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

  • Thread starter Thread starter itullian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not true, seen it happen lots of times. Quiet women just seem prone to never asking questions, and it ends up feeling like an interrogation to the man even when they don’t ask questions, but say regular things to get the girl to speak up. Relationships are a 2 way street people. You have to speak up to get to know somebody.
maybe you’re not a good conversationalist yet.
 
Sin is attractive, it was what lured Eve.
And that’s how it works for us.
“…do you reject the glamour of evil…?”

glam·our /ˈglæmər/
noun
  1. the quality of fascinating, alluring, or attracting, especially by a combination of charm and good looks.
  2. excitement, adventure, and unusual activity: the glamour of being an explorer.
  3. magic or enchantment; spell; witchery
 
Ironically, I just saw this on MSN:

living.msn.com/love-relationships/the-heart-beat-blog-post?post=8d879c9c-c136-431c-9658-c5b7be627f9c

On another note - one that I have posted before, but is appropriate repeating for this thread - when the last lady I dated broke up with me to enter a religious community, she told me that was the risk you took in dating a religious girl and that if I wanted to get married I should look for a “bad girl” (and before anyone jumps over me, those were HER words, not mine). To this day I am still haunted by those words.
 
A few thoughts:

First, can we ban the word “nice”? What does it even mean, in this context? I don’t believe “niceness” is necessarily a positive virtue. In this context, I’m reading it as “not a jerk or abusive or a cheater”. Well, yay you. For any emotionally healthy person, male or female, this is going to be a minimum requirement in the person they want to date. However, it is not sufficient to build a relationship on, if various other factors aren’t there. If a “nice” guy asks a woman out and she says no, it’s probably not because she “only likes bad boys”. It’s probably because she doesn’t feel an emotional/intellectual/spiritual/physical attraction to the “nice” guy. It’s not a judgment on his character, just her being, as they say, not into him. Men are not compelled to ask out women they are not into, and women are not compelled to go out with men they are not into.

Second, does anyone truly believe that all women, or all men, are all alike? That we are all nothing more than slaves of evolutionary psychology or biology or whatever? Thinking that way is probably one of the reasons people may be having a lack of success with the opposite sex. I think it’s important to see each person of the opposite sex as a unique individual and not merely as someone who may or may not go out with you. And I can’t believe that people are still trotting out that whole alpha male, beta male nonsense. Really, people. I believe in evolution, but we are not orangutans. We do have this little thing called Free Will, if we bother to exercise it.

P.S. That study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is hardly “science”.
I see some value in the concept of “nice” as in a basic manner of interaction with others, marked by kindness and cooperation and opposite to being a jerk or an adversarial or crude or otherwise offensive manner. On the other hand there can be some problems with such a categorisation, primarily because of how subjective it is and how mixed up it can get with simply being soft (or even a doormat).
If a “nice” guy asks a woman out and she says no, it’s probably not because she “only likes bad boys”. It’s probably because she doesn’t feel an emotional/intellectual/spiritual/physical attraction to the “nice” guy. It’s not a judgment on his character, just her being, as they say, not into him.
Yes, of course, but that doesn’t somehow invalidate the discussion we’re having here. A woman being or not being into a certain type of men (in this case the stereotypical “bad guys”, without insisting on any specific, narrow definition) is very much within the boundaries of this discussion.
Men are not compelled to ask out women they are not into, and women are not compelled to go out with men they are not into.
True but that’s beside the point. Nobody says there is an obligation to accept dating invitations from men classified as ‘nice’ or ‘not bad boys’, nor even an obligation to avoid ‘bad guys’. Commenting on the subject, even negatively, doesn’t yet amount to a proposition of rights or obligations.
“…do you reject the glamour of evil…?”

glam·our /ˈglæmər/
noun
  1. the quality of fascinating, alluring, or attracting, especially by a combination of charm and good looks.
  2. excitement, adventure, and unusual activity: the glamour of being an explorer.
  3. magic or enchantment; spell; witchery
Now we’re talking! :p;) (j/k)
maybe you’re not a good conversationalist yet.
Maybe but maybe he’s average (or better) at that and wants someone who’s also average (or better).
yes, that would be me actually. i want a number of quality men to choose from. I tend to believe that you will know who the one is anyway on first sight but i still want the freedom to choose amongst an assortment of quality men.
Quite a sense of entitlement have we!
I tend to believe that you will know who the one is anyway on first sight
I’ve ‘known’ that a couple of times, you know.
While reading this thread, I was reminded of something Karl Keating wrote in an e-letter some time ago. So I searched for it and found it. Here is an excerpt:

“Some speakers who have spoken for us, when first starting out, told their young audiences that somewhere out there was a Prince or Princess Charming, someone fated from all eternity to be a young person’s perfect match. Listeners were told something like this: “Save yourself for that one person that God has set aside just for you.” When I learned that this is what was being said, I told our speakers to cut it out–because it wasn’t true. It sounded romantic, and it sounded pious, but it wasn’t true.”

I urge everyone to go back and read it. It is a small antidote to excess romanticism, which is not love, and which can kill marriage if made the only priority.

It can be found here:

archive.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_080108.asp
IMHO that can be true, it’s just that there’s not enough data to ascertain yes or no. One can’t make such a claim out of thin air (not in the least because of the amount of predestination weaved into it) but on the other hand one can’t base any argument on a premise that God doesn’t care sufficiently for a single human being since God cares infinitely, and is concerned, and is totally capable of addressing each of billions of humans individually (something we may have trouble imagining). Therefore the way I see it there’s a stale-mate.
 
Ironically, I just saw this on MSN:

living.msn.com/love-relationships/the-heart-beat-blog-post?post=8d879c9c-c136-431c-9658-c5b7be627f9c

Durante, along with a team of researchers, performed a study on a group of women during periods of both high and low fertility. The women were asked to view the online dating profiles of both nice guys and “sexy cads” (their words, not mine). From there, the ladies were to determine the parenting potential of the men in the photos.

And here’s where the hormones come in. During the time of ovulation, women tended to perceive the bad boys as better future fathers and more dependable relationship partners. Their rating of the nice guys, however, stayed the same, whether they were ovulating or not.
“Under the hormonal influence of ovulation, women delude themselves into thinking that the sexy bad boys will become devoted partners and better dads,” said Durante. "When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right,” said Durante.

Aside from sounding like a bawdy joke gift from Spencer’s, “ovulation goggles” seem to have some significance. They completed another study, in which the women interacted directly with male actors who were either playing the role of reliable dad or sexy cad. The results were the same. The ovulating women believed the cad was the better dad.

So, great. Now there’s scientific proof that we women like bad boys. (not so fast—see below)
the problem with these two studies is that the researchers defined nice guys and bad boys for the women—not the women.

a guy putting on an act of the bad boy who doesn’t look attractive to me wouldn’t get my attention on three fronts: looks, the way he dresses, and the way he talks.

a guy putting on act of the nice guy who doesn’t look attractive to me still wouldn’t get my attention because of looks, the way he dresses, the way he talks.

well, getting my attention is probably not the right nuance but you get the picture…he ain’t getting any.
 
Maybe but maybe he’s average (or better) at that and wants someone who’s also average (or better).

True

Quite a sense of entitlement have we!

😃

I’ve ‘known’ that a couple of times, you know.

lol:)
 
Don’t hate the player. Hate the game.

And yeah, I’m joking.

A friend of mine (married woman) once told me:

“We don’t even know what we want. So why do men waste time trying figure out what we want when we don’t even know?”

It’s complicated, but I’m going to invoke Freud and argue that most women do indeed seek out some version of their father.
 
Don’t hate the player. Hate the game.

And yeah, I’m joking.

A friend of mine (married woman) once told me:

“We don’t even know what we want. So why do men waste time trying figure out what we want when we don’t even know?”

It’s complicated, but I’m going to invoke Freud and argue that most women do indeed seek out some version of their father.
i think people tend to seek out some version of their mother or the most loved member of their family, could even be a sibling type.
 
You know, part of the problem might be that a lot of women turn down a man’s advances by saying, “You are a nice guy but…”

I think maybe some men think that they are being turned down for being “nice” when the woman is really just trying to soften the message that she’s not interested.
 
You know, part of the problem might be that a lot of women turn down a man’s advances by saying, “You are a nice guy but…”

I think maybe some men think that they are being turned down for being “nice” when the woman is really just trying to soften the message that she’s not interested.
That is possible, and a bit weirder than the whole “let’s just be friends” line.
At least the latter is not vague.
 
It’s a societal problem from years of breeding that has lacked proper upbringing.

I agree with the op, but I would add that it doesn’t happen all the time. It is more of the rule than the exception though.

Guys are losing the ability to stand up for themselves. Guys are not being the good solid confident platform for women to align themselves to. They are not acting as “spiritual leaders to a domestic church”. Be an alpha. Be strong. Align yourself with God, make it known, and she will align herself to you.

Women are becoming too individualistic and trying to become the “typical alpha male” (with varying degrees, of course). Now guys have to compete with women who are only attracted to guys that are MORE alpha than they are. Women want the alpha of the alphas, which are generally not the nicest guys.

I say forget about it and just become a priest! Nothing against all of the wonderful, talented, and beautiful women… but God’s church is a hard spouse to compete with.

Ite in pace,
Joshua C.
 
You know what I mean.

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

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

C’mon girls, why do you go for them?:hmmm:
hmmm imagine a man who looks like a “bad boy” but he’s really a God-loving man, a practicing Roman Catholic…:love: with strong moral values…😃

or would you go for a man who looks nice but he’s not a God-loving man? :tsktsk:

It’s rare to meet a man who looks nice and is a God-loving man, and if you do meet him, he’s already taken! (or he’s physically unattractive…no offense!!)

In my fantasy, I have Tasuku Kurosaki! (from Dengeki Daisy manga) ❤️

😃
 
It’s a societal problem from years of breeding that has lacked proper upbringing.

I agree with the op, but I would add that it doesn’t happen all the time. It is more of the rule than the exception though.

Guys are losing the ability to stand up for themselves. Guys are not being the good solid confident platform for women to align themselves to. They are not acting as “spiritual leaders to a domestic church”. Be an alpha. Be strong. Align yourself with God, make it known, and she will align herself to you.

Women are becoming too individualistic and trying to become the “typical alpha male” (with varying degrees, of course). Now guys have to compete with women who are only attracted to guys that are MORE alpha than they are. Women want the alpha of the alphas, which are generally not the nicest guys.

I say forget about it and just become a priest! Nothing against all of the wonderful, talented, and beautiful women… but God’s church is a hard spouse to compete with.

Ite in pace,
Joshua C.
Honestly, here’s my two cents.
I want to date an assertive woman (in addition to her being a good, Catholic, intelligent and wholesome woman), but I’ll never date a female alpha again. I feel that when I am in a romantic relationship with an alpha, there will be the clash of personalities. A clash which is not only inevitable, but would end the romantic relationship rather badly for both sides.
 
hmmm imagine a man who looks like a “bad boy” but he’s really a God-loving man, a practicing Roman Catholic…:love: with strong moral values…😃

or would you go for a man who looks nice but he’s not a God-loving man? :tsktsk:

It’s rare to meet a man who looks nice and is a God-loving man, and if you do meet him, he’s already taken! (or he’s physically unattractive…no offense!!)

In my fantasy, I have Tasuku Kurosaki! (from Dengeki Daisy manga) ❤️

😃
I don’t know about what people look like here, but… have you been introduced to Lost Wanderer? :whistle:
 
. . . . IMHO that can be true, it’s just that there’s not enough data to ascertain yes or no. One can’t make such a claim out of thin air (not in the least because of the amount of predestination weaved into it) but on the other hand one can’t base any argument on a premise that God doesn’t care sufficiently for a single human being since God cares infinitely, and is concerned, and is totally capable of addressing each of billions of humans individually (something we may have trouble imagining). Therefore the way I see it there’s a stale-mate.
I don’t quite understand your comment with respect to the Karl Keating article. The point of it was that marriage has to be based on love, not on infatuation, emotion or trying to find an imagined ideal spouse with all the correct qualities. Emotion, appearance, and romance–all of those things enter into courtship, and once one decides that he will love this woman for a lifetime, they are enhanced, not forgotten. But for marriage to work, an act of will is required, a lifetime commitment, and that enables both spouses to rest in the surety of love.

Courtship threads so often seem to settle on a discussion of things which are less important in the long run. Men and women have been marrying for several thousand years, often with the marriages arranged by parents. Did those marriages fare worse than our current 50% divorce rate? I don’t think so. Are young people better at selecting mates for themselves than their parents were at selecting for them? I don’t know. Does concentrating too much on non-essential make things worse? Just some things I think about.
 
Honestly, here’s my two cents.
I want to date an assertive woman (in addition to her being a good, Catholic, intelligent and wholesome woman), but I’ll never date a female alpha again. I feel that when I am in a romantic relationship with an alpha, there will be the clash of personalities. A clash which is not only inevitable, but would end the romantic relationship rather badly for both sides.
I’m not too sure what an “alpha female” is, precisely, or the degree to which a hard-edged woman’s better self can be summoned from within a shell largely created by a commercial world.

But I do like a more assertive female. That’s part of the reason why I married a yankee woman, though I’m a southerner myself by accent, background and culture. I’ll never forget how wonderful they seemed when I went into yankeeland for college. Straightforward, largely honest, pretty sure of themselves, plain spoken, never pretending to be weak or incompetent.

Now, I’ll admit, they were midwestern yankees. I did have the obligatory rich eastern girlfriend back in grad school, (think “Gatsby”) and that was an entirely different experience.

But back on topic, I guess I could have been described as a “bad boy” and many of my peers thought of me that way. But some young women, (and especially my wife) saw through all of that to a better self.

Let’s face it, all men and boys are savages by nature. If women disappeared from the earth, we would all be Huns. It is only because of women that we are ever better than that. Some of us grow out of it, and some of us don’t. But women shape us a lot and, truth be told, I think a lot of women like at least some element of Hun-like nature in a man, if she thinks she can shape the Hun into a strong husband and father.

Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t.
 
I’m not too sure what an “alpha female” is, precisely, or the degree to which a hard-edged woman’s better self can be summoned from within a shell largely created by a commercial world.

But I do like a more assertive female. That’s part of the reason why I married a yankee woman, though I’m a southerner myself by accent, background and culture. I’ll never forget how wonderful they seemed when I went into yankeeland for college. Straightforward, largely honest, pretty sure of themselves, plain spoken, never pretending to be weak or incompetent.

Now, I’ll admit, they were midwestern yankees. I did have the obligatory rich eastern girlfriend back in grad school, (think “Gatsby”) and that was an entirely different experience.

But back on topic, I guess I could have been described as a “bad boy” and many of my peers thought of me that way. But some young women, (and especially my wife) saw through all of that to a better self.

Let’s face it, all men and boys are savages by nature. If women disappeared from the earth, we would all be Huns. It is only because of women that we are ever better than that. Some of us grow out of it, and some of us don’t. But women shape us a lot and, truth be told, I think a lot of women like at least some element of Hun-like nature in a man, if she thinks she can shape the Hun into a strong husband and father.

Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t.
I’m referring to those women are too controlling and manipulative. My first ex-girlfriend was like that and it bothered me. Whenever I was with her, I felt uneasy. Then again, she confessed to me so that she can use me. I let her do that out of mere desperation. That, was truly embarrassing.

My point is, if a woman wants to mold me because she cares about my well-being, I’d say go for it. But, if it’s to assert her false sense of femininity and/or trying to control me, forget it.
 
I have dated ONE bad boy in my life. It didn’t last long. Yes, the take charge attitude and confidence was attractive but his complete lack of respect was annoying.

All the other men I have dated have been nice guys. 🤷

So I have no idea what you’re talking about.
 
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.

After Romanticism till the present day, the paradygm reverted. To be Good is bad and to be a BAd Boy is to be good.

Michael Jackson, not necessarily the image of a Bad Boy, sang: “I am bad, bad, bad,…” I do not know how many times. He did not look bad but to be good he had to pretend to be bad. Now imagine him singing: “I am good, good, good…”. It would be a laughing matter.

Now what Romanticism brought? Brought the image of the outsider, the gangster, the outlaw, the wanderer, the fellow who was not understood by society, the fellow who had soooooo muuuuuuch to give to society but society did not understand hi. So he had to go away, away, away…

They were the cowboys, the fellow who shoot so many but he was a victim of society for once he was bullied as a child for a fellow student threw a ball to his head, so he was traumatized for life, the mother did not understand his pain, the father non plus, none, only some sweet blue eyes which unwrapped him but…he had to go away and fall under a rain of bullets.

RIP.

So is the image of the romantic dreamer unadappted to society who has much to give and can give nothing for there is no connection with him with society.

Present day Society descends directly from the romantic times…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top