Sign in to follow this  
Abdul-Aziz

Why Are Women Attracted To Bad Boys?

Recommended Posts

Why Are Women Attracted To Violent Criminals And Psychopaths?

 

I once e-mailed this question to Steven Pinker, a famous Harvard professor and evolutionary biologist:

 

I have some questions to ask you that have perplexed me for some time. Many people seem to think that besides financially well-off men, women are deeply attracted to both thugs and gangsters. It seems that the conventional wisdom is that women are attracted to "assholes", but despise so-called "nice guys". Why is it that women seem to be so attracted to aggressive bullies, violent criminals, dangerous psychopaths, mass murderers, and drug-crazed gang-bangers? The fact that women are attracted to violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths is a fact that cannot be denied. As a matter of fact, some of the world's most dangerous criminals, such as Al Capone, Pablo Escobar or Ted Bundy, always seemed to attract the most beautiful women. Even some of the biggest, most violent and bloodthirsty gangs in the contemporary world, such as La Mara Salvatrucha in El Salvador or the L.A.-based Bloods in the U.S., seem to attract hordes of female admirers known as "honey traps".

 

Many mass murderers sitting in jail cells all around the world are constantly inundated with letters from women declaring love at first sight and proposing marriage. Even if these thugs and gangsters have nothing else to offer, especially in terms of money or other resources, many women still seem drawn to these men like flies on shit. If women are supposedly attracted to men of the highest genetic quality, then why are so many women attracted to men of obviously low genetic quality like dangerous criminals and violent psychopaths? It seems that women are not designed to select men on the basis of any kind of genetic superiority whatsoever, but to evaluate a man solely on his ability to provide or his abiltiy to protect due to the phenomenon of greater female parental investment. Or is it the other way around? Is it possible that women are designed to select men on the basis of genetic fitness, but whether they do so effectively or not is an entirely different matter altogether? Is there a possible sociobiological explanation that can account for why so many women find violent criminals attractive? Are women attracted to such men because they crave a level of excitement that a nice guy cannot provide them with? Does female sexual interest in violent male aggression reflect a primitive attraction to physical strength and high levels of testosterone, factors that were key to successfully raising children within an ancestral environment? Is it possible that much of the birth rate amongst the lower classes is due to the fact that women are attracted to violent criminals? Given the propensity that women have for being attracted to dangerous men, is it possible that such men are more fertile than men who are economically well-off? It seems that violent criminals have more success with women than either men who are financially well-off or relatively impoverished. I have heard it said that female reproductive choice often leads to dysgenic effects (negative genetic consequences) as far as the population is concerned. Is the dramatic increase in single-parent families a reflection of the dysgenic nature of female reproductive choice? Are rates of domestic violence and marital rape a consequence of the female attraction to dangerous, violent men?

 

Professor Pinker, our celebrated author of the Blank Slate, replied to my question, via personal communication, with the following:

 

I’m not an expert in the phenomena, but here are some relevant considerations. From an evolutionary perspective, female mate choice should be affected both by a desire for good genes (where “good” means “likely to reproduce”) as well as paternal investment in the woman’s children. These need not coincide; hence some women have affairs with the strongest, smartest, best-looking man available, while being married to the nicest and most reliable man available. There is some evidence that women are more attracted to hypermasculine men when they are ovulating (when good genes are paramount) and to nice guys when they are not. There is also evidence that less desirable women are less choosy in terms of the willingness and ability of a man to provide for her and her children, and hence at least in relative terms more attracted to dashing qualities than to stable ones. Note too that the most desirable man of all, in many woman’s eyes, is “tough-tender” – nice to her, aggressive with everyone else.

 

Toughness can be attractive for several reasons. One is that it can reflect overall genetic quality – health, smarts, strength (this would be especially true in ancestral contexts where the land and money and power went to the best warriror, not to the smartest lawyer). Another is that it can protect the woman and her children against rapists, abductors, and so on. Probably most relevant is that he promises to give her tough sons. A woman’s son has to compete against other women’s sons, and if he is beaten up or publicly humiliated or cuckolded or killed, he will have less of a chance to reproduce. Of course all these have to be traded off against how good he is to her and her kids, but as mentioned, I predict that most women would prefer tough-to-others-nice-to-her than tough-to-everyone, though some may have to settle for the latter as a second choice.

 

So, what do you guys think? Is it true that most women find bad boys, such as violent criminals, to be very attractive? Tell me what you think.

Edited by Cap'n Refsmmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't find violent criminals to be attractive. I like the nice guys.

I do see a lot of women going out with who I see as jerks, though. Maybe they seem the most masculine because they're aggressive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have given you a good answer but the photograph turned me off. SFN has more class than this.

 

Bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it correlates (negatively) with the intelligence of the woman?

 

I recall a study in which it was found that females might find more masucline faces more (sexually) attractive, but slightly femalized faces were considered more trustworthy and were more desirable as partners. This does not really translate into bad vs nice boys, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have given you a good answer but the photograph turned me off. SFN has more class than this.

 

Bee

 

I think that answers the OP's question quite well, actually.

 

In any case, I think the gesture in the image violates our anti-vulgarity rule, so I have removed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic idea is that the bad boys can fight... This means they can protect their resources (as well as being better equipped to secure more), and protect women from "mate poachers," and also protect the children from "offspring killers."

 

There is no general rule, though, so the basic premise is incredibly flawed. Women (like men) like confidence, ability, and intelligence, as well as good health and genes. There is also something to be said about the male who "stands out" from the crowd... Who is different... who makes an impression... which plays partly into the concept being put forward that bad boys are better liked. I've got a pony-tail, I studied kung fu and got my black belt, I ride a motorcycle... all of these things tend to improve how females perceive me... but it's more related to my being capable and standing out than it is to being a bad boy. (Although, perhaps being a bad boy is more indicative of being a risk taker, and sometimes risk takers win big, hence females who were into them would have gained from that win... I'll need to think more on that).

 

 

However, if females disregard all of those things in favor of guys who are jerks or pricks, then it generally has less to do with their gender and more to do with the male figures early in their life (read: daddy issues).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a womans attraction to the “bad boys” has to do with her own rebellion against having to be a “good girl”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women don't like men who make sweeping generalizations about them.

 

In all seriousness, though, I think the response you got is pretty much dead on. Women do like nice guys. They also like masculine guys (and classically attractive guys, and funny guys, and smart guys, and rich and powerful guys). Sometimes those go together (the most desirable), but often they don't, since testosterone, among its many other effects, often makes people jerks.

 

So in conclusion, if you think the reason women aren't attracted to you is because you're a "nice guy," in reality it's probably just because you're a wimp. :)

Edited by Sisyphus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there seems to be a considerable amount of scientific evidence that suggests that most women, a sizable majority perhaps, prefer violent criminals, dangerous psychopaths, and even brutal mass murderers for mates. Researchers such as P.K. Jonason of the University of New Mexico and David Schmitt of Bradley University have repeatedly demonstrated that men who have a so-called "Dark Triad" personality (consisting of such delightful traits as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) tend to attract the largest number of female partners and have little or no difficulty establishing romantic relationships.

 

See links for further information:

 

Dr. Jonason et al. has written The Dark Triad: Facilitating short-term mating in men for the European Journal of Personality (I believe it is still in press)

 

http://web.nmsu.edu/~pjonason/dtstmnewscientist.pdf

 

http://abcnews.go.com/health/Story?id=5197531&page=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, there seems to be a considerable amount of scientific evidence that suggests that most women, a sizable majority perhaps, prefer violent criminals, dangerous psychopaths, and even brutal mass murderers for mates. Researchers such as P.K. Jonason of the University of New Mexico and David Schmitt of Bradley University have repeatedly demonstrated that men who have a so-called "Dark Triad" personality (consisting of such delightful traits as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) tend to attract the largest number of female partners and have little or no difficulty establishing romantic relations

 

 

So all men are prefer women with big tits, blonde hair and an remarkable ability to cook, clean and be a wonder in bed? No of course they don't, what a ridiculous statement to make! And as for a "sizeable majority" preferring violent criminals, psychopaths and brutal mass murderers....well I nearly fell off my chair laughing:eyebrow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, unfortunately Abdul pushes the idea too far. There are certain tendencies in short-term mate selection which are relevant and certainly tied to this topic, but they cannot be extrapolated to the extent happening here in this thread without significant loss in validity, accuracy, applicability, and resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I don't know much about psychology, but it seems like that "dark triad" is especially pseudoscientific. Narcisissm and psychopathy are two different points on the same spectrum, for example, and Machiavellianism is a political philosophy, not a personality trait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Machiavellianism is not only a political philosophy, but a personality trait as well. Modern psychologists have formulated this concept as an individual willingness to use deceit, manipulation, and exploitation to get what one wants for purely selfish reasons.

 

According to Dr. Paulhus et al.:

 

Although the personality constructs of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy had different origins, there are striking similarities. To varying degrees, all three entail a dark, socially destructive character with behavior tendencies such as grandiosity, emotional coldness, manipulation and aggressiveness. In the clinical literature, the link between narcissism and psychopathy has been noted for some time (for a review, see Hart & Hare, 1998). The recent development of non-clinical measures of narcissism (Raskin & Hall, 1979) and psychopathy (Forth et al., 1998) has permitted direct comparison of the three dark traits in normal populations. For example, there is now empirical evidence that, in non-clinical populations, Machiavellianism and psychopathy may coincide (McHoskey et al., 1998). Similarly, there is evidence that narcissism and psychopathy overlap (Gustafson & Ritzer, 1995).

 

The "Dark Triad" is a legitimate scientific construct employed by modern social psychologists and women are highly attracted to it when found in the personalities of dominant alpha males. This is a scientific fact corroborated by a tremendous amount of evidence and cannot be avoided.

 

For further information, the study of Paulhus et al., Shedding Light on the Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy (2001), should be consulted at:

 

http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~dellab/RESEARCH/DarkTriad/sheddinglight-spsp01poster.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "Dark Triad" is a legitimate scientific construct employed by modern social psychologists and women are highly attracted to it when found in the personalities of dominant alpha males. This is a scientific fact corroborated by a tremendous amount of evidence and cannot be avoided.

 

Abdul - If I might suggest, you seriously need to consider working hard to avoid absolute statements, as they make you appear foolish. For example, in order to prove the above assertion completely false, all I need is ONE single female not highly attracted to the construct of "dark triad." I do believe we've had more than that already come forward in this very thread, ergo... your point began as invalid.

 

You would (again, if you'll permit my boldness) improve the perception of your posts if you focussed more on words like "tend to," or "in greater frequency" or "often appear to." This is how science is done. If I'd turned in a paper written like you have here when I was in Uni, I'd have failed, had it returned to me with red ink all throughout, and been forced to do it again until I stopped using broad sweeping generalities and absolute statements.

 

Consider this a tutorial at no expense to you. Enjoy.

 

 

 

In case you're a visual learner, perhaps you can use the graph below to tell me where on the curve ALL women fit:

 

 

 

bell_curve.gif

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abdul - If I might suggest, you seriously need to consider working hard to avoid absolute statements, as they make you appear foolish. For example, in order to prove the above assertion completely false, all I need is ONE single female not highly attracted to the construct of "dark triad." I do believe we've had more than that already come forward in this very thread, ergo... your point began as invalid.

 

You would (again, if you'll permit my boldness) improve the perception of your posts if you focussed more on words like "tend to," or "in greater frequency" or "often appear to." This is how science is done. If I'd turned in a paper written like you have here when I was in Uni, I'd have failed, had it returned to me with red ink all throughout, and been forced to do it again until I stopped using broad sweeping generalities and absolute statements.

 

I agree, and I am very sorry if I gave out the very misleading impression that all women are a certain way. Although sweeping generalizations are certainly invalid, statistical generalizations based on the available, peer-reviewed scientific literature aren't; in other words, what I meant to say was that a significant percentage of women are highly attracted to "dark triad" personality traits in males, as overwhelmingly corroborated by modern research. However, I also realize that a substantial percentage of women can also be attracted to other things, such as socio-economic status and male-male hierarchical dominance, which has also been demonstrated by evolutionary biologists. My point is that, whether a woman is attracted to socio-economic status or vulgar displays of natural aggression and athletic prowess, they are all various tendencies which ultimately constitute the female reproductive strategy.

 

Can we agree and just shake hands now? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that spouting generalities don't help the argument. This can be answered simply by reversing the roles: there are also some guys who are turned on by girls who are trouble from the word go. This does not mean we all are.

 

True story: I am one of these nice guys who felt the titular generality was true. I was once on a date with a girl that you could describe as "bad"- flirty, shallow, demanding, etc. Well, it happened that I had grown tired of not only her attitude but the many other girls like that that I had been seeing. She was flirting up a storm with a guy at a party, and I basically gave up on her, without coming out and saying it. I just got really sarcastic and sullen and just plain mean. To my utter amazement, she responded to it, though that was not my plan. She acted not only conciliatory, but almost clingy. That only made me more disgusted, and so I tried to ditch her- but of course that only got her hotter. She was the classic case you described, but I was not simple enough to presume all women were like that.

 

Oh, yes, the rest of the story- I couldn't keep up the act. I eventually started to feel sorry for her, so I softened up- and poof, the illusion was over, she lost interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we agree and just shake hands now? :)

 

Absolutely, no worries. I just wanted to offer you "a nickel's worth of free advice," and I appreciate that you responded to openly to it.

 

 

Although, one point of contention which I do have is with the idea that women are attracted to violent criminals and psychopaths. That's so very extreme that it's most certainly false.

 

One of the points I've been trying to make in my posts above (although, I probably did a poor job of it) is that there are certain specific traits and characteristics which are common between the "bad boy" that girls like and these "violent psychopaths," traits which are aligned and parallel in both types of men, but it's the trait that women like, not the criminal or psychopathic aspect. Does that make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely, no worries. I just wanted to offer you "a nickel's worth of free advice," and I appreciate that you responded to openly to it.

 

 

Although, one point of contention which I do have is with the idea that women are attracted to violent criminals and psychopaths. That's so very extreme that it's most certainly false.

 

Actually, that's not true. There is a considerable amount of scientific evidence which suggests that women are very attracted to violent, aggressive men. Perhaps you should read Women Who Love Psychopaths by Sandra L. Brown and Lianne J. Leedom or How To Spot A Dangerous Man Before You Get Involved by Sandra L. Brown, who write about the many women who actively pursue violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths.

 

In addition, all of the famous bad boys, unless they were utter misogynists or completely psychotic, like Al Capone, George Jones, Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, Pablo Escobar, John Gotti and all the rest, were virtual "chick magnets". This is a well-known and well-documented fact. Even some of the biggest, most violent gangs in the world, such as the Crips or the Hells' Angels, attract their hordes of female followers. Come on, it should be obvious that a significant percentage of women are attracted to bad boys or "dark triad" personalities. However, as I explained many times before, many women are also attracted to socio-economic status and male-male hierarchical dominance as well, not only or even exclusively bad boys.

 

One of the points I've been trying to make in my posts above (although, I probably did a poor job of it) is that there are certain specific traits and characteristics which are common between the "bad boy" that girls like and these "violent psychopaths," traits which are aligned and parallel in both types of men, but it's the trait that women like, not the criminal or psychopathic aspect. Does that make sense?

 

Well, one thing that "bad boys" have and "nice guys" don't are nerves of steel and tremendous confidence, traits that are symptomatic of both narcissistic and psychopathic personalities. After all, it's because of this that many women enjoy having an extra piece of muscle on the side. :)

Edited by Abdul-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, fair enough about the "considerable amount of scientific evidence which suggests that women are very attracted to violent, aggressive men" (though you should still supply some peer-review evidence on that and get rid of the whole-inclusive statement I am fairly sure is not part of those peer-reviewed studies), but I propose a provoking thought:

 

I am *not* attracted to violent aggressive men. I'm tellin' you. It's probably one of my biggest turnoffs (actually, it's probably a "2-in-1" in my case).

 

If your theory is including ALL WOMEN (as it seems to by your phrasing) then there are three possible options:

 

1. I'm not a woman.

2. Your theory is not all-inclusive.

3. Your theory is false.

 

Which is it?

 

All of the famous bad boys, unless they were utter misogynists or completely psychotic, like Al Capone, George Jones, Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, Pablo Escobar, John Gotti and all the rest, were virtual chick magnets.

Yeah, they also all had s***loads of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, fair enough about the "considerable amount of scientific evidence which suggests that women are very attracted to violent, aggressive men" (though you should still supply some peer-review evidence on that and get rid of the whole-inclusive statement I am fairly sure is not part of those peer-reviewed studies), but I propose a provoking thought:

 

I don't know if you have been reading the thread so far, but I did mention a number of peer-reviewed studies, such as The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men by Jonason et al. (2008). This study is available for perusal here:

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121517849/abstract

 

Another study of interest would be The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity (2004), by Schmitt, a professor at Bradley University. This paper suggests that both sexual infidelity and promiscuity are highly associated with traits such as low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, and high levels of extraversion, traits that correlate positively with narcissistic and psychopathic personalities. The link to this study is:

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109075976/abstract

 

This site also has some interesting things to say about women who love violent men:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/why-women-really-do-love-selfobsessed-psychopaths-850007.html

 

I am *not* attracted to violent aggressive men. I'm tellin' you. It's probably one of my biggest turnoffs (actually, it's probably a "2-in-1" in my case).

 

If your theory is including ALL WOMEN (as it seems to by your phrasing) then there are three possible options:

 

1. I'm not a woman.

2. Your theory is not all-inclusive.

3. Your theory is false.

 

Which is it?

 

First, I never said, neither did I wish to imply, that *all* women are attracted to violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths, however what I did say was that a significant percentage of women are attracted to these kinds of men. I mean, how else do you explain (atleast partially) the high rates of wife battering and domestic violence so prevalent in relationships these days? In addition, I am supported by a large amount of scientific evidence which suggests that (a sizable percentage of) women are attracted to the dark triad personalities of dominant males.

 

Yeah, they also all had s***loads of money.

 

True, but these bad boys were attracting women by the boat load long before they became famous. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW.

 

First off, the majority of women are not battered women, so your claim about that is simply flawed. Second, your phrasing made it sound as if you claim women as a whole are attracted to violent men which is either a gross generalization or a misrepresentation. Try to be aware of that. I also noted that people commented on that and you seem to keep phrasing yourself the same.

 

Where is the "large amount" of scientific evidence? 2 sources (or 4) is not large amount. As for their credence (or relevance) I will have to delay that judgement for when I am less tired and can actually read through them. It sounds a bit fishy on the surface though, and your claims (beyond the peer review articles you offer) are entirely subjective and logically flawed.

 

For example, even *IF* most women were battered women (hugely untrue and you would need to supply such numbers to prove this), that doesn't mean your theory is necessarily the reason. It means it *MIGHT* be one of the reasons.

 

And about your last claim - (1) you need to show us that the same amt of women were attracted to them before and after they were rich (can you?) and (2) you need to look at gentle men in equivalent positions and see how many women they have after them compared to the violent men. Seeing as Patrick Dempsey, Simon Baker (yum) and the likes both got "Sexiest Man" title in some articles and have QUIIIIITE a lot of women bowing to their feet (who am I kiddin, even me) I'd say those results might not be what you'd expect in your theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW.

 

First off, the majority of women are not battered women, so your claim about that is simply flawed. Second, your phrasing made it sound as if you claim women as a whole are attracted to violent men which is either a gross generalization or a misrepresentation. Try to be aware of that. I also noted that people commented on that and you seem to keep phrasing yourself the same.

 

Are you actually reading what I'm writing? I never said that most women are victims of domestic violence, but I did say that much domestic violence is perpetrated by males with dark triad personalities. Please, have the common courtesy to read what I am typing. In the study, Sex, Lies, and More Lies: Exploring the Intimate Relationships of Subclinical Psychopaths (2005), Williams et al. suggest that:

 

The link between psychopathy and relationship violence may be gleaned from research involving batterers. Although scholars vary with respect to the labeling of batterer subgroups,there is fair consistency in the personality traits, pathology, and battering patterns that define these subgroups (see Dutton 1998; Tweed & Dutton, 1998; Huss & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2000, forreviews). One of these subgroups is known as the generally violent/antisocial. In light of the striking similarities between the generally violent/antisocial batterers and men with psychopathic personality disorder (Spidel et al., in press), it may be that psychopathy is a prime candidate as a correlate of relationship problems.

 

Link: http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:4PuF9NVqa3AJ:www.psych.ubc.ca/~dellab/RESEARCH/Dark%2520Triad/SSSP%2520poster%2520KW%2520email.pdf+dark+triad+violence+relationships

 

Where is the "large amount" of scientific evidence? 2 sources (or 4) is not large amount. As for their credence (or relevance) I will have to delay that judgement for when I am less tired and can actually read through them. It sounds a bit fishy on the surface though, and your claims (beyond the peer review articles you offer) are entirely subjective and logically flawed.

 

I can present more evidence if you like...

 

Try reading The Manipulative Man: Identify His Behavior, Counter the Abuse, Regain Control by Dorothy McCoy or Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men by Lundy Bancroft. Another study of interest would be Who is James Bond?: Assessing the nature of the Dark Triad (2008), by Jonason and Li (I'm not sure if this study has been published). As I said before, there is a considerable amount of scientific evidence suggesting that many women are attracted to violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths.

 

For example, even *IF* most women were battered women (hugely untrue and you would need to supply such numbers to prove this), that doesn't mean your theory is necessarily the reason. It means it *MIGHT* be one of the reasons.

 

See above.

 

And about your last claim - (1) you need to show us that the same amt of women were attracted to them before and after they were rich (can you?) and (2) you need to look at gentle men in equivalent positions and see how many women they have after them compared to the violent men. Seeing as Patrick DempseySimon Baker (yum) and the likes both got "Sexiest Man" title in some articles and have QUIIIIITE a lot of women bowing to their feet (who am I kiddin, even me) I'd say those results might not be what you'd expect in your theory.

 

Well, women in general tend to be attracted to either violent, aggressive men or men of high socio-economic status. Concerning some of the famous bad boys I mentioned earlier, Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez were men of low socio-economic status, but they happened to be pursued by hundreds of young and eager female groupies. Look at this site about women who love murderers:

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/363800/little_girls_lost_love_letters_to_murderers.html?cat=47

Edited by Abdul-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a very high percentage of the women I'd hit on would turn out to be really really shallow and materialistic.... then I realized I was hitting on a very small percentage of women because they were really really hot - I guess it took two to tango there.

 

 

I think there is some truth to the general location of the "budge" in the attraction landscape, but I suspect there is a degree of false perception, as it seems most "nice guy men" are attracted to the very type of woman that is attracted to the "bad boy guy" over other women.

 

 

I also think the sampling may be off (in some of your cases), because most serial killers become widely known and their faces are broadcast across a very large segment of the population. If you take all the women that saw a particular serial killer's face on TV, the percent that felt compelled to propose marriage or even write would be remarkably low.

 

Secondarily, the triad you mention has one really important binding element - they are traits that lead to very manipulative people. A very manipulative man can play "the rebel" to one woman and "the softy" to another (or the same woman at different times), in which the quality that makes the subject manipulative (and thus attractive) also makes the subject capable of great violence. In this case, it would be an issue of correlation, not causation.

I am not arguing that is the case, just that it is a reasonable explanation.

 

 

 

It simply makes sense to me: Two men compete for the affections of a woman. One is willing to manipulate and lie, the other will only use honesty because they are not a sociopath. If all other factors are neutral, which has the edge in the short term?

 

The only mitigating factor I can think of for the woman is experience, which is either learned the hard way, or the capacity to learn by observation and apply it.

 

 

All these are just "logical constructs" I've come up with and don't represent any real sort of research, but I do find they naturally explain the observations you report without reaching the same conclusion.

 

Woman aren't that dominantly attracted to sociopaths.

They are (like men) more easily manipulated by them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this