Dating advice from a woman that actually works!

[Rollo Tomassi]

Unfortunately, GURU, you and I don't determine what is or isn't Alpha. While it may be self-satisfying to define Alpha based on what we think are virtues and moral strengths, it's women who define what's Alpha every time they spread their legs for whomever their hypergamy leads them to believe is the best immediate breeding opportunity.

 

[zekko]

There is no man who is just a "bad boy," or just a "rich a$$hole," or "Alpha," or "nice guy." These are simple descriptors, about as useful as "jock" or "nerd" were in high school. They make it easy for us to dismiss the person, or exalt him. In no way do these labels tell us how a man fares with the opposite sex.

This reminds me of the film The Breakfast Club. I know this is just a Hollywood movie, but its point was that there was more to teenagers than merely being stereotypes, people are deeper than that. That's why it resonated with a lot of people from my generation. Even though at my age the movie seems kind of silly, being as I am so far removed from that high school world.

Once again, from the top, Alpha ≠ Chivalrous, leader-of-men, business success, etc.

As if things aren't confusing enough, let's throw the term alpha out there.

I don't know anyone who is arguing that alpha has anything to do with chivalry, righteousness, or virtue, so I'll set that aside
(Edited to say okay, I just saw Gurr's post -after I wrote this). But I disagree that alpha does not mean leader of men. Women are attracted to a guy who is the top dog, the leader, the best at what he does. That is what they call "situational alpha". I liked a quote from Warrior74, who said "alpha is not a person, it's a position". No one can be an alpha in every situation.

You are talking about alpha personality traits, which is another way to define it. Both are legitimate. Words seldom have just one meaning. You shouldn't dismiss one meaning just because there is another. Both are useful when talking about seduction. But again, a guy who is dominant in one situation may not be dominant in another. Take the alpha male out of one pack and put him in another and he may find himself a beta.

So explain to me why the LEXINGTONS's linked article should have more legitimacy than Ms. Díckens?

I wouldn't argue that either had more legitimacy. But I wouldn't dismiss either one simply on the basis that it was written by a female. Until you examine the content, you don't know.

But anyway, what is so "@sshole-ish" about the qualities of the guy she describes in the article? That he doesn't come up and talk to her right away? What is this guy doing that is so horribly "bad"? Seems to me is major crime is not making her the center of his universe.

She talks about how women don't like guys who gush all over them. That's putting them on the pedestal, treating them as if they were higher value. Obviously that's a turn-off, and there's no dispute about that.

This is one of my major complaints about the stereotypes:
Because the guy doesn't NEED the girl, that makes him a jerk?
Because the guy places his value BELOW the girl's, that makes him nice?
That makes no sense.

 

[Lexington]

Uh - sounds like you agree with Atom Smasher, dude.

You know I think I do too, but it seems he dismisses that woman's statement simply because she is a woman. I bet if a guy said the same thing here, he'd probably agree as would a lot of the guys on this thread.

That woman didn't say anything that isn't in the DJ Bible. Most of those comments she made are staples of the DJ/PUA community. I have a very strong suspicion that if the byline had a man's name instead of a woman's, this thread wouldn't get nearly as many views or comments.

 

[guru1000]

Unfortunately, GURU, you and I don't determine what is or isn't Alpha. While it may be self-satisfying to define Alpha based on what we think are virtues and moral strengths, it's women who define what's Alpha every time they spread their legs for whomever their hypergamy leads them to believe is the best immediate breeding opportunity.

Alpha can be categorized, as a definition needs not to apply to all situations; every theory has exceptions.

 

[samspade]

Advice, broken down:

Women have baggage, too, especially the attractive ones. You think insecurity and low confidence are only for those who are fat, bald and ugly? Not so, my friend. Just because a woman is hot does not mean that her life is perfect. Remember, beauty does not equal perfection. It's simply one thing about a woman that she literally wears on her sleeve.

Translation: I'm average-looking. Hot women get all the attention. They must have a lot of baggage as a result of all great men they snag so effortlessly. I hope they are as self-conscious as I am; in fact that would help explain why they throw themselves at the guys I wish I could have. If you're a man, go for an average chick - less drama, we promise!

Truth: The more attractive the woman, the better game you'll need to have. Hot or not, you never know what lies underneath til you get to know her.

Women prefer personality to looks. As a woman, I know this to be very true. But I also know it's a tough one for men to swallow. Obviously, in the first five seconds, she judges a man based on his looks. But after that, something interesting happens: A man's face shifts according to how he makes a woman feel. A hot man can become hideous, and an average-looking man can become the sexiest guy in the room. What women are really attracted to has nothing to do with appearance. It has to do with the character a man projects. A man who is calm, cool, collected, comfortable and confident will trump an Abercrombie model every time.

Translation: No need. This clearly stated and true - mostly. Looks count for women but not nearly as much as for men.

Women DO NOT like bad boys. Not sure who started this rumor, but they must be shot immediately. Women do not sit around with their girlfriends and say "Oh, Marni, I can't wait to meet a lazy, unreliable jerk who treats me poorly and feeds on my insecurities." Women like nice guys, not wimps, pushovers or pleasers; nice guys with a backbone and strong sense of self.

Translation: It doesn't make sense that we would like bad boys. We don't even like admitting it to ourselves because it makes us look stupid and weak. It would make much more sense if we liked the nice guys who are always so sweet to us.

Truth: Women have fallen for bad boys since time immemorial. The part about having "backbone and strong sense of self" is key though. You don't have to be a criminal. Just be independent-minded and confident - a man on his own path who knows where he's headed.

There's no "right" line, but there's a right way to say it. If I had four men approach me using the same, tried-and-tested pickup line, do you think I would be attracted to all four of them? Maybe, but highly unlikely. I can tell you that if the right man with the right character came up to me and said "banana, banana, banana," I would giggle like a little schoolgirl and instantly feel attraction for him.

Translation: If a guy strutted up to me like he has a pair, looked me in the eyes and stared me down, and uttered that phrase in a deep, unwavering baritone, he's just made me blush. Delivery matters.

Truth: She's right. You can't just parrot phrases. You have to own what you're saying. Your words are a gift, and she is your willing recipient.

There is never a bad time to approach a woman. Women want to be approached, as long as it's by the right person. If you see a girl you like, stop, breathe and think to yourself, "She's adorable. I want to talk to her and see if I like her." Notice the "I want" and the spirit of figuring out what you like. Until you get to know this girl, it's about you, not her.

Translation: The 'right' man to approach us is the one who's not wondering if he's the 'right' man - for starters. We're just preemptively filtering. So if you see a pretty girl, don't hesitate. Although we'd still like to believe that you don't see us as mere objects and want to get to know us.

Truth: Don't worry about being the right guy. Approach, approach, approach. Rejection builds resistance.

Women want you to respect them, not admire them. So stop putting women you know nothing about on pedestals. Yes, they're hot, yes other men may want them, but that does not mean that all self-respect gets thrown out the door. Respect yourself first, and women will follow.

Translation: Pretty straightforward.

Truth: She's right. We all know about pedestals and what not to put on them.

So use these lessons as the first step to eliminating the anxiety that "thing" produces. The second part is getting out there and practicing. Sitting on your couch watching "Law & Order" is not going to bring you results with women.

And again, true.

As you can see, some of what she says is spot on. Other parts are hogwash. She's still willing to delude herself when she feels it's necessary.

 

[zekko]

Truth: Women have fallen for bad boys since time immemorial. The part about having "backbone and strong sense of self" is key though. You don't have to be a criminal. Just be independent-minded and confident - a man on his own path who knows where he's headed.

Again (and I hate beating a dead horse here), how does being "independent minded and confident" make you "bad"? Or a jerk, or an @sshole, for that matter? These are admirable qualities. You might as well be saying "women like guys with admirable qualities" as "women like bad boys".

Pretty good fair minded analysis on the article though.

 

[samspade]

Again (and I hate beating a dead horse here), how does being "independent minded and confident" make you "bad"? Or a jerk, or an @sshole, for that matter?

It doesn't necessarily.

 

[zekko]

Here's how I think "bad boy appeal" actually works (usually). It's just a theory, but it's based on life experience. I believe it's almost a case of smoke and mirrors.

This idea depends on two principles:
1. The woman is generally passive (she is the pursued, not the pursuer)
2. Women tend to become emotionally attached to men they have sex with (part of her instinct to insure survival of her offspring).

The bad boy (or "cad" as I will call him here, since that seems a better descriptor) does not care about the girl. He just wants sex.

The girl (being passive) waits for someone to ask her out. Usually the cad does this first since he isn't worried about being rejected (because he doesn't care about her opinion of him one way or the other - he just wants sex). He, from experience, will say and do whatever is necessary to get her into bed.

They have sex. The girl now has an emotional connection to him. He's got what he wanted so he leaves. This causes the girl pain, because she has gotten the rug pulled out from under. "I thought maybe this guy liked me, what happened?". If she wants any resolution out of it, she has to now chase him, because he is no longer interested.

In hindsight, because she doesn't really know the guy, she can impose or invent any personality about him she wants. She may romanticize him as "the one that got away", or she may realize she was simply duped. To the outside observer, she fell for a jerk.

Note that in no way here did she want or prefer to have an unreliable jerk as her partner. She just got suckered in by him.

 

[Tazman]

Here's how I think "bad boy appeal" actually works (usually). It's just a theory, but it's based on life experience. I believe it's almost a case of smoke and mirrors.

This idea depends on two principles:
1. The woman is generally passive (she is the pursued, not the pursuer)
2. Women tend to become emotionally attached to men they have sex with (part of her instinct to insure survival of her offspring).

The bad boy (or "cad" as I will call him here, since that seems a better descriptor) does not care about the girl. He just wants sex.

The girl (being passive) waits for someone to ask her out. Usually the cad does this first since he isn't worried about being rejected (because he doesn't care about her opinion of him one way or the other - he just wants sex). He, from experience, will say and do whatever is necessary to get her into bed.

They have sex. The girl now has an emotional connection to him. He's got what he wanted so he leaves. This causes the girl pain, because she has gotten the rug pulled out from under. "I thought maybe this guy liked me, what happened?". If she wants any resolution out of it, she has to now chase him, because he is no longer interested.

In hindsight, because she doesn't really know the guy, she can impose or invent any personality about him she wants. She may romanticize him as "the one that got away", or she may realize she was simply duped. To the outside observer, she fell for a jerk.

Note that in no way here did she want or prefer to have an unreliable jerk as her partner. She just got suckered in by him.

This actually proves my point. What's the one thing this guy would require to believe he could sex this chick up and move on to the next with little to no investment? "Confidence" in his ability to do so.

She didn't predict he would do this, but she was attracted to his showing initiative and displaying the qualities of a guy who was sure of himself. Sometimes that's all it takes.

I think that's why guys tend to complicate things in trying to be all things to all women, it really isn't necessary.

 

[thomz_amadeus]

Isn't this thread lame to death?

In my early years I used to hang out with a lot of REAL bad boys. Not pvssy fakers. I'm talking about some serious testosterone-driven cats. These guys did not fvck nobody but prostituTes and/or social cases such as junkies, 16yo single mums and/or vulgar HB -10.

Nowadays I hang-out with quality gentlemen only. Wealthy, well-educated, courteous, sophisticated, successful and MANLY men. They do fvck LOADS of HB.

While they do so, you're here posting nonsense about this alpha-ness crap and this bad boy shjt.

I thought this was the mature man section.

Wake up.

 

[Zarky]

Just stumbled on this thread and I'm quite surprised to see this much discussion about the article, for the following reason:

The article linked to in the OP is what's known as a "filler" article. It has almost no content that anyone hasn't read before and serves to take up space and (on the net) get hits and links, etc.

The article was about 95% content-free, much like the billions of articles with names like "5 ways to make him want you," and "What men REALLY think about sex" that fill up women's mags and web sites.

I'm disappointed and shocked that such an article would generate any discussion here at all. It had almost no content. It was pure filler.

Here are some content-free quotes from the article, do they really warrant discussion?

"Remember, beauty does not equal perfection."

"There is never a bad time to approach a woman."

"Respect yourself first, and women will follow."

And actually, now I look at it again, pretty much every single sentence of the article is a meaningless platitude. What a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Duffdog]

This is a long thread about "alpha" and "bad boyness" all sort of thrown together.

A simpler way to define an alpha male is that he never has to try. An equivalent way to define a bad boy is that he has no need to try.

That should cover every scenario anyone can think of. So, a female who is attracted to the quintessential alpha male likes him because everything he does comes easy and does not require "thought", does not require preparation and mostly ends with him succeeding at whatever he was doing. This includes getting the hottest girls in the world to go home with him with nothing more than a wink.

This brings us to the "bad boy." The bad boy has no need to worry about anything any female (or male) thinks because none of it results in changes to his behavior. For example-- really big, mean guys who randomly punch people because nobody is bigger than they are can be considered "bad boys". Why? Because people on the receiving end of whatever he is doing have no choice but to submit. If they choose not to submit, they simply get to die. So, the choice is either submit, or die. Which one do you think most people end up going with? A more academic interpretation of the manifestations of a typical "bad boy" is that in any interpersonal circumstances, there is unequal power between him and someone else. That is, one who is a bad boy often gets to stomp on the rights of others for no reason other than he CAN. Whereas, a non bad boy would LOVE to be able to do exactly this and get all the girls, but due to his inferior stature, position in life, or status, he CAN'T.

In summary, an alpha male simply wins at everything because he was supposed to win while a bad boy wins because he can. Both types of males are attractive to females because they represent something that is difficult to do. It is easy to be a loser among millions of losers, but difficult to be the one guy who dominates all the losers.

All women go for looks, status and money for the simple reason that it is difficult to acquire any of those three, and even more difficult to acquire more than one of the three. If you look around at the alpha males you see in real life, you will notice that they make it a point to show everyone just how much more dominant they are than other males. My girl only went for me because she saw me destroy another male who was trying to talk to her while I was talking to her, though she will never admit it. In that particular case, it was status that won her--"or my badboyness" if you will. I wanted to throw the other guy to the ground because I felt like it and could beat the crap out of him and all of his friends at the same time if they even thought about confronting me or looking at me. In short, I got her because I COULD.

Its really a simple concept, honestly.

 

[zekko]

This brings us to the "bad boy." The bad boy has no need to worry about anything any female (or male) thinks because none of it results in changes to his behavior. For example-- really big, mean guys who randomly punch people because nobody is bigger than they are can be considered "bad boys". Why? Because people on the receiving end of whatever he is doing have no choice but to submit.

You're describing an alpha male here, not a bad boy. The biggest, most dominant male, who can beat up all the other males. If that's not the perfect description of an alpha in nature, I don't know what is.

He is a bad boy, because he randomly punches people (bad behavior), but that is secondary to the fact that he is obviously an alpha. Most of the attraction he generates will be because he is an alpha.
A bad boy may be an alpha, but an alpha is not necessarily a bad boy.

 

[Lexington]

So a bad boy goes around "randomly punching " people because nobody is bigger than he is? That's a surefire way to end up in prison or dead before the age of 30. Maybe back in the time of cavemen being the biggest and strongest guy made a difference, but nowadays people have guns.

 

[vatoloco]

So a bad boy goes around "randomly punching " people because nobody is bigger than he is?

Yes.

 

[Duffdog]

So a bad boy goes around "randomly punching " people because nobody is bigger than he is? That's a surefire way to end up in prison or dead before the age of 30. Maybe back in the time of cavemen being the biggest and strongest guy made a difference, but nowadays people have guns.

Your attitude shows exactly why the girls like them. Notice how you did not say that guys who can do that don't get all the hot girls, you just said that they could end up in prison. Well, doesn't sound so bad to me. And just to be clear, when tough guys get out of prison, they have a large amount of status in some circles-- causing them to get even more hot women than when they went in.

I wish to create a distinction: A bad boy is more likely to end up in prison whereas an alpha male is more likely to end up in a private jet. Both are attractive to women, and both display traits that males should strive to possess.

 

[Lexington]

Your attitude shows exactly why the girls like them. Notice how you did not say that guys who can do that don't get all the hot girls, you just said that they could end up in prison. Well, doesn't sound so bad to me. And just to be clear, when tough guys get out of prison, they have a large amount of status in some circles-- causing them to get even more hot women than when they went in.

I wish to create a distinction: A bad boy is more likely to end up in prison whereas an alpha male is more likely to end up in a private jet. Both are attractive to women, and both display traits that males should strive to possess.

Large amount of status in some circles? Yeah, maybe among the dregs of society. I highly doubt that many women who you would rate as "10s" i.e. girls who are beautiful, smart and educated go for ex-cons. The girls that do are probably almost all trash that you or I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. Well, I guess I can only speak for myself

I would argue that what attract a woman to a "bad boy" are the alpha qualities: confidence and masculinity. The bad qualities such as randomly punching people are not attractive. There is a major difference between being bold and being stupid. Punching people in the face without provocation falls into the latter.

Think of it like this: let's say there are two identical twins. They have identical looks, the same sort of dress sense and fashion and they also have identical status. Both of them are very confident and masculine. However, one of them is a complete prick. He gets into fights frequently, is abusive and basically makes a lot of unnecessary enemies. Which one is more attractive to women?

I would think it would be the one who isn't a prick. Thus, the negative qualities of a bad boy do not increase his attraction and they in fact reduce it. But, the alpha qualities that he possesses are what attract the women.

 

[zekko]

So a bad boy goes around "randomly punching " people because nobody is bigger than he is? That's a surefire way to end up in prison or dead before the age of 30. Maybe back in the time of cavemen being the biggest and strongest guy made a difference, but nowadays people have guns.

It's not like you can just shoot somebody that punches you though.
You'd end up in jail faster than the guy throwing the punches.

Let's see now, go around punching random dudes and get thrown in prison. This will get you a reputation, and the ladies will start pouring in.
Phew! I'm glad I diidn't listen to the woman. I might have gotten some bad advice.

 

[Lexington]

It's not like you can just shoot somebody that punches you though.
You'd end up in jail faster than the guy throwing the punches.

Yeah but if you are that much of a prick that you go around randomly punching people, it's only a matter of time before you end up really p*ssing someone off. Also, in certain circumstances, one could make the case that it was self defense. If someone assaulted you and you have a concealed weapon permit, you are within your rights to shoot that person.

 

[DianaHSlater]

I read that article last week and thought about posting it. I can't say I agreed with everything she said, but she did appear to have better insight into the subject than most women.

The quote about picking up the box is good. Because once you start going into more depth then you start introducing all these half truths or things that are only true for some people or things that are only true in certain situations, and it all gets to be a complicated mess.


Unlike Atom Smasher, I do agree with what she says here:
"Women DO NOT like bad boys. Not sure who started this rumor, but they must be shot immediately. Women do not sit around
with their girlfriends and say "Oh, Marni, I can't wait to meet a lazy, unreliable jerk who treats me poorly and feeds on my insecurities." Women like nice guys, not wimps, pushovers or pleasers; nice guys with a backbone and strong sense of self."

This is not to say women will not respond to a bad boy, but that is just one type she might respond to. I tend to think women go through a phase where they like bad boys (usually when they're very young - high school or shortly thereafter). I don't they think want a lazy, unemployed guy who doesn't treat her right, and isn't socially calibrated. She might put up with it for awhile, but if the guy treats her like bad, she WILL get rid of him eventually.
Unless she's a head case.

The problem is there is no definition of "bad boy". Every time I ask for a definition of what a bad boy is, all I get is a list of admirable (good) qualities.
I don't see how a bunch of good qualities = "bad". It makes no sense to me.

To me, a bad boy would be a lazy, unemployed, probably alcoholic, guy who is unable to adapt to society in a productive way, and doesn't know how to socialize properly/get along with people. I don't see what's so sexy about that.

I have never had to act that way in order to attract females. So I think this whole "bad boy" thing is more a marketing gimmick than anything else. A "type" that is easy for gurus to teach to guys who are the least common denominator (who have nothing else going for them).

i agree