Are women attracted to badboys at an unconscience level

Vampireskiss

Obviously it will be very hard to get an answer to this because at a conscience level most girls here will probably say no not at all but I see it all the time most girls just stay with cocky confident assholes who treat them with no respect whiles guys that are too nice get no where?

Wibbs

Ok IMveryHO and in very general terms(and keep in mind I've just returned from the alehouse), bad boys trigger some of the qualities women look for. They tend to appear confident, socially and sexually. They appear to know what they want and go for it. They don't pretend to be their friend just to get into their knickers. They tend to have more women attracted to them which is something that a woman who "gets" them is very attractive. They don't put women on impossible pedestals(though bad boys tend not to see them as equals either. Not good).

When you say they treat them with no respect, that's also a challenge and that can't be ignored either. Women are approached by muppets every day. Since they were very young. They're used to it, even on a background noise level. Double that for obviously socially accepted "good looking" women. Now along comes a guy who doesn't do this. Doesn't put her on a pedestal, doesn't kow tow to her every whim. That's attractive, because he acts like her equal, not her worshipper or some guy just after one thing(even if he is). Because of their bravado they tend to be more socially aware and powerful than "nice guys"(who a lot of the time aren't nice anyway, just needy). Bad boys are needy too, it's just they went the other way as a coping mechanism. They're not boring either and IMHO the surest way to switch off attraction in a woman, especially in the initial stages is by being boring and predictable.

In short, because a helluva lot of women have never met an actual emotionally balanced, sexually confident socially adept and centered man, those traits of bad boys trigger some of the qualities of the man they want and hence look attractive. So arrogance is easily mistaken for actual confidence. Being emotionally disconnected is easily mistaken for emotional strength. So being loud and pushy is easily mistaken for social confidence. etc.

This goes for younger women who are still trying to feel their way in the understanding of men as a bunch. Bad boys are certainly more attractive than the shrinking violet who doesn't know what he wants and is backward in coming forward. TBH I think women are right. If I was a woman I'd be more attracted to the bad boy than a simp who hung on my every word and treated me like a god(ess).

I would hope of course that I would sooner or later see what was the real deal and what wasn't. I have to say IME most women do. Though they may need and in retrospect enjoy the bad boy phase as a guilty pleasure.

Sits patiently and awaits the ire and flames of the ladies.;):D

Wibbs

Just to add, it often has a lot to do with how "nice guys" view other, more romantically successful men. That "cocky confident asshole" might actually just be a confident centered man who knows what he wants, acts on it, treats a woman with respect, but accords himself an equal respect and doesn't take crap.

cson

Excellent as ever Wibbs. Spot on.

A lot of people confuse nice with needy.

ntlbell

Wibbs wrote: »

Just to add, it often has a lot to do with how "nice guys" view other, more romantically successful men. That "cocky confident asshole" might actually just be a confident centered man who knows what he wants, acts on it, treats a woman with respect, but accords himself an equal respect and doesn't take crap.

would it not have more to do with wanting something they can't have?

bad boys tend to act very aloof even when they want a woman they act like they don't etc ?

CeilingCat

Wibbs wrote: »

In short, because a helluva lot of women have never met an actual emotionally balanced, sexually confident socially adept and centered man, those traits of bad boys trigger some of the qualities of the man they want and hence look attractive.

+1
'Tis true.

banshee_bones

OH MY GOD! THIS POST IS SO TRUE! IV BEEN SAYING IT FOR YEARS!

Wibbs your dead on, said it better than i could, so did you ntbell, always wantin what you cant have. I think were like emotionally programmed to want the bad boy, the one ya couldnt bring home to your mother! I think its like something programmed into us from cave man times! My friend and i discuss this all the time! She reckons its part of the attraction for us aswell is that thinks we could change them or tame them or something like that!

Me tarzan
You jane

(grabs her, throws her over shoulder,brings into cave!)

Wibbs

ntlbell wrote: »

would it not have more to do with wanting something they can't have?

Yep, but why does anybody want something they can't have? Because it's valuable and they have to may work for it, because of that. If it wasn't and they didn't they wouldn't want it. Generally goes for men too. How many men have you heard say "I can't believe she's with me"? Same diff.

Lena on da wall

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Obviously it will be very hard to get an answer to this because at a conscience level most girls here will probably say no not at all but I see it all the time most girls just stay with cocky confident assholes who treat them with no respect whiles guys that are too nice get no where?

Noooooooooooo - I love nice quiet guys but they are hard to come by

Red Hand

Wibbs wrote: »

Just to add, it often has a lot to do with how "nice guys" view other, more romantically successful men. That "cocky confident asshole" might actually just be a confident centered man who knows what he wants, acts on it, treats a woman with respect, but accords himself an equal respect and doesn't take crap.

Good post, it makes sense. Those that make themselves too polite, too quiet, and not forward enough when it comes to women, will inevitably lose out...and become jealous of more sucessful, confidant men.

CeilingCat

Lena on da wall wrote: »

Noooooooooooo - I love nice quiet guys but they are hard to come by

Me too - nowadays. I would defo have fallen for the bad boy bravado stuff when I was in my teens & 20's though.

Where are all the emotionally balanced, sexually confident socially adept and centered men hanging out these days anywho? They have to be hiding somewhere.... :P

Wibbs

I would agree with what you wrote, but one can never be too polite, man or woman. Maybe I'm old fashioned.

Nevyn

/Checks this in in tLL

Right.

NICE GUY stuff is Shíte sorry but is it, so fúcking what if you are 'nice' what does that mean ?
That you are not hitting her and trying to score her mate ?

Please grow up ?

GEt a spine.
Get manners.
Get a life.

Don't pander to every fúcked up ego manica who comes your way
no matter what your gender or yours.

It's not being a bad boy it's simpler then that it fortune favoring the bold.

Red Hand

Wibbs wrote: »

I would agree with what you wrote, but one can never be too polite, man or woman. Maybe I'm old fashioned.

Too polite as in always trying not to make someone uncomfortable, even if at times it is uncomfortablness (is that a word?) that needs to be overcome if are to make your feelings clear.

Cowardness is a more apt word, I suppose.

Lena on da wall

Thaedydal wrote: »

/Checks this in in tLL

Right.

NICE GUY stuff is Shíte sorry but is it, so fúcking what if you are 'nice' what does that mean ?
That you are not hitting her and trying to score her mate ?

Please grow up ?

GEt a spine.
Get manners.
Get a life.

Don't pander to every fúcked up ego manica who comes your way
no matter what your gender or yours.

It's not being a bad boy it's simpler then that it fortune favoring the bold.

Rubbish

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

/Checks this in in tLL

Right.

NICE GUY stuff is Shíte sorry but is it, so fúcking what if you are 'nice' what does that mean ?
That you are not hitting her and trying to score her mate ?

Please grow up ?

GEt a spine.
Get manners.
Get a life.

Don't pander to every fúcked up ego manica who comes your way
no matter what your gender or yours.

It's not being a bad boy it's simpler then that it fortune favoring the bold.

I have to agree.

I would say it's the very definition of what "nice" is that's at issue.

Greyfox

Wibbs wrote: »

Ok IMvery bad boys trigger some of the qualities women look for. They tend to appear confident, socially and sexually. They appear to know what they want and go for it. They don't pretend to be their friend just to get into their knickers. They tend to have more women attracted to them which is something that a woman who "gets" them is very attractive. They don't put women on impossible pedestals(though bad boys tend not to see them as equals either. Not good).

When you say they treat them with no respect, that's also a challenge and that can't be ignored either. Women are approached by muppets every day. Since they were very young. They're used to it, even on a background noise level. Double that for obviously socially accepted "good looking" women. Now along comes a guy who doesn't do this. Doesn't put her on a pedestal, doesn't kow tow to her every whim. That's attractive, because he acts like her equal, not her worshipper or some guy just after one thing(even if he is). Because of their bravado they tend to be more socially aware and powerful than "nice guys"(who a lot of the time aren't nice anyway, just needy). Bad boys are needy too, it's just they went the other way as a coping mechanism. They're not boring either and IMHO the surest way to switch off attraction in a woman, especially in the initial stages is by being boring and predictable.

In short, because a helluva lot of women have never met an actual emotionally balanced, sexually confident socially adept and centered man, those traits of bad boys trigger some of the qualities of the man they want and hence look attractive. So arrogance is easily mistaken for actual confidence. Being emotionally disconnected is easily mistaken for emotional strength. So being loud and pushy is easily mistaken for social confidence. etc.

This goes for younger women who are still trying to feel their way in the understanding of men as a bunch. Bad boys are certainly more attractive than the shrinking violet who doesn't know what he wants and is backward in coming forward. TBH I think women are right. If I was a woman I'd be more attracted to the bad boy than a simp who hung on my every word and treated me like a god(ess).

I would hope of course that I would sooner or later see what was the real deal and what wasn't. I have to say IME most women do. Though they may need and in retrospect enjoy the bad boy phase as a guilty pleasure.

Sits patiently and awaits the ire and flames of the ladies.;):D

Absolutely superb post, the world is seperated by men who are in denial of this fact and the men that have regular sex!

Here's the most important fact men must know about women:

WOMEN WANT NICE GUYS BUT WHAT THEY "WANT" AND WHAT THEIR "ATTRACTED" TO ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERNT THINGS!!!!

Assholes have many bad points but they also show confidence, leadership, demonstrate that their not easily pleased, are unpredictable, are a challenge and keep the girl guessing which are all very attractive qualities...nice guys tend to put women on pedistills, are too agreeable, commmit the mortal sin of been predictable and don't create any drama!

Women love men that are a little overconfident and a little cocky as long as they can be funny about it but nice guys can also sometimes be boreing because their trying so hard to impress the girl they talk about boreing things and are are afraid of offending them!

Being nice to women does get good results but ONLY if you do it when she's has earned it!
The truth is you can have the assholes traits above without been an asshole but without the above traits she definitely won't be thinking about you when your not with her!

Wibbs

Y'know upon mature recollection and with the sufferance of my liver this morning, I think it can be explained even more simply without going to extremes. Which IMHO is where a lot of guys go wrong. From my observations anyway, most men fall loosely into two categories, especially younger men. They either go the "nice guy" route(the majority) or they go the bad boy route, often going wildly from the former to the latter after some percieved slight by "all" womenkind(pickup book reader types).

Both paths are predicated on insecurity, so largely are on a hiding to nothing, though the latter gets more attention. The third path and the rarest have a balance based on their own self worth. They are rarer, hence so many women complain, "there are no good men left".

Women want and are attracted to balanced exciting fun men who are their equals.

In the mating game women have more choices than men, but they're attracted to men who have choices too. They're more on a par with them. They're not as attracted to men who don't have a choice

The bad boy appears to be an equal but isn't hence most women grow out of them. Self reported nice guys try to be their equals by acting like other women mates, but with an ulterior motive. Which women spot a mile off, hence leave them in friendzone.

I would say to men, stop working on picking women up or attracting more women and instead put your energies into you, put your energies into building the best you that you can be, put your energies into building an interesting life for you and those around you. Good friends, good women and a good life will naturally follow from that.

Gauge

Here's an article that sums up self declared Nice Guys (as distinct from nice guys) quite well, and why women aren't attracted to them: http://divalion.livejournal.com/163615.html

bman

Gauge wrote: »

Here's an article that sums up self declared Nice Guys (as distinct from nice guys) quite well, and why women aren't attracted to them: http://divalion.livejournal.com/163615.html

Very good article. Doesn't explain the bad boy attraction factor though.

Wibbs

Simple. Bad boys have some of the apparent qualities that many women go for and are mistaken as real qualities that good men have, especially for younger women who haven't met good men yet. Confidence for one, though it's usually false. Nice guys don't have it, bad boys do.

Wibbs

This thread feels out of place on the Ladies lounge. Especially as there are few women respondents. If that doesn't change I'm thinking closing it may be the best bet.

beks101

It's not at an unconscious level. For me anyway.

I've had a string of 'oh no...here we go again...' incidences in my life where I've bumped into and developed feelings for those 'bad boys', for all the reasons outlined above - the illusion of confidence that such an air of arrogance gives off, emotional unavailability masquerading as emotional strength (and the want-what-you-can't-have complex on my part), the unpredictability (he might text, he might not...a 'nice guy' definitely will), the leadership qualities...usually of a sexual nature if anything does happen between us.

At this point I always know the attraction is going to be there when I see this type of guy coming. I think it's a massive reflection on the woman too. In my case certainly, it's a bit self defeating and self-protective - as in, I KNOW what I'm getting myself into so it can't 'hurt as bad' when he turns out to be an a**hole.

Plus, I'll never truly trust someone and commit to someone like this, which works for someone who has commitment issues!:o

panda100

I hate this notion of 'nice guys' versus 'bad boys'!!ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Its like the 'bitch' versus the 'nice girl'. Why must we put people into constrained categorys!

Wibbs

I dunno, I suppose because all too often people loosely conform to those labels. Obviously it's a scale with extremes at either end, but there do seem to be spikes at the "nice guy" end and at the "bad boy" end. I would also say all things being equal more women have gone through phases where they have fallen for the bad boy(s) than the nice guy and have tales to tell accordingly.

Nevyn

panda100 wrote: »

I hate this notion of 'nice guys' versus 'bad boys'!!ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Its like the 'bitch' versus the 'nice girl'. Why must we put people into constrained categorys!

Cos heaven forbid we expend the time and effort to get to know a person
when it is just easier to write them off into a handy pigeon hole.

Wibbs

As an aside and I may get roasted for this.:o:)..... Let me preface what follows as being obviously and necessarily general and not specific for a start.

The question of "what women want" especially from men has fascinated and confused men (and indeed women themselves at times) through the ages. AFAIR even Freud mentioned it as something he couldn't figure out(biiig surprise).

*Mad wibbs theory alert* Both genders want much the same thing from each other for the most part. It's in the diffs where it gets interesting. What men want from women is pretty linear and obvious by comparison(though complex enough). What women want from men is a fluid and often on the surface a contradictory thing. They want both a caveman(like banshee_bones referenced) and an emotionally open man. They want both to be ravished and desired intensely while still feeling safe and in control. It's the bit that men miss completely about the so called oft trotted out "rape" fantasy that many women report as a fantasy. At once it seems contradictory, to both be in control and not. It isn't really though and it's nothing to do with rape as a reality. IMHO women want to take pleasure and take it guilt free, with them as the focus of that pleasure, which "submitting" to a man, even in a pretend way, allows them to both switch off and be in control. Of course they want to give pleasure too. Then there are the times when they want it loving and slow and any number of combinations, but again there is the balance. Female sexual and relationship desire is very complex, hence there isn't a viagra for women and not likely to be for a while. It's not as simple as get revved up and away we go. Not even close. Though again they're more complex than that and sometimes it can just be a case of "I'm revved up, c'mere".

That's just a tiny part of the sexual complexity of women. The relationship complexity is even more complex, fluid and often contradictory. As I said they want both a dominant and submissive and equal man, depending on context. They want to be led and lead in equal measure and again depending on context. They want to know they can trust that he won't leave them 99% but the 1% is what keeps that interest and desire alive. Knowing that he could and he has options to do so. That's part of what they will respect about him and desire about him. They want both to be sure and slightly unsure. That's exciting and that increases desire.

It's a balancing act that in the right relationship, should go on for the length of the relationship and be worked on for the length of the relationship. A mutually beneficial, healthy too and fro of a fluid and dynamic partnership. Bad boys plug into a lot of this stuff, but miss the foundations to make it last. Even otherwise good relationships can go south if the man doesn't recognise this. IMHO in most long termers the woman leaves the guy and I would say, that in a helluva lot of cases it's the mans fault for not understanding this. I know looking back I certainly missed this one.

What I find fascinating about women is their complexity, the need to be on your toes a lot of the time, both relaxed and aware, to be dynamic and exciting. The complexity forces me to think and adapt a lot more than in the company of fellow men.

What do women want from men? A man. Figure that out and you won't need the self help books.

End rambling rant.:o:D

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

Cos heaven forbid we expend the time and effort to get to know a person
when it is just easier to write them off into a handy pigeon hole.

Yea but it is fun to speculate though;):) And will someone please think of the pigeons. They don't need lodgers.

EamonnKeane

Wibbs wrote: »

As an aside and I may get roasted for this.:o:)..... Let me preface what follows as being obviously and necessarily general and not specific for a start.

The question of "what women want" especially from men has fascinated and confused men (and indeed women themselves at times) through the ages. AFAIR even Freud mentioned it as something he couldn't figure out(biiig surprise).

*Mad wibbs theory alert* Both genders want much the same thing from each other for the most part. It's in the diffs where it gets interesting. What men want from women is pretty linear and obvious by comparison(though complex enough). What women want from men is a fluid and often on the surface a contradictory thing. They want both a caveman(like banshee_bones referenced) and an emotionally open man. They want both to be ravished and desired intensely while still feeling safe and in control. It's the bit that men miss completely about the so called oft trotted out "rape" fantasy that many women report as a fantasy. At once it seems contradictory, to both be in control and not. It isn't really though and it's nothing to do with rape as a reality. IMHO women want to take pleasure and take it guilt free, with them as the focus of that pleasure, which "submitting" to a man, even in a pretend way, allows them to both switch off and be in control. Of course they want to give pleasure too. Then there are the times when they want it loving and slow and any number of combinations, but again there is the balance. Female sexual and relationship desire is very complex, hence there isn't a viagra for women and not likely to be for a while. It's not as simple as get revved up and away we go. Not even close. Though again they're more complex than that and sometimes it can just be a case of "I'm revved up, c'mere".

That's just a tiny part of the sexual complexity of women. The relationship complexity is even more complex, fluid and often contradictory. As I said they want both a dominant and submissive and equal man, depending on context. They want to be led and lead in equal measure and again depending on context. They want to know they can trust that he won't leave them 99% but the 1% is what keeps that interest and desire alive. Knowing that he could and he has options to do so. That's part of what they will respect about him and desire about him. They want both to be sure and slightly unsure. That's exciting and that increases desire.

It's a balancing act that in the right relationship, should go on for the length of the relationship and be worked on for the length of the relationship. A mutually beneficial, healthy too and fro of a fluid and dynamic partnership. Bad boys plug into a lot of this stuff, but miss the foundations to make it last. Even otherwise good relationships can go south if the man doesn't recognise this. IMHO in most long termers the woman leaves the guy and I would say, that in a helluva lot of cases it's the mans fault for not understanding this. I know looking back I certainly missed this one.

What I find fascinating about women is their complexity, the need to be on your toes a lot of the time, both relaxed and aware, to be dynamic and exciting, more than I would be while single or even just in their company. The complexity forces me to think and adapt a lot more than in the company of fellow men.

What do women want from men? A man. Figure that out and you won't need the self help books.

End rambling rant.:o:D

But I think the above is true for most men as well - many men also derive pleasure from bdsm, doesn't mean they actually want to be assaulted. And a lot of men "want a dominant and submissive and equal woman, depending on context", a constant source of frustration for women (see: "mammy complex"). Characterising men as, essentially, a variety of animal with simple thoughts and desires, is not very helpful.

Will

Interesting read, another thing to confuse people is social status.

Bad boys by nature are quite high on the social pecking order, where as the nice guys aren't as much. But this is a generalisation and not always true of course

Uhm not sure what else to add tht hasn't been said :-/

beks101

Thaedydal wrote: »

Cos heaven forbid we expend the time and effort to get to know a person
when it is just easier to write them off into a handy pigeon hole.

That's sort of what we do as human beings though...especially in relationships.

When you get hurt it's easier to generalise and 'swear' yourself off a certain 'type' than to actually see incompatibility for what it is.

The dating industry with all its 'How To Find Mr Right' books and Sex and the City sitcoms aint helping matters either.

Nevyn

Wibbs wrote: »

The question of "what women want" especially from men has fascinated and confused men (and indeed women themselves at times) through the ages. AFAIR even Freud mentioned it as something he couldn't figure out(biiig surprise).

*Mad wibbs theory alert* Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah. I am a bloke here honest*adjusts tackle* Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah. End rambling rant.:o:D

You were reading this weren't you ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?ref=magazine

Ultimately, though, Chivers spoke — always with a scientist’s caution, a scientist’s uncertainty and acknowledgment of conjecture — about female sexuality as divided between two truly separate, if inscrutably overlapping, systems, the physiological and the subjective. Lust, in this formulation, resides in the subjective, the cognitive; physiological arousal reveals little about desire. Otherwise, she said, half joking, “I would have to believe that women want to have sex with bonobos.”


Besides the bonobos, a body of evidence involving rape has influenced her construction of separate systems. She has confronted clinical research reporting not only genital arousal but also the occasional occurrence of orgasm during sexual assault. And she has recalled her own experience as a therapist with victims who recounted these physical responses. She is familiar, as well, with the preliminary results of a laboratory study showing surges of vaginal blood flow as subjects listen to descriptions of rape scenes. So, in an attempt to understand arousal in the context of unwanted sex, Chivers, like a handful of other sexologists, has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire. Genital lubrication, she writes in her upcoming paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior, is necessary “to reduce discomfort, and the possibility of injury, during vaginal penetration. . . . Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries during unwanted vaginal penetration that resulted in illness, infertility or even death, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring.”
Evolution’s legacy, according to this theory, is that women are prone to lubricate, if only protectively, to hints of sex in their surroundings. Thinking of her own data, Chivers speculated that bonobo coupling, or perhaps simply the sight of a male ape’s erection, stimulated this reaction because apes bear a resemblance to humans — she joked about including, for comparison, a movie of mating chickens in a future study. And she wondered if the theory explained why heterosexual women responded genitally more to the exercising woman than to the ambling man. Possibly, she said, the exposure and tilt of the woman’s vulva during her calisthenics was proc*essed as a sexual signal while the man’s unerect penis registered in the opposite way.
When she peers into the giant forest, Chivers told me, she considers the possibility that along with what she called a “rudderless” system of reflexive physiological arousal, women’s system of desire, the cognitive domain of lust, is more receptive than aggressive. “One of the things I think about,” she said, “is the dyad formed by men and women. Certainly women are very sexual and have the capacity to be even more sexual than men, but one possibility is that instead of it being a go-out-there-and-get-it kind of sexuality, it’s more of a reactive process. If you have this dyad, and one part is pumped full of testosterone, is more interested in risk taking, is probably more aggressive, you’ve got a very strong motivational force. It wouldn’t make sense to have another similar force. You need something complementary. And I’ve often thought that there is something really powerful for women’s sexuality about being desired. That receptivity element. At some point I’d love to do a study that would look at that.”
The study Chivers is working on now tries to re-examine the results of her earlier research, to investigate, with audiotaped stories rather than filmed scenes, the apparent rudderlessness of female arousal. But it will offer too a glimpse into the role of relationships in female eros. Some of the scripts she wrote involve sex with a longtime lover, some with a friend, some with a stranger: “You meet the real estate agent outside the building. . . .” From early glances at her data, Chivers said, she guesses she will find that women are most turned on, subjectively if not objectively, by scenarios of sex with strangers.

Wibbs

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Characterising men as, essentially, a variety of animal with simple thoughts and desires, is not very helpful.

I agree, but I didn't. Men are complex too. Of course they are. Look around and throughout history in every single facet of human endevour they show complexity. I simply said that in general there are differences and less obvious contradictions at play in what they actually want relationship wise. In general they do have simpler needs with desire and relationships than women. I'd stand by that too. The basic male sexual desire and response trajectory is provably less complex than womens. Oh yes the complexity of the emotions and the intellect behind that is complex, but the actual response? Put it this way, when was the last time you saw an article in a mens magazine entitled "how to have an orgasm"? How many articles in mens magazines to you see entitled, "how to keep your relationship going"? Hell men only tend to talk about relationships when they've gone south. We simply don't talk about relationships to nearly the same degree as women. On that score alone we're different and yes I would say simpler.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

You were reading this weren't you ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?ref=magazine

The robbing bastids!!!! I'm gonna look for compensation.:D Ah well then, great minds think alike(do not mention fools seldom....). They probably got a grant for that. I came up with that over a pint.

Nevyn

Wibbs wrote: »

What I find fascinating about women is their complexity, the need to be on your toes a lot of the time, both relaxed and aware, to be dynamic and exciting. The complexity forces me to think and adapt a lot more than in the company of fellow men.

Men are as complex in their own way, they are. They just are not as usually
as communicative about what their expectations are, sometimes they don't even know themselves and when there is an issue often it expressed in a round about way and seems to be about something else entirely.

Yes are differences due to gender ( and how ) but people are complex
and if men were as easy to be with in a relationship as is put about then there would be a lot less single people about.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

if men were as easy to be with in a relationship as is put about then there would be a lot less single people about.

Yea but I blame women. You ruin us early on;):p.

Nevyn

Wibbs wrote: »

Hell men only tend to talk about relationships when they've gone south. We simply don't talk about relationships to nearly the same degree as women. On that score alone we're different and yes I would say simpler.

Simpler my eye, try being on the other end of that when trying to sort out and work at
and maintain a relationship with someone who does just that.

Who doesn't talk about the issues that arise and just lets things build up to
a huge head of resentment which then just explodes when he can't contain it any more
and that is just really fúcking messy and not in a fun way.

and it then gets seen as the woman's fault.

When it is nothing to with being anyone's fault, she hasn't been pressing his buttons.
It is just the learning curve and the dynamic of being in a relationship,
but like you said so many men abdicate any responsibility
when it come to the care and tending of the relationship they are in and
we don't see articles on how to keep your woman happy.

The sole responsibility get pushed back on the woman to make her man happy and to keep him
now she has caught him and so we get women making far to many compromises sually quietly with out a fuss cos they
think that is what they are ment to do and it can build up a lot of resentment.

What do women want, someone who can compromise, communicate and who
actually wants to be in a relationship with them and takes equal responsiblity
and is a deamon in the sack clearly. :pac:

Nevyn

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea but I blame women.

Who let you mod this place any way ?

Wibbs wrote: »

You ruin us early on;):p.

How ?

DublinWriter

Meh, it's Darwinism in action.

Us middle of the road types will eventually breed you shrinking-violets and alpha-male types right out of the gene-pool.

If boards was around a million years ago, you'd be asking why females only liked UG, the hairy cavemen without an effective opposable thumb.

Nevyn

'Bad boys' are in their own bossy way appear to be at least communicating.
Which can be a refreshing change and are clear enough about what they want
and don't want so that a woman know where she stands rather then having to try be a mind
reader or end up make all the decsions when told 'sure what ever you want to do I don't mind'
when the facts are he does mind but can't be arsed make a decsion.

If you are going to bring Darwin into it then a 'bad boy' who gets several women knocked
up and has a high spawning rate with a wide genetic variance and has someone else tend
and care to his off spring so they can spread his dna is winning.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

Who let you mod this place any way ?

Very true and I'm still on probation.:)

How ?

It's a common excuse both men and women sometimes use for acting the maggot. Their first big love turns out to be a chancer and they treat subsequent people the same.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

'Bad boys' are in their own bossy way appear to be at least communicating.
Which can be a refreshing change and are clear enough about what they want
and don't want so that a woman know where she stands rather then having to try be a mind
reader or end up make all the decsions when told 'sure what ever you want to do I don't mind'
when the facts are he does mind but can't be arsed make a decsion.

Nail on head and QFT!

DublinWriter

Thaedydal wrote: »

If you are going to bring Darwin into it then a 'bad boy' who gets several women knocked up and has a high spawning rate with a wide genetic variance and has someone else tend
and care to his off spring so they can spread his dna is winning.

Yes, but they're knocking off and populating a weak marketing demographic.

Just like Karma, the genes will eventually get ya.

DublinWriter

Thaedydal wrote: »

'Bad boys' are in their own bossy way appear to be at least communicating.
Which can be a refreshing change and are clear enough about what they want
and don't want so that a woman know where she stands rather then having to try be a mind
reader or end up make all the decsions when told 'sure what ever you want to do I don't mind'
when the facts are he does mind but can't be arsed make a decsion.

Yes, but they're oh-so-dreamy! *sigh*

Nevyn

Wibbs wrote: »

It's a common excuse both men and women sometimes use for acting the maggot. Their first big love turns out to be a chancer and they treat subsequent people the same.

Pff that is only part of it, did you forget your patented pattern/template
spiel about the impact of parental relationship and parental role models :P

Nevyn

DublinWriter wrote: »

Yes, but they're oh-so-dreamy! *sigh*

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

Pff that is only part of it, did you forget your patented pattern/template
spiel about the impact of parental relationship and parental role models :P

Oh yea and that too.

Scarinae

Gauge wrote: »

Here's an article that sums up self declared Nice Guys (as distinct from nice guys) quite well, and why women aren't attracted to them: http://divalion.livejournal.com/163615.html

Arrgh I recognise the self-declared Nice Guy from that article, I swear that was written about one of my exes! This is what low self-confidence can do to a girl.

At this stage in my life (being a rather ancient 22 :rolleyes:) I still do actually go for the quieter guys, I don't find cockiness attractive. I can sort of see how some girls would, but not completely! One of my friends has the worst taste ever in guys - she went out with a guy for ages who cheated on her, and after they broke up he basically used her as a booty call. As in, if he was up in Dublin he'd contact her, and they'd hook up - she always said it was nice cos the old feelings were still there, but in my opinion he was just using her. Anyway, fast forward to now, and she is seeing a guy who is lovely, I get on really well with him. Problem is, she says there is no 'spark' because they don't argue enough (??) and he is too considerate - she tells me she needs a guy who will let her mammy him. I am so puzzled by this. Thing is, she was seeing a guy before the summer who was really sound and treated her really well, and she said the same thing about him. She is the kind of person who needs drama in her life though.

As for someone's comment about women wanting to be dominated sometimes - I have heard that this can be due to low self-confidence. If you don't think you're very attractive, your boyfriend basically tearing your clothes off and riding you will make you feel desired if nothing else! Some women need to feel like the guy really wants them

There was another comment about women wanting to be 99% sure a guy will stay with them, but having that 1% of wondering... My take on that is nobody wants to feel like their partner is just settling for them because they can't get anyone else, or out of habit/routine. Knowing that your boyfriend is reasonably attractive and has social skills that would enable him to go for someone else if he desired, but still chooses to be with you because he loves you and is attracted to you, does mean something especially if you have low self-confidence.

metrovelvet

Women like bad boys so they can be mean to them and not feel guilty about it. That or it plays into a martyr complex.

johnathan woss

Thaedydal wrote: »

If you are going to bring Darwin into it then a 'bad boy' who gets several women knocked
up and has a high spawning rate with a wide genetic variance and has someone else tend
and care to his off spring so they can spread his dna is winning.

What is happening to the human gene pool due to modern civilization, the welfare state, the use of seemingly abundant energy and importantly for this thread the poor choices of empowered women has NOTHING to do with Darwin.

MLE

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Obviously it will be very hard to get an answer to this because at a conscience level most girls here will probably say no not at all but I see it all the time most girls just stay with cocky confident assholes who treat them with no respect whiles guys that are too nice get no where?

Hell yes.. and not just at an unconscience level... but maybe thats just me.