.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

series0 said:


> As an example, I was an uber nerd nice guy in my early years and I am still polite on the surface. But the women that leave me so far have done so because I am too much to deal with, too intense, and often too much of a bad boy.


You must get a lot of tail.



> Yet and still there are women out there who are very mature and want a man who is balls out bad boy publicly, and shuts the hell up when he come sin the door and does what mama says.


I've known men like that who were basically controlled by their women. Those guys were really strange to see, because they take no nonsense from anyone but their women, who are manipulative bitches.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

So what exactly is the problem with this exactly anyways?

I mean. Chill your pill man. I bet guys would like a female bad girl too, they seem to be magnetic until you hang out with them, and you don't wanna deal with 'em anymore. What exactly do you look like anyways? Women can certainly be as shallow as us men. Are these bad boys particularly hot or anything? At least in the generic sense?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

St Vual said:


> So what exactly is the problem with this exactly anyways?


Was just letting people know, and wanted to get responses. And to encourage 'nice guys' to reclaim their masculinity.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Many nice guys feel like women only are interested in them after they've been 'burned out' by bad boys, ie. they look for a sucker to settle down with.


And no doubt there are many bitter women who feel that men only come to them after being rejected and belittled by men who were off sowing wild oats. The fact that someone believes that they're entitled to sex, love and interest from other people doesn't actually mean they are. The quintessential nice guy and the bad boy share the commonality that they honestly believe they're entitled to all these things, they just manifest their sense of entitlement in different ways. Thus, as ever "nice" remains an amorphous, meaningless concept. 





> Most men will admit to liking looks in casual dating and hook ups. But very few women will admit to liking assholes and bad boys, even if it was early on in life. Some seem to claim they were tricked.


This analogy makes no sense whatsoever. A better (the accuracy of it prima facie notwithstanding) analogy would be: "men don't admit to actively seek bitches for short-term relationships or hookups, even if it was early on life. Some seem to claim they were tricked." Either way, I've seen both men and women lie and decieve one another to get laid. Manipulative people exist, very few people wake up and think "my, I haven't been manipulated in a while. Maybe I'll find someone today to do that  " . 





> A bad boy by definition doesn't have a generally positive character.


Nor does a "nice" one. Since by definition, 'nice' is too broad an adjective to mean anything when applied to a person's holistic character.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Paradox1987 said:


> And no doubt there are many bitter women who feel that men only come to them after being rejected and belittled by men who were off sowing wild oats.


Yep. The difference is again, men admit that shit.



> The fact that someone believes that they're entitled to sex, love and interest from other people doesn't actually mean they are.


That's one way of looking at it. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with entitlement in general. I believe I'm entitled to be treated with respect from people, don't think there's anything wrong with that. 




> The quintessential nice guy and the bad boy share the commonality that they honestly believe they're entitled to all these things, they just manifest their sense of entitlement in different ways.


I disagree, I think that's the feminist demonization of 'nice guys'. Ie. anyone who complains about women's dating preferences is bad person.



> "men don't admit to actively seek bitches for short-term relationships or hookups, even if it was early on life. Some seem to claim they were tricked."


Read through this thread. You'll see women using the 'tricked, or conned' line. Many men will admit that they went for looks, and didn't give a shit about personality 'good or bad'. Like I said (and so does the articles) women are attracted *to* bad boys traits, whereas men are attracted in spite of women being bitches (due to looks, or sex).



> Either way, I've seen both men and women lie and decieve one another to get laid.


No shit?

Let's throw in make up, push up bras and high heels.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> I disagree, I think that's the feminist demonization of 'nice guys'. Ie. anyone who complains about women's dating preferences is bad person.


Um how? I think a more reasonable answer would be "who gives a shit about what women want to date." I mean. Do you even see your goals as being realistic? I think all of this worrying about women's sexual nature is getting a tad bit ridiculous. I mean, I guess telling passive guys who can't seem to get women to notice them, to be self confident in themselves? Do you not want to be a self-confident person, or whatever? I don't really see why that would be a bad thing particularly. That some people are easily tricked and are rather gullible. I mean a lot of people who say they were tricked, were probably tricked. Even if the trickery involved some sort of play on subconscious desires (which might just be as simple as some boy finally paying attention to her. I'm certainly like that to people who say that I have some sort of potential or whatever. I become overly loyal to them, and overly reliant on their approval), it is likely still trickery and manipulation. As a fair amount of abuse relationships come from people who have rather amiable personas. I mean, this is dangerously getting into "blaming the victim" here.

Also how is feminism even involved in this? I don't think feminists would literally want to take away women from owning up to responsibilities, insomuch as they see the rather transparent clinginess of those complaints, and find them to be kind of petty.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

St Vual said:


> Um how? I think a more reasonable answer would be "who gives a shit about what women want to date."


Nice guys who want to date women. I'm not a nice guy, or a bad one. it doesn't bother me personally.



> I mean, I guess telling passive guys who can't seem to get women to notice them, to be self confident in themselves?


Confidence doesn't equal a bad boy.



> I mean a lot of people who say they were tricked, were probably tricked.


Fair enough.



> Also how is feminism even involved in this? I don't think feminists would literally want to take away women from owning up to responsibilities, insomuch as they see the rather transparent clinginess of those complaints, and find them to be kind of petty.


Was a stab at women who try to demonize 'nice guys' who complain about women's dating standards, whilst at the same time complaining about our cultures standards of beauty and men who like 'plastic women'. Apparently the men have an entitlement complex, but the women don't.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

strangestdude said:


> Oh I see. You believe that a persons personality is set in stone and don't believe that someone can develop themselves. I do.
> 
> I'm not against people developing social skills, and if someone takes courses on developing social skills and if they become better at socializing then I don't consider them 'fake'.
> 
> ...



Developing your personality shouldn't mean becoming who someone else instructs you to be, nor should it involve doing it solely for the purpose of getting something from someone else.

I think sexual manipulation is wrong, but it is _additionally _unwise for women to alter their looks for manipulative purposes, since the kinds of men they will attract by doing so are likely to be the ones who are shallow enough to care about that sort of thing. Women are taught to be insecure about their bodies, and there is a common idea out there that nobody will want us as we are. We are told as adolescents that we must shave our legs and armpits, put on makeup, pierce our ears, and dress a certain way just to avoid being ugly, which is the ultimate evil, because we are taught that our entire worth is directly related to how we look. On top of the manipulation issue, there is this broader social issue of how we are victimizing other women by reinforcing such body shame. I am not giving women a special pass. I still think sexual coercion through deception is always wrong.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

The bit about settling down with a nice guy, sounds like what my mother tells me about guys: when they're young they like easy girls to mess around with, but they always settle for the nice girl who they can take home to meet their parents in the end.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

If you want to help the innocent nice guys, then teach them how to do some self analysis and self improvement. Now demonizing women in general just coz many ended p with *ssholes, and then make the nice guys look like poor left overs that these women would end up settling with, is just going to aggravate things.

And the whole demonizing women for going for *ssholes, is honestly as stupid as women who demonizes men in general for going for pretty b*tches.

And when do people realize that those women who fell for *ssholes are not attracted to being treated badly, but rather their confident, assertive and interesting traits? Just like men who goes for pretty b*tches, they are not attracted to their b*tchy nature but their beauty.


And please stop making the nice guys who eventually got partners as left overs. Maybe some women did settle with them, but then maybe these nice guys actually grew more confident and these women grew more mature, and they are genuinely loved. Making them seem as left over is just so disrespectful and unreal.


----------



## LittleOrange (Feb 11, 2012)

Hmm.....what exactly do you mean by "bad boy"? If by "bad boy" you mean "masculine" then I like "bad boys". But, I don´t like guys who are immoral, irresposible, abusive, coldhearted etc. From this point of view, I like "good boys"


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

FacelessBeauty said:


> The bit about settling down with a nice guy, sounds like what my mother tells me about guys: when they're young they like easy girls to mess around with, but they always settle for the nice girl who they can take home to meet their parents in the end.


Outdated advice.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Outdated advice.


It's as relevant as anything else mentioned in this thread.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> Developing your personality shouldn't mean becoming who someone else instructs you to be, nor should it involve doing it solely for the purpose of getting something from someone else.


So by your reasoning someone who tries to take a class in socializing skills to make friends is wrong?

Because I don't see the difference in taking classes to learn socializing skills to make casual dating acquaintances. 



> I think sexual manipulation is wrong, but it is _additionally _unwise for women to alter their looks for manipulative purposes, since the kinds of men they will attract by doing so are likely to be the ones who are shallow enough to care about that sort of thing.


The majority of women I've known wear make up, seeing as you said likely do you think that the majority of their relationships are based on looks then?



> Women are taught to be insecure about their bodies, and there is a common idea out there that nobody will want us as we are. We are told as adolescents that we must shave our legs and armpits, put on makeup, pierce our ears, and dress a certain way just to avoid being ugly, which is the ultimate evil, because we are taught that our entire worth is directly related to how we look.


I disagree, I think murder is the ultimate evil.

Men are taught that they have to take the initiative in dating, the cultural norm is that men have to approach women, ask for numbers, ask them out on dates, and pay.

You have compassion for women attempting to adhere to the cultural standard by purchasing beauty products, but you don't have the same compassion for men who purchase PUA to try to adhere to that cultural standard.

If men don't learn to take the initiative of approaching and contacting women they often will be 'left on the heap'. 

Where's your compassion for men?



> On top of the manipulation issue, there is this broader social issue of how we are victimizing other women by reinforcing such body shame. I am not giving women a special pass. I still think sexual coercion through deception is always wrong.


I'm glad you have said that women deceive and coerce men into sex by making themselves more sexually attractive by wearing make up, shaving, wearing high heels, etc. That is what you are saying right?

Like the research shows women validate certain behaviors and traits, so why don't you have as much compassion for men who try adopt that standard, as you have for women who try to adopt the standard of beauty?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

AriesLilith said:


> If you want to help the innocent nice guys, then teach them how to do some self analysis and self improvement. Now demonizing women in general just coz many ended p with *ssholes, and then make the nice guys look like poor left overs that these women would end up settling with, is just going to aggravate things.


I have, read my second post.

Women are validating certain behavior, surely that should be taken into consideration too? Look at the depictions of 'bad boys with a heart of gold' in insanely popular fiction like twilight and the fifty shades of grey trilogy - the primary consumers being women.



> And the whole demonizing women for going for *ssholes, is honestly as stupid as women who demonizes men in general for going for pretty b*tches.


Well women validating bad boys can lead to serious problems. Young men experience a disproportionate amount of violence, and commit and disproportionate amount of violence. Women validating bad boys contributes to social problems, if more women didn't validate males who were violent or manipulative then that helps society. 

Again I'm not blaming women for male violence, but I'm sure you can see that female validation plays a role in why this behavior is tolerated. PUA exists because many socially awkward introverts saw that being the way they are didn't get them girlfriends (everybody wants somebody), so they go to great lengths to change their personalities to find a hook up and/or girlfriend. 

If more women didn't validate 'bad boys' like they don't validate those introverts then that would contribute to positive change. Femininity has a lot of power - soft power IMO.



> And please stop making the nice guys who eventually got partners as left overs. Maybe some women did settle with them, but then maybe these nice guys actually grew more confident and these women grew more mature, and they are genuinely loved. Making them seem as left over is just so disrespectful and unreal.


I like you so I'll say this openly. Sometimes I'm presenting extremes because polarity often evokes good responses IME. Sorry if you took offense, you've always seemed cool.


----------



## Ophilia (Dec 14, 2012)

> Semantics game.


Eighteen pages of it and counting...


----------



## Nessie (Jan 6, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Many nice guys feel like women only are interested in them after they've been 'burned out' by bad boys, ie. they look for a sucker to settle down with..


In such case my first concern will be level of confidence of nice guy. Girls are just humans, and making choice, which finally appeared wrong for them, doesnt devaluate later feelings for someone else. I know girls who were going for nice guys first. But they just werent true soulmates for them.

During secondary school I was target for ambitious guys due to my looks and family backround: I found out they have unique talent to get me damn bored. Do you know kind of guys, indoctrinated by family (usually lower/true middle class), that professional success, title, money would bring them girls? Such guys are deeply dissapointed seeing other guys (without money, tittle and so forth) score. Sure. Anyone catching girls to ride on motorcycle, interest in archeology, playing guitar or irresistible smile must be superficial douchebag...

Funny thing is, that lot of ambitious guys were casted as "nice decent guys" by people, because their high concern regarding self-image, school, future career, licking shoes of any authority or "authority" around and lack of experimenting in general (not just with "forbiden" things).
I dont find myself especialy charming trying to chat up girl for her family backround. And controling level of "niceness" just because "what people will say" smells of hypocricy from mile away: this for dependability, so valued trait of "nice guys". I prefer guys who does have some moral standarts for real, going from inside of them, and if not, at least dont pretend them.

It would be sad if any of my later choices would be "invalid" and taken from part of my SO: "OK, she got bored, I was left on the shelf, so she went for me to have some change. Im such looser and sucker, if I wasnt sucker, she wouldnt be settling down with me. That I have some interests similar to hers and sense for humor? Its surely manipulation from her part, I must see my psychoterapist to discover the truth".

*pays horrorous bill to discover the truth. Other invoices comes from "How to pick up confidence" and "Positive thinking" lessons.*



strangestdude said:


> A bad boy by definition doesn't have a generally positive character.


Depends on author giving description. But traits given for "bad guys" like not dependable, extroverted, impulsive, adventurous.......how many ExxPs dont have any of them? This is not saying anything about positive/negative character, just authors of such articles dont tend to like said features.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Yep. The difference is again, men admit that shit.


I know plenty of women who admit that bitter and unpleasant women exist. I don't know any women who deify their biological sex compatriots?! Then again, I wouldn't hang out with people (male or female) who did do that?





> That's one way of looking at it.
> 
> I don't think there's anything wrong with entitlement in general. I believe I'm entitled to be treated with respect from people, don't think there's anything wrong with that.


Being entitled to respect still doesn't entitle you to sex. Sex can exist sans respect, respect sans sex. Entitlement to sex cannot exist because you actively require a consensual partner to have it. I agree with you, entitlement is not an a priori bad thing; but "nothing to excess".





> I disagree, I think that's the feminist demonization of 'nice guys'. Ie. anyone who complains about women's dating preferences is bad person.


Fair enough. Personally, I don't understand what people who complain about the dating preferences of women in the abstract are hoping to achieve. 




> Read through this thread. You'll see women using the 'tricked, or conned' line. Many men will admit that they went for looks, and didn't give a shit about personality 'good or bad'. Like I said (and so does the articles) women are attracted *to* bad boys traits, whereas men are attracted in spite of women being bitches (due to looks, or sex).


It's much easier to get conned by a false persona than looks? The two simply aren't analogous...


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

strangestdude said:


> So by your reasoning someone who tries to take a class in socializing skills to make friends is wrong?
> 
> Because I don't see the difference in taking classes to learn socializing skills to make casual dating acquaintances.
> 
> ...


Taking classes on how to lie for purposes of social manipulation is likely to make a person insincere, and sexual manipulation carries it to an even more disturbing level, because it takes away the sex partner's ability to decide what kind of person s/he wants to have sex with. People who lack authenticity in sexual situations aren't all that different from people who get their partners drunk for the purpose of making them consent to sex that they wouldn't ordinarily consent to. 

Yes, I think the majority of relationships are at least partly looks-based. I think a lot of people have been conditioned not to mind it, but the only way to change it is to start caring. I think relationships are often selfish and obectifying, and are more about what people can get from each other than about actual bonding. 

From the time we are children, our fairy tales are about beautiful princesses and rich princes, and we grow up with the idea that in order to be loved, women must be pretty while men must be providers. This creates a materialistic notion of what it means to be in love, because it ends up being about what we own rather than about who we are. The woman is loved for the decorative aspects of the body she inhabits. The man is loved for his money or his physical strength. I think everyone deserves better. We need to be authentic, and as a result of opening up, we will be loved on a deeper level.

If heterosexual men don't like the sexist cultural norms that pressure them to take the more active role in pursuing women, I sympathize. Those of us who care about equality are still in the process of changing these problems, but until we succeed, I suggest other options such as online dating, waiting to find a woman who appreciates non-pushy men, or choosing a more assertive partner. I'm sorry our progress has been so slow. I really do care about the unfairness caused by unnecessarily polarized gender roles, and I am not a man-hater just because I think badly of using deception to attract a mate. I hope you are reassured by knowing that the penalty of not conforming affected me, too.

I had to go about things the hard way, defying the social rules I disagreed with. I refused to shave, alter my weight, dye my hair, put on makeup, wear clothes I didn't like, or change anything about my body for someone else, and because of this choice, I didn't find my husband until I was in my mid-thirties. He ended up being worth my patience. 


I have compassion for everyone who is victimized by the current system, which seems to devalue authenticity regardless of gender. I know you think I am more sympathetic toward women who use sexual coercion than I am toward men who use sexual coercion, but ideally nobody would feel such a need. I think the best way to find a quality mate is to be as real as possible.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> Taking classes on how to lie for purposes of social manipulation is likely to make a person insincere, and sexual manipulation carries it to an even more disturbing level, because it takes away the sex partner's ability to decide what kind of person s/he wants to have sex with.


I've said repeatedly, they don't advocate lying (well the popular ones don't). They advocate personal development and developing social skills.



> People who lack authenticity in sexual situations aren't all that different from people who get their partners drunk for the purpose of making them consent to sex that they wouldn't ordinarily consent to.


That also applies to women who wear make up, push up bras and high heels too.



> Yes, I think the majority of relationships are at least partly looks-based. I think a lot of people have been conditioned not to mind it, but the only way to change it is to start caring. I think relationships are often selfish and obectifying, and are more about what people can get from each other than about actual bonding.


Fair enough.



> From the time we are children, our fairy tales are about beautiful princesses and rich princes, and we grow up with the idea that in order to be loved, women must be pretty while men must be providers. This creates a materialistic notion of what it means to be in love, because it ends up being about what we own rather than about who we are. The woman is loved for the decorative aspects of the body she inhabits. The man is loved for his money or his physical strength. I think everyone deserves better. We need to be authentic, and as a result of opening up, we will be loved on a deeper level.


Nice sentiment, you sound a lot more egalitarian to me now.



> If heterosexual men don't like the sexist cultural norms that pressure them to take the more active role in pursuing women, I sympathize. Those of us who care about equality are still in the process of changing these problems, but until we succeed, I suggest other options such as online dating, waiting to find a woman who appreciates non-pushy men, or choosing a more assertive partner.


That's good advice for nice guys.



> I'm sorry our progress has been so slow. I really do care about the unfairness caused by unnecessarily polarized gender roles, and I am not a man-hater just because I think badly of using deception to attract a mate.


It just appeared to me that you were more lenient on women who used deception tactics, but you've cleared that up now.



> I hope you are reassured by knowing that the penalty of not conforming affected me, too.


I'm not happy to hear that about you, you don't strike me as a bad person.



> I had to go about things the hard way, defying the social rules I disagreed with. I refused to shave, alter my weight, dye my hair, put on makeup, wear clothes I didn't like, or change anything about my body for someone else, and because of this choice, I didn't find my husband until I was in my mid-thirties. He ended up being worth my patience.


Glad it worked out.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> I have, read my second post.
> 
> Women are validating certain behavior, surely that should be taken into consideration too? Look at the depictions of 'bad boys with a heart of gold' in insanely popular fiction like twilight and the fifty shades of grey trilogy - the primary consumers being women.
> 
> ...


It is true that it would help if women never pick up *ssholes. Thought asking this is like asking men to stop validating the image that being a slut and being beautiful is what helps them become more desirable, since many men pick these up even if many are b*tches.
So asking these women and men to stop picking *ssholes and b*tches, whether they just wanted short term fun or were just committing innocent mistakes (as in genuinely believing that they were good people or idealized them), is like asking people to be able to be mature and knows how to pick up the right people even if they never had experience before. Some people are more mature and careful even when they are young, while some are simply clueless and picks up the wrong people before they grow up enough.

As for the offense, I didn't take offense since I'm not even a guy, but I don't like to see nice guys being so negatively portrayed as left overs, as they can be good dating materials too that can be genuinely loved, and not just for settling with. Maybe my paragraph was a bit too strong, I apologize for that if that's the case.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

strangestdude said:


> LOL, I keep saying to you they don't advocate acting, they encourage personality development. But you keep ignoring that.
> 
> Reading the rest of your post... I do think you have a prejudice against men. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I'll be repeating myself.


Developing your personality solely for the purpose of coercing someone to want you sexually still seems inauthentic and manipulative. Also, if you are trying to attract the kinds of women who prefer "bad boys" with dark triad traits, your "personality development" is likely to diminish whatever positive qualities were already present rather than being an improvement. 

I don't have a prejudice against men. I despise shallow people who discriminate based on looks, which is something people of all genders are capable of doing.

People who change how they act as a way of making themselves attractive to honest sex partners who care about character are guilty of manipulation. They frequently harm the innocent.

People who change how they look as a way of making themselves attractive to shallow sex partners who care about appearances are guilty of manipulation, and also of validating and reinforcing bad behavior. They do not harm the innocent. Often they are the ones who end up being harmed by their decision to behave in this manner, because they suffer the natural consequences of intentionally attracting people who will objectify them. 

I think both are wrong, and gender is irrelevant.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Orion said:


> What is the objective of this thread?


 The word 'api' in Malay means fire. If you make it berapi by adding the class II ber- affix (a stative verb), the meaning becomes *incitement*.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

William I am said:


> This thread's "it's official" appeal to authority, and the fact that you only linked articles that agree with what you're saying make me think that you only looked up articles that agree with your original thinking.
> How many *scientific* articles did you read that agreed or disagreed with your thinking? The articles you linked are fluff from magazines and are intended for entertainment, NOT intended to establish anything as true or false.


Oh but the scientific jargon in this article like, "getting tail" makes it sound so academic.


----------



## Ophilia (Dec 14, 2012)

> Semantics game.


Twenty-seven pages!

As series0 observed, the semantics are important. The thread was started with the intention of generating controversy by exploiting the dissonance caused by promoting something using negative language, and then followed up with 'I will not take no for an answer, I will keep pushing until I get to yes!" tactics directed at anyone who was willing to respond with, "Thanks, but no thanks." 

My first impression was that the OP was trying to justify being an asshole by saying he got laid a lot. Then I thought he was trying to justify not getting laid by saying he's a nice guy. At this point, I think he's just seeking some validation that he's not an asshole. 

But all of this is mostly irrelevant, because in spite of all this, and to the great credit of the PerC community, there's been a lot of quality discussion and the thread's remained interesting and even generally entertaining, not just entertaining to the OP, and the signal to noise ratio's remained quite high. I'm actually quite impressed at the number of people who've responded to sound and fury with something thoughtful, thought provoking, and just downright reasonable and considered, and who have resisted the urge to fight fire with fire, and made something that could have easily evolved into a petty flamethrowing contest into something that's actually worth following.

So to those people, and you know who you are, thank you. 

Please continue.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Oh but the scientific jargon in this article like, "getting tail" makes it sound so academic.


I know, the proper phrasing should have been, "acquiring coccyx."

I hope these guys step up their game a little, or they''ll never be published in a respectable journal!


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> Developing your personality solely for the purpose of coercing someone to want you sexually still seems inauthentic and manipulative.


Cultivating attraction through communication skills isn't coercion, I'm not sure why you think it is. 

But we'll have to agree to disagree.



> Also, if you are trying to attract the kinds of women who prefer "bad boys" with dark triad traits, your "personality development" is likely to diminish whatever positive qualities were already present rather than being an improvement.


That's true in regards to the guys who try to become bad boys via negging and other similar bullshit in PUA. But not all develop that, many try to develop their sense of humor, story telling, spontaneity, etc or whatever aspects of their personalities they have going for them.



> I don't have a prejudice against men. I despise shallow people who discriminate based on looks, which is something people of all genders are capable of doing.


I don't think there's anything wrong with having a physical standard either. If I'm not physically attracted to someone I'm not going to consider them for a romantic relationship to be blunt.



> People who change how they act as a way of making themselves attractive to honest sex partners who care about character are guilty of manipulation.


If they are acting yeah. 

However almost everyone is different to different people. You don't treat or communicate with your boss in the same way that you treat or communicate with your spouse, you don't treat or communicate with your best friends partner in the same way that you treat or communicate with a shop keeper, etc. 



> Often they are the ones who end up being harmed by their decision to behave in this manner, because they suffer the natural consequences of intentionally attracting people who will objectify them.


Double standard. 

If a man pretends to be a bad (using your perspective of PUA) and the lady objectifies bad boys, then he's the victim to then too right?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> I know, the proper phrasing should have been, "acquiring coccyx."
> 
> I hope these guys step up their game a little, or they''ll never be published in a respectable journal!


Men pay attention.

Even Wocky is telling guys to step up their game.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Ophilia said:


> But all of this is mostly irrelevant,


2 paragraphs about the mostly irrelevant.



> So to those people, and you know who you are, thank you.


You're welcome.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> Men pay attention.
> Even Wocky is telling guys to step up their game.


Yes, you'll have to do a lot better before I permit you to palpate my mammae.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> Yes, you'll have to do a lot better before I permit you to palpate my mammae.


That was a funny google.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> That was a funny google.


if you really want a jolt, try "shaved bear."

I was expecting mostly pictures of a poor ursus missing his fur, but I was forgetting the other definition of "bear."


----------



## Ophilia (Dec 14, 2012)

Bare... er, bear baiting?


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Ophilia said:


> Bare... er, bear baiting?


if someone mentions butter at this point, I'm leavin -- Ohh... snap!


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

AriesLilith said:


> ....


1. Fair enough with what you posted, but there's still an important distinction that needs to be made. The OP already quoted and pointed out that when women are looking for a guy to marry for the long term that's when they look for a nice guy. Also in other of my posts before this one, I said the same thing as well. It's my fault for not making this distinction before I asked you the question, so it's not your fault. But what I do think is that when women are young, that's when they are attracted and date assholes. I also agree with what the first of the last four paragraphs said, that women are sane enough to reason themselves out of their primal instincts, that is being attracted to assholes. I still think women are attracted to assholes even when they are looking for marriage material, but they are rational enough to acknowledge that marrying one would be a bad idea.

Also another reason why I don't think women would want to date an asshole is that the stereotypical asshole is not going to be dependable and he also is not going to be bringing in a lot of money. Women want to marry a guy who makes a decent amount, if not a lot of money, and guys who make more money tend to be the bookish type that studied and worked their ass off in their twenties.

2/3. Yeah but see I thought you were going to quote exactly what you quoted from him. But here's the problem, for one thing he said within what you quoted "But I'm not blaming women for male violence." Also another problem is that what you quoted from the OP was him having a discussion about something different. He was talking about his opinion that females validating and dating/having sex with bad guys may be a slight cause of male violence because it encourages that kind of behavior from males. That's completely different from what you said, that is you said that he blamed women for not being interested in nice guys. You didn't give a quotation where he specifically blamed women for nice guy's lack of success of attracting women.

4. I have done both, I have attacked you personally once, but the vast majority of my posts to you have been mainly in the form of the Socratic method which is a method of "attacking" your arguments. So if you think I'm not having an "intelligent debate" with you because of one statement I made, then I think you're doing a very good job of cherry picking and using blinders to ignore the fact that the vast majority of what I have said towards you has been disagreeing with your arguments. After this post I'm actually going to stop talking about this because it's a waste of time to talk about.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

lolwut12345 said:


> I still think women are attracted to assholes even when they are looking for marriage material, but they are rational enough to acknowledge that marrying one would be a bad idea.


Would this be the equivalent of saying that men are attracted to hot bitches even when they are looking for marriage material, but they are rational enough to acknowledge that marrying one would be a bad idea?


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

Jennywocky said:


> Would this be the equivalent of saying that men are attracted to hot bitches even when they are looking for marriage material, but they are rational enough to acknowledge that marrying one would be a bad idea?


Men aren't attracted to bitches, they're attracted to women who are physically beautiful. Like the OP said, men are attracted to women in spite of them being bitches, they aren't attracted to them because they're a bitch. 

I know this is anecdotal, but I don't see any validity in the concept of the "hot bitch" at all. Pretty much ever since I was 17, I have never really met women who I thought were attractive act like a bitch to me. In fact I'd say about 99% of women are very polite and pleasant to me regardless of how attractive or unattractive they are. That's just been my experience though. The last time I remember a woman being rude to me was some older woman in her 70's, and before that I can't even remember the last time a woman was rude or a bitch to me.

Also I don't think men will marry a woman who is a complete and total bitch, but I do think that a lot of men do put up with some amount of bitchiness from women since many of them have unrealistic expectations. I think men put a lot of value on a woman's physical beauty, and that never really changes even when they get older.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

lolwut12345 said:


> Men aren't attracted to bitches, they're attracted to women who are physically beautiful. Like the OP said, men are attracted to women in spite of them being bitches, they aren't attracted to them because they're a bitch.


A lot of women in this thread have also said they're not attracted to assholes, but you and the OP persist. Women might be attracted to masculine energy, but if they have the idea the man is an asshole, they're not going to be into that anymore than a man would be into a bitch.

The equitable traits here are 'energy/initiative' in men vs 'beauty' in women. The word "asshole" has nothing to do with anything, as much as the word "bitch" does not.

This makes sense, evolutionarily. Aside from human beings, in many cases the male will seek out and initiate, while the female will attract. This is not the case with all species, but typically one does the seeking and one does the attracting, and so it makes sense that one gender in humans would fulfill one of those roles and the other would fulfill the other. Those traits would be viewed as an impetus to engage.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

Jennywocky said:


> A lot of women in this thread have also said they're not attracted to assholes, but you and the OP persist. Women might be attracted to masculine energy, but if they have the idea the man is an asshole, they're not going to be into that anymore than a man would be into a bitch.
> 
> The equitable traits here are 'energy/initiative' in men vs 'beauty' in women. The word "asshole" has nothing to do with anything, as much as the word "bitch" does not.
> 
> This makes sense, evolutionarily. Aside from human beings, in many cases the male will seek out and initiate, while the female will attract. This is not the case with all species, but typically one does the seeking and one does the attracting, and so it makes sense that one gender in humans would fulfill one of those roles and the other would fulfill the other. Those traits would be viewed as an impetus to engage.


I don't care what women say in this thread. What women say and what women do are often two very different things, especially when it comes to who they choose to date. I see no reason to take a woman's word seriously on the face of it in terms of what they find attractive. 

Also no I don't think it makes sense to deny that women are attracted to assholes because men are not into bitches. Life isn't equal, you can't make everything equal just because you feel like that's the fair thing to do.

Also since you're into evolutionary explanations, I could point out an evolutionary reason why women would want to have sex with jerks but then end up marrying a nice guy. An evolutionary explanation could be that the woman wants her kids to have the genes of the jerk, and the reason is because if the jerks are the types of men who impregnate multiple women, then that means that her male children may do the same thing, which would give her a higher chance of keeping her genes in the genetic pool of human beings. 

Simply put evolutionary speaking, it makes sense that women would have sex and have children with the jerks (but since we have contraception now, this obviously doesn't occur in the present) and then have the nice guy take care of her and the children.

Simply put, nice guys get the short end of the stick and really do lose hahaha. Too bad for them, they are losers.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

One of the blindspots that I see in the research is the question,t are women MORE attracted to the dark triad than men? Because as far as I've known, people like psychopaths and Narcissists. It's not because they like the fact that they're assholes--but it's because both are super manipulative and tend to be able to win people over to their side, get people to like and trust them, and generally seem like great people.

This wouldn't point to women having a thing for assholes--but that women may end up being just as gullible to the dark triad as men are. I would suspect that men are also capable of being attracted to manipulative women--not because they are manipulative, but because manipulation is confusing for many people (especially if it's good manipulation).

People who are manipulative assholes don't come up to you and say--hey, are looking for an asshole to date? I just want to screw you in more ways than one. No, manipulative people (especially very calculating ones) can create elaborate facades to lure their targets in. Most of these people don't just please women, but a lot of women and men. And one aspect that links the dark triad together is manipulation (and exploitation).

I want to hear from men. I'm sure most of you know at least one "badboy" who women tend to be attracted to. But is it really only women? Is this person absolutely unpopular with male friends (have little or no male friends)?

Someone who has traits of the dark triad (IMO) is likely to lack empathy. Because empathy makes you more likeable and trustworthy to most people, they would have had to compensate in some way for their lack of empathy. That compensation could easily take the form of various seduction techniques. If we define seduction as some method of getting another person to like you (or more formally, becoming a tempting and attractive thing)--then how would it seems strange that women would be more attracted to men who make themselves tempting and attractive?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

lolwut12345 said:


> I don't care what women say in this thread. What women say and what women do are often two very different things, especially when it comes to who they choose to date. I see no reason to take a woman's word seriously on the face of it in terms of what they find attractive.
> 
> Also no I don't think it makes sense to deny that women are attracted to assholes because men are not into bitches. Life isn't equal, you can't make everything equal just because you feel like that's the fair thing to do.
> 
> ...


As insulting as that is to women, I take solace in the fact that this poisonous, ignorant, and misogynistic mindset is really only affecting the lonely person who holds it.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Dismas said:


> how come none of the women in this thread seem to find lolwut12345 attractive?


I think the "rule" only goes for guys who are naturally alpha, and not the ones just faking it. Women have these instincts, yanno.. these primal instincts and we can even sniff out the good pheromones from teh internetz, and the pheromones of a dejected "nice guy" gone bad smell not as genuinely appealing as those of a real true sexy narcissist maayun (MMmmm mm!).


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

lolwut12345 said:


> Men aren't attracted to bitches, they're attracted to women who are physically beautiful. Like the OP said, men are attracted to women in spite of them being bitches, they aren't attracted to them because they're a bitch.
> 
> I know this is anecdotal, but I don't see any validity in the concept of the "hot bitch" at all. Pretty much ever since I was 17, I have never really met women who I thought were attractive act like a bitch to me. In fact I'd say about 99% of women are very polite and pleasant to me regardless of how attractive or unattractive they are. That's just been my experience though. The last time I remember a woman being rude to me was some older woman in her 70's, and before that I can't even remember the last time a woman was rude or a bitch to me.
> 
> Also I don't think men will marry a woman who is a complete and total bitch, but I do think that a lot of men do put up with some amount of bitchiness from women since many of them have unrealistic expectations. I think men put a lot of value on a woman's physical beauty, and that never really changes even when they get older.



Speak for yourself, not all men. 



lolwut12345 said:


> The goal men have is to have sex with women. Men who act like jerks have sex with women therefore they're successful. Nice guys get left in the dust and therefore aren't successful unless they make a lot of money.


Again speak for yourself, not all men. 

Believe it or not, many men are not primarily driven by a desire for sex but instead want a loving relationship with a person who is emotionally and intellectually compatible with them and who has similar values and interests (Which happens to be what a significant portion of women want despite what some men are saying in this tread)

That's not to say sex is not a wonderful thing. Both men and women tend to enjoy it very much.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

Promethea said:


> I think the "rule" only goes for guys who are naturally alpha, and not the ones just faking it. Women have these instincts, yanno.. these primal instincts and we can even sniff out the good pheromones from teh internetz, and the pheromones of a dejected "nice guy" gone bad smell not as genuinely appealing as those of a real true sexy narcissist maayun (MMmmm mm!).


Lol wtf is that guy eating?


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

Uviteru said:


> Speak for yourself, not all men.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is everybody on this forum a complete utter retard who doesn't understand what a generalization is?


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

lolwut12345 said:


> The goal men have is to have sex with women. Men who act like jerks have sex with women therefore they're successful. Nice guys get left in the dust and therefore aren't successful unless they make a lot of money.





lolwut12345 said:


> Is everybody on this forum a complete utter retard who doesn't understand what a generalization is?


Do you know what a generalization is and how to use it appropriately? I have a feeling generalization is not the word you're looking for.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

Uviteru said:


> Do you know what a generalization is and how to use it appropriately? I have a feeling generalization is not the word you're looking for.


The appropriate way to use a generalization is when you're talking about a population group, that is a large group of something in the aggregate. Also not only this, but it's appropriate to use a generalization if a general trend can be found. If the population group is too diversified based on a specific variable, then it is not appropriate to generalize. It doesn't make sense to use a generalization when you are discussing one individual person/thing when you already have information on that individual person/thing.

I have a feeling you're a politically correct retard who gets butthurt at anybody who tries to speak in the aggregate lol.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

lolwut12345 said:


> The appropriate way to use a generalization is when you're talking about a population group, that is a large group of something in the aggregate. Also not only this, but it's appropriate to use a generalization if a general trend can be found. If the population group is too diversified based on a specific variable, then it is not appropriate to generalize. It doesn't make sense to use a generalization when you are discussing one individual person/thing when you already have information on that individual person/thing.
> 
> I have a feeling you're a politically correct retard who gets butthurt at anybody who tries to speak in the aggregate lol.


Okay very well. I just could not imagine you would intentionally use fallacious logic when knowing you were doing so. Your use of generalizations is a form of faulty induction, often called a "Sweeping generalization" or "Unwarranted-Generalization." 

However, if you'd not engaged in this particular fallacy you still worded your statement in such a way that a single exception would provide a counterexample (see basic reasoning) 

When you imply that "All X are Y", it simply takes a single counter example to prove your statement incorrect, this is a basic principle of elementary logic. 

There is a mechanism in the English language that allows for statements which are often true but for which exceptions exist. The word is "Most" or "Many". 

If you want to say "Many X are Y" then say it. If you want to say: "Most X are Y" then say it (although you must still demonstrate that more than 50% of X are Y if you wish to avoid a simple challenge whereby your opposition requires that you prove it) 

You could even start your sentences with the common phrase "In general," (although you would still need to be sure you could support such a generalization or you could be engaging in a sweeping generalization as mentioned above). 

If the writer does not do such things then it's the writer who is failing to be accurate, not the reader.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

Uviteru said:


> Okay very well. I just could not imagine you would intentionally use fallacious logic when knowing you were doing so. Your use of generalizations is a form of faulty induction called, often called a "Sweeping generalization" or "Unwarranted-Generalization."
> 
> However, if you'd not engaged in this particular fallacy you still worded your statement in such a way that a single exception would provide a counterexample (see basic reasoning)
> 
> ...


I never said all X are Y, in fact I've made it clear about a billion times now in this thread that in order for a generalization to be a generalization, it is necessarily true that there are exceptions. A statement/claim along the lines of "All X are Y" actually is not even a generalization. For example when I say "All humans are homosapiens" that is not a generalization, the reason is because there is not one human being who is not a homosapien. It is a 100% statement with no exceptions which means by definition it is not a generalization.

So actually I was right, you are a retard who doesn't understand what a generalization is because here you are talking about "All X are Y" as if that's a generalization when in fact it is not a generalization. And yet I'm pretty sure lots of your retarded friends are going "Thank" your post even though it is a total misunderstanding of what a generalization is and I was correct in saying that you need to open up a dictionary and learn what a generalization actually is.

Also here you are arguing over the way I write when I've already said a billion times in this thread that I don't mean all. You people who disagree with me have nothing to say of substance. Most of the people (See I said "most" which isn't "all" I know you're mentally handicapped so I thought I'd hold your hand through this one and explain it to you) who have disagreed with me in here have either just attacked me personally by saying I'm bitter or something, which is a red herring anyways and thus a logical fallacy. Or they have done what you did, they keep claiming I'm saying "All" when I've already said 3 billion times that I am not saying "all" and that I'm generalizing. Yet you people have proven again and again that you don't even understand what a generalization is by implying that a generalization is possible of being an "All" statement when in fact that isn't true. 

There have been a few people in this thread who have disagreed with me with intellectual honesty, and I salute them for that. However the rest of you need to open up a dictionary before you open up your mouth (well type on the keyboard) because you sound like a moron or you sound completely and utterly intellectually disingenuous.

I've only been on this forum for about 2 days now, and it's pathetic to see the amount of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty that is on this forum. Even one of the administrators in here isn't able to have a rational debate, all she has done is bring up red herrings to me and not say anything of substance that disagrees with me. Then she acts like a coward and "Thanks" people who disagree with me (like you) even when I just proved that I was right in saying that you don't understand what a generalization is and you just proved my point here. ROFL you fucking people are so intellectually dishonest it's amazing. And I'm sure lots of you morons think you're some towering intellectual HAHAHAHA what a joke. You people are so delusional and so irrationally opposed to my opinion that you'll shut your ears and go "ALALALALA can't hear you LALALALALA." LMFAO ultimate fail.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

JaySH said:


> Your frustration is making you come off as offensive. Been guilty of it myself...but.. They don't agree. Bring up points respectively that might make them see things from your perspective and maybe a conversation can be had constructively. Throwing repeated insults at some of the more respectable and knowledgable women on this forum isn't going to get you anywhere though...which, you are learning the hard way.
> 
> Chill out and reevaluate your approach. Just advice man.


Bring up points respectively? I don't know if you've noticed (probably not) but the people who disagreed with me attacked me first, not me. Oh yeah I also lol'd at the retards who "Thank" your post even though those same people are the ones who attacked my character first. So those people who "Thank" your post are basically saying "I'm allowed to make fun of your character and act like an asshole, but as soon as you did it then you're wrong!"

Those people have no shred of intellectual integrity what so ever, and them Thanking your post just demonstrates it. They attacked me first, I was polite to them and they chose to turn the discussion personal before I did. That's not my fault, that's their fault yet they have the arrogance to Thank your post as if I was the one who attacked them first. What a fucking joke these people are who thanked your post.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

lolwut12345 said:


> I never said all X are Y, in fact I've made it clear about a billion times now in this thread that in order for a generalization to be a generalization, it is necessarily true that there are exceptions.


That's incorrect. It's not at all necessary for a generalization to have an exception for it to be a valid generalization. I'm not sure where you heard this but it's false. 

Some generalizations have exceptions but not all of them. There are several types of valid generalizations but, to my knowledge none of them require an exception exist. 

However, I'll humor you for a moment. Please provide a source for your statement that all "generalizations" require exceptions.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

insulting the intelligence or approach of others who disagree with your points does not make your points any more valid. who states something, or the attitude with which they present their statement, is utterly irrelevant to whether the data they state is factual or not. if we're attempting to discover/prove truth, the data itself requires examination, not the person sharing the data.

diversionary tactics (such as these ad hominems that demean the intellectual capacity of those who disagree with you - e.g. calling people "retards" or saying you "have a feeling someone is [insert derogatory label here]") do not undermine the credibility of the information these people present. instead, such tactics reflect an attempt to distract attention from the fact that one has no real refutation for the counter argument presented. 

these ad hominems also violate forum rules, which clearly state that while you may critique a person's argument, you may not extend this to maligning their character or personally attacking them. you're new here, so i might as well warn you ~ tread carefully; admins and moderators can also give you infractions for calling people names like this, or ban you for severe or repeat offenses....travel over to the Bans and Infractions subforum if you don't want to take a woman's word for this. 

in light of forum rules, i would appreciate it if you would stop maligning Promethea, she is a good person who has a fiercely protective heart towards the underdog; the longer you are here, the more you will see what a good heart she has. and i'm not sure why you perceive it as illegitimate for her to demonstrate as much passion about her viewpoint as you demonstrate about yours...? and Uviteru is being very kind and gracious towards you while you continue to attack him, i'd appreciate if your attacks on him would stop as well.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

Uviteru said:


> That's incorrect. It's not at all necessary for a generalization to have an exception for it to be a valid generalization. I'm not sure where you heard this but it's false.
> 
> Some generalizations have exceptions but not all of them. There are several types of valid generalizations but, to my knowledge none of them require an exception exist.
> 
> However, I'll humor you for a moment. Please provide a source for your statement that all "generalizations" require exceptions.


Sure, I read that in one of my introductory logic books (symbolic logic).

The book is called Logic Techniques of Formal Reasoning.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

emerald sea said:


> insulting the intelligence or approach of others who disagree with your points does not make your points any more valid. who states something, or the attitude with which they present their statement, is utterly irrelevant to whether the data they state is factual or not. the data itself requires examination, not the person sharing the data.
> 
> diversionary tactics (such as these ad hominems that demean the intellectual skills of those who disagree with you - e.g. calling people "retards" or saying you "have a feeling someone is [insert derogatory label here]") do not decrease the credibility of the information these people present. instead, such tactics reflect an attempt to distract attention from the fact that one has no real refutation for the counter argument presented.
> 
> ...


Why would I even bother reading what you have to say? You've done nothing but been intellectually disingenuous this whole time. I already explained to you a few pages ago that I wasn't making "All" statements when you accused me of doing the exact same thing. I already explained to you that technically speaking you were right to point out that I could be a bit more specific in my writing, but I also said that you were wrong to say I was making "All" statements. I directly and literally explained that to you two pages ago and yet here you are Thanking this persons post for saying something for which you already know is not true. You already know that I am not making "All" statements yet you are Thanking someone for accusing me of something of which you know is not true.

You're being intellectually disingenous and full of shit for thanking someones post when you know better. You know I'm not saying that, yet you are stubborn and refuse to acknowledge it even when I've explained it to you.

I'm not going to read what you say because you're nothing but a sophist who does not value intellectual integrity. You argue like a creationist you just keep saying the same thing and agreeing with other people who say the same thing even though I've explained time and time again that I'm not making "All" statements.

So just to let you know, you're wasting your time by even trying to communicate with me because I didn't read your post here, I'm not going to read it, and I intend on not reading any other garbage and intellectually bankrupt things you're going to say in here.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

lolwut12345 said:


> Why would I even bother reading what you have to say? You've done nothing but been intellectually disingenuous this whole time. I already explained to you a few pages ago that I wasn't making "All" statements when you accused me of doing the exact same thing. I already explained to you that technically speaking you were right to point out that I could be a bit more specific in my writing, but I also said that you were wrong to say I was making "All" statements. I directly and literally explained that to you two pages ago and yet here you are Thanking this persons post for saying something for which you already know is not true. You already know that I am not making "All" statements yet you are Thanking someone for accusing me of something of which you know is not true.
> 
> You're being intellectually disingenous and full of shit for thanking someones post when you know better. You know I'm not saying that, yet you are stubborn and refuse to acknowledge it even when I've explained it to you.
> 
> ...


if you're not interested in heeding warnings about forum rules, there's nothing more i can do. basic logic & rhetoric is common knowledge around here. if "red herring" is intolerable to you, why not "ad hominem"? and there's only one of those two that is illegal on this forum, and can get you banned. you can't say you haven't been warned. 

since you did not read what i wrote but instead paid attention to which posts i thanked, your reply had nothing to do with the content of my post.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

emerald sea said:


> if you're not interested in heeding warnings about forum rules, there's nothing more i can do. if you get banned, it will be solely your own choice, and responsibility.
> 
> since you did not read what i wrote but instead paid attention to which posts i thanked, your reply had nothing to do with the content of my post.
> 
> basic logic & rhetoric is common knowledge around here. if "red herring" is intolerable to you, why not "ad hominem"? and there's only one of those two that is illegal on this forum, and can get you banned.


Didn't read, but I did see you write the words "ad hominem."

Which I'll say is another intellectually disingenous or misinformed post of yours.

I have not comitted any ad hominems in this thread.

I'll explain to you exactly what an ad hominem is so you'll see that I haven't comitted ad hominem fallacy. Insulting people does not mean that you've comitted an ad hominem fallacy.

An ad hominem fallacy is when you attack someones character and then come to the conclusion that that is why their argument is false.

So for example if somebody said "Newton is an Englishman and English men are stupid, therefore his laws of gravitation are false." That's an ad hominem logical fallacy because the person is using the premise of "Newton is an Englishman" and then from that premise coming to the conclusion "Therefore his laws of gravitation are false." That is an ad hominem fallacy.

However if somebody were to give a logical argument about why something is false (in this example I'll just stick with Newtons laws of gravitation) and then after the person had given an argument why Newton's laws of gravitation are wrong and connect it with "Newton is a fucking moron" that would not be ad hominem. It would not be ad hominem because even though the person insulted Newton, the person is not saying that his laws of gravity are wrong because he's a moron. The person is not using "Newton is a moron" as a premise in the argument to reach the conclusion "His laws of gravity are wrong." The insult is simply a comment that is separate of the argument. That's what I've been doing. I've been insulting people, but have been separating it from my arguments.

So even though I have insulted people in this thread, I have not done it in this fashion and therefore if you did accuse me of ad hominem (don't know if you did, just say you use the phrase) then you are simply being intellectually disingenous again or you are misinformed over what ad hominem is.

Furthermore if you're criticing me for attacking people, I find that ironic since the people who have disagreed with me (That you have thanked mind you) attacked me first and made it personal before I did. Look at Promitheus (whatever her name is, the administrator, you know her). Look at our exchange, she made it personal and attacked me first. There was that other girl with the orange letters in her name, she mocked me and made it personal before I did. So why the fuck aren't you criticizing them for making it personal? They started it, and they did it before I did. So why are you criticizing me for insulting people yet I haven't seen you criticize those other people for insulting me even though they started it.

Not only that, but at least when I insult people I actually have something of substance to add on to it. I don't insult people and then argue "And that's why you're wrong." But that Promitheus person for example, the administrator, didn't even have anything of substance to argue with me. She didn't actually try to argue with me, she just said that I was a bitter person and that's why I'm wrong. That's a red herring and an ad hominem fallacy, yet I don't see you criticizing her.

So tell me, I'll read your next post (the one that will respond to this if you choose to do so). Explain to me why you're criticizing me for insulting others, but you have not criticized those other people I've mentioned who not only attacked me first and insulted me first before I did it to them, but they even brought up red herrings and have committed real logical fallacies where as all my posts that have insults in them still contain arguments of substance.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

thanks for reading this post. 

making personal attacks or maligning people is illegal on this forum. if you wish to get infracted or banned by continuing it (no matter what name you assign to what you're doing), i can't stop you, but i warned you because you're new here and i thought you'd want to know. 

FYI, i'll quote the applicable forum rule here:



> *1. Do Not Make Personal Attacks
> *Posts that serve no purpose other than to flame users annihilate the quality of discussion. Do not make personal attacks. *You may critique or disdain argument and opinion posted by users, but you may not extend that method to maligning the users themselves.* Do not troll or purposefully attempt to disrupt discussion in threads. Do not harass or bully other members, this includes "type-bullying" which is the persistent and unsolicited public questioning of another member's type when they have not expressed an interest.


if you want to see a listing of all the forum rules, they are found in this thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/announcements/540-personality-cafe-forum-rules.html#post10989

if you want evidence that these forum rules are enforced around here, and people do get infracted and banned for violations, see the Bans and Infractions forum here:

http://personalitycafe.com/ban-infractions/

if you keep insulting people, you need to know you are doing this at your own risk (of getting in trouble on the forum). i'm warning you, not to be offensive, but because i am not interested in seeing you get infracted or banned, and during my time on this forum i've seen that happen to a _lot_ of people. my disagreement with you on the thread topic is not reflective of any hostility towards you as a person and i hope you know that.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

emerald sea said:


> thanks for reading this post.
> 
> making personal attacks or maligning people is illegal on this forum. if you wish to get infracted or banned by continuing it (no matter what name you assign to what you're doing), i can't stop you, but i warned you because you're new here and i thought you'd want to know.
> 
> ...


You didn't answer the question I asked you. I'm going to be polite and ask you again. Why did you "Thank" Promitheous' posts that attacked me personally if you're against attacking people personally? On page 30 you thanked her post when she called me Defensive and that I'm projecting even though I wasn't. Furthermore like you said before, that personal attacks only show that the person cannot argue honestly. Well on that specific post that you Thanked, Promitheous did not even argue with me at all. All she literally said was that I was being defensive and hostile, she ignored everything I said, she ignored all the arguments I made with a personal insult. Yet you thanked that post.

I'm being nice and polite with you, please explain to me why you thanked that post and why it isn't hypocritical of you to thank that post. You said:
A. That you shouldn't ad hominem.
B. That you shouldn't insult people.
C. That making arguments personal just shows the person cannot argue about the actual points in the persons argument.

That specific post that I just discussed of Promitheous violates all 3 of these things that you yourself said, and yet you thanked her post.

So explain to me why you're justified to criticize me for insulting people yet at the same time you are not going to call Promitehous out on this behavior and also are you going to verbally retract your "Thank" on that post and admit that you were a hypocrite for thanking that post?


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

you are new here and don't know forum rules, which is why i addressed personal attacks with you, and pointed out where you were attacking people, as i stated in my previous post. i'm not a moderator so i am in no way obligated to point out every time i see someone violating a rule, so i'm not sure why you think i should? 

i respect authority, Promethea is an authority on this forum, so she deserves respect rather than public undermining of her authority by questioning her decisions. i'm not here to discuss your opinions of her decisions...if you have a problem with something she said, that's between you and her, and should be discussed with her in private. check out all the forum rules - there is actually a rule against public questioning of staff decisions as well.

i don't have to justify my reasons for thanking to anyone here, i haven't violated any rules in doing so. and i have my own personal and legitimate reasons for thanking the posts i thank, that i will not share with you because i don't answer to you about my personal choices, nor will i legitimize any attempts to control me through guilt-tripping. the only rules i am obligated to follow on this forum are forum rules, not yours or anyone else's. 

but since you seem quite concerned over it, you should know that your idea of the motive behind thanking (that is, tacit approval of all its contents) is not shared by many people on this forum. do you know how many people around here thank posts because someone posted in the thread they started; or because they happen to like/appreciate the person who posted it; or because they feel bad because all the other posts in the thread had thanks and that one didn't (yes, some people do this); or to elevate someone's post-to-thank ratio; or as a show of personal support and emotional validation because someone is being attacked, feeling hurt, or defending a stance they agree with; or simply as acknowledgement that they've read the post? judge us all you want for the posts we thank, but realize we don't all share the same motives as you for thanking a post! 

i am not going to discuss this further because this thread has been derailed enough already from its original topic, and i will not subject myself to ethical interrogations from you about why i don't do what you personally think i should do, since the only rules anyone has a right to enforce on anyone else on this forum are forum rules (not personal codes of conduct). think whatever you want about me, your approval or praise is not my goal in life and i answer only to my own conscience for the choices i make. goodbye, and i wish you well.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

emerald sea said:


> you are new here and don't know forum rules, which is why i addressed personal attacks with you, and pointed out where you were attacking people, as i stated in my previous post. i'm not a moderator so i am in no way obligated to point out every time i see someone violating a rule, so i'm not sure why you think i should?
> 
> i respect authority, Promethea is an authority on this forum, so she deserves respect rather than public undermining of her authority by questioning her decisions. i'm not here to discuss your opinions of her decisions...if you have a problem with something she said, that's between you and her, and should be discussed with her in private. check out all the forum rules - there is actually a rule against public questioning of staff decisions as well.
> 
> i don't have to justify my reasons for thanking to anyone here, i haven't violated any rules in doing so. and i have my own personal and legitimate reasons for thanking the posts i thank, that i will not share with you because i don't answer to you about my personal choices, nor will i legitimize any attempts to control me through guilt-tripping. the only rules i am obligated to follow on this forum are forum rules, not yours or anyone else's. but since you seem quite concerned over it, you should know that your idea of the motive behind thanking (that is, tacit approval of all its contents) is not shared by many people on this forum. do you know how many people around here thank posts because someone posted in the thread they started; or because they happen to like/appreciate the person who posted it; or because they feel bad because all the other posts in the thread had thanks and that one didn't (yes, some people do this); or to elevate someone's post-to-thank ratio; or as a show of personal support and emotional validation because someone is being attacked, feeling hurt, or defending a stance they agree with; or simply as acknowledgement that they've read the post? judge us all you want for the posts we thank, but realize we don't all share the same motives as you for thanking a post!


I'm disappointed, you really are intellectually dishonest and you really are being a hypocrite right now. Everything you've criticized me of is now meaningless because you've demonstrated that your words cannot be taken seriously. You have demonstrated that you do not follow the very virtues you criticize others for not following. 

You won't even admit that everything you've criticized of me doing is undermined by the very point and specific example that I gave. I pointed out that you were a hypocrite to thank her, and I gave the specific post, the specific page, and explained to you specifically why you were a hypocrite and yet you won't just admit that you were a hypocrite. You don't even have the honesty within you to just admit "Hey you know what you're right, I shouldn't have thanked her post when she insulted you, didn't even argue with you at all with substance, and just flat out ignored your arguments even though I have criticized you for doing all those doings."


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

THIS IS MY FINAL REPLY TO YOU. 

please read the end portion of my post that i added after you had already quoted it. i will not subject myself to your guilt-trips, because i don't answer to you about my behavior. to subject oneself to control tactics by agreeing to demands to do something or to provide certain information or to answer to someone for what was done, is to enable controlling tendencies (which are unhealthy) in another. i am not willing to enable controlling tendencies in a peer, and your attempts to ethically shame me here are not going to change that. you don't have to understand my behavior or approve of it, nor do you have the right to impose any rules on me except forum rules.

i don't owe you to agree with what you say about me, especially since you are ethically evaluating me on the basis of incorrect perceptions (that is, assigning motives to my actions that i don't have, and misinterpreting what i am doing and saying). think i'm a hypocrite if you want, because i don't put stock in what those who don't know me at all think of me, since we INFJs are pretty used to being misunderstood by others, and thought to be something (negative) that we are not.

when you actually take up residence inside my brain for a month or two and there view my motives firsthand, let me know, and then i'll start taking seriously what you think about me, because then you'll actually have access to all the information you're missing/misunderstanding now. xD 

take a read of my posts in general and you'll see that i am very open about my faults. but i'm not going to lay claim to a fault i don't have, because _that_ would be hypocritical. lol


----------

