Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

women growing out of wanting bad boys and wanting nice guys when they're more mature?

FatHairyM4F

Don Juan
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Location
Your house!
I've heard this. My question is, when women say "nice guys" are they talking about what this board calls AFCs, or something different? I mean look, all AFCs don't die alone, most get married eventually don't they? What about guys who have very little or nothing that would give them value in any woman's eyes, guys who are needy, clingy, no self-esteem or self-confidence? Guys who have nothing to offer other than the fact that they won't hit or cheat on her? What happens to these guys? Don't most of them find someone eventually?

What I'm trying to ask is, when women say they eventually grow out of wanting "bad boys", does that mean they're willing to settle for guys who don't have what we would call value? Guys who don't excite them, but at least they won't hit or cheat on them? Personally, I'm hoping that's what they mean.
 

aftershock

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
730
Reaction score
4
Location
England
You can get women easy being an AFC. Really easy.

Problem is, they aren't QUALITY women.
 

KoalaKing

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
427
Reaction score
3
I have seen AFC type guys with hot babes a few times in my life, it doesn't happen alot, but it does sometimes, why I don't really know.
 

KarmaSutra

Banned
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
4,834
Reaction score
143
Age
50
Location
Padron Reserve maduro in hand while finishing my b
FatHairyM4F said:
when women say they eventually grow out of wanting "bad boys", does that mean they're willing to settle for guys who don't have what we would call value? Guys who don't excite them, but at least they won't hit or cheat on them?
Fat Bastard brings up a good topic.

What it means is that women have run out of options. They need a steady guy to take care of a kid who (more than likely) he didn't Father, a guy with a decent income, but most importantly security. Does it mean she'll be a devoted wife? Fvck no. It means she found herself a sucker who'll be her doormat while Franco down the road plugs every hole she has while he's out earning her a paycheck.

Though they won't get to ride the emotional rollercoaster with her "bad boy" she will have some peace of mind with her AFC b!tch.
 

IsiMan84

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
546
Reaction score
3
Location
DFW
^ That's pretty much it in a nutshell. She'll bang all the DJ's during her drunken weekends in college, then shack up with the AFC who's bringing in a steady income and will probably take the first thing he can get.
 

Rollo Tomassi

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
5,336
Reaction score
337
Age
56
Location
Nevada
What you have here is a classic Schedules of Mating dillema.

All you're seeing is methods women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male's genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she's capable of attracting. Rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by a biologicaly seated need for security, the feminine develops social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment does) to effect this. And, in light of advances in decoding the human genetic code, this old methodology is being uncovered in earnest for the first time. I would speculate that the small percentage of men represented in this article is actually much bigger, being affected by the simple fact that some women are better able to keep the secret and that tracing genetic disease is a realatively new science. Men are not only up against a female genetic imperative, but also a centuries long feminine social convention established from a time long before human beings could accurately determine genetic origins.

I've aleady detailed in many prior posts that mate selection is a psycho-biological function that our millenias of evolution has hardwired into both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective psyches that we rarely recognize that we're subject to these motivators even when we continually repeat the same behaviors manifested by them. So saying that we're not subject to conditions we're not, or are only vaguely aware of is a bit naive.

It's simple deductive logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide it's offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure it's survival - either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate her own genetics allow her to attract and who can provide long term security for her and their potential offspring. Thus women are the filters of their own reproduction where as men's reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest available quantity of fertile females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic hosts for his reproduction (i.e. she's gotta be hot), but this criteria is certainly less discriminating than that for women (i.e. no one's ugly after 2am). This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; men posess 17 times the amount of testosterone women do and women produce substantially more estrogen and oxytocin than men.

That stated, both of these methodologies conflict in practice. For a woman to best ensure the survival of her young, a man must necessarily abandon his method of reproduction. This then sets an imperative for him to pair with a woman who will satisfy his methodology. A male must sacrifice his reproduction schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. With so much genetic potential at stake on his part of the risk, he want's not only to ensure that she is the best possible candidate for breeding with, but also to know that his progeny will benefit from both parents involvement.

One interesting outcome of this psycho-biological dynamic is men's ability to spot their own children in a crowd of other children more quickly and with greater accuity than even their mothers. Studies have shown that men have the ability to more quickly and accurately identify their own children in a room full of kids dressed in the same uniforms than the mothers of the child. Again, this stresses the subconscious importance of this genetic trade off.

Social Convention

To counter this subconscious dynamic to their own genetic advantage women initiate social conventions and psychological schemas to better facilitate their own breeding methodologies. This is why women always have the "prerogative to change her mind" and the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men's behavior is constrained to a higher standard to "do the right thing" which is invarably to the advantage of a woman. This is why guys who are 'Players', and fathers who abandon mothers and children to pursue their innate reproduction method are villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise are considered heroes for complying with women's genetic imperatives.

This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as LJBF rejections, women's propensity for victimhood (as they've learned that this engenders 'savior' mental schemas for men's breeding schedules - Capn' Save a Ho) and even marriage itself.

Good Dads vs Good Genes

The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only at a sexually viable peak for a short window of time (generally their 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to it's environment (i.e stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.

Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic, so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man has, she must invent and constantly modify social conventions to keep the advantage in her biological favor.

Reproductive Schedules

This paradox then necessitates that women (and by defalut men) must subscribe to short term and long term schdules of mating. Short term schedules facilitate breeding with the Good Genes male, while long term breeding is reserved the Good Dad male. This convention and the psycho-social schemas that accompany it are precisely why women will marry the Nice Guy, stable, loyal, (preferably) doctor and still fvck the pool boy or the cute surfer she met on spring break. In our genetic past a male with good genes implied an ability to be a good provider, but modern convention has thwarted this so new social and mental schemas had to be developed for women.

Cheating

For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to 'cheat'. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively.

In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in an extramarital or pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That's not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the committed male provider is capable of supplying.

Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dillema. This form of 'cheating' relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security.

I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously recognized, master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. I fervently believe that for the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to it's influence. For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she's able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring's survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.
 

Rollo Tomassi

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
5,336
Reaction score
337
Age
56
Location
Nevada
The Cuckold

On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women's justifications for it. Or they become frustrated by the social pressures to 'do the right thing' and are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed by feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to stear clear of single mothers, etiher by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for - no matter how involved or uninvolved - another man's successful reproduction efforts with this woman.

The man in this position is (or at the very least interpreted as) a Cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as his mates short term partner(s) to the same degree, in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Genes father's progeny. It could be argued that he may contibute minimally to their wellfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man's genetic material in exchange for limited form of sexuality/intimacy from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contibutes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology. It is simply not worth his effort to couple with a single mother when compared to a woman without children.

However, needless to say, there is no shortage of men sexually deprived enough to 'see past' the long term disadvantages, and not only rewarding, but reinforcing a single mother's bad decisions (bad from his own interest's POV) with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. Furthermore, by reinforcing her behavior thusly, he reinforces the social convention for both men and women. It's important to bear in mind that in this age women are ultimately, soley responsible for the men they choose to mate with (baring rape of course) AND giving birth to their children. Men do bear responsibility for their actions no doubt, but it is ultimately the decision of the female and her judgement that decides her and her children's fate.
 

FatHairyM4F

Don Juan
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Location
Your house!
KarmaSutra said:
They need a steady guy to take care of a kid who (more than likely) he didn't Father, a guy with a decent income, but most importantly security.
So even to get a woman who will most likely cheat on me and won't really love me, I'd need to have money (which I don't) and be willing to support and raise kids (which I'm not). In other words, even an AFC has to have SOMETHING a woman would want. Guess I really am sh!t out of luck as far as finding a woman who will take me just the way I am.
 

Don Waldo

Don Juan
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
FatHairyM4F said:
So even to get a woman who will most likely cheat on me and won't really love me, I'd need to have money (which I don't) and be willing to support and raise kids (which I'm not). In other words, even an AFC has to have SOMETHING a woman would want. Guess I really am sh!t out of luck as far as finding a woman who will take me just the way I am.
So start improving qualities about yourself...Like get in shape & shave! :D
 

Rollo Tomassi

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
5,336
Reaction score
337
Age
56
Location
Nevada
FatHairyM4F said:
So even to get a woman who will most likely cheat on me and won't really love me, I'd need to have money (which I don't) and be willing to support and raise kids (which I'm not). In other words, even an AFC has to have SOMETHING a woman would want. Guess I really am sh!t out of luck as far as finding a woman who will take me just the way I am.
One thing I think is slipping past you here is that women are on different schedules of mating for different periods of their lives. Between the ages of 18 and 27, most women practice sexual behaviors associated with short term mating schedules. Physical attraction and availability of sexual encounters are more important criteria for her intimacy, and sex usually is contained in short term committment or breif encounters (ONSs). That's not to exclude women from getting married or seeking long term potential mates in this period, but it's the criteria for her sexual acceptance that dictates her choices, and a woman at the peak of her attractiveness and sexual availabilty is more prone to base her sexual choices according to physical conditions rather than long term provisioning capacity in a man. Ergo, we see the majority of failed marriages coming from couples married during their 20s. In fact it is statistically verifiable that the younger a couple is when they get married the more likely they are to divorce. It could be concluded that this is due to long term choices being made by immature individuals with no real sense of what constitutes the criteria for long term viability and therefore they rely on their short term breeding shcedule and end up with long term consequences. Thus we have the couple marrying due to an unwanted pregnancy and women seeming more fickle in their sexual selection during Spring Break in Cancun.

What you're describing is the effects of a long term schedule of mating. It's no secret that women have a laundry list of prerequisites they set as conditions for a man's acceptability into long term intimacy. He must be attractive, financially stable, possess status (some call this power), have a sense of humor, be sensitive to her needs, be decisive, be a good listener, be single (usually), he must initiate, have confidence, have ambition and the motivation to pursue it, be passionate, etc. etc. and the list goes on and on. Men have one criteria for intimacy - she's got to be hot. Attractiveness and sexual availabilty are the only prerequisites necessary for him to engage in sexual behavior with a woman.

As a woman ages these conditions shift and become re-prioritized according to her physical attractiveness and capacity to compete with other women for acceptable men's attentions. They insticntively know that as they age their sexual marketability decreases, while a man's capacity to meet her conditions for her (and other women's) intimacy increases (or at least should mature better). This then serves as an establishing operation for her to reorder her conditions, better maintain her physique and/or devlop mental/social schemas which constrain men into their own conditions. In order to better ensure the broadest pool of eligible, "Husband Material", men while simultaneously competing for men's attentions with other, generally younger and more attractive females, older women have devloped social contrivances to covertly and psychologically convince them (and younger women I might add) it is their responsibility to embody what they believe is entitled and expected from them.
 

IamtheAlphamale

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Messages
576
Reaction score
109
Being AFC basically means being insecure. So women don't want AFC's even though they are nice because they are not attracted to them.

Being a bad boy means your attractive BUT you take too much risk and don't think of the future and possibly treat women like ****.

Nice guy.. well what happens is they grow up a bit and have more of an idea of what they are attracted to but at the same time you basically need some of the qualities which this board talks about to pull it off.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
3,961
Reaction score
36
Professor Rollo, you crack me up:) I take it that your previous posts are part of your book-- that was overkill!

The reason, in a nutshell, is that mature women look for nice guys because they make good husbands who will provide for them, to the contrary bad boys will be bad providers and thus bad husbands!!
 

backbreaker

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
11,643
Reaction score
573
Location
monrovia, CA
IamtheAlphamale said:
Being AFC basically means being insecure. So women don't want AFC's even though they are nice because they are not attracted to them.

Being a bad boy means your attractive BUT you take too much risk and don't think of the future and possibly treat women like ****.

Nice guy.. well what happens is they grow up a bit and have more of an idea of what they are attracted to but at the same time you basically need some of the qualities which this board talks about to pull it off.

Close... but not quite


Actually, AFC's and Bad Boys'/Jerks share alot in common. They are bot
h extremely insecure.

The difference between the sterotypical AFC and the sterotypical Jerk is how they mask it (if at all).

AFC's are more passive agressive. More introverted. Kills you with kindness. He makes it impossible for a woman to say NO. She says lets just be friends when she really isn't interested, because of his ovbious lack of selt esteem


the JERK on the other hand are more extroverted. They pretend that they don't care, when that's all they really want. They don't let themselves get in anything serious not becuase thye are too cool, but they are afraid to get hurt. A love scorn Jerk is not a pretty sight. They go to desperate measures to hide their emotions.

Now, it's not that women LOVE jerks. Quite the contary. To me it's the equivlant of betting on a bunch of cheap 2k claiming race hroses at CharlesTown..... "betting by default" is what I call it. Picking who you don't like to win the LEAST. going with this theory, women would PERFER a well rounded man, but if given the choice between a 100% jerk and a 100% AFC, the jerk will win 9 out of 10 times, at least until a woman gets to the point where she has to lock a man down for life.

AFC's are on the bottom on the totum poll. A woman would rather spend years trying to FIX a jerk than to take an AFC.. that's how low they are. AFC's are the car equivlant to Kia's (no offense), no one goes out looking for one and you take it only when you have to.


Both of these male problem types are that they are insecure about themselves. They are afraid of either being single (AFC's) or being hurt ( Jerks). It's only once you get rid of these fears, that you become a Good Guy, which is what a DJ should strive to be.
 

PigAdlemPimp

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
IsiMan84 said:
^ That's pretty much it in a nutshell. She'll bang all the DJ's during her drunken weekends in college, then shack up with the AFC who's bringing in a steady income and will probably take the first thing he can get.
It is possible for a dude to have a good income and be a DJ at the same time, not every dude who makes money is an AFC.
An AFC is a dude who can't live without sex and becomes so desperate to get it that he lets any hot babe walk all over him to get it.
 

DJVladdy

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
1,044
Reaction score
17
To the first poster: dude u have to wake the **** up. Why are u even asking such questions, why are u worrying about this? what he **** do answers to his question have to do with so many chumps becoming MEN??
 

mrRuckus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
4,451
Reaction score
87
Rollo Tomassi said:
They insticntively know that as they age their sexual marketability decreases
Instinctively? I'd think it would be like a giant billboard flashing "GUYS PAY ME LESS ATTENTION NOW" more than anything instinctual.
 

mrRuckus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
4,451
Reaction score
87
backbreaker said:
AFC's are more passive agressive. More introverted. Kills you with kindness.

the JERK on the other hand are more extroverted.
I get by pretty well being an introverted jerk with dashes of unexpected kindness.

"Did that guy who just made fun of my feet and berated me for saying 'like' too much just open my car door for me?"
 

MatureDJ

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
4,357
Here's a smart strategy

FatHairyM4F said:
So even to get a woman who will most likely cheat on me and won't really love me, I'd need to have money (which I don't) and be willing to support and raise kids (which I'm not). In other words, even an AFC has to have SOMETHING a woman would want. Guess I really am sh!t out of luck as far as finding a woman who will take me just the way I am.
The only smart alternative is to treat such women as fvck buddies that can be discarded at any time. Give indications that you would not have a problem with eventually marrying a single mother (i.e., don't say, "I won't marry a single mommy".) This will cause her to think that steady sex is enough to rope you in. You keep taking the steady sex, and when she eventually gives you the talk, you say that you are happy the way things are, and aren't ready to get married. She will eventually close her legs, at which time you can dump her.

You would succeed at your goal of free (or at least quite cheap) secured steady sex. She would fail at her goal of securing a provisioner. You win!
 

tmpgstx

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
1,331
Reaction score
7
Location
Somewherez in USofA
Nice post Rolland. Some women can have it all but throw it away too.

In other words, they can attract a physically dominate, intelligent, good-looking, charming and successful guy, but choose not to go with him. This almost seems too common with LSE girls. They only date what they're comfortable with.

Many don't know how good-looking they really are so their values lye with their perceptions of themselves projected onto their selections.
 
Top