It's indisputably true. All of this makes perfect sense if you understand the basics of evolutionary psychology (you don't need to accept evolution to see the truth of it). A woman needs a man who can protect her and her child. Who can best do that, a weak, quiet guy, or a 'bad boy' - or a guy who has lots of resources and/or high social status?
None of this is conscious. If you asked them, they'd say that they want a sweet guy who cares about them, just like a guy would not say that he loves attractive, young women who are totally insufferable bitches.
the attraction to "bad boys" is because conformity is a proxy for weakness & submission
rebellion is a proxy for strength & independence
women have a genetic impulse to seek out "future alphas" so they can get in on the ground floor then reap the benefits of their man's rise.
"bad boys" are people who reject societal rules & do as they please. these are the kinds of men who historically would become leaders instead of followers later in life.
it is a high-risk high reward mating preference, thus is adopted by ambitious women who feel secure/safe. since society is very good at making women feel safe & protected now with laws & police, the preference towards bad boys has dramatically increased. I guarantee you that women did not prefer bad boys in the 1800s.
women who feel less ambitious & safe/secure prefer competent beta males. and no, not "beta" the way it is used as an insult today, beta in the true sense of being a successful conformist who avoids risk & takes the surest path to success. it's much safer & smarter to be the #2 guy than the #1.
women in older generations rejected alpha bad boys because they correctly feared that their gamble would not pay off & their life would be ruined.
that's not a concern anymore since these same women just figure if their bet goes against them, they'll get a divorce. most of the consequences & risks associated with bad boys don't exist anymore, hence their meteoric rise in popularity in the dating scene in the last 40 years.
Hence a woman having a bunch of kids with multiple bad boys can get a welfare check where before they couldn’t. Like you said it was better to be with the safe provider.
Also I’ve seen plenty of women hit their 30s or 40s and then they want the “sweet guy” they claimed they wanted as a teen
Also I’ve seen plenty of women hit their 30s or 40s and then they want the “sweet guy” they claimed they wanted as a teen
yes, and that perfectly fits with my description of their motives:
once they get older & post-wall, they suddenly become fearful & insecure that they will die alone, therefore they switch from their high-risk bad boy preference to "settling" for their low risk "nice guy with a good paycheck" preference.
it is a high-risk high reward mating preference, thus is adopted by ambitious women who feel secure/safe. since society is very good at making women feel safe & protected now with laws & police, the preference towards bad boys has dramatically increased. I guarantee you that women did not prefer bad boys in the 1800s.
The evolutionary psychology that I have read has made the opposite claim, IIRC, that women are more interested in 'bad boys' the more unsafe and chaotic their environment is.
I think the only reason soyboys can get dates at all is because of the safety.
I saw this study a while back where researchers had periodically polled women over the last 100 years or so about which traits they valued most in men.
The "good man" traits dominated before the 1960s. The "bad boy" traits increasingly dominated after. Why?
easy no fault divorce made women more willing to pick high risk husbands.
feminism made women more ambitious & reckless.
feminism reduced women wanting kids & therefore caring about good father traits.
materialistic society made women chase the most "trophy" men, highly stimulating, who would cause envy among their friends.
These men know their value & routinely fuck women but refuse to commit to them. So while some of these women snag a "bad boy" & get what they wanted, the vast majority do not.
Then if they ride the cock carousel through their 20s & hit the wall, by their 30s they panic, shift towards risk-adverse, & suddenly shift their priority to financial security & stability = a "nice guy" with a good job.
As a teen it really confused me because so many women said they wanted a nice sweet guy and then date someone who was the total opposite. Then complain that they couldn’t find good men.
Unlike the other comment, this is where there seems to be an identity attack, and it's based around the word "liar" being loaded with a pretty heavy negative connotation. Another word, like "deceptive" would probably be enough to get it approved.
lol she's a total bitch & her bf could have knocked her the fuck out without trying.
thing is, this is why you never want to fuck with "alpha" type A personality women. they don't pair bond with you, it's purely transactional. you're only as good as your next win to them. it's the female equivalent of a guy who only dates a woman for the pussy & is 100% prepared to dump her the moment the pussy stops impressing him.
It's indisputably true. All of this makes perfect sense if you understand the basics of evolutionary psychology (you don't need to accept evolution to see the truth of it). A woman needs a man who can protect her and her child. Who can best do that, a weak, quiet guy, or a 'bad boy' - or a guy who has lots of resources and/or high social status?
None of this is conscious. If you asked them, they'd say that they want a sweet guy who cares about them, just like a guy would not say that he loves attractive, young women who are totally insufferable bitches.
the attraction to "bad boys" is because conformity is a proxy for weakness & submission
rebellion is a proxy for strength & independence
women have a genetic impulse to seek out "future alphas" so they can get in on the ground floor then reap the benefits of their man's rise.
"bad boys" are people who reject societal rules & do as they please. these are the kinds of men who historically would become leaders instead of followers later in life.
it is a high-risk high reward mating preference, thus is adopted by ambitious women who feel secure/safe. since society is very good at making women feel safe & protected now with laws & police, the preference towards bad boys has dramatically increased. I guarantee you that women did not prefer bad boys in the 1800s.
women who feel less ambitious & safe/secure prefer competent beta males. and no, not "beta" the way it is used as an insult today, beta in the true sense of being a successful conformist who avoids risk & takes the surest path to success. it's much safer & smarter to be the #2 guy than the #1.
women in older generations rejected alpha bad boys because they correctly feared that their gamble would not pay off & their life would be ruined.
that's not a concern anymore since these same women just figure if their bet goes against them, they'll get a divorce. most of the consequences & risks associated with bad boys don't exist anymore, hence their meteoric rise in popularity in the dating scene in the last 40 years.
Hence a woman having a bunch of kids with multiple bad boys can get a welfare check where before they couldn’t. Like you said it was better to be with the safe provider.
Also I’ve seen plenty of women hit their 30s or 40s and then they want the “sweet guy” they claimed they wanted as a teen
yes, and that perfectly fits with my description of their motives:
once they get older & post-wall, they suddenly become fearful & insecure that they will die alone, therefore they switch from their high-risk bad boy preference to "settling" for their low risk "nice guy with a good paycheck" preference.
The evolutionary psychology that I have read has made the opposite claim, IIRC, that women are more interested in 'bad boys' the more unsafe and chaotic their environment is.
I think the only reason soyboys can get dates at all is because of the safety.
I saw this study a while back where researchers had periodically polled women over the last 100 years or so about which traits they valued most in men.
The "good man" traits dominated before the 1960s. The "bad boy" traits increasingly dominated after. Why?
easy no fault divorce made women more willing to pick high risk husbands.
feminism made women more ambitious & reckless.
feminism reduced women wanting kids & therefore caring about good father traits.
materialistic society made women chase the most "trophy" men, highly stimulating, who would cause envy among their friends.
These men know their value & routinely fuck women but refuse to commit to them. So while some of these women snag a "bad boy" & get what they wanted, the vast majority do not.
Then if they ride the cock carousel through their 20s & hit the wall, by their 30s they panic, shift towards risk-adverse, & suddenly shift their priority to financial security & stability = a "nice guy" with a good job.
It's funny, this information also squares well with what I said. Disorder and crime increased markedly in the 1960s.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: This isn't one this is. This is an explanation of genetic predisposition to mate choice, not an explanation of innate inferiority.
As a teen it really confused me because so many women said they wanted a nice sweet guy and then date someone who was the total opposite. Then complain that they couldn’t find good men.
never listen to what women tell you they want
always look at women's actions
women are conditioned from birth to be liars. even 'nice girls' lie constantly to keep up social appearances.
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Unlike the other comment, this is where there seems to be an identity attack, and it's based around the word "liar" being loaded with a pretty heavy negative connotation. Another word, like "deceptive" would probably be enough to get it approved.
lol she's a total bitch & her bf could have knocked her the fuck out without trying.
thing is, this is why you never want to fuck with "alpha" type A personality women. they don't pair bond with you, it's purely transactional. you're only as good as your next win to them. it's the female equivalent of a guy who only dates a woman for the pussy & is 100% prepared to dump her the moment the pussy stops impressing him.