Why do women like the bad boys

[Taramere]

That post passed me right by...that's why.

 

Sorry for bringing it to your attention then - but do you get where I'm coming from with this? I feel that on this board some pretty mild sexist-at-best comments get leapt over for being misogynistic, then you'll get this completely f*cked up stuff that's reminiscent of crusty judges in the 1980s declaring that everyone knows a female hitch-hiker is asking to be brutally raped, or that some 9 year old girls can be really quite provocative you know.

 

Watch, Paddington, as I get responses along the lines of "I don't agree with rape, but I kind of get where D-Jam is coming from"...or "D-Jam has probably been hurt by a woman at some point (ergo his views about certain unspecified groups of women needing to be raped and abused are justifiable).

[paddington bear]

No, am glad you did, sometimes I skim, so it did pass me by. However, no better woman than yourself to comment on it.

[Taramere]

No, am glad you did, sometimes I skim, so it did pass me by. However, no better woman than yourself to comment on it.

 

I don't know about that, Paddington. I get a bit too excitable about the whole thing. But these bad boy threads seem to be a trendy cloak for the same old hate-talk. "Women deserve to be treated like crap, raped, lied to and cheated on. Hell, they love all that!" arguments.

 

I've challenged people for that mentality before, and their attitude has been "yeah, but I'm talking about skanks. You know...." Then they go on to explain their definition of a skank, which generally comes down to the woman not being overly bright, possibly having not had a whole bunch of opportunities in life, being from a deprived background and growing up without getting many messages that she was worth anything. "Low value women". "Skanks." "Don't waste your time feeling bad for them. They wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire."

 

I'm always trying to define feminism for myself. Today's definition. Feminists refuse to classily distance themselves from women who are stuck on the bottom rung of the socio-economic ladder (whether because they're not smart enough, beautiful enough, rich or connected enough) and who carry on taking the brunt of the same old crappy treatment, attitudes and double standards that post feminist theorists keep telling us died out years ago.

[The Collector]

There are women from all socio-economic groups who are attracted to men who treat them badly. And there's a huge difference between a 'bad-boy' who is just a rebel/outsider or just plain knows not to kiss women's asses, and a 'bad man' who cheats or beats up women, and a huge difference between the women who are attracted to either.

[The Collector]

And Tara, I don't know about any cloak of class-based misogyny. I don't get that anyone saying the women who invite trouble and enjoy drama aren't worth worrying about because they are poor or uneducated, but that they aren't worth worrying about (or more importantly attempting to save by being a white knight, a mistake many men make with these types) because they bring the trouble on themselves and enjoy it.

 

It is, however, going too far to suggest they invite or enjoy being raped. That's silly, dangerous and offensive.

[Taramere]

And Tara, I don't know about any cloak of class-based misogyny. I don't get that anyone saying the women who invite trouble and enjoy drama aren't worth worrying about because they are poor or uneducated, but that they aren't worth worrying about (or more importantly attempting to save by being a white knight, a mistake many men make with these types) because they bring the trouble on themselves and enjoy it.

 

It is, however, going too far to suggest they invite or enjoy being raped. That's silly, dangerous and offensive.

 

The class-based misogyny: Articulate feminist arguments tend to be presented by educated women who are often concerned mainly with their own interests. Whether that's the right to date and have sex in a traditionally male manner, or garnering support to break through glass ceilings and enter the upper reaches of power.

 

If a woman has terminally low self esteem and therefore continually gets into relationships that are going to sustain her self esteem at that low level, a nice romantic guy on a white charger is not the answer. I totally agree with you there. But neither is dismissing that woman as human garbage a particularly wonderful answer. D-Jam put it that bluntly, but the same message is often put across in a less obvious manner. That the women aren't worth it.

 

I think what I'm trying to say is that if a man thinks of women almost exclusively in terms of the potential sexual/romantic opportunities we might offer - then the most positive response he'll have towards a troubled woman who gets into bad relationships will be "I want her. I'll offer her a lifeline, and then she'll be mine. I can be her rescuer"

 

For a man who can take a broader view of women, that troubled person getting herself into bad relationships will be neither a tempting damsel in distress who will love him for rescuing her, nor a silly whore who's asking for every bit of abuse she gets. She'll just be a troubled woman...and if he's of an empathic leaning, he'll probably hope that she gets help or that her life takes a turn for the better.

 

But when a guy talks of women who get into relationships with abusive men in very derogatory terms - well, to me that suggests the whole splitting thing....whereby half of him wants that woman more than he's prepared to admit, and the other half resents her for not choosing him; takes some pleasure in the notion of the choices she does make rebounding on her.

 

I really do perceive that as an underlying theme in quite a lot of the contributions to these "women like bad boys" threads. There is one main attraction that many so-called bad boys have....and that is that they're often less judgemental than the "nice guys". I've read The Game in an effort to fathom why it's so popular with so many men. I'm assuming that the PUAs in that book qualify as "bad guys" because they're open about playing and manipulating women.

 

From a female perspective, I can understand why the more celebrated PUAs are successful. Mild negging aside, they don't tend to judge. They focus on making women feel comfortable and okay about themselves for being women and for enjoying sex. Whether they're genuinely non-judgemental guys is a different matter, but clearly they've learned the art of appearing to be non-judgemental. Singlelife (who I'd imagine has been reading some of those books) says it here:

 

i think women like guys that don't pressure them and let them be themselves! girls just want to have fun. if you judge a woman she'll never open up.

[carhill]

From a female perspective, I can understand why the more celebrated PUAs are successful. Mild negging aside, they don't tend to judge. They focus on making women feel comfortable and okay about themselves for being women and for enjoying sex. Whether they're genuinely non-judgemental guys is a different matter, but clearly they've learned the art of appearing to be non-judgemental.

 

More precisely, having lived and worked amongst them during my life, they just don't care. If you don't care, you'll never waste time, energy or emotion on judgement. Because it doesn't matter. I know, from being "friends" with damaged women, that they do in fact like this. No pressure, no angst, no replaying of bad childhood tapes. It's peaceful, for them. Don't confuse that desire with lack of judgement (of others) on their part, though

[Taramere]

More precisely, having lived and worked amongst them during my life, they just don't care. If you don't care, you'll never waste time, energy or emotion on judgement. Because it doesn't matter. I know, from being "friends" with damaged women, that they do in fact like this. No pressure, no angst, no replaying of bad childhood tapes. It's peaceful, for them. Don't confuse that desire with lack of judgement (of others) on their part, though

 

But would you say that PUAs focus only on damaged women - or (given that humans are probably all damaged or broken in some places) women who are noticeably damaged?

 

I can read through a book like that, and know that in many flirtatious conversations I've had with men they've done things like elicit my values, snubbed me if I didn't give them the reactions they wanted, used that "yes ladder" thing and created a sense of us against the world. I doubt every one of them based that on techniques he read in a book - particularly as I'm thinking to way back before anyone had heard of Mystery, Neil Strauss and whoever else.

 

A lot of it's just standard political behaviour that people have probably used for centuries....or in some cases, it may stem from genuine emotion and connection. I won't pretend I can always differentiate between the two. In a nutshell, a lot of what the PUAs advocate involves mimicking the things people do naturally when they're genuinely intrigued and attracted. And there are people who avoid being judgemental - not necessarily because they don't care about anyone or anything, but either because they're temperamentally geared towards perception rather than judgement, or philosophically/intellectually they're about challenging judgements (their own and other people's).

[Trialbyfire]

Taramere, it sounds like you're suggesting that PUA men have social responsibilities.

[carhill]

I meant they don't "care" about the person at the emotional level. In the most absolute sense, the person who cares the least has the most control. Beyond that, it's just an exercise to fulfill their own needs. I'm in no way saying this is the exclusive domain of men. I've seen the symptoms in women as well. I've seen them in myself. It doesn't mean I don't care, but I don't specifically care about that one person. I can be very caring in other ways. I saw this occur when I emotionally detached from my wife. It took MC to get me to engage the "caring" part again. In some ways, that has made things more difficult, because my wife is the personality type that needs a man who doesn't "care". She'd be happy with companionship, some sex and being left alone. This is how I've come to understand the connection, along with numerous female friends who had childhood backgrounds similar to hers (not pleasant).

[Taramere]

Taramere, it sounds like you're suggesting that PUA men have social responsibilities.

 

I think that people generally are just too complex to be separated into nice guy, bad guy, PUA, genuine guy. We could look at a website devoted to the art of picking up women, and of course it will be filled with all kinds of nonsense and posturing - especially by posters who have become so obsessed by the concept of being an expert PUA that they're losing any sense of their own personality or identity. In those cases, it may be that they didn't have a strong one to begin with, so the usual advice to "be yourself" doesn't have much meaning for them.

 

Then you have guys who have some inkling that they would genuinely like to have an important and happy relationship, but feel that it's such an elusive goal that they need to develop "game". Then there are probably the narcissists and opportunists who see that becoming a guru in that field will bring them a lot of attention and might even be a moneyspinner if they manage to convince other men that they have some amazing secret to impart. And perhaps a lot of men buzz uncertainly around all those different categories - not quite sure of who they are or who they want to be.

 

If someone's really on a PUA mission to the extent that they're constantly and mechanically creating connections with women they aren't genuinely interested in....well, no. I can't see any socially responsible behaviour in that. I wouldn't see them so much as bad boys, though, as rather sad and hollow boys.

 

Edit: In a discussion about Nice Guys....reference to the "boyfriend destroying" techniques taught by a PUA who nicknamed himself Tyler Durden might be relevant. He encourages potential Boyfriend Destroyers to believe that with a few handy phrases they can reframe a man's behaviour, in his girlfriend's eyes, to look weak, needy and insecure. As he terms it "like a nice guy". To encourage her to feel more pity, less passion for him - with the ultimate aim of destroying the relationship.

 

I meant they don't "care" about the person at the emotional level. In the most absolute sense, the person who cares the least has the most control.

 

It's an empty sort of control though, isn't it? "What's your primary goal as regards relationships, Mr X?" "Well, I aspire passionately towards utter apathy, as I feel it will give me the upper hand over others...."

 

my wife is the personality type that needs a man who doesn't "care". She'd be happy with companionship, some sex and being left alone. This is how I've come to understand the connection, along with numerous female friends who had childhood backgrounds similar to hers (not pleasant).

 

Some people do feel happier with quite a lot of personal space. I'm like that, and I tend to relate it to being quite introverted. Not so much that I'm a hermit who doesn't like people, but simply that however much I like someone's company I like a fair bit of alone time to recharge. For people like me - and, perhaps, your wife - it's not so much that you don't want others to care, more that you don't want them to be hurt or offended by those times you do need a bit of space.

[carhill]

For people like me - and, perhaps, your wife - it's not so much that you don't want others to care, more that you don't want them to be hurt or offended by those times you do need a bit of space.

 

For her, and she related this clearly in MC, feeling loved is someone being around for security but remaining relatively disengaged emotionally. This is a result, she says, of her difficult childhood where "love" was evidenced by abandonment and she retreated into her own world due to the chaos.

 

So, hence, our relationship engagement styles are incompatible. I can't imagine spending my life with someone who doesn't wish to be engaged with me on a consistent basis. I'd be happier being alone, as I was for many years. What's the sense of being alone in a relationship. I could be out doing positive things for the world with that wasted energy

 

Bluntly put, a man who banged her when she wanted, made sure she had security, perhaps showed some interest in her interests, didn't expect much attention from her and otherwise left her alone would be her perfect man. In fact, I saw evidence of this when she suggested that I remain in contact with my old female friend, even with knowledge of our emotional attachment, so I could "get what I needed". I resisted that NC worked, and, besides, I now know my old friend is psychologically much like her. The responsibility is within me, attracting incompatible women

 

If I could define this better, then I'd be god .... It's like the man (the bad boy) is "indifferent" to the woman's moods and vacillations of emotion and thought and is focused only on what he wants and needs. She exists (as becomes relatively important) to him only when he wants her to exist. This is strictly a psychological event and not verbalized or otherwise externally shown. It's a compartmentalized thought process, mostly subconscious. She does not "exist" in his thoughts otherwise. He largely forgets the details she relates to him about herself and her world and has canned responses when she calls him on such. He tells her what she wants to hear but there is no emotion behind the words.

 

How deep is the rabbit hole?

[GoodOnPaper]

I think D-Jam's point that in most cases, the "nice guy" and the bad-boy-chaser make an incompatible couple is well-taken, but his question posed . . .

 

Always ask yourself: "Will he/she give me what I want in a relationship?"

 

. . . is one that most young "nice guys" are not emotionally equipped to answer. Frankly, it all comes down to this . . .

 

. . . Granted most of them are hot looking and maybe fun and wild in bed

 

Sex. Believe it or not, the geeky, nerdy, "nice guy" wants sex just as much as any other guy. But, due to lack of self-acceptance, excessive need for external validation, etc., the "nice guy" comes to believe that his need for sex is not as legitimate as those of better-looking and more charismatic guys. Resentment grows and the "nice guy" tries to set himself apart by being "nicer", which only compounds the problems, and we get this:

 

...whereby half of him wants that woman more than he's prepared to admit, and the other half resents her for not choosing him . . .

 

The judgmental behavior discussion is interesting. I think "nice guys" become judgmental because they take the stereotypes they apply to themselves and project them onto women. So "nice guys" want the bad-boy-chasers because they believe it's only these women that can provide a wild sex life. Convince a "nice guy" that an average-looking couple can have just as wild of a sex life as the "hottest" couples -- assuming this is actually true -- and I think he will take a broader perspective and value compatibility a little more highly.

[paddington bear]

In the most absolute sense, the person who cares the least has the most control.

 

Wow. Never was there a truer sentence uttered (or typed, if you want to be picky). Carhill, you should write a dating book. Just one page, with that printed on it!

 

I had a messed up 'relationship' if you can call it that, with someone and really, the above phrase sums it up. He cared the least and so had the most control. It is one of the perversities of life and of human psychology. We can all talk about the type of person we want, our ideal, but then our actions often tell a totally different story, hence no one can understand when you say you want a kind sensitive guy who listens etc, but end up with an emotionally unavailable mess of complexities who you are forever fretting over.

 

I read The Game too - and I agree, that you can't put people into neat little categories, however, for the sake of argument for instance in this forum, it is easier for discussion of certain issues to use labels, as everyone knows the kind of person you mean, but I would say most people have the knowledge that of course within those categories are individuals.

 

The whole PUA thing...no, they are not bad boys. I wouldn't call them hollow either though...well not totally! Those who get stuck in the PUA loop for the rest of their life, yes, those who go through a 'yippeeeee!' stage that it works and then meet some girl they genuinely like are another matter.

 

I see the followers of the techniques outlined in that book as guys who recognised that they had a problem in dealing with, scoring with (however you want to put it) the opposite sex and decided to do something about it. I've had a pretty bad run of it...mostly in the nothing at all happening way and I too thought, well, if I was buying a house, a car I would research before purchasing. If I was doing an exam, I would study the subject rather than sitting back and thinking I would somehow pass the exam without any effort on my part, so read a ridiculous amount of dating books. Most geared to the American market, so a lot of it was not applicable, but some advice helped and I'm not embarrassed to admit it. However, yes, when these techniques are used just for the sake of getting laid, it is shallow, but I think at the same time the guys in the book just wanted to fix something that they perceived was wrong.

 

In simple terms the PUA techniques used were basic psychological principals put into practice in order to get a result that you were unable to before. It's a long time since I read The Game, but I didn't get the impression that the PUA's were focusing solely on so-called damaged women. In fact it wasn't about the women was it? It was about socially inadequate (flirtilly inadequate??) men who wanted to prove to themselves that they could achieve a long held goal. "I can do this" as opposed to "I want her specifically" - which I suppose verifies Taremere's non-judgement theory - anyone will do, so long as I get an ego-boost from it.

 

As for the men wanting to 'rescue' damaged women, be the knight in shining armour...I really can't say I've come across any man who wants to play that role within any relationship. I really haven't. I've heard the 'I met a crazy woman last night, really f****d up' - no desire to rescue there, or on other occassions there's intrigue on the guy's part, maybe even sympathy, but no wish to get involved at all. The lack of interest combined with the high-strung emotions of the 'damaged' woman = her getting obsessed and him running away. Hence we are neatly back to Carhill's 'the person who cares the least has the most control'

[Taramere]

Bluntly put, a man who banged her when she wanted, made sure she had security, perhaps showed some interest in her interests, didn't expect much attention from her and otherwise left her alone would be her perfect man.

 

So she wanted someone with no needs. Or someone who, if he did have needs, would get them met elsewhere. I'm sorry you experienced that.

 

The responsibility is within me, attracting incompatible women

 

You're indicating there that you take full responsibility for getting married to the wrong woman. As though a bad tango doesn't take two to stumble through. It also comes across as you perhaps feeling you were the only adult in the relationship.

 

That would certainly let your ex wife off the hook....but what are the disadvantages and the advantages to you of regarding yourself as being responsible for attracting incompatible women?

 

If I could define this better, then I'd be god .... It's like the man (the bad boy) is "indifferent" to the woman's moods and vacillations of emotion and thought and is focused only on what he wants and needs. She exists (as becomes relatively important) to him only when he wants her to exist.

 

I think compartmentalisation is a pretty common male way of thinking. Not just about things but about people too.

 

This is strictly a psychological event and not verbalized or otherwise externally shown. It's a compartmentalized thought process, mostly subconscious. She does not "exist" in his thoughts otherwise. He largely forgets the details she relates to him about herself and her world and has canned responses when she calls him on such. He tells her what she wants to hear but there is no emotion behind the words.

 

Is there a particular guy you have in mind with this description, or are you describing what you think would be your ex wife's perfect man?

 

The judgmental behavior discussion is interesting. I think "nice guys" become judgmental because they take the stereotypes they apply to themselves and project them onto women. So "nice guys" want the bad-boy-chasers because they believe it's only these women that can provide a wild sex life.

 

Good point. Haven't we all had the real or imaginary Temperamental Latina or the Crazy Chick He Never Quite Got Over thrown in our face at some point?

[carhill]

So she wanted someone with no needs. Or someone who, if he did have needs, would get them met elsewhere. I'm sorry you experienced that.

 

******Bearing in mind we're still married...... I think no needs is overstating, rather she prefers someone with minimal emotional needs/desires/depth, or if he does possess such, minimal desire from him for those needs to be met by her.******

 

 

 

You're indicating there that you take full responsibility for getting married to the wrong woman. As though a bad tango doesn't take two to stumble through. It also comes across as you perhaps feeling you were the only adult in the relationship.

 

That would certainly let your ex wife off the hook....but what are the disadvantages and the advantages to you of regarding yourself as being responsible for attracting incompatible women?

 

******I take responsibility for my role in the relationship, mainly ignoring signs of incompatibility and improperly using learned coping behaviors from my past to "get along". She was being herself. I adapted. My error and responsibility. I actively watch for such signs of incompatibility now in others, as a precursor to engaging in any future relationships. I don't wish to make the same mistake(s) in my now much more limited future. I can't control how my wife acts or who she is. I can only control myself*******

 

 

 

I think compartmentalisation is a pretty common male way of thinking. Not just about things but about people too.

 

*******yes, it is, though not for myself, in general. A common description I use is "two-faced", where a man treats myself (or anyone) one way to their face and another behind their back. Obviously women do this as well, but I can understand the essential male psychology because I'm a man. I know what it's like to act without caring (but retain the illusion thereof) and to reconcile that dichotomy within my psyche.******

 

 

 

Is there a particular guy you have in mind with this description, or are you describing what you think would be your ex wife's perfect man?

 

*******Not my ex (don't have one of those), and not any particular man, more precisely a melding of many men I've known and been friends with in my life, as well as men my wife has expressed the conundrum of admiration for, yet "I'd never marry him". I see through that stuff (women's actions and words); it's transparent to me. No surprises, sorry to say. But, no, no one in particular********

 

 

I provide my own experiences as signposts. I honestly do not believe that women consciously seek out bad boys, rather they, especially those with psychological damage in their background, respond in ways they do not comprehend or substantially believe to be their truth. It is like the id and the intellect are disconnected, hence the disingenuous term I've used in the past about emotion operating without the benefit of intellect. I've applied that term to myself, when chasing (in the past) these bad-boy chasers. Pure stupidity. I can see that clearly now. Life's about learning

[Trialbyfire]

Is this a full circle back to formative years? If neglect and other forms of abuse are mis-wired into love, do women like this need it and agitate for it, because it is love?

[carhill]

TBF, our psych would agree to this, obviously with specificity to a particular case. This disparate childhood experience is an essential part of our psychological incompatibility. My wife, with some derision, refers to my childhood as "Beaver Cleaver" I laugh, but empathy pulls me away from the Cleaver family and into my wife's chaotic and painful past. More precisely it *did*, and that's what got me into trouble, applying coping mechanisms to deal with her pain while improperly ignoring my own needs and health and, hence (the balance), letting resentment build. Very unhealthy. She was unwilling or unable to grow beyond the sum of her "formative years", though obviously applied adult socialization skills to everyday life. At the deeper level, though, ouch . I think she was a bad boy chaser but, after therapy, tried mightily to rectify this by "settling" for a good guy but it just didn't work at the elemental level. This is the gist of our psych's analysis of our dynamic.

 

It's interesting that, as I've become more of a "bad boy" (if there is such a side to a good guy), she likes me less but seems to respond better (that words and actions thing). My problem is I'm sensitive to her being annoyed and that seems to be pretty constant in bad boy territory. A true bad boy is oblivious to female annoyance. It doesn't exist in his universe. That's how he can be omnipotent

[The Collector]

For all his faults, the 'bad boy' has the 'backbone gene.' This will mean potential offspring will be more able to survive and procreate.

 

One of the complaints against what we might call feminism is that over the last few generations many men have been taught to be ashamed to stand up to women, so the 'bad boy' is one of the few remaining places to find such a quality. If men were 'allowed' to be more masculine, the bad boy would have more competition.

 

Also bad boys promise exciting sex.

[bish]

What you're getting is damaged women who enjoy the challenge of thinking they can "change" you.

 

Once a woman reaches her 30's, she tends to lose interest in these type of guys, and throws them over for the good guys.

 

In a smaller town, everyone knows everyone else. Most good guys will see this as the woman simply "settling" for a good guy because they are tired of being treated like crap. They still want the bad boy excitement, but prefer to settle for not being treated like crap.

 

Alot of the women where I live still have no choice but to keep hooking up with the bad boys because the good guys don't want to be settled for. The good guys where I live look for the good girls.

[bish]

No one likes a jerk, women included.

 

But women do tend to gravitate towards a more "masculine" man (one who isn't afraid of his sexuality, one who doesn't make sheepish apologies for who he is, etc).

 

There's a difference.

 

So a guy that works out, is good looking, and is as "masculine" as they come, but don't have the arrogant, bad boy aura about them are not masculine?

 

And there is a fine line between confident, and arrogant/cocky.

[bish]

Women like drama and they like a man that is not a doormat. Bad boys bring both.

 

What I find hilarious is the good guys get passed over for these jerks, but then the women that go for them end up crying what a jerk he is when the truth that they already knew comes out in full force.

[bish]

a bad boy is good to play with but to keep nooo too much work imo;)

 

Therefore good men shouldn't settle for women who like the bad boys.

[The Collector]

For some women, crying is part of the fun, exciting emotional rollercoaster. I know women just like this - nice, but not happy unless they are in tears over some guy.

[Trialbyfire]

For all his faults, the 'bad boy' has the 'backbone gene.' This will mean potential offspring will be more able to survive and procreate.

 

One of the complaints against what we might call feminism is that over the last few generations many men have been taught to be ashamed to stand up to women, so the 'bad boy' is one of the few remaining places to find such a quality. If men were 'allowed' to be more masculine, the bad boy would have more competition.

 

Also bad boys promise exciting sex.

Wha? No, not backbone, just plain disinterest in anyone else's feelings besides himself. Narcissism.

 

As for being ashamed of standing up to women due to feminism, that's a load of crap, unless you're talking about extremists within the feminism world. This is no different than the misogynists. At core, afraid of the other gender, since they're unable to control or understand it.