Free Webinar Sunday 11/4: Bad Boys vs. Gentle Men

[KevinD]

What is the appeal of "bad boys"?

Why are so many women — particularly young women — drawn to the bad boy type, even though a relationship with this kind of man is inevitably doomed?

Join me for this free, live & interactive discussion, in which we'll talk about what makes bad boys so alluring, and what distinguishes them from a gentleman.

I will have very little to say, so I'm counting on ladies to tune in & speak up!

The Webinar happens this Sunday, 11/4 at 6 p.m. Pacific / 8 p.m. Central / 9 p.m. Eastern.

Go here to RSVP: https://www3.gotomee...ister/566748422

PLEASE NOTE: If you're a guy, you're welcome to join the Webinar & listen. However only women will be allowed to come on live & talk with me.

[Nicky]

Would it be OK to use this thread to actually discuss the question here?

[KevinD]

It's fine with me if you want to discuss the topic here. In fact, I'll give you a third type to add to the mix: The "nice guy."

The nice guy is eager to please a woman — perhaps excessively so.

It's a common lament: Men complain that women say they want "nice guys," but they wind up with jerks, abusers, and a-holes.

What's a hero to do? Is there a different alternative?

I say there is. A man can study romantic love, develop his own character, and follow the Way of the Gentleman.

I'm excited to hear from women on this! (If men want to chime in as well, I suppose I can't stop you. )

[bluecherry]

Define your terms, plzkthx. What is a "bad boy" a "gentleman" and a "nice guy"?

[KevinD]

I at least partially defined the terms in my post above. The nice guy is eager to please a woman — perhaps excessively so.

The "bad boy" is, at root, an antisocial jerk.

A gentleman — this is what I'm most interested to hear from women about! What is your definition of this kind of man? What are some of his key characteristics?

[Eiuol]

A gentleman — this is what I'm most interested to hear from women about! What is your definition of this kind of man? What are some of his key characteristics?

I don't fit your criteria to answer this question, however, I would say the word "gentleman" is an attempt to convey good character. To that extent, it's a pretty gender-neutral term. Yet it also seems to imply dating dynamics on the protective side of things for the male, which may include paying for the meal, holding doors, as some obvious examples. Those things aren't bad per se, but in my opinion, it's best left as an optional act for either partner, and done by either of them at different times. Otherwise, it sounds plain silly to me.

[mdegges]

I think these are pretty standard definitions.. with the main problems being that the gentleman is not really passionate, while the 'bad boy' is uncompassionate:

The stereotypical 'bad guy' is someone who's really attractive, confident, and likes to have fun. He's laid back, gets along with everyone, smokes a little weed, and does adventerous things without thinking too much about the consequences. (On the extreme, he might sell drugs or steal.) He doesn't need anyone's approval or validation. He's just himself, and does what he wants. That's where the appeal comes from.. the way he carries himself (high self-esteem and confidence), which you don't see too often. Unfortunately, many women forget he's just looking for a fling, or a short relationship. This week it might be you, next week it might be your best friend.

The 'gentleman' is a little older and more mature (maybe even a little boring). He works a 9-5 job, maybe goes out for a few drinks after work, and goes to bed at 10 or 11. Overall he's pretty average, nothing to phone home about. He's probably a bit of a pushover, wants to settle down early, have kids, the whole shebang. He's kind and gentle, but unadventerous and routined.. unexciting. I see him as a 'sex-once-a-month' kind of guy.

[Jonathan13]

What is the appeal of "bad boys"?

Here's a relevant quote from Rand (Journals of Ayn Rand, 22):

I do not think, nor did I think when I wrote this play, that a swindler is a heroic character or that a respectable banker is a villain. But for the purpose of dramatizing the conflict of independence versus conformity, a criminal – a social outcast – can be an eloquent symbol. This, incidentally, is the reason of the profound appeal of the "noble crook" in fiction. He is the symbol of the rebel as such, regardless of the kind of society he rebels against, the symbol – for most people – of their vague, undefined, unrealized groping toward a concept, or a shadowy image, of man's self-esteem.

That a career of crime is not, in fact, the way to implement one's self-esteem, is irrelevant in sense-of-life terms. A sense of life is concerned mainly with consciousness, not with existence – or rather: with the way a man's consciousness faces existence. It is concerned with a basic frame of mind, not with rules of conduct.

And here's a link to a previous discussion on the subject over at OL.

J

[bluecherry]

See, I want clear definitions here because there is a lot of room for people to deem different things as "nice" or "jerkish" or "gentlemanly" and I don't want to end up with misunderstandings and disagreements due to simply not talking about the same thing.

The following here pretty well covers the problem with a lot of the people who claim to be "nice guys" (or say they used to be) and complain that women just want "bad boys." http://www.shakesville.com/2007/12/explainer-what-is-nice-guy.html

Nice is not unattractive and jerk is not attractive to much of aaaaaaaanybody. It's a pretty small pool of people with low self-esteem who really have a habit of seeking out and staying with jerks while avoiding people who are nice. Before trying to explain any trend, you need to prove objectively that it exists. One may have a distorted view point of what is nice and what is a jerk or perhaps be looking at a biased sample when concluding such a trend exists just based on one's own observations and perhaps those of people with the same complaint who are drawn to such discussions. I don't think such a trend really exists in the first place, but if anybody can ever get me some reliable statistical data, feel free.

What may lead somebody to believe that women typically want jerks and not nice people though? First and foremost, misattribution of what is attracting these women and what is making them unattracted I think. The "Nice Guy" ™ in the link above and the "eager to please" guy mentioned earlier I could easily see thinking that hanging around all the time, being very agreeable and complimentery, and practically waiting on somebody hand and foot means they are nice and therefore people not acting in such a manner aren't nice. This kind of behavior though can easily lead to a person seeming like they don't have enough of a "self" there to be attracted to in the first place. Their identity isn't coming through well, getting swallowed up by the woman's own identity. They are showing plenty why they think the woman is valuable (or at least that they do think she is even if they aren't so clear on why), but they aren't showing much of why they themself in particular are valuable. All they are offering to the woman is acting like a brown nosing personal assistant. If she's got self-esteem and is productive then that kind of stuff is not going to be so inspiringly valuable to her. It's not that one guy is nice and the other is a jerk, it is that one guy is like a full-fledged person and the other isn't so much so.

I think perhaps the common order of preference would go that a kind person is preferred over a not so kind person who is prefered to a non-person. The majority of people fall more into the first category at least mostly I think though, sans the occassional off day, so it doesn't really come down to a contest between these last two categories. It only seems like a contest between these last two categories if one thinks wrongly that the last two categories are all there is and thus anything which isn't category three falls into category two.