Why do the " Bad Boys" get so many women?

[Lost_Wanderer]

I’m sure that the following definition is something we can all agree upon calmly.
And by the way, many ladies show these fine attributes as well:

chiv·al·rous   [shiv-uhl-ruhs]
adjective

1.having the qualities of chivalry, as courage, courtesy, and loyalty.

2.considerate and courteous to women; gallant.

3.gracious and honorable toward an enemy, especially a defeated one, and toward the weak or poor.

Sounds much like our Lord Jesus as He walked upon the earth, and like His Mother who inspires us.

May your day be blessed,
Kathryn Ann

Well more or less I have no issues with 1 or 2. 3 though is something I’d consider on a case-to-case basis. Sure the weak and poor deserve some kindness but enemies?

Some people (or at least some personalities) strike me as just despicable, they don’t deserve respect. If I ever had the success of beating them flat to the ground, I would grind my boots into their backs until they beg, crying for mercy, and changing on their ways on the spot. Furthermore, if I smell even the slightest whiff of insincerity, only hell would rival the fate I would have in store for you.

 

[Havard]

You sound as if you don’t have the slightest clue how female relationships work.

That’s interesting… you sound as if you took one of my posts out of context from what I’ve been saying.

 

[Mayita30]

Why do bad boys get so many women? Well, because they are players. They are good at deceiving other people especially younger women who are naive however their relationships normally do not last because naive women tend to become wiser with experience so I wouldnt worry about these guys getting the ¨women". Focus being the good guy and look for a good woman!

 

[Crescentinus]

Why do bad boys get so many women? Well, because they are players. They are good at deceiving other people especially younger women who are naive however their relationships normally do not last because naive women tend to become wiser with experience so I wouldnt worry about these guys getting the ¨women". Focus being the good guy and look for a good woman!

Thanks for the good advice.

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s interesting… you sound as if you took one of my posts out of context from what I’ve been saying.

You said this:
*I’m getting the sense that we have different definitions for these types. Here are mine:

An alpha personality is one that naturally prefers to be in charge, and become easily frustrated when given a supporting role.
A beta personality is one that naturally prefers to be in a supporting role, and become easily frustrated when given a leadership role.
A gamma naturally likes both leading and supporting. If they are pragmatic about things, they can be the most successful type in social groups.
An omega is essentially a non-conformist, they like neither role, and have the most difficulty operating in groups*.

Then you said this:
*I’m not necessarily saying they are 100% static, just that we do have different natural states. I do believe that they are partially learned, partially hormonal, etc.

For example, women with different levels of testosterone, estrogen, etc., are prone to more or less aggressive or social/antisocial behavior. One one hand, we each have different natural levels, but on the other, hormone levels can change through natural body changes, diet & exercise, direct supplementation, etc.

E.g.: A young submissive (beta) woman is unlikely to become an alpha overnight, but if she exercises physically a lot, lays off fatty foods, and tries to exercise her leadership skills, she may develop more alpha traits. *

I’m still saying, no, you don’t know what makes an alpha female. You just don’t. I’m not even sure you know what makes a self-confident female, and self-confident and alpha are not, in a female, anything like the same thing. I hardly know where to start. The truth is, though, that it doesn’t have all that much to do with the topic of this thread, so let’s not go there.

The jerks who get the girls may or may not be alpha males as far as the other males are concerned. Many of them are guys the males do not think much of. That says something very favorable about the male half. Then there are the “wild side” guys who get the girls. They aren’t jerks, they just offer the thrill of being people who challenge boundaries. Again, though, these are not necessarily alpha males as far as the other males are concerned.

In other words, the features that impress the other guys and gain influence among men, whether for good or for ill, and what impresses girls and women are also not the same thing. Influence of guys over other guys is one thing, influence of females over other females is a second thing, and influence of guys over women and women over guys are two more things altogether. Humans are complicated creatures, that way…and boy do the alphas (by your definition) find this frustrating!!

 

[Havard]

You said this:
*I’m getting the sense that we have different definitions for these types. Here are mine:

An alpha personality is one that naturally prefers to be in charge, and become easily frustrated when given a supporting role.
A beta personality is one that naturally prefers to be in a supporting role, and become easily frustrated when given a leadership role.
A gamma naturally likes both leading and supporting. If they are pragmatic about things, they can be the most successful type in social groups.
An omega is essentially a non-conformist, they like neither role, and have the most difficulty operating in groups*.

Then you said this:
*I’m not necessarily saying they are 100% static, just that we do have different natural states. I do believe that they are partially learned, partially hormonal, etc.

For example, women with different levels of testosterone, estrogen, etc., are prone to more or less aggressive or social/antisocial behavior. One one hand, we each have different natural levels, but on the other, hormone levels can change through natural body changes, diet & exercise, direct supplementation, etc.

E.g.: A young submissive (beta) woman is unlikely to become an alpha overnight, but if she exercises physically a lot, lays off fatty foods, and tries to exercise her leadership skills, she may develop more alpha traits. *

I’m still saying, no, you don’t know what makes an alpha female. You just don’t. I’m not even sure you know what makes a self-confident female, and self-confident and alpha are not, in a female, anything like the same thing. I hardly know where to start. The truth is, though, that it doesn’t have all that much to do with the topic of this thread, so let’s not go there.

The jerks who get the girls may or may not be alpha males as far as the other males are concerned. Many of them are guys the males do not think much of. That says something very favorable about the male half. Then there are the “wild side” guys who get the girls. They aren’t jerks, they just offer the thrill of being people who challenge boundaries. Again, though, these are not necessarily alpha males as far as the other males are concerned.

In other words, the features that impress the other guys and gain influence among men, whether for good or for ill, and what impresses girls and women are also not the same thing. Influence of guys over other guys is one thing, influence of females over other females is a second thing, and influence of guys over women and women over guys are two more things altogether. Humans are complicated creatures, that way…and boy do the alphas (by your definition) find this frustrating!!

I’m unpleasantly surprised to be getting responses like this from you, EasterJoy. I don’t mind explaining if my points sound wrong, but the least you could do is make an effort to be diplomatic and inquire as to what I mean, rather than be dismissive or insulting. It sounds like you misunderstood my point originally (I was never discussing how female relationships work). Now I’m still not sure if you understand where I was going (I never mentioned a word about confidence, either).

Your “let’s not go there” comment is fair because this is a slight tangent from original topic, however I think it’s hardly charitable to begin or end a discussion on “you have no clue”, without showing the other person a little consideration or interest in understanding.

 

[JimG]

While I agree that people should not be overly romantic or living int he past, I think much more of society has the problem of relationships being disposable, of not being romantic enough.

Yes, and the problem of disposability is not to rely only on fleeting romantic emotions to keep it going. One has to decide to keep romance going and then do what it takes to make it happen; one does it out of love, not the emotion of the minute.

 

[ManOnFire]

Simply because when they try, they are attempting to be a man…which is biologically incoherent.

Feminism is a perfect example of this attempt to be “more like men”. The “empowered” women, etc, etc.

Women have their own gifts, they don’t need to attempt to emulate men’s gifts…it usually does not end well for either.

Try reading about (and taking) the Personality Profile by Littauer.

Littauer breaks personalities down into 4 general types, each type comprising about 25% of the population, with every well-adjusted person having a major and a minor of the following, which is believed to be inborn:

Popular: talker, gift of gab, social types, extrovert
Peaceful: passive, it’s all good, non-judgmental
Powerful: take charge, controlling, bull in a china shop
Perfect: introverts, analyticals, creative, genius prone, frequently misunderstood, deep appreciation for art, music, beauty

A Powerful woman would be most likely to hook up with a Peaceful man. He isn’t being wimpy. He’s just passive. It’s in his personality. There’s nothing wrong with 2 consenting adults whose personalities are like yin and yang for each other. Conversely, the same goes for the Powerful man and the Peaceful woman, except radical feminism has tried to tell the naturally Peaceful women that there’s something wrong with their natural personality type. They need to back off. Littauer explains the hazard of what happens when parents or other outside influences try to mold the child into a personality type that is not natural for that child. The parent’s expectations for the child might not be natural for the child’s personality type, so the person grows up seeming awkward, unnatural, angry or confused. The explanation is fascinating and enlightening, a game-changer. The example of someone who seems confused and awkward made me immediately think of a famous woman who has her own TV show. I always thought she should be lying on a psychiatrist’s couch instead of being on TV. I guess the practical reality is that we don’t have enough child psychiatrists to properly monitor the general public’s mental development. The personality profile is a start, though.

It’s a good read. I highly recommend taking the profile.

 

[chevalier]

Yes, and the problem of disposability is not to rely only on fleeting romantic emotions to keep it going. One has to decide to keep romance going and then do what it takes to make it happen; one does it out of love, not the emotion of the minute.

IMHO fleeting affections, disposability and fickleness aren’t romantic but the problem is that there are at least as many understandings of “romantic” as there are people.

Anyway, you mentioned my comment about Karl Keating’s words. Basically, pretty much all I’d like to say on the subject is that we can neither prove the “set apart before world existed” with regard to every single human person, nor can we disprove it. There is not enough data to back the assertion that everybody has a spouse chosen for him or her by God as a matter of God’s will and that human person’s calling in life (as opposed to get married and choose wisely). On the other hand, we can’t say that God doesn’t care enough for each single one of us, and on a very personal level, to be involved with our selection of a spouse. God cares more for us than our earthly parents do. We aren’t an anonymous mass of believers to Him, He has no trouble individuating every single one of us out of many billions, and caring individually about our respective lives. So we can’t really make a deist-like argument, attributing a non-interventionist attitude to God. Therefore I’m of a mixed mind when it comes to, “God has somebody in mind for you.”

That is possible, and a bit weirder than the whole “let’s just be friends” line.
At least the latter is not vague.

LJBF can be very vague.

I am catching the disccussion here.

The Bad Boy is a Romantic Archetype.
Before, in Classicism, the Good Boy was the Good Boy and the Bad Boy was the Bad Boy. No on wanted bay boys, savages.

Actually, I’m pretty sure the good boy/bad boy problem goes back to when we lived in caverns.

Although I agree that romanticism messed up a lot. It was a sick-in-the-head epoch with sick-in-the-head ideas, leaving behind a sick-in-the-head influence.

There are alpha females, but they are rare. I’ve dated women who I thought were alpha’s but they turned out to have beta traits… despite all their boldness and strength, they still wanted a man to take charge. I am personally attracted to women with a mix; I am neither attracted to extremely dominant nor extremely submissive women.

I like dominant types as long as they simply have a dominant personality, which I probably have myself. But I don’t like types that don’t necessarily have the typically understood alpha traits but simply want to formalise a relationship in which they are calling the shots, for the sake of it. I’m actually pissed off by “alphas” who can’t recognise a better idea than their own and follow lead when this is good for the cause (or simply more sensible to do). I sometimes lack the patience for people who want to take charge but don’t have the personality or talent or knowledge for it. I definitely don’t want to spend my life baby-sitting a woman with that type of urges. Authority means responsibility, and it is not pleasant.

Okay guys.

When a woman is stepping out and being assertive. When she takes control. She’s not necessarily emulating male characteristics, nor does she need to.

In my experience mothers are the most fierce females there are. They are aggressively protective of their children and WILL take control from ANY man who tries to harm an innocent child. These mothers are NOT emulating men when they behave in this way and they ARE being alphas in those situations. You give me a man who is not afraid of his mother and I’ll give you a mother who wasn’t an alpha but I guarantee most mothers *are *alpha females. Maybe ONLY when it comes to their children but they are fully capable of taking the reins and making the male submit.

In some situations women don’t need to be men to be alphas. They simply need something worth protecting.

I think you’re addressing a different situation than the people you argue against. You mention a differentiating factor, essentially, i.e. when a woman has children to defend. This is different from a woman who e.g. only feels good in a relationship with a man if she calls all the shots in it (which doesn’t make her an alpha female yet but anyway).

I’m getting the sense that we have different definitions for these types. Here are mine:

An alpha personality is one that naturally prefers to be in charge, and become easily frustrated when given a supporting role.
A beta personality is one that naturally prefers to be in a supporting role, and become easily frustrated when given a leadership role.
A gamma naturally likes both leading and supporting. If they are pragmatic about things, they can be the most successful type in social groups.
An omega is essentially a non-conformist, they like neither role, and have the most difficulty operating in groups.

Omega is sometimes the name given to the beta of the betas, e.g. the male that all the rest of pack take it out on, the lowest of the low.

Oh well… means I have my pick of nice guys right?

Women are poor pickers.

 

[chevalier]

In my own small experience it seems that “bad girls” easily get men… I have tried to be among a very good bunch of theological men who knew all about the virtues they wanted in females. Until big-booped-blonde-Susan walks in in her miniskirt and lowcut blouse giggling and… all the good and smart Catholic boys start running after Susan, leaving the smart, normal-pretty girls to themselves… Indeed this is the sad reality when watching “nice men”… But maybe woman notice this more than men, like men sees the other side of things.

That sounds kinda sad to me. While I mind appearance a whole lot, long skirt & low cut wouldn’t ever work on in me. And if it started to, I’d leave the room.

I have a feeling in generel that men are more focused on appearance and women are more focused on chemistry. Men are more focused on sex, and women are more focused on finding a best friend for life. Please do prove me wrong…

I actually may be able to. Please note how many guys complain about LJBF (“let’s just be friends”) all the time. The “nice guy” archetype is sometimes equated with the man who always hears, “let’s just be friends.” Because he has what it takes to make a woman feel good, feel safe and whatnot, is dependable, pleasant to be around etc. but lacks the certain oomph that would compel her… because she wants to be compelled? Surely not all women act like that, probably not even the majority, but this is rather noticeable sometimes.

As for men. Well, I’m probably not representative, but I can certainly tell you I look for a friend for life. And I like chemistry, as in some kind of sparks, intellectual fascination, emotional connection, spiritual one. As for appearance, I do like it, but my aesthetic preferences are much different from a meat market analogy.

The sad thing is that naive good girls meet guys like that and after such a relationship the good naive girl becomes a wounded, overprotective agressive person who is afraid to love or trust men. When a really good man then comes along she might in turn bite his head of and break his heart…

Story of my life, I guess.

I’m afraid my experience compels me to challenge this. While I wouldn’t wish to dominate all women, I certainly would at least want some real, powerful dominance over my soul mate.

I can’t believe you said that. It sounds really, really bad.

Guys can try to become alphas by what you’re describing, kind of. It might work sometimes. With girls, the process is more like rising in the court of Louis XIV, and it has a lot less to do with fitting into the right size of jeans than you think.

It’s a Byzantine process and has much more to do with other women than with men, it’d seem, except a woman who is able to wield powerful influence over men will still have much power over other women, regardless of the original queen bee mechanics. Not in the least because men won’t consider themselves so much with queen bee mechanics and will be ready to shake up that system (few things are more satisfying from a man’s perspective, you know ) or because a woman’s position on the queen bee succession list actually doesn’t make her more attractive to men, it has no bearing on her subjective attractiveness to them (may even put them off due to certain traits which manifest themselves in connection with a high position on that roster and which are seen as negative in women by men… generally the traits it takes for a woman to advance there are not very endearing and most men would prefer to avoid having to deal with them unless they are made brain-dead by primitive sexual imagery, such as the power of low-cut but there are men who can avoid being zombified by it).

I’m somewhere between your position and Havard’s. I do believe a girl can do a lot to improve her alpha quotient by acting more confident etc. (and a naturally average girl can still deliver a stunning impression on men if she works on it, e.g. with elective aspects of her looks), more or less like Havard described it for men. On the other hand, there’s a limit to what one can achieve with just clothes and act, regardless of one’s sex.

The healthiest thing for girls is to stay out of the whole dominance game, or at least not to concern themselves with it too much. Alpha females are made in the court of female opinion, and while it is not always that way–there are groups of females with both leaders and very healthy interrelationships–it is a court of opinion that is notoriously fickle.

That’s a gory business.

It’s a good read. I highly recommend taking the profile.

I know Littauer but I’m not sure you really can classify people like that. There’ll always be exceptions, “other sides”, unexpected decisions, value-based judgements, personal quirks, whatever else. For that matter, I’d probably die before I could decide which profile I myself am.

 

[GraceDK]

I’m afraid my experience compels me to challenge this. While I wouldn’t wish to dominate all women,** I certainly would at least want some real**, powerful dominance over my soul mate.

The day I find a woman who’s willing to switch those roles with me, to be the one submitting timidly to my authority, would be a miraculous day at least.

Again, I don’t wish this for all women. (It’d be a dreadfully boring world if I did.) Just the one for me. -.-

There we have a bad boy, right here.
When someone wants his loved one to be timidly submitted and dominated, women should stay away from that person

 

[Geist]

I’ve noticed many women have a masochistic streak as well.

 

[Debora123]

There we have a bad boy, right here.
When someone wants his loved one to be timidly submitted and dominated, women should stay away from that person

I think we are all misunderstanding Lost Wanderer here.

He’s definitely not a bad boy, and from what I’ve learned about him through posts, he does respect women. Probably more than a lot of the men here on CAF.

 

[JimG]

IMHO fleeting affections, disposability and fickleness aren’t romantic but the problem is that there are at least as many understandings of “romantic” as there are people.

Anyway, you mentioned my comment about Karl Keating’s words. Basically, pretty much all I’d like to say on the subject is that we can neither prove the “set apart before world existed” with regard to every single human person, nor can we disprove it. There is not enough data to back the assertion that everybody has a spouse chosen for him or her by God as a matter of God’s will and that human person’s calling in life (as opposed to get married and choose wisely). On the other hand, we can’t say that God doesn’t care enough for each single one of us, and on a very personal level, to be involved with our selection of a spouse. God cares more for us than our earthly parents do. We aren’t an anonymous mass of believers to Him, He has no trouble individuating every single one of us out of many billions, and caring individually about our respective lives. So we can’t really make a deist-like argument, attributing a non-interventionist attitude to God. Therefore I’m of a mixed mind when it comes to, “God has somebody in mind for you.”

I see. You’re disagreeing with Karl Keating and saying that maybe God really does have one particular person picked out for us, and our only job is to find her, or him. I find that quite unlikely. I think we select our own spouse and turn him or her into a princess or a prince by our decision to love them unconditionally for life.

 

[Havard]

Omega is sometimes the name given to the beta of the betas, e.g. the male that all the rest of pack take it out on, the lowest of the low.

Yeah, I’m not purporting my definition is the universal one, it’s just one I’ve heard discussed in other forums. In these cases, omegas didn’t enjoy leading or following others, they had a generally antisocial disposition. But as you mentioned, I have heard other usages where omegas are described as being super-submissive.

However there’s also the general question as to whether one is talking about internal disposition versus actual role within the hierarchy. I’m talking about the former, not the latter.

 

[Norseman82]

I see. You’re disagreeing with Karl Keating and saying that maybe God really does have one particular person picked out for us, and our only job is to find her, or him. I find that quite unlikely. I think we select our own spouse and turn him or her into a princess or a prince by our decision to love them unconditionally for life.

I’m with you and Karl on this. The whole “there is ONLY ONE PERSON designated from time immemorial to be your spouse” smacks of Calvinism/predestination, and can lead to cultlike manipulation or constant self-guessing and inability to make a decision; plus, what happens if you are married to X, and all of a sudden you decide Y was predesignated by God to be your spouse - do you divorce X to marry Y (who may be married to W!), and then plead before the annulment tribunal on grounds that X wasn’t predesignated by God, but Y was (and hope that the tribunal grants Y’s request to annul the marriage to W)? And then what happens if you get another “revelation” of “Oops, it wasn’t X or Y, but Z” - lather, rinse, repeat? How long does this continue?

 

[feed_me]

I’m with you and Karl on this. The whole “there is ONLY ONE PERSON designated from time immemorial to be your spouse” smacks of Calvinism/predestination, and can lead to cultlike manipulation or constant self-guessing and inability to make a decision; plus, what happens if you are married to X, and all of a sudden you decide Y was predesignated by God to be your spouse - do you divorce X to marry Y (who may be married to W!), and then plead before the annulment tribunal on grounds that X wasn’t predesignated by God, but Y was (and hope that the tribunal grants Y’s request to annul the marriage to W)? And then what happens if you get another “revelation” of “Oops, it wasn’t X or Y, but Z” - lather, rinse, repeat? How long does this continue?

I don’t know where I can stand on, but this is what I do know. I do know that God wants to put us with God fearing women or men, because if we don’t have somebody who is God fearing, what will happen is satan will use them to draw us away from our faith and God; happened to King Solomon, and God doesn’t want that to happen to us. That’s why I always ask if a women puts God first, if not bye. I don’t care how hott you are, God comes first.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think we are all misunderstanding Lost Wanderer here.

He’s definitely not a bad boy, and from what I’ve learned about him through posts, he does respect women. Probably more than a lot of the men here on CAF.

Indeed. Is it too much to wish for a wife who doesn’t:

a). Nag my brains out
b). Criticize me instead of having confidence in me
c). Talk too much
d). Assert herself needlessly
e). Give into the egotistical trends of Generation Me

 

[EasterJoy]

Your “let’s not go there” comment is fair because this is a slight tangent from original topic, however I think it’s hardly charitable to begin or end a discussion on “you have no clue”, without showing the other person a little consideration or interest in understanding.

I don’t mean to hurt your feelings, but you are dealing in some dangerous and insidious misconceptions, and there is no room for them. You may be innocent of wanting to hurt a fly, you may have thought you were just figuring out ways to raise the girl’s mood by raising her good hormones, but it doesn’t work that way in practice. Spreading this kind of thinking is not tolerable.

Besides that, I don’t think you realize how insensitive it was to imply that if a girl is not an “alpha” that you could instantly leap to the conclusion that her problem must be a lack of fitness and an overindulgence in fatty foods. Think about that!! That is what I really found to be a clueless, not to mention dangerous, belief. There are too many girls who believe this kind of nonsense, become anorexics, and they still aren’t alphas!! Heaven forbid that any actual girl take your advice to heart. She won’t hear what you said and think, “Get yourself some good brain chemicals.” She’ll hear it and think “Get yourself into an acceptable dress size.”

Worse yet, a girl who thinks she can gain a position of influence in this world by working her way to an “ideal” body is all too vulnerable to think her place in life is to please men by her looks. A girl who thinks her looks are her power will be totally primed to be preyed upon by the flatteries of a jerk.

Again, I don’t want to be too hard on you, but if a girl ever comes to you concerned because she’s not high enough on the pecking order, please do not mention fatty foods!

 

[Havard]

I don’t mean to hurt your feelings, but you are dealing in some dangerous and insidious misconceptions, and there is no room for them. You may be innocent of wanting to hurt a fly, you may have thought you were just figuring out ways to raise the girl’s mood by raising her good hormones, but it doesn’t work that way in practice. Spreading this kind of thinking is not tolerable.

Besides that, I don’t think you realize how insensitive it was to imply that if a girl is not an “alpha” that you could instantly leap to the conclusion that her problem must be a lack of fitness and an overindulgence in fatty foods. Think about that!! That is what I really found to be a clueless, not to mention dangerous, belief. There are too many girls who believe this kind of nonsense, become anorexics, and they still aren’t alphas!! Heaven forbid that any actual girl take your advice to heart. She won’t hear what you said and think, “Get yourself some good brain chemicals.” She’ll hear it and think “Get yourself into an acceptable dress size.”

Worse yet, a girl who thinks she can gain a position of influence in this world by working her way to an “ideal” body is all too vulnerable to think her place in life is to please men by her looks. A girl who thinks her looks are her power will be totally primed to be preyed upon by the flatteries of a jerk.

Again, I don’t want to be too hard on you, but if a girl ever comes to you concerned because she’s not high enough on the pecking order, please do not mention fatty foods!

For the third time now, I neither said nor implied any of these “insidious” things you are attributing to me.

I implore you to stop “reading between the lines” and just look at what I actually say. I don’t have time now, but I’ll PM you soon, as I have more I’d like to say, but I don’t want to extend the tangent in this thread.