Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Why females think irrationally in terms of being attracted to bad boys
This topic contains 24 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by 
Antonio 3 years, 9 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Let me give you guys a lesson on human history as well as human psychology. There was a time like 10000 years ago, where the bad boys and psycho paths were like alpha males in the eyes of a human woman, because many females would think that if the females were with those types of people, the females would have a greater chance of survival, because those sort of males were also ruthless, confident and they were also strong enough to do a good job to defend themselves as well as their future wife or wives and their brood/broods. The idea is that these bad boys bodies are so well built that it is pretty obvious that there is no real defects in their genes, at least visually, which is why a lot of females would desire the sperm of the bad boys to have a greater chance of the human race to survive as a whole, due to the better genes spreading out.
Now let’s look at today. Almost all the rules have changed. What worked in the past in getting ahead does not work as well now which is why a lot of bad boys even end up going to jail, since they are not playing by the new rules very well. There are a portion of them who do not even have long lives, because they put themselves in danger constantly which would sooner or later catch up to them. Yet, even after all that, there are many girls who are attracted to these bad boys, because even though the rules changed, human biology and human psychology never changes, because it is always going to be part of human society.
This is why a lot of females likes those bad boys, because throughout all of human history, they always did.
"Question everything" - Albert Einstein
I know what you are saying, but I’ll go one step further and posit that there are very very few terms in which women think rationally at all, anymore. This, and the fact that the laws of the land condone and empower women’s irrational behavior are why it is best to simply avoid them and live a great life without their bulls~~~.
If you are MGTOW when you are young you have no heart.
If you're not MGTOW when you are 20 you have no brain.A women does not likes a bad boy just because he is bad, she likes him because he behaves like a leader .
Women go behind leaders/ head of a group, bad boy in a class controls the class, the student who gets good grades etc.
In my school days i used to disobey teachers and walk out of the class on my own, girls liked that.
But if the same bad boy becomes a criminal police are after ,women will avoid him.
My point is women dont care about right or wrong all they are interested is in the guy who leads and has resources.
It has to do with evolution and the stronger males had the best offspring but the weaker males either died or became the ones to provide. Also the asshole men tend to be crazier and selfish which are the traits women love. As an asshole chicks tend to be attracted to me for a variety of reasons like muscular figure, being able to stand up to them, i am a bit crazy in the head etc. Also i honestly don’t care to much about long live right now ill do stupid things either till i die doing them or i just get too old.
Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.
Imma break down the title of this thread here if you all will indulge a brother.
Whyfemales think irrationallyin terms of being attracted to bad boys
There ya go. All you ever need to know.There was a time like 10000 years ago, where the bad boys and psycho paths were like alpha males in the eyes of a human woman, because many females would think that if the females were with those types of people, the females would have a greater chance of survival
It is actually an assumption that those men were psychopathic alphas.
There are no written accounts of that time that have survived. So we are not sure. A number of other factors could have been the cast a much different light on the situation.
A natural disaster could have caused a mini-ice age. There are a few mini-ice ages in human history. The last mini-ice age ended a few centuries age.
Humanity pushed to the brink, with the men going out for food and most of them not eventually not returning.
Some diseases focus more on men in their prime than women. Such as the Spanish Flu.
Also, ten thousand years ago was went philosophy was starting to come into play across the world. Such as in the five rivers in India/Pakistan region, Egypt, and the southeastern parts of Europe, such as Greece.
What people whom make these assumptions forget this is during the iron age. There was the iron age, a thousand year dark age, then the bronze age. With modern civilization starting in the bronze age.
Egyptian records began during the beginning of the bronze age. Not the Iron age. So, ten thousand years is a very long time ago.
Archaeology has found during the iron age, Earth mother worship and matriarchal cultures flourished, only at the collapse of the iron age and the dark ages, did most of the patriarchal cultures rise and dominate the the world.
The one major matriarchal in early written records of history, that survived from the iron age, into the bronze age, were the Amazons that lived on the north coast of Turkey, by the Black Sea.
The Amazons were very militant and they kept men only as slaves. The original name for what we call Amazons translated to “man-slayer”. That says it all right there.
It could be quite the reverse of what we believe. The reasons that only ten percent of men passed on their genes was the the men were the slave class of the societies of the Iron Age, with the amazon women only selecting what they viewed as the best of the men to father their children.
Selective breeding as known by humans for tens of thousands of years. We see that with dogs, livestock, and crops.
It is not a large step to guess that some human might try selective breeding for humans even ten thousand years ago.
So, while some think this ten percent of men might have been at the top of the social structure, they were likely at the bottom of the social structure.
Also, ten thousand years ago was went philosophy was starting to come into play across the world. Such as in the five rivers in India/Pakistan region, Egypt, and the southeastern parts of Europe, such as Greece.
Faust, I really appreciate the time it took for you to write that big post, but when I put 10000 years ago in my post, I assumed that that was the time that there were only hunters and gatherers which is why I put that number there in the first place. When there were only hunters and gathers, I would assume that to the eyes of the females, that the bad boys were the alpha males because of what I mentioned in my post above also.
"Question everything" - Albert Einstein
Faust, I really appreciate the time it took for you to write that big post, but when I put 10000 years ago in my post, I assumed that that was the time that there were only hunters and gatherers which is why I put that number there in the first place. When there were only hunters and gathers, I would assume that to the eyes of the females, that the bad boys were the alpha males because of what I mentioned in my post above also.
That is the thing. We do not know how far back civilization go back in history. There have been so many civilizations that have rose and collapsed. With the any records and ruins being lost to time. That it is hard to tell.
You might find this interesting to learn that taking care of the elderly, burying the dead, and placing flowers with the buried dead were originally done by neanderthals hundreds of thousands of years before modern man.
Yes. We have popular concepts in our modern culture that predate our species. Try to wrap your head around that concept.
Plus, we have to take into account the selective breeding of women during the bronze age to present. The traits of being subservient, and seeking the bad boy might be a more recent additions to the women. Considering harems and other patriarchal concepts are very recent. Only a few thousand years old. With the theory I offer of women being the dominate gender in the iron age being the older one.
Take into account that during hunter-gather tribe time, men did the hunting while women ruled the roost. I would not be surprised if during the hunter gathering time that the women banding together against any men that dared challenge them. Like the female groups of some other mammal herds do in recent times. This would explain the herding mentality and henpecking that women have with each other in present day.
These two polar opposite traits, along with the mess that women are talk in modern day have created the schizophrenic situation of women wanting polar opposites, having destructive tendencies, and them not knowing what they truly want.
Modern women want both to bed the bad boy and turn the bad boy into the obedient man-servant. With dominance by the woman of the man being deeper trait. This lends to the possibility that the bad boy attraction is the more recent trait and the desire to dominate men is the older trait for women.
The physical evidence, such as Earth mother relics that predate most other human made object of worship, points that chain of events to human nature might be different than we believe.
Remember when c~~~s said, the reason c~~~s go after Bad Boys is because it’s a challenge. That statement came from the c~~~s, which means it’s bulls~~~, their covering up the lie.The real reason, its LUST. Believe me it’s really about lust.
Does a c~~~ really want a man that never listens to them? No, because they want control them.
Shit Tested, Cunt Approved.
Woman and rational are two words that do not belong together.
frankly my dear i don't give a damn
Yes women lust for thugs and murderers and rapists .And crooked politicians and dictators .And crime bosses and gang leaders and gang members.And scumbags,liars and lawyers and rappers and rockstars .And jerks and creeps and the asshole you and everyone else cant stand to be around at work.
Am i drawing a picture here for anyone??
You could really get to understand women if a lot of them spent days with the devices that could show everyone when and around whom they are/were sexually aroused.Body camera and vag blood flow detector .
Eww
frankly my dear i don't give a damn
Why females think irrationally in terms of being attracted to bad boys
There is no irrationallity in how or why they are attracted to them when it comes down to picking a mate or a fast f~~~ or resaurces from an alpha.
What is irrational is when she is divorcing you and wants all the s~~~ you have worked hard for. But even that can be explained because women do not think about fairness or justice. It is always about how they feel and what makes them safe financially.Take into account that during hunter-gather tribe time, men did the hunting while women ruled the roost. I would not be surprised if during the hunter gathering time that the women banding together against any men that dared challenge them.
Sorry but I do think that is a wrong assumption. We can not contemplate about possible civilisations that may have preceded the one we know about and live in. We have to use what knowledge we have about human development and observations of our closest cousins apes and some monkeys. Observations of apes and their social order and dynamics have given us a very good insight in how modern humans developed and what the social order was.
There is no doubt that as a new emerging species, hominids/man were often faced with extinction and males were the ones doing all the hard work to provide for and protect females. Providing and protecting are the two most important reasons why gynocentricity exists and why we live in it. Females knew the value of men and appreciated it. There was a balance which enabled both sexes to coexist where men and women knew their place in society. The pecking order always had men at the top and rightly so. They worked, bled and died in order to ensure the continuation of a group and species.On another note about Amazons: there is no hard evidence/proof of them and their rule in our history. If there was, it would have been like a flesh in a pan event that has left us only with anecdotal or mythical evidence. It’s like talking about Atlantis. No evidence other than a myth good to talk about while having a few drinks at your local pub or a bar. Entertaining, thought provoking but ultimately not based on fact.
ps..sorry about any English f~~~ ups.
Zero Tolerance
There was a time like 10000 years ago, where the bad boys and psycho paths were like alpha males in the eyes of a human woman, because many females would think that if the females were with those types of people, the females would have a greater chance of survival
snip* Iron Age at 10000BC which was hardcore matriarchal*snip
This statement alone requires some hard evidence for anyone to take seriously because quite frankly THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for any of it.
EDIT: In case this was theoretical I retract but there is no reason for us to talk about baseless theories when multitude of scientific evidence point out to a patriarchal structure and war fighting even in Neanderthals.
We have to use what knowledge we have about human development and observations of our closest cousins apes and some monkeys.
Actually, the proto-cultures of primates is very diverse. And apes are not even humanities close cousins. Also, primates diverge from humans by a million years. While there is genetic evidence that primitive humans along a few different evolutionary tracks had children together. At least three sub-species. What is consider primitive man, neanderthals and at least one third species of primitive man that inhabited much of asia.
It is estimated that everyone has between 1% to 2% neanderthal DNA, while those of European descent might have as much as 4%. You might counter this does not matter because such DNA overlaps. But this DNA, along with what I talked about with flowers and burials concerning neanderthals, shows that development of culture is far older than most would like to think about.
I pull evidence from a few different sources to come to my conclusion. The DNA and cultural angle from what I just stated. Zoological evidence of herd mentality in females of other mammal groups. A herd mentality we see in women of today, that is absent is many primate species. Which does invalidate the ape comparison. And archaeological evidence from the iron age, such as the earth mother relics, that leans toward the very likelihood that matriarchal societies were the norm during that Iron Age.
With patriarchal societies coming about during the beginning of the bronze age.
It should be noted that many Earth mother relics that depict the Earth mother, is as a warrior queen, in her clothing, sitting on her throne, whom is giving birth to a child.
And no. I am not making this up.
On another note about Amazons: there is no hard evidence/proof of them and their rule in our history.
Herodotus, the first modern historian wrote about the man-slayers/amazons. And there are ancient ruins in north Turkey where Herodotus mentioned where the amazon nation existed.
It is documented that the ancient Greeks once went to war with the Amazons.
If there was, it would have been like a flesh in a pan event that has left us only with anecdotal or mythical evidence.
Or, the amazon culture was the last matriarchal culture to survive into the bronze age. With the amazon culture being an example of the types of matriarchal cultures that were the norm in the Iron Age.
This would be a clue as to unraveling why women’s want opposite aspects in a mate at the same time. During the Iron Age, women gained their dominate traits. And during the bronze age, women were bred to be subservient. Quite literally polar opposites in one’s nature. If this is the case, this would explain a lot about why women are so messed up when is comes to what they view they want.
In case this was theoretical I retract but there is no reason for us to talk about baseless theories when multitude of scientific evidence point out to a patriarchal structure and war fighting even in Neanderthals.
Are we so sure. Many of the early theories by the neanderthals have been disprove. For example, the first full intact neanderthal skeleton was an elderly man that had such bad arthritic joints that he had a hunchback. But, the scientists at the time those that this was the average neanderthal, and that all neanderthals were hunchback.
The big question such theories war fighting conflict with the DNA evidence. I am not saying the neanderthals were peaceful. But, this does bear the question.
Also, as soon as tribalism in modern times, in Africa, a child from a parent (either mother or father) that is outside the tribe can be seen as outsider. So, primitive man stealing women to mate with does not exactly sound so likely. And this is not counting what the women of the primitive tribe will to the outsider woman.
As I said, the men were hunters, while women ruled the roost. This is true in some aspects of family life today.
This gets into anthropological debates that are difficult to figure out.
The reason I am using the Iron Age is that there is some physical evidence from of life during the Iron Age. So, we can at least draw some conclusions from physical evidence that exists.
In case this was theoretical I retract but there is no reason for us to talk about baseless theories when multitude of scientific evidence point out to a patriarchal structure and war fighting even in Neanderthals.
Are we so sure. Many of the early theories by the neanderthals have been disprove. For example, the first full intact neanderthal skeleton was an elderly man that had such bad arthritic joints that he had a hunchback. But, the scientists at the time those that this was the average neanderthal, and that all neanderthals were hunchback.
The big question such theories war fighting conflict with the DNA evidence. I am not saying the neanderthals were peaceful. But, this does bear the question.
Also, as soon as tribalism in modern times, in Africa, a child from a parent (either mother or father) that is outside the tribe can be seen as outsider. So, primitive man stealing women to mate with does not exactly sound so likely. And this is not counting what the women of the primitive tribe will to the outsider woman.
As I said, the men were hunters, while women ruled the roost. This is true in some aspects of family life today.
This gets into anthropological debates that are difficult to figure out.
The reason I am using the Iron Age is that there is some physical evidence from of life during the Iron Age. So, we can at least draw some conclusions from physical evidence that exists.
Yes we can be almost certain that Neaderthals actually traded their females and had no trouble massacring other Neaderthal groups if we go by the El-Sidron group which showed signs of a violent death and cannibalism.
The three adult males of the group had come from the same matrilinear line, the three females had come from three different matrilinear lines while the six children were the offspring of all six individuals; this is solid evidence that female Neaderthals were exchanged between the various groups in order to avoid in-breeding. This suggest a Patriarchal structure since it is the females that have to leave the tribe in order to join an other one in order to have offspring.
Everything else about such an early Iron Age is frankly a wild pipe dream, Iron working demands permanent settlements and bronze age equipment in order to become a reality. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that there was any short of Bronze age or an Iron Age before 10.000BC; that time period is called the late stone age for a reason and that reason is that humans still worked with stick and stones up until then.
There is also no evidence of a Matriarchal society in the known bronze or iron ages of Europe, the Amazons were supposedly located in modern Ukraine but no evidence have ever been found of their civilization when evidence of their concurrent Mycenae and Troy are plenty and robust. Without any sort of evidence the Amazons should be treated like any other Greek myth, like the Cyclops, the Minotaur or even Talos the giant robot that protected Europa on Crete.
The only society that had women in a potentially elevated status was the Minoan civilization where it is known that women were allowed to compete in ritualistic bullfighting and hunts but other than the depictions it is a complete unknown if these women represented their whole society or just part of their nobility.
First, I mixed up my dates. I apology. Bronze age came first, then Iron Age. If I could, I would go back to my posts and correct this error.
The three adult males of the group had come from the same matrilinear line, the three females had come from three different matrilinear lines while the six children were the offspring of all six individuals; this is solid evidence that female Neaderthals were exchanged between the various groups in order to avoid in-breeding.
But, as I pointed out with first neanderthal skeleton, we do not know if that is the rule, or the exception.
Violent death is very broad term. And given the winter climate of the ice age the neanderthals live in, we do not know the circumstances of cannibalism. It could have been done out of raw survival. Some societies today eat the dead as ritual to honor the deceased. There are to many gaps to come to a conclusion. Given the neanderthal practiced burial rituals, they did honor the dead. At the very least they had a very basic culture with rules and beliefs.
To that end, we need to remember that neanderthals were stretched across Europe. And the Europe of today has a wide verity of culture. Neanderthals cultures could have varied, as well.
The problem is that archaeologists like to try to profile large groups as being the same. Because it makes their job easier. Both in real life it is not that simple. Large groups have subgroups. And these subgroups can be very different from each other.
There is not enough data to draw a solid conclusion one way or another.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that there was any short of Bronze age or an Iron Age before 10.000BC;
Absence of evidence is not prove of evidence. Even the strongest of structures built today will not large more than a thousand years. And eve
will be covered in overgrowth. Also, data discs have a short lifespan. And written records become fragile over time. Unless paper are sealed in an air tight container, they have a lifespan of around a few hundred years. And even if the paper is sealed, when unseal those that wish to read have to be very careful with the paper.
We have to remember that there was a thousand year dark age between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. A lot can be lost and destroyed over a thousand years.
There is also no evidence of a Matriarchal society in the known bronze or iron ages of Europe, the Amazons were supposedly located in modern Ukraine
Turkey actually. And I already pointed that out.
but no evidence have ever been found of their civilization when evidence of their concurrent Mycenae and Troy are plenty and robust.
Troy was considered a myth until the actual city discovered.
Without any sort of evidence the Amazons should be treated like any other Greek myth, like the Cyclops, the Minotaur or even Talos the giant robot that protected Europa on Crete.
There is evidence of written accounts. And there are ruins where the written accounts point too.
Also, take into account this thousand year dark age between the bronze age and iron age was also consider the time of heroes, where much of Greek mythology originated.
The only society that had women in a potentially elevated status was the Minoan civilization where it is known that women were allowed to compete in ritualistic bullfighting and hunts but other than the depictions it is a complete unknown if these women represented their whole society or just part of their nobility.
Funny you mention the Minoan civilization. That was what I was talking about. I meant bronze age, instead of iron age. And the Minoan culture could be an example of what I am talking about, during the bronze age.
Working and trying to figure out the past within the confines of one’s limited evidence is one thing, completely disregarding the evidence for a wild goose chase is completely an other.
There is no evidence of a Matriarchal society ever having existed in pre historical, there is no evidence that women were ever physically stronger than men which is a prerequisite for building a Matriarchal militant society and there have been plenty of excavations on the south eastern parts of Europe that have failed to give even a passive hint of such society.
Troy and Mycenae were considered to be mere myths but they were discovered when someone was smart enough to go looking exactly where the myths were pointing at; people have been trying to see which other myths were true by doing the same with no success. There is absolutely no evidence on any place other than Crete that puts women on potentially equal to higher status than men.
Theoreticals are all well and good as a way to think out of the box but this goes far beyond that.
Anonymous11I recently had a conversation with an actual real woman whom I’ve known for many years. She is post Wall, and her bad boy who snagged her young when she was hot is tossing her overboard.
She recently told me that she interpreted the bad boy demeanor, arrogance, fighting, minor law scrapes, domestic violence, etc… as signs of strength. She told me she realized that she made the wrong decision (blah, blah, blah….) She wasted her life with him and is paying. She should have ditched him before her gobbler neck has set in on her.
Women want strong men.
I told her that her bad boys paper over their inner weaknesses with those various behaviors. It’s all a facade, and stupid women bite into it hook, line and sinker. These men cannot handle any difficulties that life throws at them without flying off the handle. They are fragile.
Strong men do not ever fall to emotional pieces in adverse situations.
The strong silent type who is ready to crush any adversity is the epitome of male strength. These types do not come across as strong until one is in a s~~~ hits the fan situation.
Manginas are just weaklings.
Actually, you’re all wrong about 10,000BC.
12,000 years ago (or 10,000BC) there were multiple civilizations around the globe, all apparently linked in culture, and able to produce megalithic structures – the kind that we still cannot replicate. Research Gobeckli Tepi, if you’re interested. It’s a relatively recently archeologically dug find, which shows incontrovertible evidence that a) it is megalithic (i.e. giant stones), b) is carbon-dated to 11,800-12,500BC, and c) shows stonework and stone carvings that appear in South America, Central America, Easter Island, Indonesia, and other places in Europe (Egypt, Italy, and Greece).
As such, it appears that quite to the contrary of commonly held belief, the era of 12,000 years ago was one of global high culture, extraordinary stoneworking capabilities, clear written language and advanced knowledge of planetary and astronomical precessions that were unconfirmed until mid last century!
As for Alphas, females get wet at any alpha behaviour, apparently even rape fantasies. Culture seems to be irrelevant, as does DNA. Is he rough? Wet. Is he rich? Wet. Is he powerful? WET.
But female nature is beguiling, and they will deny the above truth to their last breath, especially if they have already put you in the mangina box.
However, I will wager that females ARE capable of rational thought, and I think I can prove it.
– “Are you hungry?”
– “Are you trying to saying I’m fat?! Slut-shamer! RAPE! Oooh, kittens. I wonder if Superman has a holiday home in the Bahamas for me. FLUFFY STUFF. Why does my dress have to be sooo like Tracey’s? Mmmmmm I’d date Benedick CUMberbatch. Now where’s his credit card……”No, I lied.
Culture seems to be irrelevant, as does DNA.
Thank you for making several good points on possible ancient civilization.
But, it seems that most women are hardwired to be this way. They want the bad boy to bed, but the man servant in the morning. These are conflicting desires. And since the women are hardwired to be like this, it has to be DNA related.
This likely points that female DNA was at one point bred for dominance and at another point bred for subservience.
And it is proven in other mammal species to be easier to breed out dominance, than to breed in dominance. Such as the bulldog. Which was a war dog that centuries of selective breeding turned into a lapdog. (I mean no offense by the comparison, it is just the only comparison I can come up with.)
This combined with the fact that patriarchal culture rose during the Iron Age, points that the dominance traits in women are likely predate the Iron Age, and there was likely matriarchal societies in the Bronze Age and maybe older.
On location ancient civilizations. Given how continent plates rise and lower over thousands of years. One located such civilizations may have existed is near the bottom of the seas between the islands of the Malay Archipelago, (island chain from Southeast Asia to northwest Australia). During the ice age much of that was dry land, and in a warmer climate. This would be a perfect location for civilization to develop in.
Of course this does get into some interesting anthropological theories on the possibility of ancient eugenics projects done by humanity before the Iron Age. That opens all sorts of cans of worms.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
