Why Women Prefer Bad Boys, The Real Reason

I'll polish this up in July

Much is said about how women prefer bad boys over nice guys. Now don’t get confused about what type of nice guy I’m talking about. Feminists make a distinction between a “nice guy” who does as is socially expected whilst being kind, to then be distinguished between the “Nice Guy TM” who exhibits male entitlement and a toxic attitude, who feels that they are owed romantic or sexual access, to alleviate his unrequited feelings or desires.

There is much articles about this, ranging from five different scales.

  1. A man who feels that because he’s paid money to a woman who he’s in a parasocial relationship with, unbeknownst to the woman (eg. a twitch streamer or influencer), that therefore he is entitled to her time because he paid her money on Patreon or Ko-fi
  2. A man who tells his male friends, in a social environment or at work, sometimes with women in earshot, about how much of a bitch the woman was, as she took advantage of a gender role without doing anything untoward to him directly, for whatever reason
  3. A man who insults, does verbal abuse or psychological abuse as in “power trips” against women, for them rejecting his advances.
  4. Men who assault women for rejecting them
  5. Murder

Some feminists go even further and claim that what a conservative (like me) would call male brovado, that they call a combination of toxic masculinity and lad culture (frat culture in america), that violence, aggression and hostile dominance, is socially constructed from men committing performative masculinity, the same masculinity that makes them stoic. Man, I need to add some sources about this stuff later.

But when you have men in the crowd of concerts by pop singers where the man jumps out on stage which ends up with the woman being assaulted, intentionally or not, like Ava Max and Bebe Rexha, the socially constructionists as liberals do, claim something about male aggression being caused by gender roles.

Being nice is a behaviour, the opposite is just a persona.


Maybe I should write an article one day, about how some people (more likely women), avoid making prescriptive decisions. Maybe one day! I think for the purpose of this article, as there’s a lot of plagiarism on the internet, especially for the PUA, social skills and self-help books, I’ll have to be more specific with my terminology. Every pseudo-writer, grifter and charlatan who commits plagarism, makes it harder for people like me to explain things. People want to know why women prefer to date bad boys and avoid nice guys. I prefer to use the term dark triad male and the supplicating doormat male.

Get ready for my analogy

My answer is hard to explain.

Imagine you have a flute with a very small crack in it. It’s very tiny but when you play the E note, everyone else doesn’t notice any difference but you notice the difference as you are the one holding it and you know what the E not sounds like, while everyone else doesn’t know what the notes on the flute or keyboard sound like, they just can tell if a melody is out of tune or out of key.

Imagine that you fill the flute with smarties, well you wouldn’t be able to play it any more. However while the huge holes for the notes are blocked, the small crack will remain intact.

To an audience, they’d say “I can’t hear any notes” but to you, you can hear the note from the small crack.

Now imagine that all the smarties of the hole are removed, and the person gets some smarties, crushes them with their hand and rolls it into a paste in the shape of a ball, then uses it to fill the small crack. Now the flute actually works because the small crack is filled, at least until a mechanic can get it fixed for £20, so now you can’t hear any off-key nature, it’s not out of tune any more.

Explaining the rationale behind it

When the dark triad gives a woman some male validation, regard and appreciation, it’s more like using the smarties paste to fill the small crack. But when the supplicating doormat tries to appeal to emotion towards a woman, it’s more like filling the entire flute with whole smarties. Or even better, it’s like those free samples you get on the street, where they have a mini stall and a corporate uniform as a thin jacket and a company branded lanyard.

When the supplicating doormat compliments a woman, it’s like the Coca Cola staff giving someone a free sample on the street. While at face value, it seems positive, it doesn’t quite get to the root of the issue. As women tend to base their self esteem, stature and judgement of themselves and others, on a more relative scale instead of an objective scale, merely giving them a compliment doesn’t really get to the root of the issue, which hypothetically is the tiny crack in the flute that the audience doesn’t notice when a song is played.

Or like someone handing you a promotional flyer on the street. But they give lots of other people that same flyer, right?

It’s hard to explain.

Going a bit meta

Emphasis on women comparing and judging people’s stature value, on a more relative level instead of an objective level. Women do not judge people on their own merits, they only judge them in relation to someone else. It’s like when some musician makes an album and people compare it to all their old albums, even if they’re changing their genre or style, when really people should judge it on their own merits, not be comparing it to all their old albums.

The other reason why women prefer dark triad men instead of the supplicating doormat, is also linked to the same reason why women tend to be more likely to be submissive or suggestible

Imagine the game kids play where someone throws a stick then everyone else has to run to be the first one to catch it. At first glance, someone has to throw the stick then someone else catch it. But at second glance, the first person has to (1) find a stick (2) throw the stick……..and the second person has to (3) fetch the stick and (4) return the stick but I’ll add a fifth requirement (5) the person who returns the stick is given regard for fetching it and making an active and heartfelt effort, to work at the best of their ability instead of running or walking in a lazy way

In the context of socialising, although women have higher social skills, men are more daring, so on the grand scheme of things, men manage to do more with less on a consistent level, while women only do more with more on a sporadic and intermittent level

Most of the time, women will be too lazy and won’t bother to use any of their attained social skills, as they’re not really put into a situation where they’ll have to, as much as men are. Probably because they are approached more and looped into the existing conversation if they are a loner or looking out of place.

I’ll be honest enough to admit that Latebit’s viral article helped to inspire some of my answer, ahem, rationale here.

Now in the context of socialising, to do (1 and 2) that requires some sort of intelligence to be able to

  1. Read the people in the room
  2. Act accordingly
  3. Orchestrate a situation by predicting the next 30 minutes, to lead the person down the direction you want them to go, in the conversation

Women will refrain from doing those sorts of things, as it requires some sort of intelligence, so as men are more daring than women, men will be more likely to do it.

Women tend to be self-modulating and passive, rather than asserting and initiating

Representative example of what not to do

Now about the dark triad thing, there are various instances when a woman is exhibiting that she feels insecure, low self esteem, or that she’s refraining from showing her honest thoughts and feelings, because she feels inadequate around the people in the room (or yourself), so she’ll refrain from exhibiting any verbal behaviour, that would have her give the impression, that she feels inadequate or uncompetititve towards you

For example

  1. When you’ve proved them wrong in a debate or argument, they will give you a half-hearted agreement even if you’ve undeniably and blatantly proven them wrong, as they don’t want to look incompetent and inadequate, due to low self esteem
  2. When a woman asks you what you’re going to be doing later on in the day, not to merely find out but so she can determine if you are delayed in your response in how quickly you reply to her messages, based on her assumptions of your daily schedule
  3. When she mentions something about a celebrity she likes then you tell her a fact about that celebrity that she didn’t know, so now you’ve moved the focus of the conversation, away from her educating you to be part of her enlightenment circle, to then have you be educating her so she can be enlightened, despite her feeling less intelligent than you are, when she didn’t really care about the celebrity per se (latin for as its own seperate entity). All she wanted to do is teach you something that you don’t know, in order to bring BALANCE into the conversation, so she can feel on parity of stature, compared to you

Now think about how both the supplicating doormat and the dark triad would handle the situation.

In the first example, the supplicating doormat, would stereotypically have low social intelligence, so they wouldn’t be able to realise that the woman is only giving a half-agreement due to her feeling insecure. They would ruin the chemistry by trying to prove her wrong over and over again or putting her on a spot by asking her a simple question to elaborate something that she clearly doesn’t know what she’s talking about, to then have her look more confused and mistaken.

Or if they had high social intelligence, the supplicating beta would try to be diplomatic like some breakfast tv interview or disney tv interview, where everything is squeaky clean, by trying to make her feel better, by pointing out all the points she made, that he agreed with and all the things that she’s right about and that he feels concern about.

Trying to “butter the woman up” with constant “appeal to emotion”, “superfluous language” and you are so right about X/Y/Z and I feel such empathy and emotional concern about X/Y/Z would not help here, as the man had already proven the woman wrong for the ENTIRE debate, as it later was apparent that she didn’t know what she was talking about, because she was either confused or mistaken, probably because she didn’t know what a certain terminology meant and that the dictionary and wikipedia wasn’t helpful, so she was mistaken as to what the terminology actually meant.

People are more likely to remember the things that they feel offended, disgusted, uneasy or disenfranchised by.

A real life example of me talking to a woman online, from Vietnam

What’s the difference between a doormat and a pushover?

Me using the term supplicating doormat instead of just doormat, was intentional

They say love is blind. Well Royal Harry is definitely a doormat, beyond a pushover, for Meghan Markle.

Not being a doormat, doesn’t mean to be on a power trip or control freak?

Being a bad boy doesn’t mean to be verbally or psychologically abusive, no matter how low level.

For example, do not make….

  • Tasteless jokes
  • Insults
  • Power trips
  • Embarrassing someone in front of their friends or peers
  • Using a person as a trophy to parade around with, using them to convey your presumed high status, as if it (or she) was an exotic diamond scarf
  • Dread game (trying to make someone jealous or scare them into thinking they’ll lose you)
  • The silent treatment
  • The two hour or two day rule (replying to a message 2 days or hours later)
  • Micromanaging someone’s day to day life
  • Dirty looks
  • The list goes on…


Women have a dual mating strategy

This is a fact. The alpha male’s personality meets her free-spirited needs and the beta male’s personality meets her voice of sensibility needs. If that person happens to be religious and devoted and they would prefer to date someone of the same religion and sect, the chances are, that they’re getting some other emotional needs from their male friend in a platonic fashion, to fill the void present from their current partner’s shortfall.

Feminists who condemn pick up artists, do not acknowledge or agree that women have a dual mating strategy

I was reading an article in The Independent, where Laura Bates, who runs the Everyday Sexism Project, she said that around 10 years ago, she would have a strategy of refusing to name some of the manosphere websites and figureheads, as she didn’t want to give them free publicity whereas nowadays that strategy no longer works, as the message has spread so prevalently, far and wide, so now she feels she has to mention them, as when she does workshops at schools for RSE class (Relationships & Sex Education), the same talking points come up over and over again from the children that they heard from such manosphere websites, often quoted word-for-word in its entirety.

Women will compartmentalise their emotional needs, whilst unknowingly contradicting themselves with their boyfriend’s online friends. Oh the irony!

Being a bad boy is an overall restrained attitude, not a behaviour, cold shoulder or ill-wishing

Just remember that, if you never got the message said earlier above!

If a woman is single for 5-7 years, then she probably has a dual mating strategy

Will I finally stop being asked this question on Tellonym, after being banned from Ask.fm?

Who knows? Let’s wait and see!

Related Posts