mooeypoo Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) Well, you can either accept the findings of modern scientific investigation or you can reject it. If you had any findings to share, that might've been an issue. So far you've shared opinions and interpretations and vast-generalizations, non of which are considered "findings of modern scientific investigation". Or non modern. After all, wasn't Galileo viciously mocked by his contemporaries for debunking the concept of a geocentric universe? Galileo had a very specific claim with specific evidence, and he was not mocked, he was threatened by the church. You're not quite there yet. The fact of the matter is that all current empirical research suggests that Okay. Now, the problem is that you *haven't* shown any empirical data that shows any sort of supportive conclusion; in fact,you were asked multiple times to produce evidence on the basis of your claims and you ended up either modifying your claims (which is okay, if you remain consistent) or ignore the requests. As an example, (1.) the MAJORITY of women find altruistic That claim isn't even *phrased* empirically or in a way that allows for real results to show. Majority how much? 51% or 90%, and how would you test for it? The so called empirical evidence do NOT state this, you have failed to show they do, and you keep moving the goal post every time we ask you to supply evidence for something. When you decided you had enough of the first thread and left, the remaining debaters (me included) had a pretty interested conversation about *how to test* such hypothesis as the one you're making. There were quite good points made there, and you should go over them. So far, you've failed in showing any sort of viable evidence that supports your hypothesis that the women prefer "bad boys" (or find good boys less appealing - same claim differently phrased) OR that the majority of women prefer badboys. And, (according to the standard diagnostic tool by which psychopathy is measured, the PCL-R, sexual promiscuity and the ability to establish multiple committed relationships with numerous heterosexual females is a core feature of the psychopathic personality), Can you please give the PCL-R definition and where you took it from? I can't find the definition you speak of. Also, that would be good general practice when writing/presenting a thesis.. link/cite the source. and that (3.) a SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE of women, Define substantial percentage. In what you are claiming, I would say 20% is a "substatial percentage", and I have a feeling you mean much higher. This means nothing without you making a NUMERIC STATISTICAL claim, and since you claim to have evidence of this, this shouldn't be any problem for you. I dont' know of any self-respecting statistical research that states "substantial percentage" without putting a number next to it. for both purely psychological and evolutionary biological reasons, find men who possess such traits as aggression, low niceness/agreeableness, hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking, low empathy, narcissistic etc, to be very sexually attractive. FINALLY, you're making a specific claim - I have asked you before if you mean this biologically or socially, and you didn't have many answers for it. Now it seems you include it in your claims, which is much better for your theory, because it means it can be tested. If it's biological, there should be evidence - test the women who are attracted to badboys as opposed to those who are attracted to goodboys (if that's even possible, socially, to define those things, but whatever), make sure you have a control group, somehow, (maybe lesbians? that would control nicely), and publish these results. Has anyone done this research before? If yes, then SHOW US the RESULTS before you tell us what conclusions you drew from them; and if not,well, that would be the first step for you to prove your theory. These are the most recent findings of modern empirical research on the matter and, unless we can provide contradictory evidence, we must eventually learn to accept and come to grips with it. I haven't seen the actual findings yet.. can you link them instead of giving us your own summary and interpretation of them? I really don't see how any of this could have been tested, let along anything to produce such conclusion. ~moo Adition: I think this was missed by AbdulAziz a few times, so I repeat, for the sake of the thread and science in general: First step is to prove women ARE attracted to bad boys, second step is to explain why. Your seem to do this backwards by starting with the "WHY" when the "WHAT" is completely uncertain. Edited January 21, 2009 by mooeypoo
fatoumata Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Can you prove the statement that women prefer bad boys please?? because your affirmation seems a bit subjective and not based on measurable facts.
falcon9393 Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Its my belief that women who are attracted to the "bad boys" have obviously not mentaly left high school yet and are trying to make up for lost time. now that they are succesful and probably much better looking they are gonna go back and hook up with the "bad boy(s)" that wouldnt have given them the time of day back in high school! Grow up! Secondly leave ovulation out of this! I swear thats almost every guys excuse for the crazy things women do.
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 21, 2009 Author Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) All Recent Empirical Research Indicates That Women Prefer “Bad Boys” Over “Nice Guys” Sources - As I have explained many times before on this thread, there is a considerable amount of empirical research which provides evidentiary substantiation for all three of my main contentions: (1.) women, in general, are not attracted to “nice guys”, operationalized as altruistic male personality and behavioural characteristics; (2.) socially dominant, aggressive, and violent men, such as psychopaths, narcissists, and other dangerous criminal types, have much greater success in establishing committed romantic relationships and attracting large numbers of female sex partners than men who are less pathological; and (3.) a significant percentage of women are attracted to aggressive, socially dominant males. Here is a brief bibliography, complete with accompanying links, of some of the sources for my actual claims: The 1995 study of Jensen-Campbell et al operationalized both “nice guy” and “bad boy” stereotypes as male prosocial orientation and male social dominance, respectively. They found that female heterosexual attraction was elicited by males who possessed both “nice guy” and “bad boy” characteristics and personality traits: Three multimethod studies (total N = 348) probed the hypothesis that women's attraction to men would be influenced by male prosocial orientation. In Study 1, prosocial men were rated as more physically and sexually attractive, socially desirable, and desirable as dates than were nonprosocial men. Dominant men were no more attractive than low-dominance men, and male dominance did not interact with male prosocial orientation in eliciting attraction from women. In Study 2, prosocial orientation was manipulated to avoid «personalism» but still affected attraction. Across all measures attraction was an interactive function of dominance and prosocial tendencies. Dominance alone did not increase any form of attraction measured. In Study 3, male prosocial tendencies and dominance interacted to affect women's attraction to men. Results are discussed in terms of the place of altruism and dominance in evolutionary approaches to human interpersonal attraction. Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: do nice guys really finish last? by Jensen-Campbell, 1995 Link: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3466392 The study of Herold and Milhausen found that women preferred “bad boys” for short-term committed relationships and “nice guys” for long-term committed relationships. The researchers also produce statistical evidence that less than one-half of all women would prefer dating a “bad boy” over a “nice guy”, corroborating my previous contention that a substantial percentage of women are sexually attracted to and willing to establish committed romantic relationships with so-called “bad boys”: Many researchers have attempted to discover what types of men women consider most desirable for relationship partners. This study investigated university women's (N = 165) perceptions of "nice guys," specifically whether women perceived nice guys to be more or less sexually successful than guys who are considered not nice. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were used. The qualitative analysis was useful in understanding women's differing interpretations of the nice guy label. More than one half of the women agreed that nice guys have fewer sexual partners. However, more than one half also reported a preference for a nice guy over a bad boy as a date. As hypothesized, women who placed a lesser emphasis on the importance of sex, who had fewer sexual partners, and who were less accepting of men who had many sexual partners were more likely to choose the nice guy as a dating partner. The findings indicate that nice guys are likely to have fewer sexual partners but are more desired for committed relationships. In the paper, they argue that while nice guys may not be competitive in terms of numbers of sexual partners, they tend to be more successful with respect to longer-term, committed relationships. Dating Preferences of University Women: An Analysis of the Nice Guy Stereotype by Herold and Milhausen, 1999 Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10546171 The initial 2003 findings of Urbaniak and Kilman provided strong support for the 1999 Herold and Milhausen thesis, that women prefer “bad boys” for short-term committed relationships and “nice guys” for long-term committed relationships: It may be that the nice guy stereotype is more accurate in relation to relatively casual, physical relationships than to more serious relationships. This finding is generally consistent with results of previous studies which suggest that women place more emphasis on physical attractiveness when considering more short-term relationships (e.g., Herold & Milhausen, 1999; Regan, 1998a; 1998b; Sprecher & Regan, 2002). Physical attractiveness and the "nice guy paradox": do nice guys really finish last? by Urbaniak and Kilman, 2003 Link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/x4m411pnj8601541/ The more recent research of McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) suggest that women find “nice guys” to be socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, contradicting the previous findings of Jensen-Campbell et al. The researchers also found that “bad boys” (operationalized as “fun/sexy guys” by McDaniel and “cute, macho guys” by Urbaniak and Kilman) were highly desired for both short-term and long-term committed relationships, whereas “nice guys” were not desired as sex partners within either relationship context, contradicting the previous findings of Herold and Milhausen. McDaniel writes: First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy's likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage. Young women's dating behavior: Why/Why not date a nice guy? by McDaniel, 2005 Link: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/sers/2005/00000053/F0020005/00006758 Urbaniak and Kilman observe that women find “nice guys” undesirable for either short-term or long-term relationships: Although variability in the importance of niceness/agreeableness across different relationship types was expected, the fact that low agreeableness, generally speaking, was more related to success across all the relationship contexts than high agreeableness was somewhat surprising. Previous studies have shown that women highly value niceness in committed/romantic partners (and still value niceness, if less-so, in more sexual contexts; e.g., Regan et al., 2000; Urbaniak & Kilmann, 2003). The present results, however, failed to show any clear advantage for the men who were highly nice/agreeable, even in the romantic context. As such, results from the present study actually are more consistent with the nice guy stereotype, overall, than were the results of our earlier study, which had suggested that the stereotype might be a myth. This contradictory finding suggests a discrepancy between which men women will say they prefer, or will choose in a (experimentally-manipulated) hypothetical scenario, and which men actually are successful--at least, by the men's own accounts. Niceness and dating success: a further test of the nice guy stereotype by Urbaniak and Kilman, 2006 Link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v3x86pn64106v555/ The research of Sadalla et al demonstrates that visible displays of dominance behaviour increases male sexual attractiveness and female heterosexual attraction. Dominance is a core feature of the “bad boy” construct: Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male's sexual attractiveness and not his general likeability. Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction by Sadalla et al, 1987 Link: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=7478464 Botwin et al argues for the existence of substantial sexual dimorphism in terms of mate preferences for dominance or surgency: Across both samples of participants, women consistently were more exacting on the Surgency and Intellect-Openness factors. An analysis of the individual adjective scales composing Surgency was particularly revealing. Significant sex differences were found in preferences for mates who were dominant (t = -4.33, p < .0001; f = -3.46, p < .001, for dating couples and newlywed couples, respectively). In contrast, no significant differences were found at the item level for sociable, talkative, or proud. These results suggest that the power, ascendance, or dominance theme of Surgency was especially valued by women, whereas the sociable theme showed no sex difference (see Wiggins, 1991). These findings support the hypothesis that the sexes differ on personality attributes known to be linked with resource acquisition. Personality and Mate Preferences: Five Factors In Mate Selection and Marital Satisfaction by Botwin et al, 1997 Link: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119167902/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 The research of Berenbaum and Resnick suggest that higher levels of androgen exposure during human embryological development lead to higher levels of aggression in both children and adults: Males are more likely than females to show aggressive behavior across species, ages, and situations, and these differences may be partly influenced by early hormones. We studied aggression in three samples of subjects with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who were exposed to high levels of androgen in the prenatal and early postnatal periods. Controls were siblings and first cousins similar in age. In Sample 1, adolescents and adults completed the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), which includes an Aggression scale. In Sample 2, adolescents and adults completed the MPQ and a paper-and-pencil version of Reinisch's Aggression Inventory. In Sample 3, parents rated the aggression of children aged 3–12, using a modification of Reinisch's Inventory. In all three samples, control males had higher aggression scores than control females. Further, as predicted, females with CAH had higher aggression than control females, but the difference was significant only in adolescents and adults. These results suggest that early androgens contribute to variability in human aggression. Early androgen effects on aggression in children and adults with congenital adrenal hyperplasia by Berenbaum and Resnick, 1997 Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBX-3RYCJYB-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=73e994b8116ca1379ad089ee5e606f72 Mazur and Booth argue that high levels of circulating androgens elicit dominance behaviour in males: In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage behavior intended to dominate – to enhance one’s status over – other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Sometimes dominant behavior takes the form of antisocial behavior, including rebellion against authority and law breaking. Measurement of T at a single point in time, presumably indicative of a man’s basal T level, predicts many of these dominant or antisocial behaviors. T not only affects behavior but also responds to it. The act of competing for dominant status affects male T levels in two ways. First, T rises in the face of a challenge, as if it were an anticipatory response to impending competition. Second, after the competition, T rises in winners and declines in losers. Thus, there is a reciprocity between T and dominance behavior, each affecting the other. We contrast a reciprocal model, in which T level is variable, acting as both a cause and effect of behavior, with a basal model, in which T level is assumed to be a persistent trait that influences behavior. An unusual data set on Air Force veterans, in which data were collected four times over a decade, enables us to compare the basal and reciprocal models as explanations for the relationship between T and divorce. We discuss sociological implications of these models. Testosterone and dominance in men by Mazur and Booth, 1998 Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10097017 “Bad boys” are more dominant, more aggressive, and even more violent than “nice guys”, but because they have higher levels of circulating androgens they also have greater reproductive success than “nice guys”, suggesting that the ability of the “bad boy” to attract women and establish short-term/long-term relationships is largely endocrinological in origin. The studies of Berenbaum and Resnick, Mazur and Booth, and Peters et al suggest a tripartite relationship between dominance, aggression, and mating success and a direct causal relationship between these three constructs and levels of circulating androgens in the bloodstream. According to Peters et al, men with higher levels of testosterone are not only more dominant and aggressive, but also have much greater success with attracting large numbers of heterosexual females and establishing numerous short-term/long-term sexual relationships: We suggest two mechanisms that may facilitate an association between T and mating success via male behaviour and/or female preferences. First, mating success and T may come to be associated through the demonstration of dominant physical behaviours, and male contest competition. The hypothesis that T is associated with dominant behaviour is one that has been tested often (see Mazur & Booth, 1998; Hirschenhauser & Oliveira, 2006 for reviews). In many 344 non-human animals, T is associated with aggressive or dominant behaviours, for example, increased territory size and mate guarding (see Wingfield et al., 2001 for a review). A meta-analysis of human studies found broad support for an association between T and various measures of dominance (Archer, 2006). Thus, mating success may be associated with higher T, because T is associated with male contest competition, either via mate seeking behaviour, or through overt aggressive competition. Testosterone is associated with mating success but not attractiveness or masculinity in human males by Peters et al, 2008 Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9W-4SK59GN-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9e7da635da7fc5e0178ae92e61ac1152 The research of Havlicek reveals that female heterosexual attraction to dominant males or “bad boys” has a definite biological basis, with women being able to detect levels of male dominance through body odour: Body odour may provide significant cues about a potential sexual partner’s genetic quality, reproductive status and health. In animals, a key trait in a female’s choice of sexual partner is male dominance but, to date, this has not been examined in humans. Here, we show that women in the fertile phase of their cycle prefer body odour of males who score high on a questionnaire-based dominance scale (international personality items pool). In accordance with the theory of mixed mating strategies, this preference varies with relationship status, being much stronger in fertile women in stable relationships than in fertile single women. Women’s preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status by Havlicek et al, 2005 Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17148181 Female attraction to displays of male dominance and social presence varies considerably throughout the menstrual cycle, with women being especially attracted to dominant males around the period of ovulation. Gangestad et al write: Recent research has indicated that women’s mate preferences are not constant across the ovulatory cycle. The characteristics of men that normally cycling women find attractive when they are most fertile (just prior to ovulation) differ from those they find attractive when they are not. Several converging lines of evidence support this claim. During fertile relative to infertile days of their cycles women (a) particularly prefer the scent of men who have higher developmental stability (measured by fluctuating asymmetry) and are more socially dominant (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998; Havlicek, Roberts, & Flegr, 2005; Rikowski & Grammer, 1999; Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999; Thornhill et al., 2003), (b) prefer more masculine male faces (Johnston, Hagel, Franklin, Fink, & Grammer, 2001; Penton-Voak & Perrett, 2000; Penton-Voak et al.,1999), © find men who display greater social presence and dominance more attractive (Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins, Garver-Apgar, & Christensen, 2004), (d) prefer deeper male voices (Puts,2005), and (e) prefer creativity over wealth (Haselton & Miller,2006). Changes in Women’s Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle by Gangestad et al, 2007 Link: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13651500 Bogaert and Fisher demonstrate that such core “bad boy” (read psychopathic) traits as sensation-seeking, hypermasculinity, high testosterone levels, “Eysenck psychoticism” (low agreeableness/conscientiousness), and impulsivity (disinhibition) are positively correlated with having large numbers of sex partners and short-term sexual relationships. Here is an excerpt from the abstract of that study: We examined the role of personality (e.g., hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking) and physical individual differences (testosterone, physical attractiveness) in predicting university men’s (N = 215) number of sexual partners. Significant zero-order correlations occurred between number of sexual partners and sensation seeking, hypermasculinity, physical attractiveness, and testosterone. In addition, multiple regression analysis revealed significant increases in prediction with an additive combination of these individual differences, and some of these individual differences (e.g., sensation seeking) contributed unique variation to the prediction of the number of sexual partners. Finally, principal components analysis revealed a common personality factor labelled Disinhibition that may partly underlie the relationship between some of these individual differences and the number of sexual partners. ... Predictors of University Men’s Number of Sexual Partners by Bogaert and Fisher, 1995 Link: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3812964 The study of Jonason et al suggest that men who are psychopathic, narcissistic, or Machiavellian in personality and behaviour (the “Dark Triad”) tend to establish multiple sexual relationships with ease and attract large numbers of available heterosexual females, pursuing a reproductively adaptive life strategy. In the study, Jonason et al writes: The personality traits that compose the Dark Triad have typically been considered abnormal, pathological, and inherently maladaptive (e.g., Kowalski, 2001). Although individuals with these traits inflict costs to others and themselves, the Dark Triad traits are also associated with some qualities, including a drive for power (Bradlee & Emmons, 1992; Foster et al., 2006), low neuroticism (Taylor & Armor, 1996), and extraversion (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), that may be beneficial. Together with low amounts of empathy and agreeableness (Paulhus, 2001), such traits may facilitate – especially for men – the pursuit of an exploitative short-term mating strategy. The Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men by Jonason, 2008 Link: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121517849/abstract Sensation-seeking or lack of adequate stimulation is a core feature of psychopathy and other anti-social personality disorders. According to the research of Seto et al, it is also associated with both the ability to attract large volumes of available heterosexual females and the ability to establish numerous short-term committed relationships: We examined the relationship between sensation seeking and the self-reports of both sexual interests and behaviours of 162 heterosexual male students and 60 heterosexual males recruited from the community. Because parental investment theory and previous research suggest that males' interest in sexual partner variety is constrained by females' preference for committed sexual relationships, we predicted that participants would desire to have more partners in the future than they have had in the past. Because evolutionary theory and previous research also suggests that personality dispositions are related to mating strategies, we further predicted that sensation seeking would be positively correlated with lifetime number of sexual partners, mean number of partners per sexually active year, shortest time a partner was known before having sex, the percentage of previous relationships that were short-term, number of partners desired in the next year, and variety of sexual activities participants had experienced or would like to experience, and negatively correlated with age at first intercourse. The predictions were supported. Sensation seeking and males' sexual strategy by M. C. Seto et al, 1995 Link: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/01918869/1995/00000019/00000005/art00101 Harris et al describe the ability to attract large numbers of heterosexual females and have numerous short-term sexual relationships as a fundamental aspect of psychopathy: Sexual behavior is closely associated with delinquency and crime. Although psychopaths, by definition, have many short-term sexual relationships, it has not been shown that sexuality is a core aspect of psychopathy. A Darwinian view of psychopathy led to the hypothesis that psychopaths have a unique sexuality involving early, frequent, and coercive sex. Our subjects were 512 sex offenders assessed on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). Five variables reflecting early, frequent, and coercive sex loaded on the same principal component in exploratory factor analysis on a subset of the sample, whereas PCL-R items pertaining to adult sexual behavior did not. Confirmatory factor analysis of the remaining subjects yielded a measurement model containing three inter-correlated factors – the traditional two PCL-R factors, and coercive and precocious sexuality. Taxometric analyses gave evidence of a natural discontinuity underlying coercive and precocious sexuality. Coercive and precocious sexuality yielded statistically significant associations with other study variables predicted by the Darwinian hypothesis. The present findings are consistent with prior empirical findings and support the hypothesis that psychopathy has been a nonpathological, reproductively viable, alternate life history strategy. COERCIVE AND PRECOCIOUS SEXUALITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF PSYCHOPATHY by Harris et al, 2007 Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17373887 The PCL-R, the standard diagnostic tool for the assessment of psychopathy, lists “many short-term relationships” and “promiscuous sexual behaviour” as fundamental characteristics of the psychopathic personality. According to the research of Dr. Robert Hare, who devised the PCL-R, romantic success or being able to date and establish numerous sexual relationships with heterosexual females can also be strongly indicative of psychopathy or other forms of anti-social criminality: Glibness / superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth Pathological lying Conning / manipulative Lack of remorse or guilt Shallow affect Callous / lack of empathy Lack of realistic long-term goals Impulsivity Irresponsibility Failure to accept responsibility... Early behavioral problems Many short-term relationships --- Poor behavioral controls Juvenile delinquency Parasitic lifestyle Revocation of conditional release Criminal versatility Promiscuous sexual behaviour --- Need for stimulation Hare, RD. The Hare psychopathy checklist-revised: manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems, 1991. According to Schmitt, “Eysenck psychoticism” or low agreeableness/conscientiousness and extraversion was related to both relationship infidelity and sexual promiscuity: As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, 16 362 participants from 52 nations responded to measures of the Big Five and risky sexuality. It was expected that low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness would be universally associated with relationship infidelity. Sexual promiscuity, in contrast, was expected to positively relate to extraversion and neuroticism. Analyses across 10 world regions revealed relationship infidelity was universally associated with low agreeableness and low conscientiousness. Sexual promiscuity was somewhat related to these traits as well, but was more highly related to extraversion across many, but not all, world regions. Both forms of risky sexual behaviour were generally unrelated to neuroticism and openness across cultures. Discussion focuses on possible explanations of regional differences in personality-sexuality linkages. The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity by Schmitt, 2003 Link: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109075976/abstract As for statistically quantifying the substantial percentage of women who prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”, I would probably side with the data of Herold and Milhausen (1999), who suggested that less than one-half of all women prefer “macho men” or “bad boys” as sex/dating partners. Edited January 21, 2009 by Abdul-Aziz
mooeypoo Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 All Recent Empirical Research Indicates That Women Prefer “Bad Boys” Over “Nice Guys” Repeating your statement - big font or not - without addressing the questions that were raised in the thread, is not evidence and does nothing for your theory, Abdul Aziz. People have spent the time to read and go over what you wrote -- three times already -- and posed questions you seem either ignore or lack the ability to confront. Without those problems solved, your theory is dead in the water regardless of how many time you restate it. Sources - As I have explained many times before on this thread, there is a considerable amount of empirical research which provides evidentiary substantiation for all three of my main contentions: And as we've stated many times before, you need to provide these empirical research results and methodologies, and not just state tehy exist and give us your own interpretations of them. (1.) women, in general, are not attracted to “nice guys”, operationalized as altruistic male personality and behavioural characteristics; Where's the reasearch showing this result? How was it done? How was the control group chosen? Was it a blind experiment, or double blind experiment? What was the exact results that led to the above conclusion? (2.) socially dominant, aggressive, and violent men, such as psychopaths, narcissists, and other dangerous criminal types, have much greater success in establishing committed romantic relationships and attracting large numbers of female sex partners than men who are less pathological; Where is the research on this? Who was performing this experiment? Where are the results? Was it double blinded, or blinded? How was this experiment/survey done? and (3.) a significant percentage of women are attracted to aggressive, socially dominant males. Same, same, same and same. You need to supply these details, Abdul Aziz, otherwise all we have is your interpretations of a nonexistent research. Here is a brief bibliography, complete with accompanying links, of some of the sources for my actual claims: Okay, that is indeed something, but when you make a claim (above) you need to show the actual experiment you refer to, at least by reference, so we know what to read and in what context. The 1995 study of Jensen-Campbell et al operationalized both “nice guy” and “bad boy” stereotypes as male prosocial orientation and male social dominance, respectively. They found that female heterosexual attraction was elicited by males who possessed both “nice guy” and “bad boy” characteristics and personality traits: Three multimethod studies (total N = 348) probed the hypothesis that women's attraction to men would be influenced by male prosocial orientation. In Study 1, prosocial men were rated as more physically and sexually attractive, socially desirable, and desirable as dates than were nonprosocial men. Dominant men were no more attractive than low-dominance men, and male dominance did not interact with male prosocial orientation in eliciting attraction from women. In Study 2, prosocial orientation was manipulated to avoid «personalism» but still affected attraction. Across all measures attraction was an interactive function of dominance and prosocial tendencies. Dominance alone did not increase any form of attraction measured. In Study 3, male prosocial tendencies and dominance interacted to affect women's attraction to men. Results are discussed in terms of the place of altruism and dominance in evolutionary approaches to human interpersonal attraction. Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: do nice guys really finish last? by Jensen-Campbell, 1995 Link: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3466392 This research, you even claim so yourself, shows that "female heterosexual attraction was elicited by males who possessed both “nice guy” and “bad boy” characteristics and personality traits" So women were attracted to both. That doesn't mean women are attracted to "bad boy" characteristics as a whole, does it? The study of Herold and Milhausen found that women preferred “bad boys” for short-term committed relationships and “nice guys” for long-term committed relationships. The researchers also produce statistical evidence that less than one-half of all women would prefer dating a “bad boy” over a “nice guy”, corroborating my previous contention that a substantial percentage of women are sexually attracted to and willing to establish committed romantic relationships with so-called “bad boys”: (Bolded added in quote for emphasis of my point) This, too, is against your initial (and current) conclusion. Women prefer badboys for short term relationships and "nice guys" for long terms. That by no means proves women are attracted more to "bad boys", it just means that they don't stick to these "bad boys" for long. Furthermore, this was done in a single university, with a group of 165 women. Hardly a representative result for the entirety of the feminine gender. Check this quote from your own given research: However, more than one half also reported a preference for a nice guy over a bad boy as a date. That research is hardly supporting your theory. In the paper, they argue that while nice guys may not be competitive in terms of numbers of sexual partners, they tend to be more successful with respect to longer-term, committed relationships. Dating Preferences of University Women: An Analysis of the Nice Guy Stereotype by Herold and Milhausen, 1999 Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10546171 Okay, and how does this contribute to your contention that women prefer "bad boys" if it explicitly says that even that small group of research subjects prefered nice guys in long term committed relationships? It claims the exact opposite of your theory. The initial 2003 findings of Urbaniak and Kilman provided strong support for the 1999 Herold and Milhausen thesis, that women prefer “bad boys” for short-term committed relationships and “nice guys” for long-term committed relationships: Same points go here. Women prefer "Nice guys" for long term relationships, and hook up to bad boys for short term flings. That seems to be against what you claim. The more recent research of McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) suggest that women find “nice guys” to be socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, contradicting the previous findings of Jensen-Campbell et al. The researchers also found that “bad boys” (operationalized as “fun/sexy guys” by McDaniel and “cute, macho guys” by Urbaniak and Kilman) were highly desired for both short-term and long-term committed relationships, whereas “nice guys” were not desired as sex partners within either relationship context, contradicting the previous findings of Herold and Milhausen. Young women's dating behavior: Why/Why not date a nice guy? by McDaniel, 2005 Link: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/sers/2005/00000053/F0020005/00006758 no, no they don't. From the abstract: The results of the present study suggest that reasons for dating (i.e.' date=' [i']not[/i] wanting physical contact, wanting stimulating conversation, and wanting an exclusive relationship) and perceived personality traits (i.e., sweet/nice and physically attractive) influence a young woman's desire to date a nice guy, and that perceived personality traits are better predictors of her choice of a man to date than are reasons for dating. (bold was not in source, and was added by me to emphasize the point)Notice the word "perceived". The research abstract speaks of the two possible reasons for women wanting to date "nice guys" but ending up dating "bad guys" (and it does NOT make a statement that ALL, or MOST women do, unlike your statement) - it explicitly states that there is a problem in the percieved traits from the potential partner. That means that the potential "bad boy" might PRESENT HIMSELF as a "nice boy" and have the woman date him. That, too, is against your own theory and supplies a different explanation for a (much less generalized) situation. Beyond that, none of these links and resources touch upon any of your initial claims (the "(1)", "(2)", "(3)" claims you made in the beginning of your post). You still lack evidence for your conclusion. ~moo
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) All Recent Evidence Indicates That Women Prefer “Bad Boys” Over “Nice Guys” In the abstract of McDaniel’s paper, Why/Why not date a nice guy? (2005), it states: The results of the present study suggest that reasons for dating (i.e., not wanting physical contact, wanting stimulating conversation, and wanting an exclusive relationship) and perceived personality traits (i.e., sweet/nice and physically attractive) influence a young woman's desire to date a nice guy, and that perceived personality traits are better predictors of her choice of a man to date than are reasons for dating. However, what the author clearly states is that it is because women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys” that there is a sharp disconnect between a young woman’s reasons for dating and her spatio-temporal perception of which traits are attractive/unattractive in either a “nice guy” or a “bad boy”, creating a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance over the process of female reproductive choice. Although women claim to want “nice guys”, both stepwise and multiple regression analysis, as well as factor analysis, of the frequency tables generated by the collected statistical data demonstrated that being sweet/nice could neither be classified as an attractive or unattractive trait; instead, the statistical data revealed that women considered physical attractiveness to be a much more important consideration in their selection of a male sex partner than being sweet/nice, which was not even considered at all. McDaniel postulates that the “fatal attraction” hypothesis, in which a woman’s initial favourable impression of “nice guy” personality characteristics, such as being sweet/nice, can become negative perceptions of those characteristics, probably contributes to the female preference of “bad boys” over “nice guys”. McDaniel writes: The "fatal attraction" hypothesis may explain subsequent rejection of a nice guy because his sweet/nice guy caution may be read as loser/nice guy passivity. McDaniel provides further evidence that a woman’s reasons for dating are not as substantial as her perception of those personality traits which are characteristic of the target male by demonstrating that women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”. Popular culture, as well as some academic researchers, have suggested that women prefer “bad boys” for short-term committed relationships, but “nice guys” for long-term committed relationships. However, multiple regression analysis of the data revealed that a woman’s desire for high commitment dating had almost nothing to do with whether she selected a “nice guy” or a “bad boy”; however, her desire for low commitment dating was positively correlated with her willingness to date a “bad boy”. McDaniel writes: Popular and academic texts claim that young women report wanting nice guys for committed relationships. However, regression analysis of the reasons for dating factors indicated that the high commitment reason for dating accounts very little for a young woman's desire to date a nice guy or a not-so-nice fun/sexy guy, and the low commitment dating factor was related only to an increase in the likelihood of dating a fun/sexy guy a second time. Given the centrality of low commitment dating as a mechanism which facilitates the intensification of a budding relationship into “coupledom”, the “bad boy” is ideally situated; because women find “nice guys” to be both socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, “nice guys” are not desired for low commitment dating and therefore cannot progress onwards to more long-term, stable relationships. McDaniel further observes: First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy's likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage. Thus, the 2005 research of McDaniel offers powerful evidence that women prefer “bad boys”, such as violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths, over “nice guys”. The most recent social scientific research on the “nice guy” stereotype also suggests that women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”. Urbaniak and Kilman, in their 2006 paper Niceness and dating success: a further test of the nice guy stereotype, not only demolish the previous studies of Jensen-Campbell et al (1995), Herold and Milhausen (1999) and their own 2003 research, but also supersede the previous research of McDaniel. Urbaniak and Kilman found that women prefer “bad boys” or “jerks” for both short-term, casual dating and long-term, committed relationships, directly contradicting the findings of Herold and Milhausen (1999), as well as those of their own 2003 research, which suggested that “jerks” may be highly sought after for low-commitment dating, but that “nice guys” would be preferred for longer, more stable relationships. In this study, empirical observation of actual female socio-sexual behaviour was substituted for female self-reportage, constituting a significant methodological improvement over previous studies. Instead, overall male dating success, actual female selection of males on the basis of physical attractiveness and other variables, as well as objective measures of male niceness/agreeableness are employed as independent factors whose subsequent interrelationship and covariation are determined by sequential multiple regression analysis and other modes of statistical quantification. Thus, Urbaniak and Kilman found that women regarded such characteristics as being “nice” or possessing high levels of niceness/agreeableness as a major hindrance to establishing a committed, romantic relationship, whether of the casual or long-term variety. In their 2006 study, Urbaniak and Kilman test four hypotheses: 1. Within shorter-term, less-committed relationship contexts (i.e., casual-dating relationships, one-time sexual encounters, and casual-sex relationships), men's physical attractiveness would be a stronger predictor of their relationship success than would men's niceness/agreeableness. Women have been shown to place more emphasis on niceness/agreeableness in the context of long-term, romantic relationships (e.g., Regan, 1998a). Therefore, our second hypothesis: 2. Men's niceness/agreeableness would be a stronger predictor of their relationship success than would men's physical attractiveness in the committed/romantic relationship context. Women have rated men's niceness/agreeableness as a desirable characteristic in all relationship contexts (and not, in fact, as a hindrance; e.g., Regan et al., 2000). Thus, our third hypothesis: 3. In contrast to the nice guy stereotype, men's niceness/agreeableness would be a positive predictor of dating success across all four relationship contexts.As noted earlier, media references to the nice guy stereotype often reflect a categorical distinction in describing the "dating success" of archetypal "homely nice guys" versus "cute, macho guys". Our fourth hypothesis was formed to test the validity of this popular or "media-based" distinction by contrasting two subgroups of men: 4. Men rated relatively high in niceness/agreeableness but relatively low in physical attractiveness (i.e., "homely nice guys") would report greater long-term dating success than men rated relatively low in niceness but high in physical attractiveness ("cute, macho guys"). The reverse pattern was predicted regarding short-term sexual success. The results obtained by Urbaniak and Kilman for the first hypothesis, through bivariate correlation matrices and multiple regression analysis of the data obtained, was that low niceness/agreeableness and high physical attractiveness ensured success for “bad boys” in both short-term relationships and casual dating. Results generated for the second hypothesis suggested that men who lack niceness/agreeableness have much greater success in committed, romantic relationships than “nice guys”, who would have almost zero success in terms of establishing committed relationships. For the third hypothesis, it was found that men who possessed high levels of niceness/agreeableness fared badly across all relationship contexts. Not only was being nice/agreeable described as a socially undesirable trait by women in terms of casual dating, but it was also found that being nice, sweet, kind, or any of a number of other altruistic personality characteristics associated with niceness/agreeableness could be a major hindrance to the establishment of committed, long-term relationships with heterosexual females. Concerning the results generated for the fourth hypothesis, it was found that “cute, macho guys” had more success with both casual dating and long-term committed relationships than men who were high in measures of niceness/agreeableness. Taken together, the 2006 results of Urbaniak and Kilman suggest that women actually do prefer bad boys over nice guys after all. Being nice, kind, sweet, considerate, generous, compassionate, sympathetic, helpful etc, were actually perceived of by the vast majority of women as being highly disadvantageous, even being of negative consequence, when found in a potential male sex partner. These results both strongly reinforce and nicely complement the findings of Schmitt (2003) who, in The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity, found that low agreeableness/conscientiousness and high levels of gregariousness or extraversion, were strongly associated with sexual promiscuity and the ability to establish multiple committed relationships with large volumes of available females, constituting a reproductively viable and evolutionarily sustainable life history strategy. In addition, these traits are also associated with such psycho-pathological conditions as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Schmitt writes: As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, 16 362 participants from 52 nations responded to measures of the Big Five and risky sexuality. It was expected that low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness would be universally associated with relationship infidelity. Sexual promiscuity, in contrast, was expected to positively relate to extraversion and neuroticism. Analyses across 10 world regions revealed relationship infidelity was universally associated with low agreeableness and low conscientiousness. Sexual promiscuity was somewhat related to these traits as well, but was more highly related to extraversion across many, but not all, world regions. Both forms of risky sexual behaviour were generally unrelated to neuroticism and openness across cultures. Discussion focuses on possible explanations of regional differences in personality-sexuality linkages. In the conclusion to their 2006 research, Urbaniak and Kilman observe: Although variability in the importance of niceness/agreeableness across different relationship types was expected, the fact that low agreeableness, generally speaking, was more related to success across all the relationship contexts than high agreeableness was somewhat surprising. Previous studies have shown that women highly value niceness in committed/romantic partners (and still value niceness, if less-so, in more sexual contexts; e.g., Regan et al., 2000; Urbaniak & Kilmann, 2003). The present results, however, failed to show any clear advantage for the men who were highly nice/agreeable, even in the romantic context. As such, results from the present study actually are more consistent with the nice guy stereotype, overall, than were the results of our earlier study, which had suggested that the stereotype might be a myth. This contradictory finding suggests a discrepancy between which men women will say they prefer, or will choose in a (experimentally-manipulated) hypothetical scenario, and which men actually are successful--at least, by the men's own accounts. Hence, the current research of both McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) conclusively demonstrates that women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”. Interestingly enough, the research of Bogaert and Fisher (1995) and Harris et al (2007) strongly reinforces the conclusions reached by both McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006). The fact that women are attracted to “bad boys”, such as violent criminals, dangerous psychopaths, narcissists, wife batterers etc, is nicely complemented by research which suggests that psychopaths and men high in aggression, dominance, and testosterone attract large numbers of sex partners and easily form multiple short-term committed relationships. In Predictors of University Men’s Number of Sexual Partners, a study conducted by A.F. Bogaert and W.A. Fisher in 1995, it was found that the within-gender variation of differential reproductive success was heavily influenced by such things as normal individual differences in personality and psycho-physiological constitution. Significant correlational associations were found between such traits as hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking, extraversion, levels of circulating androgens, physical attractiveness, and “Eysenck psychoticism”, with men who rated high on these measures having the greatest number of sex partners and greater overall reproductive success, in comparison to more normal, less pathological men. Bogaert and Fisher write: We examined the role of personality (e.g., hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking) and physical individual differences (testosterone, physical attractiveness) in predicting university men’s (N = 215) number of sexual partners. Significant zero-order correlations occurred between number of sexual partners and sensation seeking, hypermasculinity, physical attractiveness, and testosterone. In addition, multiple regression analysis revealed significant increases in prediction with an additive combination of these individual differences, and some of these individual differences (e.g., sensation seeking) contributed unique variation to the prediction of the number of sexual partners. Finally, principal components analysis revealed a common personality factor labelled Disinhibition that may partly underlie the relationship between some of these individual differences and the number of sexual partners. ... In a study by Harris et al (2007), COERCIVE AND PRECOCIOUS SEXUALITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF PSYCHOPATHY, it was revealed that the male psychopath is the quintessential Casanova, attracting large numbers of female sex partners and having numerous short-term relationships with women, a life history course routinely described by evolutionary psychologists and others of a socio-biological orientation as, in its more essential aspects, a reproductively adaptive strategy. According to Harris et al: Sexual behavior is closely associated with delinquency and crime. Although psychopaths, by definition, have many short-term sexual relationships, it has not been shown that sexuality is a core aspect of psychopathy. A Darwinian view of psychopathy led to the hypothesis that psychopaths have a unique sexuality involving early, frequent, and coercive sex. Our subjects were 512 sex offenders assessed on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). Five variables reflecting early, frequent, and coercive sex loaded on the same principal component in exploratory factor analysis on a subset of the sample, whereas PCL-R items pertaining to adult sexual behavior did not. Confirmatory factor analysis of the remaining subjects yielded a measurement model containingthree inter-correlated factors – the traditional two PCL-R factors, and coercive and precocious sexuality. Taxometric analyses gave evidence of a natural discontinuity underlying coercive and precocious sexuality. Coercive and precocious sexuality yielded statistically significant associations with other study variables predicted by the Darwinian hypothesis. The present findings are consistent with prior empirical findings and support the hypothesis that psychopathy has been a nonpathological, reproductively viable, alternate life history strategy. In addition, my previous three contentions are supported by a tremendous amount of scientific evidence. 1. Women, in general, are not attracted to “nice guys”, operationalized as altruistic male personality and behavioural characteristics. (Jensen-Campbell et al, 1995; McDaniel, 2005; Urbaniak and Kilman, 2006) 2. Socially dominant, aggressive, and violent men, such as psychopaths, narcissists, and other dangerous criminal types, have much greater success in establishing committed romantic relationships and attracting large numbers of female sex partners than men who are less pathological in both personality and behaviour. (Bogaert and Fisher, 1995; Seto, 1995; Schmitt, 2003; Harris et al, 2007; Peters et al, 2008; Jonason et al, 2008) 3. A significant percentage of women are attracted to aggressive, socially dominant males. (Sadalla et al, 1987; Herold and Milhausen, 1999; McDaniel, 2005; Urbaniak and Kilman, 2003, 2006) Women are attracted to violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Current research in evolutionary psychology suggests that this indidvidual is the ideal sex/relationship partner for a substantial percentage of women. Edited January 23, 2009 by Abdul-Aziz Consecutive post/s merged.
mooeypoo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Are you serious? did you just post *ANOTHER* version of the SAME theory while ignoring our questions? C'mon Abdul-Aziz.. you can do better than that, you showed us that in the beginning of the thread when you were actually participating in the debate. We are not here to listen to a lecture; if you can't support your claims and participate in a two-way debate, perhaps you should reconsider where you're posting the same theory all over again. You "claiming" there's reasearch is not enough, specifically not when I showed you - in the previous post - that the research you posted is against what you claim. Be serious, so we can take you seriously. Please.
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 Are you serious? did you just post *ANOTHER* version of the SAME theory while ignoring our questions? No. What I did was elaborate on certain issues in order to provide sufficient clarification to first-time viewers of this thread. I just want people to be well aware of the issues at stake and what supporting information is available. C'mon Abdul-Aziz.. you can do better than that, you showed us that in the beginning of the thread when you were actually participating in the debate. We are not here to listen to a lecture; if you can't support your claims and participate in a two-way debate, perhaps you should reconsider where you're posting the same theory all over again. Not only have I provided a tremendous amount of empirical research which supports all of the contentions I have made, but I have been actively participating in this debate since day one. Sometimes I cannot continue debating because of real world issues that need to be taken care of, but those are external factors of which I have no control. Otherwise, when I am here, I am always prepared to debate the issues. You "claiming" there's reasearch is not enough, specifically not when I showed you - in the previous post - that the research you posted is against what you claim. Be serious, so we can take you seriously. Please. Are you serious? I presented a large amount of research which you not only failed to refute, but completely ignored, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. Anyway, I'm wondering if we can find some common ground. Is it even possible? I realize that having open lines of communication is the only way to do this and I am prepared to go head to head on this issue. All I am looking for is answers; all I wish to do is understand why certain phenomena occur in the external world which lie beyond my control. All I really desire is sympathetic companions to aid me in my quest to find answers and not be presented with more and more questions.
mooeypoo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I asked specific questions which you are still in dire need of answering if you want your theory to make any sort of leeway in terms of scientific acceptance. Reposting your arguments with further claims does not do justice to your theory. Ignoring members claims, specifically ones that show that your sources are not supporting your theory, is not doing any justice either. ~moo
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 I asked specific questions which you are still in dire need of answering if you want your theory to make any sort of leeway in terms of scientific acceptance. I have been trying to answer everybody's questions on this thread. However, I'm only human; I can't answer 20 people at once. Reposting your arguments with further claims does not do justice to your theory. I did not repost all of my arguments verbatim; I have also provided a considerable amount of clarification/elaboration on certain issues. Ignoring members claims, specifically ones that show that your sources are not supporting your theory, is not doing any justice either. All of the research I have cited definitively proves each one of my 3 contentions. The only sources that you criticized were either deliberately misinterpreted by you or not crucial in any way to my theory. However, I am open to suggestions and willing to listen to input that may prove to be invaluable sometime in the near future. As such, I am all ears. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHey, just a question: is that avatar really a pic of you? (I hope I don't sound invasive)
mooeypoo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I have been trying to answer everybody's questions on this thread. However, I'm only human; I can't answer 20 people at once. Fair enough. I posted a post analyzing your previous resources.. since it seems to be showing your resources to be against your own claim, I think it's best you re-start from there? I did not repost all of my arguments verbatim; I have also provided a considerable amount of clarification/elaboration on certain issues. But you did post your original theory again despite the many many posts that showed your original claims were lacking. You even used the same problematic phrasing we keep telling you to avoid (since you keep claiming you don't mean it the way it's phrased..) How is that any different? All of the research I have cited definitively proves each one of my 3 contentions. The only sources that you criticized were either deliberately misinterpreted by you or not crucial in any way to my theory. No, it doesn't. Go back to my post before your double-postage, and see for yourself. The research you posted showed something entirely different, and the three claims you made were entirely unsupported by any of the resources -- it was your own conclusion based on the research, which, when examined, seems to be a complete non sequitor. However, I am open to suggestions and willing to listen to input that may prove to be invaluable sometime in the near future. As such, I am all ears. then show it relate to the counter-claims we are making, instead of reposting your theory again. Hey, just a question: is that avatar really a pic of you? (I hope I don't sound invasive) It's not invasive, and it's number six, but I feel just as sexy...
DJBruce Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 I really do not think that you can make the statement that women are attracted to "bad boys". First evolutionary psychology seeks to use natural selection to show why something would happen. Assuming that the overall goal of the human species is to reproduce, why would women prefer someone who is violent and that will more than likely end up in jail. To me it makes no sense how a mate being jailed and isolated away from their partner and offspring would help that offspring survive which is the overall goal of the human race. My second problem is that I am not sure what you are defining as a "Bad Boy"? Without a stringent definition of this I find it hard to completely review your ideas. I feel that a more proper statement about mating preferences would be that women prefer a mate who is "mature, healthy-looking, and affluent" as these are all traits which would help a offspring survive. This statement seems to be in line with current research. There is also research which suggest that "women find men with potential for a long term relationship and a interest in their offspring". (Meyers, David) Someone who is heading towards jail does not seem to have to much potential for a long term relationship. Meyers, David. "Exploring Psychology in Modules 7th Ed." Worth Publishers, 2008.
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 24, 2009 Author Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) I really do not think that you can make the statement that women are attracted to "bad boys". First evolutionary psychology seeks to use natural selection to show why something would happen. Assuming that the overall goal of the human species is to reproduce, why would women prefer someone who is violent and that will more than likely end up in jail. To me it makes no sense how a mate being jailed and isolated away from their partner and offspring would help that offspring survive which is the overall goal of the human race. In the distant evolutionary past, as well as in all pre-industrial, agricultural societies, men who possessed high levels of physical strength, athletic prowess, natural aggression, and dominance, were those deemed most capable of providing for and defending a woman and her children. In an age where might made right and tilling the land for sustenance involved an incredible amount of physical strength, it made perfect evolutionary sense for a woman to choose a warrior or a really tough "bad boy". A scholar, a poet, or a philosopher would stand no chance before a horde of wandering barbarians, unpaid soldiers, and merciless nomads, enabling the woman and her children to be slaughtered in cold blood. However, if a woman selected a man who was known for having an aggressive, violent, even murderous temperament, she was simply making a long-term investment in the eventual success of her future reproductive strategy. Secondly, it also made sense for women to choose "bad boys" over "nice guys" (unless they were members of the aristocracy) given the rudimentary technology and high levels of physical strength and aggression involved in providing for a family; accordingly, really tough "bad boys" were much more successful hunters, farmers, defenders, and killers. Even today, in a world where women are physically weaker and less aggressive than men and often subject to the greater violence and cruelty of dominant males, it still makes sense for a woman to select "tough guys" over "nice guys" (unless they happen to be financially well-off). Hundreds of thousands of women are often raped, tortured, mutilated, and even brutally killed each year, especially in Third World countries, making it necessary for a substantial percentage of women to follow their primitive evolutionary drives and value having physical strength and a violent temperament in a male sex partner, especially when financial wealth is very scarce. Furthermore, the 1979 "sexy sons" hypothesis developed by a team of evolutionary biologists named Weatherhead and Robertson, postulates that a man's ability to provide for his wife and children is irrelevant to his genetic value as a potential father of viable offspring. Women would select an "attractive" male (a "bad boy") on the basis of such testosterone-related features as physical strength, athletic prowess, bilateral symmetry, aggression, dominance, masculinity and social presence, as opposed to the weakness and kindness of "unattractive", more feminised males ("nice guys"). Thus, taking the laws of genetic transmission into account, selecting "bad boys" as potential mates would produce more "bad boys" who would be just as tough as their fathers and able to compete against other "bad boys" in the struggle for reproductive access to available females. From an evolutionary biological point of view, "nice guys" would not be considered attractive partners because they would be publicly humiliated, beaten up, and even killed by rival dominant males, making the woman unable to pursue a viable reproductive strategy. My second problem is that I am not sure what you are defining as a "Bad Boy"? Without a stringent definition of this I find it hard to completely review your ideas. The "bad boy" construct has already been operationalized by a variety of researchers as representing macho, dominant, aggressive individuals with violent temperaments, the type of male sex partner that a significant percentage of women idolize in their romantic fantasies. The psychopath and the murderous criminal represent the "bad boy" construct in its extreme form. I feel that a more proper statement about mating preferences would be that women prefer a mate who is "mature, healthy-looking, and affluent" as these are all traits which would help a offspring survive. This statement seems to be in line with current research. There is also research which suggest that "women find men with potential for a long term relationship and a interest in their offspring". (Meyers, David) Someone who is heading towards jail does not seem to have to much potential for a long term relationship. Meyers, David. "Exploring Psychology in Modules 7th Ed." Worth Publishers, 2008. Please do not quote from textbooks as these do not prove anything. There is a substantial amount of current scientific research which suggests that women are attracted to both affluent males and "bad boys" as potential sex partners. Although the majority of women are largely attracted to such traits as male socio-economic status and financial wealth, a substantial percentage of women are also attracted to "bad boys", such as violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths, individuals who would guarantee the woman large numbers of future grandchildren, who would in turn produce more "bad boys" and even greater numbers of offspring. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFair enough. I posted a post analyzing your previous resources.. since it seems to be showing your resources to be against your own claim, I think it's best you re-start from there? Yes, and I posted a post debunking all of your objections, however you did not bother to take the time to read it. The research of Herold and Milhausen (1999) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2003) clearly demonstrates that a significant percentage of women are attracted to "bad boys", however this contention is refuted by McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006), who demonstrate conclusively that "bad boys" are preferred for both short-term and long-term relationships and that "nice guys" are both sexually unattractive and socially undesirable. The study of Jensen-Campbell et al (1995) demonstrates that women are attracted to a mixture of both "nice guy" and "bad boy" traits, but still provides conclusive proof that women find "nice guys" to be sexually unattractive. However, the research of Jensen-Campbell et al. has been superseded by McDaniel and even that has been superseded by the current 2006 research of Urbaniak and Kilman. But you did post your original theory again despite the many many posts that showed your original claims were lacking. You even used the same problematic phrasing we keep telling you to avoid (since you keep claiming you don't mean it the way it's phrased..) No, I did not post my original theory again, what I did post was a further elaboration and clarification of my original theory, thoroughly debunking all of the previous claims made by you. How is that any different? All of your questions have been answered and your objections have been refuted. No, it doesn't. Go back to my post before your double-postage, and see for yourself. The research you posted showed something entirely different, and the three claims you made were entirely unsupported by any of the resources -- it was your own conclusion based on the research, which, when examined, seems to be a complete non sequitor. Excuse me, but I did not double post anything. I simply posted research that both clarified and totally refuted your objections. Stop dismissing my work as double-postage, especially when you obviously do not possess the ability to counter any of the arguments already presented (which are fairly obvious to begin with). then show it relate to the counter-claims we are making, instead of reposting your theory again. I did, and on numerous occasions as a matter of fact; however, you chose to deliberately ignore it over and over again, because it pointed to conclusions that you found uncomfortable. And again, I did not repost my theory; I strongly suggest you sit down and read it from beginning to end, instead of dismissing it without giving it due consideration. Science is about uncovering fact, not reinforcing the cozy, Alice-in-Wonderland world you prefer to inhabit. Edited January 24, 2009 by Abdul-Aziz Consecutive posts merged.
DJBruce Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 The "bad boy" construct has already been operationalized by a variety of researchers as representing macho, dominant, aggressive individuals with violent temperaments, the type of male sex partner that a significant percentage of women idolize in their romantic fantasies. The psychopath and the murderous criminal represent the "bad boy" construct in its extreme form. Please do not quote from textbooks as these do not prove anything. There is a substantial amount of current scientific research which suggests that women are attracted to both affluent males and "bad boys" as potential sex partners. Although the majority of women are largely attracted to such traits as male socio-economic status and financial wealth, a substantial percentage of women are also attracted to "bad boys", such as violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths, individuals who would guarantee the woman large numbers of future grandchildren, who would in turn produce more "bad boys" and even greater numbers of offspring. Quoting from a textbook does prove something as all claims in a reputable textbook by an incredible reputable psychologist are all based on sound research done by other psychologists. I find quoting from a textbook just a reputable as quoting from a paper itself. Also although the idea of a "bad boy" might have been defined by other psychologists you are still have not defined what you yourself are trying to prove. You make statements saying women are attracted to violent criminals and that women are attracted to aggressive individuals. There is a large difference from saying a "bad boy" is someone who is slightly more aggressive or a psychopathic criminal. Also although a percent of women may be attracted by violent criminals I do not think you can say, "Women are attracted to violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths" as this is a universal statement, which you later debunk by saying, "a substantial percentage of women are also attracted to "bad boys."
Phi for All Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open. If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track. This post is a standard text set by SFN policy and was not devised by the person posting it.
Pete Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 I don't understand the OP's point. Is he claiming that all women like bad boys, or just most of them? Since most women don't end up marrying bad boys is this because most women are supposeldy settling for less and actually falling in love with men they're really not attracted to? Sorry dude, but that makes no sense to me.
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 25, 2009 Author Posted January 25, 2009 I don't understand the OP's point. Is he claiming that all women like bad boys, or just most of them? Since most women don't end up marrying bad boys is this because most women are supposeldy settling for less and actually falling in love with men they're really not attracted to? Sorry dude, but that makes no sense to me. No, my point is that a substantial percentage of women prefer "bad boys" (think the "Dark Triad" of Jonason et al) over "nice guys"; these women find "bad boys" much more attractive and more socially desirable than males who possess altruisic behaviour and personality characteristics. To everyone: Let's keep this thread open because this is a very important issue that needs to be discussed. Thank you.
Baby Astronaut Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 Then we should define substantial. Let's ask ourselves something too. Do more women see lovey dovey films than guys, and at what ratio? At the same time do guys see more testosterone filled bad-boy movies than women? And the ratio? The answers should be telling.
visceral Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) Could be they just like excitement. I don't like violent men or criminals, but I definitely like reckless guys who don't mind doing mad things. Edited January 26, 2009 by visceral
Recommended Posts