Bad Boys

friend zone
We’re just friends.

Today we have a guest post by Twitter user @Pharmaheretic on the animal nature of the ‘nice guy’.

The view that ‘bad boys’ are significantly more attractive to women than ‘nice guys’ has become pervasive enough to be now considered mainstream. One could even go so far as to say that it is the dominant view 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 phenomenon by invoking deterministic scientific-sounding concepts such as “evolutionary psychology” and “hyper-gamy”. Others see it is an outcome of some vaguely defined “moral failings” inherent in secular societies, the tertiary effects of feminism or a lack of long-term planning. 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 ‘nice guys’ over ‘bad boys’?

The conventional reasoning for ‘nice guys’ being better than ‘bad boys’ in the long-term usually centers around the first group being supposedly better providers than the latter one. Somehow that is supposed to translate into “better reproductive success”. But how does that reasoning play out in the real world?

Let us, for a moment, hypothesize that humans are mindless and deterministic machines devoted to reproducing themselves like bacteria, worms, or wolves. What would a world where that hypothesis is correct look like? Is there a correlation between the number of children people have versus their ability to provide for them? Do you see billionaires having hundreds and thousands of children? What about upper-middle class types? How many have a dozen kids?

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? As far as the world we live in today is concerned, there is no real gain from spending more money and resources than that spent on raising an average upper-middle class child. Beyond that point, spending extra money does not reliably improve outcomes to a worthwhile degree. In fact, for most purposes the biological viability of a child born to working class parents in developed countries (other than the USA) is statistically identical to one with billionaire parents.

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

The answer to this apparent paradox has two major components. Firstly, human beings are not mindless machines devoted to reproducing themselves. Secondly, having kids usually diminishes the general quality of life for their parents. 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 simply did not need the spineless 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? Alternatively, what makes ‘bad boys’ attractive? The conventional answer to this question is that ‘bad boys’ are attractive because they are more popular, dominant, rebellious, mysterious etc. But is that really the case?

The belief that ‘bad boys’ are attractive because they exhibit some desirable characteristic is widespread, and it can explain why certain highly successful and visible types (such as famous entertainers, sportsmen, musicians) get tons of pussy. But how do you explain women lusting after barely known musicians, low-level drug dealers, semi-functional alcoholics, and others who are considered “failures”. What makes women prefer such apparently “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 have always been based on voluntary slavery. Indeed, there is a direct correlation between the willingness of slaves to humiliate and debase themselves and their compensation.

Consider for a moment the idea that the long educational requirements and probationary periods for conventionally high-income occupations such as physicians, scientists, lawyers, architects, and engineers are about selecting especially spineless and willing slaves rather than perpetuating meritocracy or ensuring competence.

What kind of person would end up in such conventionally well-paid careers? Also, wouldn’t such a servile mindset spill over into their personal lives?

What are the chances that a person with any significant level of self-respect, ability for independent thought, or autonomous agency would end up in a well-paid and “socially-acceptable” occupation? ‘Nice guys’, both established and aspiring, have more in common with well-trained dogs than human beings as far as women are concerned. 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 they see ‘nice guys’ as whimpering voluntary slaves. Wouldn’t you if you were in their position?

Sure, such ‘nice guys’ can often make decent money and provide a decent lifestyle to the woman they are with. But is it possible for that woman to continuously overlook the fact that she is with an easily manipulated, servile, and spineless human being?

20 thoughts on “Bad Boys

  1. One quibble- Evo psych postulates that women’s reproductive choices are vestigial emotions from a long ago era when there were huge differences in reproductive outcome.

    If our primate ancestors are the bulk of our evolutionary history, then being a “provider” meant murdering smaller ape species and ruling through intimidation. Beta monkeys cower and curry favor by grooming higher status monkeys.

  2. It’s really simple. All you have to do is look at Twilight, you know that meme book series from a few years back. Women want a vampire or a werewolf. Why? Because they are both the bad boy and the nice guy. The wild and the civilized. Women want to tame the wild side and be comfortable with the civilized side. It’s why they don’t believe huge ripped men will make great partners while still wanting to fuck them and why they don’t want to date the accountant while still wanting his resources. To be a real man you have to walk the line between the two, bad boy/nice guy, wild/civilized.

  3. You might be interested in No more Mr nice Guy by Robert Glover.It is written by a psychologist and he goes and explains the mental schemes and behaviours the “nice guys” go through.

  4. It’s dumb to theorize before asking a few women, but I don’t know any so here’s my theory:

    Bad boys behave with less inhibition [sic], which is its own “flavor” of resourcefulness that stimulates women (unlike the provisionism of NiceGuys). Can you blame them? Have you, after all, duly paid for all the music you’ve enjoyed over the last few years? But, isn’t supporting your favorite artists the Nice thing to do?

    I say resourcefulness (as opposed to resources–women don’t sexualize objects) because it’s masculinity, in functional terms. Hypothetical: Guy A has better looks, career/finances, muscle mass, etc than Guy B, who gets hotter girls, is better getting his needs met, has more fun more often. Who’s more resourceful? B can do/get more than A, with less to work with. More with less, tattoo it on the back of your eyelids. Guy A (Type A?) is a builder. He builds society so Guy B can vacation in it. Yes there are lower limits of what women will tolerate w/r/t the characteristics mentioned, but Guy B takes care of those things as they apply to his desires, not society’s standards, and surpasses most girls’ lowest expectations anyway.

    Sidenote: sad how guys will slave away in the gym thinking women can tell the difference between 14 and 17 inch biceps, or even care more than superficially. As long as you don’t have spaghetti arms, why stress yourself out?

    Anon sums it up: “The high value person is… the one who’s at the CAUSE, NOT effect.” Sensible guys go with the flow. Lower inhib guys follow instinct, do stuff on a whim, and are more adventurous and fun to be with, or even just around. Parties are kept exclusive so they don’t get flooded with higher inhib people who just want to be around lower inhib people and maybe accidentally be mistaken for one. A night on the town (even staying in) is better* with a lower inhib person, so extrapolate from one night to every night and you finally understand why NiceGuys are undesirable, barring she hit the wall or has baby rabies.

    *It’s not guaranteed more “fun”, it’s just more of everything: their impulsivity gives people more to latch onto and work with, thus there are more directions the night can go, and usually faster (again, more stimulating for women). Lower inhib guys are a resource in themselves, hence “resourceful”. They’re more engaged, thus engaging, whereas NiceGuy dates are disconnected and gross because she’s expected to return a fake grin for an hour and then put out at the end.

    NiceGuys live in their head. They get “intrigued” (distracted) by things, whereas the bad boy is tactile, lives in his gut/balls, which is more in line with the kind of life women want. Remember, good looking girls can’t relate to the idea of working to get their needs met.

    Reichian/Lowenian therapy is the best “self-development technique” I’ve come across for high inhib guys to let go and live with more contact to whatever environment they’re in. Any others like this, do share.

  5. “In 1974, while working at a truck stop in Montana, Kaczynski tried to woo the affections of a waitress by the name of Sandra Hill. Ted’s ministrations to Hill came in the form of three letters. In the first letter, Kaczynski asked the woman to go to Canada and become his ‘squaw.’ In the second missive, he presented his credentials, including his academic degrees and a bibliography of his published works. The last of the correspondences was an admission of defeat, and a formal surrender by Kaczynski in the pursuit of her affections.”

  6. Interesting post. I remember being around all these kids that genuinely bought flowers and other materialistic goods and brought them to the girls’ front doorstep. My dad always pressured me and said, “YOU NEED TO BE NICE!!!” when my mom was sleeping with other guys. Poor bastards.

  7. “The belief that ‘bad boys’ are attractive because they exhibit some desirable characteristic is widespread, and it can explain why certain highly successful and visible types (such as famous entertainers, sportsmen, musicians) get tons of pussy. But how do you explain women lusting after barely known musicians, low-level drug dealers, semi-functional alcoholics, and others who are considered “failures”. What makes women prefer such apparently “failed” men over “conventionally successful” guys?”

    You don’t understand what hypergamy means. When you say “desirable characteristics” you have to talk about what the HINDBRAIN recognizes as such. Otherwise, hypergamy seems to not make sence. The “highly successful and visible types” and the “failures” you mention both have characteristics that are desirable by the hindbrain, high value characteristics. The high value person is the UNREACTIVE one, the one who’s at the CAUSE, NOT effect.

    Eg, most physicians will let a chick know they’re doctors within minutes after meeting her. Would a high value person try to impress a low value person? The moment he qualified himself, her hindbrain put him in the lowSMV category.
    All those successful jobs you mention, they are not the problem. They are (on a hindbrain level) irrelevant. The problem is those nice guys, successful guys etc behave as a low value person, so the chicks treat them as such.

  8. Interesting.
    My younger brother is probably one of the biggest ‘losers’ I know. Can’t hold onto a job, and the ones he gets are low paying. Yet he hasn’t gone longer than a couple of months without a girl, and there was a period where he was with a different girl seemingly every week.
    He’s also not what I would call really handsome. He’s been overweight for years, to the point now that I would call him quite obese. But that doesn’t seem to have affected his luck with women.

    Can’t report on my personal experiences with women, as I have none, but your theory fits in with this anecdote.

  9. Some interesting ideas. But a lot of “bad boys” I’ve known throughout life just didn’t have the intelligence/motivation to peruse a professional path. Perhaps in this post modernist landscape we just glorify aimlessness. When it comes to understanding what drives attraction now everyone is probably a little right.

  10. Did your blog get surreptitiously bought out by Nicolas Winding Refn and is now being used to push Drive music

  11. Re: Having kids. People who have a few kids live longer, and quality of life is a term used by conquered individuals. Doesn’t invalidate your base assertion, but if you believe nokids people are better off, you got memed.

    1. In modern Industrial Society, having kids get in the way of careers, and therefore, will imply a deduction in living standards.

      Thanks to Industrial Society, kids will grow up to have lives completely independent of their parents. As kids, they are often selfish, materialistic, and rebellious (especially if the values of the parents dont match with the values a child is exposed to by school, friends, and media). They will grow up, possibly go to a far away college, and get a job faraway from where their parents live. The kids wont be able to help their parents in old age, because career and geography get in the way. We dont live communally as we used to.

      Kids are simply a burden in Industrial Society.

      Its almost as if a certain Harvard PhD in Mathematics with a 167 IQ was on to something…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.