Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...I'm going to go all armchair psychologist on you. All of what follows is assuming that we're defining bad boys/girls as partners who treat you badly, in whatever way.
I think people are often subconsciously attracted to prospective mates that they think will allow them to resolve problems from the past. The classic example is the person who's attracted to very emotionally distant or unavailable people because they had an emotionally distant or unavailable parent and never got the nurturing and support they needed as a child. Subconsciously, such a person feels if he/she were truly worthy of that nurturing and support, he/she would get it. So if he/she can get with an emotionally distant/unavailable partner and somehow inspire more nurturing and support on the part of that other person, the hole in his/her heart, soul, psyche etc. will be healed and he/she will feel like a worthy person at last.
Only, in 9,999 cases out of 10,000, the emotionally distant/unavailable mate will not change and will not ever come through with the support and nurturing. But the person who needs the nurturing and support just keeps hanging in there, hoping against hope for a different outcome and not even knowing why. There's also a "better the enemy you know, than the enemy you don't" factor at work: however much it hurt to have the emotionally distant/unavailable parent, if it's what you're used to it feels familiar and predictable, and in a way, there's comfort in that.
In these cases, it's not the bad boy or bad girl people get addicted to, it's the possibility of finally healing and feeling worthy that they're addicted to. Then there are the folks with very low self esteem who, on some level, don't truly believe they deserve someone who will treat them right.
Just my .02.
That is a very interesting perspective and food for thought.
Interesting. Tom Lykis, on his radio show has been talking about this very thing for years. The girls, when they are young, bypass the nice guy and hook up with the bad boy. After 10-15 years, a couple of kids, stretch marks, girl has lost her looks, bad boy has dumped her.
Nice guy looks good now because he's been working steady, makes good money, has money saved.
Listen to what Tom has to say and prepare to get educated. It's a 4 part show.
It would take a special woman to lay down with this creep for any amount of money. This guy sounds like a real loser.
Heh, the problem is that most human beings relate to others, emotionally, and sexually ,because of external factors such as height, muscles, breasts, pretty faces, blonde hair, tall, dark and handsome; it has nothing to do with logic.
If people worked with logic when it comes to relationships, then most people would be celibates like me.
Say, to have a relationship you have to spend money. Even if the woman pays for her things, you still have to waste money on gasoline. You still have to pay for your dinner or your tickets or whatever.
Also, most human beings have HPV. HPV is not only bad for women, but I've heard that it might be linked to Prostrate cancer. Then we have that fact that a lot of people are infected with herpes(genital and facial).
You also never know if that friendlly, good looking(or average or ugly) guy is going to murder you when he gets you alone. Or that the sweet little woman is actually a serial rapist.
Logic says that it doesn't make any sense for the individual to have children. Still, I am always seeing tons of babies. It also doesn't make sense for a man and a woman to live together.
Since most relationships are going to die out, it's illogical to invest time and money and emotions on a man/woman.
Funny how it pays to be single and celibate(no stress, no bills to pay, no children to worry about, no stds etc)
But still humans "fall in love", have casual sex, and continue with their obsession with sex and companionship.
Where's the logic in that? How many can break away from their genetic wiring to go out and reproduce and pair up?
So how can you speak of women taking hold of their desire for bad boys, when all sexual and emotional interactions carry a lot of risk and little reward?
That great emotional connection? Science broke it down to chemicals. Love? Same thing. Sex being that good? That's right, it must be. Humans wouldn't waste time with the other sex if that wasn't so, but take in consideration that sex is one of the most powerful drugs out there. Why do people do it? It's not logical?
Because human beings crave pleasant sensations and feelings.
And man, does it feel great to have you own house - paid for - a camaro 2nd generation - a college degree, no student loans, and lots of money in the bank.
How did I achieve this? I looked around when younger, saw how much of a massive load wives and girlfriends are, decided I love money way too much to spend it on something as fleeting as sexual pleasure or "emotional connection".
It does feel great to see all the other guys struggling to pay their rents, their kid's needs etc etc, while I walk around with a huge grin - and extremely plain clothes to keep the gold diggers away.
So... this is what you can achieve when you take full control over your pleasaure centers
My take on bad girls.....sometimes good to look at and to be with sexually, but dangerous to get involved with, on many levels. Not much different to bad boys.
Those who need the drama are desperately addicted to it, or at least addicted to the actions of "saving" the drama king or queen.
My BFF is one of those; he must "SAVE" the drama queens. The first one he married led him a wild goose chase, was never satisfied, and finally got bored with him, left him for a 20-something 'bad boy'. For six months even while she was living with the guy, my BFF 'just knew' she would come back once she 'got him out of her system'. Surprise.
And surprise again when the next woman he took up with and eventually married is also a drama queen. If she isn't fighting with her family, she's causing fights in his. If she isn't jumping from one job to the next, she's collapsing at work in hysterical fits and being put into mental health care for weeks on end. When she comes out, it's back to more drama. At home or at work, she is unstable, cries or gets violent to the point where she has to be restrained, or is out getting drunk and wild with her single friends, male and female. And he's "in love", so he is always there for her, always goes to rescue her, always gets to be the Daddy to her spoiled little girl routine.
My DH and I have been married 29 years, have always had a quiet and stable relationship, and love and respect each other. My BFF thinks that such an equitable relationship is 'boring', and always kids me about it. And - he's absolutely right. No screaming middle-of-the-night fights, no police bringing either one of us home, no having to go out and rescue our spouses from some emotional entanglement or other with friends, family, or strangers. No blowing our money on endless make-up presents, or soon-to-be-forgotten counseling, court appearances, or mental health facilities. No Sturm und Drang, no violence, no tearful recriminations; just warm affection, trust, logic, common sense, and mutual working together for the same goals... NO DRAMA. YAY BORING!
BTW, my DH used to be considered a "bad boy". He wasn't; he just knew what he wanted and wouldn't get married, played the field, until he found it. He was always smart, funny, fun to be with, and worked hard for what he wanted. He didn't want or need a drama queen to satisfy him, and he certainly didn't need to be saved or rescued from himself. But "bad boys" like that are few and far between!
Good article. I found this part to be especially interesting:
Even experiments with animals has shown that if a behavior is intermittently reinforced (such as a chicken pecking at a button and occasionally getting a reward in the form of a treat) an intermittently reinforced behavior will prevail for much longer after the reward is completely removed than if the behavior had been consistently reinforced (such as a reward on every try).
What is interesting and telling about that, is how it sort of explains why people will stay in a bad relationship, perhaps with a "bad boy" or "bad girl", because if the occasional pay off. Like the article reads, it is like the draw to play slot machines. The machine, like a bad relationship or toxic person, is giving back less than you are putting in, but on occasion the payoff is big ...suddenly being showered with attention and affection from the bad boy, etc. It is not logical, but it is somehow behavioural.
It's strange that someone recieving only occasional "rewards" will continue to try longer than someone who is recieving rewards each time they try.
I find that very interesting only because I am under the impression that behavior in general is controlled with rewards.
But you don't understand that the "reward" could actually be what others percieve as a "punishment".
For example, a "reward" is either a peice of raw fish, or a chocolate bar. Most of us would prefer the chocolate bar, but...if we were raised in a culture, that never ate chocolate, and often ate raw fish, the real reward would be the raw fish...it is all based on background.
I know that I was raised in a very negative environment, and when someone treats me nicely, it is almost uncomfortable, I actually prefer being treated badly, because that is what I am used to..sick, yes...but that was my norm.
For example, a "reward" is either a peice of raw fish, or a chocolate bar. Most of us would prefer the chocolate bar, but...if we were raised in a culture, that never ate chocolate, and often ate raw fish, the real reward would be the raw fish...it is all based on background.
I don't see eating the chocolate as a reward in this situation. I see it as a new food experience.
If, however, the person who controlled the chocolate noticed how much I liked it and decided to use it to control me, then I would consider it a reward when I did what he wanted.
But you don't understand that the "reward" could actually be what others percieve as a "punishment".
For example, a "reward" is either a peice of raw fish, or a chocolate bar. Most of us would prefer the chocolate bar, but...if we were raised in a culture, that never ate chocolate, and often ate raw fish, the real reward would be the raw fish...it is all based on background.
I know that I was raised in a very negative environment, and when someone treats me nicely, it is almost uncomfortable, I actually prefer being treated badly, because that is what I am used to..sick, yes...but that was my norm.
The raw fish would be a reward if it was sushi.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of what follows is assuming that we're defining bad boys/girls as partners who treat you badly, in whatever way.
