Why do the " Bad Boys" get so many women?

[catholicgamer]

Originally Posted by The Bucket

As much as you think that, it's 100% wrong. As I posted a moment ago, when women are thinking about sex their biology is thinking procreation. Isn't it nifty how the Church is one of the few institutions that recognize that the two are intrinsically linked and can't be separated no matter how much we delude ourselves? Anyway...

Hormonal birth control results in women choosing more provider characteristics. Why? Because they're making rational thoughts about the future instead of paying attention to the screaming hormones that say "REPRODUCE! GET THE BEST GENES! NOW!" Instead they're thoughtfully considering who will provide the best shelter, food, etc. for the offspring and can eschew the best physical genes because they know with those genes comes competition and a lower chance that the man sticks around.

Talk to any woman practicing NFP and ask what her attitude is towards her husband during Phase II versus Phase III. Well I mean don't actually ask her that because it's pretty personal, but I can assure you I know what the responses will be.

Damn...totally forgot about the repressing of ovulation and hormones with the Pill.


...good call!

/goes back to drawing board.

I also recall reading something about women choosing the wrong man if she is on birth control.

/ponder

[The Bucket]

Perhaps if you were considering someone using non-hormonal forms of ABC. But at that point you're dealing with regular female hormones which I can tell you from direct experience are radically, RADICALLY different from one week to the next depending on the point in the cycle. Phase I: Warming up. Phase II: Do you want more kids right now? DO YOU? No? Then you need to be in another room. Phase III - Green light? *YAWN* What was that again?

[catholicgamer]

Originally Posted by The Bucket

Phase I: Warming up. Phase II: Do you want more kids right now? DO YOU? No? Then you need to be in another room. Phase III - Green light? *YAWN* What was that again?

Dude...that is frackin hilarious.

[chevalier]

Originally Posted by PatriceA

Again, attraction though can be on MANY, MANY levels depending upon what makes a person tick. I'm not one that is attracted on the initial first physical impression of a person. Others might be. It wasn't my husbands actual physical appearance that immediately drew me in to him when we first met, it was actually his laugh. I heard his laugh and his conversation with his friends because my back was to them, but I knew I had to meet him. And he is the most handsome man to me, I'm sure though that others would look at him and not get the attraction at all.

Sexual attraction or any attraction isn't just looks. I was replying to the idea that attraction in general (regardless of what the attractive qualities were) was not necessary or even wrong to focus on. To clarify, the way I see it, there may be other factors in spouse selection than immediate sexual attraction, e.g. we may pick a person who attracts us sexually only to a moderate extent but on the other hand has a good character or means a lot to us for other reasons. But subjective sexual attraction is not at all a factor that shouldn't be considered.

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

Or a one-handed knightsword.

Not in the trenches. I "fought" a guy in a narrow space using an arming sword (what RPG games call a "longsword") while he had a Roman gladius (shortsword). It was massively difficult. You must consider practicality, not just style. Tough men get the job done. Style is an addition.

Originally Posted by Vatican2Rocks!

some women don't like to be challenged and will dump you, stand their ground, or one up you.

We aren't exactly talking male attraction here but personally I'd like a woman who'd be able and willing to challenge me if I were in the wrong (while on the other hand not being an "assertive and wrong" type herself).

Originally Posted by johndelacruz

One counseling psychologist wrote a whole book and has developed a career to answer the OP's question:

"No More Mr. Nice Guy" by Dr. Robert Glover, who states that he himself is a "recovering nice guy."

He considers being a Nice Guy, as typically understood, as a malady of sorts, peculiar to our modern culture. He prescribes ways to get over this, but not by becoming a jerk either.

His basic answer to why girls seem to go for jerks is for Nice Guys to start figuring out all the good things these "Jerks" possess, and which attracts females, (i.e. confidence, manliness, life energy) and not focus on the sometimes less desirable "jerkish" traits. Nice Guys have a lot of positive traits that girls like in their friends, but these traits don't generally attract them to them as mates.

Here's Dr. Glover's website: http://nomoremrniceguy.com/

His book has some really great stuff, but he also gives some advice that goes against Catholic teaching (such as engaging in "healthy masturbation"), so be warned.

Much of that is a matter of style IMHO. It's very true that being a good person doesn't require being 'nice' in a superficial way. The expression 'nice guy' is often understood as being a doormat, and that understanding of "nice guy" isn't what I'd like to identify myself with. On the other hand, there is value in being kind, polite, gentle, even meek, putting others first, being relentlessly positive, forgiving and accommodating, although this isn't much appreciated by the secular world (because it isn't cool/alpha enough). Exaggerated masculinity, especially one intentionally primitive, is something I find ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

I have a better answer to that question.
Girl: Where are all the nice guys!?
Me: You threw men like me away so you can be with bad boys.

She might ask you what kind of girls you have been pursuing so far. You might find yourself in need of making the conclusion that you haven't exactly pursued the good girls.

Originally Posted by The Bucket

I'd expect her to get defensive at the idea that she threw good men away to chase bad ones. And it would get worse if you tried to explain it all, especially if you did so in a tone that would seem condescending or judgmental.

People nowadays have an exaggerated phobia of perceivedly condescending or judgemental speech. A bit like those 19th century (and earlier) emo idiots looking for an offence to their honour (e.g. someone spilt a drink on them) and a reason to duel.

Originally Posted by TrixieMcGee

I can ask why do "good boys" go for "bad girls"? I was always a rule follower, modest (in dress and in attitude), didn't cuss, didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't do drugs, was polite, ect. ect. But the guys from Church and the Christian guys at school never wanted anything to do with me. They all dated the "bad girls" and never paid any attention to me. I didn't start dating at all until College and the only guys who would date me at all were the "bad boys". They broke it off soon enough because I wouldn't have sex with them or fool around even. Then I dated a supposed "nice guy" who was active in Church, held Bible studies at his house, ect. ect. He ended up sexually and verbally abusing me,so I guess he was worse than the "bad boys". Luckily soon after him I met my wonderful husband and a year later we were married.

Glad to hear it all ended well for you!

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by chevalier

Not in the trenches. I "fought" a guy in a narrow space using an arming sword (what RPG games call a "longsword") while he had a Roman gladius (shortsword). It was massively difficult. You must consider practicality, not just style. Tough men get the job done. Style is an addition.

Two-handed swords are not very practical weapons.
Also, you forgot ferocity.

[The Bucket]

Always bring a gun to a knife fight. Harrison Ford taught me that.

[PatriceA]

Originally Posted by chevalier

Sexual attraction or any attraction isn't just looks. I was replying to the idea that attraction in general (regardless of what the attractive qualities were) was not necessary or even wrong to focus on. To clarify, the way I see it, there may be other factors in spouse selection than immediate sexual attraction, e.g. we may pick a person who attracts us sexually only to a moderate extent but on the other hand has a good character or means a lot to us for other reasons. But subjective sexual attraction is not at all a factor that shouldn't be considered.



Not in the trenches. I "fought" a guy in a narrow space using an arming sword (what RPG games call a "longsword") while he had a Roman gladius (shortsword). It was massively difficult. You must consider practicality, not just style. Tough men get the job done. Style is an addition.

And I'm saying a good character or what makes a person mean a lot to us for other reasons can be just as sexually stimulating, or even more so for some people, than the physical appearance of a person. I NEVER said sexual attraction wasn't a factor to be considered, just that sexual attraction can be soooo much more than the physical appearances. I'm not arguing against sexual attraction at all, but that for SOME, not ALL, its not based on looks and looks alone, or even looks at all. And the marital embrace, the point and only point is not always physical sexual attraction. Some times its based on emotional or mental stimulation/sexual attraction. My husband may look his absolute worse, but if we've had a stimulating conversation, that is a complete turn on for me, more than when he looks his best.

[chevalier]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

Two-handed swords are not very practical weapons.
Also, you forgot ferocity.

Please use precise terms. An "arming sword" is a one-handed sword, referred to as a "longsword" in roleplaying games. A proper longsword is two-handed, games refer to it as a "greatsword". At any rate, I was talking about a one-handed weapon. Two-handed weapons can actually be very practical, they deliver a big punch, you just need to find a proper application for them. Like any weapon, in some situations they're great, in others they're bad.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by chevalier

Please use precise terms. An "arming sword" is a one-handed sword, referred to as a "longsword" in roleplaying games. A proper longsword is two-handed, games refer to it as a "greatsword". At any rate, I was talking about a one-handed weapon. Two-handed weapons can actually be very practical, they deliver a big punch, you just need to find a proper application for them. Like any weapon, in some situations they're great, in others they're bad.

Personally, I'd choose an arming sword.
Asides from self-defense, it also says confidence and boldness.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by The Bucket

Always bring a gun to a knife fight. Harrison Ford taught me that.

Hence me mentioning the longbarrel pistol last night.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Vatican2Rocks!

.......it doesn't really matter to me because she is married and i get all the hotties she can't have anyway. rotflol

the church teaches beauty is a good.

Hmm, so you're the one getting all the hotties! Do you plan on marrying one of them someday? How will you choose which hottie to settle down with in a lifelong covenant?

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by JimG

Hmm, so you're the one getting all the hotties! Do you plan on marrying one of them someday? How will you choose which hottie to settle down with in a lifelong covenant?

Probably the same way all the rest of us choose which person to settle down with??

I'm not sure why this poster is getting so much grief for saying one of the criteria she looks for in a date is physical/sexual attraction...

[Kathryn Ann]

Originally Posted by mellowcalico

I think there is a lot of wisdom in your observations.

Thank you kindly, mellowcalico. I guess that membership in the Over Fifty Club has its rewards! (Alas, if only I knew then what i know now...... ) But God is great. Whatever mistakes we make rarely surprise or shock our Heavenly Father. And wherever our future leads us, He is already there to embrace us! Love and chivalry always win in the end.
Kathryn Ann

[Kathryn Ann]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

I tried outmaneuvering, and I found out that going for a full offensive can actually work. (Please excuse the military jargon.)

Also, it is true that most of the bad boys ended up getting the really bad girls and then leave them. I've seen that happen many times in my life. It is saddening, but I can't help but facepalm at the immaturity of both parties.

Yes, Crescentinus, you're on the right path if you look for the good in everyone.

Some say opposites attract, but as we are all meant to go through life following Christ's example, we have to start with two caring people and work from there.

The elegant solution may be to find those similarities above first before venturing further. People secure within their own psyches need not spend years being confused by those who are not. That's why, in times past, good character and exemplary reputation were expected norms, where today, shock value and self-promotion seem to be lauded.

W.B. Yeats said it best in his "Poem for my Daughter," when he wrote

"Where else but in custom and in ceremony is beauty to be born?"

If we seek those higher things, then even life's meanest circumstances cannot assail us. Some of the finest people I know have been perhaps too trusting, yet God knows our souls and will always show us the most elegant solutions even in the most trying times.

We see in one of the world's most beloved films, "Babette's Feast," for example, that the choices we make in life may seem to define us. But in the end, we need never despair, because "Mercy and judgement shall kiss." The mistakes, the choices, the seemingly unforgiving circumstances that imprison us can and will come around if we only ask for the miracle of God's love to transform us.
Kathryn Ann

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by chevalier

She might ask you what kind of girls you have been pursuing so far. You might find yourself in need of making the conclusion that you haven't exactly pursued the good girls.

Good point. And yet, I have been pursuing the good girls.