Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Biotech Science

Studies Confirm That Bad Boys Get More Girls 960

seattlle foodie sends along a New Scientist article outlining two recent studies that confirm what many have long suspected: bad boys get the most girls. "The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the 'dark triad' persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs. The traits are: the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking, and callous behavior of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism. At their extreme, these traits would be highly detrimental for life in traditional human societies. People with these personalities risk being shunned by others and shut out of relationships, leaving them without a mate, hungry and vulnerable to predators."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Studies Confirm That Bad Boys Get More Girls

Comments Filter:
  • Re:but.. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21, 2008 @01:55PM (#23886741)

    Its not really the "bad boy" like the article claims.

    Girls are attracted to that guy who steps on everybody's toes for his own personal gains. A go getter, powerful person who aims high. These are people with leadership qualities, and in the "badboy" circle, they're "ring leaders."

    Girls run after these guys because with such a mate, her offsprings would have a better chance of survival.

    That would be true if the offspring were wolves. It would be the opposite for apes.

    My point is that these qualities don't increase the probability of survival for human offspring. Risky behavior and actions that cause conflicts are often quite fatal in human society. Apes don't survive if they take a lot of risks. Passive and risk adverse behavior are better suited to survival. The same is true for humans.

  • by Chas ( 5144 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @02:08PM (#23886837) Homepage Journal

    No, it's not. You're a victim of misreading and over-editing.

    You missed the key sentence.

    At their extreme , these traits would be highly detrimental for life in traditional human societies.

    They're saying that while a little of these traits can get you laid, excessive levels of them wind up getting you ostracized from society.

  • Re:That's nice (Score:5, Informative)

    by aliquis ( 678370 ) <dospam@gmail.com> on Saturday June 21, 2008 @03:00PM (#23887331) Homepage

    If she really do say that isn't that more or less an invite? Have you tried kissing her once she say it? If not the blame is on you my friend.

  • Re:but.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by lena_10326 ( 1100441 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @04:44PM (#23888363) Homepage

    Some girls like nice guys, you know. Not weak guys. Nice guys.
    Bingo. Not weak guys.

    By the way, weak can mean a number of things.
    • physically puny, or smaller than her
    • shy
    • no confidence
    • begging
    • missing the most glaring of signals and cues
    • trying too hard
    • being desperate
    • being transparent
    • never making the move
    • bad timing
    • awkwardness
  • Re:That's nice (Score:3, Informative)

    by ppanon ( 16583 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @04:59PM (#23888543) Homepage Journal

    • Press the Reply button
    • Click in the comment text entry field to give it the focus
    • Press the RMB to get the pop-up menu
    • Navigate to Languages->Add Dictionaries...
    • Select a UK or Canadian English dictionary
    • Get into trolling arguments about the spelling of colour, honour, etc. claiming you must be right because your spell-checker confirms it
  • by jcgf ( 688310 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @06:08PM (#23889175)
    If not immaturity, what is it? Answers not insults please.
  • Re:That's nice (Score:5, Informative)

    by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @06:11PM (#23889197)

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19374216/ [msn.com]
    29% of men 9% of women have had 15 or more partners. (meaning 71% have had less)

    http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2004Content.asp?intQid=401 [durex.com]
    average around the world 10.5

    http://www.physorg.com/news10824.html [physorg.com]
    this ones neat because men claimed an average of 31. but 21% of those admitted to lying, to boost their numbers on the the same survey, and of the group that claimed more than 50 partners over 50% of them also admitted to lying.

    http://aspe.hhs.gov/HSP/97trends/sd4-4.htm [hhs.gov]
    69% of sexually active teen males reported http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6204119
    "Almost one in three American men say they've had sex with at least 15 partners in their lives, triple the rate of similar behavior found in interviews with women, according to a government survey. "

    Meaning 2 in 3 have had less.

    "The average number of female sexual partners for men was 6.8, said Kathryn Porter, a medical officer for the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics in Hyattsville, Maryland, and one of the study's co-authors. Women reported an average of 3.7 male sexual partners, she said."

    http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1100 [data360.org]
    This one is neat too, because it breaks down by country, the USA is ~10.5 (it apparently is based on the same data as the durex link.) Turkey ranks highest at 14.5.

    The numbers are apparently going up though, when you compare 1960s and 70s surveys to more recent surveys... or maybe people just lie more. After all the sixty's was the era of 'free love'.

    Apparently it also varies heavily based on where you live. I think I read somewhere that New York city is apparently double or triple the national average.

  • Re:That's nice (Score:5, Informative)

    by NMerriam ( 15122 ) <NMerriam@artboy.org> on Saturday June 21, 2008 @09:02PM (#23890355) Homepage

    Who equates all sex with violence?

    It was Andrea Dworkin in the 80s who really pushed the idea in academia that any penetrative sex was inherently violent (though I don't recall if she ever directly addressed the question of male-male penetration). there were a number of second-wave feminists who sort of rallied around that concept, elaborating that because women were disadvantaged economically and socially that it was difficult if not impossible for a woman to truly give consent to sex.

    This ultimately led to the false idea that Dworkin and McKinnon or others had claimed all sex was rape, which they hadn't, although they certainly seemed to think a large majority of heterosexual sex was nonconsensual and violent, so depending on your point of view it may simply be splitting hairs either way.

    This all set up the stage for the third-wave "sex positive" feminists, who were largely in reaction to the earlier group, and it's a pretty deep philosophical schism that continues to be debated in almost any large group of women today. That's how you can have some feminists arguing that all pornography is inherently advocating violence against women, while at the same time the Suicide Girls consider themselves to be striking a blow for feminism.

  • by Rakshasa Taisab ( 244699 ) on Sunday June 22, 2008 @12:32AM (#23891559) Homepage

    We don't even need a whole hand... Just three fingers are enough. ^_^

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.