Dating advice from a woman that actually works!

[Tazman]

Here's how I think "bad boy appeal" actually works (usually). It's just a theory, but it's based on life experience. I believe it's almost a case of smoke and mirrors.

This idea depends on two principles:
1. The woman is generally passive (she is the pursued, not the pursuer)
2. Women tend to become emotionally attached to men they have sex with (part of her instinct to insure survival of her offspring).

The bad boy (or "cad" as I will call him here, since that seems a better descriptor) does not care about the girl. He just wants sex.

The girl (being passive) waits for someone to ask her out. Usually the cad does this first since he isn't worried about being rejected (because he doesn't care about her opinion of him one way or the other - he just wants sex). He, from experience, will say and do whatever is necessary to get her into bed.

They have sex. The girl now has an emotional connection to him. He's got what he wanted so he leaves. This causes the girl pain, because she has gotten the rug pulled out from under. "I thought maybe this guy liked me, what happened?". If she wants any resolution out of it, she has to now chase him, because he is no longer interested.

In hindsight, because she doesn't really know the guy, she can impose or invent any personality about him she wants. She may romanticize him as "the one that got away", or she may realize she was simply duped. To the outside observer, she fell for a jerk.

Note that in no way here did she want or prefer to have an unreliable jerk as her partner. She just got suckered in by him.

This actually proves my point. What's the one thing this guy would require to believe he could sex this chick up and move on to the next with little to no investment? "Confidence" in his ability to do so.

She didn't predict he would do this, but she was attracted to his showing initiative and displaying the qualities of a guy who was sure of himself. Sometimes that's all it takes.

I think that's why guys tend to complicate things in trying to be all things to all women, it really isn't necessary.

 

[thomz_amadeus]

Isn't this thread lame to death?

In my early years I used to hang out with a lot of REAL bad boys. Not pvssy fakers. I'm talking about some serious testosterone-driven cats. These guys did not fvck nobody but prostituTes and/or social cases such as junkies, 16yo single mums and/or vulgar HB -10.

Nowadays I hang-out with quality gentlemen only. Wealthy, well-educated, courteous, sophisticated, successful and MANLY men. They do fvck LOADS of HB.

While they do so, you're here posting nonsense about this alpha-ness crap and this bad boy shjt.

I thought this was the mature man section.

Wake up.

 

[Zarky]

Just stumbled on this thread and I'm quite surprised to see this much discussion about the article, for the following reason:

The article linked to in the OP is what's known as a "filler" article. It has almost no content that anyone hasn't read before and serves to take up space and (on the net) get hits and links, etc.

The article was about 95% content-free, much like the billions of articles with names like "5 ways to make him want you," and "What men REALLY think about sex" that fill up women's mags and web sites.

I'm disappointed and shocked that such an article would generate any discussion here at all. It had almost no content. It was pure filler.

Here are some content-free quotes from the article, do they really warrant discussion?

"Remember, beauty does not equal perfection."

"There is never a bad time to approach a woman."

"Respect yourself first, and women will follow."

And actually, now I look at it again, pretty much every single sentence of the article is a meaningless platitude. What a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Duffdog]

This is a long thread about "alpha" and "bad boyness" all sort of thrown together.

A simpler way to define an alpha male is that he never has to try. An equivalent way to define a bad boy is that he has no need to try.

That should cover every scenario anyone can think of. So, a female who is attracted to the quintessential alpha male likes him because everything he does comes easy and does not require "thought", does not require preparation and mostly ends with him succeeding at whatever he was doing. This includes getting the hottest girls in the world to go home with him with nothing more than a wink.

This brings us to the "bad boy." The bad boy has no need to worry about anything any female (or male) thinks because none of it results in changes to his behavior. For example-- really big, mean guys who randomly punch people because nobody is bigger than they are can be considered "bad boys". Why? Because people on the receiving end of whatever he is doing have no choice but to submit. If they choose not to submit, they simply get to die. So, the choice is either submit, or die. Which one do you think most people end up going with? A more academic interpretation of the manifestations of a typical "bad boy" is that in any interpersonal circumstances, there is unequal power between him and someone else. That is, one who is a bad boy often gets to stomp on the rights of others for no reason other than he CAN. Whereas, a non bad boy would LOVE to be able to do exactly this and get all the girls, but due to his inferior stature, position in life, or status, he CAN'T.

In summary, an alpha male simply wins at everything because he was supposed to win while a bad boy wins because he can. Both types of males are attractive to females because they represent something that is difficult to do. It is easy to be a loser among millions of losers, but difficult to be the one guy who dominates all the losers.

All women go for looks, status and money for the simple reason that it is difficult to acquire any of those three, and even more difficult to acquire more than one of the three. If you look around at the alpha males you see in real life, you will notice that they make it a point to show everyone just how much more dominant they are than other males. My girl only went for me because she saw me destroy another male who was trying to talk to her while I was talking to her, though she will never admit it. In that particular case, it was status that won her--"or my badboyness" if you will. I wanted to throw the other guy to the ground because I felt like it and could beat the crap out of him and all of his friends at the same time if they even thought about confronting me or looking at me. In short, I got her because I COULD.

Its really a simple concept, honestly.

 

[zekko]

This brings us to the "bad boy." The bad boy has no need to worry about anything any female (or male) thinks because none of it results in changes to his behavior. For example-- really big, mean guys who randomly punch people because nobody is bigger than they are can be considered "bad boys". Why? Because people on the receiving end of whatever he is doing have no choice but to submit.

You're describing an alpha male here, not a bad boy. The biggest, most dominant male, who can beat up all the other males. If that's not the perfect description of an alpha in nature, I don't know what is.

He is a bad boy, because he randomly punches people (bad behavior), but that is secondary to the fact that he is obviously an alpha. Most of the attraction he generates will be because he is an alpha.
A bad boy may be an alpha, but an alpha is not necessarily a bad boy.

 

[Lexington]

So a bad boy goes around "randomly punching " people because nobody is bigger than he is? That's a surefire way to end up in prison or dead before the age of 30. Maybe back in the time of cavemen being the biggest and strongest guy made a difference, but nowadays people have guns.

 

[vatoloco]

So a bad boy goes around "randomly punching " people because nobody is bigger than he is?

Yes.

 

[Duffdog]

So a bad boy goes around "randomly punching " people because nobody is bigger than he is? That's a surefire way to end up in prison or dead before the age of 30. Maybe back in the time of cavemen being the biggest and strongest guy made a difference, but nowadays people have guns.

Your attitude shows exactly why the girls like them. Notice how you did not say that guys who can do that don't get all the hot girls, you just said that they could end up in prison. Well, doesn't sound so bad to me. And just to be clear, when tough guys get out of prison, they have a large amount of status in some circles-- causing them to get even more hot women than when they went in.

I wish to create a distinction: A bad boy is more likely to end up in prison whereas an alpha male is more likely to end up in a private jet. Both are attractive to women, and both display traits that males should strive to possess.

 

[Lexington]

Your attitude shows exactly why the girls like them. Notice how you did not say that guys who can do that don't get all the hot girls, you just said that they could end up in prison. Well, doesn't sound so bad to me. And just to be clear, when tough guys get out of prison, they have a large amount of status in some circles-- causing them to get even more hot women than when they went in.

I wish to create a distinction: A bad boy is more likely to end up in prison whereas an alpha male is more likely to end up in a private jet. Both are attractive to women, and both display traits that males should strive to possess.

Large amount of status in some circles? Yeah, maybe among the dregs of society. I highly doubt that many women who you would rate as "10s" i.e. girls who are beautiful, smart and educated go for ex-cons. The girls that do are probably almost all trash that you or I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. Well, I guess I can only speak for myself

I would argue that what attract a woman to a "bad boy" are the alpha qualities: confidence and masculinity. The bad qualities such as randomly punching people are not attractive. There is a major difference between being bold and being stupid. Punching people in the face without provocation falls into the latter.

Think of it like this: let's say there are two identical twins. They have identical looks, the same sort of dress sense and fashion and they also have identical status. Both of them are very confident and masculine. However, one of them is a complete prick. He gets into fights frequently, is abusive and basically makes a lot of unnecessary enemies. Which one is more attractive to women?

I would think it would be the one who isn't a prick. Thus, the negative qualities of a bad boy do not increase his attraction and they in fact reduce it. But, the alpha qualities that he possesses are what attract the women.

 

[zekko]

So a bad boy goes around "randomly punching " people because nobody is bigger than he is? That's a surefire way to end up in prison or dead before the age of 30. Maybe back in the time of cavemen being the biggest and strongest guy made a difference, but nowadays people have guns.

It's not like you can just shoot somebody that punches you though.
You'd end up in jail faster than the guy throwing the punches.

Let's see now, go around punching random dudes and get thrown in prison. This will get you a reputation, and the ladies will start pouring in.
Phew! I'm glad I diidn't listen to the woman. I might have gotten some bad advice.

 

[Lexington]

It's not like you can just shoot somebody that punches you though.
You'd end up in jail faster than the guy throwing the punches.

Yeah but if you are that much of a prick that you go around randomly punching people, it's only a matter of time before you end up really p*ssing someone off. Also, in certain circumstances, one could make the case that it was self defense. If someone assaulted you and you have a concealed weapon permit, you are within your rights to shoot that person.

 

[DianaHSlater]

I read that article last week and thought about posting it. I can't say I agreed with everything she said, but she did appear to have better insight into the subject than most women.

The quote about picking up the box is good. Because once you start going into more depth then you start introducing all these half truths or things that are only true for some people or things that are only true in certain situations, and it all gets to be a complicated mess.


Unlike Atom Smasher, I do agree with what she says here:
"Women DO NOT like bad boys. Not sure who started this rumor, but they must be shot immediately. Women do not sit around
with their girlfriends and say "Oh, Marni, I can't wait to meet a lazy, unreliable jerk who treats me poorly and feeds on my insecurities." Women like nice guys, not wimps, pushovers or pleasers; nice guys with a backbone and strong sense of self."

This is not to say women will not respond to a bad boy, but that is just one type she might respond to. I tend to think women go through a phase where they like bad boys (usually when they're very young - high school or shortly thereafter). I don't they think want a lazy, unemployed guy who doesn't treat her right, and isn't socially calibrated. She might put up with it for awhile, but if the guy treats her like bad, she WILL get rid of him eventually.
Unless she's a head case.

The problem is there is no definition of "bad boy". Every time I ask for a definition of what a bad boy is, all I get is a list of admirable (good) qualities.
I don't see how a bunch of good qualities = "bad". It makes no sense to me.

To me, a bad boy would be a lazy, unemployed, probably alcoholic, guy who is unable to adapt to society in a productive way, and doesn't know how to socialize properly/get along with people. I don't see what's so sexy about that.

I have never had to act that way in order to attract females. So I think this whole "bad boy" thing is more a marketing gimmick than anything else. A "type" that is easy for gurus to teach to guys who are the least common denominator (who have nothing else going for them).

i agree