When ovulating women see sexy Cad's "bad boys" as good potential dads.

[Mrlonelyone]

Think about what the following means for us single people trying to find a mate.

 

Let me say right off the top I don't want this to devolve into a conversation in which women are accused of being awful for at times being ruled by instincts. Men have similar instincts.

 

 

Even more so for the ladies of LS who read this. Maybe it would be a good idea, as one of you said in one thread, to consciously stop and reconsider any man for whom there is an immediate head over heels feeling.

 

 

I've written much here on the more scientific notion of men as either Cads or Dads. Implied in what I wrote was always the idea that women on some level knew they were either choosing a man for a short fling so why not a unreliable guy? (you don't care if he sticks around anyway and might prefer if he just got lost after the deed was done.).

 

 

Questions for the ladies:

 

Have any of you noticed such a pattern in yourselves, at least upon concious reflection on your own choices?

 

Have any of you who noticed such patterns made changes to not repeat those patterns?

 

Those of you who do not notice such patterns in yourselves and who are in committed relationships and married please reflect objectively on when you first met your husband and answer me this...did you know him to know his character or did you see he was good looking and hope he had good character (and get lucky)?

 

Questions for the guys:

 

Have any of you tried to make changes to be more cadlike and how did that work for you?

 

Did making changes lead to finding a quality woman or a woman who was shallow and of bad character?

 

 

 

My point with this and other such threads is that in dating and mating we should embrace our true natures as men and women (or androgynous TS TG TV people straight or gay or bi) and apply strategy to get what we need and want. While also considering that it's best if we can give our partner what they need and want in life as well.

 

 

Apparently this study, quoted at the end, shows that women in general, not just young foolish college undergrads, will see a man who's hot and think he would make a good dad for their, and only their, children.

 

Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy ca... [J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

 

J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Aug;103(2):292-305. doi: 10.1037/a0028498. Epub 2012 May 14.

Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads.

 

Durante KM, Griskevicius V, Simpson JA, Cantú SM, Li NP.

Author information

 

 

• College of Business, One UTSA Circle, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA.
  

 

 

Abstract

 

Why do some women pursue relationships with men who are attractive, dominant, and charming but who do not want to be in relationships--the prototypical sexy cad? Previous research shows that women have an increased desire for such men when they are ovulating, but it is unclear why ovulating women would think it is wise to pursue men who may be unfaithful and could desert them. Using both college-age and community-based samples, in 3 studies we show that ovulating women perceive charismatic and physically attractive men, but not reliable and nice men, as more committed partners and more devoted future fathers. Ovulating women perceive that sexy cads would be good fathers to their own children but not to the children of other women. This ovulatory-induced perceptual shift is driven by women who experienced early onset of puberty. Taken together, the current research identifies a novel proximate reason why ovulating women pursue relationships with sexy cads, complementing existing research that identifies the ultimate, evolutionary reasons for this behavior.

 

 

PMID: 22582900 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

It is often the case that when I write of this someone will retort that I must be a bitter rejected nice guy. Nothing could be father from the truth, even as I am not the most masculine guy by any means. ( imagine if you will that David Bowie or Prince, or Ru Paul were a scientist and you get me. Not masculine but not nice, they got ladies even before they were famous too.)

 

This article talks about how those sexy cads when tested tend to have dark disturbed personalities and be narcissistic, lack empathy (psychopathy) and be manipulative.

 

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men/comments

Edited January 5, 2014 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
removed email address

[Mrlonelyone]

Is no one interested in this topic. I mean we are told on here again and again that the whole concept of a bad boy / (truly) nice guy dichotomy is false.

 

 

Either that the nice ones are never really nice they are just manipulative, or that women aren't really into macho bad cad type men on some level. However, the science supports the concept.

 

 

The question for guys is what can be done to try and appear to be a cad if you aren't one and use that to get a quality woman who will be turned on by you body and soul.

[ThaWholigan]

I'd say nobody is interested in it. People always take it a bit too personally - women (rightfully in some cases) feel as though they are being painted in a bad light, and men resent the fact that being nice isn't a prerequisite for attraction.

 

Me personally, the target as always is balance. I'm more nice guy than cad, but it's not my defining attribute as far as personality is concerned. The ways to get there is not to try to be a cad necessarily. If you aren't a bad boy, you aren't a bad boy. Simple as. What you can do is find out what elements of the bad boy you possess or otherwise can cultivate without undergoing a drastic shift in character or simply pretending.

 

Getting in touch with you masculinity can give rise to more "bad boy-ish" traits without being anything like one. I would elaborate, but I don't really feel I should have to. It is what I was saying to Kaylan in his thread where he decried the nature of the women he has encountered thus far and decided he was going to look out for himself and woe betide anyone in his path. You can look out for yourself, have your own interests, and do things that help you in more ways. Finding your own niche to live your life in, your style, your physical outlet, your creative outlet, maximizing the strengths of your character while balancing out the weakpoints. And in terms of interaction, not being too rigid or too aggressive but at the same time not being too easily malleable and agreeable overall. Not being afraid to be more physical, be bold and take risks. These are things you can do, but don't necessitate in being a "bad boy", or a "jerk".

 

It's finding the balance.

[xxoo]

I question how much these studies translate into behavior of women when choosing a mate. I don't tend to flip-flop during the course of the month whether I'm attracted to my chosen partner. I'd be curious to learn if other women do.

 

On the other hand, I may be more drawn to certain aspects of my partner at different points in the month, or the week, or the day. I'm attracted to so much more than his physical appearance, and one day may melt at how he stays up caring for a sick child, or makes me breakfast on a weekend morning, and at other points get a glance of his very masculine features and feel a jolt to the groin. Both his person and my attraction are multi-dimensional.

[Mrlonelyone]

I question how much these studies translate into behavior of women when choosing a mate. I don't tend to flip-flop during the course of the month whether I'm attracted to my chosen partner. I'd be curious to learn if other women do.

 

On the other hand, I may be more drawn to certain aspects of my partner at different points in the month, or the week, or the day. I'm attracted to so much more than his physical appearance, and one day may melt at how he stays up caring for a sick child, or makes me breakfast on a weekend morning, and at other points get a glance of his very masculine features and feel a jolt to the groin. Both his person and my attraction are multi-dimensional.

 

I'm thinking since you were a marriage minded person who evidently picked a partner with a clear head you chose a man who had a balance of things you wanted.

 

You have also been together for a long time, your attraction would have to be multi dimensional.

 

I'd be suspicious of anyone who's only been with a partner less than a few years who said what you said.

[Mrlonelyone]

I'd say nobody is interested in it. People always take it a bit too personally - women (rightfully in some cases) feel as though they are being painted in a bad light, and men resent the fact that being nice isn't a prerequisite for attraction. .

 

This is true. Many women do not like to hear that something they have learned to couch in high minded terms of love, commitment, deep feelings etc....are all just instincts to pair bond with the most desirable mate

Me personally, the target as always is balance. I'm more nice guy than cad, but it's not my defining attribute as far as personality is concerned. The ways to get there is not to try to be a cad necessarily. If you aren't a bad boy, you aren't a bad boy. Simple as. What you can do is find out what elements of the bad boy you possess or otherwise can cultivate without undergoing a drastic shift in character or simply pretending. .

 

More or less your just being yourself. I do the same thing.

 

Getting in touch with you masculinity can give rise to more "bad boy-ish" traits without being anything like one. I would elaborate, but I don't really feel I should have to. It is what I was saying to Kaylan in his thread where he decried the nature of the women he has encountered thus far and decided he was going to look out for himself and woe betide anyone in his path. You can look out for yourself, have your own interests, and do things that help you in more ways. Finding your own niche to live your life in, your style, your physical outlet, your creative outlet, maximizing the strengths of your character while balancing out the weakpoints. And in terms of interaction, not being too rigid or too aggressive but at the same time not being too easily malleable and agreeable overall. Not being afraid to be more physical, be bold and take risks. These are things you can do, but don't necessitate in being a "bad boy", or a "jerk".

It's finding the balance.

 

I don't think someone needs to be "in touch with masculinity" to be a "bad boy" or a Cad.

 

David Bowie was certainly a cad as a young man. He dressed like a woman half the time, looked like a woman all the tme, yet he always was able to bed whoever he wanted.

 

George Gordon, Lord Byron was said by one of his female lovers to be "mad, bad, and dangerous to know". Yet he was such a pretty boy he wore curling papers to keep his hair nice and was a known bisexual. Had sex with other men's wives quite openly etc.

 

There's more to it than just acting out masculinity. One study connected people who act out in those ways, poets, musicians, and scientist like me with "creative inteligence". It found that when women are ovulating they favor creative inteligence in a man over wealth.

 

 

 

Women's Fertility across the

Cycle Increases the Short-Term

Attractiveness of Creative

Intelligence

 

Martie G. Haselton

 

University of California, Los Angeles

 

 

Geoffrey E Miller

University of New Mexico

 

Male provisioning ability may have evolved as a "good dad" indicator through sexual

selection, whereas male creativity may have evolved partly as a "good genes" indi-

cator. If so, women near peak fertility (midcycle) should prefer creativity over wealth,

especially in short-term mating. Forty-one normally cycling women read vignettes

describing creative but poor men vs. uncreative but rich men. Women's estimated

fertility predicted their short-term (but not long-term) preference for creativity over

wealth, in both their desirability ratings of individual men (r = .40, p < .01) and their

forced-choice decisions between men (r = .46, p < .01). These preliminary results

are consistent with the view that creativity evolved at least partly as a good genes

indicator through mate choice.

 

 

Likewise who's more likely to be a bad but pretty boy?

 

I think the key is to find your own niche. Be yourself and all that. Just don't think there is only one way to be attractive to women.

 

Some basic physical masculinity is required, plus some level of creative inteligence. Think about it. Who gets more women the average body builder or the average rail thin guitarist in a decent rock band?

Edited January 5, 2014 by Mrlonelyone

[xxoo]

I'm thinking since you were a marriage minded person who evidently picked a partner with a clear head you chose a man who had a balance of things you wanted.

 

You have also been together for a long time, your attraction would have to be multi dimensional.

 

I'd be suspicious of anyone who's only been with a partner less than a few years who said what you said.

 

I picked my guy when I was 17, and I wasn't even looking for a serious boyfriend, much less a husband I also knew him before we started dating, so I had a multidimensional picture of him from the start of our romance.

 

But my dad is very much the balance of good man and masculine guy, so I think I'm naturally attracted to the balanced type.

[ThaWholigan]

There certainly isn't just one way to be attractive to women - and I'd argue that all those men you mentioned were indeed "in touch with their masculinity". It's not just a behavioral thing - I spoke in general terms earlier and touched on the more superficial traits known in a traditional gender role capacity, but in reality, my belief of masculinity is really the energy within us. As men, we exhibit this more, particularly where "creative intelligence" is concerned (I'm not suggesting we are more creatively intelligent than women, mind ). Being in touch with the feminine within doesn't mean you aren't in touch with the masculine.

[xxoo]

Being in touch with the feminine within doesn't mean you aren't in touch with the masculine.

 

Good point.

 

For as much as I've talked about how masculine my partner is (and he is...people have used him as an example in conversation of what "masculine" looks like), he's been outfitting me in clothes since we met. He buys me more dresses than I buy for myself, by far. Multidimensional.

[Mrlonelyone]

I picked my guy when I was 17, and I wasn't even looking for a serious boyfriend, much less a husband I also knew him before we started dating, so I had a multidimensional picture of him from the start of our romance.

 

But my dad is very much the balance of good man and masculine guy, so I think I'm naturally attracted to the balanced type.

 

As has been said here age =/= maturity. Some people are fully as mature as a 26 year old when they are just 17. Some other people are less mature.

 

As you yourself say there are some people in their 20's who like you were are mature.

 

The proof is in the pudding you picked a good man you were compatible with. You picked a guy you knew as a friend before you dated him.

 

 

Do you know how many young women rule out their real friends as potential mates? i.e. they "friendzone" them. Then they go out and date a man who is all wrong for them, again , and again , and again ... all the while trying to change the man to be right for them or they change themselves for him.

 

 

You were wise enough or just lucky enough to skip all that mess by finding someone who already fit.

[Mrlonelyone]

Good point.

 

For as much as I've talked about how masculine my partner is (and he is...people have used him as an example in conversation of what "masculine" looks like), he's been outfitting me in clothes since we met. He buys me more dresses than I buy for myself, by far. Multidimensional.

 

 

Did you see the thread where someone asked if their boyfriend was gay because he wasn't ready to jump them at a moments notice?

 

 

That was from a young woman about the age you were when you got married.

[xxoo]

Do you know how many young women rule out their real friends as potential mates? i.e. they "friendzone" them. Then they go out and date a man who is all wrong for them, again , and again , and again ... all the while trying to change the man to be right for them or they change themselves for him.

 

That's something I've been trying to understand for a long time. I'm fortunate to be "wired" in a way that I only feel strong sexual attraction if a man treats me well. I don't care what he looks like; I dry up if a man treats me poorly.

 

Still, I've had plenty of friends who I wasn't attracted to. There needs to be more than just friendship to create sexual attraction.

[dreamingoftigers]

Hmm.

 

Interesting indeed.

Had here's why it's interesting to me:

 

I had a very seldom and irregular menstrual until a couple of years ago.

So irregular (about once or twice a year) that I went for test after stupid test for varying amounts of time and all that was ever suggested was that I go on birth control to regulate it.

 

However, I very rarely, to the point of never, found myself attracted to the "bad boy" "handsome devil" "sexy cad."

When other girls were checking out asses and muscles I couldn't really see the fuss. I wasn't into them.

I liked nice guys who seemed to be in for the long-haul.

I really loved and treasured most of those ones.

In fact, I seriously questioned what those women found attractive at all.

I thought maybe they were trying to be "cool" or mainstream or something.

 

My periods did even out with dietary change etc. Far more frequent now.

There has also been a change in attractions over the last couple of years.

I notice attractive men. Even cocky men (which used to fully repulse me).

 

I am not lusting after them day after day or anything, but it seems that of my husband (who tops the list of attractive men for me) were to get hit by a semi tomorrow, the next guy I would end up choosing would probably be a bit more mainstream in his presentation, even though (logically) I should look for another long-haul kind of guy.