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

[The_Bucket]

Athol is spot on with a lot of his analysis if you’re talking straight from an evolutionary standpoint. But see, that’s all you really need. That and the Church. Two quite timeless things.

Men have to cut through the latest trends and fads and the noise, noise, noise! That’s what gets the attention of women. No, you’re not going to make anyone swoon by being totally outside the norm to the point of being labeled freakish, but going against the grain in moderate ways is a surefire way of at least getting women’s attention.

Once you have that attention and the relationship, you have to constantly build trust and a common vision for the future while at the same time ensuring that you’re not becoming a doormat or totally unexciting. It is indeed a delicate balance and one that is never perfectly achieved.

From a Catholic perspective, I think starting with Christ is always a great idea and then applying the philosophy he has for his bride, the Church, and seeing how it can apply to women. He was quite radical, but not so far outside the norm that he would be rejected by everyone. He spoke at first to a small sect of zealots but his message eventually grew even though it was never diluted. He showed strength through humility but was not above righteously cracking some heads when greedy pigs stained his father’s house. Above all he was in command while being subservient to his father. He had moments of weakness as any man would but willingly gave himself up.

So take the practical nuggets in plain-spoken terms from Athol. They’re useful. Then distill them through the prism of Christ’s example. As always, be bold. Be assertive. Be self-assured. Be in command… but acknowledge that you are merely commanding the mission given to you by God.

 

[chevalier]

You know what I mean.:yup:

The jerks, bullies, rowdy, smooth talkin’ ones never want for women hanging all over them.

While the nice guys are sitting there thinking “what the heck, I thought girls wanted nice guys.” :doh2:

C’mon guys, let em hear it, vent a little.:sad_yes:

C’mon girls, why do you go for them?
:flowers:

First, you must know that I’m a guy. Twenty-nine of age, single, broken-hearted, with bad experience. As far as I understand human nature, this can’t not affect the way I see things, even if I don’t realise the influence. So take me with a pinch of salt.

Before we move on, I’d like to draw a line between “smooth-talking” and “bad guys”, especially of the rowdy, violent kind. I am a smooth talking person myself, I guess, and while I’m not going to argue whether smooth talking is good or bad (in which latter case you’re free to consider me a bad guy and I won’t really be taking offence since that could be a somewhat valid reason, whether ultimately justified or not) but there’s no direct link to violence, domestic abuse etc. Not actually saying you actually intended that association but “just sayin’”, you know.

Anyway, I remember reading somewhere that women are large risk-takers when it comes to relationships. It’s probably a bit similar to a cat taking an exciting trip around a bathtub, the edges of which are probably even more slippery than normal thanks to a patch of soap here and there that you can’t see before you walk into it. For the record, cats can swim, they just don’t particularly welcome practice opportunities (at least most cats don’t).

There’s definitely no single, overarching generalisation to answer your question, maybe other than perhaps a majority of young women may collectively lack experience, just like most young men (who also get in trouble with the wrong women: come to think of it, you do (or you wouldn’t be writing this topic), and so have I done). Women are different from each other, just like men are. Some go for excitement, others get a false sense of security derived from the real or perceived physical strength of a bullying man.

Also, the so called good or nice guys tend to lack the ability to offer the same intensity of entertainment (fewer stimuli etc.) as those “bad guys” and for this reason the “bad guys” may be more interesting to be around. Apart from bad appearing more interesting than good, the so called good guys may actually really be more boring than the so called bad guys (lacking things like interesting hobbies, conversation talent, engaging personality etc.).

Also, just like in sport or business, when there’s competition, competitors who experience fewer scruples tend to have a practical advantage in the short term (dishonest salesmen or advertisers get more sales… up to a point). This is why you may lose if you compete with a player, especially for a naive girl. This is particularly true when you compete with people who cheat, break the rules, manipulate and so on.

Another thing is that women are afraid of “ideal” men. They may fear it’s fake or won’t last, or they may be realising they fear commitment, aren’t ready for it, would prefer to keep dating various guys casually for some time yet. In fact, sometimes “nice guys” can be manipulative too, as in a different kind of manipulation, gentler, more sophisticated, less violent (not physically so, for one), but perhaps hurtful to a woman. As a fellow “nice guy”, I still have hurt a couple of them on a couple of occasions.

Finally, you don’t need to worry about “getting” women, nor is “many” relevant in your case. You just need one of them and you won’t be getting her, you will be giving herself to her and she to you. Different kind of relationship dynamics. Like, totally different. If you’re feeling nerdy, you could read John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility (may be distributed under his lay name, Karol Wojtyla).

If I may suggest something more, stop worrying about bad guys vs nice guys, perceived success, statistics, comparison data and all such. As I said, you only really need one girl and not the kind that likes bad guys.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

You sir, are one fortunate man. I’ve seen worse, hence my above post. Also, good Catholic girls (especially those who object to gay pornography in anime) are not easy to find here in the Far East!

Gay porn in anime? Ughhh. What would Totoro think?

 

[Havard]

Chevalier is being modest. He’s a gentleman, a scholar, and an international man of mystery.

 

[PatriceA]

It’s a pretty simple thing to figure out…and this really is no secret to most of us here. But fair warning, your mind will rebel against this.

Woman are attracted to Alpha traits within men: aggressiveness, assertiveness, confidence, etc. Woman are attracted to these men sexually, whether they like it or not. They make good mates because those genes are good for survival. Women are excited by these types because they display strong characteristics that are good for reproduction. The old saying, “women may not like jerks, but they are attracted to them”, holds a lot of truth. I think most guys here have plenty of data to back this up…and it also lines up anthropologically. These guys are the “bad boy”, the “douche bag”, etc…think The Situation…or anyone on Jersey Shore. Alphas.

Here’s the kicker…they’re also attracted to Beta traits within men as well: politeness, kindness, accommodation, gentleness, etc. This is the person they want to make a family with. This is the person they want to settle down with…BUT this is not always the same person they want to have a baby with. This is “the nice guy”, they guy who hears “oh…I just want to be friends…”, etc

Typically, when women cheat on their husbands/boyfriends, it’s usually with an Alpha…and it’s because the husband/boyfriend lacked Alpha traits. Easily fixed, but most guys don’t know the signs.

What you need is a balance between Alpha and Beta traits. Know when to be kind, loving, etc, and know when to be forceful, direct, and assertive. Too much Alpha, and you turn into Donald Trump…too much Beta and you turn into Raymond Barone (…the ultimate beta-male of the 90’s…)

These days, guys have been trained by our mostly feminist society to be betas: “Listen to your wife or you’ll get in trouble”, “ohhhh…she’s the boss of the house”, “ohhh…I don’t mess with her”, “ohhh…whatever she wants, she gets”. Sound familiar? Beta…beta…beta…beta. Men must walk a thin line between Alpha and Beta. Get it right, and girls will be attracted to you.

Now, you’re going to get feminists who completely reject this…and you’re inner training will absolutely hate reading this, but it is the truth. Men aren’t meant to be doormats…they are meant to be leaders of their family.

After reading your post, I’m so glad I’m married and don’t have to look at the dating scene like you seem to. Alpha, beta…please, men and women come in all varities, all types of personalities. Adults have affairs for many, many reasons and not just women with Alpha type males. If you seriously look at males and females from this point of view, well, there is little to wonder why certain people get “stuck” in relationships that go no where fast or complain they can’t find a “nice” person to date.

 

[johnnyjones]

Much of the “bad boy” complex that woman "suffer’ from is sexually rooted. Subconsciously some women may think a “nice guy” will not satisfy her, or be erotically experimental. As some posters have said boldness in a man becomes attractive because the perception is that the man knows what he wants…and will go for it.

Of course many women act coy or turned off by an assertive or crass man (too crass would turn anyone off) but secretly they desire it.

It is not some made up thing that women say, “he’s nice …but”.

As with anything else this does not apply to all women. Some women may fantasize about a bad boy but never go for it because they don’t want the headaches that come with it. Also , complementing women (single to single) rarely “works”. Sexual tension is what stimulates a women. Even the old western films reveal that writers knew how women really thought.

 

[chevalier]

After reading your post, I’m so glad I’m married and don’t have to look at the dating scene like you seem to. Alpha, beta…please, men and women come in all varities, all types of personalities. Adults have affairs for many, many reasons and not just women with Alpha type males. If you seriously look at males and females from this point of view, well, there is little to wonder why certain people get “stuck” in relationships that go no where fast or complain they can’t find a “nice” person to date.

Don’t forget about zeta males. They aren’t alpha, beta or omega or anything. Those are guys similar to the explorers of old, they don’t play somebody else’s game but neither are they interested in being the stereotypical alpha (or spend a lifetime competing for the position). Incidentally, they probably possess a couple of stereotypical bad boy traits.

Much of the “bad boy” complex that woman "suffer’ from is sexually rooted. Subconsciously some women may think a “nice guy” will not satisfy her, or be erotically experimental. As some posters have said boldness in a man becomes attractive because the perception is that the man knows what he wants…and will go for it.

Sounds sensible. From a disgruntled man’s perspective, I suppose the answer to that would be to find a woman who sees it as a positive and not negative thing that he won’t go where he is not welcome. Or at least won’t kick the door in.

Of course many women act coy or turned off by an assertive or crass man (too crass would turn anyone off) but secretly they desire it.

It is not some made up thing that women say, “he’s nice …but”.

Perhaps that’s similar to what I’ve been talking about recently with some family and friends. From my subjective experience or rather subjective impression of what’s been going on around me these years, I’ve formed the idea that it’s easier to form a submissive-domineering relationship than a partnership one (actually regardless which position you’d be in, basically just that there’s some kind of domination in place by one of the two persons forming the couple).

As with anything else this does not apply to all women. Some women may fantasize about a bad boy but never go for it because they don’t want the headaches that come with it. Also , complementing women (single to single) rarely “works”. Sexual tension is what stimulates a women. Even the old western films reveal that writers knew how women really thought.

That’s been suggested to me and my experience tends to confirm it. A man does seem to be friend-zoned if there’s no innuendo. Which poses a problem with a more consciously driven person who will refuse intentionally to stimulate another sexually, on ethical grounds. For example, I’ve used rather corny lines but I won’t say or do something that could lead a woman to sexual sin. I believe this is the morally correct position, so screw the outcome (non-consequentialist ethics FTW!), but frankly, if you care for another person, protecting that person from mortal sin (mortal danger to her soul) just simply outweighs the desire to become that person’s romantic partner without really much need to engage in scholastics.

Chevalier is being modest. He’s a gentleman, a scholar, and an international man of mystery.

Thank you, Norsequire. :tiphat:

 

[EasterJoy]

Women like a challenge
Nice guys are not a challenge

Incidentally, nice girls face a similar challenge

I think the challenge of nice girls is that they don’t look like forbidden fruit and they don’t look like a short-term prospect. This desire for excitement free of long-term consequences applies to women, too, by the way: the “forbidden” lover is exciting, and “hey, it’s not like I’m going to marry the person”. It’s not just the excitement of someone who will do surprising things, but the excitement of getting the attention of your shocked relatives. Unfortunately, these “difficult” people are “forbidden” for a reason, and they are often charming enough to induce their “short term” lovers to marry them, and to stay married for as long as it suits their purposes. Such a person can make your life miserable for a very very long time–a spouse can divorce you, but an ex is forever–but their “prey” don’t seem to get that.

*The real use of the infernal Venus is, no doubt, as prostitute or mistress. But if your man is a Christian, and if he has been well trained in nonsense about irresistible and all-excusing “Love”, he can often be induced to marry her. And that is very well worth bringing about. You will have failed as regards fornication and solitary vice; but there are other, and more indirect, methods of using a man’s sexuality to his undoing. And, by the way, they are not only efficient, but delightful; the unhappiness produced is of a very lasting and exquisite kind,

Your affectionate uncle,
Screwtape*

C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Letter #20

Sometimes, the jerk wins because the devil is helping him.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

You know what I mean.:yup:

The jerks, bullies, rowdy, smooth talkin’ ones never want for women hanging all over them.

While the nice guys are sitting there thinking “what the heck, I thought girls wanted nice guys.” :doh2:

C’mon guys, let em hear it, vent a little.:sad_yes:

C’mon girls, why do you go for them?
:flowers:

a priest told me that on the day i marry i MUST be sexually attracted to the man i marry and that i must have no doubts on my wedding day. this was after i always thought you just had to be friends with a guy. I am so thankful to that priest because now i have permission to only date sexually attractive men. unfortunately, other women are not as fortunate as me in learning this bit of wisdom. and you are lucky. because there are women who know this and women who don’t. the women who don’t can continue to be led around the nose thinking that they have to have sex with men they aren’t attracted to physically (taking the catholic chastity equation out of this because it is relevant to the thinking in today’s world). i on the other hand won’t be doing that. i suspect the good looking men and good looking women are together and the rest just assume they are both bad. it sounds like that is what you are saying.

when i was in college at least 10-15 years before i was guided correctly by that priest, i went out with a smooth talker. do you want to know why? he asked.

i have also gone out with a nice guy. do you want to know why? he asked.

neither of them were sexually attractive.

if you aren’t sexually attractive to someone or sexually attracted to someone, then why do you want to go out with them?

the bit about being good or bad is about personality. the sexual attraction bit cuts through the bs of your question. because the truth is, you are objecting to hot men and women getting together and leaving the less than hot out on the sidelines. but if you want hot you have to ask for a date and accept the possibility of rejection simply based on the fact they aren’t attracted to you lookswise or chemisty wise.

looks come first and then personality in determining a dating/relationship potential. my guess is that the whiners are not getting anywhere because they aren’t asking or they are striking out because of looks or bad social manners.

I have never gone out with a rowdy or a bully. i have gone out with a jerk, a smooth talker, and a nice guy. i hated the jerk by the way and the smooth talker. but at least they asked me out. why are they doing the asking and the so-called nice guys aren’t?

what i really want is a hot guy with a good personality. i don’t think that’s too much to ask or expect. i am sure you would agree. Its ok with me if he is a smooth talker. they have good social skills which is what i want.

as far as all this alpha stuff goes, i have to say I hate alpha males. i hate anyone who is alpha–male or female.

 

[chevalier]

I blame it on the lack of cave bears.

Badboy caveman- “I’m going to go hang out in the forbidden cave.”
Goodboy caveman- “The elders told us not to go there.”
Badboy caveman- “Elders? Pfft. They’re just trying to hold us down. No one can tell me what to do.”
Badboy caveman goes off to the cave.
Cavegirl- “He’s so cool!”
Screams coming from cave.
Goodboy caveman- “He’ll be cold in a few hours. Or at least the little pieces left of him will be.”
…
Cavegirl looks a goodboy caveman- “So, want to go hang out?”

…Goodboy caveman looks at cavegirl: “Nah, sorry, it takes two to form a smart gene pool.”

I’ll never forget back in high school when this one girl (whose boyfriend was in and out of juveneille detention centers) told me “I wish my boyfriend were more like you.” To which I thought “Then dump him and date me! I’m more like me than any other guy!” Of course, I said nothing. Which I think illustrates the problem.

I heard the exact same line around the same age.

One thing that I , and other men noticed, was that women often did go for the bad guys. And I observed this even in Christian singles groups. We often thought that women went for the bad ones so that they could change them. Never saw the logic of dating Fred in order to change him into a guy like Bob when they wouldn’t give Bob the time of day.

Fixer syndrome or something like that, I guess. Then again, it probably isn’t much different from the knight in shining armour syndrome where you rescue the distressed damsel.

And girls, if you date really lousy guys first how do you think the good guys feel when they are your fifth choice after you went through the scumbags? For those guys with strong moral, family beliefs you are not looking all that promising.

I guess if they added up the time we’ve spent chasing the bad girls or at least the distressed damsels, we could even be even.

Actually, here’s a book I’ll recommend on this whole subject of Alpha and Beta traits and how to balance them:

Just go “zeta”. Don’t play by dumb informal rules that have been put in place by force of habit and lack of opposition. Just do your own thing or, better, the right thing.

 

[PatriceA]

a priest told me that on the day i marry i MUST be sexually attracted to the man i marry and that i must have no doubts on my wedding day. this was after i always thought you just had to be friends with a guy. I am so thankful to that priest because now i have permission to only date sexually attractive men. unfortunately, other women are not as fortunate as me in learning this bit of wisdom. and you are lucky. because there are women who know this and women who don’t. the women who don’t can continue to be led around the nose thinking that they have to have sex with men they aren’t attracted to physically (taking the catholic chastity equation out of this because it is relevant to the thinking in today’s world). i on the other hand won’t be doing that. i suspect the good looking men and good looking women are together and the rest just assume they are both bad. it sounds like that is what you are saying.

when i was in college at least 10-15 years before i was guided correctly by that priest, i went out with a smooth talker. do you want to know why? he asked.

i have also gone out with a nice guy. do you want to know why? he asked.

neither of them were sexually attractive.

if you aren’t sexually attractive to someone or sexually attracted to someone, then why do you want to go out with them?

the bit about being good or bad is about personality. the sexual attraction bit cuts through the bs of your question. because the truth is, you are objecting to hot men and women getting together and leaving the less than hot out on the sidelines. but if you want hot you have to ask for a date and accept the possibility of rejection simply based on the fact they aren’t attracted to you lookswise or chemisty wise.

looks come first and then personality in determining a dating/relationship potential. my guess is that the whiners are not getting anywhere because they aren’t asking or they are striking out because of looks or bad social manners.

I don’t buy that “looks come first and then personality” bit. Not for one second. Its not my husband’s looks that attracted me to him. It absolutely was his personality and the way he treated his friends, both male and female. His loyalty and honesty are “hot.” I was and am still sexually attracted to his mind, that’s what makes him sexy. Give me a guy that can have a great conversation across the dinner table than one that’s “pretty” to look at any day.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

I don’t buy that “looks come first and then personality” bit. Not for one second. Its not my husband’s looks that attracted me to him. It absolutely was his personality and the way he treated his friends, both male and female. His loyalty and honesty are “hot.” I was and am still sexually attracted to his mind, that’s what makes him sexy. Give me a guy that can have a great conversation across the dinner table than one that’s “pretty” to look at any day.

patrice, if that’s what you want you are entitled to it.but i don’t buy your definition. its not good enough for me to just get used to someone who isn’t that good looking and then have sex with them. its not good enough. at least for me its not. and i don’t feel i am missing out on anything. if you want to have sex with someone who isn’t physically or sexually attractive that’s your business. for me, looks and sexual attraction are important. it is a no brainer that personality is also important but if the guy with a good personality isn’t sexually attractive too, forget it. i’m not taking a fat guy if you know what i mean. there’s no way princess leia belongs with jabba the hut.

 

[PatriceA]

patrice, if that’s what you want you are entitled to it.but i don’t buy your definition. its not good enough for me to just get used to someone who isn’t that good looking and then have sex with them. its not good enough. at least for me its not. and i don’t feel i am missing out on anything. if you want to have sex with someone who isn’t physically or sexually attractive that’s your business. for me, looks and sexual attraction are important. it is a no brainer that personality is also important but if the good personality isn’t sexually attractive too, forget it.

Did you bother to really read my post? I didn’t say you had to be with someone that isn’t sexually attractive to you, did I? No I did not. But looks are not as important to everyone as they seem to be for YOU.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Did you bother to really read my post? I didn’t say you had to be with someone that isn’t sexually attractive to you, did I? No I did not. But looks are not as important to everyone as they seem to be for YOU.

yes i read your post, you’re trying to say that I’m only into looks. and i’m not. you’re objection is that i am making looks a top priority and you are slamming me for it. its not like i haven’t heard objections like yours before. its common. a lot of women say that. but to me they are settling.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

for me and for most people looks do come first. you see a person first before you know anything about their personality. only a blind person is exempt. for him hearing comes first and then personality. and if you don’t like the sound of a person’s voice, they aren’t the one either.

 

[johnnyjones]

Looks are 100% important to men and women. If a person is good looking but has a terrible personality, or a personality you don’t care for of course you will take a pass. In rare cases looks can grow on you. Two people initially unattracted spending a lot of time together on a project or just working together can develop physical attraction… last. Not typical though.

Don’t settle as one poster said, you will feel incomplete but justify it. Your better off being single or perpetually dating in search of true completeness and satisfaction then taking the only one that will take you. With physical sexual attraction and friendship you can have a blissful lasting relationship and marriage.

 

[PatriceA]

yes i read your post, you’re trying to say that I’m only into looks. and i’m not. you’re objection is that i am making looks a top priority and you are slamming me for it. its not like i haven’t heard objections like yours before. its common. a lot of women say that. but to me they are settling.

I’m not objecting that you make looks YOUR top priority. I’m objecting that you are trying to speak for all. And if I’m not the first person to say this to you, perhaps you need to listen more and don’t be so quick to jump down other people’s throats when they tell you their OWN experience. I told you my experience in what attracted me to my husband, I never attacked you as you were so quick to attack me AND any other woman that does not agree with you.

 

[PatriceA]

Looks are 100% important to men and women. If a person is good looking but has a terrible personality, or a personality you don’t care for of course you will take a pass. In rare cases looks can grow on you. Two people initially unattracted spending a lot of time together on a project or just working together can develop physical attraction… last. Not typical though.

Don’t settle as one poster said, you will feel incomplete but justify it. Your better off being single or perpetually dating in search of true completeness and satisfaction then taking the only one that will take you. With physical sexual attraction and friendship you can have a blissful lasting relationship and marriage.

Your last paragraph is worth noting. Just know though settling can be subjective. Some people with “settle” for looks alone, and not spend enough time on the personality or the moral makeup of a potential spouse. Looks can fade and change, a true moral code or foundation in a mate not so much. And if all one focuses on is the outward appearance by society’s standards, they will reap the blessings OR curses depending upon how one sees it.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

no you insulted “pretty” men “hot” men “handsome men” and implied they were dumb and unable to hold an intelligent conversation and i object to that. just like pretty women are supposed to be dumb and ugly women are supposed to be smart. give me a break.

 

[PatriceA]

no you insulted “pretty” men “hot” men “handsome men” and implied they were dumb and unable to hold an intelligent conversation and i object to that. just like pretty women are supposed to be dumb and ugly women are supposed to be smart. give me a break.

OR you automatically assumed I meant someone physically good looking when I said someone that is “pretty”. My definition of “pretty” can be anyone shallow or without morals or self absorbed. You automatically assumed I meant physical appearance. You interpreted it by your own definition, not mine.