PSA: For all the confused men out there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. I've seen friends opt for the bad guy over a great "good guy". They've all had some self esteem issues and I think that played a lot into it.

I'm also an outlier to what you're saying. I was dating the "hot bad guy" for years but there was always something Gholding me back aboUt wanting to marry him. We broke up and shortly after I met dh. Dh is an 8 while my ex was a 10. Dh is an adorable geek and no one would ever say he was a bad boy. And yet I'd choose him 100000 times over my ex.

Same here, but I had better sex with the ex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. I've seen friends opt for the bad guy over a great "good guy". They've all had some self esteem issues and I think that played a lot into it.

I'm also an outlier to what you're saying. I was dating the "hot bad guy" for years but there was always something Gholding me back aboUt wanting to marry him. We broke up and shortly after I met dh. Dh is an 8 while my ex was a 10. Dh is an adorable geek and no one would ever say he was a bad boy. And yet I'd choose him 100000 times over my ex.

Yea, I, too, dated a bad boy who was very sexy and married a good guy who is also very sexy. Were you going somewhere with this? Did your friends choose fat, ugly bad boys over good looking good guys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another day in DCUM, another day where bored women with nothing better to do and wasting time at their jobs decide to bash men in a forum..who are probably in their offices working being productive. (bored woman typing response to meaningless forum).

Haha, hi Mr. Bitters! Still posing as a woman online? Get to the gym!

[Anonymous]

Speaking of baldness- there's a high correlation between baldness and waist size. If men kept the gut under control, they wouldn't have as bad of balding head.

I married the great looking good guy. He's literally a 10. Women will stop to talk to him in grocery stores and gas stations- really! He had no issues with the fact that he wasn't a bad boy. And now that we're in our 30s, women want him even more since he's more into family, house and wife. I think an equally looking bad guy and equally looking good guy would get the same amount of girl.

Nice guys, just tend to have a gigantic chip on their shoulder though. And likewise bad boys are cocky as hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of baldness- there's a high correlation between baldness and waist size. If men kept the gut under control, they wouldn't have as bad of balding head.

I married the great looking good guy. He's literally a 10. Women will stop to talk to him in grocery stores and gas stations- really! He had no issues with the fact that he wasn't a bad boy. And now that we're in our 30s, women want him even more since he's more into family, house and wife. I think an equally looking bad guy and equally looking good guy would get the same amount of girl.

Nice guys, just tend to have a gigantic chip on their shoulder though. And likewise bad boys are cocky as hell.

Truly nice men don't (and nice doesn't equal pushover or beta, bitter males). But men pretending to be nice as a way of getting something (such as sex) because they feel entitled to it certainly have a chip on their shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. I've seen friends opt for the bad guy over a great "good guy". They've all had some self esteem issues and I think that played a lot into it.

I'm also an outlier to what you're saying. I was dating the "hot bad guy" for years but there was always something Gholding me back aboUt wanting to marry him. We broke up and shortly after I met dh. Dh is an 8 while my ex was a 10. Dh is an adorable geek and no one would ever say he was a bad boy. And yet I'd choose him 100000 times over my ex.

What are you on about? I don't see how any part of your response rebuts OP's point that ugly, bitter men need to look to their gremlin-like appearance for the cause of their dating woes and not make up narratives about being "too nice."

x2. Maybe she was confused...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope, you just need money

Dumb dumb, this feeds right into the point in the OP. A fabulously wealthy man who can sweep a woman off her feet has something to offer, just as a good looking man does visually. Preferring men who actually come with more than bald spots spreading as wide as their guts does not mean that women want assholes. It means that women actually want some value in return for their time. You know, the way men do? Or are you beating down the doors of broke Roseanne Barr lookalikes?

I'm not going to address the arguments about money and young woman, but I'm pretty sure that the first picture is Giorgio Armani who is reportedly worth $7B and also happens to be gay. I think that young woman is a relative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of baldness- there's a high correlation between baldness and waist size. If men kept the gut under control, they wouldn't have as bad of balding head.

I married the great looking good guy. He's literally a 10. Women will stop to talk to him in grocery stores and gas stations- really! He had no issues with the fact that he wasn't a bad boy. And now that we're in our 30s, women want him even more since he's more into family, house and wife. I think an equally looking bad guy and equally looking good guy would get the same amount of girl.

Nice guys, just tend to have a gigantic chip on their shoulder though. And likewise bad boys are cocky as hell.

Truly nice men don't (and nice doesn't equal pushover or beta, bitter males). But men pretending to be nice as a way of getting something (such as sex) because they feel entitled to it certainly have a chip on their shoulder.

Yes that might be true. I guess most nice guys are betas, so we correlate the two. My nice guy is an alpha (except at home- hah!).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope, you just need money

Dumb dumb, this feeds right into the point in the OP. A fabulously wealthy man who can sweep a woman off her feet has something to offer, just as a good looking man does visually. Preferring men who actually come with more than bald spots spreading as wide as their guts does not mean that women want assholes. It means that women actually want some value in return for their time. You know, the way men do? Or are you beating down the doors of broke Roseanne Barr lookalikes?

I'm not going to address the arguments about money and young woman, but I'm pretty sure that the first picture is Giorgio Armani who is reportedly worth $7B and also happens to be gay. I think that young woman is a relative.

The second one is Armani, not the first.

[Anonymous]

People can also help the situation finally using such stupid terms as "Alpha" and "beta." People who use such terms show their lack of education because the alpha/beta/omega classifications were meant for non-human animal interactions.

The theorists who came up with the classification were explicit about the fact that human relationships and dynamics are far too complex and context-dependent for such labels to fit.

There is no such thing as an alpha among humans, because, for instance, the traits that indicate dominance in one setting can be counterproductive and result in inferiority in a different setting thanks to the complexity of human society. The tall guy who orders simple-minded women around will lay down for his boss at work and pipe down if a well built ex-con is around. The well built ex-con sent very clear indications of submission to COs when he was in prison.

In short, just stop with all this "DH is alpha" stupidity. Another PSA from your loving OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another day in DCUM, another day where bored women with nothing better to do and wasting time at their jobs decide to bash men in a forum..who are probably in their offices working being productive. (bored woman typing response to meaningless forum).

Haha, hi Mr. Bitters! Still posing as a woman online? Get to the gym!

[Anonymous]

OP here and the first line in my last post should read: "help the situation by no longer using such stupid..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People can also help the situation finally using such stupid terms as "Alpha" and "beta." People who use such terms show their lack of education because the alpha/beta/omega classifications were meant for non-human animal interactions.

The theorists who came up with the classification were explicit about the fact that human relationships and dynamics are far too complex and context-dependent for such labels to fit.

There is no such thing as an alpha among humans, because, for instance, the traits that indicate dominance in one setting can be counterproductive and result in inferiority in a different setting thanks to the complexity of human society. The tall guy who orders simple-minded women around will lay down for his boss at work and pipe down if a well built ex-con is around. The well built ex-con sent very clear indications of submission to COs when he was in prison.

In short, just stop with all this "DH is alpha" stupidity. Another PSA from your loving OP.

Well, the alpha/beta proponents argue that we still have those animal tendencies buried in our brains and that, whether we realize it or not, our rational brains don't suppress the animal parts of our brain nearly as much as we'd like to pretend. So - the thinking goes - women will choose to have sex with the aggressive big dude for animalistic reasons even if his behavior is socially destructive and even if her preference is rooted in concerns that are no longer rational in modern culture.

I don't know if they are right, but the argument isn't facially stupid. It makes some sense and is at least plausible.

[Anonymous]

I take OP's point that attractive women choose attractive men. But the question remains whether the bad boy behavior adds, detracts, or is neutral. The thought experiment would be, given a set of identical twins, whether a woman would prefer sex with the bad boy twin or the nice guy twin.

If it's the bad-boy that gets the edge, then even ugly guys are going to want to be bad boys because they want to at least get the edge over the rest of the guys who are just as ugly as they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can also help the situation finally using such stupid terms as "Alpha" and "beta." People who use such terms show their lack of education because the alpha/beta/omega classifications were meant for non-human animal interactions.

The theorists who came up with the classification were explicit about the fact that human relationships and dynamics are far too complex and context-dependent for such labels to fit.

There is no such thing as an alpha among humans, because, for instance, the traits that indicate dominance in one setting can be counterproductive and result in inferiority in a different setting thanks to the complexity of human society. The tall guy who orders simple-minded women around will lay down for his boss at work and pipe down if a well built ex-con is around. The well built ex-con sent very clear indications of submission to COs when he was in prison.

In short, just stop with all this "DH is alpha" stupidity. Another PSA from your loving OP.

Well, the alpha/beta proponents argue that we still have those animal tendencies buried in our brains and that, whether we realize it or not, our rational brains don't suppress the animal parts of our brain nearly as much as we'd like to pretend. So - the thinking goes - women will choose to have sex with the aggressive big dude for animalistic reasons even if his behavior is socially destructive and even if her preference is rooted in concerns that are no longer rational in modern culture.

I don't know if they are right, but the argument isn't facially stupid. It makes some sense and is at least plausible.

You're missing the point.

1. The fact that we still have elements of the animal brain in us does not change the fact that a construct meant exclusively for animals who only have animal brains makes sense for us. We have much more complex brains than animals do. To ignore the rest of our brains and the evolution of the animal parts of our brain, and focus only on the animal aspects is silly.

2. This is not really just about brain structure. This is actually about society and human relationships. Animal societies -- packs mostly -- are much less complex than human societies. Hence why animals fit static roles like alpha, beta, omega. Because our societies are so complex and fluid, with one person performing many roles in many contexts, the static alpha, beta, omega roles simply do not apply. It is more like we all have the alpha, omega, beta capacities as well as many more capacities and we express some tendencies more in some contexts and other tendencies less in other contexts, and a mix of tendencies in most contexts. There is simply no human alpha and no human beta.

3. You are conflating "alpha" with "aggressive big dude". This shows that you do not know what an alpha in even animal society is, talk less of what the human version be (does not exist). An alpha is actually not always the biggest or the strongest. Rather, it is the animal that, due to a combination of factors both intrinsic to the animal and environmental, emerges as the leader. That's it.