Archive for June 29, 2013

An Alternative Explanation for Why Women Prefer “Bad Boys”

June 29, 2013 166 comments

The viewpoint that “bad boys” are far more attractive to women than “nice guys” has become pervasive enough to be considered almost mainstream. I would even go so far as to say that it is the dominant viewpoint in younger age-groups. As many of you also know, a lot of ink and electrons have been spent on trying to understand why women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”. Some have tried to explain this phenomena by invoking deterministic scientific-sounding concepts such as evolutionary psychology and hypergamy. Others see it is a moral failing of secular societies, secondary effects of feminism or lack of long-term planning etc. In my opinion, all such explanations are ex post facto rationalizations rather than objective explanations. Moreover, they almost willingly ignore or gloss over a very important question.

Why should women prefer “good guys” over “bad boys”?

The conventional reasoning for why “good guys” are better than “bad boys” centers around the first group being better providers than the later. Somehow that is supposed to translate into “better reproductive success”. But how does that reasoning play out in the real world- as far as humans are concerned?

Let us, for a moment, hypothesize that humans are semi-mindless and deterministic machines devoted to reproducing themselves- like bacteria, worms or wolves. How would a world where that hypothesis was true look like? Here is a clue.. is there a correlation between the number of children people have versus their ability to have and provide for them. Do you see billionaires having hundreds and thousands of children? If not, why not? What about upper-middle class types? How many have a dozen kids? Why not?

Now some of you might say.. “it is not just about how many kids a couple has, it is also about whether you can provide them a good upbringing and life”. OK, so how much money and resources does it take to raise a child properly? and when do you reach the point where extra money does not improve things any further? Well.. as far as the world we live in today is concerned, there is no real gain from spending more money and resources than those spent on raising an average upper-middle class child. Beyond that point, extra money does not affect survival-linked outcomes. In fact, for most purposes the viability of a child born to working class parents is statistically almost identical to one with billionaire parents.

So why are billionaires not pumping out kids by the dozens? What about upper-middle class professional couples? Why aren’t they having half-dozen kids each?

The answer to this apparent paradox has two major components. Firstly, human beings are not semi-mindless machines devoted to reproducing themselves. Secondly, having kids often diminishes the general quality of life for those who have them and most people are aware of that effect. Furthermore, having kids no longer guarantees social contact, assistance or care in your later years. Consequently, it is no surprise that human beings today are just not into having kids. The “nice guy” strategy of being a ‘better provider’ worked as long as having children was a net positive. Once having children became profitless and optional, women just did not need the stable provider-type.

I can almost hear some of you say “OK, that could explain why women don’t care for “nice guys” anymore, but why do they detest them? What makes “bad boys” attractive?

The conventional answer to that question is that “bad boys” are attractive because they are more popular, dominant, rebellious, mysterious etc. But is that really the case? Is it what they are or what they are not? Confused? OK, let me explain..

The belief that “bad boys” are attractive because they exhibit some or the other characteristic is widespread. It can explain why certain highly visible types (entertainers, sportsmen, musicians) make a lot of panties drop. But how do you explain women lusting after barely known musicians, low-level drug dealers, semi-functional alcoholics and others who are considered as “failures”. What makes women prefer such “failed” men over “conventionally successful” guys?

My answer to this apparent paradox is as tasteless as it is unconventional.

Willing slaves inspire disgust and contempt, not lust and passion.

The vast majority of jobs throughout human history, including our era, have always been based in voluntary slavery. Indeed, there is a direct correlation between the willingness of slaves to humiliate and debase themselves and their compensation in the voluntary slave system. Consider for a moment the idea that the long educational requirements and probationary periods for conventional high-income occupations such as physicians, scientists, lawyers, architects, engineers etc are about selecting especially willing slaves rather than perpetuating meritocracy or ensuring competence.

Now ask yourself- What kind of person would end up in such conventionally well-paid careers? Do you think that a servile mindset would not spill over into their personal lives?

Let me put it another way. What are the chances that a person with any significant degree of self-respect, ability for independent thought or autonomous agency will end up in a well-paid and “socially-acceptable” occupation. What I am trying to say is that “nice guys” both established, and aspiring, have more in common with well-trained dogs than human beings. They can jump through many obstacle courses, learn amazing new tricks and be loyal companions. But at the end of the day they are just that.. dogs who serve others for meager rewards.

In contrast to that, “bad boys” are in it for themselves even if they are not especially successful. They possess autonomous agency, something that “nice guys” lack. While women may not explicitly think in those terms, it is pretty obvious to them that “nice guys” are semi-retarded voluntary slaves. Sure, they can often make decent money and enrich the woman they are with. But is it ever possible for that woman to continuously overlook the fact that she is with an easily manipulated, servile and spineless human being. Can you really get turned on by an anthropomorphic pet dog?

What do you think? Comments?