What's the real reason why women today are chasing after bad boys?

[Speculator E]

This is just a crazy thought I had.

I read somewhere that it's the beta males that build civilization. When marriage was strong. So it's assume that it's mostly beta males that spread their genes?

But today, you're hearing a lot about feminism has destroy society. Women are becoming sluttier. And they are mostly chasing after bad boys. And we this is good for the alpha males. But bad for the beta males. Because the alpha males can now fvck with as many *****s as he can.

Today, the western world is full of beta males because it was mostly beta males who marry and have kids. Could this be nature's way of bringing the balance back? Could nature be trying to get more alpha males to pass on their genes and create more alpha sons?

All assuming alpha and beta are due to genetics.

 

[adam225]

Because they are attracted to someone who they can't control. Someone stronger than them ideally.

 

[Who Dares Win]

This is just a crazy thought I had.

I read somewhere that it's the beta males that build civilization. When marriage was strong. So it's assume that it's mostly beta males that spread their genes?

But today, you're hearing a lot about feminism has destroy society. Women are becoming sluttier. And they are mostly chasing after bad boys. And we this is good for the alpha males. But bad for the beta males. Because the alpha males can now fvck with as many *****s as he can.

Today, the western world is full of beta males because it was mostly beta males who marry and have kids. Could this be nature's way of bringing the balance back? Could nature be trying to get more alpha males to pass on their genes and create more alpha sons?

All assuming alpha and beta are due to genetics.

I never considered that view but it could make sense, a society under pressure from the third world which is running out of warriors and may need some to protect itself.

A$$holes and sociopaths may not be the best work mates but they surely make better soldiers than nice guys wheter is proper warfare or guerrilla.

But I think the action from nature is not to make more alpha through genetics but to make less betas through pissing them off and make them change while at the same time to avoid the creation of new ones.

Anyway its sad that those same man responsible of progress at civilization in the first phase are responsible of the downfall right after.

 

[PlayHer Man]

Who acts more masculine? Bad boys or faggot betas? What are women more attracted to? Feminine behavior or masculine behavior? :crackup:

There is your answer.

Women don't give a sh!t who dies in wars, builds society or fixes their car. Those people might as well be women, chimps or worker ants. All women care about is what makes their vagina tingle and raises their status in life.

 

[Zarky]

OP, read "Lady Chatterly's Lover." Women have always liked the bad boys. Roman gladiators, who were usually uneducated criminals, got more p*ssy (and upper-class p*ssy at that) than you or I will ever hope to garner.

To think that women's (or men's) behavior has changed substantially in the recent past is to fail to understand history in the slightest. Sure, social structures are modified over time, but what appears to you to be vast changes throughout society are only minor variations when compared with the breadth of human history.

Study history if you want to be fully educated and informed. Start now.

 

[speed dawg]

Who acts more masculine?

This is all you need to know.

 

[sharkbeat]

NOBODY is born an alpha. Alpha/Beta is not genetics, it's a state of being, and like any states, they can switch back and forth depending on what happens in your life. They are also plenty of gray areas in between, meaning you can't become 100% alpha, nor can you become a 100% beta. It's a ratio of how much of an alpha you are, and this number slides back and forth depending on what you do everyday.

Alphahood is the byproduct of your society, your experiences, and your personality. When these three factors play out right, you will triumphant as more of an alpha. When they are not, either you become more of a beta, or you die.

You can't become an alpha with sedentary lives. A lot of folks here think they can become an alpha by just reading the DJ bible, workout, dress nice, act cool, cracking jokes, and drive a Porsche with a spinning rim. Holy mother fvck, NO! You become an alpha through hardships! Expose yourself to life-threatening situations that takes ALL of you to survive. Sounds crazy? Exactly! That's why there are so very few real alphas in real life!

Look at our society today, it's all about comfort. Get the new iPhones with all-new features. Get nice apartments. Get nice houses, with nice air-conditioned gym! All of these are comfortable living designed for women. Simply going to the gym and looking at your biceps everyday won't make you an alpha. That would make you a self-conscious b!tch. Walking with a swagger won't make you an alpha, it'd make you a self-conscious b!tch.

It takes RISKS to become an alpha. When everything in society is geared toward minimizing risks, you wonder by there are so few of them?

Genghis Khan did not become Genghis Khan with comfortable living. He was born at a time of war between tribes. His dad got killed, he already became a POW at a young age. Being exiled with no tribe, he had to hunt for his own food. He had to recruit his good friends to seek revenge. Because of this, he APPRECIATES good people and friendships. He doesn't talk down to people so he can appear an alpha, because he already IS. AMOG is dumb beta pua tactics, cheap imitation, and only works against other betas. However, that won't make you an alpha, just a beta triumphant over another beta.

Having said this, it doesn't mean you need to become a "true" alpha to get women. Some women are okay with imitations. Money, social status all indicators of power which is a trait that an alpha possesses. There are rich dumb betas with hot chicks, or a popular but poor leader that women respect. You can still get women without having to become a true alpha, if pvssies is all you seek.

 

[Iceberg]

Today, the western world is full of beta males because it was mostly beta males who marry and have kids. Could this be nature's way of bringing the balance back? Could nature be trying to get more alpha males to pass on their genes and create more alpha sons?

All assuming alpha and beta are due to genetics.

It feel like this is one of those "back in the good old days" arguments.

To say that today's world is full of betas would imply that yesterday's world was full of alphas. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an alpha leads a group of people. So by definition, the alpha will always be the smaller group because you can't have more leaders than followers.

And really, we can dig up stories, songs, and poems from centuries ago of some dude crying over the girl who left him for the "bad boy". I don't think it's a uniquely modern problem.

Yeah, women in the old days were completely dependent on their husbands. So you didn't have women leaving their boring, stable husband for an unpredictable bad boy. But, that doesn't mean the desire wasn't there. It was just two married people who hated each other's guts, but had nowhere else to go.

I never considered that view but it could make sense, a society under pressure from the third world which is running out of warriors and may need some to protect itself.

A$$holes and sociopaths may not be the best work mates but they surely make better soldiers than nice guys wheter is proper warfare or guerrilla.

I don't think that most soldiers are automatically alphas. In any society (well, MOST societies), during times of war, you'd take your men and put weapons in their hands. Whether he's some playboy alpha or some lovesick beta, if you give a guy weapons and tell him to kill people because his life depends on it, he'll do it. The alphas are the guys leading the war. The guys in the field are a mix of whoever is available in that society.

 

[zekko]

To say that today's world is full of betas would imply that yesterday's world was full of alphas. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an alpha leads a group of people. So by definition, the alpha will always be the smaller group because you can't have more leaders than followers.

This was before the PUA movement. Now all you have to do is study pickup and poof we have a whole forum full of alphas (or rather, guys who think they are). Good point, though.

I don't think that most soldiers are automatically alphas. In any society (well, MOST societies), during times of war, you'd take your men and put weapons in their hands. Whether he's some playboy alpha or some lovesick beta, if you give a guy weapons and tell him to kill people because his life depends on it, he'll do it. The alphas are the guys leading the war. The guys in the field are a mix of whoever is available in that society.

You need some hardcore leader types, but betas are probably most desireable for your average soldier. The military needs people who are going to take orders.

This is why armies tend to prefer young men, close to 18. They tend to do what they are told without thinking. They are also more likely to be idealistic and be willing to sacrifice themselves for a greater good. Put an older, more experienced guy out there and he may question if the politics of what they're doing is really worth it, and may be more interested in keeping his butt safe than making a risky move to take that machine gun nest.

 

[Speculator E]

NOBODY is born an alpha. Alpha/Beta is not genetics, it's a state of being, and like any states, they can switch back and forth depending on what happens in your life. They are also plenty of gray areas in between, meaning you can't become 100% alpha, nor can you become a 100% beta. It's a ratio of how much of an alpha you are, and this number slides back and forth depending on what you do everyday.

Alphahood is the byproduct of your society, your experiences, and your personality. When these three factors play out right, you will triumphant as more of an alpha. When they are not, either you become more of a beta, or you die.

You can't become an alpha with sedentary lives. A lot of folks here think they can become an alpha by just reading the DJ bible, workout, dress nice, act cool, cracking jokes, and drive a Porsche with a spinning rim. Holy mother fvck, NO! You become an alpha through hardships! Expose yourself to life-threatening situations that takes ALL of you to survive. Sounds crazy? Exactly! That's why there are so very few real alphas in real life!

Look at our society today, it's all about comfort. Get the new iPhones with all-new features. Get nice apartments. Get nice houses, with nice air-conditioned gym! All of these are comfortable living designed for women. Simply going to the gym and looking at your biceps everyday won't make you an alpha. That would make you a self-conscious b!tch. Walking with a swagger won't make you an alpha, it'd make you a self-conscious b!tch.

It takes RISKS to become an alpha. When everything in society is geared toward minimizing risks, you wonder by there are so few of them?

Genghis Khan did not become Genghis Khan with comfortable living. He was born at a time of war between tribes. His dad got killed, he already became a POW at a young age. Being exiled with no tribe, he had to hunt for his own food. He had to recruit his good friends to seek revenge. Because of this, he APPRECIATES good people and friendships. He doesn't talk down to people so he can appear an alpha, because he already IS. AMOG is dumb beta pua tactics, cheap imitation, and only works against other betas. However, that won't make you an alpha, just a beta triumphant over another beta.

Having said this, it doesn't mean you need to become a "true" alpha to get women. Some women are okay with imitations. Money, social status all indicators of power which is a trait that an alpha possesses. There are rich dumb betas with hot chicks, or a popular but poor leader that women respect. You can still get women without having to become a true alpha, if pvssies is all you seek.

I don't think most you all got what I was implying. Sharkbeat basically expressed what I was saying.

And I think most you need a history lesson:

-Americans men were much more alpha in the early 1900s then they are today.
-Back in WW2 Soldier as young as 18 or 19 were given huge amount of responsibility. They had to act more like leaders.
-Today's leaders are beta. Do you think that being a leader automatically make you an alpha? Is Obama an alpha? Compare to Russia's president Putin who's more alpha? Putin was voted sexiest politician alive:

http://en.mediamass.net/people/vladimir-putin/sexiest-alive.html

What has Obama gotten so far?

-Watch any movies before the 1970s when the feminism movement was heating up and you'll see that in many movies then, the man acted more like men then they do in today's movie. Even in Gone With The Wind, the guy whose wife died in the end, who was consider the beta behaved more alpha then the typical beta today.

And I have to disagree with it's not about genetics but all about environment. I think it's both. Take two guys. Same background. They come to this site. One choose to stay and reads. One just laughs and leaves. Why?

It's more like genetics gives the potential to become alpha with the right kind of environment. I see some men so beta whipped that no matter how much you even can try to help them they will not become alpha. That's is a fact of life.

 

[Iceberg]

I don't think most you all got what I was implying. Sharkbeat basically expressed what I was saying.

And I think most you need a history lesson:

History lesson? You just rattled off a bunch of opinions.

Hey guys, here's a history lesson - Sprite tastes better than 7UP. It's history!

-Americans men were much more alpha in the early 1900s then they are today.

Why? Because they shat in outhouses? Their lives were DIFFERENT because of the times. The human emotions that caused weakness, doubt, addiction, etc, were all still there. People were broke, people were confused, heartbroken, chasing the wrong girl. Men left their wives. Men lost their homes to banks. It wasn't all cowboys & indians, and building log cabins.

Just as it always was, life was filled with people in boring suburban towns living boring suburban lives doing jobs that bored them and marrying because they had nothing better to do.

The explorers and conquers are the ones who made the history books. The other 95% of the country wasn't much different than it is now.

-Back in WW2 Soldier as young as 18 or 19 were given huge amount of responsibility. They had to act more like leaders.

The responsibility of doing what their commanders told them to do, and dying because of it. Alpha? And how many of these soldiers were writing love letters to chicks who were back home banging the local high school principle?

-Today's leaders are beta. Do you think that being a leader automatically make you an alpha? Is Obama an alpha? Compare to Russia's president Putin who's more alpha? Putin was voted sexiest politician alive:

Sexiest politician alive? Book me a flight to Moscow immediately!

-Watch any movies before the 1970s when the feminism movement was heating up and you'll see that in many movies then, the man acted more like men then they do in today's movie. Even in Gone With The Wind, the guy whose wife died in the end, who was consider the beta behaved more alpha then the typical beta today.

Okay, so I got opinions, "sexiest politician alive" and movies. Still waiting for this history lesson.

 

[speed dawg]

This argument really should be between masculine and less masculine, not alpha and beta. They are different things altogether.

 

[Speculator E]

History lesson? You just rattled off a bunch of opinions.

Hey guys, here's a history lesson - Sprite tastes better than 7UP. It's history!

Why? Because they shat in outhouses? Their lives were DIFFERENT because of the times. The human emotions that caused weakness, doubt, addiction, etc, were all still there. People were broke, people were confused, heartbroken, chasing the wrong girl. Men left their wives. Men lost their homes to banks. It wasn't all cowboys & indians, and building log cabins.

Just as it always was, life was filled with people in boring suburban towns living boring suburban lives doing jobs that bored them and marrying because they had nothing better to do.

The explorers and conquers are the ones who made the history books. The other 95% of the country wasn't much different than it is now.

The responsibility of doing what their commanders told them to do, and dying because of it. Alpha? And how many of these soldiers were writing love letters to chicks who were back home banging the local high school principle?

Sexiest politician alive? Book me a flight to Moscow immediately!

Okay, so I got opinions, "sexiest politician alive" and movies. Still waiting for this history lesson.

Being dumb is not very alpha. I already gave you some facts. I don't care to educate you. Try Google for the history lesson.

 

[Speculator E]

http://en.mediamass.net/people/vladimir-putin/sexiest-alive.html

Update: I didn't see that story was fake. This is a more legit article.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-09-05-888963305_x.htm

Still better then Obama.

 

[Stagger Lee]

No I don't believe in your premise at all. I mean I believe women are slvtting around with superficially better looking guys, but that doesn't make the guys "alpha"

But what I disagree with is that today women are bringing the natural order back or improving the gene pool. What we have today is only possible by feminism (along with birth control). Feminism isn't the natural order. It's a public policy enforced by governments and societies.

Also, women mating with a minority of "bad boys" would not improve the gene pool. Genetic diversity would do that better.

 

[Speculator E]

No I don't believe in your premise at all. I mean I believe women are slvtting around with superficially better looking guys, but that doesn't make the guys "alpha"

But what I disagree with is that today women are bringing the natural order back or improving the gene pool. What we have today is only possible by feminism (along with birth control). Feminism isn't the natural order. It's a public policy enforced by governments and societies.

Also, women mating with a minority of "bad boys" would not improve the gene pool. Genetic diversity would do that better.

Are you listening to yourself? That is the natural order of things in nature. The majority of women will fvck the minority of men that are proven to be alpha. That is genetic diversity (majority of women) while only spreading the best genes (the alpha).

I don't think you realize that feminism has happened in the past. Here this is the only history lesson I will give.

Feminism has happened in the past in ancient Rome.

Based on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries. This is why we have never seen a feminist civilization aside from very short spans at the end of the Roman empire and possibly a few other more ancient civilizations.

Reading the history of the roman Empire brings such glaring similarities with our own civilization, it is as if human social dynamics are literally stuck in a cycle that repeats every couple thousand years (there were two matriarchical, extremely advanced civilizations: one at the end of the Roman empire, 2000 years ago, one possibly at the end of Babylon, 4000 years ago).

For those who enjoy history, here is a short recap of social changes in Rome, 2 millenia ago (most historians focus on military and political facts, but I find the social aspects just as fascinating):

~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death)

~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.

~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a "bachelor tax", to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.

~3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate. Vice and massive corruption are rampant, while the new-born Catholic Religion is gaining power (it becomes the religion of the Empire in 380 AD). There is extreme economic, political and military instability: there are 25 successive emperors in half a century (many end up assassinated), the Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war.

~5 century AD: The Empire is ruled by an elite of military men that use the Emperor as a puppet; due to massive debts and financial problems, the Empire cannot afford to hire foreign mercenaries to defend itself (Roman citizens have long ago being replaced by mercenaries in the army), and starts "selling" parts of the Empire in exchange for protection. Eventually, the mercenaries figure out that the "Emperor has no clothes", and overrun and pillage the Empire.

humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave); 12 centuries of religious zilotry (The Great Inquisition, Crusades) and intellectual darkness follow: science, commerce, philosophy, human rights become unknown concepts until they are rediscovered again during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th century AD.

Regarding the Babylonian civilization (~2,000 BC), we have relatively few records, but we do know that they had a very advanced civilization because we found their legislative code written down on stone tablets (yes, they had laws and tribunals, and some of today's commercial code can even be traced back to Babylonian law). They had child support laws (which seems to indicate that there was a family breakdown), and they collapsed presumably due to a "moral breakdown" figuratively represented in the Bible as the "Tower of Babel" (which was inspired by a real tower). Interesting and controversial anecdote: some claim that the Roman Catholic Religion is nothing more than a rewriting and adaptation of an ancient Babylonian religion!

 

[Stagger Lee]

Are you listening to yourself? That is the natural order of things in nature. The majority of women will fvck the minority of men that are proven to be alpha. That is genetic diversity (majority of women) while only spreading the best genes (the alpha).

I don't think you realize that feminism has happened in the past. Here this is the only history lesson I will give.

It may be a natural drive for most all women to desire to monopolize a few men and for men to a desire to monopolize all women. But that's about as far as I think you can go with the natural order argument. I mean you could say it's the natural order for people to steal, lie and cheat, rape and kill each other, but what does that prove? That everyone who does that has better genes too? Everyone else in the group is going to naturally try to resist it.

The problem I have with the argument is "alpha" and "beta" is not really defined other than to claim alphas must have better genes to pass on and betas have worse genes. Can we really say that? One alpha male's genes aren't necessarily going to be the best match for a given female. I think the gene argument is speculative at best. Women are just attracted to the best looks, and/or most wealth and status.

I think if you look at most of history from tribes to civilizations, women primarily married off as young virgins. Women didn't just slvt around with a minority of guys and it was considered acceptable.

I don't think we have ever seen feminism anywhere near like we have in the 20th century. Feminism isn't the natural order. I do agree feminism destroys civilizations though.

My argument is women today are just stupid, deluded and have no constraints and don't even realize they are trying to date out of their leagues.

 

[Mike32ct]

I think this had the potential to be a great thread with an interesting discussion. Even the initial question about why women are attracted to bad boys is a good one.

But all this alpha versus beta stuff just creates more confusion because there is no clear definition of either in the Community.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I think this had the potential to be a great thread with an interesting discussion. Even the initial question about why women are attracted to bad boys is a good one.

But all this alpha versus beta stuff just creates more confusion because there is no clear definition of either in the Community.

That's a good point. There's at least two conclusions being assumed. That women are primarily attracted to "alpha/badboys", and alphas have good gene match for every female and betas have worse gene match for every female.

If someone said the guys with primarily the most attractive faces and socially outgoing attract the most women, I can agree with that because I observe that. And if you say it's better genes making the guy dimorphic yet attractive face and symmetrical and socially adjusted you might have an argument. But when you start saying alpha/beta, "bad boy", natural order/genes etc. I think the wheels come off.

What in reality creates the best offspring is males also having input and influence too-men being able to pick the best mate. I mean I agree that men will mate unselectively, but I believe it is actually men who are best at determining whether a mate has the best genes. My point is today with feminism things are off kilter and not good. Women are making all the decisions today and they are not supposed to be.

 

[Lexington]

Women have always been attracted to "bad boys." In the past, the majority had to settle down with Betas as a matter of survival. In today's conditions, that is no longer the case.

Women today are expected to earn a living. They no longer depend on a man for provisioning. Even unemployed deadbeat women can rely on welfare to provide for them. Basically, the Beta's value has been greatly diminished.

As for why women are attracted to the bad boy, I speculate that it's hard wired into their brains. Among gorillas, who gets the most females? Is it the gentle deferential male, or the big bad silver back who might kick the sh*t out of you if you look at him in a way that displeases him?

In most social mammals, those higher up on the pecking order exhibit more aggression because they can (this very same trait probably contributes to their success). Those lower on the totem pole are forced to be more submissive and accommodating....if they don't they get attacked and maybe even killed.

A few hundred years ago, a woman would gladly settle for a guy who could provide her food, shelter and protection. 'Gina tingles were further down the checklist. Nowadays, the items further down her hierarchy of needs are easily available to her. As others have pointed out, easily available birth control has also changed the equation.