Continuing from yesterday…

"Whatcha gonna do / When they come for you?"

So why exactly does a bad boy seem to "get" more women? Leaving aside the repugnant assumptions inherent in that query (which would be an article in itself), the simple answer seems to be they're self-centered and arrogant enough to simply keep propositioning one woman after another until they find the ones insecure or weak enough to say yes. This is not to say these women don't know they're with a bad boy, or even that they're happy about it. Hm… thinking about it, I could also see the possibility that a strong and secure woman might say yes, simply because she's amused and would like a quick fling.

Two correspondents sent me links which I found interesting. The first one is Bad guys really do get the most girls (click here if that link is dead). I have two issues with this report — both of which might well be easily cleared up simply by reading the original studies, but unfortunately they're not actually cited. First, it is highly questionable science to examine behavior patterns now in existence — and then assert these must be based on genetic evolution. To do so implies we should be able to find those genes — and I've yet to read a report on the amazing discovery of the male's "selfish-asshole" gene. ;)

Thank goodness for that, too. Biology is not destiny, after all… and we can chose to change our behaviors — like rational and sapient adults.

Secondly, while this report seems to assume bad boys are validated by these behaviors being supposedly being evolutionary traits, I don't find that a compelling argument. It's been my experience "it's evolution!" is used as validation, and is well reported by the media, only when the study in question glorifies those in power. When the supposed evolutionary trait shows men are not as dominant and fierce and powerful as they'd like to see themselves, the study is instead either politely ignored, or actively attacked.

As an example, we could rightfully assert that since we are most closely related to the bonobo chimpanzee, the "correct" and "natural" human society is one which closely approximates bonobo society. Such a society would be one where (for a quick example) matrilines dominate and any male foolish enough to strike a female will be rapidly swamped or driven out by that female's infuriated female relatives. Further, male social success would be predicated mostly on whether the male in question had the fortune to be born into a matriline led by a dominant female.

No, I don't see that happening any time soon either. Pity. I like bonobos. ;)

The second link (thanks, George!) leads to a "dating advice" column which also basically agrees with what I concluded, even as it made me wince at how that conclusion was presented: Dating Secret Exposed: Why Nice Guys Finish Last (click here if that link is dead). I was a bit appalled at the inherent assumption that people are either property or prizes to be won, along with the implied push for "real" men to be "players." Despite that, however, I do think a relevant message — for both men and women — can be found in it: Value Yourself.

"To write well, is to think well" — George Buffon

Argh, my horribly death-full prose! I can tell the original article was a very early Firestarter: I jump around too much ideologically, I do not always leave a mental "breadcrumb trail" for my conclusions, and I'd not yet learned to a) link to every referenced source I could, and b) keep text copies of the sources for if/when those links went dead! Well, at least the closure was a nice call to action — I always prefer to hear about an issue and how I can help, as opposed to reading nothing more than a depressing litany of how much something sucks and we're all doomed — doomed, I tell you!

Hm… re-reading, I see there's at least one thought thread in the article where I found myself thinking, "What does this add to my argument?!" Wondering what point I was trying to make: not a good sign! Ah, well. I like to think my mental processes, as well as my writing, have improved since then. ;)

Also, I have a question for my readers: it was recommended to me that I break up my longer Firestarters somewhat. Instead of having the entire article available on one web page, my friend suggested I have no more than two screens' worth of article at a time, and "roll over" the rest of the article, two screens' worth at a time, to following days. This particular article is the first time I've tried it. What do you all think? Is it annoying to wait, or intriguing? Is it easier to read, or more difficult to follow argument threads? Should I stop doing it, or do it more or less?

More thoughts tomorrow! :)

Similar Posts: