Late to this thread, but here's my perspective as a man who attained a high degree of self-control.
You are onto something, but there's a number of issues here.
It is true that the wild man that you describe is found attractive by a not insignificant number of women, but they lack what's necessary for a relationship to really be sustainable. These men are exciting, in the same way men find the batsh!t crazy hot chick exciting. Is this a good thing? Is it really? I don't think so.
The other end of the spectrum is the guy who's very stable, but to the point he's just living in a loop doing the same old day in and day out. Nothing exciting ever happens, he might just go to work, get home, eat, sleep, rinse and repeat for eternity. Never mixing it up, never doing anything different, fun, novel, exciting. He's not living his life, he's just going on autopilot all the time. She can be with that guy forever, but if she has any dreams of living and exploring what life might have to offer she can just forget about it because this guy is bound to his established comfort zone. He won't leave, he won't do anything different, but that basically means no fun as the crushing monotony of daily life is never deviated from.
Now, I want to bring your attention to the fact that there is a middle ground between the extremes here.
The problem with the wild guy is the complete lack of stability, which isn't sustainable for any sort of lasting relationship as there needs to be at least some sort of structure and predictability to not go insane being with someone. The problem with the super stable guy is the complete lack of excitement, which also isn't sustainable because not feeling is like being dead inside, which is not really living. Both are dysfunctional in their own ways.
The middle ground is to incorporate the best of both perspectives in order to avoid the weaknesses of each of them. What I mean is that there is a structure to the relationship, there is the autopilot and going through the motions to make a living, but those resources are as far as possible while having enough security for the future spent on experiencing life.
That's where I'm at. I have to go to work and earn money, it's the daily grind, that's life. I have to manage life in a way I don't fvck myself for tomorrow, that's stability. We need ground rules in a relationship, organize who does what and not fvck around too much with that order so we can live comfortably, not constantly fight about crap and not suffer unnecessarily while doing the grind. Then there's the entire fvcking reason for doing all of that boring crap, to have the resources to do what we desire to do, what's fun in life. We get to break the monotony and do something entirely different, something exciting, perhaps travel somewhere, whatever we want (within the limits of our excess resources of course).
Meanwhile I also play at a smaller scale, in daily life, doing whatever small thing I can to spice up an otherwise boring loop. Some do this by causing drama, that's why they fvcking do it, because the boredom is suffocating and I totally get it. However I say the people who cause drama lack imagination, it doesn't have to be negative in order to be exciting. Doing just about anything a bit different or out of the ordinary is enough to keep it lively.
What you are describing as a long lasting relationship isn't healthy even if it might last a long time (because of co-dependency). There's plenty of couples out there who have been together for decades, but are toxic as fvck. To me a relationship isn't merely about lasting long, fvck, I don't want it to last long at all if we don't actually positively thrive together. I'd personally rather be alone than be in a relationship without a stable foundation.
A lasting healthy relationship needs aspects of both stability and novelty. Men who just have one or the other are incomplete, they are out of balance in life and just continuing down one path or the other is ultimately destructive. We need to take the middle path and strike a balance between these opposing forces in order to sustain and build a good life. There's downsides to both when taken to extremes.
This actually highlights how I think about many things, such as the classic nice guy vs. jerk. The answer lies somewhere in between and is somewhat related to the false dichotomy you're illustrating here. You can't be nice all the time or you will get absolutely abused, but you can't be an assh0le all the time either because nobody really wants to be constantly abused. The balance I find here is reciprocation across the entire range, I'm nice if you're nice and I'm an assh0le towards you if you're an assh0le towards me. I live by that and so far it has proven to be highly effective, even in turning people who strongly disrespect me into people who grow to respect me once they realize I'm playing by this simple rule. Same applies to women, a b!tch is met by an assh0le response from me. A kind woman is met with kindness. I'm just reflecting back to them what they're giving me, so if a woman wants me to treat her well all she has to do is treat me well, it's her choice.
This works excellently against testing behavior btw. As we all know, most women will test a guy at some point, particularly if it has all been kind up until then. She'll do something that's at least a little bit mean to see what you're made of. Now, a nice guy will double down on his niceness in the hopes she'll go back to being nice, but as he's rewarding bad behavior it makes him look weak and exploitable. A jerk will probably keep being a jerk even when she goes back to being kind, which is bad because it's punishing good behavior. What I will do is be kind right up until the point she's mean, then I'll be mean in return proportional to how mean she's being. Most often she goes back to being kind and I'll immediately flick back to that myself.
There's also something to be said about stability here. The rules of my game is as simple as it gets, I do to you what you do to me, that's the stability, the unchanging foundation.
The really wild men do not adhere to this principle as they're driven by whatever emotion they have in the moment, as such they're unpredictable and volatile, destructively so as they may punish what should be rewarded and perhaps also reward what should be punished. The rules are unclear as she can't read his mind and his emotions change from moment to moment based on unclear conditions.
I have the capacity to be kind and I do prefer that, but I will not hesitate to turn into an assh0le if someone is mean. My game being that clear and simple let's others catch onto it pretty quickly.
There's this guy at work who was a disrespectful piece of sh!t towards me many years ago, just as I was learning this strategy. I applied it to him. As long as he kept being that way I made it as hard as possible for him to deal with me without doing anything that would get me in trouble with HR of course. The guy was absolutely pissed at me for like a couple of months (he's stubborn) and I just didn't yield an inch. Eventually he came around and showed me a little bit of respect and I made sure to change my demeanor to a more positive towards him. Since then he hasn't messed with me and at times have actually been nice towards me, I'll keep the good tone for as long as he does.
Regarding women I have similar experiences. They've started off basically acting like cvnts towards me, immediately I conjure my inner assh0le in response. What's funny is just how quickly they go to the opposite end of the spectrum, suddenly they're being all kinds of nice towards me, which obviously I reward to amplify it. They might flip to test later just to make sure, so do I, they flip back and so do I.
This establishes the fact that I'm giving, but I have boundaries and in order to get something they need to give something. In other words, I'm not free and easy to get, not exploitable, she needs to qualify herself and I've shown her exactly how to do so. All she needs to do to get something out of me is to give in return. Kind, but not weak.
So yeah, whenever you see something two sided, instead of assuming there's only two options and trying to decide which one is better, consider that there might be a better third option somewhere in the middle. Combining the strengths to lessen the weaknesses of both.
