Dating advice from a woman that actually works!

[Atom Smasher]

Zekko, with all due respect, your arguments seem to originate mostly from your own sphere of experience. In other words, the people who you know. In the broader, more global picture, I observe that women cannot help but be sexually attracted to the "bad boy" phenomenon.

By bad boy I mean a rebellious guy, who goes against authority and thinks mostly of himself (nutshelled). A woman cannot help but to physiologically respond in the presence of such a man. Time and again I have seen women who are happily involved with a "good guy" get all weak in the knees in the presence of a rebellious, "dangerous" bad-boy.

They do not choose this, they cannot help it. It is ingrained into every fiber of their being. Some just hide it better than others. I would draw a parallel with us being happily involved with a woman. I can be very happy with my woman's appearance and sexuality, and yet if I find myself in the presence of a woman who projects that indefinable raw animal sexuality, I WILL respond. I'm not talking about sporting wood here. I'm talking about a full-body, full-mind physiological response. It is something innate that is triggered by a stimulus.

I personally think that we humans are deeply attracted to that which we do not posess. Since women lack confidence, they are deeply attracted to confident men. The "jerk" is confidence personified. Since feeling trumps thought in most women most of the time, they see the whitewash of confidence in the jerk and their mind selectively blocks out the "bad" part because let's face it... most people will see what they want to see.

 

[samspade]

See, this is exactly what I would consider a bad boy.
What the community does is take this guy, and then adds "..who is good with women" on the end of it. But that just demonstrates that it ISN'T the bad behavior that is attracting the women, doesn't it?

That's my point though - he isn't a "bad boy" if the definition implies that he's irresistible to women. He's just a rudderless dirt bag who's losing at the game of life.

What attracts women to the "bad boy" type isn't criminality. A man still has to have game with women, whether he's a straight-A nerd or a burnout, a general or a foot soldier.

Throw away what you think "bad boy" means. Women use it to define men who do not subordinate to feminist conventions, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with a rap sheet or lack of condom use. It's purely code to convey that the man is a player, knows what women want, and doesn't care about outcomes or perceptions. Lawbreaking is not a prerequisite - James Bond could be described as a bad boy. Or any of the Kennedy men (though they may have broken a few laws, heh).

As I said before, in the American female lexicon, "bad boy" is a ringing endorsement disguised as a warning. This is true even in the form of self-deception. Any woman who has had her heart broken by an alpha or two has asked herself (or her beta orbiter friend), "why do I always fall for the bad ones?"

 

[zekko]

Throw away what you think "bad boy" means. Women use it to define men who do not subordinate to feminist conventions, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with a rap sheet or lack of condom use.

Sam, if that's how you define "bad boy", then I respect you for it.
But clearly there are others who define it differently.
If it's not the criminality woman are attracted to, then why did Nutz post a link here to a Roissy article called "Chicks Dig Jerks" talking about how women are attracted to convicts and want to be impregnated by them?

The problem with starting with the "Women like jerks" premise is that the young guys read this and say "Oh yeah? Well, if women like jerks, I'll be a jerk then. That's easy enough, and why water it down"?


Atom Smasher, of course I draw upon my own observations. And in my experience, while the jerk phenomenon exists, the pickup community overstates it. Very few people are fully jerk or fully nice guy anyway, most people are somewhere in between.

Time and again I have seen women who are happily involved with a "good guy" get all weak in the knees in the presence of a rebellious, "dangerous" bad-boy.

Does this "rebellious, dangerous, bad boy" have to be good looking, or can he be the fat biker I was talking about earlier?

 

[samspade]

Sam, if that's how you define "bad boy", then I respect you for it.
But clearly there are others who define it differently.
If it's not the criminality woman are attracted to, then why did Nutz post a link here to a Roissy article called "Chicks Dig Jerks" talking about how women are attracted to convicts and want to be impregnated by them?

That's one of the things about Roissy that's annoying. To make a larger point, he emphasizes certain aspects to a fault.

Of course, you can point out certain convicts that are in the news all the time who have some kind of groupie following. That is because they are de facto celebrities, who will always attract a fringe of supporters, including females.

And you may have a point that convicts probably are just as irresponsible with sex as with everything. If number of offspring = amount of sex had, then I'm still a virgin.

As far as this quote from Rollo:

8. False Premises Hate

Hater: Yeah, sure, game works well for picking up low self-esteem bar skanks.

in response to your assertion that like attracts like.... This presupposes that the man making the assertion is a "hater."

I remember being at a bar a few years ago, and talking to a guy who'd been in jail a few times (he didn't say why, and I didn't ask). The guy had a fairly attractive girlfriend. I'd guess he was around 40 and she 30. My opinion of her was definitely lowered when I learned she was dating an ex-con. She obviously felt attraction either because of or in spite of this fact. I wasn't jealous of the guy, and I didn't hate him. Nor was I hurting for women at the time. I just considered her beneath me, that's all. And no, I don't consider this anyone's "moral crisis"; even if they knew my personal opinions, I'm sure they wouldn't care. I happen to consider a lot of women beneath me, which is part of the qualifying process I guess. If someone's personal values repel me, that's not "hate," that's me using my better judgment.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Double post

 

[Stagger Lee]

Sam, if that's how you define "bad boy", then I respect you for it.
But clearly there are others who define it differently.
If it's not the criminality woman are attracted to, then why did Nutz post a link here to a Roissy article called "Chicks Dig Jerks" talking about how women are attracted to convicts and want to be impregnated by them?

The problem with starting with the "Women like jerks" premise is that the young guys read this and say "Oh yeah? Well, if women like jerks, I'll be a jerk then. That's easy enough, and why water it down"?


Atom Smasher, of course I draw upon my own observations. And in my experience, while the jerk phenomenon exists, the pickup community overstates it. Very few people are fully jerk or fully nice guy anyway, most people are somewhere in between.


Does this "rebellious, dangerous, bad boy" have to be good looking, or can he be the fat biker I was talking about earlier?

I'm inclined to agree with you. A lot of people who write PU material, even roissy, are clearly influenced by other PUA material whether it'd be MM or what have you, than they are with real world experience. Point is a lot of it is commercialized and they can't say looks, appearance and being a naturally social guy is what really causes female attraction. So what are they left with but to advocate being a jerk, C+F, and neg. But I'd argue anyone who actually used this stuff in the field would learn it fails more than it succeeds. Reality doesn't match the theory, but when you're mostly theorizing who'd know?

I'm not saying there's not anything to the bad boy appeal and some of these tactics like C+F and negs. But it is way over done. Kind of like if a little hot sauce taste good in a recipe, let's just pour the whole bottle in and then it must be really good!

Take the neg for instance. Could there be a tactic that causes more fail in the real world than it does? Yet it is often repeated over and over that it is a necessary integral part of attempting a pick up and it "causes" attraction. No, your appearance causes attraction and just not complimenting a female's appearance or showing disapproval for something she said or did is all the neg you normally need. A borderline insult from left field is not going to move anything forward.

Before anyone tries to explains to me the theory of how a neg really works, i.e., she has to be at least an "8", or think she is, or think she is higher value than you, the neg has to be precede or followed by a compliment etc. Don't bother. My point is just as C+F and negs are claimed to cause attraction so is the "bad boy", but I don't think that is the case.

Appearance causes attraction and you know who I see getting the most of the best looking women? The good looking guy with SP, who smiles and is outgoing, has confident body language. Not a nice guy, but not a bad boy as it is typically defined. A "bad boy" for the purposes of attracting females is just a guy who successfully plays the field, nothing else. He's not a tough guy or a guy that goes around intimidating people.

Let me sort of repeat something from earlier. Women do not particular like nice guys and what would be best for them from an objective male view, that's true. I'm not one of those that say a nice guy is really not a nice guy. But the opposite of a nice guy is not the "bad boy" as it is typically defined. In reality the bad boy is a guy that is attractive to women because of his appearance, and having options and willing to exercise them does not devote himself to any given female so she chases the validation, feels competition anxiety and her ego most win the guy's devotion. Women are created to be stupid like that and will imagine a guy is this "bad boy" that has other options even if he doesn't really. So this may be part of the confusion. Women do tend to like bad boys, it's just the common definition and why they like them is a little extreme and off the mark.

 

[Lexington]

It's clear to me that a lot of The debate here is over definitions. That's the problem. The woman defines a bad boy as someone who is unreliable and a jerk. She says she is attracted to nice guys with a spine. That right there tells me she is not talking about your stereotypical "nice guy" we talk about in the pickup community.

The Nice Guy that is derided here is really a pvssy. It's a guy who endlessly fawns over a woman. Women are not repulsed by his niceness, but by his lack of masculinity. Being nice and being alpha are NOT mutually exclusive. And Alpha does NOT equal douchebag or @sshole.

That woman never said that women prefer the stereotypical Nice Guy. She said that she would prefer someone with a backbone. That is something the Nice Guy doesn't possess.

Some people's responses are quite revealing. They betray a very strong sense of bitterness towards women. In many ways, this place is beginning to resemble The Spear Head.

This place used to be somewhere to discuss picking up women and being successful in life. It seems that it has to a large extent become a place to bash women and complain about how bad men have it.

 

[Tazman]

I think it makes people uncomfortable to entertain the idea that we have hardwired animalistic behavior. You can't apply "morals" and "ethics" to sexual attraction.

Women looking for a longterm partner and/or provider are most likely going to screen out men who appear more apt to stray, these tend to be either unattractive and or/older women.

Ideally, a woman could find a man who is both a great catch but also embodies the qualities of a man who will stick around and provide for the family.

The corollary for men would be a beautiful woman who's committed, fulfills you sexually and makes a great wife/mother.

How often do these combinations of traits manifest themselves in a single person? Even if you know of people who fit this description, how long will it be maintained?

People have an "ideal" in their heads that they chase after, but most times you have to settle for what you can get. That could be a woman who decided to date a guy she knew was trouble (bad boy, if you want to call it that) because she hasn't met a guy who aroused her in a similar way.

There are a lot of factors involved in why people choose partners the way they do, but make no mistake, at a very fundamental level, true confidence in a man will always be attractive to women, no matter what form it takes.

 

[zekko]

By bad boy I mean a rebellious guy, who goes against authority and thinks mostly of himself (nutshelled). A woman cannot help but to physiologically respond in the presence of such a man. Time and again I have seen women who are happily involved with a "good guy" get all weak in the knees in the presence of a rebellious, "dangerous" bad-boy.

Atom Smasher, you're a 54 year old guy. To turn on a woman, what is this guy supposed to do to "go against authority"? Does he have to rob a bank? Or is going in through the out door at the grocery store enough?

You talk about this "bad boy" like he's some kind of god. You know what I think? I'm sure that there is this "near perfect" bad boy out there who has this kind of effect on women. But then you've got samspade's poor cousin, whose rebellious behavior doesn't seem to do anything for him. I think it's all about the individual. A sexy guy is a sexy guy. Not all bad boys are created equal. You probably have BB3s and BB9s and BB5.6s.

Similarly, I know this metrosexual doctor who has this kind of effect on women. They melt in his presence. He's very, very good looking, or so they say. Heck, they won't shut up about it. Does that mean every metrosexual doctor turns on women like this? No, not necessarily. It's the individual. A sexy guy is a sexy guy.

 

[zekko]

It's clear to me that a lot of The debate here is over definitions. That's the problem.

Yes, it's a major problem. From reading this thread, I would bet every single poster has a different definition in his head of what a "bad boy" is.

The woman defines a bad boy as someone who is unreliable and a jerk. She says she is attracted to nice guys with a spine.

Well, a lot of guys here maintain that a woman specifically wants a guy who is unreliable (and a jerk), and that she will ONLY want a guy if he is unreliable (and a jerk).

Also, as soon as they hear the words "she says", they go into this automatic reflex induced by pickup brainwashing about not listening to girls' dating advice. The problem is, they take that very sensible idea, and twist it into "Every word that comes out of a woman's mouth must be a lie".

I thought this girl from the article might get some slack since she was described as a "wingwoman". This made me curious, so I Googled her. Turns out she's got her own website (everybody's selling stuff). She's a pickup guru basically. Here's her site:

http://www.winggirlmethod.com/

Nope, she doesn't look fat.
Just glancing at the site, this was one of the first things that caught my eye. She says "Looks are important to women, just not as important as you think". Really, this sounds a lot more honest than a lot of pickup gurus, who tell you that looks don't matter at all.

I think it makes people uncomfortable to entertain the idea that we have hardwired animalistic behavior. You can't apply "morals" and "ethics" to sexual attraction.

I agree we have hardwired animalistic behavior. I agree you can't apply "morals and ethics" to sexual attraction. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people around here saying that women are hardwired to be attracted to immorality, and only to immorality. That is applying "morals and ethics" to sexual attraction.

 

[Lexington]

Also, as soon as they hear the words "she says", they go into this automatic reflex induced by pickup brainwashing about not listening to girls' dating advice. The problem is, they take that very sensible idea, and twist it into "Every word that comes out of a woman's mouth must be a lie".

I thought this girl from the article might get some slack since she was described as a "wingwoman". This made me curious, so I Googled her. Turns out she's got her own website (everybody's selling stuff). She's a pickup guru basically. Here's her site:

http://www.winggirlmethod.com/

Nope, she doesn't look fat.
Just glancing at the site, this was one of the first things that caught my eye. She says "Looks are important to women, just not as important as you think". Really, this sounds a lot more honest than a lot of pickup gurus, who tell you that looks don't matter at all.


I agree we have hardwired animalistic behavior. I agree you can't apply "morals and ethics" to sexual attraction. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people around here saying that women are hardwired to be attracted to immorality, and only to immorality. That is applying "morals and ethics" to sexual attraction.

What's funny is that this girl is saying many of the same things that can be found in the DJ Bible. She's saying that looks aren't everything, that girls like confidence etc. Yet her comments are dismissed out of hand and interpreted in the most negative way possible.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Zekko, you have several preconceptions that you bring to the table that you're apparently unaware of.

These preconceptions are causing you to misinterpret, magnify and amplify what others are saying. You're taking people's minor points and generalizations and turning them into huge maxims in your mind.

The guys here who differ from you are simply saying that in general, a woman will physiologically respond to a bad boy's vibe, probably because he posesses the confidence that she herself lacks. Having that kind of confidence is a mystery to her, and she is therefore attracted to it.

I'm trying (in order to understand your position) to figure out why you have such a strong emotional stake in this subject. I'm unclear about that.

I'm not sure if you've set up a belief system about this that is not subject to adjustment or calibration, but it does seem that way. Isn't there any room to at least chew on what others are saying? I truly think you're misinterpreting some others' statements because of your very rigid stance.

All I'm suggesting is that you consider that some other viewpoints might possibly have some merit if considered objectively. Even if you don't fully agree, I think there is more careful thought behind their statments than meets the eye.

 

[Lexington]

Zekko has a point and believe me, I disagree with a lot of he things he says on these forums. The point is, the obsession and worship of "bad boys" on this forum is quite absurd. Sure bad boys get girls, but there are plenty of "non bad boys" that get laid too. There are bad boy losers who go home and spank it to porn everynight too.

A woman does respond to confidence, but bad boys don't have a monopoly on confidence. I know a guy who's a huge hit with the ladies and he's not what you'd call a "bad boy." He's a surgeon. Does he have confidence? Tons of it....that comes with literally holding people's lives in your hands everyday. But he's about an upstanding a citizen as you can find. He studied hard in school, obtained tremendous knowledge, skills and wealth and he's also saved lives.

That woman was correct in that not all women are attracted to unreliable, abusive jerks. Some women may be attracted to folks who have those qualities, but they probably have other things going for them. A big, fat unemployed slob who happens to be a bad boy will get less play than a slim and wealthy "nice guy."

 

[Stagger Lee]

I agree we have hardwired animalistic behavior. I agree you can't apply "morals and ethics" to sexual attraction. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people around here saying that women are hardwired to be attracted to immorality, and only to immorality. That is applying "morals and ethics" to sexual attraction.

You bring up some interesting points. Let's say attraction, lust or desire is amoral. Let's also say that women tend to be amoral. So it is reasonable to say that women don't really know or select for what's moral or immoral. Attraction is caused by other factors. So females are attracted to a guy with good appearance and looks and who's confident. He could be a good guy or a bad guy, moral or immoral. The female being amoral doesn't see an immoral, bad boy as such in the first place and secondly is attracted to him in spite of his lacking morality.

Having said that, I'm going to turn around and say that I think women are attracted to immoral, bad boys. I can say this because I, rightly or wrongly define, morality. I don't see things like sexual attraction, desire, lust, pursuing status or pick up to be moral. I engage in it but I don't consider it moral. I define moral as being an honest, commited monogamous relationship. Contrary to what women want to believe and others to believe, they seem to lack the ability to engage in this compared to many men.

 

[Atom Smasher]

The point is, the obsession and worship of "bad boys" on this forum is quite absurd.

Guys, this idea that you keep harping on, that men on this forum are obsessed with and worship "bad boys", and that they consider them "gods" (to quote Zekko) are fabrications in your own minds. You are misinterpreting.

Clearly, most men in this forum think that "bad boys" are JERKS. Idiots. Losers.

But the fact remains that women are attracted to rebelliousness, confidence, and self-direction in men. Therefore they respond to the "bad boy" with attraction on a very basic, subconscious level. Every last one of them does, despite their (and your) verbal protestations.

In order to leverage this fact to our advantage, we can develop confidence, self-direction and even a bit of rebelliousness (if channeled toward a positive outcome) in order to trigger those automatic responses in women.

In essence, I (and many others) am talking about adopting the traits of the "bad boy" and integrating those traits toward a positive end. To put it another way, "bad boys" present an overly-amplified and uncontrolled example of masculinity. The trick for us is to take those masculine traits and integrate them into ourselves in a controlled manner.

That formula produces a well-balanced man, in her eyes a little dangerous and unpredictable, but still reliable and safe (again, in her eyes).

 

[Stagger Lee]

Clearly, most men in this forum think that "bad boys" are JERKS. Idiots. Losers.

But the fact remains that women are attracted to rebelliousness, confidence, and self-direction in men. Therefore they respond to the "bad boy" with attraction on a very basic, subconscious level. Every last one of them does, despite their (and your) verbal protestations.

In order to leverage this fact to our advantage, we can develop confidence, self-direction and even a bit of rebelliousness (if channeled toward a positive outcome) in order to trigger those automatic responses in women.

In essence, I (and many others) am talking about adopting the traits of the "bad boy" and integrating those traits toward a positive end. To put it another way, "bad boys" present an overly-amplified and uncontrolled example of masculinity. The trick for us is to take those masculine traits and integrate them into ourselves in a controlled manner.

That formula produces a well-balanced man, in her eyes a little dangerous and unpredictable, but still reliable and safe (again, in her eyes).

But even if you state it that way you will probably not get agreement. It's debatable that rebelliousness is an independent factor that causes attraction. And even if it is, what form of rebelliousness are we talking about here? Rebelling against society in general as most guys would picture a bad boy or rebelling against a woman's unreasonable demands, which could be a good guy with a backbone? So you are left with confidence and self-direction. How is that a bad boy make?

We are back to definitions again. What you are defining as a bad boy is being mostly confident and assertive. Then you say this is the masculinity that universally causes attraction. I don't disagree that they are traits a man should have in dealing with women. But I don't see how or why this should be called a bad boy. When guys see something they think is mislabeled, it's understandable that they think it is more of a belief in the "bad boy" as the end all be all than it is real description of anything tangible.

I think it still steems form the belief that looks, appearance and how you say things doesn't matter much in attraction. Only your attitude matters. The nice guy attitude has been tried and failed beyond any question (for average guys). So what is needed is this opposite of that and an extreme masculine, bad boy persona. Yeah that's the ticket.

So again, even taken at face value why does (undefined) rebelliousness, confidence and self direction=badboy?

 

[st_99]

I agree that an employed womens advice is usually better than one that is not working.

 

[Warrior74]

It's clear to me that a lot of The debate here is over definitions. That's the problem. The woman defines a bad boy as someone who is unreliable and a jerk. She says she is attracted to nice guys with a spine. That right there tells me she is not talking about your stereotypical "nice guy" we talk about in the pickup community.

The Nice Guy that is derided here is really a pvssy. It's a guy who endlessly fawns over a woman. Women are not repulsed by his niceness, but by his lack of masculinity. Being nice and being alpha are NOT mutually exclusive. And Alpha does NOT equal douchebag or @sshole.

That woman never said that women prefer the stereotypical Nice Guy. She said that she would prefer someone with a backbone. That is something the Nice Guy doesn't possess.

Some people's responses are quite revealing. They betray a very strong sense of bitterness towards women. In many ways, this place is beginning to resemble The Spear Head.

This place used to be somewhere to discuss picking up women and being successful in life. It seems that it has to a large extent become a place to bash women and complain about how bad men have it.

:rockon:

 

[Atom Smasher]

So you are left with confidence and self-direction. How is that a bad boy make?

We are back to definitions again. What you are defining as a bad boy is being mostly confident and assertive. Then you say this is the masculinity that universally causes attraction. I don't disagree that they are traits a man should have in dealing with women. But I don't see how or why this should be called a bad boy.

This has got to be the most illogical thread I have ever seen, bar none.

Your logic is entirely flawed. I'll try to explain. No one said that confidence and self-direction "make" a bad boy. Rather, a bad boy exhibits confidence and self-direction in a warped, amplified and ultimately destructive way.

I'm saying that a bad boy happens to posses and exude those qualities, NOT that those qualities made him a bad boy. There are well-developed men (such as myself, I blush to say), who exhibit self-direction, confidence and masculinity in balance.

How do you logically say that anyone is claiming that confidence, assertiveness, and hyper-masculinity "create" the bad boy? This is patently untrue. The fact is that they are exciting to most women because they exhibit innately attractive surface traits in an amplified way. Our job is to incorporate those traits in a non-amplified, calibrated way.

If I work on myself and develop confidence, self-direction, and masculinity, that does not in any way make me a bad boy. It makes me a well-developed, socially calbrated man. If I look at the "jerk" or the "bad boy", I see those qualities in a warped, twisted, uncontrolled and uncalibrated state.

The possession of those qualities (that women innately find very attractive) don't "make" anyone a bad boy. But the bad boy possesses those qualities in spades, and therefore most women are intrigued and attracted to that sub-set of qualities.

 

[Stagger Lee]

This has got to be the most illogical thread I have ever seen, bar none.

Your logic is entirely flawed. I'll try to explain. No one said that confidence and self-direction "make" a bad boy. Rather, a bad boy exhibits confidence and self-direction in a warped, amplified and ultimately destructive way.

I'm saying that a bad boy happens to posses and exude those qualities, NOT that those qualities made him a bad boy. There are well-developed men (such as myself, I blush to say), who exhibit self-direction, confidence and masculinity in balance.

How do you logically say that anyone is claiming that confidence, assertiveness, and hyper-masculinity "create" the bad boy? This is patently untrue. The fact is that they are exciting to most women because they exhibit innately attractive surface traits in an amplified way. Our job is to incorporate those traits in a non-amplified, calibrated way.

If I work on myself and develop confidence, self-direction, and masculinity, that does not in any way make me a bad boy. It makes me a well-developed, socially calbrated man. If I look at the "jerk" or the "bad boy", I see those qualities in a warped, twisted, uncontrolled and uncalibrated state.

The possession of those qualities (that women innately find very attractive) don't "make" anyone a bad boy. But the bad boy possesses those qualities in spades, and therefore most women are intrigued and attracted to that sub-set of qualities.

You are back tracking from your previous posts and changing your arguments. First you stated females were inherently attracted to bad boys because they were bad. I could quote them all, but I won't bother and let the viewer decide. You did define a bad boy's traits as what I posted. It was your own words. Now you are further qualifying or amplifying your position and saying a bad boy has those positive qualities of "masculinity, confidence, and self-direction" but also possesses some other traits that are bad and incidental. Can't you see you have now wittled your argument down to where you are agreeing with me and the others who had an opposing view? And you're calling me illogical. At the very least you can't expect the reader to interpret you meant something more than you had initially said especially when it was repeated over and over that one's definition of a bad boy needs to be more clearly defined.

I agree women are attracted to many bad boys that have confidence, masculinity and self-direction, and the women are taking the good with the bad. I don't think anyone was debating that. But where we might not agree is that not all bad boys have the good qualities and aren't attractive to women. And where I think you'll really disagree is some guys have a fair amount of confidence, masculinity and self-direction and still aren't attractive to women.

So we now have you down as saying that a bad boy has positive traits that are responsible for attracting women ie masculinity, confidence and self direction, they are vague terms but everyone agrees they are attractive to women. And you're saying a bad boy has the positive traits along with other traits that are not positive (which make him a bad boy boy vs a succesful good guy) but he attracts women inspite of the bad qualities. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that essentially what the other side has been saying. Where we'd have any debate is probably above where I said confidence, masculinity and confidence is not a guarantee of attraction. A lot of so-called bad boys tend to be handsome and have an athletic build too. So if you are going to extract the active ingredient from the bad boy, you might need a little of that too.