14 March 2012

Bad Boys Have The Best Genes?


There's been lots of discussion about bad boys in the manosphere.  The theory is that young women pursue bad boys because they have the best genes.  Here's Chris (in a discussion @ Oz Conservative about how older women, those 45 and up, cannot find men) offering what I think is a much better theory as to why women pursue bad boys nowadays: they're ENABLED-duh!  Here's Chris' take on the matter, and a good take it is...



"Nature does not care what you do when your fertility is gone. The goal is to get the best genes (whatever it means) and have offspring. That is the reason for chasing for bad boys."

But bad boys don't have the best genes. The state prevents middle class and upper-middle class men from putting them in their place.

Their appearance of the best genes is purely artificial as they can act out without fear of retribution from the state as they have nothing to lose. Jail means nothing to a criminal/thug/drug-dealer.

However, jail would destroy the life-style/life-strategy of Middle class men and hence they can't put 'bad boys' in their place, (as they would be able to in a state of nature), without the state coming full force down on them and taking away everything they own, (lose job, lose house/assets from civil litigation, lose career prospects, and hence lose the minimum sexual success they would obtain from all those things they just lost.)

A 100-130 IQ man/men in a state of nature is/are vastly superior (and I'm talking in a ruthless/vicious/ability to dominate and kill sense) to a 70-90 IQ man/men in a state of nature. It's just that today, 'the Leviathan' skews the market against them.

If you want to end this, your best off changing the system (the Leviathan) so that it doesn't work against middle-class and upper-middle class men. Do that and the women will come, for the middle-class and upper-middle class men's position of lower sexual attractiveness compared to 'bad boys' is not one that is inherent to them by nature, but is instead the result of the way our society has been structured. 


I wish I could have come up with that myself.  I knew that the theory often put forth by PUAs (i.e. women pursue bad boys for their great genes) had holes in it, but I could never quite articulate WHY.  Chris did a BANG UP job on this one.  Thanks Chris!  Hope you all learned something too.  Until next time...



fschmidt said...

My post Male Mating Strategies explains why bad boys are, in fact, the best mating choice in a feminist environment. The system is beyond repair and the best that decent men can do is to withdraw from it and join a different culture/religion where conditions don't promote bad boy genes.

MarkyMark said...

That's good stuff, fschmidt; thank you!

Anonymous said...

In the age of science these sound too full of themselves, but there is some truth to it.

"The sexes deceive themselves about each other: this happens because basically they honour and love only themselves (or, to put the matter more pleasantly, only their own ideal—). Hence the man wants the woman to be peaceful—but woman, like a cat, is essentially not peaceful, however much she may have practised an appearance of peacefulness."

"What do I care about the purring of one who cannot love, like the cat?"



Anonymous said...

My watch cat does love me,so go easy there.She's brought me many a dead mouse to prove her loyalty.

As to the fem-splanation that bad-boys have the best genes:
No,it is a justification for her rape-fantasies.
That way she's NEVER responsible for anything.
(as usual)
Carry on.

Anonymous said...

I don't think genes have that much to do wiht it, one way or the other. Women are attracted to confidence. They are "disattracted" to insecurity.

There are many ways of demonstrating confidence. The "Marlboro Man," the strong, silent type, is not necessarily a bad boy. Neither is the hot shot business man who knows some Game. Nor Tom Brady.

Bad boys are successful within a particular environment. Feminism may have something to do with helping them thrive, but bad boys existed long before there was feminsim, and women were attracted to them. The "outlaw," either in reality or as a pose, is confident. A successful outlaw is a confident, successful man. That's what women are attracted to.

A ruthless, police state might succeed in eliminating most outlaws, but, to the extent that they still existed, they would still be attractive to women.

Southern Man said...

I think this is dead on. An IQ-85 street dealer would be no match for an IQ-115 captain of industry if the playing field were leveled. And as you say the top businessmen are far more ruthless than street thugs but can't demonstrate that overtly within the constraining system in which they operate. The conscious mind understands this but that's not how girls operate; we successful jacket-and-tie types must find a path to the girl's subconscious to make that gina tingle. Thus, adopt some of the appearance or mannerisms of the street thug to contrast with your save 'n' clean beta provider demeanor; make sure you work out regularly, have a tat that she won't see 'till you take off your shirt, ride a motorcycle. Contrast is king! This works well for me: if a girl meets me in jacket and tie a few times, I shake up her perception by appearing for the third meeting on the bike in full leathers. Contrast is king!

Anonymous said...

Bad Boys Have The Best Genes?

I doubt it based upon their cocky attitudes, their hormonally driven bobbleheads, and their low-level vocabularies replete with back-alley profanity.

Their IQs might be questionable, but their philoprogenitive tendencies are not.

Perhaps if you summate the IQs of all of their thug babies you can reach into the triple digits to exceed the IQ of a single child born from a married couple devoted exclusively to each other and building a stable home for their offspring.

However, to their credit, Bad Boys do possess an abundance of gaudy tattoos. Females love tattoos. From my observations, Bad Boys with tattoos of naked women seem to gather the largest harems because they give the females something to complain about.

Strange, but then again, the female mind defies logic.

Madotsuki said...

I think this is merely conservative bullshit. No feminists I know claim bad boys have superior genes; you're stabbing a strawman. Even then, it's confidence that's the attractive thing. It's not a police state obamaspirancy, or feminist propoganda. Get your heads out of Limbaugh's asshole and maybe we can be reasonable.

Mark Richardson said...

In my experience, Southern Man has it right. Contrast is king. In my case, I didn't get tattoos or a motorbike, but I did learn to tell women about some of the wilder things I did in my university days. It really piques the interest of women. I get comments like "I would never have thought that of you. You seem so conservative. Tell me more about...."