Why are men in love with bad boys?

January 17, 2014 § 32 Comments

It is often said that women love bad boys, and the prevailing idea is that women love bad boys intrinsically: it is just inherent to the fallen female nature to find bad boys attractive.  Some time ago I proposed an alternative theory that has taken the world by storm: that women, as natural followers, love whomever it is that men love.  And in our modern liberal society men are in love with bad boys.

It is frequently said that men are natural leaders while women are natural followers.  While it is true that women generally speaking are natural and even visceral followers – all the verbal reassurances in the world aren’t going to speak to her hind brain, which knows what it sees no matter what you say – it is not true that men are natural leaders, full stop.  Men are both natural leaders and natural followers, and the natural patriarchal society is a naturally hierarchical society.

But liberalism rejects social hierarchy, so the longing for masculinity can only be filled, in modern liberal society, by men who are sociopaths.

§ 32 Responses to Why are men in love with bad boys?

  • Zippy says:

    This is why there is a continuous cacophony of “who, then, will lead us?” from the lost children of the manosphere; and why they gravitate to nihilist sociopaths. Many men now seem to have “daddy issues” in virtually the same sense as women. So women do what women with daddy issues do, and sleep with low-value sociopaths; men do what men with daddy issues do, and become followers of low-value sociopaths. The sluts and the Roissy fanboys are not so different from each other.

    And when grownups point out the foolishness of it, the same sort of rationalizations are forthcoming from both the men and the women who are being screwed. “He has a good side, sure he’s bad on X Y and Z but I can take the good parts of him without approving the bad, etc etc.”

    It is actually true that women and men cannot find their place, the place where they belong, in the hierarchy; because the hierarchy has been deliberately destroyed. The answer though isn’t to go out and get a (mental or physical or both) venereal disease from a perverted sociopath.

  • Elspeth says:


  • craig says:

    “…the natural patriarchal society is a naturally hierarchical society. But liberalism rejects social hierarchy, so the longing for masculinity can only be filled, in modern liberal society, by men who are sociopaths.”

    Are you talking about men’s or women’s longing here? Because women’s longing for access to higher levels of a visible hierarchy is Hypergamy 101. Having a fixed social hierarchy doesn’t change that aspect, it merely presents women with stationary targets of attention according to the Money, Power, and Status aspects of the LAMPS acronym.

    If you’re talking about men’s view of masculinity, then your argument is unclear. I’m not sure whether you’re arguing that (a) patriarchal hierarchy is orthogonal to the natural distribution of leaders and followers, thus no man’s masculinity is endangered by another’s social rank, or else that (b) patriarchal hierarchy is an emergent property of the natural distribution of leaders and followers, thus both the man at the top and the man at the bottom deserve to be where they are, generally speaking.

  • Zippy says:

    Are you talking about men’s or women’s longing here?


    Most men are not either leader or follower; most men are both. I’ve run a couple of small companies and haven’t had a ‘boss’ of any kind in decades; but I am still a follower, depending on context.

    Men need masculine leaders, but masculine leaders aren’t allowed in liberal society. So men who can’t abide the situation do what women who can’t abide the situation do: they turn to sociopaths.

  • Mike T says:

    You’ve spent a few posts attacking PUAs, etc. as trash collectors, and I get where you are coming from. I even get your advice on being skeptical about them. However, one thing I think you are missing is that many conservative critics are simply not credible. Their advice on “how to be a man” is the same tired, cliche-driven, feminist-approved rubbish that many young men have tried and gotten seriously burned by using. Many of them are material heretics on religious aspects, and a disturbing number are also formal heretics in the sense that even when called out on their abuse of scripture they stridently defend everything but the most obvious reading (ex. mutual submission in Ephesians 5).

    It’s time to come to grips with the fact that none of this would be happening were it not for the fact that the average Christian male is somewhere between a delta and a gamma in Vox Day’s hierarchy. Roissy is not the problem here. Roissy would not even be getting the time of day were it not for the fact that the way so many young men are raised to be “good men” is so far off from being a man that they have to find men like Roissy, who gets a ton of affirmation from women (one of the highest praises of a man’s masculinity), to be role models.

  • earl says:

    @ Mike T…

    Yes. The PUAs are blind in one eye and the conservatives are blind in the other. And that is why everyone is so very blind.

    The PUAs unmask the destructive side of the female by getting their hands dirty with sinful actions and then brag about the box score. The conservatives and Christian pastors either willfully ignore, brush aside, falsely acclaim that women are pure beacons of virtue, or shame men that they are the reason females have a destructive nature.

    How about we tell the truth…all of human nature is fallen and there is no welfare program other than saying, believing, and living out that Jesus Christ is your savior will save it.

  • peppermint says:

    young White men are offered some truth from trash collectors. You would rather they listen to – who exactly?

    If every single mainstream and non-mainstream voice, for the last 30 years, hadn’t been lying constantly, perhaps young men would not have to hear the truth from trash collectors.

    Every. Single. Voice.

    Some with the hope of getting more [redacted] out of it, like Bill Clinton and most male feminists. Some bullied by power into silence and complicity. Some using the dominant “intellectual” force in their own games. Some with not apparent motivation. Whatever.

    Was the Church telling the truth about women and relationships? You might say, well, yes, if you read between the lines carefully.

    Perhaps you should consider that the men who listen to pick up artists are men, capable of reading critically, and White men, with an inherent impulse to marriage.

  • Zippy says:

    “Who will love me?” asks the girl with daddy issues, and the sociopaths respond. “Who will lead me?” asks the boy with daddy issues, and the sociopaths respond.

    “Don’t go with the sociopath” says the adult; and the child answers “to whom, then, shall I turn?”

    That describes the objective state of affairs. And the person who says “not the sociopath” is not your enemy.

  • Zippy, in my blogroll I describe you as the most politely offensive person I’ve ever read. Loving this series of posts. I think you’ve nailed it.

  • herbie31 says:

    Maybe I’m nitpicking here, but I think the modern liberal very much accepts a social hierarchy even if they blather on about egalitarianism. Whether it’s an Al Gore(who is relatively high in the hierarchy) or your average feminist looking to secure a better spot at the table, this seeking of power or advantages is part of what makes up social hierarchies. The further left we go(i.e. towards communism) the greater the hierarchical contrasts will be.

  • The world is the way it is because we Christians are the way we are. If young men are following the example of cads, it’s because we failed to articulate and demonstrate the better way. Bill Clinton, the Ur-cad, said that people will follow someone who is loud and wrong before they will someone who is timid and right. It’s not enough to say “Don’t follow the sociopath.” We have to point them toward he who is the Alpha and the Omega.

  • earl says:

    I agree you shouldn’t follow sociopaths…but that leaves a vacuum that has to be filled by something. You have to give them the alternative…instead of a list of things you’ve done and say “be this”. That may not work for everyone.

    Pray and ask God for the tools you need for your specific situation is the alternative that works. Then get off your butt and use those tools.

  • @Zippy

    From an evolutionary perspective, it is a novel situation (and one for which humans have not been adapted by natural selection) that women have sole choice of the marriage (sexual) partners.

    In all traditional societies parents have a substantial and often the major influence:


    This means that instincts about sex/ marriage partners are at best misleading, and most likely counter-productive.

    Another factor is alcohol – this is a major factor in bad sexual decisions, especially in women:


    From these analyses, effective societal-level answers to the problems are pretty obvious.

  • […] Many commenters have misunderstood the situation and are still asking questions based on a fantasy. […]

  • Zippy says:

    Maybe I’m nitpicking here, but I think the modern liberal very much accepts a social hierarchy even if they blather on about egalitarianism.

    It isn’t that liberals accept hierarchy; it is that they can’t avoid it in practice and inevitably end up building their own inherently perverse and dysfunctional hierarchies under a cloud of denial. Liberalism is ultimately incoherent — it isn’t even consistent in its own internal concepts, let alone in its encounter with reality.

    But that doesn’t mean that liberals don’t believe in liberalism – especially where it is most socially important, that is, as a default prejudice in all situations where there isn’t room for deep thought. As a result we’ve become a society that is very adept at ignoring the reality right in front of our faces; a problem that is particularly acute among so-called conservatives.

    Different factions of liberalism are always accusing each other of not really believing in freedom and equality, because every political authority ultimately has to discriminate authoritatively. That’s what authority is: the imposition of discrimination in favor of a particular conception of the good. So yes, all liberals in practice do impose hierarchy and do discriminate. This is inevitable.

    But it is a mistake to conclude that liberals are not really committed to liberalism. They are.

  • Zippy says:

    Hello Bruce,
    From these analyses, effective societal-level answers to the problems are pretty obvious.

    Those levers are very much beyond our grasp though. Most things are, which is why the cry “to whom then should we go” cannot be answered, at least not in the way that the people asking it would like it to be answered. What folks need to do, for their own good, is face that fact. They have no one to go to, to get the kind of answers they want.

    Modernity wanted a society of fully autonomous individuals, and has more or less gotten what it wanted: billions of people completely alone, isolated, and without trustworthy guidance or leadership.

    I can’t fix that, but I can still advise those few who will listen not to go to nihilistic sociopathic perverts to get the fix of “masculinity” they crave.

  • herbie31 says:


    Agreed. I take them at their word(or actions) when they(liberals) say they are committed to liberal causes.

    As far as conservatives go, I think this problem is a bit more complicated. It’s not that the reality is being ignored but that they are rendered impotent due to the tidal wave of leftism infecting our government and culture. It would be to the country’s benefit to get more quality conservatives in public office but ultimately the battle will be decided in “everyday America.” We have to be prudent in deciding what’s best for our families and country and – if we choose wisely – the ship will eventually be righted. But, given the path we’ve taken to this point, it will be a monumental achievement.

  • Red says:

    Women adore child killers. Men do not.
    Women adore rape. Men do not.
    Women adore liars. Men do not.

    Your argument fails.

    [Charming. You sound like a sock puppet with the goal of making Team PUA look bad. -Z]

  • Scott W. says:

    Women adore child killers. Men do not.

    Not really:


    “A pro-abortion activist who sent death threats to a number of pro-life leaders has been sentenced to 41 months in federal prison.

    Theodore Shulman, 51, threatened pro-life Princeton University professor Robert George and Father Frank Pavone, the national director of Priests for Life. He was arrested in February 2011 and has been held without bail ever since.

    The threats against the pro-life advocates, made on the web site of a conservative magazine, said Pavone and George would be killed if the killer of late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller was acquitted.”

  • jf12 says:

    I’m repeating myself here, because I feel I should. This Zippy post lines up with several this weekend across the monogamous manosphere, particularly the anti-Game or at least leery-of-Game sector. Donal Graeme’s version
    was the most explicit in its lament for the inherent badness and sociopathy of Game, and the most wistful in groping for an alternative. Here is his proposed reverse underpants gnome Alternative to Game:
    1. Exude masculinity in a good way.
    2. ???
    3. Collect panties.

    This gets us nowhere, not even back to start.

  • Zippy says:

    Understanding the situation objectively precedes everything else. If your goal is to bed sluts by all means follow the Game gurus — but realize that doing so doesn’t increase your odds much.

    Here is part of a comment I left elsewhere:

    I think the increase in popular antiliberalism called the “red pill”, which has been around since last tuesday, is due to the fact that it (antiliberalism) started being sold with SEX![tm]. Men who had bedded large numbers of bar skanks set themselves up as gurus on women in general, having deluded themselves that they had plumbed some deep well of truth that nobody who came before knew anything about. The shallow beginnings of a partial realization that liberalism is a big lie was cast as being a radical re-perception of reality, a.k.a. the Red Pill.

    The sort of men who found this appealing are the male counterpart of the girls-with-daddy-issues that the PUAs fish out of the pool and take to their beds. As with their female counterparts, these men will defend being the PUA’s bitch no matter what you do to try to reason with them.

  • Yeah, there is no red pill and people obsessed with that conceit are more colonized than many explicit liberals.

    I might take red pill-ism more seriously if it were, y’know, more tethered to reality. But it tends to not match up nearly as often as its proponents claim. Hamsters come in many pill colors, I guess.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: goal. Being an man married to a difficult wife i was looking for alternatives to Doing It Right, which as a Technique works negatively if anything in terms of helping her be better. Game is “Let’s Do It Rong Together”, basically, which seems to work.

  • […] recently about the dangers of treating low-life sexual perverts as leaders of men.  I’ve explained why modern men tend to think bad boys are cool, and I’ve proposed that women love bad boys […]

  • […] has been suggested that modern women are attracted to bad boys (men who make poor fathers) because women themselves just have an inherently disordered nature in that respect.  Women are […]

  • […] think that the manosphere reaction to this post lends some support to the Zippy hypothesis. Summarized by […]

  • […] but because liberalism defines what is socially acceptable the only real hierarchy that emerges is sociopathic. Folks who don’t understand why sociopathic rock stars are sexy to women but respectable Bill […]

  • […] But is this really true? Let’s look again at the Zippy hypothesis: […]

  • […] This gets to a larger point that goes beyond Game as prescribed behavior. In general the ontology underlying “Game” is disastrously wrong because it amounts to “liberalism for men but not for women”. That is, it basically attempts to be against feminism without being against liberalism more generally, and is thus really just a new form of self-castrating neoconservatism. The reason “neoreaction” attracts so many libertarians is precisely because of this: they see something that proposes to let them keep what they want from liberalism, rather than accepting their place in a naturally hierarchical society of men. […]

  • […] know this may be a difficult “red pill” for some to swallow, but modern men really do love their bad boys.  Our society has loved and promoted the status of bad boys for generations: East of Eden came out […]

  • […] man is both leader and follower.  It is important to be a good follower: not a yes-man toady, which is a form of cowardice, but […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Why are men in love with bad boys? at Zippy Catholic.