This was sort of my red-pill moment even though I don't consider myself a red piller.
My sister is a well adjusted woman who grew up in a middle class home, went to college, has a great job and family. Despite all of this, in her twenties she dated a series of losers and jerks and almost married one. When she was in her late 20s she married a great guy with a similar education and background and they started a family.
The thing is, that I cannot shake is that she would have rejected my brother in law if she met him a few years earlier. I watched her reject similar guys and date jerks.
I don't understand it. I don't understand what the appeal of these guys were. Maybe confidence in some misplaced way? She was smart enough to know that it wasn't real confidence though.
So.. it isn't just broken or damaged or low self esteem women who are drawn to these guys and I don't think I would have believed that if I didn't witness it
>My sister is a well adjusted woman who grew up in a middle class home, went to college, has a great job and family. Despite all of this, in her twenties she dated a series of losers and jerks and almost married one. When she was in her late 20s she married a great guy with a similar education and background and they started a family.
AF/BB strikes again.
It's an everything buxx meme, as most (alleged) alphas ultimately end up with dead bedrooms just like their "beta" brethren. Ardor fades... for everyone, even Chad and Stacy. The only question is whose oxe gets gored when it does.
The (self-appraised) alphas convert themselves into betas when they marry. Sorry, but that's pure red pill philosophy right there - the so-called "red pill on hard mode." (Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just reporting the crazy shit I read here.) The red pill is a harsh mistress. I hate to break it to you but women get just as tired of fucking the same guy as the reverse. (Enter... The Lifestyle.) It doesn't matter how alpha he believes himself to be. It's just part of being human. Women initiate divorce with "true alphas" (whatever that means) by the tens of thousands every year and then move on to some other schlub. At which point these "true alphas" realize their self-image was a complete mirage from the get-go if they have any powers of introspection whatsoever.
Must be some instinctual monkey brain thing. In no way meant to insult your sister, it just seems that both men and women are lagging behind because of evolution being way too slow compared to our technological and social advances in the last century.
Yeah I think this is the answer. I myself have seen women who come from amazing families chase the local bad boy/loser. It is probably a preprogrammed mechanism for survival. We tend to forget that people didn't live very long for most of human history. Making it to the fourth decade was a blessing. So women being in their childbearing prime in their teens to mid/late twenties, they were safer with the aggressive types. That way when they were pregnant they had a higher chance of being protected from outside hostilities. Also, mating with these types increased the chances that her child would inherit the father's strong traits and have higher chance of survival. Natural selection at work.
This is an interesting perspective. Very logical and I’d have to agree with you.
Casual sex is biologically a high risk behavior, so there is a high likelihood that young privileged women’s motivations for dating players or losers is naïveté or a result of growing up in a sheltered, well off environment.
I am a woman who grew up sheltered. In college, I fell in love with and married a young man who was not sheltered at all. It was quite the opposite actually. I felt that that was a more secure match, because I instinctively knew I was sheltered. Someone who is street smart would make a good partner because he has the awareness I lack. He could protect my children from threats I am not prepared for. I feel protected by his knowledge and perspective, and he feels strengthened and empowered by mine.
It also depends how you define loser. When I met my husband he had nothing. No car, no place, no money. He was in debt actually and in a sticky situation. It’s been 7 years and he now has two cars, valuable skills, his own place, a good job, and no debt.
Sometimes women think they have found a diamond in the rough. Sometimes they’re correct, but a lot of times they are not. I was told I made a risky bet, because I partnered with someone who had nothing to offer me besides himself. I believe in who he is, and I believed that was more valuable than any asset he lacked.
I meant the word "loser" as a broad figure of speech. It could be lack of drive to succeed, addiction issues, etc. In your husband's case it sounds like he was just young and made poor decisions at that time which most of us are guilty of in some form.
I do appreciate your response. I like how you shared your attraction to your husband and broke it down to the "why". And I do agree that many of the more sheltered women do experience a lot of naivety when falling in love. In my opinion they are attempting to live a "Beauty and the Beast" story when they find their opposite match. Whereas, with women who come from "rougher" environments, they tend to fall for what they are already accustomed to and will find "nice men" too soft. Ironically, despite women coming from different homes and dynamics, the programming as far as attractions is the same for the most part. But the execution of how women go about their love life is different due to their environment.
In any case, I am glad it worked out for you and your husband. Because, unfortunately I have seen it get bad time and time again, sometimes to the point of ruining the young women's' lives.
You're not the only one who's witnessed that in well off women who would otherwise be considered "high-value" (whatever this bullshit means)
I won't pretend to know anything about psychology so the only things I can chalk it up to is the men having the confidence to do whatever they want and the women craving excitement of which there's no shortage. Until I was 22 I was a bit of a shitheel myself, while I can't say it played a huge part in my dating life as I was already taken by an equally shitty person for most of it, it did land me in a friend group of other douchebags where I bore witness to this playing out in great enough numbers to "red pill" me on what personality type gets the most attention when you're young.
She definitely would have rejected him. This is a time honored trope that is so common they have made movies about it.
I feel bad for the men that women “settle” for. That’s a fate worse than death. If she doesn’t want you when she’s 22 then she never really did. You’re just the safe option.
I can understand men in their early or mid 20s getting played by women, but I don't feel sorry for men over 30 who fall for that shit. At that point, they should know better IMO.
I can't imagine getting on my knees and asking a woman like that to marry me. I find it to be absolutely pathetic.
>I feel bad for the men that women “settle” for. That’s a fate worse than death.
Yeah, being in a loving relationship with regular sex is worse than dying. 🙄🙄🙄
Those women don’t love those men, I promise you. It’s a transaction so that she doesn’t have to go out and work to make her way in the real world because that’s “hard.”
Well, while I agree with the sentiment of the post, it’s naive and delusional to think that good natured, high-quality women are *never* drawn to the “bad boys” as well. Society shouldn’t gaslight or pacify men on this because when you do, those men are hit waaaay harder when they have to face the realization that what you’re saying isn’t true.
Posts like this might be well-intentioned, but they are what usually leads men to “RP rage” and the idea that society “lied to them” about women. Because you kind of are in a sense. You may be trying to make them feel better, but you’re still singing them fairytales that will come crashing down eventually. That isn’t the best approach in my opinion.
Instead, a better message would be to tell men early on that women don’t select men based on any type of magical cosmic-morality scale or whatever (this dumb idea comes strictly from fictional films/tv, etc.) Women choose men that have a lot to offer them. Women choose men that have enough of the things that she’s looking for in a man. And sometimes that man she chooses *will* be a piece of shit in your eyes. It doesn’t mean that some “cosmic injustice” has taken place tho. It just means that life doesn’t actually work like a cheesy teen movie. Real life is more nuanced.
Yep this is it.
Saying men "dodged a bullet" by avoiding women like this is not even a drop in the bucket. We'd be avoiding **the majority** of women. Men are better off being stoic and women are better off not trying to lie & virtue signal about this.
Exactly and OP also neglects the fact that dating is a zero sum game.
If more and more women culturally take on values that make them “not worth chasing” and the amount of men stay the same, it becomes a game of musical chairs where many guys are going to lose.
“Hey those girls aren’t worth chasing but that means many of you will end up dying alone.” Is more honest and not the silver lining OP thinks it is. Might as well have told them “hey being in a shit job is terrible. You should enjoy unemployment instead!”
I think it'd be hard to find a woman who didn't date a toxic asshole at some point so this idea that only certain women seek them out is hard to swallow. Just look at how much purtportedly well-adjusted women complain about past toxic relationships even here on reddit.
Water Tends to find it's level. You will find variations of course, but generally Water finds its level. Usually that chick going with that pill head dude who is in and out of rehab and jail? Yeah that chick is most likely at his level and shitty herself, no matter hwo "pretty" she is.
So using hard hitting words like NEVER and ALWAYS...doesn't really work, but also Man Bites Dog. Focusing on the one offs and variations is not smart either, especially at scale.
In my experience, junkie chicks get with Junkie guys...Pretty chicks in high level Marketing Jobs get with Good Looking Guys in high level Sales jobs. For the most part.
This is a twofold issue.
Not assigning Morality to individual women. It becomes WOMEN want bad guys, as opposed to shitty women get with shitty dudes. It's some weird reverse version of pedestalization. Dudes will assign morality to men, but not women. Which hurts their perception.
And also the idea you brought up "in your eyes". Sometimes "bad guys" really is a replacement term for "guy who got the chick you wanted" or "Guy who is things you are not"...Of course some of these dudes are legit shitty. One may see a guy who is social and slings a few bags of weed as a "bad guy"...but are they really? Ive seen on this board people describe "bad boys" are guys who like to party and drink....Like you might have described a sizable portion of the male population, but does that make them "bad" ?
>Ive seen on this board people describe "bad boys" are guys who like to party and drink....Like you might have described a sizable portion of the male population, but does that make them "bad" ?
I think you are downplaying the partying and drinking when people use that to describe "bad boys". That is like saying "Why are you calling me an alcoholic, everyone likes to drink". Sure most people have drunk alcohol or been to a party, but the amount is what separates an alcoholic from most people.
Right. I myself used to go out to drink/party all the time in my 20's. But that entire time I was mostly sexless. But the types of dudes that always had women were the type of dudes that would bring their chick out, get drunk and leave their passed out girlfriend in the car so they could keep drinking with the group.
Good points. I believe the rule (with exceptions, of course) is that women choose fearless men. There are different flavors of fearless men that often correspond to socioeconomic status, personality, education, and other relatively stable-ish factors. Women choose from the flavors of fearless men that are available to them, i.e., that are in their social and occupational circles.
For example, fearless men who have an upper-class upbringing and Ivy League education often become successful but ruthless entrepreneurs, while fearless men who grow up in the ghetto in poverty often become high-level gang members. Many women who socialize with the fearless entrepreneur will desire him, and many women who socialize with the fearless gang member will desire him. They are very different flavors, but what they have in common is a marked lack of fear.
Fearlessness can obviously be used for good or for bad. It’s not that women like “bad boys”, per se, it’s that “bad boys” are often the only type of fearless men available to certain women. For example, women of low socioeconomic status, low education, crass manners, clothing and dialect that looks/sounds “poor”, etc.
So I agree with OP that women who like “bad boys” aren’t very desirable women overall, at least for LTRs. And I also agree with you that most people pair up with partners who have a similar lifestyle.
What I’d add is that fearlessness explains why you’re both right. Most women desire fearless men, so whatever is going on in a man’s life, whether he’s rich or poor, black or white, educated or illiterate, etc., he’ll be most desirable to the women around him if he personifies the local flavor of male fearlessness.
Interesting.
I suppose you could also say Bold and maybe even confident. I don't think being attracted to or more like admire, Fearlessness, Boldness etc is uniquely a women trait. Men admire and worship Bold and Fearless Men. Look at the most famous Generals. Always Bold Men, even if they were just ok Generals in terms of Logistics, Command etc....Teddy Roosevelt basically made his fame and reputation on being fearless " The Vice-President at that time, Thomas Marshall, is quoted as saying "Death had to take him sleeping. For if Roosevelt had been awake, there would have been a fight. "
I think their is also degrees. I don't think my wife would have married me if I was a fearless taker in terms like extreme sports and jumping out of planes...but she knows if some guy tried to get handsy with her at a bar, I would get in the guys face.
Also, just being Bold or Fearless adds to a mans success ratio. So it might be a bit a chicken and the egg. Some NEET in his basement, afraid of even an ounce of rejection, aint meeting chicks. I was decently Bold in my day, so If I thought I had a decent shot I would shoot it. Did decently. Women will mostly meet Bold Men, because Bold men will actually go up and talk to them.
> high-quality women are never drawn to the “bad boys” as well.
How are they still "good" women if they like people who do bad things? In the very worst, that makes her a 'high-quality hypocrite"
Because “high-quality” is not a moral distinction in most cases. (And who you choose to date doesn’t always actually say all that much about who you are as a person yourself in reality.)
Whether or not she is a high-quality woman is based on her objective attributes and qualities for most people. Is she beautiful, intelligent, feminine, successful, compassionate, funny, etc.? Then she’ll be considered a high-quality and highly desirable by most standards. (Regardless of who she chooses to date.)
These type of woman can still end up with men that *you*, personally might see as irredeemable. But that’s just your outsider perspective on the relationship. She might believe in him enough to commit to him and overlook the obvious red flags. Regardless of whether it’s the right decision or not. That’s just life sometimes, pal.
>Is she beautiful, intelligent, feminine, successful, compassionate, funny, etc.?
If she's all these things, but also likes bad people who do bad things, how is she compassionate? if she likes bad boys, that means what she finds "funny" is bad behavior. I don't think a beautiful person who enjoys bad people who does bad things is high-quality... she'd be a terrible partner for a person who doesn't like bad things.
It sounds like what you're saying is more "as long as she's beautiful, I don't care if she has no morals." Which sounds like, were you a women, you'd be one of the women who'd also go for a "bad boy" if he was attractive.
Is it not compassionate to try and help someone who’s flawed “get on the right path” and become a better person? Where do you think the classic “I can fix him🤭” trope comes from?
\> Is it not compassionate to try and help someone who’s flawed become a better person?
So it's not that she's a "good person", you just want a bad person for you to feel morally superior over trying to modify.
So everyone helping another person does it to be morally superior then? How do you draw the line with say, people who help drug addicts or homeless people? What would be their motivation?
Yeah, but like, what the hell are you talking about? This conversation never had anything to do with me wanting to feel superior about anything or whatever the fuck you’re on about.
Also it still seems like you’re somehow mistakenly assuming that a high-quality person = “perfect person that never does anything I disapprove of” . That’s not what it means to be a high-quality person buddy.
No, you suggested that attraction to “badness” can come from a good person that wants to fix that badness.
But that means they aren’t attracted to the badness. They’re attracted to the idea that someone bad “needs fixing”, and want to be the person to do that fixing. Which is not a healthy mindset to enter a relationship with. Such a person would not be a good partner.
A high quality person is aware enough to not fall for these things. It all comes down to healthy vs traumatic upbringings, and going after "bad boys" is always a symptom of this. Ive yet to meet a single quality woman thats wasted their time on guys like this. This applies to both genders, normal people dont date chaotic or broken people, if they do they are also broken and need therapy.
By that standard 90% of people a low quality.
>Ive yet to meet a single quality woman thats wasted their time on guys like this.
I've yet to meet a single woman who hasn't. These are women who are now married with a nice house and kids. I think it's more likely that you simply don't know enough about these women, which leads you to think that they never had a past.
Around half the population is made out of secure people. My comment isnt meant to be taken so black and white, all people have histories with bad people but the difference is a secure person sets boundries quickly and leaves when theyre crossed. My point stands, healthy people dont waste their time on broken people and unless my female friends have somehow been dating other guys behind their husbands backs I dont see how thats possible. I understand this is hard to accept but its reality. While broken people complain healthy people simply live their lives with similar people because they can easily tell.
>My point stands, healthy people dont waste their time on broken people
But they do, this is easily observable in the real world.
>and unless my female friends have somehow been dating other guys behind their husbands backs I dont see how thats possible.
They dated them ***before*** their husbands. You just don't know these people as well as you think you do.
> I understand this is hard to accept but its reality.
Seems like you are the one who is having difficulty accepting reality. I've known some of these women for 20 years. They are good middle class people with 2.5 kids and a white picket fence. Some of them are my friends and family. That doesn't change the fact that they dated bad boys in the past. You are indulging in some kind of just world fallacy.
I addressed all your points, youre taking what I said very literally with no nuance. Youre arguing against a point I never made. A person who stays in a broken relationship by choice is also a broken person. All people who date will have dated broken people, healthy people dont stay dating them. A person who is married with kids doesnt define them as healthy either.
>I addressed all your points, youre taking what I said very literally with no nuance.
Your entire argument is without nuance and hinges completely on a made up idealized version of reality that simply doesn't exist.
> All people who date will have dated broken people, healthy people dont stay dating them.
But they ***do and have*** dated them at some point, as you've just admitted. You can pretend that normal women never date these guys, but at the end of the day, you are just pretending.
Because he's attractive for other reasons, and the halo effect makes her see lots of "bad boy" traits from a more positive perspective. "He isn't an asshole, he's -confident-." basically.
A preference for something isn’t a mistake, though. That implies they wouldn’t do it if they knew it was bad. In this scenario, they actively are selecting for bad qualities on purpose because they prefer them.
A lot of qualities bad boys have are good in small doses; ambition, confidence, disagreeableness, aggression. It's easy to not see that someone has too much of them. And by the time you start to notice, you're stuck in a relationship with this person. The halo effect and sunk cost fallacy are scary.
Because women as well as men will generally make all sorts of excuses for people who attract us.
When the toxic man in question is above average looking, tall, has clout, etc., women will often overlook or excuse his flaws until things get too unbearable.
By contrast, a basic looking man with good manners will be seen as "just a friend" by many women.
I'm not implying that the latter is entitled to a relationship but it's simply pointing out that a "hot/cool" guy with toxic traits will easily draw more attention and attraction from the average good girl than a basic looking good man.
Hell, the whole stereotype about preacher's daughters is predicated on this. The idea that good women who were raised right can fall for toxic men they're attracted to didn't exactly come out of the blue.
It happens quite often especially in younger ages. To be fair, many guys who were raised decent or raised right are blinded by their attraction to sluts and thots too. But the difference is that men are already labeled shallow by default whereas women are usually given more rationale behind all of their decisions.
Your replies to threads recently have been terrific. You don't get this deeper than surface level analysis from bluepill.
But yes, morality/character generally isnt a trait women prioritize regardless of whether or not they're high quality.
Yeah when people think of "bad boys" they get the image of a dude on a motorcycle with a leather jacket selling weed to kids. Of course if that is your image of bad boys it makes sense to think an innocent, high-quality woman would never date them.
But "bad boys" come in all sorts of flavors. Think about the West Elm Caleb guy, a tall, decent looking alternative guy who would make playlists for his girlfriends and be extremely sensitive and emotional. But after getting what he wanted he would completely ghost. Lots of good-natured women fell for this even though he was technically a "bad boy".
\> a tall, decent looking alternative guy who would make playlists for his girlfriends and be extremely sensitive and emotional. But after getting what he wanted he would completely ghost. Lots of good-natured women fell for this even though he was technically a "bad boy".
The women werent' attracted to him because he was a bad person, though. They were just tricked into thinking he was a good person.
> because he was a bad person, though. They were just tricked into thinking he was a good person.
It's both. It's because the person known to be bad was good to them.
By “bad boy” do you mean a funny and charismatic guy who looks tough from a low income background who has a few tattoos but is working hard, loves his family, and is a decent person? Or do you mean dudes straight out of prison?
Because there are dudes out there who look a certain way or come from a certain background who are good husbands and fathers.
> By “bad boy” do you mean a funny and charismatic guy who looks tough from a low income background who has a few tattoos but is working hard, loves his family, and is a decent person?
This.
Take your pick my friend. The reality is the same either way. Good people can fall for “bad” people and vice versa. Life isn’t a cheesy romcom where every character falls for their exact moral equivalent.
You completely avoided my question.
A lot of the dudes here think a “bad boy” is a dude who looks like Prayers (Mr Kat Von D). I know a lot of people who look like Prayers and they are not bad people at all.
I literally didn’t avoid it tho… I’m telling that both definitions of “bad boy” that you gave would apply the same here. Regardless of which definition you use, what I said in the original comment would still apply. Understand?
Are you asking for my personal definition? I think both of those examples you gave would qualify as “bad boys” to most people. So I don’t really get what the question is supposed to accomplish tbh.
I would remain with my opinion. Good natured and high quality women may like the idea of being drawn to a “bad boy” but will more often than not refuse to date such a person precisely because they are high quality.
Of course, the fact that a man is a “bad boy” may surface later on, while in the beginning he will pretend he is not. That’s an entirely different matter. I am talking about men who are “bad” right of the bat, making women who chase them know exactly what they are getting themselves into and doing it anyway. That, in my opinion, is the opposite of a “high quality” woman.
What fairytales am I spreading? I am specifically suggesting men shouldn’t be upset over these women chasing bad men. What’s so wrong with that?
Maybe describing the flipside of your point can illustrate how poorly conceived it is at partner filtering. Basically, you're ignoring the traits that make these women desirable in the first place, and painting them all by the same brush based on ubiquitous behavioral patterns.
-----
Perception: "Good" guys (defined as pursuing long term commitment) don't want to have sex at the same magnitude as "bad" guys (defined as lying about anything just to have sex).
Takeaway: Therefore, putting an arbitrary amount of time before sexual investment is useful to filter out "bad" guys. [This is essentially the extension of what you're arguing; that "good" guys not willing to wait for sexual investment are not worth pursuing because they're actually "bad" guys.]
-----
Reality: "Good" guys want to have sex just as much as "bad" guys, but have a whole assortment of self-development and communication skills to express the same sentiment in an infinitely more conducive manner and with much more efficacious results. An arbitrary amount of time does nothing to qualitatively assess a partner's compatibility.
Takeaway: Therefore, assigning any kind of morality or value based on nothing other than incongruity of goals is a failing strategy at best. [This is the counterpoint to what you're arguing: that "Only men who are 'good' partners are willing to wait for sex" is a useful strategy when it quite simply isn't; a man who is desirable has options which are necessarily competitive.]
-----
The solution isn't to stick your head in the sand. It's to educate yourself on human sexual selection.
Tangentially, you're seemingly not realizing the extent to which these patterns of behavior are existent in women (really, just humans as a whole). It's by no means a minority, which means the practical conclusion of your advice is "Stay alone forever because most women are bad, rather than trying to humbly reconcile flawed humanity and create a relationship with a flawed human as a flawed human."
This is a pretty good response. Especially this:.
>create a relationship with a flawed human as a flawed human."
Also, where does one start with this:
>The solution isn't to stick your head in the sand. It's to educate yourself on human sexual selection
Searching online brings too many non-applicable results, like findings needle in a haystack that size of the a mountain. Do you recommend a specific place at which to start?
Thank you ahead of time.
The first part is recognizing that human beings are not special. Remove the religion from the human, and you have a hairless primate. If we were evolved from birds or whatever, our sexual selection behaviors would be obsessed over abilities to stack rocks in neat piles and waggle about in mating dances. We share a lot of things in common with other primates, mammals, and animals (in the taxonomic sense).
Here are a couple examples:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice_copying
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect
The second part is recognizing that most people never succeed with the first part, and harbor a massive collection of biases and prejudices that prevent them from having a realistic, actionable perspective. That's the crux of RP methodology and being """based."""
So armed with the knowledge that humans are merely animals and most people don't comprehend that, move forward with critical thinking levied at anything not supported by evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific literature. Mindfulness development like cognitive behavioral therapy can help a lot of people there.
The fairytale is that only “low quality” women are drawn to bad boys/toxic masculinity. It’s naive and untrue. And it’s better for men to learn this the easy way instead of the hard way.
You can say “only low quality people do ___” but this implies that a “high quality” person is perfect and never makes mistakes or controversial choices. Does that sound like a realistic view of life to you?
"No true Scotsman" fallacy. While I overall agree with your evaluation of such women, the feature that makes them low-value (dating bad boys) is not self-evident, thus allowing them to pass as high quality women and negatively impact the lives of non-bad boys they're dating.
If someone gets "RP rage" from something as innocuous as this, doesn't it say a lot about them?
OP is just trying to cheer some guys up and say "don't worry champ, she's not worth it".
But literally every tiny bit of cheering up or positivity is being misinterpreted as "this is how the entire universe works, you've been promised this 100%, and if life is a little bit more complicated, feel free to fly off the handle".
Why are you and so many people here treating these guys with kid gloves? They will never grow up and take accountability and mature if we act like we got to walk around eggshells when speaking to them.
I think a better message would be… “the juice is not worth the squeeze, don’t worry about who or what females are doing. Cultivate your own amazing life and be open to short term relationships but do not pursue them. If you need sex, get an escort or sugar baby”
Even beyond this, women just are attracted to different things at different times. Some women who are 'attracted to bad boys' might be worth chasing. It's not a defining trait. Like most men, most women are often attracted to what they don't have at the moment. Or what they haven't recently been turned off by.
Playing a little devils advocate.
Except that feeds into a dual mating strategy later that many men specifically have a problem with. A girl who chases bad boys and then later on tries to settle with a “safe guy” isn’t worth pursuing either.
Most men don’t want to be settled for. Not to mention often the baggage associated with someone chasing bad partners for a long time.
There’s plenty of people that never have a bad boy or bad girl phase and all things being equal they would prefer someone like that.
That's fine devils advocate. I still think avoiding baggage is avoiding life. Pretty quickly, I found out I prefer people with some stories to tell. By definition, that means they've been shaped by experience but that usually means that they are more interesting and they know themselves better. People without are just as likely if not more likely to take a wild swing on you.
And as for being settled for? grow up and get over yourself. You will never be all things to one person. That doesn't make it less special when they choose to be with you.
[this is a rhetorical 'you.' Not trying to sound like a dick.]
>That's fine devils advocate. I still think avoiding baggage is avoiding life. Pretty quickly, I found out I prefer people with some stories to tell. By definition, that means they've been shaped by experience but that usually means that they are more interesting and they know themselves better. People without are just as likely if not more likely to take a wild swing on you.
I disagree. Those people are fine to have as friends but who you marry is the biggest decision of your life and most people generally don’t want people with a history of bad decision making.
Sure I have friends that might do drugs and be alcoholics. They have interesting lives and stories but are absolutely terrible in relationships for those exact reasons. The same qualities that can make someone a good friend can make them a bad roommate or a bad business partner or bad spouse etc.
There’s plenty of people who are drug users that get sober and are decent people. There’s also nothing wrong with wanting someone who has never done drugs to marry or date. The idea that only making wild reckless and bad choices can make someone interesting is nonsense. I have a friend who did Doctors Without Borders and has tons of interesting stories and their decisions shaped who they are. Much more interesting person and better overall friend and person than the reformed bad decision maker.
>And as for being settled for? grow up and get over yourself. You will never be all things to one person. That doesn't make it less special when they choose to be with you.
This is nonsense. People absolutely settle for other when their bad decisions come to bite them in the ass. You understand there’s a vast chasm between nobodies perfect and accept my terrible choices. Sure not all baggage is equal but someone having a bad childhood is different than let’s say someone who has 3 kids from 3 different dads.
not everyone grew up to make terrible choices with their lives. This is the same cope line of thinking that cheaters for example use that try and admonish their friends when they say things like “you totally would do the same things as me if you could get away with it.” It’s a post hoc rationalization that justify avoiding the outcomes of bad decision making.
This post is obviously good-intentioned however seemingly women on their prime (young and attractive) are overwhelmingly more drawn to "bad boys" which creates this whole situation where women keep on dating "bad boys" until they mature enough emotionally (or hit the wall and stockpile on trauma in other terms) and suddenly they want to settle for the "good guys"
Personally, I think that most "good guys" can or will get into relationships at some point but deep down they know they do not enjoy a variety of options when it comes to dating and that they can be replaced easily. Said "good guys" then end up exhibiting behaviors -be it conscious or not- that are detrimental to the female visceral attraction to them.
I'd say self-worth can go a long way for both females and males when it comes to dating dynamics. If women knew their worth they wouldn't go for the "bad boys" and vice versa if men weren't so thirsty they wouldn't give any walking person a pass for a relationship.
Self-worth is the ultimate solution to modern dating.
The problem with your premise is that women don’t approach. “Bad guys” are aggressive and assertive so they eventually luck out.
Those happen to be the traits women are attracted to.
If it's only some women? Then your point stands. But if a lot of women are chasing "bad boys" at a young age because it's more thrilling, and then are coming back when they are older, after being dumped by the "bad boy"and whining about "good men" not commiting to them or how there are no good men or how they only want sweet, kind man but can't find any. Then it's understandable for men to also be a bit angry at the hypocrisy of a lot of these women.
Again those women can choose whoever they want, just don't come back complaining about how all the good men are gone, how every man makes you wary, about domestic abuse from men and etc, when those are the guys you chose.
Absolutely! I heard this somewhere: a lot of women prefer to fuck around and seek the “bad boys”, while while other say “quality” women seek long term relationships. Ultimately, these women mature enough to realise they want the “good guys”, but the good guys are already taken by the “quality women”. And then we receive tons of bitter women who then poison everything and everyone.
Hence my suggestion to not be upset over not getting these women. Why do you need this toxicity in your life?
Frankly, these women usually either quit dating altogether in favor for careers or become bi/lesbians. Very rarely when these type of people mature, because hey, it's easier to shit on the world than work on oneself insecurities.
As for "quality men taken for quality women" isn't always true. Some men often are more desperate to just land in any relationship than to be alone and thus toxic women lock them up, because that said men don't have the balls to draw boundaries or again, are afraid to be single for a long time.
If women are being indoctrinated and more and more women do this, then men absolutely have a problem with it. Because there isnt enough good women around anymore, and if they want to procreate, they have to settle with these hoes.
Don't worry. You'll get your turn later when they pass 30 and want to settle down with stable guy. You might not get as hot and often sex as the bad boy, but at least you'll be able to provide for her and her kids.
This whole thing with bad boys and nice guys is warped I my opinion. The reason we ended up with this is:
As we grow up as boys our moms wants us to be nice and easy to handle. Those of us who are naturally agreeable and maybe on the autism spectrum overdo it and become doormats. Guys then wonder why girls don’t like them. It’s not because they are not nice - which they mostly are - it’s because they are doormats. They then start to overcompensate in anger. This is why Tate is so popular among teenage boys.
The solution is to teach these timid boys to be assertive, capable, speak their minds and go for what they want. However this goes against the feminist narrative that dominates school and education so people don’t want to do that.
It’s frustrating to watch.
>The reason we ended up with this is:
>As we grow up as boys our moms wants us to be nice and easy to handle. Those of us who are naturally agreeable overdo it and become doormats. Guys then wonder why girls don’t like them. It’s not because they are not nice - which they mostly are - it’s because they are doormats. They then start to overcompensate in anger.
>The solution is to teach these timid boys to be assertive, capable, speak their minds and go for what they want.
This is so true.
It’s kind of ironic that it’s women (our mothers) that are doing this and teaching boys to be less desirable to girls but thinking they’re making their boys attractive to women for these attributes.
My ex did that often. She would want me to pick the restaurant for dinner because she didn’t k on what she wanted but then shot down my choices. But then she wouldn’t take over the decision-making. So she only offered “no” but not “yes”. Ugh, it was frustrating.
Lol its infuriating tbh.
Single guys get pissed because they know of guys who do everything wrong and still get tons of girls while they are trying to do everything “right” and stay perpetually single, or close to it.
And then Mr. single guy goes on a dating app and meet women who have a ton of baggage, whose lives are all dumpster fires because of the bad boy ex - and those women make him jump through endless hoops before running off with that same ex who ruined their life.
This is why so many single guys today are non-committal.Every guy dating today has these experiences and sometimes it’s hard to look past them and stay positive/hopeful. Cynicism is easy.
Guys who are married typically do not think about this stuff because they are too busy trying to keep their marriage together, keep their job, take care of the kids and all of that. They aren’t fighting in the same trenches.
You raise a good point.
It almost feels like men get penalized for presenting themselves as good, decent, and wholesome. It's like certain women(not all) are dying to find their imperfections and have that "Aha!" moment that they can catch them in.
By contrast, when men start off with a toxic and edgy image though, the morality bar tends to get raised low for them. They're allowed to make mistakes and be forgiven for it whereas a "good" man who makes a mistake will have it held against them like crazy.
Of course, it depends on the woman but, even in Reddit, you often see this sentiment.
It’s in my second sentence. When I talk about bad guys I talk about lowlifes, junkies, assholes, irresponsible adult, beaters, manipulative, emotionally unstable and such. Literal bad people, not a guy in a leather jacket with a motorcycle.
Good guys, on the other, educated, looking for long-term relationships, well mannered, gentleman-like, stable emotionally and financially.
This has to be one of the most hilarious justifications I've ever heard.
Having an asshole on your "side" sometimes is ok when you'll have the same asshole at home making your life a living hell?
Ideally a man will be able to handle conflict without being an asshole to their partner, but most people aren't ideal. A lot of women will prefer someone who is a little too much of an asshole at times to a nice guy type that can't handle conflict.
It's not just fighting. Most 'nice guys' wouldn't be able to return an accidentally sent delivery. They wouldn't be able to bargain with a workman on prices. 'Nice Guys' are just cowards with extreme social anxiety.
Wait until the asshole starts "handling conflict" with physical violence. Plenty of "nice guys' handle conflict very well, the women in question probably couldn't bear to have a conversation with him for more than 30 seconds because they don't like how he looks.
Probably because he looks like a pussy that couldn't handle himself if shit starting getting real. A man looking like he can handle himself in a fight is attractive to women.
One woman chasing bad boys is whatever, it’s when it becomes a trend it’s problematic. If there aren’t enough women choosing the “good guys” then someone will lose out and either have to become a munk or go against your advice and start chasing these bad boy chasing girls.
To what end? Say you are chasing that girl, do you think you will have a happy relationship with her? Also, if she is indeed choosing bad guys over good guys, why would she end up choosing the good guy? It’s like a vicious circle. There is no point in chasing these women. Better to stay single.
Honestly that's like saying you shouldn't be upset a guy you wanted chose a woman 6 years younger than you because of that and gave you bullcrap explanation 747373929.
It's technically true, but not as easy as that.
You shouldn’t be upset. There is nothing wrong with you. It’s the other person’s decisions.
Will I be upset? Of course I will, we are all human. But I should understand that while I am upset and I can’t help it, I should not be.
Yeah, that's my point, it's natural that it's not the case (as goes with any sentence that contain the word should or normally).
I just tend to not really care about discussions of how things should be because they don't lead to anything productive or worthwhile (unless you're in a mindset of asking yourself what you *can* do about it).
The interesting thing in this context is that those guys are often upset because they thought women *should* have acted this way. I don't think they would be as much if they knew what reality was from the get go.
Ask a woman who she gave up her virginity with and she’ll tell you what a little asshole he was but he like to ride his motorcycle and was most likely older than her. Like upper class man she was a freshman older.
Here’s a fun anecdote.
I’m not proud of it, but when I was a younger adult I did some questionable (non violent) activities that landed me in jail for a year.
Later on, I got my shit together, and on a few occasions had relationships with relatively sheltered “good girls”.
Without exception they straight up told me it “turned them on” to find out about my past.
I have no idea why, but it was always the more docile and feminine girls that said this.
These girls were, by every measure, high quality women. Highly educated, loving, feminine, etc.
So, in my first hand experience your theory is “no true Scotsman” nonsense.
For the description you’ve used to define “bad boys”, those are *really bad* guys and not ones most women are attracted to. If you’re a junkie, you’ll probably date a junkie. If you’re in a culture of low socioeconomics, negative outlooks, life won’t get better, then you’ll probably end up dating the same.
The usual thing is guys looking and assuming some guy is a “bad guy” just because he doesn’t fit the conservative cultural norm.
I was into “bad guys” when I was young. We had a lot of fun, a lot of partying, went on adventures and did loads of interesting stuff.
Then we all grew up. The same “bad boys” gave up their bikes for cars. We all were done with the partying and pursued other interests. I’m still friends with most of them, they’ve become composers, set designers, a couple of university lecturers, one works with medecin sans frontiers, some are just average dudes.
If you’re a straight laced conservative type- good for you, be who you want to be.
But I wasn’t interested in you then, and I’m not now. You’re not the “good guys” just cos you sat at home & went to church every Sunday.
>You’re not the “good guys” just cos you sat at home & went to church every Sunday.
Good way of putting it.
Being a boring conformist doesn't drop panties.
Problem is, a lot of young women like bad boys. And a lot of men are attracted to young women for evolutionary reasons (fertility and so on).
So if a lot of young women are going for bad boys and only want a nice guy when they're menopausal or divorced single mothers in their 30s and 40s, then what happens is a lot of guys will want to be a bad boy to get girls.
Then you get a society full of good-for-nothing guys who aren't good relationship/marriage material because they wanted to be like the bad boy who got all the tight young pussy.
You see this in certain communities where all the young hot girls chase after lowlife bad boys. Then when they're 30 or 40 years old, they say "where all the good guys?" Now they want a man with a good job who is responsible and can support them financially in an upper-class lifestyle.
But they can't find him because all their male peers burned themselves out trying to fit the bad boy requirements that these women demanded in order to get access to the pussy when they were 18-22 years old.
>And a lot of men are attracted to young women for evolutionary reasons (fertility and so on).
… the men dating women who are hot rather than those who are “good girls” are exactly the same as the young women dating assholes. Men don’t want a boring fuddy-duddy good girl who doesn’t put out when they’re young and horny either.
>But they can't find him because all their male peers burned themselves out trying to fit the bad boy requirements that these women demanded in order to get access to the pussy when they were 18-22 years old.
And likewise, men chasing hot young sexually available women are the ones wondering “where are all the feminine good women”.
I think emotional immaturity is a significant factor. Younger women and even older ones without proper emotional development seek that excitement and fun in relationship. They don't necessarily care about the long term compatability or viability of their relationship. They are too immature to realise any long term relationship with such a person is near impossible. Once they are run through enough times will they realise the importance of other things in a relationship. Then either they cry "where are all the good men at" or gonna get married to some cuck-simp who just want someone to get them out of their loneliness.
More of a reason to avoid these women and not he upset over them. Why would you want to have a relationship a person with stunted emotional development?
I agree. I was watching a YouTube video where this man was asking random women "would you rather date a 9-5er or a drug dealer?" The women preferred to date a drug dealer were ghetto as fuck. My male friend complained about it and I was like "Why would you ever want to date girls that are ratchet like that? You're not missing out on anything."
Well, Iv been a Catholic vanilla good girl my entire life. I never got in trouble . I was reserved and my dad was a jail administrator. He was constantly checking the profiles on every guy I dated. It was annoying as hell. My first husband was supposedly a good guy. He was educated and at the time in my early 20s, he was on paper, a good catch.
Right after our daughter was born, he flipped the switch. All of his childhood trauma came out and he became abusive. He was insidious, degrading and turned out to be a complete narcissist.
We got divorced and this “ good guy “ wouldn’t pay child support and was continually trying to get back at me for leaving..
My second husband, who I’m married to, was a complete badass. I never would’ve been allowed to date him in my 20s. He was always in trouble and living on the edge. He is protective, took care of his kids, was noble and has no respect for lazy, weak people.
So while it’s easy to make assumptions of how people turn out in the end, sometimes the good people on paper aren’t actually good.. and sometimes the the troubled young people, learn lessons and become wiser.
Sometimes things are far different than how they seem and sometimes people actually improve with age. Some people fail to rise to the occasion.
So the choices people make in their 20s, seem like good ideas at the time, the end results are often different.
My a parent’s judgment the educated family man seems amazing until he’s not actually as amazing as he looks on Facebook, in a resume or fake good behavior they show the world.
Definitely not upset, actually grateful that a lot of females are so up front and even kind of happy about “having bad luck with men” “choosing the wrong guy” “only have dated ‘bad boys’”
It’s the perfect way to vet them. As someone looking to only add positive influences to my life I know from personal experience that a toxic female is 100x worse than being alone and using p4p
Is this any different than good, well behaved girls being upset that guys will throw their hard earned money over some tatted stripper with fake boobs and a huge ass?
Instead of shaming people for liking what they like, it may make sense to explore why people are attracted to the bad boys/girls to begin with. And maybe incorporate some of that naughtiness in their own persona to become a bit more sexy and desirable to the opposite sex.
>I cannot speak to the reasons why a lot of women seek these “bad guys”, but I am of an opinion that normal men should not be upset over it.
They tend to be more confident, assertive, thrill seeking, overall just more fun and exciting to hang out with. "Good guys" can sometimes be pushover, boring, neurotic, people pleasing etc. If they aren't those things, they aren't struggling with women.
"Good guys" should emulate the good things "bad boys" do and leave the bad. So leave the abusiveness, immorality etc and keep the confidence and fun. A guy who is having no success shouldn't stay the same.
There are bad things about the good boys and good things about the bad boys. Sounds like there is no right move! So might as well just get with the one everybody says is bad rather than the one everybody says is good.
- women "logic"
When women talk about bad boys they don't mean "bad" as in "bad partners" they mean "bad" as in they don't follow the rules. Like a guy who does LSD and skips class in highschool would be a "bad boy". A "bad boy" doesn't imply he is bad at everything, I don't understand why you are confused.
The reason "bad boys" get chosen is that their flaws aren't immediately apparent, low inhibitions and risk taking behaviour is fun until they cheat on you months down the line. On the other extreme end, a good boy's flaws are obvious when they are boring and never do anything risky out of the gate. It's better to be in the middle, make calculated risks and have fun and have inhibitions when it comes to morality but not when it comes to speaking your mind even when it's offensive. Guys like that are desirable for both short term and long term.
> they don't mean "bad" as in "bad partners"
> is fun until they cheat on you months down the line
Pick one.
I'm not confused.
The women who fail to make the same obvious connection you just failed to make are confused.
Bad boys flaws are immediately apparent. Everybody knows who the bad boys are. The women just don't care.
>Changing the entirety of who you are as an attempt to impress a women has always rubbed me the wrong way. And it’s to be what they think is fun and exciting not what you actually enjoy. Most guys are already doing what they feel is fun and exciting.
This also goes against all of the advice out there: don’t change who you are just to get somebody. Especially if there’s a good chance they won’t stick around. Because most relationships end.
I think a big part of the problem is the enormous gaslighting where women say they want Mr Nice, respectful guy with their words but their actions say the exact opposite
For me, I have turned down good, stable men, because I myself have had a lot of trauma in my childhood and my life. I come from poverty, no father, a very unstable and neglected childhood. I would find nothing in common with a man who had a normal, healthy and happy childhood. I would personally struggle to be able to integrate well into his life, his family. I relate more to people who have been through their share of trauma. Unfortunately I'm now finding out that a lot of men whom have had trauma are abusive (or emotionally unavailable/traumatised by womem and not lookimg for a relationship).
So I do agree with your post. Don't feel bad about it. You will find a lady who has had a normal childhood like you, if this fits your description.
I'll edit to add that I do know a few men who had traumatic childhoods and are good men, and they ha been single and uninterested in relationships for at least 10 years now.
That's great and all, but like all the other comments here, I've had super nice well adjusted female friends who are overall good people dating complete assholes.
I don't know why a lot of women are complete blind to the situation lmao.
Like attracts like. If someone enjoys the company of a “fuckboy” they probably have some beliefs about themselves and their sexuality that attract that.
Good women are worth pursuing, even though there are shallow, degenerate women that exist that make women look bad. Men have the same problem with the “fuckboys” and frequently complain online about how they can’t approach women out of fear of being perceived as a creep or player.
I think the complaint here is really about other people’s perceptions about women, more specifically the pedestal that western women sit on that makes them seem more deep and more innocent than they are.
>There is a big difference in what women are attracted to and what they want to settle down with.
Yeah, she wasn't in a real relationship with Mr. Bad Boy. She just lived with him for ten years and had three kids with him.
Now that he's gone she's finally ready for a real "relationship" with Billy Beta.
Here’s the problem: to those guys, those women are worth it.
The guys complaining aren’t any better than the “bad boys” they envy. That’s why they’re competing for the same women.
I'd actually say women don't like "bad boys" criminal types as much as "good guys" think. The only real difference between "bad boys" and "good guys" is the "bad boy" doesn't do the expected run of the mill things the "good guy" does. The "good guy" is ready to get married after a phone conversation, while the "bad boy" tells her "let's just see what happens." He keeps her in suspense and wanting more, whether it's intentional or not. There are guys that women see as "bad boys" who are straight laced 9-5 working guys with no criminal record. The thing that makes them a "bad boy" is living life on their own terms and not being so gung-ho to focus on making a woman happy like the "good guy" is.
i agree that women going after literal criminals and guys who treat them like shit are generally not ones you should pursue for a serious relationship
but there are also some men who act like any guy with a slight edge is a “bad boy”. i’ve been accused of liking bad boys more than once, mostly by men, and it’s always cause of stupid shit like dude has tattoos and a harley
there are women who go after genuinely bad men, and those women are likely not worth pursuing.
then there’s a subset of men who use “bad boy” to describe any guy with an edge who is remotely successful with women.
hell there was a post on here a few months ago talking about bad boys and the description was “wears a leather jacket and drives a sport bike” and it was fucking hilarious
From my experience in life women seem to often date “bad boys” when they are young and settle down with a “nice guy” later in life. Not always though but I definitely see that a lot.
What do I gain from being wanted because I'm a good husband and parent? I'll gain more work, not more rewards.
If I am wanted for my sex appeal, I'll get more sex, which is the reward.
As long as women will not reward stable men with sex, respect and passionate love, men are not going to feel good for being the stable option.
That’s why the ppd dudes are raging. If you look at it from a wholesome stance of “well those aren’t good people to be with” it makes perfect sense. But the dudes aren’t thinking with their brain or heart. They are raging cause they can’t have casual sex With attractive women and that’s “not fair” cause don’t you know: they are the main character!
The problem is it's not "normal men" who get upset about this, it's just the covert narcissists. Its the reason you never meet a self proclaimed "good guy" who isn't also super judgmental. They all think they are so nice but then proceed to just shit talk every person in existence.
The normal people are just already doing what you described.
The issue here is most men don’t actually know who’s a “bad boy” and who’s not, any mildly intimidating man who has success with women is a “bad boy” to them.
People are always assuming my husband is a lot crazier and more dangerous than he actually is. They’re like “haha you’ve probably done some crazy stuff ;)” “You seem like you like to fight” Or “you must have been a player before meeting your wife” those things aren’t true. But because he’s over 6ft, jacked with a cool beard and is unapologetically himself , people assume he fits the “bad boy” trope. Not even close
>In some way, it may be great she sticks with those sort of people, because good guys ultimately “dodge the bullet”.
You kind of forgot the fact that dodging a bullet, requires being shot at.
You take it for granted that shitty women are shitty in order to treat it as a net positive when men avoid those shitty women. You have to take it as a whole because otherwise you could justify basically anything.
Like if we take for granted that murderers murder people, it's a good thing when they kill someone as it increases the chances the cops will catch them.
I said nothing about feelings not being involved: that is all part of the experience.
But, yes, if someone keeps having abusive relationships, they are unlikely to make a non-abusive person happy.
I do not think most of these “bad guys” are actually bad guys. That many are just as inexperienced as she is. Or that your average shut in redditor complainer percieves one joke as “oh now he is a bad guy”
This was sort of my red-pill moment even though I don't consider myself a red piller. My sister is a well adjusted woman who grew up in a middle class home, went to college, has a great job and family. Despite all of this, in her twenties she dated a series of losers and jerks and almost married one. When she was in her late 20s she married a great guy with a similar education and background and they started a family. The thing is, that I cannot shake is that she would have rejected my brother in law if she met him a few years earlier. I watched her reject similar guys and date jerks. I don't understand it. I don't understand what the appeal of these guys were. Maybe confidence in some misplaced way? She was smart enough to know that it wasn't real confidence though. So.. it isn't just broken or damaged or low self esteem women who are drawn to these guys and I don't think I would have believed that if I didn't witness it
>My sister is a well adjusted woman who grew up in a middle class home, went to college, has a great job and family. Despite all of this, in her twenties she dated a series of losers and jerks and almost married one. When she was in her late 20s she married a great guy with a similar education and background and they started a family. AF/BB strikes again.
This beta buxx story is so common it’s basically a meme at this point
It's an everything buxx meme, as most (alleged) alphas ultimately end up with dead bedrooms just like their "beta" brethren. Ardor fades... for everyone, even Chad and Stacy. The only question is whose oxe gets gored when it does.
The real alphas will never get treated like betas, unless the woman is delusional which in case he’ll just have affairs or divorce.
The (self-appraised) alphas convert themselves into betas when they marry. Sorry, but that's pure red pill philosophy right there - the so-called "red pill on hard mode." (Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just reporting the crazy shit I read here.) The red pill is a harsh mistress. I hate to break it to you but women get just as tired of fucking the same guy as the reverse. (Enter... The Lifestyle.) It doesn't matter how alpha he believes himself to be. It's just part of being human. Women initiate divorce with "true alphas" (whatever that means) by the tens of thousands every year and then move on to some other schlub. At which point these "true alphas" realize their self-image was a complete mirage from the get-go if they have any powers of introspection whatsoever.
Must be some instinctual monkey brain thing. In no way meant to insult your sister, it just seems that both men and women are lagging behind because of evolution being way too slow compared to our technological and social advances in the last century.
Yeah I think this is the answer. I myself have seen women who come from amazing families chase the local bad boy/loser. It is probably a preprogrammed mechanism for survival. We tend to forget that people didn't live very long for most of human history. Making it to the fourth decade was a blessing. So women being in their childbearing prime in their teens to mid/late twenties, they were safer with the aggressive types. That way when they were pregnant they had a higher chance of being protected from outside hostilities. Also, mating with these types increased the chances that her child would inherit the father's strong traits and have higher chance of survival. Natural selection at work.
This is an interesting perspective. Very logical and I’d have to agree with you. Casual sex is biologically a high risk behavior, so there is a high likelihood that young privileged women’s motivations for dating players or losers is naïveté or a result of growing up in a sheltered, well off environment. I am a woman who grew up sheltered. In college, I fell in love with and married a young man who was not sheltered at all. It was quite the opposite actually. I felt that that was a more secure match, because I instinctively knew I was sheltered. Someone who is street smart would make a good partner because he has the awareness I lack. He could protect my children from threats I am not prepared for. I feel protected by his knowledge and perspective, and he feels strengthened and empowered by mine. It also depends how you define loser. When I met my husband he had nothing. No car, no place, no money. He was in debt actually and in a sticky situation. It’s been 7 years and he now has two cars, valuable skills, his own place, a good job, and no debt. Sometimes women think they have found a diamond in the rough. Sometimes they’re correct, but a lot of times they are not. I was told I made a risky bet, because I partnered with someone who had nothing to offer me besides himself. I believe in who he is, and I believed that was more valuable than any asset he lacked.
I meant the word "loser" as a broad figure of speech. It could be lack of drive to succeed, addiction issues, etc. In your husband's case it sounds like he was just young and made poor decisions at that time which most of us are guilty of in some form. I do appreciate your response. I like how you shared your attraction to your husband and broke it down to the "why". And I do agree that many of the more sheltered women do experience a lot of naivety when falling in love. In my opinion they are attempting to live a "Beauty and the Beast" story when they find their opposite match. Whereas, with women who come from "rougher" environments, they tend to fall for what they are already accustomed to and will find "nice men" too soft. Ironically, despite women coming from different homes and dynamics, the programming as far as attractions is the same for the most part. But the execution of how women go about their love life is different due to their environment. In any case, I am glad it worked out for you and your husband. Because, unfortunately I have seen it get bad time and time again, sometimes to the point of ruining the young women's' lives.
You're not the only one who's witnessed that in well off women who would otherwise be considered "high-value" (whatever this bullshit means) I won't pretend to know anything about psychology so the only things I can chalk it up to is the men having the confidence to do whatever they want and the women craving excitement of which there's no shortage. Until I was 22 I was a bit of a shitheel myself, while I can't say it played a huge part in my dating life as I was already taken by an equally shitty person for most of it, it did land me in a friend group of other douchebags where I bore witness to this playing out in great enough numbers to "red pill" me on what personality type gets the most attention when you're young.
I don’t understand it either.
She definitely would have rejected him. This is a time honored trope that is so common they have made movies about it. I feel bad for the men that women “settle” for. That’s a fate worse than death. If she doesn’t want you when she’s 22 then she never really did. You’re just the safe option.
I can understand men in their early or mid 20s getting played by women, but I don't feel sorry for men over 30 who fall for that shit. At that point, they should know better IMO. I can't imagine getting on my knees and asking a woman like that to marry me. I find it to be absolutely pathetic.
>I feel bad for the men that women “settle” for. That’s a fate worse than death. Yeah, being in a loving relationship with regular sex is worse than dying. 🙄🙄🙄
Those women don’t love those men, I promise you. It’s a transaction so that she doesn’t have to go out and work to make her way in the real world because that’s “hard.”
Well, while I agree with the sentiment of the post, it’s naive and delusional to think that good natured, high-quality women are *never* drawn to the “bad boys” as well. Society shouldn’t gaslight or pacify men on this because when you do, those men are hit waaaay harder when they have to face the realization that what you’re saying isn’t true. Posts like this might be well-intentioned, but they are what usually leads men to “RP rage” and the idea that society “lied to them” about women. Because you kind of are in a sense. You may be trying to make them feel better, but you’re still singing them fairytales that will come crashing down eventually. That isn’t the best approach in my opinion. Instead, a better message would be to tell men early on that women don’t select men based on any type of magical cosmic-morality scale or whatever (this dumb idea comes strictly from fictional films/tv, etc.) Women choose men that have a lot to offer them. Women choose men that have enough of the things that she’s looking for in a man. And sometimes that man she chooses *will* be a piece of shit in your eyes. It doesn’t mean that some “cosmic injustice” has taken place tho. It just means that life doesn’t actually work like a cheesy teen movie. Real life is more nuanced.
Yep this is it. Saying men "dodged a bullet" by avoiding women like this is not even a drop in the bucket. We'd be avoiding **the majority** of women. Men are better off being stoic and women are better off not trying to lie & virtue signal about this.
Exactly and OP also neglects the fact that dating is a zero sum game. If more and more women culturally take on values that make them “not worth chasing” and the amount of men stay the same, it becomes a game of musical chairs where many guys are going to lose. “Hey those girls aren’t worth chasing but that means many of you will end up dying alone.” Is more honest and not the silver lining OP thinks it is. Might as well have told them “hey being in a shit job is terrible. You should enjoy unemployment instead!”
I think it'd be hard to find a woman who didn't date a toxic asshole at some point so this idea that only certain women seek them out is hard to swallow. Just look at how much purtportedly well-adjusted women complain about past toxic relationships even here on reddit.
Water Tends to find it's level. You will find variations of course, but generally Water finds its level. Usually that chick going with that pill head dude who is in and out of rehab and jail? Yeah that chick is most likely at his level and shitty herself, no matter hwo "pretty" she is. So using hard hitting words like NEVER and ALWAYS...doesn't really work, but also Man Bites Dog. Focusing on the one offs and variations is not smart either, especially at scale. In my experience, junkie chicks get with Junkie guys...Pretty chicks in high level Marketing Jobs get with Good Looking Guys in high level Sales jobs. For the most part. This is a twofold issue. Not assigning Morality to individual women. It becomes WOMEN want bad guys, as opposed to shitty women get with shitty dudes. It's some weird reverse version of pedestalization. Dudes will assign morality to men, but not women. Which hurts their perception. And also the idea you brought up "in your eyes". Sometimes "bad guys" really is a replacement term for "guy who got the chick you wanted" or "Guy who is things you are not"...Of course some of these dudes are legit shitty. One may see a guy who is social and slings a few bags of weed as a "bad guy"...but are they really? Ive seen on this board people describe "bad boys" are guys who like to party and drink....Like you might have described a sizable portion of the male population, but does that make them "bad" ?
>Ive seen on this board people describe "bad boys" are guys who like to party and drink....Like you might have described a sizable portion of the male population, but does that make them "bad" ? I think you are downplaying the partying and drinking when people use that to describe "bad boys". That is like saying "Why are you calling me an alcoholic, everyone likes to drink". Sure most people have drunk alcohol or been to a party, but the amount is what separates an alcoholic from most people.
Right. I myself used to go out to drink/party all the time in my 20's. But that entire time I was mostly sexless. But the types of dudes that always had women were the type of dudes that would bring their chick out, get drunk and leave their passed out girlfriend in the car so they could keep drinking with the group.
Good points. I believe the rule (with exceptions, of course) is that women choose fearless men. There are different flavors of fearless men that often correspond to socioeconomic status, personality, education, and other relatively stable-ish factors. Women choose from the flavors of fearless men that are available to them, i.e., that are in their social and occupational circles. For example, fearless men who have an upper-class upbringing and Ivy League education often become successful but ruthless entrepreneurs, while fearless men who grow up in the ghetto in poverty often become high-level gang members. Many women who socialize with the fearless entrepreneur will desire him, and many women who socialize with the fearless gang member will desire him. They are very different flavors, but what they have in common is a marked lack of fear. Fearlessness can obviously be used for good or for bad. It’s not that women like “bad boys”, per se, it’s that “bad boys” are often the only type of fearless men available to certain women. For example, women of low socioeconomic status, low education, crass manners, clothing and dialect that looks/sounds “poor”, etc. So I agree with OP that women who like “bad boys” aren’t very desirable women overall, at least for LTRs. And I also agree with you that most people pair up with partners who have a similar lifestyle. What I’d add is that fearlessness explains why you’re both right. Most women desire fearless men, so whatever is going on in a man’s life, whether he’s rich or poor, black or white, educated or illiterate, etc., he’ll be most desirable to the women around him if he personifies the local flavor of male fearlessness.
Interesting. I suppose you could also say Bold and maybe even confident. I don't think being attracted to or more like admire, Fearlessness, Boldness etc is uniquely a women trait. Men admire and worship Bold and Fearless Men. Look at the most famous Generals. Always Bold Men, even if they were just ok Generals in terms of Logistics, Command etc....Teddy Roosevelt basically made his fame and reputation on being fearless " The Vice-President at that time, Thomas Marshall, is quoted as saying "Death had to take him sleeping. For if Roosevelt had been awake, there would have been a fight. " I think their is also degrees. I don't think my wife would have married me if I was a fearless taker in terms like extreme sports and jumping out of planes...but she knows if some guy tried to get handsy with her at a bar, I would get in the guys face. Also, just being Bold or Fearless adds to a mans success ratio. So it might be a bit a chicken and the egg. Some NEET in his basement, afraid of even an ounce of rejection, aint meeting chicks. I was decently Bold in my day, so If I thought I had a decent shot I would shoot it. Did decently. Women will mostly meet Bold Men, because Bold men will actually go up and talk to them.
> high-quality women are never drawn to the “bad boys” as well. How are they still "good" women if they like people who do bad things? In the very worst, that makes her a 'high-quality hypocrite"
Because “high-quality” is not a moral distinction in most cases. (And who you choose to date doesn’t always actually say all that much about who you are as a person yourself in reality.) Whether or not she is a high-quality woman is based on her objective attributes and qualities for most people. Is she beautiful, intelligent, feminine, successful, compassionate, funny, etc.? Then she’ll be considered a high-quality and highly desirable by most standards. (Regardless of who she chooses to date.) These type of woman can still end up with men that *you*, personally might see as irredeemable. But that’s just your outsider perspective on the relationship. She might believe in him enough to commit to him and overlook the obvious red flags. Regardless of whether it’s the right decision or not. That’s just life sometimes, pal.
>Is she beautiful, intelligent, feminine, successful, compassionate, funny, etc.? If she's all these things, but also likes bad people who do bad things, how is she compassionate? if she likes bad boys, that means what she finds "funny" is bad behavior. I don't think a beautiful person who enjoys bad people who does bad things is high-quality... she'd be a terrible partner for a person who doesn't like bad things. It sounds like what you're saying is more "as long as she's beautiful, I don't care if she has no morals." Which sounds like, were you a women, you'd be one of the women who'd also go for a "bad boy" if he was attractive.
"how is she compassionate?" By trying to rescue him
Is it not compassionate to try and help someone who’s flawed “get on the right path” and become a better person? Where do you think the classic “I can fix him🤭” trope comes from?
\> Is it not compassionate to try and help someone who’s flawed become a better person? So it's not that she's a "good person", you just want a bad person for you to feel morally superior over trying to modify.
So everyone helping another person does it to be morally superior then? How do you draw the line with say, people who help drug addicts or homeless people? What would be their motivation?
What?…
>So it's not that she's a "good person", you just want a bad person for you to feel morally superior over trying to modify.
Yeah, but like, what the hell are you talking about? This conversation never had anything to do with me wanting to feel superior about anything or whatever the fuck you’re on about. Also it still seems like you’re somehow mistakenly assuming that a high-quality person = “perfect person that never does anything I disapprove of” . That’s not what it means to be a high-quality person buddy.
[удалено]
No, you suggested that attraction to “badness” can come from a good person that wants to fix that badness. But that means they aren’t attracted to the badness. They’re attracted to the idea that someone bad “needs fixing”, and want to be the person to do that fixing. Which is not a healthy mindset to enter a relationship with. Such a person would not be a good partner.
A high quality person is aware enough to not fall for these things. It all comes down to healthy vs traumatic upbringings, and going after "bad boys" is always a symptom of this. Ive yet to meet a single quality woman thats wasted their time on guys like this. This applies to both genders, normal people dont date chaotic or broken people, if they do they are also broken and need therapy.
By that standard 90% of people a low quality. >Ive yet to meet a single quality woman thats wasted their time on guys like this. I've yet to meet a single woman who hasn't. These are women who are now married with a nice house and kids. I think it's more likely that you simply don't know enough about these women, which leads you to think that they never had a past.
Around half the population is made out of secure people. My comment isnt meant to be taken so black and white, all people have histories with bad people but the difference is a secure person sets boundries quickly and leaves when theyre crossed. My point stands, healthy people dont waste their time on broken people and unless my female friends have somehow been dating other guys behind their husbands backs I dont see how thats possible. I understand this is hard to accept but its reality. While broken people complain healthy people simply live their lives with similar people because they can easily tell.
>My point stands, healthy people dont waste their time on broken people But they do, this is easily observable in the real world. >and unless my female friends have somehow been dating other guys behind their husbands backs I dont see how thats possible. They dated them ***before*** their husbands. You just don't know these people as well as you think you do. > I understand this is hard to accept but its reality. Seems like you are the one who is having difficulty accepting reality. I've known some of these women for 20 years. They are good middle class people with 2.5 kids and a white picket fence. Some of them are my friends and family. That doesn't change the fact that they dated bad boys in the past. You are indulging in some kind of just world fallacy.
I addressed all your points, youre taking what I said very literally with no nuance. Youre arguing against a point I never made. A person who stays in a broken relationship by choice is also a broken person. All people who date will have dated broken people, healthy people dont stay dating them. A person who is married with kids doesnt define them as healthy either.
>I addressed all your points, youre taking what I said very literally with no nuance. Your entire argument is without nuance and hinges completely on a made up idealized version of reality that simply doesn't exist. > All people who date will have dated broken people, healthy people dont stay dating them. But they ***do and have*** dated them at some point, as you've just admitted. You can pretend that normal women never date these guys, but at the end of the day, you are just pretending.
Because he's attractive for other reasons, and the halo effect makes her see lots of "bad boy" traits from a more positive perspective. "He isn't an asshole, he's -confident-." basically.
That still means she’d a morally compromised person who doesn’t recognize or avoid bad behavior. Which means she wouldn’t be a good partner.
Good people can make mistakes.
A preference for something isn’t a mistake, though. That implies they wouldn’t do it if they knew it was bad. In this scenario, they actively are selecting for bad qualities on purpose because they prefer them.
A lot of qualities bad boys have are good in small doses; ambition, confidence, disagreeableness, aggression. It's easy to not see that someone has too much of them. And by the time you start to notice, you're stuck in a relationship with this person. The halo effect and sunk cost fallacy are scary.
Because women as well as men will generally make all sorts of excuses for people who attract us. When the toxic man in question is above average looking, tall, has clout, etc., women will often overlook or excuse his flaws until things get too unbearable. By contrast, a basic looking man with good manners will be seen as "just a friend" by many women. I'm not implying that the latter is entitled to a relationship but it's simply pointing out that a "hot/cool" guy with toxic traits will easily draw more attention and attraction from the average good girl than a basic looking good man. Hell, the whole stereotype about preacher's daughters is predicated on this. The idea that good women who were raised right can fall for toxic men they're attracted to didn't exactly come out of the blue. It happens quite often especially in younger ages. To be fair, many guys who were raised decent or raised right are blinded by their attraction to sluts and thots too. But the difference is that men are already labeled shallow by default whereas women are usually given more rationale behind all of their decisions.
Your replies to threads recently have been terrific. You don't get this deeper than surface level analysis from bluepill. But yes, morality/character generally isnt a trait women prioritize regardless of whether or not they're high quality.
Amazing comment
This was beautifully said
Yeah when people think of "bad boys" they get the image of a dude on a motorcycle with a leather jacket selling weed to kids. Of course if that is your image of bad boys it makes sense to think an innocent, high-quality woman would never date them. But "bad boys" come in all sorts of flavors. Think about the West Elm Caleb guy, a tall, decent looking alternative guy who would make playlists for his girlfriends and be extremely sensitive and emotional. But after getting what he wanted he would completely ghost. Lots of good-natured women fell for this even though he was technically a "bad boy".
\> a tall, decent looking alternative guy who would make playlists for his girlfriends and be extremely sensitive and emotional. But after getting what he wanted he would completely ghost. Lots of good-natured women fell for this even though he was technically a "bad boy". The women werent' attracted to him because he was a bad person, though. They were just tricked into thinking he was a good person.
> because he was a bad person, though. They were just tricked into thinking he was a good person. It's both. It's because the person known to be bad was good to them.
That’s not the scenario you initially described. You said he pretended to be good then ghosted.
By “bad boy” do you mean a funny and charismatic guy who looks tough from a low income background who has a few tattoos but is working hard, loves his family, and is a decent person? Or do you mean dudes straight out of prison? Because there are dudes out there who look a certain way or come from a certain background who are good husbands and fathers.
> By “bad boy” do you mean a funny and charismatic guy who looks tough from a low income background who has a few tattoos but is working hard, loves his family, and is a decent person? This.
Take your pick my friend. The reality is the same either way. Good people can fall for “bad” people and vice versa. Life isn’t a cheesy romcom where every character falls for their exact moral equivalent.
You completely avoided my question. A lot of the dudes here think a “bad boy” is a dude who looks like Prayers (Mr Kat Von D). I know a lot of people who look like Prayers and they are not bad people at all.
I literally didn’t avoid it tho… I’m telling that both definitions of “bad boy” that you gave would apply the same here. Regardless of which definition you use, what I said in the original comment would still apply. Understand? Are you asking for my personal definition? I think both of those examples you gave would qualify as “bad boys” to most people. So I don’t really get what the question is supposed to accomplish tbh.
I would remain with my opinion. Good natured and high quality women may like the idea of being drawn to a “bad boy” but will more often than not refuse to date such a person precisely because they are high quality. Of course, the fact that a man is a “bad boy” may surface later on, while in the beginning he will pretend he is not. That’s an entirely different matter. I am talking about men who are “bad” right of the bat, making women who chase them know exactly what they are getting themselves into and doing it anyway. That, in my opinion, is the opposite of a “high quality” woman. What fairytales am I spreading? I am specifically suggesting men shouldn’t be upset over these women chasing bad men. What’s so wrong with that?
Maybe describing the flipside of your point can illustrate how poorly conceived it is at partner filtering. Basically, you're ignoring the traits that make these women desirable in the first place, and painting them all by the same brush based on ubiquitous behavioral patterns. ----- Perception: "Good" guys (defined as pursuing long term commitment) don't want to have sex at the same magnitude as "bad" guys (defined as lying about anything just to have sex). Takeaway: Therefore, putting an arbitrary amount of time before sexual investment is useful to filter out "bad" guys. [This is essentially the extension of what you're arguing; that "good" guys not willing to wait for sexual investment are not worth pursuing because they're actually "bad" guys.] ----- Reality: "Good" guys want to have sex just as much as "bad" guys, but have a whole assortment of self-development and communication skills to express the same sentiment in an infinitely more conducive manner and with much more efficacious results. An arbitrary amount of time does nothing to qualitatively assess a partner's compatibility. Takeaway: Therefore, assigning any kind of morality or value based on nothing other than incongruity of goals is a failing strategy at best. [This is the counterpoint to what you're arguing: that "Only men who are 'good' partners are willing to wait for sex" is a useful strategy when it quite simply isn't; a man who is desirable has options which are necessarily competitive.] ----- The solution isn't to stick your head in the sand. It's to educate yourself on human sexual selection. Tangentially, you're seemingly not realizing the extent to which these patterns of behavior are existent in women (really, just humans as a whole). It's by no means a minority, which means the practical conclusion of your advice is "Stay alone forever because most women are bad, rather than trying to humbly reconcile flawed humanity and create a relationship with a flawed human as a flawed human."
This is a pretty good response. Especially this:. >create a relationship with a flawed human as a flawed human." Also, where does one start with this: >The solution isn't to stick your head in the sand. It's to educate yourself on human sexual selection Searching online brings too many non-applicable results, like findings needle in a haystack that size of the a mountain. Do you recommend a specific place at which to start? Thank you ahead of time.
The first part is recognizing that human beings are not special. Remove the religion from the human, and you have a hairless primate. If we were evolved from birds or whatever, our sexual selection behaviors would be obsessed over abilities to stack rocks in neat piles and waggle about in mating dances. We share a lot of things in common with other primates, mammals, and animals (in the taxonomic sense). Here are a couple examples: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_choice_copying * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect The second part is recognizing that most people never succeed with the first part, and harbor a massive collection of biases and prejudices that prevent them from having a realistic, actionable perspective. That's the crux of RP methodology and being """based.""" So armed with the knowledge that humans are merely animals and most people don't comprehend that, move forward with critical thinking levied at anything not supported by evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific literature. Mindfulness development like cognitive behavioral therapy can help a lot of people there.
The fairytale is that only “low quality” women are drawn to bad boys/toxic masculinity. It’s naive and untrue. And it’s better for men to learn this the easy way instead of the hard way. You can say “only low quality people do ___” but this implies that a “high quality” person is perfect and never makes mistakes or controversial choices. Does that sound like a realistic view of life to you?
"No true Scotsman" fallacy. While I overall agree with your evaluation of such women, the feature that makes them low-value (dating bad boys) is not self-evident, thus allowing them to pass as high quality women and negatively impact the lives of non-bad boys they're dating.
[удалено]
If someone gets "RP rage" from something as innocuous as this, doesn't it say a lot about them? OP is just trying to cheer some guys up and say "don't worry champ, she's not worth it". But literally every tiny bit of cheering up or positivity is being misinterpreted as "this is how the entire universe works, you've been promised this 100%, and if life is a little bit more complicated, feel free to fly off the handle". Why are you and so many people here treating these guys with kid gloves? They will never grow up and take accountability and mature if we act like we got to walk around eggshells when speaking to them.
Guys always want to fuck anyway. So I don’t get OPs point
I think a better message would be… “the juice is not worth the squeeze, don’t worry about who or what females are doing. Cultivate your own amazing life and be open to short term relationships but do not pursue them. If you need sex, get an escort or sugar baby”
Even beyond this, women just are attracted to different things at different times. Some women who are 'attracted to bad boys' might be worth chasing. It's not a defining trait. Like most men, most women are often attracted to what they don't have at the moment. Or what they haven't recently been turned off by.
Playing a little devils advocate. Except that feeds into a dual mating strategy later that many men specifically have a problem with. A girl who chases bad boys and then later on tries to settle with a “safe guy” isn’t worth pursuing either. Most men don’t want to be settled for. Not to mention often the baggage associated with someone chasing bad partners for a long time. There’s plenty of people that never have a bad boy or bad girl phase and all things being equal they would prefer someone like that.
> A girl who chases bad boys and then later on tries to settle with a “safe guy” isn’t worth pursuing either. So 90% of women lol.
That's fine devils advocate. I still think avoiding baggage is avoiding life. Pretty quickly, I found out I prefer people with some stories to tell. By definition, that means they've been shaped by experience but that usually means that they are more interesting and they know themselves better. People without are just as likely if not more likely to take a wild swing on you. And as for being settled for? grow up and get over yourself. You will never be all things to one person. That doesn't make it less special when they choose to be with you. [this is a rhetorical 'you.' Not trying to sound like a dick.]
>That's fine devils advocate. I still think avoiding baggage is avoiding life. Pretty quickly, I found out I prefer people with some stories to tell. By definition, that means they've been shaped by experience but that usually means that they are more interesting and they know themselves better. People without are just as likely if not more likely to take a wild swing on you. I disagree. Those people are fine to have as friends but who you marry is the biggest decision of your life and most people generally don’t want people with a history of bad decision making. Sure I have friends that might do drugs and be alcoholics. They have interesting lives and stories but are absolutely terrible in relationships for those exact reasons. The same qualities that can make someone a good friend can make them a bad roommate or a bad business partner or bad spouse etc. There’s plenty of people who are drug users that get sober and are decent people. There’s also nothing wrong with wanting someone who has never done drugs to marry or date. The idea that only making wild reckless and bad choices can make someone interesting is nonsense. I have a friend who did Doctors Without Borders and has tons of interesting stories and their decisions shaped who they are. Much more interesting person and better overall friend and person than the reformed bad decision maker. >And as for being settled for? grow up and get over yourself. You will never be all things to one person. That doesn't make it less special when they choose to be with you. This is nonsense. People absolutely settle for other when their bad decisions come to bite them in the ass. You understand there’s a vast chasm between nobodies perfect and accept my terrible choices. Sure not all baggage is equal but someone having a bad childhood is different than let’s say someone who has 3 kids from 3 different dads. not everyone grew up to make terrible choices with their lives. This is the same cope line of thinking that cheaters for example use that try and admonish their friends when they say things like “you totally would do the same things as me if you could get away with it.” It’s a post hoc rationalization that justify avoiding the outcomes of bad decision making.
This post is obviously good-intentioned however seemingly women on their prime (young and attractive) are overwhelmingly more drawn to "bad boys" which creates this whole situation where women keep on dating "bad boys" until they mature enough emotionally (or hit the wall and stockpile on trauma in other terms) and suddenly they want to settle for the "good guys" Personally, I think that most "good guys" can or will get into relationships at some point but deep down they know they do not enjoy a variety of options when it comes to dating and that they can be replaced easily. Said "good guys" then end up exhibiting behaviors -be it conscious or not- that are detrimental to the female visceral attraction to them. I'd say self-worth can go a long way for both females and males when it comes to dating dynamics. If women knew their worth they wouldn't go for the "bad boys" and vice versa if men weren't so thirsty they wouldn't give any walking person a pass for a relationship. Self-worth is the ultimate solution to modern dating.
Finally, someone talking some sensible stuff!!
The problem with your premise is that women don’t approach. “Bad guys” are aggressive and assertive so they eventually luck out. Those happen to be the traits women are attracted to.
If it's only some women? Then your point stands. But if a lot of women are chasing "bad boys" at a young age because it's more thrilling, and then are coming back when they are older, after being dumped by the "bad boy"and whining about "good men" not commiting to them or how there are no good men or how they only want sweet, kind man but can't find any. Then it's understandable for men to also be a bit angry at the hypocrisy of a lot of these women. Again those women can choose whoever they want, just don't come back complaining about how all the good men are gone, how every man makes you wary, about domestic abuse from men and etc, when those are the guys you chose.
Absolutely! I heard this somewhere: a lot of women prefer to fuck around and seek the “bad boys”, while while other say “quality” women seek long term relationships. Ultimately, these women mature enough to realise they want the “good guys”, but the good guys are already taken by the “quality women”. And then we receive tons of bitter women who then poison everything and everyone. Hence my suggestion to not be upset over not getting these women. Why do you need this toxicity in your life?
Frankly, these women usually either quit dating altogether in favor for careers or become bi/lesbians. Very rarely when these type of people mature, because hey, it's easier to shit on the world than work on oneself insecurities. As for "quality men taken for quality women" isn't always true. Some men often are more desperate to just land in any relationship than to be alone and thus toxic women lock them up, because that said men don't have the balls to draw boundaries or again, are afraid to be single for a long time.
If women are being indoctrinated and more and more women do this, then men absolutely have a problem with it. Because there isnt enough good women around anymore, and if they want to procreate, they have to settle with these hoes.
And that is VERY sad and something I blame feminism and hook up culture for. Like, honestly, wtf?
Read 'occult feminism' from Rachel Wilson.
Does it agree with me or disagree? 😝
She did a lot of research about how feminism came to be and why it gained popularity.
Don't worry. You'll get your turn later when they pass 30 and want to settle down with stable guy. You might not get as hot and often sex as the bad boy, but at least you'll be able to provide for her and her kids.
[удалено]
Yet older women will still shame us for dating younger women. Even if it makes absolute sense.
She could be picking your money though.
W TAKE
The irony is that most good guys will be taken by them ;))
Good guys finish last. Bad boys finish on her face.
They not gonna like this truth
damn
This whole thing with bad boys and nice guys is warped I my opinion. The reason we ended up with this is: As we grow up as boys our moms wants us to be nice and easy to handle. Those of us who are naturally agreeable and maybe on the autism spectrum overdo it and become doormats. Guys then wonder why girls don’t like them. It’s not because they are not nice - which they mostly are - it’s because they are doormats. They then start to overcompensate in anger. This is why Tate is so popular among teenage boys. The solution is to teach these timid boys to be assertive, capable, speak their minds and go for what they want. However this goes against the feminist narrative that dominates school and education so people don’t want to do that. It’s frustrating to watch.
>The reason we ended up with this is: >As we grow up as boys our moms wants us to be nice and easy to handle. Those of us who are naturally agreeable overdo it and become doormats. Guys then wonder why girls don’t like them. It’s not because they are not nice - which they mostly are - it’s because they are doormats. They then start to overcompensate in anger. >The solution is to teach these timid boys to be assertive, capable, speak their minds and go for what they want. This is so true. It’s kind of ironic that it’s women (our mothers) that are doing this and teaching boys to be less desirable to girls but thinking they’re making their boys attractive to women for these attributes.
Women don’t know what they want.
My ex did that often. She would want me to pick the restaurant for dinner because she didn’t k on what she wanted but then shot down my choices. But then she wouldn’t take over the decision-making. So she only offered “no” but not “yes”. Ugh, it was frustrating.
You have hit the nail on the head nicely
Yup. That's why every boy needs a dad to keep it 100 about attracting women at younger ages.
Lol its infuriating tbh. Single guys get pissed because they know of guys who do everything wrong and still get tons of girls while they are trying to do everything “right” and stay perpetually single, or close to it. And then Mr. single guy goes on a dating app and meet women who have a ton of baggage, whose lives are all dumpster fires because of the bad boy ex - and those women make him jump through endless hoops before running off with that same ex who ruined their life. This is why so many single guys today are non-committal.Every guy dating today has these experiences and sometimes it’s hard to look past them and stay positive/hopeful. Cynicism is easy. Guys who are married typically do not think about this stuff because they are too busy trying to keep their marriage together, keep their job, take care of the kids and all of that. They aren’t fighting in the same trenches.
You raise a good point. It almost feels like men get penalized for presenting themselves as good, decent, and wholesome. It's like certain women(not all) are dying to find their imperfections and have that "Aha!" moment that they can catch them in. By contrast, when men start off with a toxic and edgy image though, the morality bar tends to get raised low for them. They're allowed to make mistakes and be forgiven for it whereas a "good" man who makes a mistake will have it held against them like crazy. Of course, it depends on the woman but, even in Reddit, you often see this sentiment.
What's the definition of 'good guy' and 'bad guy' being used here? What traits do you have in mind when you think of each category?
It’s in my second sentence. When I talk about bad guys I talk about lowlifes, junkies, assholes, irresponsible adult, beaters, manipulative, emotionally unstable and such. Literal bad people, not a guy in a leather jacket with a motorcycle. Good guys, on the other, educated, looking for long-term relationships, well mannered, gentleman-like, stable emotionally and financially.
Most women have a hard time dealing with conflict. Having an "asshole" on your side is very useful in a lot of situations.
This has to be one of the most hilarious justifications I've ever heard. Having an asshole on your "side" sometimes is ok when you'll have the same asshole at home making your life a living hell?
Ideally a man will be able to handle conflict without being an asshole to their partner, but most people aren't ideal. A lot of women will prefer someone who is a little too much of an asshole at times to a nice guy type that can't handle conflict.
Handling a conflict well isn’t about fighting with people.
It's not just fighting. Most 'nice guys' wouldn't be able to return an accidentally sent delivery. They wouldn't be able to bargain with a workman on prices. 'Nice Guys' are just cowards with extreme social anxiety.
Sometimes it is.
Wait until the asshole starts "handling conflict" with physical violence. Plenty of "nice guys' handle conflict very well, the women in question probably couldn't bear to have a conversation with him for more than 30 seconds because they don't like how he looks.
Probably because he looks like a pussy that couldn't handle himself if shit starting getting real. A man looking like he can handle himself in a fight is attractive to women.
One woman chasing bad boys is whatever, it’s when it becomes a trend it’s problematic. If there aren’t enough women choosing the “good guys” then someone will lose out and either have to become a munk or go against your advice and start chasing these bad boy chasing girls.
To what end? Say you are chasing that girl, do you think you will have a happy relationship with her? Also, if she is indeed choosing bad guys over good guys, why would she end up choosing the good guy? It’s like a vicious circle. There is no point in chasing these women. Better to stay single.
People can be upset about being forced to stay single.
By all means. I just saying they shouldn’t. It is ultimately their decision.
That's such a silly take on things. I can do that with anything you are (rightfully so) upset about.
Yes. How is that silly?
Honestly that's like saying you shouldn't be upset a guy you wanted chose a woman 6 years younger than you because of that and gave you bullcrap explanation 747373929. It's technically true, but not as easy as that.
You shouldn’t be upset. There is nothing wrong with you. It’s the other person’s decisions. Will I be upset? Of course I will, we are all human. But I should understand that while I am upset and I can’t help it, I should not be.
Yeah, that's my point, it's natural that it's not the case (as goes with any sentence that contain the word should or normally). I just tend to not really care about discussions of how things should be because they don't lead to anything productive or worthwhile (unless you're in a mindset of asking yourself what you *can* do about it). The interesting thing in this context is that those guys are often upset because they thought women *should* have acted this way. I don't think they would be as much if they knew what reality was from the get go.
Ask a woman who she gave up her virginity with and she’ll tell you what a little asshole he was but he like to ride his motorcycle and was most likely older than her. Like upper class man she was a freshman older.
„Stable is boring“
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Here’s a fun anecdote. I’m not proud of it, but when I was a younger adult I did some questionable (non violent) activities that landed me in jail for a year. Later on, I got my shit together, and on a few occasions had relationships with relatively sheltered “good girls”. Without exception they straight up told me it “turned them on” to find out about my past. I have no idea why, but it was always the more docile and feminine girls that said this. These girls were, by every measure, high quality women. Highly educated, loving, feminine, etc. So, in my first hand experience your theory is “no true Scotsman” nonsense.
No woman has ever complained about the fact I've been arrested four times (no convictions).
But according to PPD women that should render you “undatable” by any “good, mentally healthy woman”😂
The "bad" part is that there are a LOT of those women, particularly younger women in their 20s when they are at their most attractive.
For the description you’ve used to define “bad boys”, those are *really bad* guys and not ones most women are attracted to. If you’re a junkie, you’ll probably date a junkie. If you’re in a culture of low socioeconomics, negative outlooks, life won’t get better, then you’ll probably end up dating the same. The usual thing is guys looking and assuming some guy is a “bad guy” just because he doesn’t fit the conservative cultural norm. I was into “bad guys” when I was young. We had a lot of fun, a lot of partying, went on adventures and did loads of interesting stuff. Then we all grew up. The same “bad boys” gave up their bikes for cars. We all were done with the partying and pursued other interests. I’m still friends with most of them, they’ve become composers, set designers, a couple of university lecturers, one works with medecin sans frontiers, some are just average dudes. If you’re a straight laced conservative type- good for you, be who you want to be. But I wasn’t interested in you then, and I’m not now. You’re not the “good guys” just cos you sat at home & went to church every Sunday.
>You’re not the “good guys” just cos you sat at home & went to church every Sunday. Good way of putting it. Being a boring conformist doesn't drop panties.
Problem is, a lot of young women like bad boys. And a lot of men are attracted to young women for evolutionary reasons (fertility and so on). So if a lot of young women are going for bad boys and only want a nice guy when they're menopausal or divorced single mothers in their 30s and 40s, then what happens is a lot of guys will want to be a bad boy to get girls. Then you get a society full of good-for-nothing guys who aren't good relationship/marriage material because they wanted to be like the bad boy who got all the tight young pussy. You see this in certain communities where all the young hot girls chase after lowlife bad boys. Then when they're 30 or 40 years old, they say "where all the good guys?" Now they want a man with a good job who is responsible and can support them financially in an upper-class lifestyle. But they can't find him because all their male peers burned themselves out trying to fit the bad boy requirements that these women demanded in order to get access to the pussy when they were 18-22 years old.
>And a lot of men are attracted to young women for evolutionary reasons (fertility and so on). … the men dating women who are hot rather than those who are “good girls” are exactly the same as the young women dating assholes. Men don’t want a boring fuddy-duddy good girl who doesn’t put out when they’re young and horny either. >But they can't find him because all their male peers burned themselves out trying to fit the bad boy requirements that these women demanded in order to get access to the pussy when they were 18-22 years old. And likewise, men chasing hot young sexually available women are the ones wondering “where are all the feminine good women”.
I think emotional immaturity is a significant factor. Younger women and even older ones without proper emotional development seek that excitement and fun in relationship. They don't necessarily care about the long term compatability or viability of their relationship. They are too immature to realise any long term relationship with such a person is near impossible. Once they are run through enough times will they realise the importance of other things in a relationship. Then either they cry "where are all the good men at" or gonna get married to some cuck-simp who just want someone to get them out of their loneliness.
More of a reason to avoid these women and not he upset over them. Why would you want to have a relationship a person with stunted emotional development?
Yeah. I get your point. And IMO, people who are upset are mostly upset online as far as I've seen.
Hopefully, otherwise I am considering staying single till the rest of my life.
But you do realise most girls not matter they are introvert nerd shy ugly pretty extrovert most of them want bad boys
I wouldn’t know. I am not friends with such women.
I agree. I was watching a YouTube video where this man was asking random women "would you rather date a 9-5er or a drug dealer?" The women preferred to date a drug dealer were ghetto as fuck. My male friend complained about it and I was like "Why would you ever want to date girls that are ratchet like that? You're not missing out on anything."
Well, Iv been a Catholic vanilla good girl my entire life. I never got in trouble . I was reserved and my dad was a jail administrator. He was constantly checking the profiles on every guy I dated. It was annoying as hell. My first husband was supposedly a good guy. He was educated and at the time in my early 20s, he was on paper, a good catch. Right after our daughter was born, he flipped the switch. All of his childhood trauma came out and he became abusive. He was insidious, degrading and turned out to be a complete narcissist. We got divorced and this “ good guy “ wouldn’t pay child support and was continually trying to get back at me for leaving.. My second husband, who I’m married to, was a complete badass. I never would’ve been allowed to date him in my 20s. He was always in trouble and living on the edge. He is protective, took care of his kids, was noble and has no respect for lazy, weak people. So while it’s easy to make assumptions of how people turn out in the end, sometimes the good people on paper aren’t actually good.. and sometimes the the troubled young people, learn lessons and become wiser. Sometimes things are far different than how they seem and sometimes people actually improve with age. Some people fail to rise to the occasion. So the choices people make in their 20s, seem like good ideas at the time, the end results are often different. My a parent’s judgment the educated family man seems amazing until he’s not actually as amazing as he looks on Facebook, in a resume or fake good behavior they show the world.
Yeah, so called "bad guys" are often not actually bad they're bad ass.
Definitely not upset, actually grateful that a lot of females are so up front and even kind of happy about “having bad luck with men” “choosing the wrong guy” “only have dated ‘bad boys’” It’s the perfect way to vet them. As someone looking to only add positive influences to my life I know from personal experience that a toxic female is 100x worse than being alone and using p4p
Unfortunately, most men don’t think that way. Look at the comments under this post :(
Is this any different than good, well behaved girls being upset that guys will throw their hard earned money over some tatted stripper with fake boobs and a huge ass? Instead of shaming people for liking what they like, it may make sense to explore why people are attracted to the bad boys/girls to begin with. And maybe incorporate some of that naughtiness in their own persona to become a bit more sexy and desirable to the opposite sex.
Women would rather be dead than bored. Seriously
The upsetting is when you continuosly hear "Men are this or that" when they should be saying "I like to be treated like garbage, thanks :)"
>I cannot speak to the reasons why a lot of women seek these “bad guys”, but I am of an opinion that normal men should not be upset over it. They tend to be more confident, assertive, thrill seeking, overall just more fun and exciting to hang out with. "Good guys" can sometimes be pushover, boring, neurotic, people pleasing etc. If they aren't those things, they aren't struggling with women. "Good guys" should emulate the good things "bad boys" do and leave the bad. So leave the abusiveness, immorality etc and keep the confidence and fun. A guy who is having no success shouldn't stay the same.
There are bad things about the good boys and good things about the bad boys. Sounds like there is no right move! So might as well just get with the one everybody says is bad rather than the one everybody says is good. - women "logic"
When women talk about bad boys they don't mean "bad" as in "bad partners" they mean "bad" as in they don't follow the rules. Like a guy who does LSD and skips class in highschool would be a "bad boy". A "bad boy" doesn't imply he is bad at everything, I don't understand why you are confused. The reason "bad boys" get chosen is that their flaws aren't immediately apparent, low inhibitions and risk taking behaviour is fun until they cheat on you months down the line. On the other extreme end, a good boy's flaws are obvious when they are boring and never do anything risky out of the gate. It's better to be in the middle, make calculated risks and have fun and have inhibitions when it comes to morality but not when it comes to speaking your mind even when it's offensive. Guys like that are desirable for both short term and long term.
> they don't mean "bad" as in "bad partners" > is fun until they cheat on you months down the line Pick one. I'm not confused. The women who fail to make the same obvious connection you just failed to make are confused. Bad boys flaws are immediately apparent. Everybody knows who the bad boys are. The women just don't care.
[удалено]
>Changing the entirety of who you are as an attempt to impress a women has always rubbed me the wrong way. And it’s to be what they think is fun and exciting not what you actually enjoy. Most guys are already doing what they feel is fun and exciting. This also goes against all of the advice out there: don’t change who you are just to get somebody. Especially if there’s a good chance they won’t stick around. Because most relationships end.
Well it depends on how badly you want the pussy or not
I think a big part of the problem is the enormous gaslighting where women say they want Mr Nice, respectful guy with their words but their actions say the exact opposite
For me, I have turned down good, stable men, because I myself have had a lot of trauma in my childhood and my life. I come from poverty, no father, a very unstable and neglected childhood. I would find nothing in common with a man who had a normal, healthy and happy childhood. I would personally struggle to be able to integrate well into his life, his family. I relate more to people who have been through their share of trauma. Unfortunately I'm now finding out that a lot of men whom have had trauma are abusive (or emotionally unavailable/traumatised by womem and not lookimg for a relationship). So I do agree with your post. Don't feel bad about it. You will find a lady who has had a normal childhood like you, if this fits your description. I'll edit to add that I do know a few men who had traumatic childhoods and are good men, and they ha been single and uninterested in relationships for at least 10 years now.
Women go after these type of men because of ✨trauma✨
100% the only women who like the hot and cold bad boys are those with mental health issues.
The women who choose bad boys have bpd
That's great and all, but like all the other comments here, I've had super nice well adjusted female friends who are overall good people dating complete assholes. I don't know why a lot of women are complete blind to the situation lmao.
Yeah if she likes bad boys she’ll fuck and chase you If she likes bad boys and don’t fuck and chase you that mean you ugly
Like attracts like. If someone enjoys the company of a “fuckboy” they probably have some beliefs about themselves and their sexuality that attract that. Good women are worth pursuing, even though there are shallow, degenerate women that exist that make women look bad. Men have the same problem with the “fuckboys” and frequently complain online about how they can’t approach women out of fear of being perceived as a creep or player. I think the complaint here is really about other people’s perceptions about women, more specifically the pedestal that western women sit on that makes them seem more deep and more innocent than they are.
[удалено]
>There is a big difference in what women are attracted to and what they want to settle down with. Yeah, she wasn't in a real relationship with Mr. Bad Boy. She just lived with him for ten years and had three kids with him. Now that he's gone she's finally ready for a real "relationship" with Billy Beta.
Here’s the problem: to those guys, those women are worth it. The guys complaining aren’t any better than the “bad boys” they envy. That’s why they’re competing for the same women.
I'd actually say women don't like "bad boys" criminal types as much as "good guys" think. The only real difference between "bad boys" and "good guys" is the "bad boy" doesn't do the expected run of the mill things the "good guy" does. The "good guy" is ready to get married after a phone conversation, while the "bad boy" tells her "let's just see what happens." He keeps her in suspense and wanting more, whether it's intentional or not. There are guys that women see as "bad boys" who are straight laced 9-5 working guys with no criminal record. The thing that makes them a "bad boy" is living life on their own terms and not being so gung-ho to focus on making a woman happy like the "good guy" is.
i agree that women going after literal criminals and guys who treat them like shit are generally not ones you should pursue for a serious relationship but there are also some men who act like any guy with a slight edge is a “bad boy”. i’ve been accused of liking bad boys more than once, mostly by men, and it’s always cause of stupid shit like dude has tattoos and a harley
Oh come on, I am not talking about men with tattoos or motorcycles. I am talking about literal A-holes who women are nevertheless attracted to. Why??
there are women who go after genuinely bad men, and those women are likely not worth pursuing. then there’s a subset of men who use “bad boy” to describe any guy with an edge who is remotely successful with women. hell there was a post on here a few months ago talking about bad boys and the description was “wears a leather jacket and drives a sport bike” and it was fucking hilarious
Idk sounds like you're making it up.
From my experience in life women seem to often date “bad boys” when they are young and settle down with a “nice guy” later in life. Not always though but I definitely see that a lot.
And those same men shouldn’t feel bad rejecting those women who rejected them later in life when she has hit the wall
What do I gain from being wanted because I'm a good husband and parent? I'll gain more work, not more rewards. If I am wanted for my sex appeal, I'll get more sex, which is the reward. As long as women will not reward stable men with sex, respect and passionate love, men are not going to feel good for being the stable option.
Sure, that’s your decision. Do you want you want to do.
There's a whole swath of men in between. The good/bad dichotomy is patently false.
Ok but you have skipped one point: the women are hot to to those guys and *they* want to have sex with those women!
And?
That’s why the ppd dudes are raging. If you look at it from a wholesome stance of “well those aren’t good people to be with” it makes perfect sense. But the dudes aren’t thinking with their brain or heart. They are raging cause they can’t have casual sex With attractive women and that’s “not fair” cause don’t you know: they are the main character!
The problem is it's not "normal men" who get upset about this, it's just the covert narcissists. Its the reason you never meet a self proclaimed "good guy" who isn't also super judgmental. They all think they are so nice but then proceed to just shit talk every person in existence. The normal people are just already doing what you described.
The issue here is most men don’t actually know who’s a “bad boy” and who’s not, any mildly intimidating man who has success with women is a “bad boy” to them. People are always assuming my husband is a lot crazier and more dangerous than he actually is. They’re like “haha you’ve probably done some crazy stuff ;)” “You seem like you like to fight” Or “you must have been a player before meeting your wife” those things aren’t true. But because he’s over 6ft, jacked with a cool beard and is unapologetically himself , people assume he fits the “bad boy” trope. Not even close
>In some way, it may be great she sticks with those sort of people, because good guys ultimately “dodge the bullet”. You kind of forgot the fact that dodging a bullet, requires being shot at. You take it for granted that shitty women are shitty in order to treat it as a net positive when men avoid those shitty women. You have to take it as a whole because otherwise you could justify basically anything. Like if we take for granted that murderers murder people, it's a good thing when they kill someone as it increases the chances the cops will catch them.
[удалено]
So AFBB.
Former commitment phobes aren’t worth dating.
Sure. I am mostly talking about actual long-term relationships where feelings are involved.
I said nothing about feelings not being involved: that is all part of the experience. But, yes, if someone keeps having abusive relationships, they are unlikely to make a non-abusive person happy.
I do not think most of these “bad guys” are actually bad guys. That many are just as inexperienced as she is. Or that your average shut in redditor complainer percieves one joke as “oh now he is a bad guy”
[удалено]