# Why Women Are Attracted To 'Bad Boys'.



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

People seem to ask this often one way or another and generally believe it's because women find the 'bad boy type' exciting. 

I think it's more about instinct than excitement. Thousands of years ago, the bad boy type personality would most likely have been at the top of the social hierarchy and therefore offer the best chance of survival. 

We know that's not the case in modern society, which might explain why some women describe their ideal man as kind, dependable, stable, etc. yet, are attracted to the opposite. 

What are your thoughts on it?


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

I'm attracted to kind, dependable, stable guys.


----------



## DarkyNWO (Mar 21, 2011)

Take a peek on a documentary about gorillas social structure and you'll understand everything about bad boys and why they are so attractive to women.


----------



## Tyche (May 12, 2011)

There are a few reasons why women are attracted to bad boys, but I find the main reason is daddy issues and/or some sort of rebellion. It's partially because it's exciting I guess, but I think it runs much deeper than that.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

IMO, girls are attracted to bad boys, whereas women are attracted to nice guys.


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

Because, so called "bad boys" are honestly interested in sex. "Nice guys" try to conceal this or go for affection first/only. 



alphacat said:


> IMO, girls are attracted to bad boys, whereas women are attracted to nice guys.


Not attracted but they offer stability. There is nothing better then to have a provider and a bad boy on a side who fucks them madly. 

There is an easy cure for the "nice guy" syndrome - being honest with what you want and need.


----------



## VenusianMizu (Sep 9, 2011)

My instinct has always been to go for the nice guys. Bad boys are exciting, but not in the good way. I honestly don't get them. So either I'm not a woman or I don't have enough estrogen to be attracted to bad boys. 

...Or maybe I'm just not looking for/interested in excitement or sex. Yeah, that's it.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

Everyone here: Stop pigeonholing an entire sex.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

You Sir Name said:


> Everyone here: Stop pigeonholing an entire sex.


I'm not pigeonholing, just seeing how many girls I can make cry


----------



## johnjohnjohn (Jan 17, 2012)

maybe it's: bad boys attracted to nice girls. who's attracted first? perhaps the bad boys aren't as bad as everyone else makes them out to be. I'm not the 'bad boy' type, but one has to respect what these 'bad boys' can do.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I'm not pigeonholing, just seeing how many girls I can make cry


*Troll alert, everyone*


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> People seem to ask this often one way or another and generally believe it's because women find the 'bad boy type' exciting.
> 
> I think it's more about instinct than excitement. Thousands of years ago, the bad boy type personality would most likely have been at the top of the social hierarchy and therefore offer the best chance of survival.
> 
> ...


Are they really?

Let's see the evidence.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Why settle when you can have both. A gentleman at the dinner table and a lion in the bedroom A bit of both is appealing on so many levels.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

You Sir Name said:


> *Troll alert, everyone*


Aren't Trolls those who post off topic messages?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

twoofthree said:


> Are they really?
> 
> Let's see the evidence.


Evidence of what specifically?


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

Obviously, if terrorists are willing to die for these virgins who are showering them before every flight with their chastity belts then the theory must be true. Sign me up, Uncle Sam.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Evidence of what specifically?


. . . of women being (more) attracted to 'bad boys'


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

twoofthree said:


> . . . of women being (more) attracted to 'bad boys'


No evidence, just my own observations.


----------



## bromide (Nov 28, 2011)

It always makes me roll my eyes when someone pulls out the "women like bad boys" stereotype. We do? As a whole gender, really? Where was I when these personality clichés were being doled out?


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

bromide said:


> It always makes me roll my eyes when someone pulls out the "women like bad boys" stereotype. We do? As a whole gender, really? Where was I when these personality clichés were being doled out?


Same place as most women, I'd guess.

Maybe if we repeat the cliche often enough, it might be fulfilled.


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

nádej said:


> I'm not attracted to 'bad boys', but I'm also not attracted to men who are super-sweet and/or accommodating and/or put me on a pedestal.
> 
> For me, personally, that's uncomfortable - not attractive. Just be a normal person with a backbone and stop treating me like I'm so different from you.
> 
> I think sometimes maybe that's where the, "woe is me; I'm such a nice guy and no one wants to date me because girls only want bad boys," mentality comes in. There's being a good guy, and then there is being a good guy who is also very sweet and very very generous and very conscientious, etc. Both are good guys. Just with different personalities and perhaps different values. Sometimes if a girl doesn't want to date the really sweet one, it's said that she only wants to date jerks or 'bad boys'. That's not necessarily true. There are genuinely good guys who are not teddy bears. They are nice guys too.


If you haven't added the last sentence, I would say spot on. The truth is somewhere in the middle but people tend to see only extremes because it serves better as an excuse


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

DarkSideOfLight said:


> Have you been thinking about this marriage concept is wrong in the first place? This whole "cheating" is based on an ideal that we supposed to live in monogamous relationships till the death. You know what? Fuck this. What's sick - people that make promises to stay forever, ever and never fuck on a side. I do understand that forbidden fruit tests better so maybe that's the point of marriage...


 I don't intend to get married unless I am with the same female for a very long period of time, and I have to be at least 28 or over. Most people get married ten years before that, and that's stupid. They're not prepared for lifetime monogamy, they're not mature enough nor responsible enough. 

Based on your opinions, choice of wording, and overall tone, I suspect you have been hurt by a past relationship that was supposed to be monogamous. Am I right?


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

Tristan427 said:


> I don't intend to get married unless I am with the same female for a very long period of time, and I have to be at least 28 or over. Most people get married ten years before that, and that's stupid. They're not prepared for lifetime monogamy, they're not mature enough nor responsible enough.
> 
> Based on your opinions, choice of wording, and overall tone, I suspect you have been hurt by a past relationship that was supposed to be monogamous. Am I right?


You know what's funny you may polish your cutie for 5-10 years, get married and then a guy who wants to fuck your cutie and who knows how to get it done comes. Guess what? I don't know where you get this people getting married at 18 from as where I'm living now it's unusual for marriages to happen in general.

Thanks for an attempt of being my personal therapist BUT no I haven't been hurt. I'm not into being controlled or controlling so any individual has rights to do whatever wants - let it be casual sex. I write this because I've seen what is going on and I know what society perceives as "wrong" and reality don't always go along same road.


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

DarkSideOfLight said:


> You know what's funny you may polish your cutie for 5-10 years, get married and then a guy who wants to fuck your cutie and who knows how to get it done comes. Guess what? I don't know where you get this people getting married at 18 from as where I'm living now it's unusual for marriages to happen in general.
> 
> Thanks for an attempt of being my personal therapist BUT no I haven't been hurt. I'm not into being controlled or controlling so any individual has rights to do whatever wants - let it be casual sex. I write this because I've seen what is going on and I know what society perceives as "wrong" and reality don't always go along same road.


Well, if a guy like that does come along then he won't be around for long. He won't be getting anywhere. I'll see to that. 

Marriages happen all the time here.

I'm not trying to be a personal therapist, I'm just trying to see if your background has influenced your opinions. I don't "care" if you have been hurt or not. I could care less. 

It isn't just society that has perceived it as wrong, most people feel and KNOW it is wrong. Society has morals that are wrong a lot, but they are right about this. Cheating on someone when both partners have agreed to a monogamous relationship is childish, irresponsible, and disgusting. If it is an open relationship, then go right ahead.


----------



## Senter (Nov 21, 2011)

define "bad" please


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

Tristan427 said:


> Well, if a guy like that does come along then he won't be around for long. He won't be getting anywhere. I'll see to that.
> 
> Marriages happen all the time here.
> 
> ...


I smell a control freak. Better be with your cutie of choice 24/7  I know relationships like that. Both play the jealous roles as long as they are together...

If you don't care about that then why you make such assumptions/guesses? If you don't care, don't ask. On one side you want to know my background on other you don't care. You contradicting yourself.

Listen I will give you lesson about history. Our brain is about 100k years old. Not too much changed during that period. Now, back to hunter-gathers about 10k years ago. In a village of 100 people chief was fucking all women hi wanted, the rest was fucking remaining ones. Everyone felt it was fair and Knew it was the way it supposed to be. Another example of Roman empire where senators would buy and impregnate slaves on regular basis. Do you think someone thought or felt it was wrong? Not to mention kings, Hefner, rock stars and thousands other examples. 

I agree with this partners promising each other thing. Most people cannot be honest in a relationship. Making assumptions/promises that you will not be attracted/won't want to fuck other people is a lie to begin with. Name it however you want. People make such statements all the time and for fucks sake others buy that.

Ask yourself if after couple of years your dick will still react only while being with your cutie? If that's a yes then there is something wrong with it haha. 

Open relationship is at least one step closer to honesty but most people (read most guys) cannot stand the fact that others dicks go in there.


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

DarkSideOfLight said:


> I smell a control freak. Better be with your cutie of choice 24/7  I know relationships like that. Both play the jealous roles as long as they are together...
> 
> If you don't care about that then why you make such assumptions/guesses? If you don't care, don't ask. On one side you want to know my background on other you don't care. You contradicting yourself.
> 
> ...


I am not a control freak. An old girlfriend of mine wanted to go to a party with her ex boyfriend, I had no problem with it.

Don't call me a control freak for wanting to keep away a guy that wants to sleep with my girlfriend/wife. 

Me: " I want to keep away a guy that wants to sleep with my girlfriend/wife. 

You: " Control freak! "

Me:










I know about history, I know about evolution. You are preaching to the choir. Yes, plenty of people felt it was wrong. Does that mean someone is going to say something when they think they might die for it, or if it goes against the social norm? 

Who the hell promises not to be attracted to other people?

Guys dicks react to almost anything. That doesn't mean they will stick it in anything.

EDIT: And I didn't contradict myself. I was curious about your background, but I didn't care about the fact of whether you were hurt or not. Rather I cared if it affected your opinions or not.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Add another tally for daddy issues. At least on my part.


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

Most girls find the "bad" boys appealing because they have that aura of security and confidence constantly surrounding them. On top of that, they have an unpredictable and rebellious streak in their personality. 

It's somewhat of a broad stereotype and these "bad" boys can sure screw their natural appeal if they try a little too hard to impress (in which case, they ironically seem insecure) or get a little too stupid for some girls' tastes. A good example of the ideal "bad" boy is the fictional character Wolverine.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

You Sir Name said:


> I find it funny that you are accusing me of being prejudice considering I find this topic to be extremely prejudice.


I said prejudice accusations. Why don't you read a post properly and stop twisting it to suit your deluded motives? 

If you find it insulting that's your issue. I never said all and it's an error on your part that you perceived it in that context. 
Don't accuse me of being prejudice for it. 

I would explain my point further, but I'd be wasting my time, since you can't see it for what it is.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I said prejudice accusations. Why don't you read a post properly and stop twisting it to suit your deluded motives?
> 
> If you find it insulting that's your issue. I never said all and it's an error on your part that you perceived it in that context.
> Don't accuse me of being prejudice for it.
> ...


I've got a quick way to solve this: Would you be insulted if a random person said "All women like bad boys" and meant, literally, that all women liked bad boys?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Senter said:


> define "bad" please


It's individual to everyone, if a person is attracted to someone they perceive as bad, what's the attraction?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

You Sir Name said:


> I've got a quick way to solve this: Would you be insulted if a random person said "All women like bad boys" and meant, literally, that all women liked bad boys?


Personally no, but I'd understand others being insulted by it. If I'd said it like that I would have already apologised and edited my post. 
In fact, if you had approached me and explained your feelings about it before jumping in and making assumptions, I would have probably edited it anyway.


----------



## Senter (Nov 21, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> It's individual to everyone, if a person is attracted to someone they perceive as bad, what's the attraction?


mm ok. well bad as in immoral or insecure or manipulative or anything of that nature i find not attractive. but someone who is "badass" and confident and themselves I find attractive. People who kiss my ass or are really nice but not really because they want to be nice to me but just because they want to feel good about themselves and are looking for affirmation I also do not find attractive.


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

Tristan427 said:


> I am not a control freak. An old girlfriend of mine wanted to go to a party with her ex boyfriend, I had no problem with it.
> 
> Don't call me a control freak for wanting to keep away a guy that wants to sleep with my girlfriend/wife.
> 
> ...


Sure on one side you want to keep other guys away from sleeping with your girlfriend on other you have no problem letting her go with her's ex  Great.

They should have died for it, I think lack of natural selection is a disaster that science and medicine will not make up for. Mixture of religion and communism that's what social norms are built on nowadays. Fortunately people pissing at social norms all the time. 



> Who the hell promises not to be attracted to other people?
> 
> Guys dicks react to almost anything. That doesn't mean they will stick it in anything.


Sure not anything but pussy.



> EDIT: And I didn't contradict myself. I was curious about your background, but I didn't care about the fact of whether you were hurt or not. Rather I cared if it affected your opinions or not.


It doesn't make sense.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

Because they're physically attractive. Duh.

The women who chase after these guys don't have what it takes to get or keep a good looking "nice guy."

On occasion, they have underlying psychological issues and respond to being treated poorly.
They are fun to laugh at.

From what I've seen, the former is more apt and common.
I mean, have you ever met an unattractive "bad boy?" 

I have and they are laughed off so quickly that it ain't even funny.


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

DarkSideOfLight said:


> Sure on one side you want to keep other guys away from sleeping with your girlfriend on other you have no problem letting her go with her's ex  Great.
> 
> They should have died for it, I think lack of natural selection is a disaster that science and medicine will not make up for. Mixture of religion and communism that's what social norms are built on nowadays. Fortunately people pissing at social norms all the time.
> 
> ...


Of course I have no problem letting her go with an ex. She can be friends with whoever she wants to be friends with. It seems you WANT me to be a control freak.

They should have died for disagreeing? No. You sound like the communists you condemn. 

Religion and communism create social norms today? LOL No. Communism is against all religion. Communism and religion do not co exist. You find it fortunate people fight social norms? You like serial killers too? It is social norm to not kill people, especially not many people. 

They won't put their dick in any girl. I think you're a sexist, but try to hide it by making statements like " Anyone can do what they want. " You also brought up a fear of being controlled, and you said it in a way that implied a female point of view. It appears you see men as controllers, and you get angry at them for that. I think you're a sexist. 

It does make sense. I cared whether your background influenced your opinion, and asking if you were hurt in the past would shed light on your background. Thus shedding light on the basis of your opinion. What I didn't care about was if you are okay, or were okay, or whatever. I care if it influenced your opinion, I didn't care if you were okay.


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

Tristan427 said:


> Religion and communism create social norms today? LOL No. Communism is against all religion. Communism and religion do not co exist. You find it fortunate people fight social norms? You like serial killers too? It is social norm to not kill people, especially not many people.


Equality in right to have offspring even if you are genetic waste seems very communistic to me. With this killing, it again depends which place and time you speaking of. It seems like you want go offtopic to put me in a place where I say killing is cool. Stick to fucking and you are more then welcome to create another thread about serial killers and invite me there. 



> They won't put their dick in any girl. I think you're a sexist, but try to hide it by making statements like " Anyone can do what they want. " You also brought up a fear of being controlled, and you said it in a way that implied a female point of view. It appears you see men as controllers, and you get angry at them for that. I think you're a sexist.


I'm sexist. I say men have dicks, women pussies and I'm all about equality when it comes to how much we all crave intimacy. Sure you are sexist. You want to own women by marring one. You want to label her as your own possession and scare off other dicks away. Plus you think that women should be faithful, honest to guys that try to buy them haha. WTF are you about? 



> It does make sense. I cared whether your background influenced your opinion, and asking if you were hurt in the past would shed light on your background. Thus shedding light on the basis of your opinion. What I didn't care about was if you are okay, or were okay, or whatever. I care if it influenced your opinion, I didn't care if you were okay.


You cared about answer and this is enough. Don't you make thousand distinctions in terms what that answer meant to you, because it means shit. You sounded to me as a therapist wannabe.


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

DarkSideOfLight said:


> Equality in right to have offspring even if you are genetic waste seems very communistic to me. With this killing, it again depends which place and time you speaking of. It seems like you want go offtopic to put me in a place where I say killing is cool. Stick to fucking and you are more then welcome to create another thread about serial killers and invite me there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And who is a genetic waste?

I think you're sexist because it appears you hate men.

Own them? No, in a marriage no one owns anyone. However it is an agreed monogamous relationship. Scare off other dicks? No, she can have all the male friends she wants as long as they don't try to sleep with her. I'm sure she wouldn't want me to be around a girl that wanted to sleep with me. Guys that try to buy them? I never said anything about " buying " women. You said it is nice to have a provider and a "bad boy" on the side. 

The provider is intended as boyfriend or husband in this scenario. I said you should be faithful to him. Not because he is the "provider" but rather you are in a relationship with him. It seems you like the idea of having a provider to leech off of, and a "bad boy" to have sex with. 

You think because a partner doesn't want a partner to cheat, that means they think they own them. That is typical sexist/feminist bullcrap. No one owns anyone, but that doesn't mean cheating in a monogamous relationship is okay to do. 

You're sexism makes you think all men are the same, and as such you think I am the same as them. You're wrong, and you should take you're sexism somewhere else.

I cared about the answer and that was enough? Clearly, because if you took it the way I put it that would make you wrong. So you disregard what I say and put there instead what you want me to say/mean.


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

@Tristan427 this is boring. And I don't think we are all the same. I bet my dick is longer then yours...


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

Duck_of_Death said:


> "Nice Guys" exist because they've been hen-pecked and conditioned to be that way.
> Women will use them because, well...what else are they gonna do with them?
> Fuck 'em?


I was under the impression that they would try to develop some sort of a relationship (with the exception of the "manipulative bitches" that I previously mentioned) with them and not merely view them as sex dolls. In the case of spineless "nice" guys, these relationships tend to get stale quick. 



Duck_of_Death said:


> And you believe that bullshit?


Personality has a lot to do with a guy's sexual appeal. Do you really dispute this? There have been instances where hot women would go for a lesser attractive man based solely on his personality and charisma. 



Duck_of_Death said:


> But really.
> People respond positively to attractive people and spurn the uglies.


How about, people respond positively to other people who have a good balance of attractiveness and personality? The stereotypical "bad" boy fits the bill more often than not.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

GloriousEnd314 said:


> I was under the impression that they would try to develop some of a relationship (with the exception of the "manipulative bitches" that I previously mentioned) with them and not merely view them as sex dolls. In the case of spineless "nice" guys, these relationships tend to get stale quick.


This is the United (Corporate) States of America.
People ain't interested in building a genuine rapport with others.
We don't have time for it. Go out, make money, dress like the assholes on TV.
National mantra.

If there is a sense of community here, I sure as hell don't see it.
All I see are proxy raiding parties lining up to rob rival tribes of their resources.

It would be pretty cool if this got out of hand, actually.
Definitely spice up life.

Better than listening to some pretentious, wannabe "bad boy" talk about how hardcore he is.



> Personality has a lot to do with a guy's sexual appeal. Do you really dispute this? There have been instances where hot women would go for a lesser attractive man based solely on his personality and charisma.


LOL! Apes be apes.

Women naturally want the top dog in any social circle.
It's not always based on looks (but they do factor in).

So you can throw the "personality" thing out the window.
When it comes to bad boys, women are simply in it for that deep-dicking.

Or they're fucked in the head. 
Pick one.



> How about, people respond positively to other people who have a good balance of attractiveness and personality? The stereotypical "bad" boy fits the bill more often than not.


Can someone define "bad" here? Because most of the actual "bad boys" I know are unkempt, social derelicts who nobody cares to be around except trashy, toothless fat chicks.

Or the occasional bombshell riddled with daddy issues.

Inversely (and ironically), the guys who score MOST women are well-behaved middle-class kids who--nonetheless--possess the toxic personality traits of the "nice guy."

But, but, but...they have a few perfunctory tats.
And they're better-than-average looking.

Now what does that say?


----------



## U-80 (Mar 12, 2010)

So much theorizing. 

It's really a lot more simple than all this. The people who score the most are the ones who _honestly_ _believe_ they are sexy. It correlates to some extent with actual sexiness, but not entirely. 

All attempts at categorization (bad boy, nice guy, fat chick, etc) are rendered meaningless by this simple (and true) principle.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

Era said:


> So much theorizing.
> 
> It's really a lot more simple than all this. The people who score the most are the ones who _honestly_ _believe_ they are sexy. It correlates to some extent with actual sexiness, but not entirely.
> 
> All attempts at categorization (bad boy, nice guy, fat chick, etc) are rendered meaningless by this simple (and true) principle.


But a question to ask you: How do people typically grow to honestly believe they are sexy? 
I would have thought it was partially due to the positive attention received by others in the sexual realm that boosts sexual confidence.


----------



## U-80 (Mar 12, 2010)

BroNerd said:


> But a question to ask you: How do people typically grow to honestly believe they are sexy?
> I would have thought it was partially due to the positive attention received by others in the sexual realm that boosts sexual confidence.


Yes that reinforces it, but only if it's there to begin with. People who don't believe they're sexy generally stay that way, no matter what anyone else might think.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

BroNerd said:


> But a question to ask you: How do people typically grow to honestly believe they are sexy?
> I would have thought it was partially due to the positive attention received by others in the sexual realm that boosts sexual confidence.


 I'm sexy and I know it.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

Era said:


> Yes that reinforces it, but only if it's there to begin with. People who don't believe they're sexy generally stay that way, no matter what anyone else might think.


Interesting, I can see how that works..especially in terms of which guys are more attractive.
I know some guys who are not good-looking at all who are successful with women because they are confident in their sexuality..in their ability to really "wow a woman". 
However, I find I am more attracted to a pretty woman who thinks she's ugly than an ugly woman who thinks she's pretty, however, I also tend to think that the pretty woman is just being modest and the ugly woman is overcompensating..so the principle you state does have a lot of truth in it.
Others' perceptions of how you perceive yourself play a large role in sexual attraction.


----------



## U-80 (Mar 12, 2010)

BroNerd said:


> However, I find I am more attracted to a pretty woman who thinks she's ugly than an ugly woman who thinks she's pretty, however, I also tend to think that the pretty woman is just being modest and the ugly woman is overcompensating...


Yeah, the act doesn't matter. What they _really_ believe is the only determining factor. (Same for men.)

Edit: I should add for clarity, that people who aren't hard-wired to believe in their own sexiness can and do still score, it's just that they have to wait for someone to come along who makes them _feel_ sexy (or who appreciates their other qualities). However, nobody owes them this.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

It's the Nice Guy vs Bad Boys debate again...

Everybody, ABANDON THREAD! RUN! THERE'S GOING TO BE A FLAME WAR!

Now let the flamewar begin.

Nice Guys deeply respect women so they always treat them well. However, women have been raised to expect some degree of mistreatment, so they don't know how to cope with a guy who is genuinely kind and respectful other than purposefully keeping him at a distance and projecting their distrust and confusion at the Nice Guy's gentle nature and actions as Misogyny masquerading as amiability.

EDIT: Pinkrasputin is back? Finally! Feeling better, Pink?


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> EDIT: Pinkrasputin is back? Finally! Feeling better, Pink?


Better? What are you talking about?


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

pinkrasputin said:


> Better? What are you talking about?


I guess then you're doing fine, that's nice to hear. The last time I saw your posts, you were going some personal issues and starting to make headway on your recovery. I see you've put yourself back as ENFP and your mood indicator is set to awesome. Anyway, a lot has happened to me since you've been away. I've graduated high school, started college, gotten a job, and learned to at least have a bit of self respect.

I've been away from Personality Cafe since 2010 pretty much. I just wanted to know how were since I haven't seen you in years.

EDIT: Yes now that I think about it, I do remember you came here because you couldn't stay single. Please forgive my different verbiage.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> I guess then you're doing fine, that's nice to hear. The last time I saw your posts, you were going some personal issues and starting to make headway on your recovery. I see you've put yourself back as ENFP and your mood indicator is set to awesome. Anyway, a lot has happened to me since you've been away. I've graduated high school, started college, gotten a job, and learned to at least have a bit of self respect.


 Wtf "recovery"? 

I first came to the forum so I could try and stay single for once. Then I left so I could focus on my business, performing, and having relationships. 

I come back every now and then to understand a relationship I'm in. But I can't let it pull my focus from real life too much.

Btw, even when I'm away, I have eyes and ears and you talk some crazy ass shiz. 

Okay, I'll stop derailing this thread and you'll stop talking to me. KTHXBYE

BACK TO TOPIC:

I'm not sure what "bad boys" are. And I wonder who coined that phrase? Would it be the "bad boys" themselves? Or the supposed "good guys"?

All I know is that most unhealthy/abusive relationships start with one person pushing and speeding up the relationship and saying things like "I love you" after one week. They rush commitment before you have a chance to really know them, and they want to be with you every minute. 

If we are going define "bad guys", let's also define what a "good guy" is. Hopefully, a "good guy" is not defined as someone I'm not attracted to, yet promises me a committed relationship yesterday and to do my laundry daily. And if I still don't accept all the "good guy" is willing to give, he claims I must be attracted to "bad guys". Lol.


----------



## Curiously (Nov 7, 2011)

johnjohnjohn said:


> *maybe it's: bad boys attracted to nice girls. *who's attracted first? perhaps the bad boys aren't as bad as everyone else makes them out to be. I'm not the 'bad boy' type, but one has to respect what these 'bad boys' can do.


I think you're onto something. I'd consider myself a good girl, but I've had my fair share of the "bad boys" making their moves on me. It's as though they assume I need to be dirtied up or something. Ugh.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

Lumen Animae said:


> I saw an interesting documentary on this matter years ago. The scientists in it said that women tend to be more attracted to the “bad boy” during the time of the month were they had the highest chance of getting pregnant and this was because the offspring would have the best “fighter genes” for survival. They also said that during the other time they were more biological inclined to be attracted to the “nice guy” because he was better equipped at taking care of the offspring and more likely to stick around. I don’t know how much sense that makes in modern society were the offspring hardly will have to face the same struggles as they did hundreds if not thousands of years ago, but still there are some biological factors behind this kind of attraction. I would like to point out that this is not my personal opinion and I tend to go for the nice guy and my friends who go for the bad guy have different psychological and emotional needs rather than biological. Personally I would say it’s psychological because there are lots of strong masculine men that are “nice guys”.


 and men who embody both young, clean boyish charms and youth & some more masculinised traits (e.g. more mature, broader, taller, hold a powerful presence) appeal to women throughout.

i think the attraction some girls have is that it's a little bit like the male conquest; to finally settle him down, to tame the beast, to be the *one* girl amazing enough to satisfy _all_ his needs _just_ by her shere feminine wonder and "being better" than all the other girls is a massive stroke for a girl's ego.
- and, the few girls who i've known who exclusively pursue bad boys (and i mean *bad* boys - as in, not gentlemanly in any way) as i've pointed out elsewhere in PerC, seem to have recurring problems with self-esteem, validation and attention-seeking so i wouldn't rule it out. a narcissistic undertone resonates in those individuals for me...



Duck_of_Death said:


> "Nice Guys" exist because they've been hen-pecked and conditioned to be that way.
> Women will use them because, well...what else are they gonna do with them?
> Fuck 'em?
> 
> ...


 my boyfriend throughout college was... quite the doormat, lol. however, feeling like i was the only one who saw this amazing person inside, beyond a timid, childish exterior to something more made me feel special and connected to him and only intensified my attraction. he's not skinny or well-muscled, he doesn't have luxurious gelled hair or fancy garb and he's poor as fuck and it shows. yet, he never ceases to amaze me and just looking at him makes me tingle. he's an amazing human being..

people respond positively to attractive people because of the halo effect. but really, all that's required to transcend that is reason, a bit of thought and recognition that people are shallow and not necessarily right and will repeat the same mating mistakes over and over.



Duck_of_Death said:


> Women naturally want the top dog in any social circle.
> It's not always based on looks (but they do factor in).


 naturally. woman like men they can idealise, it's part of the attraction psychological process. top dogs, as you call them are top dogs because their particular clan of apes idealise them for whatever reason that is, and it may actually be a valid one.



Era said:


> Yes that reinforces it, but only if it's there to begin with. People who don't believe they're sexy generally stay that way, no matter what anyone else might think.


 i just told myself most people were rotten to the core and therefore did not deserve my pining & whining away. aloof and confidence reap similar effects it'd seem.



Mutatio NOmenis said:


> However, women have been raised to expect some degree of mistreatment, so they don't know how to cope with a guy who is genuinely kind and respectful other than purposefully keeping him at a distance and projecting their distrust and confusion at the Nice Guy's gentle nature and actions as Misogyny masquerading as amiability.


 this plays on my mind. sometimes it does feel there are no sheep among the wolves, only more wolves under a sheep's fluffy warm guise.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

> I'm not sure what "bad boys" are. And I wonder who coined that phrase? Would it be the "bad boys" themselves? Or the supposed "good guys"?{/QUOTE]
> 
> Probably the good guys. Who would create a stigma about themselves?


All I know is that most unhealthy/abusive relationships start with one person pushing and speeding up the relationship and saying things like "I love you" after one week. They rush commitment before you have a chance to really know them, and they want to be with you every minute. [/QUOTE

For some reason, that sounds like something my brother would do. *kicks the wind out of me and slams me to the floor.* "It's because I love you. Say you love me!"

Thoughts: "Why should I love you if all you ever do is kick and demean me?"




> If we are going define "bad guys", let's also define what a "good guy" is. Hopefully, a "good guy" is not defined as someone I'm not attracted to, yet promises me a committed relationship yesterday and to do my laundry daily. And if I still don't accept all the "good guy" is willing to give, he claims I must be attracted to "bad guys". Lol.


Nope, that's just called immature. Good men don't make ludicrous promises they cannot keep.


----------



## nadjasix (Jun 14, 2011)

Era said:


> So much theorizing.
> 
> It's really a lot more simple than all this. The people who score the most are the ones who _honestly_ _believe_ they are sexy. It correlates to some extent with actual sexiness, but not entirely.
> 
> All attempts at categorization (bad boy, nice guy, fat chick, etc) are rendered meaningless by this simple (and true) principle.


Yeah, people often fail to realize that the people who grow up to be assholes are almost uniformly the best looking people. There are all sorts of studies that demonstrate that from birth, good looking people are treated differently and allowed to get away with more crap than average looking people. 

There's also that mental roadblock where people refuse to believe that women make sexual choices based on looks, and that it's _always_ something very deep, like attraction to "bad boys", that's propelling women to sleep with people. Whereas people will acknowledge when a man is just having sex with someone because they're good looking, while purposely ignoring their negative personality traits.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

I withdraw my previous statement about mainly ESTP and ISTP types being labeled as "Bad Boys". Many ENTJ types are often labeled as bad boys as well, and sometimes even an ENTP.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

nadjasix said:


> Yeah, people often fail to realize that the people who grow up to be assholes are almost uniformly the best looking people.


 I don't find that to be true at all. I know some seriously ugly assholes. And they are the worse because they have that ugly chip on their shoulder. And it often blows my mind. If they weren't handed looks, why couldn't they at least work on their personality?


----------



## nadjasix (Jun 14, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> I don't find that to be true at all. I know some seriously ugly assholes. And they are the worse because they have that ugly chip on their shoulder. And it often blows my mind. If they weren't handed looks, why couldn't they at least work on their personality?


Well, there are different flavors of asshole. 

I meant "asshole" more in the "entitled and narcissistic when it comes to relationships" sense. The worst ones I've encountered were all good-looking, although come to think of it, I'm sure it can work both ways, to both extremes.


----------



## CallSignOWL (Jan 11, 2010)

maybe its because the stereotypical "good guys" are boring? and/or have less testosterone? It seems like a lot of guys here have been passed over and are lashing out at these "bad boys" for being what they are not. ("*Im *a great catch, its those bad boys and manipulative bitches that are the problem!) Puhleese, get over yourself. From what I've seen, the "bad boys" have a magnetic charisma that draws people in. The clean cut, "nice guys" seem to be lacking in this category for some reason. 

I think that if you took the same actor, and made him play two parts: a good guy and a bad boy, the bad boy would win almost hands down in a popularity contest. Its not all about looks; the bad boys seem to have a more charismatic attitude and exude more sexual energy. The 'bad boys' just seem much more _interesting_.

these quotes describe what I would think would be the most attractive:



MuChApArAdOx said:


> What is a bad boy :
> 
> _A young man who has many characteristics of a naughty boy: he's independent and willful; he does what he wants when he wants; he doesn't follow trends, they follow him; he often looks scruffy, but hip; he's not looking for trouble, but there's a sense of danger about him. For these reasons and more, he's irresistible to women._
> 
> I don't see any reason why this guy can't also be a nice guy. There is a _sense_ of danger about him, this doesn't make him dangerous. His independence is sexy, he's likely confident. This still doesn't mean he can't also be a nice guy. From what i've been reading here, there seems to be some confusion about bad boys being " All badass " without goodness. The sexiest thing about a bad boy is they have what it takes to be bad and good, equally. Yeah, bad enough to keep it interesting, nice enough to take home to papa.





Vasili Syrakis said:


> Then there is the concept of ... let's call them "hybrids":
> Where a nice guy is a bad boy when it's appropriate (sex, self-defense, etc.) and vice versa: a bad boy is a nice guy for example at a classy restaurant.
> This goes for women also.
> In my personal opinion this is the most attractive type of person.
> ...


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

CallSignOWL said:


> maybe its because the stereotypical "good guys" are boring? and/or have less testosterone? It seems like a lot of guys here have been passed over and are lashing out at these "bad boys" for being what they are not. ("*Im *a great catch, its those bad boys and manipulative bitches that are the problem!) Puhleese, get over yourself. From what I've seen, the "bad boys" have a magnetic charisma that draws people in. The clean cut, "nice guys" seem to be lacking in this category for some reason.
> 
> 
> these quotes describe what I would think would be the most attractive:


Yes i agree. I noticed some of the response are from men who are bitter towards women, ya know, the ones who probably can't get a woman , period. They think that because some women can actually have a bad boy with class, yes , one that is interesting, charming, sexy and nice at the same time. Goodie two shoe boys are boring, period ....nothing like a guy with a bit of a edge, delicious. One that can love and respect his mama, and still swoon the ladies, yum.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

CallSignOWL said:


> maybe its because the stereotypical "good guys" are boring? and/or have less testosterone? It seems like a lot of guys here have been passed over and are lashing out at these "bad boys" for being what they are not. ("*Im *a great catch, its those bad boys and manipulative bitches that are the problem!) Puhleese, get over yourself. From what I've seen, the "bad boys" have a magnetic charisma that draws people in. The clean cut, "nice guys" seem to be lacking in this category for some reason.
> 
> I think that if you took the same actor, and made him play two parts: a good guy and a bad boy, the bad boy would win almost hands down in a popularity contest. Its not all about looks; the bad boys seem to have a more charismatic attitude and exude more sexual energy. The 'bad boys' just seem much more _interesting_.
> 
> these quotes describe what I would think would be the most attractive:


I have a question for you and for anyone else who cares to input.
Do you think it is a good idea to like a person based on charisma/sexual energy alone? 
Charisma and sexual energy can easily be used to deceive others. 

I say this as someone who can play the role of a "con-artist" to get what I want..while I don't consider myself physically charismatic, I am intellectually charismatic and use that skill to my advantage..to swoon people over to "my way of thinking" in order to achieve my goals. I know how to trick people and can use charisma to accomplish this..especially with those who seem too gullible for their own good. My sympathy for gullible people is admittedly very low because I would think that if such a person would take time to think through the situation that he or she wouldn't arrive at such foolish conclusions on matters.

I say this as someone who tends to be skeptical of those who seem "too confident" [but admittedly, I would be equally skeptical of someone lacking in confidence] and will only pay attention to them if I think what they are saying legitimately has merit to it..which is often the case, but sometimes it's not.


----------



## CallSignOWL (Jan 11, 2010)

BroNerd said:


> I have a question for you and for anyone else who cares to input.
> Do you think it is a good idea to like a person based on charisma/sexual energy alone?
> Charisma and sexual energy can easily be used to deceive others.
> 
> ...


Charisma and sexual energy serve to _attract _individuals. Whether or not their personality fits with mine is another matter and one that becomes apparent later in the relationship as we get to know each other. 

And the whole "intellectually charismatic skill to swoon over to your way of thinking" thing kinda sounds corny. Could you clarify a bit?


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

CallSignOWL said:


> Charisma and sexual energy serve to _attract _individuals. Whether or not their personality fits with mine is another matter and one that becomes apparent later in the relationship as we get to know each other.
> 
> And the whole "intellectually charismatic skill to swoon over to your way of thinking" thing kinda sounds corny. Could you clarify a bit?


Surely, they serve to attract individuals. I recognize the attractive power charisma and sexual energy have. However, why should one do what another person wants based on those factors alone? I guess it is an alright way to go about things if you have a good "bullshit detector"..which could be a good way of determining whether someone's personality actually fits with yours. Take a chance but don't be blinded from evidence to the contrary! 

Yea possibly does sound corny  [well, actually it is]. I guess I just meant that I am persuasive intellectually. However, I lack that same level of persuasion sexually.


----------



## traceur (Jan 19, 2012)

i am pretty sure this is just another case of self-proclaimed "nice guys" telling themselves that woman are attracted to jerks...ala bad guys...

but if your asking why women are attracted to 'aggressive' behavior... well:


----------



## Richard (Aug 16, 2011)

traceur said:


> i am pretty sure this is just another case of self-proclaimed "nice guys" telling themselves that woman are attracted to jerks...ala bad guys...
> 
> but if your asking why women are attracted to 'aggressive' behavior... well:


It’s unfortunate that some of us seem to completely lack these “aggressive” qualities. I’m not joining in on the nice guy vs bad guy debate, and I identify with neither. 
All that I find odd is that a person can be born lacking the attributes required to attract the opposite sex, when so many of their ancestors succeeded before them. A cruel twist of fate it seems, but when has life ever been fair.

Edit: Oh, nice song btw. Thanks.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

But everyone, let's be honest here..you don't need to be an "aggressive type" or even an "assertive type" to get laid.

However, my advice to men and women alike is..be careful. 
I've seen many women and men alike who were tricked by those they are strongly attracted to. Don't be stupid. Don't rely on emotion at the expense of reason.

Many times, they are pretending to "love you".


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

I don't! I like nice stay at home make me dinner types. Then again I normally the one getting in trouble so it works!


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

it's quite simple really
- bad boys tend to be more dominant
- dominant people tend to be bad boys
- dominant men tend to be higher performers
- higher performers can support more offspring 
- being a bad ass makes one more likely to survive
- bad boys are more fun and sexually interesting


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Vasili Syrakis said:


> Does anyone disagree? Thoughts?


There is no such thing as mentally stable "hybrids", there are only more balanced individuals. Balance means leaning to neither extreme.

The problem with this idea of "hybrid" is that you never know if you have one or not and if not, there may be a tendency towards a pygmalion project.

The problem with "nice" is that it doesn't necessarily mean nice, it usually is a substitute for "boring" or "does not excite me". Of course tastes differ and so...


----------



## U-80 (Mar 12, 2010)

BroNerd said:


> Do you think it is a good idea to like a person based on charisma/sexual energy alone?


Probably not. So-called bad boys and bad girls (i.e. people who have no trouble getting laid) can see how addictive they are to the opposite sex and if they're really "bad" they'll enjoy the power it gives them.


----------



## TragicallyHip (Jan 6, 2012)

It's not the "badness" that's attractive. it's the power/charisma/confidence. Think Patrick Stewart. He is not traditionally handsome in a masculine way. (In fact, IRL, he's a bit of a dandy.) 

Yet, as Captain Picard, he is HOT. Why? Because he is a masterful, extremely competent, takecharge type. Yet he is a GOOD guy. 

So, it's not the "niceness" that is unappealing in certain men, but their passivity. I do think that we are somewhat hardwired, based on so many years of evolution, and thus, the instinct to find a mate who will protect/provide for the offspring is coded into women's brainstems. 

PS I really hate when topics like this get de-railed by semantics. Of course we are talking in sweeping generalizations, not ALL this or or ALL that. I think we understand that's a given. There is no other way to discuss overall issues/trends. So, if that's not appealing to you -- or not "accurate" enough -- move on to a different thread. You are boring.


----------



## U-80 (Mar 12, 2010)

TragicallyHip said:


> So, it's not the "niceness" that is unappealing in certain men, but their passivity. I do think that we are somewhat hardwired, based on so many years of evolution, and thus, the instinct to find a mate who will protect/provide for the offspring is coded into women's brainstems.


That's true, but the reason this topic always comes up is because men are often dumped or cheated on in favor of other men who are clearly _far worse_ candidates, far less likely to protect or provide or even treat the girl right. They (the dumpees) feel surprised and confused to learn that a woman would make such a choice based on sex and nothing else, because traditionally women aren't supposed to do that. 

It's a side-effect of the shifting gender balance.


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

Anytime I consider some guy to be a "bad boy", I'm not talking about the romanticized guy in a leather jacket, next to his motorbike, who has girls fawning over him for having a "dark side" that is nothing more than a facade. If I categorize some guy as a bad boy, he's someone who lures a woman into a relationship, only beat the living hell out of her (physically and/or emotionally). He's often someone I can simply look at and know he's the abusive type. Yet women don't see it for some reason.

Annoying as hell to witness, over and over. I'm all for women going after the confident, strong guy in the leather jacket, who appears bad but is really a decent human being on the inside. But for all that is good and pure, stop going for the dipsticks that have not and will not respect you, your children, and will screw you up for the rest of your life.

Time and time again, I've had to help women recover from these "bad boy" abusers, only to watch them fall for the same again. I really wish they'd wake up. >_> Not to going for someone like me, mind you. I'm quite content to remain friends. But go for a decent human being at least. Geeze.


----------



## Evgenia (May 2, 2010)

Personally I tend to fall for the "bad boys" type, but I don't like the "bad" part. I like the confidence. I find confident men very inspiring because I lack self-confidence sooooooo badly, and when I identify with them I become much stronger. But these over-confident men are often assholes too, let's face it. But I certainly do no like being treated badly per se.


----------



## TragicallyHip (Jan 6, 2012)

A pattern of engaging in abusive relationships is probably a legacy issue. That is, if a girl grows up in an abusive environment, she may be prone to recreating that as a woman. The "straight" life (an environment that is predictable, stable) may seem "dull" in comparison. 

As to why nice guys get dumped for jerks? Probably a little bit of the same thinking. The guy may be a jerk, but it's not boring.

PS Women get dumped all the time too, remember, and not always for someone better looking or other more valued characteristics that make logical sense.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Because it's always been a fantasy of mine to wake up to a guy I was banging to want me so bad he'd break into my room in the middle of the night.


----------



## Sayonara (May 11, 2012)

I'm thinking it doesn't apply to me.

If I have any preference at all, it's for outcasts and/or nerds.

And in romantic relationships, confident (not aggressive or domineering) nice people always win out. Humility is key.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Eh, I wouldn't suit "bad boys", i'm too much of a vanilla girl.


----------



## Curiously (Nov 7, 2011)

I don't know what to make of this topic because I ended up falling hard for a "bad boy" and he was actually a good guy. And I had no objective to reform or change his ways. We simply clicked and worked out pretty well. Moral of the story: some bad boys aren't really bad. Oh, the same goes for my dad; he was considered a "bad boy" when he was young, but he's such a teddy bear. Funny.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

:laughing: who dug this thread up? :laughing: there's not going to be another flame war is there? :shocked:


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

The one who referred to gorillas' social structure is living in the pre-weaponry age. If we used to be like gorillas, then the discovery that people can be easily killed may have made us into a more respectful species. The reason why gorillas have very small dicks is because they use their muscular strength and size for dominance. That's the sexually selected thing with gorillas. A big bad gorilla will fight the smaller, weaker ones so they go extinct. Nowadays, if a big bad man were to try this in a human society, they would have to just rely on being intimidating. And if that didn't work, they would either get in trouble with the law for attacking weaker people or they would get killed in self defence. People are fragile and rely on psychological manipulation most of the time. Those who go the other way by using physical force, like gorillas and gangsters, are generally the outcasts because, if they stepped out of line too far, they would be killed by armed forces of various kinds, whether they are aware of this or not. At least that's what I think.

If I'm wrong, then by all means, bad boys: feel free to go out and shove people off their girlfriends and see if they don't want to kill you.


----------



## GROUNDED_ONE (May 23, 2012)

There's bad boys and then there's confident men. Don't confuse the two. Well spoken @carmineermine .


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

Bump =D


----------



## Orion (Jan 25, 2011)

See, there is a difference between the two threads. This one asks why, and the other thread seems to be for 'nice guys' to complain about it.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

Orion said:


> See, there is a difference between the two threads. This one asks why, and the other thread seems to be for 'nice guys' to complain about it.


That seems kind of irrelevant. The other thread had evidential sources to support the OP's opinion. So actually both threads are about why, but the difference is in the other post the OP already had an opinion and post the reasons why he believes it's true.

Nice guys complaining about it is irrelevant. Whether women are attracted to assholes (generally speaking) is a positive claim, it's either an accurate generalization to a significant portion of the female population or it is not. Whether nice guys complain about that fact has nothing to do with the truth function of the claim.

However I am hoping that this thread will turn into a shit storm like the other one, it will give me lots of entertainment to watch people go ape shit over it.


----------



## Orion (Jan 25, 2011)

lolwut12345 said:


> That seems kind of irrelevant. The other thread had evidential sources to support the OP's opinion. So actually both threads are about why, but the difference is in the other post the OP already had an opinion and post the reasons why he believes it's true.
> 
> Nice guys complaining about it is irrelevant. Whether women are attracted to assholes (generally speaking) is a positive claim, it's either an accurate generalization to a significant portion of the female population or it is not. Whether nice guys complain about that fact has nothing to do with the truth function of the claim.
> 
> However I am hoping that this thread will turn into a shit storm like the other one, it will give me lots of entertainment to watch people go ape shit over it.


I was not being serious....look at the picture to the left.


----------



## lolwut12345 (Feb 25, 2013)

Orion said:


> I was not being serious....look at the picture to the left.


Oh I apologize, I'm bad at noticing sarcasm. Everybody who knows me in real life knows that I always take things literally.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

I'd be interested to hear from more women on PerC who will admit to being attracted to bad boys.

Will any step up, and explain to us why?


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

Different women have different types. Some girls like the bad boy because it represents the rebellion they themselves were too chickenshit to do. Some women prefer stable, reliable guys because they need an anchor in their lives. 

In general, I think confidence and willingness to stand apart from the group are attractive, and bad boys tend to have those qualities (but they're not the only ones that do).

Evolutionary psychology - a sketchy "science" at that - contends that it relates to alpha status and proving dominance. A bad boy resists domination from others (e.g. societal rules, etc.) and thus appears more dominant. This has been shown true for primates and other more primitive mammals, but others contend that human consciousness has brought us to a point where we transcend that animal programming and that those principles don't apply to us. As of yet, I don't think there is any firm scientific resolution on this debate...


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

I think some girls are attracted to bad boys because they seem stronger and more *masculine*.
women are attracted to masculinity the same way men are attracted to femeninity.

They also may think the guy is abrupt but honest and upfront. 

But initial attraction of this sort is something women grow out of -- in part through bad experiences with bad boys and in part through life, in general.

I think one poster hit the nail on the head early on: girls are attracted to bad boys and women are attracted to stable, good guys.

I have a friend right now who is attracted to bad boys and I just shake my head and think: "him, really?" But she goes for the asshole every time. She's intelligent but also incredibly naive about men and life in genera, but then she's only been out of university a few years. 

Give her time. I was attracted to the bad boys when I was about 17 years old and I watched them grow up to be losers and pigs. And when I grew up and had the chance to date them I wasn't remotely interested.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I think it's because of a dynamic that is created where the "bad boy" devalues the woman and she finds herself trying to prove her value to someone. It's a cycle. Often this woman in unconsciously choosing these men because her sense of her own value is poor. There's some psychological theory about people putting themselves in the same bad situations over & over because the mind wants to achieve a new end where they regain power & finally get over it. That's what I think is going on here. The bad boy also is insecure & uses, abuses & discards to get a sense of value & power for himself. He too is stuck in a frustrating cycle, because he can't allow vulnerability, so he never is really known or loved, and thus his real value is never validated.

Another reason is sometimes these women take a pride in being able to "change" the bad boy, as if they are so special that their love will transform this guy. This is often a part of the above cycle. Meanwhile, the bad boy takes all this love, and in rejecting it, shows he doesn't really need it & that asserts how valuable he is... blah blah blah. It's all about ego boosting.

Some of it also has to do with being interesting/exciting/independent, but maturity teaches most that bad can be very dull/cliche & someone can be good and interesting/exciting/independent. 

----

Personally, I've never been into bad boys. I'm too sensitive to go for their schtick & they often strike me as stupid/immature. I've never been into dull, stable guys either. 

I've always gone for the oddballs, the "brains in a jar". Or I go for "personalities", very warm, personable, sensitive good guys who often have a lot of female friends because they genuinely just like women ( :cough: ENFJs :cough: ). I often confuse their warmth with romantic interest cuz they have a knack for making everyone feel special (and I'm a sucker for it). However, I notice they are never "players" & they always end up with some mediocre girl for the sheer reason that she is not as interested in him (apparently). It's like the above bad boy scenario in reverse; they want detached, disinterested girls - the "hard to get" - to affirm their ego. Since I'm aloof at first, they stick around til I warm up, then we'll have a yo-yo effect where as I gain interest, they lose interest, and so then I withdraw, then I'm interesting again, so they try to pull me back, & so on... 

Both of these types are often "broken", but not "bad" in the classic sense. I'm more likely to be used as their therapist than used physically, and once they gain confidence & are healed, then they go on their merry way. These men often whine that women don't like them, and I'm sitting there going, "hey, whoa - what am I?!". This makes me feel like I "don't count", which plays on my insecurity of being insignificant, without meaning or identity, etc.

Not a healthy cycle either.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 10, 2013)

JohnGalt said:


> In general, I think confidence and willingness to stand apart from the group are attractive, and bad boys tend to have those qualities (but they're not the only ones that do).


I agree with this statement, though it's not necessarily confidence that women are attracted to. In general, women are attracted to masculinity, which bad boys tend to have a lot of. Nice guys, on the other hand, are feminine and submissive. Giving a girl flowers, chocolates, compliments, multiple calls, etc. is feminine because you are submitting to HER. She has power over you which absolutely *kills* attraction.

Now it's best to be something in between. Think Daniel Craig's James Bond. Not necessarily a bad boy, but the epitome of a man.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I honestly believe that it's simply because men and women are generally raised into believing that men with masculine traits are good, and women with feminine traits are good for whatever reason. So biotruth bullshit won't cut as an explanation. Considering that pre-civilization times were generally more egalitarian than it was now. I would generally say that men that are generally outside of the law are generally considered to be more interesting, due to the fact that television and media always idolizes those that have violent impulses. Even though it is distilled towards past traditions such as men being manly, and women being used for bloody fuck toys that submit to these uber-rough male's desires. It's because humanity loves violence so much that we idolize in others. I believe that without conditioning, that women who are considered to be outside of the law would also be considered to be attractive really, but they are rare due to the fact that such women are usually just rough fuck toys in the end. We never let women engage in male traits, without subjecting her to sexual desires.

This is of course, a massive generalization. I honestly don't really think that most women are attracted to them, outside of baser desires. I admit that I have been programed into believing the pornstar aesthetic is considered attractive. However I wouldn't actually want to fuck a pornstar, because I would generally realize that there is no sense of emotional connection whenever I have sex with one. Even if it was in a loving relationship, and I get boners for even dorky looking guys anyways, so I'd rather shag them instead. Also passive men who are amiable, aren't truly nice guys. Even if I do particularly admit that I am a hateful human being in the core of my soul. Many of those passive men truly believe that they are better then those bad boys, because they have brainwashed themselves into the female style of attraction, whenever most women won't go after passive men, due to being raised to find active men attractive. We are all whores for the past. No matter how much some people hate this. They are still influenced by it's slimy tentacles.

As such, I would generally like to say that being passive =/= being a nice guy. Being active =/= a jerk. Most people just like people who have a sense of drive to them. It's honestly that simple if the above explanation doesn't work. Personally. I would never go after a woman who goes after people who she knows will abuse her. I just don't respect people who constantly fuck themselves over like that anyways, but I am a harsh man though.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

Journeyman said:


> I agree with this statement, though it's not necessarily confidence that women are attracted to. In general, women are attracted to masculinity, which bad boys tend to have a lot of. Nice guys, on the other hand, are feminine and submissive. Giving a girl flowers, chocolates, compliments, multiple calls, etc. is feminine because you are submitting to HER. She has power over you which absolutely *kills* attraction.
> 
> Now it's best to be something in between. T*hink Daniel Craig's James Bond*. Not necessarily a bad boy, but the epitome of a man.


Oh, yes. Definitely. 

(just hearing his name makes me smile).


----------



## brittauzenne (Feb 8, 2013)

When a woman wants a good time, guess whos good for the job? Mr prim and perfect? Nope. The one that catches your eye, has that swagger and knows how to make you feel good. But notice that they are being used...they may look like winners but they aren't. Thats just the way it is.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Journeyman said:


> I agree with this statement, though it's not necessarily confidence that women are attracted to. In general, women are attracted to masculinity, which bad boys tend to have a lot of. Nice guys, on the other hand, are feminine and submissive. *Giving a girl flowers, chocolates, compliments, multiple calls, etc. is feminine because you are submitting to HER. She has power over you which absolutely kills attraction.*
> 
> Now it's best to be something in between. Think Daniel Craig's James Bond. Not necessarily a bad boy, but the epitome of a man.


I'm feminine but I am not some sort of submissive boy. 

So there is feminine and feminine. I love to spoil my gf and make her feel like a princess, I look pretty badass (I certainly don't look like a pushover) and I am nice guy when you get to know me but I am the one doing the "smacking" and I *will* let you know this.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Journeyman said:


> Now it's best to be something in between. Think Daniel Craig's James Bond. Not necessarily a bad boy, but the epitome of a man.


My INFJ ex bf thought the same, but I couldn't make it through one of those movies. I found his character mind-numbingly boring. I find NOTHING attractive, intriguing, sexy, manly, etc about him. He was the epitome of DULL to me.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

OrangeAppled said:


> My INFJ ex bf thought the same, but I couldn't make it through one of those movies. I found his character mind-numbingly boring. I find NOTHING attractive, intriguing, sexy, manly, etc about him. He was the epitome of DULL to me.


Can I assume that you prefer emotional security above everything else? Or is it the emotional confidence that makes you feel attracted to a man? (Which can lead to emotional security/feeling emotionally secure of course)


----------



## BlackMoonlight (Oct 16, 2012)

It's of course primal in some way, but I honestly can't relate to it on any level. I grow cold when I see displays of aggression or dominance. To me, the man who behaves in that manner is not someone I would want to sit down and have a conversation with. Perhaps it's unfair to say that the bad boy types are too stupid to carry a conversation, but that's just the impression I get from someone whose main interests include pissing people off for no reason and riding motorcycles.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

All in Twilight said:


> Can I assume that you prefer emotional security above everything else? Or is it the emotional confidence that makes you feel attracted to a man? (Which can lead to emotional security/feeling emotionally secure of course)


Probably _emotional confidence_ if we're referring to the same thing. 

What makes that character so dull to me is he is all action, no conversation, no expression, no substance, etc. What is there to bond over (stupid pun intended)?

If I think of a movie character I find very charming, then it's probably Ethan Hawke in Before Sunrise (pretty sure he's ENFJ, the opposite of the Daniel Craig Bond type). He's witty, poetic, talks about stuff in-depth, is expressive, warm, open, personable, intellectual, etc. I've totally liked men like this IRL, but they often want "the one they cannot have" instead (I think I explained that in my first post).


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 10, 2013)

OrangeAppled said:


> My INFJ ex bf thought the same, but I couldn't make it through one of those movies. I found his character mind-numbingly boring. *I find NOTHING attractive, intriguing, sexy, manly, etc about him.* He was the epitome of DULL to me.


*Attractiveness
*Symmetrical face, Prominent cheekbones and brow ridge, Square jaw. I would say he's aesthetically pleasing.
*
Intriguiging-ness*
Silent unless he has to say something important, You know that he knows what he's doing but can't predict what he'll do next
*
Masculinity*
Strong, intelligent, does what he wants, determined, and assertive, and cool-headed

*Dullness*
Living the life of a secret spy (Yeah I know. Boring right? Everyone does this), sent out on missions regularly, fights against enemies of the MI5, does his job with style while at the same time remaining true to who he is

You're completely full of shit.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

OrangeAppled said:


> Probably _emotional confidence_ if we're referring to the same thing.
> 
> What makes that character so dull to me is he is all action, no conversation, no expression, no substance, etc. What is there to bond over (stupid pun intended)?
> 
> If I think of a movie character I find very charming, then it's probably Ethan Hawke in Before Sunrise (pretty sure he's ENFJ, the opposite of the Daniel Craig Bond type). He's witty, poetic, talks about stuff in-depth, is expressive, warm, open, personable, intellectual, etc. I've totally liked men like this IRL, but they often want "the one they cannot have" instead (I think I explained that in my first post).


We were referring to the same thing. If I may be so bold, I think I am more of emotional confident than bad boy-ish, I can't find any strength in this whole bad boy behavior. They seem more like a bunch of chest-thumping monkeys which I find rather amusing though. (Slight mockery here)


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 10, 2013)

Throughout the years I've learned to never take women's words at face value. They're so adept at lying that even they believe what they say. :laughing:


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Journeyman said:


> *Attractiveness
> *Symmetrical face, Prominent cheekbones and brow ridge, Square jaw. I would say he's aesthetically pleasing.
> *
> Intriguiging-ness*
> ...


I don't know who you are or where you come from but I think you should tone it down kiddo and show some respect. Now go play secret agent somewhere else, like your backyard or something. Off you go, you bore me.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Journeyman. You do realize how utterly subjective that is right? I hate it when others just interject their opinions down others people throats. As if you can't have an opposing opinion on something as subjective as looks are.

Your inferior Fe is showing. Get a grip of yourself son.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 10, 2013)

All in Twilight said:


> I don't know who you are or where you come from but I think you should it down kiddo. Now go play secret agent somewhere else, like your backyard or something. Off you go, you bore me.


Problem?


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 10, 2013)

St Vual said:


> Journeyman. You do realize how utterly subjective that is right? I hate it when others just interject their opinions down others people throats. As if you can't have an opposing opinion on something as subjective as looks are.
> 
> Your inferior Fe is showing. Get a grip of yourself son.


I agree it is a subjective opinion, but lettuce be real here. Would you find someone with an asymmetrical face, weak jaw, and fat cheeks attractive?


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Journeyman said:


> I agree it is a subjective opinion, but lettuce be real here. Would you find someone with an asymmetrical face, weak jaw, and fat cheeks attractive?


I thought her problem with him was an attitude one really. I honestly don't really care about weak jaw (what does that even mean anyways? They have a hard time chewing?) and the others aren't that bad. At least on men IMO really (women with fat cheeks are kind of ugly to me though.)

Attractiveness isn't just an aesthetic choice. It's also an attitude that people find attractive/unattractive. She just found him to be boring.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 10, 2013)

St Vual said:


> I thought her problem with him was an attitude one really. I honestly don't really care about weak jaw (what does that even mean anyways? They have a hard time chewing?) and the others aren't that bad. At least on men IMO really (women with fat cheeks are kind of ugly to me though.)
> 
> Attractiveness isn't just an aesthetic choice. It's also an attitude that people find attractive/unattractive. She just found him to be boring.


Good luck on your finding an "attractive" Quasimodo goals of 2013. :wink:


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Journeyman said:


> *Attractiveness
> *Symmetrical face, Prominent cheekbones and brow ridge, Square jaw. I would say he's aesthetically pleasing.


I don't find him attractive physically either, but that's not really what I was talking about.

EDIT: To clarify, he is not ugly to me. He just doesn't do anything for me. 



> *
> Intriguiging-ness*
> Silent unless he has to say something important, You know that he knows what he's doing but can't predict what he'll do next


I know what he'll do next. Jump over something, hit someone, fire a gun, etc. And I really can't say I care... 
*



Masculinity

Click to expand...

*


> Strong, intelligent, does what he wants, determined, and assertive, and cool-headed


That's not "manly" to me. To me, some of that is juvenile, selfish, insecure, emotionally stunted, etc. Or that's how I'd interpret the character.

To keep it short, a friend's dad who was ENFJ left a STRONG impression on me as a young girl. I never knew someone like him really existed before. He was openly affectionate with his family, unselfish, putting their needs first, emotionally strong AND open/honest, and very philosophical, moral, and extremely witty. To me, it takes courage & confidence to be those things. That was what a father, husband and MAN should be.



> *Dullness*
> Living the life of a secret spy (Yeah I know. Boring right? Everyone does this), sent out on missions regularly, fights against enemies of the MI5, does his job with style while at the same time remaining true to who he is


I'm talking about lacking interesting thoughts & ideas. He's mentally & emotionally dull. The "chest-thumping monkeys" thing that @_All in Twilight_ mentions is my impression of these types also.


I have no doubt some women are into all that, but I never have been.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 10, 2013)

OrangeAppled said:


> I don't find him attractive physically either, but that's not really what I was talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*

Sure I don't doubt that your father was a masculine person, but masculinity varies from person to person. It's really how you carry yourself and your personality. But what I disagree about is the fact that you said James Fucking Bond is unmasculine. I mean seriously the dude is just so male.

Lol @ mentally dull. That guy is intelligent as hell and you can see it in the movies.

As for emotionally dull, he's an ISTP and on top of that an orphan who's had a troubled past. I can't blame him for hiding his emotions.*


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Journeyman said:


> Sure I don't doubt that your father was a masculine person, but masculinity varies from person to person. It's really how you carry yourself and your personality. But what I disagree about is the fact that you said *James Fucking Bond *is unmasculine. I mean seriously the dude is just so male.
> 
> Lol @ mentally dull. That guy is intelligent as hell and you can see it in the movies.
> 
> As for emotionally dull, he's an ISTP and on top of that an orphan who's had a troubled past. I can't blame him for hiding his emotions.


I agree it varies... I'm saying what _I_ find masculine. I think the Daniel Craig Bond character is a _stereotype_ of masculine, but to me it's not real masculinity because I see those qualities as weak (not in a physical sense), which is not manly to me. There's emotional cowardice there. Maybe many _males_ are like that, but to me that's not a well-rounded, mature man.

I didn't mean he's not intelligent (he's obviously _strategic_), but mentally BORING. No depth, no wit, no expression at all. He's not charming or engaging in a conversational way. 

We can just agree to disagree, but just take it as proof that not all women are into such men.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Journeyman was a multiple account of Plastic Sandvich, trolling. (For those who had the misfortune of getting trolled in here with sexism.)


----------



## Cephalonimbus (Dec 6, 2010)

Well that's disappointing. To be honest, i figured he was just a guy who cherished a secret boner for Daniel Craig and was projecting his feelings on women. _What do you mean, you don't find him attractive? Impossible! Just look at his perfectly chiseled jawline and his prominent cheekbones... *shivers* He's a real man's man *dreamy sigh*_

Oh well. In a parallel universe, this thread would have taken a hilarious turn.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

OrangeAppled said:


> Probably _emotional confidence_ if we're referring to the same thing.
> 
> What makes that character so dull to me is he is all action, no conversation, no expression, no substance, etc. *What is there to bond over* (stupid pun intended)?
> 
> If I think of a movie character I find very charming, then it's probably Ethan Hawke in Before Sunrise (pretty sure he's ENFJ, the opposite of the Daniel Craig Bond type). He's witty, poetic, talks about stuff in-depth, is expressive, warm, open, personable, intellectual, etc. I've totally liked men like this IRL, but they often want "the one they cannot have" instead (I think I explained that in my first post).











Well, isn't it because he is the nice guy who saves her from the bad boy ( usually she'd put herself in that position doing something utterly stupid or stubborn and naive, but he secretly likes her and he is forgiving and righteous ), and in the end he gets the girl...?

/urban myth


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

mimesis said:


> Well, isn't it because he is the nice guy who saves her from the bad boy ( usually she'd put herself in that position doing something utterly stupid or stubborn and naive, but he secretly likes her and he is forgiving and righteous ), and in the end he gets the girl...?
> 
> /urban myth


There are men like that out there (they are called simps), and there are women who use them as a safety net.


Simp (from urban dictionary)

 •A man that puts himself in a subservient/submissive position under women in hopes of winning them over, without the female bringing anything to the table.

•A man that puts too much value on a female for no reason .

•A man that prides himself with "Chivalry" in hopes of getting sexual gratification from women .

•A square with no game other than “Rolling out the Red-Carpet” for every female.


The perfect example of a "Simp" Man would be:

The role Eddy Murphy played in the movie "Norbit",

The role of Kevin James in the show "King of Queens",
 


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> I'd be interested to hear from more women on PerC who will admit to being attracted to bad boys.
> 
> Will any step up, and explain to us why?


It's not so much "bad boy" as traits associated with status (confidence etc.).

But different people seek status in different ways.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Snow Leopard said:


> It's not so much "bad boy" as traits associated with status (confidence etc.).
> 
> But different people seek status in different ways.


You a chick?


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> You a chick?


Only if you want me to be!

(what is the big deal anyway?)


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> I find it amusing that your first line of text begins with "Primatology studies suggest", then conclude that there is no doubt or difference of opinion. If everyone was in agreement, then why would suggestion need to take place? Also, there are literally hundreds of primatology studies that analyze alpha in humans.
> 
> It seems to me that taking the "alpha high ground" is taking place. Claiming a large host of studies are bastardized pseudoscience is not only ridiculous and far too black/white a perspective, but perhaps motivated by a need to feel more special about one's own perspectives. It has a hefty dose of subjectivity posing as objectivity.


It's not, at all. I have my stance because the body of primatology work as a whole suggests that "alphas" do not exist in _**** sapiens sapiens_ as they do in the same ways that they do in other primate species. To suggest that alphas exist in humankind is fictitious, wishful thinking. Be careful that you're not projecting your motives for believing in alpha/beta/omegas on my motives for disbelieving in them.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> It's not, at all. I have my stance because the body of primatology work as a whole suggests that "alphas" do not exist in _**** sapiens sapiens_ as they do in the same ways that they do in other primate species. To suggest that alphas exist in humankind is fictitious, wishful thinking. Be careful that you're not projecting your motives for believing in alpha/beta/omegas on my motives for disbelieving in them.


You make it sound like we are talking about extraterrestrials. Lol.

Also you withdrew from your original statement. You now say "alphas" do not exist in the same ways that they do in other primate species, downgraded from do not exist at all. This distinctly implies that alphas do in fact exist in some faculty in humans, by your own words. Perhaps you are learning something as we speak? 

I mean, it only takes a glance at this to recognize that alphaism exists: 

https://www.facebook.com/danbilzerianofficial


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> You make it sound like we are talking about extraterrestrials. Lol.
> 
> Also you withdrew from your original statement. You now say "alphas" do not exist in the same ways that they do in other primate species, downgraded from do not exist at all. This distinctly implies that alphas do in fact exist in some faculty in humans, by your own words. Perhaps you are learning something as we speak?
> 
> ...


No, alphas do not exist in the human species. See that my second sentence reiterates what I've been saying the whole time: "To suggest that alphas exist in humankind is fictitious, wishful thinking." I have two anthropology degrees, and have taken classes on primatology. I think I have a firmer grasp on this subject than a mathematician. Alphas do not exist in human species; they definitely do not exist as studied in other primate species. To apply primatology research on alphas/betas/omegas in other primate species to humans is a misapplication of this research, and it also shows a gross disregard for the scientific method.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> No, alphas do not exist in the human species. See that my second sentence reiterates what I've been saying the whole time: "To suggest that alphas exist in humankind is fictitious, wishful thinking." I have two anthropology degrees, and have taken classes on primatology. I think I have a firmer grasp on this subject than a mathematician. Alphas do not exist in human species; they definitely do not exist as studied in other primate species. To apply primatology research on alphas/betas/omegas in other primate species to humans is a misapplication of this research, and it also shows a gross disregard for the scientific method.


Which is exactly why I've repetitively told you that it was not literal, it was not an equivalent of the "alpha male" in other primate species.

It is based on behavioral traits that are derived from these species, not an actual system of social "ranking" imported from there.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> No, alphas do not exist in the human species. See that my second sentence reiterates what I've been saying the whole time: "To suggest that alphas exist in humankind is fictitious, wishful thinking." I have two anthropology degrees, and have taken classes on primatology. I think I have a firmer grasp on this subject than a mathematician. Alphas do not exist in human species; they definitely do not exist as studied in other primate species. To apply primatology research on alphas/betas/omegas in other primate species to humans is a misapplication of this research, and it also shows a gross disregard for the scientific method.


So which is it? Contradicting yourself? Or are you contradicting the body of work of primatology, with your own hyperbole, and citing it as a source?

I'm pretty sure that many of the studies that *do* suggest that humans have alphas were written by those with anthropology PhDs. I mean, since we are quantifying knowledge and correctness as directly correlating to degrees, we might as well be consistent.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> So which is it? Contradicting yourself? Or are you contradicting the body of work of primatology, with your own hyperbole, and citing it as a source?


I haven't contradicted myself at all.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> Which is exactly why I've repetitively told you that it was not literal, it was not an equivalent of the "alpha male" in other primate species.
> 
> It is based on behavioral traits that are taken from these species, not an actual system of social ranking in human societies.


The interesting thing is that people like @_Frenetic Tranquility_ buy into the pseudoscience of misapplying primatology research onto a human framework. You're actually doing the same thing by saying that it's about the traits; you're just escaping on a technicality by prevaricating that it's the traits and not the system. I'll call a spade a spade and say that you're still misapplying the science.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> The interesting thing is that people like @_Frenetic Tranquility_ buy into the pseudoscience of misapplying primatology research onto a human framework. You're actually doing the same thing by saying that it's about the traits; you're just escaping on a technicality.


Are you actually disagreeing with what I'm saying or are you legitimately ignoring/misunderstanding my point and sticking to your issue with the terminology?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> So which is it? Contradicting yourself? Or are you contradicting the body of work of primatology, with your own hyperbole, and citing it as a source?
> 
> I'm pretty sure that many of the studies that *do* suggest that humans have alphas were written by those with anthropology PhDs. I mean, since we are quantifying knowledge and correctness as directly correlating to degrees, we might as well be consistent.


The vast body of anthropological research in this area suggests that applying the alpha/beta/omega framework of primatology onto the framework of human society is in fact pseudoscientific.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> Are you actually disagreeing with what I'm saying or are you legitimately ignoring/misunderstanding my point and sticking to your issue with the terminology?


You're stuck in a technicality, and still misapplying the science. There isn't such a thing as "alphas" in human society as comparable to "alphas" in other primate species. The "traits" don't correlate. Saying that there are "alphas" in the human species based on misapplications of primatology research ("this trait is exhibited in alphas in gorillas, so if something analogous shows up in humans, clearly this is an indication of a human alpha") is pseudoscience.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> You're stuck in a technicality, and still misapplying the science. There isn't such a thing as "alphas" in human society as comparable to "alphas" in other primate species. The "traits" don't correlate. Saying that there are "alphas" in the human species based on misapplications of primatology research ("this trait is exhibited in alphas in gorillas, so if something analogous shows up in humans, clearly this is an indication of a human alpha") is pseudoscience.


What if I changed it to "*dominant male*" instead of "*alpha male*", would that render the data collected as outdated or needing revision? No.

If, in the video I've shown you, they would have said "*dominant males* [...] traits that are drawn from the *alpha males* in primates [...]", would you still have an issue?

We could even call it "banana males", "ultimate males", "super males", it's irrelevant to the actual data.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> What if I changed it to "*dominant male*" instead of "*alpha male*", would that render the data collected as outdated or needing revision? No.
> 
> If, in the video I've shown you, they would have said "*dominant males* [...] traits that are drawn from the *alpha males* in primates [...]", would you still have an issue?


Yes. It's still a misapplication of the science.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> The vast body of anthropological research in this area suggests that applying the alpha/beta/omega framework of primatology onto the framework of human society is in fact pseudoscientific.


The vast body of psychological research suggest that personality typing is pseudoscience. Yet you label yourself ENTJ. Apparently all of us believe in some sort of pseudoscience. Because actually, pseudoscience is a label frequently put on concepts that are extremely convoluted and difficult to prove absolutely, while in many cases are still known to have quite a bit of very apparent truth.

It's a good thing mathematicians believe in things that can't yet be proven, or we would all be in the stone age right now.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Yes. It's still a misapplication of the science.


What would you call the behaviors demonstrated in the video?

What would you refer the human "alpha males" to? What are they called?

Would you have a problem with saying that they're "*strong males*"?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> What would you call the behaviors demonstrated in the video?
> 
> What would you refer the human "alpha males" to? What are they called?
> 
> Would you have a problem with saying that they're "*strong males*"?


I would not refer to human alpha males as anything, because human alpha males do not exist. The men in the video exhibited antisocial, not dominant behavior.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Eska said:


> What would you call the behaviors demonstrated in the video?
> 
> What would you refer the human "alpha males" to? What are they called?
> 
> Would you have a problem with saying that they're "*strong males*"?


I think we should refer to them as "eska avatars".


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Is it just me, or do quite a few young xxTP males fall into the whole alpha/beta male theory bullshit? I think this is one reason I tend to get along better with older members of said type. This is probably what immature, undeveloped auxiliary and inferior Fe looks like.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> The vast body of psychological research suggest that personality typing is pseudoscience. Yet you label yourself ENTJ. Apparently all of us believe in some sort of pseudoscience. Because actually, pseudoscience is a label frequently put on concepts that are extremely convoluted and difficult to prove absolutely, while in many cases are still known to have quite a bit of very apparent truth.


Yes, I label myself as ENTJ because this is a typology forum and that's what I currently "type" as on the official MBTI test; I do it tongue-in-cheek (notice that my signature also says "Lawful Good" in it?). I'm usually one of the first people to point out that the MBTI system is complete and utter horseshit. Anyone into typology and personality should know that the Big 5 is a more applicable system (partially because it's more nuanced), although still flawed. People like simplification and boxes, which is why I'm sure people like pointing out stuff like "alpha", "beta", or "omega". It lets people explain in oversimplified terms their success or failure in life, and gives them a place for misguided bravado and a braggadocio.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> I would not refer to human alpha males as anything, because human alpha males do not exist. The men in the video exhibited antisocial, not dominant behavior.


Interesting.

Your issue seems to be similar to this;

"Think with your heart."
"What are you saying, the heart has no cognitive abilities."
"It's a way of referring to feelings."
"It's wrong. The heart has no feelings."

You seem to be arguing the terminology, nothing more.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Your issue seems to be similar to this;
> 
> ...


No, not really. You're arguing terminology by asking me to explain myself. That argument is all on you.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Is it just me, or do quite a few young xxTP males fall into the whole alpha/beta male theory bullshit? I think this is one reason I tend to get along better with older members of said type. This is probably what immature, undeveloped auxiliary and inferior Fe looks like.


It's what low-order Fe (well, what we attributed to Fe) manifests as when the individual is a failure within social hierarchies.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

[No message]


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> No, not really. You're arguing terminology by asking me to explain myself. That argument is all on you.


No.
I'm pointing out what I believe it is you are disagreeing with.

The label put on the behavioral traits explained in the video is what seems to be the issue, not the data itself.

According to one of your previous posts, if the narrator had referred to it as "*antisocial males* [...] traits similar to the ones found in *alpha males* in primates [...]", you would agree.

Am I mistaking?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@Frenetic Tranquility -- Can you explain how me going by the majority of the science and its application to humankind makes me rigid and incapable of introspection? Can you also explain how any of this is ironic? Or, is my Geiger counter for irony just kaput?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> No.
> I'm pointing out what I believe it is you are disagreeing with.
> 
> The label put on the behavioral traits explained in the video is what seems to be the issue, not the data itself.
> ...


I would continue to disagree because it would still be a misapplication of the science, because that entire video is a misapplication of the science. The men in the video do not display traits that alphas in primate species exhibit; they display traits that are considered to be antisocial by psychological standards.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> I would continue to disagree because it would still be a misapplication of the science, because that entire video is a misapplication of the science. The men in the video do not display traits that alphas in primate species exhibit; they display traits that are considered to be antisocial by psychological standards.


I see.

You are denying the behavioral connection established between humans and primates?

You think the comparison is flawed?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> I see.
> 
> You are denying the behavioral connection established between humans and primates?
> 
> You think the comparison is flawed?


The comparisons in the video are flawed. Go take a primatology class.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> The comparisons in the video are flawed.


Possibly.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> @_Frenetic Tranquility_ -- Can you explain how me going by the majority of the science and its application to humankind makes me rigid and incapable of introspection? Can you also explain how any of this is ironic? Or, is my Geiger counter for irony just kaput?


The whole point is that you did not go by the majority of science at all. You took what scientific research said, which was a much less discrete and rigid interpretation of alpha status, and made it extremely rigid in accordance to your own subjective beliefs. This is why each time you have attempted to quote the literature, your statements have been either contradictory or inconsistent.

Example:

Science in your words: "the body of primatology work as a whole suggests that "alphas" do not exist in _**** sapiens sapiens as they do in the same ways that they do in other primate species. "_

Note that I am quoting you, and your statement is actually filled with grammatical errors. A list of direct quotes from this body of primatology work would perhaps be more useful.

Your opinion in your words: "To suggest that alphas exist in humankind is fictitious, wishful thinking."

The antecedent quote does not infer your opinion, and it is a logical fallacy to state that it does.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

I thought it just said "Why Women Are Attracted To 'Boys'"... BOYS! I ask the same question ... *punches self in face*


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

@koalaroo

Do you have anything to link me instead of asking me to take a primatology class?

What do you think about researches that draw parallels between humans and other primates?


Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction
*http://land-of-angels.com/py1/sadalla-etal-1987.pdf*



> Wilson (1975) noted that dominance is a phylogenetically conservative trait within the primate order, occurring in all primate species. One explanation for the evolution of dominance hierarchies in primate societies is that males are compensated for their competitive striving by an increase in their sexual attractiveness to females. Males who are successful in achieving high rank are assumed to increase their reproductive success (Darwin, 1871), producing an increase in the proportion of competitive males in each successive generation.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> The whole point is that you did not go by the majority of science at all. You took what scientific research said, which was a much less discrete and rigid interpretation of alpha status, and made it extremely rigid in accordance to your own subjective beliefs. This is why each time you have attempted to quote the literature, your statements have been either contradictory or inconsistent.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...


That I made grammatical errors is nonessential to my argument (for what it's worth, much of your grammar is improper as well); my position is in fact borne out by the majority of primatology research on the subject. Primatologists are also almost always precautionary in their articles about the applications of their work and about the scope of their applicability.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@Eska -- I'm serious that you should take a primatology class in order to gain an understanding on why the "alpha" terminology is not applicable. Dominance is not the same as "alpha"; also, there's a fine line between dominant and domineering traits (that latter of which are more antisocial.)


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> @Eska -- I'm serious that you should take a primatology class in order to gain an understanding on why the "alpha" terminology is not applicable. Dominance is not the same as "alpha"; also, there's a fine line between dominant and domineering traits (that latter of which are more antisocial.)


Again, you're arguing the terminology.

As I've said, I agree that "alpha male" is technically not applicable, but that does not dismiss the data.

My question wasn't whether dominance and "alpha" are the same thing, I'm asking you if you had any issues with studies that draw traits from other primate species, which seemed to be the issue, until your latest post, where you reinforced my belief that the only issue you have is the terminology.

You said that the comparisons were flawed, why?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> Again, you're arguing the terminology.
> 
> As I've said, I agree that "alpha male" is technically not applicable, but that does not dismiss the data.
> 
> ...


I already explained that to you. The behaviors exhibited as "alpha" in the video you linked are in fact considered to be antisocial traits in terms of psychology. For what it's worth, as well, in species where mating styles or habits are naturally promiscuous (such as in humans), dominance hierarchy is less important than in say, gorillas, where mating styles are not promiscuous.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> I already explained that to you. The behaviors exhibited as "alpha" in the video you linked are in fact considered to be antisocial traits in terms of psychology. For what it's worth, as well, in species where mating styles or habits are naturally promiscuous (such as in humans), dominance hierarchy is less important than in say, gorillas, where mating styles are not promiscuous.


The fact that it's associated to antisocial traits doesn't dismiss the behavioral references to other primates.

You're simply judging the behavior from a different perspective and labeling it accordingly, but the what about the behaviors themselves?

On a side note,

Isn't (a part of) psychology considered a pseudoscience? (I recall my Psychology teacher saying something along those lines, or that it was recently liberated from that label.)

(I know any science can have pseudoscience attached to it, but I'm referring to the one you're relating to, specifically.)

In which case, you would be disproving pseudoscience with pseudoscience.


----------



## witchy_fingers (Dec 2, 2014)

brb, need a popcorn refill.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> That I made grammatical errors is nonessential to my argument (for what it's worth, much of your grammar is improper as well); my position is in fact borne out by the majority of primatology research on the subject. Primatologists are also almost always precautionary in their articles about the applications of their work and about the scope of their applicability.


I brought up the grammatical errors to highlight that it is not quite clear what the majority of primatology research actually says, as it is not a direct quote, and you may have intended to say something other than what could be inferred. Direct quotes would alleviate this issue.

I find it a little unusual that you would claim much of my grammar is improper. Not only is this gross hyperbole, but it sounds like projection; you actually are a perfectionist and dislike grammatical errors, therefore you feel insecure that you have made them.

You are entitled to believe what you wish about why primatologists use the language that they do. However, it is significantly more likely that they use precautionary language to avoid looking like buffoons in the event that other research proves their research incorrect. It is also difficult to be taken seriously if you can't recognize the situations where your research might be wrong - identifying the holes, and unknowns. This mandates the use of softer statements.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

There was a great Third Rock From The Sun episode, back, in the '90s, where Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, was the nice guy in high school, and, the girl he liked was going out with a bad boy. He was interested in her, so, he thought he'd become the jock, or the bad boy. And he became the bad boy, till at the end of the episode, the girl actively rejected him. And seeing that he has lost the girl, he asks about the situation, apparently the girl liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, because, he was a nice guy, his major flaw though was he didn't posses a car, but the jock, did, and she was using him for just the rides. JGL was like, "I can change," the girl was like, "it's too late."


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

> too much niceness without foundation often hides a high degree of immaturity and I can smell that out


not to sure what you mean by foundation.


----------



## unblossom (Jul 24, 2014)

Caged Within said:


> The only girls I know that like bad dudes are damaged ones that like throwing themselves into danger, or like throwing themselves into bad situations that they think they deserve to be in.


I can relate to this.

But I find that a lot of "bad boys" are actually damaged themselves & they are truly puppies on the inside. They can be a bad boy but a good person & treat you like a queen.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

unblossom said:


> I can relate to this.
> 
> But I find that a lot of "bad boys" are actually damaged themselves & they are truly puppies on the inside. They can be a bad boy but a good person & treat you like a queen.


I know. I used to be one.


----------



## unblossom (Jul 24, 2014)

Caged Within said:


> I know. I used to be one.


I hope you're doing well. ♡


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

unblossom said:


> I hope you're doing well. ♡


Thanks.


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

Er. Never attracted to bad boys. I don't agree with their life philosophy. I don't respect the way they think. Hard to be attracted to someone under these circumstances. My boyfriends, present and past, have all treated me exceptionally well. And they're exciting people in their own right, even if they don't always make me into a sex crazed fiend. I will admit though, one time, I had blind date then a one night stand with someone who could have been considered "bad", or the baddest I would ever have been with anyway. The sex was unbelievable. The morning after, I took a hard look at myself, what I am, what he is, and decided to discard him mentally and emotionally. Not worth it. I don't regret the experience though. A girl has to have one mind blowing experience in her life  The first time I had fallen in love, I was 16. He was an INFJ. Not exciting. Not "bad" by any measure. He was the nicest, most understanding guy I had ever met. The hardest I had fallen in love, I was 17. He was a compassionate, insanely smart INFP and a total dork. Never had a true romantic history, one-sided or otherwise, with bad boys.



Cinnamon83 said:


> Lol my eldest daughters dad was a 'bad boy' (well in many ways he is really a spoiled punk), but he has been incarcerated and what not.


This is my biggest motivation for not dating them. Whenever I see somebody being described as "so bad", I look at them, and they seem like losers to me; most of them had histories like this.


----------



## vinylvanilla (Dec 22, 2014)

For some girls good boy = boring boy. They want action, emotions, drama, that's why they want bad boys. It's the same damn masochistic need of women. 

Not my case. I hate bad boys. Nerdy, nice and sweet boys are the best.


----------



## zDuality (May 15, 2014)

the term bad boys is misleading.

the truth is. a bad boy is a criminal.

now a man is a different thing all together.

We are animals, just because we are more intelligent then any other species means nothing we still have our instincts.

Women seek always the strongest person to be with because of different reasons, confidence, money, stable, etc etc etc just like how female animals seek the strongest male in the wild for security that their species will carry on in the healthiest specimen.

bad boy term means nothing I am a man and when i hear that I laugh. I was raised to be tough because life is tough women naturally come to me because I have confidence and i know what I want. See what Im trying to say?? 

most guys that have girl problems is because they do not have "experience" with women or lack self confidence.


PS sorry for the typos, using phone to write


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

Cinnamon83 said:


> I do not think women are attracted to bad boys.
> 
> I think girls are. When I say girls I mean naive mentality weather they are 15 or 50.
> 
> ...



I think there's a lot of truth to the girls going for bad boys, women going for stable dudes.

I feel that matured women are still attracted to bad boys, but by that point, their mind knows better. 

There exists also, the successful, stable, and yes, even faithful bad boy, but it is a rare breed.


----------



## JasmineDarlene (Jan 11, 2015)

I'm turned off by bad boys... I like the goody-two shoes, preppy, nerdy type  I like a guy who plays by the rules and is caring, considerate and compassionate


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

zDuality said:


> the term bad boys is misleading.
> the truth is. a bad boy is a criminal.


according to whom?


----------



## cardinalfire (Dec 10, 2009)

Haven't read through the thread yet though, isn't it just that 'bad boys' are often happy, exciting and passionate about whatever they do? I'm not sure that bad boys per se are what is as attractive as a guy who is enjoying his life.


----------



## Harizu (Apr 27, 2014)

I don't even have an "ideal type" in the first place.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

It has nothing to do with survival no one thinks "will this person help me live" they think "nice ass".


----------



## mangodelic psycho (Jan 12, 2015)

It's biology. We chose an agressive strong man because we subconsiously believe he will be a better, stronger ect. mate for us. I think. It also might be that when you're a bad girl so you want a bad boy cause good boys are boring to you. Also I totally disagree that good girls like bad boys an d bad girls good guys, that's bs. We might be sexually attracted to your opposites but what we really want is someone who's lifestyle is similar to ours.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

I don't like the bad boys. I just like their leather jackets and motorcycles


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> It has nothing to do with survival no one thinks "will this person help me live" they think "nice ass".


However, the ass is a representation of fat deposits, deep down our instincts know that reproduction with said ass will allow my child to grow and come to be in a body that can supply even in starving times. ( I am bullshitting you and being sarcastic haha, I agree with you)


----------



## kiwig0ld (Nov 7, 2010)

vinylvanilla said:


> For some girls good boy = boring boy. They want action, emotions, drama, that's why they want bad boys. It's the same damn masochistic need of women.
> Not my case. I hate bad boys. Nerdy, nice and sweet boys are the best.











ok... I think I learned something today.


----------



## Stendhal (May 31, 2014)

Maybe because we all secretly resent all these rules which run our society.


----------



## HumanRevolution (Jan 12, 2015)

Found this pretty interesting. Bad boys are associated with the dark triad (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy)

"It has been suggested that the dark triad traits appear to predispose individuals to short-term rewards and relationships over long-term rewards and benefits. Although advanced societies attempt to promote long-term thinking (environmental protection, saving money for retirement), there are reproductive benefits for the individual for thinking and acting on a shorter time-course. Also, men exhibiting these traits appear to be more successful at generating sexual attraction in women

Consistent with this perspective, studies have suggested that on average, those who exhibit the dark triad of personality traits have an accelerated mating strategy, reporting more sex partners, more favorable attitudes towards casual sex, lowered standards in their short-term mates, a tendency to steal or poach mates from others, more risk-taking in the form of substance abuse, a tendency to prefer immediate but smaller amounts of money over delayed but larger amounts of money, limited self-control and greater incidence of ADHD symptoms and a pragmatic and game-playing love style. These traits have been identified as part of a fast life strategy that appears to be enacted by an exploitative, opportunistic, and protean approach to life in general and at work."

Main appeal: Pleasure


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> It has nothing to do with survival no one thinks "will this person help me live" they think "nice ass".


Instincts are usually sub-conscious in nature.



HumanRevolution said:


> Found this pretty interesting. Bad boys are associated with the dark triad (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy)
> 
> Main appeal: Pleasure


I think the Church had the right of it.


----------



## HumanRevolution (Jan 12, 2015)

johnnyyukon said:


> That definition definitely sounds like trouble, though I'm sure if a lady were up to it, would also be some temporary wild and fun times with some mind bending fuckin'. But she'll probably eventually want OFF the Manchild roller coaster.


I hear ya. Basically being "bad" is a phase and some people just never grow out of it. It makes no sense to commit to someone until you have established your financial foundation (or they have, or both). In today's society, the trajectory of development usually follows a pattern of advancement similar to this: High School (location 1) -> Undergraduate (location 2) -> Graduate (location 3) -> First job (location 4) -> Second job (location 5) -> Third job (location 6)

Of course, the number of links in this connection will vary by individual but you get the idea: what is the point of marrying committing to someone at location 1 or 2 when you will just be moving again and again and again. If the person you are romantically involved with plans on having a career, their trajectory will be similar except with different locations. It makes far more sense to me to wait until you are established at a job before trying to get married. Ericson's psychosocial stages of development: Identity comes before Intimacy. Your work is your contribution to society and plays a big role in feeling meaningful and valuable. So do relationships, but since financial troubles are the primary cause for relationship failure, I think locking down a good job gets chronological precedence.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

HumanRevolution said:


> I hear ya. Basically being "bad" is a phase and some people just never grow out of it. It makes no sense to commit to someone until you have established your financial foundation (or they have, or both). In today's society, the trajectory of development usually follows a pattern of advancement similar to this: High School (location 1) -> Undergraduate (location 2) -> Graduate (location 3) -> First job (location 4) -> Second job (location 5) -> Third job (location 6)
> 
> Of course, the number of links in this connection will vary by individual but you get the idea: what is the point of marrying committing to someone at location 1 or 2 when you will just be moving again and again and again. If the person you are romantically involved with plans on having a career, their trajectory will be similar except with different locations. It makes far more sense to me to wait until you are established at a job before trying to get married. Ericson's psychosocial stages of development: Identity comes before Intimacy. Your work is your contribution to society and plays a big role in feeling meaningful and valuable. So do relationships, but since financial troubles are the primary cause for relationship failure, I think locking down a good job gets chronological precedence.


Couldn't agree more, my friend.

There was a time when my job, or more importantly my steady income situation wasn't all that stable and an ex and I were considering getting back together, but in the end, without that foundation, I just couldn't do it (I suppose if I had less doubts about "us" as a long term couple, it might have been different). It was actually a pretty difficult time and thing to decide. She just couldn't understand it. She didn't seem to care that I didn't presently have the money to say, raise a kid. I couldn't ever explain it to her. A man unsure of his ability to provide is a bit emasculated, imo. Before he decides to go looking for a long term partner, he needs to unfuck himself first.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

there's just something about @Sourpuss's eyes..


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

HumanRevolution said:


> I hear ya. Basically being "bad" is a phase and some people just never grow out of it. It makes no sense to commit to someone until you have established your financial foundation (or they have, or both). In today's society, the trajectory of development usually follows a pattern of advancement similar to this: High School (location 1) -> Undergraduate (location 2) -> Graduate (location 3) -> First job (location 4) -> Second job (location 5) -> Third job (location 6)
> 
> Of course, the number of links in this connection will vary by individual but you get the idea: what is the point of marrying committing to someone at location 1 or 2 when you will just be moving again and again and again. If the person you are romantically involved with plans on having a career, their trajectory will be similar except with different locations. It makes far more sense to me to wait until you are established at a job before trying to get married. Ericson's psychosocial stages of development: Identity comes before Intimacy. Your work is your contribution to society and plays a big role in feeling meaningful and valuable. So do relationships, but since financial troubles are the primary cause for relationship failure, I think locking down a good job gets chronological precedence.


Lack of financial stability doesn't just cut it entirely. Some girls have that adrenaline junkie thing in them that allows them to take greater risks associated with cheating on their partners and the bad boys too have that attraction in them that helps them pull away the girl. It works with guys in the same way as well.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Women are typically submissive. "Bad boys" are typically dominant. Women typically want a dominant man.

The issue here is that "bad boys" aren't stable, loving, or good investments for a female. The argument that "bad boys" were at the top of the social hierarchy and more likely to survive in the past is an interesting idea. I'd have to agree with that but only in terms of the past.

Perhaps these instincts are ingrained within the female psychology. However, this instinct may be overridden when a woman finds that a different kind of man is more stable.
Why choose a "bad boy" who will be dominant and likely get you into trouble when you can pick a man who's safe, stable, and also dominant?

I'm curious to see what women have to say about thisWomen are typically submissive. "Bad boys" are typically dominant. Women typically want a dominant man.

The issue here is that "bad boys" aren't stable, loving, or good investments for a female. The argument that "bad boys" were at the top of the social hierarchy and more likely to survive in the past is an interesting idea. I'd have to agree with that but only in terms of the past.

Perhaps these instincts are ingrained within the female psychology. However, this instinct may be overridden when a woman finds that a different kind of man is more stable.
Why choose a "bad boy" who will be dominant and likely get you into trouble when you can pick a man who's safe, stable, and also dominant?

I'm curious to see what women have to say about this


----------



## Tucken (Dec 13, 2009)

Who knows. Maybe its just the mentally ill women. You'd have to be a lunatic to go for the bad boy, right? It's by definition a bad alternative.


----------



## Mercedene (May 6, 2016)

Poizon said:


> Women are typically submissive. "Bad boys" are typically dominant. Women typically want a dominant man.
> 
> The issue here is that "bad boys" aren't stable, loving, or good investments for a female. The argument that "bad boys" were at the top of the social hierarchy and more likely to survive in the past is an interesting idea. I'd have to agree with that but only in terms of the past.
> 
> ...


For me, this "bad boy" term is for the first physical attraction. As a woman, I attract to a man who like a bad boy (messy hair, not-so-neat man, etc). 
And something that "bad boys will give you a trouble", I think that's one of part them which attract women. Because I think it will give you more fun than a dominant man in conventional ways. Because (for me) it will challenge me 

About the financial security and safety. Of course, women love to have a man who can keep her safe and secure. Why don't we?


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

arya_stark said:


> For me, this "bad boy" term is for the first physical attraction. As a woman, I attract to a man who like a bad boy (messy hair, not-so-neat man, etc).
> And something that "bad boys will give you a trouble", I think that's one of part them which attract women. Because I think it will give you more fun than a dominant man in conventional ways. Because (for me) it will challenge me
> 
> About the financial security and safety. Of course, women love to have a man who can keep her safe and secure. Why don't we?


My hypothesis is that younger women like this "bad boy" for the reasons you mentioned. However once a women learns that these type of men aren't for the long term, they switch over to a cleaner more put together man who's more reliable.


----------



## Scarlet.Black (Jan 6, 2016)

arya_stark said:


> For me, this "bad boy" term is for the first physical attraction. As a woman, I attract to a man who like a bad boy (messy hair, not-so-neat man, etc).
> And something that "bad boys will give you a trouble", I think that's one of part them which attract women. Because I think it will give you more fun than a dominant man in conventional ways. Because (for me) it will challenge me
> 
> About the financial security and safety. Of course, women love to have a man who can keep her safe and secure. Why don't we?


I think that you are making quite big simplifications here  For example I don't want any man to foster me. Sure I would like to have a man who can take care of our kids together with me but that is not really the same thing. Personally I feel stupid when man are trying to patronize me. I already have a dad so I am not trying to find another one for myself.


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

Poizon said:


> My hypothesis is that younger women like this "bad boy" for the reasons you mentioned. However once a women learns that these type of men aren't for the long term, they switch over to a cleaner more put together man who's more reliable.


 Everybody starts with an easier to obtain choice to anything. I started with drinking beer, that's where i realized that a fine scotch, has a better return on its investment with regards to the experience. Maybe that's how women pick for bad boys first because they are easier to obtain as a sexual partner ?


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

steelnerve said:


> Everybody starts with an easier to obtain choice to anything. I started with drinking beer, that's where i realized that a fine scotch, has a better return on its investment with regards to the experience. Maybe that's how women pick for bad boys first because they are easier to obtain as a sexual partner ?


Hmmm, that's an interesting idea. I agree but some of the women here have sated that "bad boys" are more exciting so my hypothesis still stands.

"bad boys" are not only easier to get but are also more exciting to young girls or women looking to hook up.
Women who want a good return on their investment and want to be secure and safe with a man for the long term will look for a secure man.


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

Poizon said:


> Hmmm, that's an interesting idea. I agree but some of the women here have sated that "bad boys" are more exciting so my hypothesis still stands.
> 
> "bad boys" are not only easier to get but are also more exciting to young girls or women looking to hook up.
> Women who want a good return on their investment and want to be secure and safe with a man for the long term will look for a secure man.


So you want to mix up the desirable traits in a good guy with those in a bad guy. Isn't that great news for the girls? IT sounds like one for most of them... What about the player kind of girls around here ? Are there any who'd like to add to it ?


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

This fact ensures that I'm knee deep in the P**sy. The reason why? because they hate themselves. They've gone so far off their center they want to self destruct. Instead of realizing this, that they've been living wrong all along, they project all the wrongness on to me...that's why after the second date **** job....I'm outta town.


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

Oooooo0o0oh yeah, I'm attracted to bad boys who make me cry then fuck me. Bad boy MVP if they make me cry while fucking me.

The genius above really captures the essence of the female psyche.

*sings bad boy by cascada*


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

SevSevens said:


> This fact ensures that I'm knee deep in the P**sy. The reason why? because they hate themselves. They've gone so far off their center they want to self destruct. Instead of realizing this, that they've been living wrong all along, they project all the wrongness on to me...that's why after the second date **** job....I'm outta town.


So, you're fine with the short term support you provide to a woman ? On a serious note, most guys are pasty these days, can that be a problem?


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

steelnerve said:


> So, you're fine with the short term support you provide to a woman ? On a serious note, most guys are pasty these days, can that be a problem?


no i'm sick and i can't stop.


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

Then use your addiction to something more beneficial to the women and you. :wink:


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

steelnerve said:


> So you want to mix up the desirable traits in a good guy with those in a bad guy. Isn't that great news for the girls? IT sounds like one for most of them... What about the player kind of girls around here ? Are there any who'd like to add to it ?


I'll be direct.
girls (younger) want bad boys for the most part because of the excitement and easiness. They don't love a bad boy, they just want to use them. Just like bad boys use girls.

Women(mature) want secure men (not boys) aka they want to settle down and find someone for the long term.

This works both ways too and this doesn't apply to all men and all women for there are people who want to play around for the rest of their lives and never settle down and there's those who settle down soon and never mess around.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Mainly 2 reasons I think:

1- He can protect her. See, badboys don't take sh*t and are very good at providing for themselves. If sh*t comes his way, he throws right back at ya. If she was with a good boy, shi*t would come their way and the good boy would just take it and ultimately put her in danger or put her in the hands of a bad boy anyway, so might as well jump to the badboy already

2- He f***ks her better. This is a problem good boys have, they think they have to be soft and ask her if she's liking it because as a kid they were taught to treat women like a flower and blah blah blah while the bad boy just goes ahead and pulls her hair, spank her butt, bite her neck, etc.

PS: I'm a good boy so I know some things I've done wrong that ultimately push girls away, so...


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Neverontime said:


> What are your thoughts on it?


Low IQ. I always thought Bad Boys™ were autistic. Have you ever socialized w/ one .. (?) They are so the _dumbest _males alive, lol.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Minx said:


> Low IQ. I always thought Bad Boys™ were autistic. Have you ever socialized w/ one .. (?) They are so the _dumbest _males alive, lol.


*yanks tail

Be nice :ninja:


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

WamphyriThrall said:


> *yanks tail
> 
> Be nice :ninja:


Fine.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Oh; wait. I_ suspect _OP is referring to those loud *ass-clown* dude(s) that acted out + wrecked havoc on us weird + nerdy women .. (?) The ones with _below _basic reading // test scores ... (?) Lol.

Then, indeed - I always thought they had _high-functioning_ psychological problem(s), not autism - lmao.


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

Minx said:


> Low IQ. I always thought Bad Boys™ were autistic. Have you ever socialized w/ one .. (?) They are so the _dumbest _males alive, lol.


I'm considered a good boy and I'm autistic at times.

I'm considered nice at first, but then the woman comes to know my true evil and this is what binds her to me.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

I feel like my badness attracts women.

Or they want to save me. 

One of the other.

But I don't have Se, so they are probably often disappointed because I don't do drugs, hang out at bars and drive things really fast (drink too much)

But I guess all they want is just for you to be at least a little bad.


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

Neverontime said:


> People seem to ask this often one way or another and generally believe it's because women find the 'bad boy type' exciting.
> 
> I think it's more about instinct than excitement. Thousands of years ago, the bad boy type personality would most likely have been at the top of the social hierarchy and therefore offer the best chance of survival.
> 
> ...


There is a very simple explanation for all of this, but people always seemed to get tripped up by the words' definitions.

Women are attracted to alpha males and are put off by beta males. When beta guys complain, they use "bad boys" for alpha males, while euphemistically referring themselves as "nice guys". When women justify their own behavior, they claim that _real_ "nice guys" are actually appealing ("real nice guys" refers to dependable alphas), while "guys pretending to be nice just to get in your pants" (i.e. betas) are off-putting.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

SevSevens said:


> I'm considered a good boy and I'm autistic at times.
> 
> I'm considered nice at first, but then the woman comes to know my true evil and this is what binds her to me.


You are very _odd_ (&) honest - these are very attractive; I will say.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)




----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)




----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

Minx said:


> You are very _odd_ (&) honest - these are very attractive; I will say.


Yes. I have actually mooned people in the same room before and was almost stabbed twice for it by a lesbian.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

SevSevens said:


> Yes. I have actually mooned people in the same room before and was almost stabbed twice for it by a lesbian.


I see. Were you _awfully_ aroused .. (?)


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

Minx said:


> SevSevens said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. I have actually mooned people in the same room before and was almost stabbed twice for it by a lesbian.
> ...


Well to be honest, I was dating her bi friend and I kept flaunting my hairy bum to her and I think she took it as a taunt that I was the one sleeping with the bi. But really I was just doing what I usually did Saturday nights at that age. I was still young and living in the fast lane.


----------



## jade09 (May 5, 2016)

What exactly is a "bad boy" anyway? I like men who doesn't constantly ask if I love them, or text/call me every minute to check on what I'm doing and are independent enough to give me and themselves alone time and not feel insecure about it... I also like men who doesn't comply with everything I say, as I like some healthy tension. Does that me I like bad boys? But nice guys can also be like that! I think it's more about charisma and confidence.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

jade09 said:


> What exactly is a "bad boy" anyway? I like men who doesn't constantly ask if I love them, or text/call me every minute to check on what I'm doing and are independent enough to give me and themselves alone time and not feel insecure about it... I also like men who doesn't comply with everything I say, as I like some healthy tension. Does that me I like bad boys? But nice guys can also be like that! I think it's more about charisma and confidence.


How does this "tension" dynamic really come into play through regular life, though? I mean, do you want someone with completely different views to you, so that you fight often enough...? lol.


----------



## jade09 (May 5, 2016)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> How does this "tension" dynamic really come into play through regular life, though? I mean, do you want someone with completely different views to you, so that you fight often enough...? lol.



I wouldn't mind someone with a completely different views and I don't mind having a healthy fight/discussion  I actually like fights as long as they are not too aggressive, and at the end of it, we can both be like "ohh well I'm glad to know people have different views, let's try to compromise the best we can." and not be holding grudges or anything against each other.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

jade09 said:


> I wouldn't mind someone with a completely different views and I don't mind having a healthy fight/discussion  I actually like fights as long as they are not too aggressive, and at the end of it, we can both be like "ohh well I'm glad to know people have different views, let's try to compromise the best we can." and not be holding grudges or anything against each other.


I see.


I guess it makes sense if you are a T, but see for me, that would drive me nuts to be in a serious relationship with someone and not agree on certain fundamental things...


----------



## jade09 (May 5, 2016)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> I see.
> 
> 
> I guess it makes sense if you are a T, but see for me, that would drive me nuts to be in a serious relationship with someone and not agree on certain fundamental things...


That makes sense. I would imagine most people wouldn't enjoy arguing. It would be nice if your partner agrees with you most of the time but personally, I don't want to sort of force my thoughts on someone if they think otherwise (vice versa) which is why I'd rather fight it over and compromise together


----------



## Mercedene (May 6, 2016)

jade09 said:


> That makes sense. I would imagine most people wouldn't enjoy arguing. It would be nice if your partner agrees with you most of the time but personally, I don't want to sort of force my thoughts on someone if they think otherwise (vice versa) which is why I'd rather fight it over and compromise together


I can't imagine have a partner who always agree with me in the most of time. 
It's like there's nothing to fight for. (I didn't mean I like to fight everytime)
:laughing:


----------



## jade09 (May 5, 2016)

arya_stark said:


> I can't imagine have a partner who always agree with me in the most of time.
> It's like there's nothing to fight for. (I didn't mean I like to fight everytime)
> :laughing:


My first boyfriend was someone who agreed with me all the time and wanted to do everything "I" wanted to do... He was the nicest person I ever met, but I was sort of frustrated cause I was like there is no way that he agreed with me on EVERYTHING haha We just weren't compatible I guess


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)




----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

why would women want a bad boy when they can have a sweet seductive Innocent mastermind, or executive or maybe a shy boy or or or. So many different flavors of men in this world, bad boys are so overrated and predictable for me. I love men who are unpredictable, bad boys use the same kind of seduction to get every woman, the same game, the same conversations, the same same same same, it can't possibly get anymore boring. I think the older you get the more you understand what it means to be selective in the process of dating and men in general. I'm so happy I'm in the prime of my life, the wisdom I have acquired over the years is serving me best at this point in my life, I love my life :kitteh::kitteh::kitteh:


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

@sereneone: A well defined response. Summarizes all the traits of a typical bad boy.


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> why would women want a bad boy when they can have a sweet seductive Innocent mastermind, or executive or maybe a shy boy or or or. So many different flavors of men in this world, bad boys are so overrated and predictable for me. I love men who are unpredictable, bad boys use the same kind of seduction to get every woman, the same game, the same conversations, the same same same same, it can't possibly get anymore boring. I think the older you get the more you understand what it means to be selective in the process of dating and men in general. I'm so happy I'm in the prime of my life, the wisdom I have acquired over the years is serving me best at this point in my life, I love my life :kitteh::kitteh::kitteh:


By this knowledge, you must even be able to change a guy to your tastes for the sakes of mutual betterment, I believe.


----------



## sereneone (Aug 1, 2013)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> why would women want a bad boy when they can have a sweet seductive Innocent mastermind, or executive or maybe a shy boy or or or. So many different flavors of men in this world, bad boys are so overrated and predictable for me. I love men who are unpredictable, bad boys use the same kind of seduction to get every woman, the same game, the same conversations, the same same same same, it can't possibly get anymore boring. I think the older you get the more you understand what it means to be selective in the process of dating and men in general. I'm so happy I'm in the prime of my life, the wisdom I have acquired over the years is serving me best at this point in my life, I love my life :kitteh::kitteh::kitteh:


Your mate is an INTJ, and you made a good choice to get a zero-bs guy.  INTJs do not mess with your mind.


----------



## INFPsyche (Nov 13, 2014)

They get away with all the bad stuff we wish we had the balls to do.. Having to take the never-ending safe route can be a terrifying thought..

Rebellious by association..


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

sereneone said:


> First, define terms. A bad boy is a sexually aggressive man who can create the illusion to a woman that she is the center of 100% of his sexual focus, his intellectual attention, and his emotional passion. He has sex like a wild animal, but only after telling 100 lies to get the woman to believe that he only wants to have sex with her alone. Both characteristics are mandatory for a true bad boy. It isn't enough to just be good in bed. He also has to be the master of making her appear to exist at the center of the universe.
> 
> Why are women attracted to such men? In a world without enough passion or emotion, the bad boy creates a storybook setting where she is transported into a romance novel and becomes the heroine. He makes her feel that sex is wild and that she matters because his focus is on her alone. Since he usually avoids even trying to provide any of the needs that exist in a real relationship, she can continue to imagine him as some romantic or sexual ideal. The bad boy is just a convenient mirage, carefully constructed to match her deepest needs. He stays emotionally distant just enough to keep that mirage going as long as possible.
> 
> ...


 A wild animal?

Well hello there, madame.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Oh wait, that's not a woman.

OMFG, TOO MANY ANDROGYNOUS PEOPLE HERE.

* *




I'm so pretty! I'm so pretty, and pretty, and GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

A part of me is very respectful and loving towards women, and the thought of using them for sex fills me with guilt, dread, and unease; but then there is this other animalistic part of me that just wants to do whatever it takes to just UGh, you know? just UGH, and I feel like they want it. It's their fault, they compel me to do it. It's like winning and losing at the same time.

And you don't even know what the score is or who's side your on, but it's just, like UGH. 

I don't even know. Life is tragic and horrible, I am sad all of the time, this bittersweet symphony of lust and sexual tyranny.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Women are not honest!

I have to sow my oats!

NO! NO!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

*jumps out of window*


----------



## Braverose (Aug 1, 2015)

A lot of good things have been said on this thread already, so I'm not going to repeat them.

In some cases, we go for the bad boys, because we'll have a ready-made excuse for when it goes wrong.
In that way, we create a sense of stability when there is none.


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

Braverose said:


> A lot of good things have been said on this thread already, so I'm not going to repeat them.
> 
> In some cases, we go for the bad boys, because we'll have a ready-made excuse for when it goes wrong.
> In that way, we create a sense of stability when there is none.


Is it worth getting used to ?


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Neverontime said:


> People seem to ask this often one way or another and generally believe it's because women find the 'bad boy type' exciting.
> 
> I think it's more about instinct than excitement. Thousands of years ago, the bad boy type personality would most likely have been at the top of the social hierarchy and therefore offer the best chance of survival.
> 
> ...


Bad boys are more unpredictable, they are less likely to follow the rules, more likely to be seen as broken, and women seem to often have the instinct to fix broken parts. Bad boys might be a lot more direct and willing to argue a point vs caring about how others feel about it so will be seen as more aggressive. 

I personally am attracted to crazy people and the outcast of society.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

MisterPerfect said:


> Bad boys are more unpredictable, they are less likely to follow the rules, more likely to be seen as broken, and women seem to often have the instinct to fix broken parts. Bad boys might be a lot more direct and willing to argue a point vs caring about how others feel about it so will be seen as more aggressive.
> 
> I personally am attracted to crazy people and the outcast of society.


It's true, women always want to fix me.

I'm not broken!:laughing:

Honestly!


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> It's true, women always want to fix me.
> 
> I'm not broken!:laughing:
> 
> Honestly!


I personally not sure what I would be considered. Most people see me as the stereotypical nerd who watches anime and wants to pay attention in class but at the same time was always in trouble for fights I never started. I was told I attracted trouble and I should stop attracting it but honestly you cant help being short, skinny, wearing a glasses and me purposely doing stuff like stealing booze and drugs would make me look cool at school but would not help me in the long run. So I not sure if I should be classed as a trouble maker.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

MisterPerfect said:


> Bad boys are more unpredictable, they are less likely to follow the rules, more likely to be seen as broken, and women seem to often have the instinct to fix broken parts. Bad boys might be a lot more direct and willing to argue a point vs caring about how others feel about it so will be seen as more aggressive.
> 
> I personally am attracted to crazy people and the outcast of society.


Bad boys are actually very predictable, much like pick up artist. This is why they are so much fun to play with, you can get inside their head without them knowing. Oh, and bad boys are often not very Intelligent, so again you can mess with them and they don't know any better, ha !!.....I don't date bad boys, but I sure do have fun messing with their mind:kitteh:


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Bad boys are actually very predictable, much like pick up artist. This is why they are so much fun to play with, you can get inside their head without them knowing. Oh, and bad boys are often not very Intelligent, so again you can mess with them and they don't know any better, ha !!.....I don't date bad boys, but I sure do have fun messing with their mind:kitteh:


Well perhaps there are more classes than just the Bad Boy vs the Good boy. You sound like you like you enjoy toying with people.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

MisterPerfect said:


> I personally not sure what I would be considered. Most people see me as the stereotypical nerd who watches anime and wants to pay attention in class but at the same time was always in trouble for fights I never started. I was told I attracted trouble and I should stop attracting it but honestly you cant help being short, skinny, wearing a glasses and me purposely doing stuff like stealing booze and drugs would make me look cool at school but would not help me in the long run. So I not sure if I should be classed as a trouble maker.


You're bad.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> You're bad.


Do you care to elaborate on that statement?


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)




----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

MisterPerfect said:


> Well perhaps there are more classes than just the Bad Boy vs the Good boy. You sound like you like you enjoy toying with people.


Toying with people, nah, toying with bad boys and pick up artist who are only there to do their best to try and manipulate me, oh yes, I get into their head before they have the opportunity to get into mine. They are not so clever to those of us who can see through them, although I can see how they can sliver their way into weak women, or women who don't have much experience with men/dating/relationships and what is acceptable and what isn't. I'm pretty sure Fe is a clear target for these types of men, I think Fe could fall victim more than Fi types, Fi would eat them for breakfast then spit them out like sunflower seeds.:shocked::tongue:


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

* *


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Toying with people, nah, toying with bad boys and pick up artist who are only there to do their best to try and manipulate me, oh yes, I get into their head before they have the opportunity to get into mine. They are not so clever to those of us who can see through them, although I can see how they can sliver their way into weak women, or women who don't have much experience with men/dating/relationships and what is acceptable and what isn't. I'm pretty sure Fe is a clear target for these types of men, I think Fe could fall victim more than Fi types, Fi would eat them for breakfast then spit them out like sunflower seeds.:shocked::tongue:


That is true but most people seem to fall for everything they say.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)




----------



## Alienium (May 12, 2016)

Nobody cares.... girls want > stability emotions and sex
bad guy provides > stability (to some extent) emotions (yes LOTSSS of drama) and good sex
there you have it, economics 101, demand and offer
anything outside the spectrum is subject of anomalies (a whole other talk) which can be simplified in one of the primitive demands but with non-appropriate emotional impact


----------



## Braverose (Aug 1, 2015)

steelnerve said:


> Is it worth getting used to ?


I'm not saying it's a good thing. So no, it's probably not worth it.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Braverose said:


> A lot of good things have been said on this thread already, so I'm not going to repeat them.
> 
> In some cases, we go for the bad boys, because we'll have a ready-made excuse for when it goes wrong.
> In that way, we create a sense of stability when there is none.


I actually really like this reply, because you're so much more spot on than I think you know. There's an entire psychology behind it, where what you said is the foundation of what goes on in the mind of someone who continues to seek the abuse they experienced as a child.


----------



## Scarlet.Black (Jan 6, 2016)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Toying with people, nah, toying with bad boys and pick up artist who are only there to do their best to try and manipulate me, oh yes, I get into their head before they have the opportunity to get into mine. They are not so clever to those of us who can see through them, although I can see how they can sliver their way into weak women, or women who don't have much experience with men/dating/relationships and what is acceptable and what isn't. I'm pretty sure Fe is a clear target for these types of men, I think Fe could fall victim more than Fi types, Fi would eat them for breakfast then spit them out like sunflower seeds.:shocked::tongue:


I have to disagree with you with the Fe part. I belive that NFs are all quite good in reading people so SF would be more likely to fall for players. Especially XSFJs. I have always like players - they are very entertaining  as long you don't fall for them.


----------



## jayyy (May 18, 2012)

if i vibe with a guy, i vibe with a guy. i can't and don't fall for cliches of personas, which is what "nice guys", "shy guys", "bad boys" all are. to me, those are ideas of people and nothing more. i mean, this entire thread has me imagining some muscley, loud-mouth dude with a motorcycle and tattoos and leather jackets. if thats the case, i've never fallen for a bad boy. i'm into whoever i feel comfortable around. and i'm never comfortable around guys who go around self-proclaiming and posing as types of identities. this isn't highschool. i especially don't have interest in guys who respond to the "women love bad boys" stereotype with something along the lines of "well, GIRLS love bad boys, WOMEN love nice guys/gentlemen  ". i'm talking about these types:



















ok, creepy Nice Guy.


----------



## HerpDerpette (May 1, 2016)

@jayyy Oh yes the passive aggressive white knight. It's so cringey and I have met some of them and so have a friend of mine. 

I recently gave her some advice: 

There's a reason why "nice guys" are shunned, because many seem needy or clingy like they don't have a life and their hobby is chasing girls which means they don't have much self worth. They are deceptive and pretend to be nice to ultimately get in your pants or achieve a relationship status, they are actually assholes. Their personality is so one dimensional like we are all humans show some anger, curiosity, sad, happy not just nice. Talk about yo shit like don't just stare at me listening and putting me on a pedestal. And finally, don't expect me to reciprocate, a nice deed is not a key although I am thankful but I am capable of making my own decision. Don't blame multiple women for not going out with you when you don't see your own flaws. HOWEVER there are genuinely kind guys, I think it is in the word, nice vs kind. Kind guys don't use their niceness to lure females *drops mic*. 

Not saying I am attracted to the stereotypical bad boys, I'm attracted to confident guys who's genuine, respectful and knows all the rules before breaking them. A guy who chooses his battles.


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

HerpDerpette said:


> @jayyy Oh yes the passive aggressive white knight. It's so cringey and I have met some of them and so have a friend of mine.
> 
> I recently gave her some advice:
> 
> ...


This concludes the thread, I believe.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Maybe these are all just very heavily influenced pre-conceived notions based off of judeo christian conservative belief systems as to what exactly it means to be "bad" and what "bad" really means or stands for in our culture.

The name itself recalls that of a child being scolded who will not listen or do what he is told, and is quite infantile as well. "bad" because he will not do what he is told? thus like all children, does he then throw a tantrum? does he act like one as well and is withhold to those traits..such...

Selfish, greedy, and impetus?

Once and for all, I believe we should really define just what "bad" is here, and who the "bad" men truly are.


----------



## Scarlet.Black (Jan 6, 2016)

Braverose said:


> A lot of good things have been said on this thread already, so I'm not going to repeat them.
> 
> In some cases, we go for the bad boys, because we'll have a ready-made excuse for when it goes wrong.
> In that way, we create a sense of stability when there is none.


I know I have used this one for years. They let me keep everything in control because I already know how it is going to end.


And there is another thing: It would be so nice to be with someone bad who could take what he wants and share it with you - and you could still be the god girl. 

Well this one doesn't work for me - I can see that it is hypocritical but I know some girls who don't see any problem with this.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Scarlet.Black said:


> I know I have used this one for years. They let me keep everything in control because I already know how it is going to end.
> 
> 
> And there is another thing: It would be so nice to be with someone bad who could take what he wants and share it with you - and you could still be the god girl.
> ...


Again, I feel as though these originate and are based on very religious influenced and related purist ideals that still have a quite large effect on exactly how we see things today; pertaining to the thoughts and ideals of female innocence and purity, that women simply are so much fairer and undeserving of their independence for their own selves.

Women's worth related simply to how pure and innocent they have either held themselves to or are based on things like their age and social background of origin.


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> Again, I feel as though these originate and are based on very religious influenced and related purist ideals that still have a quite large effect on exactly how we see things today; pertaining to the thoughts and ideals of female innocence and purity, that women simply are so much fairer and undeserving of their independence for their own selves.
> 
> Women's worth related simply to how pure and innocent they have either held themselves to or are based on things like their age and social background of origin.


At times, this worth is also based on the social influence the woman has, which can be really intimidating for most men.


----------



## Thelonious91 (May 24, 2016)

Bad boys are direct, so the women has to make a choice. They often create a reputation which does the work for them. Some guys just have "it' it is what is, they walk into a room and they know and everyone else knows they are attractive. If you don't have that I find being a good conversationalist is underrated.


----------



## wickedly (Mar 13, 2016)

"Bad" boys aren't exactly bad people, they just give off that confident stand offish vibe. They act off the basis of face value, so they are not really apart of those social norms that consider themselves to be "proper" during times when speaking to girls. 

Most men are deep-throated by constant social conditioning, which restrains them to not act on their desires, watch what they say and to never show emotion.

Girls feed off emotion, emotion to them is their attraction, yeah some "bad" boys can be assholes but they also give out emotion, don't give a fuck about who is watching and acts on their own desire. 

I am not saying that other guys don't do that, its a mixed bag, "Bad" boys are just one side of a spectrum.


----------



## Mr Miyagi (May 18, 2016)

I think it could be that "bad boys" seem confident and fun to younger women. And young women might be struggeling with confidence themselves. Also who don't want to have fun. (Younger men lack confidence too of course). Confidence is appealing to most people. Older women usually go for more stable males in my opinion, where the confidence with the males is "more hidden". They perhaps see "bad boys as a bit immature"?

Also "bad boys" might look dependable in "aggresive situations". 
Which people think reflects back to the stoneage and such. However, if you look at alot of tribes today, tribal leaders often consist of elders or a person chosen by the village for wisdom, reliability and strenght, and the strenght often lies in other areas than "muscle". The truth is that "daredevils and bad boys" often died in early years for doing something unnecessary dangerous.

Just my own thoughts on this matter.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

I & I a real badman seen, rudeboy yute and ting. But me nah get gyal dem punani wet seen?


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

Mr Miyagi said:


> I think it could be that "bad boys" seem confident and fun to younger women. And young women might be struggeling with confidence themselves. Also who don't want to have fun. (Younger men lack confidence too of course). Confidence is appealing to most people. Older women usually go for more stable males in my opinion, where the confidence with the males is "more hidden". They perhaps see "bad boys as a bit immature"?
> 
> Also "bad boys" might look dependable in "aggresive situations".
> Which people think reflects back to the stoneage and such. However, if you look at alot of tribes today, tribal leaders often consist of elders or a person chosen by the village for wisdom, reliability and strenght, and the strenght often lies in other areas than "muscle". The truth is that "daredevils and bad boys" often died in early years for doing something unnecessary dangerous.
> ...


Its that strength that literally seems to affect everything they have. These bad boys are feared for not how hard they are gonna hit, but what are they gonna hit with. For any other matters, these kinda people come with a totally crazy idea of getting things done. As if they haven't got that binding limit the society imposes upon gentlemen.


----------



## steelnerve (May 1, 2016)

R.E. Amemiya said:


> I & I a real badman seen, rudeboy yute and ting. But me nah get gyal dem punani wet seen?


Seen, now speak English instead of Rustafarian, or get me some of that grass you smoke. Comprende ?


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

steelnerve said:


> Seen, now speak English instead of Rustafarian, or get me some of that grass you smoke. Comprende ?


Sure, come to Sydney and I'll fix you up real proper like


----------



## huhh (Apr 15, 2015)

The rest are usually very dull.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

This thing with "nice guys" and "gentlemen" in this thread reminds me a saying that is starting to get popular in my country.

_It's strange times when thiefs are being called entepreneurs and enterpreneurs are being called thiefs._


----------



## SummerHaze (May 18, 2016)

i don't like bad boys, i like to spoil good boys lol


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

This is a load of bullshit, to me anyway.
I do not, and have never liked bad boys. Please stop making this assumption that all females like 'bad boys'.


----------

