“Men are dogs.”

How appropriate, women are bitches. :D

Castrated dogs are every feminists wet dream.

hi

Big Tits and Curvy Asses…

This site offers the most awesome reviews of some of the first online and best known sex sites in the World Wide Web. If you are looking for the cream of the crop with regards online sex xxx, then you have got the right place. We got the best of the be…

well be pleased to know that you will never have children because you will never get laid.

Tell that to someone who doesn’t or can’t have children. They will tell you off in a heartbeat if you tell them pets aren’t children.

Aw, dude. I hate it when people carry their dog in their purse. It’s like, they’re dogs! They’re meant to run, not to be zipped into some purse, not to mention how it must be when the dog takes a crap. Nor do dogs like having to be dressed up in a sweater. I got this little reindeer hat thing for my cats, and I only put it on them during Christmas partly because it’s adorable, and partly because I like to torture ‘em a bit. But I wouldn’t go and pay good money for an actual sweater. The dog doesn’t enjoy it. They’d prefer a field, not a purse. And their fur, not a sweater. Although, my mom met a guy who had endless pictures of his dog and referred to it as his child.

Plus, babies need to be fed around every two hours, regardless of whether or not it’s night, so I’m sure women have a harder time than men since it’s the women getting up. Unless the guy happens to be able to produce breastmilk, it’s obvious why the woman would be more tired than the guy.

Me>Everyone Else.

Women=men. It’s a known fact. Just because your brain isn’t working right, doesn’t mean that men are better than women. They aren’t. All of your “proof” and comparisons are faulty and illogical. What facts do you have? Sure, some women are like that, but the vast majority isn’t. Just because you’ve had a bad relationship or experience with one or two doesn’t mean that all of us are like that. In fact, if anything Women>men. I’m sure some men will comment, saying some stupid shit, but hey, who gives a fuck? Just knowing I’m right is good enough for me! Have a terrible day!

Oh, and dogs suck. <3

Most Women Are Attracted To Violent Criminals, Dangerous Psychopaths, And Brutal Mass Murderers

What women say they want…

For hundreds of years, ever since the institutional collapse of arranged marriage in late medieval Europe and the gradual emergence of the modern Western heterosexual marketplace, prospective bachelors have wondered what it is that women truly desire in a sex partner. It is not so much that female mate preference is somehow very complicated or even very sophisticated for that matter, because it is not; what women want is really quite obvious, even straightforward, and has been known long before the civilizations of the ancient Mesopotamian plateau actually flourished and the classical Near East began production of the first cuneiform tablets. In the current sociological/psychological literature, the dispute is often conceptualized as involving the dysgenic effects of female reproductive choice, and whether either altruism or aggressive displays of testosterone-related masculinity are eventually selected as the proper conduits through which the core objectives of the female reproductive strategy are effectively met. Unfortunately, what does seem to complicate matters quite a bit is the level of attitude-belief inconsistency and other forms of behavioural irrationality by which women often articulate their sexual preferences, specifically as it relates to the so-called “nice guy stereotype”.

According to the “nice guy stereotype”, women say that they want “nice guys”, but in actuality, secretly crave the awesome challenge posed by trying to rein in and reform a “bad boy”. On a more positive note, it seems clear from the research of McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) that although women may claim to want a “nice guy”, pretending hypocritically to be really searching for such a personality type, the common man in the street and the typical bachelor who frequents the local pub still persist in believing that women overwhelmingly prefer “bad boys” instead.

In the study Young women’s dating behavior: Why/Why not date a nice guy? (2005), the researcher McDaniel writes:

A common refrain among men is the observation that women do not like (or more appropriately, do not want to date) nice guys. Popular cultural texts that range from Kuriansky’s (1996) The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Dating to Internet articles such as Overthelimit.com’s “The Myth of the Nice Guy” (Guy in a Trenchcoat, 2002) suggest that women claim they want a “nice guy” because they believe that that is what is expected of them when, in reality, they want the so-called “challenge” that comes with dating a not-so-nice guy. Scholarly texts seem to echo this general claim, as does the opinion of the anonymous man.

The gentle, compassionate man who reads magazine surveys indicating that his qualities are the very ones that most women prefer in a mate may be the same man who is repeatedly turned down by women who seek the company of more atavistic males … Women go for heroes while saying they want vulnerability and later try to persuade their partners to become more sensitive and vulnerable, rather than initially pursuing sensitive and vulnerable men (Desrochers, 1995, p. 376).

However, when women are asked about the subject, they almost always claim to desire a nice guy … so long as he is not too nice (Gray, 1997).

Urbaniak and Kilman describe the “nice guy stereotype” this way in their 2006 paper, Niceness and dating success: a further test of the nice guy stereotype:

The nice guy stereotype asserts that women in today’s society display contradictory attitudes and behaviors regarding whom they choose as dating partners. At least since the rise of the second wave of feminism, many women have expressed a desire to date kind, sensitive, and emotionally expressive men, rather than more traditionally masculine, distant, and insensitive “macho men” (or, more pejoratively, “jerks.”) Despite this stated preference, however, proponents of the nice guy stereotype argue that, in reality, women still choose to date macho men over nice guys, especially if the macho men are more physically attractive. The nice guys are, subsequently, either outright rejected or relegated to the category of “just friends.” The stereotype even transcends the notion of “looks versus niceness” by suggesting that if a man is “too nice,” a woman will reject him, regardless of physical appearance, in favor of a more macho man who treats her with less respect (e.g., Hollandsworth, 1994; Iverson, 1994; Muller, 2002; Virtual Voyage, 1999).

It is common folk wisdom that, on an international level, women verbally indicate such personal characteristics as being caring, sweet, warm, considerate, understanding, sensitive, compassionate, intelligent, and emotionally expressive as being very sexually attractive when found in eligible males. In light of the data, one question that automatically springs to mind is: How is this finding best interpreted so as to be rigorously subjected to empirical analysis and subsequently quantified mathematically? In the modern social psychological literature in particular, this is most effectively operationalized as the so-called “nice guy” construct, representing a potential male sex partner who is cooperative, generous, sympathetic, kind, reserved and timid. When the prototypical “nice guy” was operationalized as an essentially altruistic individual, as was done in the 1995 study of Jensen-Campbell et al, more recent investigators found that he was rejected each and every single time as a prospective dating/marriage partner. Thus, from all available sources of current information, “nice guys” were typically seen by women as being socially undesirable, sexually unattractive, and were frequently ignored by women who were actively searching for sex/marriage partners. Its diametrical opposite, the “bad boy” construct, has been successfully operationalized by Jonason et al (2008) as the “dark triad” cluster of personality characteristics, consisting of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. These traits function as natural indicators of both male dominance and high socio-economic status, stimulating female heterosexual attraction like an aphrodisiac carefully administered or even strongly scented male sex pheromones.

One tenet which happens to be central to the “nice guy stereotype” is that women will always verbalize a preference for “nice guys” in questionnaires and other survey type studies based on female self-report. A 1986 evolutionary psychology study by Buss and Barnes, entitled Preferences in human mate selection, discovered that the factors of kindness and understanding were the two most desired traits in a sex partner. Nonetheless, this result was only obtained when a methodological approach based on extensive self-reportage was employed. Writing of sexual dimorphism in terms of mate selection preferences, Buss and Barnes observe that:

In relation to men, the women in this sample tended to prefer the following spouse characteristics: considerate, honest, dependable, kind, understanding, fond of children, well-liked by others, good earning capacity, ambitious and career-oriented, good family background, and tall…

Moreover, according to a 1995 study conducted by Jensen-Campbell et al, entitled Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last?, it was found that both male dominance and having a prosocial behavioural orientation (“being nice”) were highly correlated with female heterosexual attraction. The authors write that:

Across all measures attraction was an interactive function of dominance and prosocial tendencies. Dominance alone did not increase any form of attraction measured.

Another 1995 study, this time conducted by the researcher Stephan Desrochers and entitled What types of men are most attractive and most repulsive to women?, operationalized the “nice guy” construct as being typically representative of feminized males and the “bad boy” construct as being typically representative of masculinised males. The results obtained through the study itself suggested that university women seemed to have a preference for more feminine, as opposed to masculine, male types. Nevertheless, towards the end of the study, Desrochers discounted the results, suggesting that because the findings were based on a small subpopulation of women (university women), the generalizability of such findings were limited to the population in question. Moreover, Desrochers argued that highly educated women would select male sex partners on the basis of socio-economic status and earning potential, therefore selecting more feminine males, whereas women of lower socio-economic status and lesser education would select men on the basis of such traits as aggressiveness, violent temperament, and testosterone-related features of physiological masculinity, displaying a marked preference for more masculinised males.

However, given the widespread sexual preference of women for “tough guys”, “macho men”, violent, psychopathic criminals, and other unsavoury types, in contemporary popular culture, some more recent investigators argue that these earlier reports of female sexual preference are seriously methodologically flawed, being based upon the relatively unreliable measure of female self-reportage, rather than empirical observation of actual female socio-sexual behaviour. Various academic studies designed to investigate self-reported female sexual preferences in different kinds of male sex partners have reached similar conclusions: that women self-report that they want “nice guys”, whereas other researchers suggest (Urbaniak and Kilman, 2003, 2006), that when multiple regression and factor analysis of questionnaire results are substituted for actual observation of female behavioural response, women will more often than not choose the most aggressive, physically dominant, and least agreeable male available for reproductive access. This is because the methodological principles which underlie measures of female self-reportage openly conflict with the well-established empirical finding that there is an actual discrepancy between what women say they want and whom they choose as an intimate partner on a strictly behavioural level. Moreover, these very contradictory attitudes towards mate selection are suggestive of a universal female cognitive dissonance, and highlights the frequent attitude-behaviour inconsistency that is a fundamental, if not endlessly recurring aspect of female socio-sexual behaviour.

In their recent sociological analysis of the “nice guy” construct, Physical attractiveness and the “nice guy paradox”: do nice guys really finish last? (2003), Urbaniak and Kilman discuss some of the technical difficulties with previous studies of female sexual preference:

… Although the studies reviewed above demonstrated that women prefer to date “nice guys,” almost all relied solely on self-reported preferences rather than on actual behaviors. Actual behaviors are not always highly related to self-reports. For example, Sprecher (1989) asked participants to read a script in which a member of their same sex supposedly described a target member of the other sex on variables of physical attractiveness, expressiveness, and earning potential.

In the physical attractiveness manipulation, participants were told that the target had previously been rated as high or low on attractiveness by a previous rater. The participants then rated how much they would be attracted to the target and afterward rated how much they thought the three variables (attractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness) had contributed to their liking of the target. Expressiveness was reported as the most important factor, when, in fact, physical attractiveness was the most important factor behaviorally. Wiederman and Dubois (1998) found a similar discrepancy between self-perceptions and behavior, particularly among women. Descriptions of potential short-term mates were experimentally manipulated so that they varied along six dimensions: physical attractiveness, financial resources, generosity, sexual experience/interest, current relationship status, and desired level of relationship commitment. The physical attractiveness manipulation was the most important factor in predicting ratings of desirability for men and women alike. Men accurately acknowledged that physical attractiveness was the most important characteristic that influenced their ratings of a desirable partner. Women rated desired level of relationship commitment as the most important factor that influenced their mate selection when, in fact, it was one of the least important factors behaviorally. …

The same concern as to the validity of the previous studies in terms of methodological approach is also reiterated in a follow up study by Urbaniak and Kilman, Niceness and dating success: a further test of the nice guy stereotype (2006). In the report, both researchers acknowledge that there is a sharp disconnect between self-reported female sexual preference and actual female mate choice:

Weiderman and Dubois (1998) used behavioral measures to assess women’s preferences for a mate and found a discrepancy between self-perceptions and behavior, particularly among women. For both men and women, the physical attractiveness manipulation was the most important factor in predicting ratings of desirability. Men accurately indicated that the physical attractiveness of the targets was the most important characteristic that influenced their desirability ratings, whereas women inaccurately indicated that desired level of relationship commitment was their most important factor, when, in fact, it was one of the least important factors behaviorally. Sprecher (1989) found similar results, in that women inaccurately assessed the role of physical attractiveness in their own ratings of a target man. The women in Sprecher’s study reported that expressiveness was the most important factor in their choice, although it was the least important factor behaviorally. Physical attractiveness was the most important factor that actually influenced their ratings. The results of these two studies suggest that women’s self-reported preferences may not match their actual choices. Because it is still considered shallow and inappropriate for women to say that physical attractiveness is very important in their choices, those women may have engaged in impression management.

And what the findings of modern empirical research say that women want…

Although women say they want a “nice guy”, many men have been known to complain that such is obviously not the case. Researchers such as McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniuk and Kilman (2003, 2006) have noted repeatedly that in terms of female sexual preference, women display a considerable amount of attitude-behaviour inconsistency, frequently choosing “bad boys” while saying emphatically that they want “nice guys”.

To understand the difficulty inherent within the very situation we are presented with, let us contrast the female preference for “bad boys” with that other major female sexual preference, that for male socio-economic status and male-male hierarchical dominance. It is an established scientific fact that socio-economic status, and more specifically male possession of actual financial wealth, is positively associated with romantic success in the heterosexual marketplace. That women all over the globe prize the size of a man’s bank account over any other male personality trait is a fact which is well-attested to in the peer-reviewed literature on sexual dimorphism in human mate preference. Unlike the so-called female sexual preference for “nice guys”, women neither hide nor find it embarrassing that they both openly and regularly select men on the basis of such shallow, ephemeral criteria as financial wealth and earning capacity. In a 2005 study by Hitsch et al, What Makes You Click: An Empirical Analysis of Online Dating, it was observed that male socio-economic status, as well as annual male earning power were seen as powerful indicators of who was and wasn’t romantically successful in the heterosexual marketplace. The researchers write:

Income strongly affects the success of men, as measured by the number of first contact e-mails received. While there is no apparent effect below an annual income of $50,000, outcomes improve monotonically for income levels above $50,000. Relative to incomes below $50,000, the increase in the expected number of first contacts is at least 32%, and as large as 156% for incomes in excess of $250,000. In contrast to the strong income effect for men, the online success of women is at most marginally related to their income. Women in the $35,000-$100,000 income range fare slightly better than women with lower incomes. Higher incomes, however, do not appear to improve outcomes, and are not associated with a statistically different effect relative to the $15,000-$25,000 income range.

Indeed, women not only seem to have a strong preference for very thick wallets and relatively large bank accounts, a preference which happens to be a well-attested empirical fact within much of the peer-reviewed academic literature on the subject, but also prefer “tough guys”, “macho men”, aggressive bullies, thugs, gangsters, bikers, drug dealers, street brawlers, and violent psychopaths. At the very extremes of female heterosexual attraction, a sizable minority of women have been known to seek out even killers and child rapists, such as the Austrian Josef Fritzl and the American Scott Peterson (both of whom have received numerous letters from star-crossed female devotees, professing undying love and endless marriage proposals), as potential boyfriend/husband material. Unlike the well-known female preference for men of high socio-economic status and financial wealth, women have been known to openly verbalize the desire for men who are both sweet and nice, meanwhile covertly selecting actual “bad boys” instead.

Let us now see what the recent sociological/psychological literature has to say concerning the actual nature of female sexual preference and its relationship to the “bad boy”/ “nice guy” empirical construct.

A significant majority of women say they desire “nice guys” for all relationship contexts, however much recent social scientific research seems to contradict this assertion. In a study conducted by Herold and Milhausen, Dating Preferences of University Women: An Analysis of the Nice Guy Stereotype (1999), it was determined that 56% of 165 university women interviewed agreed with the expression that “Nice guys finish last” and that women were less likely to seek them out as sex partners, as opposed to “bad boys” and other unsavoury types, who would be highly sought after as sex partners by women. Although “bad boys” have the edge over “nice guys” when it comes to establishing short-term relationships and meeting women for immediate sexual intercourse, Herold and Milhausen argued that while nice guys may not be competitive in terms of numbers of sexual partners, they tend to be more successful with respect to longer-term, committed relationships. Herold and Milhausen observe:

Many researchers have attempted to discover what types of men women consider most desirable for relationship partners. This study investigated university women’s (N = 165) perceptions of “nice guys,” specifically whether women perceived nice guys to be more or less sexually successful than guys who are considered not nice. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were used. The qualitative analysis was useful in understanding women’s differing interpretations of the nice guy label. More than one half of the women agreed that nice guys have fewer sexual partners. However, more than one half also reported a preference for a nice guy over a bad boy as a date. As hypothesized, women who placed a lesser emphasis on the importance of sex, who had fewer sexual partners, and who were less accepting of men who had many sexual partners were more likely to choose the nice guy as a dating partner. The findings indicate that nice guys are likely to have fewer sexual partners but are more desired for committed relationships.

In a 2005 study conducted by McDaniel, Young women’s dating behavior: Why/Why not date a nice guy?, it was found that a considerable amount of evidence supports the hypothesis that women prefer “bad boys” (operationalized by McDaniel in this context as a not-so-nice fun/sexy guy) over “nice guys”. Throughout her paper, McDaniel argues that because women routinely select “bad boys” over “nice guys” for low commitment dating, “bad boys” are not only in a very advantageous position within the heterosexual market itself, but are also provided with infinitely more opportunities for establishing both short- and long-term relationships with eligible females, as opposed to the hapless “nice guy”, who is generally avoided by the majority of women. In her study, McDaniel writes:

First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy’s likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage.

In a 2003 study by Urbaniak and Kilman, entitled Physical attractiveness and the “nice guy paradox”: do nice guys really finish last?, the investigators argue that although the vast majority of women say they desire a “nice guy” for both casual dating and committed, romantic relationships, the evidence seems to suggest that women prefer “jerks” over “nice guys” when it comes to both short-term, but not long-term, committed relationships. Urbaniak and Kilman write:

It may be that the nice guy stereotype is more accurate in relation to relatively casual, physical relationships than to more serious relationships. This finding is generally consistent with results of previous studies which suggest that women place more emphasis on physical attractiveness when considering more short-term relationships (e.g., Herold & Milhausen, 1999; Regan, 1998a; 1998b; Sprecher & Regan, 2002).

In another study conducted by Urbaniak and Kilman in 2006, Niceness and dating success: a further test of the nice guy stereotype, it was found that women prefer “bad boys” or “jerks” for both short-term, casual dating and long-term, committed relationships, directly contradicting the findings of Herold and Milhausen (1999), as well as those of their own 2003 research, which suggested that “jerks” may be highly sought after for low-commitment dating, but that “nice guys” would be preferred for longer, more stable relationships. In this study, empirical observation of actual female socio-sexual behaviour was substituted for female self-reportage, constituting a significant methodological improvement over previous studies. Instead, overall male dating success, actual female selection of males on the basis of physical attractiveness and other variables, as well as objective measures of male niceness/agreeableness are employed as independent factors whose subsequent interrelationship and covariation are determined by sequential multiple regression analysis and other modes of statistical quantification. Thus, Urbaniak and Kilman found that women regarded such characteristics as being “nice” or possessing high levels of niceness/agreeableness as a major hindrance to establishing a committed, romantic relationship, whether of the casual or long-term variety. In their 2006 study, Urbaniak and Kilman test four hypotheses:

1. Within shorter-term, less-committed relationship contexts (i.e., casual-dating relationships, one-time sexual encounters, and casual-sex relationships), men’s physical attractiveness would be a stronger predictor of their relationship success than would men’s niceness/agreeableness.

Women have been shown to place more emphasis on niceness/agreeableness in the context of long-term, romantic relationships (e.g., Regan, 1998a). Therefore, our second hypothesis:

2. Men’s niceness/agreeableness would be a stronger predictor of their relationship success than would men’s physical attractiveness in the committed/romantic relationship context.

Women have rated men’s niceness/agreeableness as a desirable characteristic in all relationship contexts (and not, in fact, as a hindrance; e.g., Regan et al., 2000). Thus, our third hypothesis:

3. In contrast to the nice guy stereotype, men’s niceness/agreeableness would be a positive predictor of dating success across all four relationship contexts.

As noted earlier, media references to the nice guy stereotype often reflect a categorical distinction in describing the “dating success” of archetypal “homely nice guys” versus “cute, macho guys”. Our fourth hypothesis was formed to test the validity of this popular or “media-based” distinction by contrasting two subgroups of men:

4. Men rated relatively high in niceness/agreeableness but relatively low in physical attractiveness (i.e., “homely nice guys”) would report greater long-term dating success than men rated relatively low in niceness but high in physical attractiveness (”cute, macho guys”). The reverse pattern was predicted regarding short-term sexual success.

The results obtained by Urbaniak and Kilman for the first hypothesis, through bivariate correlation matrices and multiple regression analysis of the data obtained, was that low niceness/agreeableness and high physical attractiveness ensured success for “bad boys” in both short-term relationships and casual dating. Results generated for the second hypothesis suggested that men who lack niceness/agreeableness have much greater success in committed, romantic relationships than “nice guys”, who would have almost zero success in terms of establishing committed relationships. For the third hypothesis, it was found that men who possessed high levels of niceness/agreeableness fared badly across all relationship contexts. Not only was being nice/agreeable described as a socially undesirable trait by women in terms of casual dating, but it was also found that being nice, sweet, kind, or any of a number of other altruistic personality characteristics associated with niceness/agreeableness could be a major hindrance to the establishment of committed, long-term relationships with heterosexual females. Concerning the results generated for the fourth hypothesis, it was found that “cute, macho guys” had more success with both casual dating and long-term committed relationships than men who were high in measures of niceness/agreeableness. Taken together, the 2006 results of Urbaniak and Kilman suggest that women actually do prefer bad boys over nice guys after all. Being nice, kind, sweet, considerate, generous, compassionate, sympathetic, helpful etc, were actually perceived of by the vast majority of women as being highly disadvantageous, even being of negative consequence, when found in a potential male sex partner.

These results both strongly reinforce and nicely complement the findings of Schmitt (2003) who, in The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity, found that low agreeableness/conscientiousness and high levels of gregariousness or extraversion, were strongly associated with sexual promiscuity and the ability to establish multiple committed relationships with large volumes of available females, constituting a reproductively viable and evolutionarily sustainable life history strategy. In addition, these traits are also associated with such psycho-pathological conditions as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Schmitt writes:

As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, 16 362 participants from 52 nations responded to measures of the Big Five and risky sexuality. It was expected that low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness would be universally associated with relationship infidelity. Sexual promiscuity, in contrast, was expected to positively relate to extraversion and neuroticism. Analyses across 10 world regions revealed relationship infidelity was universally associated with low agreeableness and low conscientiousness. Sexual promiscuity was somewhat related to these traits as well, but was more highly related to extraversion across many, but not all, world regions. Both forms of risky sexual behaviour were generally unrelated to neuroticism and openness across cultures. Discussion focuses on possible explanations of regional differences in personality-sexuality linkages.

In their conclusion, Urbaniak and Kilman observe:

Although variability in the importance of niceness/agreeableness across different relationship types was expected, the fact that low agreeableness, generally speaking, was more related to success across all the relationship contexts than high agreeableness was somewhat surprising. Previous studies have shown that women highly value niceness in committed/romantic partners (and still value niceness, if less-so, in more sexual contexts; e.g., Regan et al., 2000; Urbaniak & Kilmann, 2003). The present results, however, failed to show any clear advantage for the men who were highly nice/agreeable, even in the romantic context. As such, results from the present study actually are more consistent with the nice guy stereotype, overall, than were the results of our earlier study, which had suggested that the stereotype might be a myth. This contradictory finding suggests a discrepancy between which men women will say they prefer, or will choose in a (experimentally-manipulated) hypothetical scenario, and which men actually are successful–at least, by the men’s own accounts.

Only violent psychopaths and dangerous criminals always get the girl

It has been established numerous times by scientific research that male dominance, in the form of social presence and intrasexual competitiveness, is the central ingredient which often determines the strength and direction of female heterosexual attraction. Whereas typical “nice guys” are not seen as being dominant or exuding social presence, “bad boys” are and because of that, are seen as much more sexually attractive and socially desirable.

Hence, two lines of converging evidence are presented: one in which women repeatedly select “bad boys” over “nice guys” and another large body of evidence which indicates that violent psychopaths, dangerous criminals, aggressive bullies, and other antisocial personality types have the most reproductive success when it comes to attracting women and establishing committed, romantic relationships. In one of the earliest studies which helped establish a strong linkage between male social dominance and female sexual attraction, Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction (1987), Sadalla et al write:

Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male’s sexual attractiveness and not his general likeability.

In Predictors of University Men’s Number of Sexual Partners, a study conducted by A.F. Bogaert and W.A. Fisher in 1995, it was found that the within-gender variation of differential reproductive success was heavily influenced by such things as normal individual differences in personality and psycho-physiological constitution. Significant correlational associations were found between such traits as hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking, extraversion, levels of circulating androgens, physical attractiveness, and “Eysenck psychoticism”, with men who rated high on these measures having the greatest number of sex partners and greater overall reproductive success, in comparison to more normal, less pathological men. Bogaert and Fisher write:

We examined the role of personality (e.g., hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking) and physical individual differences (testosterone, physical attractiveness) in predicting university men’s (N = 215) number of sexual partners. Significant zero-order correlations occurred between number of sexual partners and sensation seeking, hypermasculinity, physical attractiveness, and testosterone. In addition, multiple regression analysis revealed significant increases in prediction with an additive combination of these individual differences, and some of these individual differences (e.g., sensation seeking) contributed unique variation to the prediction of the number of sexual partners. Finally, principal components analysis revealed a common personality factor labelled Disinhibition that may partly underlie the relationship between some of these individual differences and the number of sexual partners. …

In a more recent study by Jonason et al (2008), entitled The Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men, it was revealed that men who possessed antisocial personality traits such as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism, attracted more female sex partners and enjoyed higher levels of reproductive success than men with more normal personality characteristics. In addition, many personality characteristics indicated by researchers such as Sadalla et al (1987) and Bogaert and Fisher (1995) as the central ingredients of male reproductive success and the driving animus behind the male ability to attract available female partners intersect with and are the cornerstone upon which the more pathological “Dark Triad” is based. Therefore, traits such as dominance, extraversion, psychoticism, and impulsivity are central to the short-term reproductive success characteristic of such dysfunctional personalities as psychopaths, narcissists, and Machiavellians. As Jonason et al writes:

The personality traits that compose the Dark Triad have typically been considered abnormal, pathological, and inherently maladaptive (e.g., Kowalski, 2001). Although individuals with these traits inflict costs to others and themselves, the Dark Triad traits are also associated with some qualities, including a drive for power (Bradlee & Emmons, 1992; Foster et al., 2006), low neuroticism (Taylor & Armor, 1996), and extraversion (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), that may be beneficial. Together with low amounts of empathy and agreeableness (Paulhus, 2001), such traits may facilitate – especially for men – the pursuit of an exploitative short-term mating strategy.

In a study by Harris et al (2007), COERCIVE AND PRECOCIOUS SEXUALITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF PSYCHOPATHY, it was revealed that the male psychopath is the quintessential Casanova, attracting large numbers of female sex partners and having numerous short-term relationships with women, a life history course routinely described by evolutionary psychologists and others of a socio-biological orientation as, in its more essential aspects, a reproductively adaptive strategy. According to Harris et al:

Sexual behavior is closely associated with delinquency and crime. Although psychopaths, by definition, have many short-term sexual relationships, it has not been shown that sexuality is a core aspect of psychopathy. A Darwinian view of psychopathy led to the hypothesis that psychopaths have a unique sexuality involving early, frequent, and coercive sex. Our subjects were 512 sex offenders assessed on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). Five variables reflecting early, frequent, and coercive sex loaded on the same principal component in exploratory factor analysis on a subset of the sample, whereas PCL-R items pertaining to adult sexual behavior did not. Confirmatory factor analysis of the remaining subjects yielded a measurement model containingthree inter-correlated factors – the traditional two PCL-R factors, and coercive and precocious sexuality. Taxometric analyses gave evidence of a natural discontinuity underlying coercive and precocious sexuality. Coercive and precocious sexuality yielded statistically significant associations with other study variables predicted by the Darwinian hypothesis. The present findings are consistent with prior empirical findings and support the hypothesis that psychopathy has been a nonpathological, reproductively viable, alternate life history strategy.

Thus, current sociological/psychological research into both “bad boy” and “nice guy” categories operationalized as empirical, quantifiable constructs, reveals three pertinent phenomena: (1.) women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”, (2.) being kind, compassionate, or friendly towards others can be a major hindrance in the establishment of either short-term or long-term committed relationships with heterosexual females, and (3.) that violent psychopaths, dangerous criminals, and other antisocial personality types have much greater success than normal in establishing both short-term and long-term committed relationships with heterosexual females, as well as being able to attract large volumes of female sex partners.

To sum up this exciting field of social scientific research, it is the opinion of this brief meta-analysis of contemporary academic investigations into the subject of female sexual preference, that the vast majority of women despise men who are kind, nice, sympathetic, compassionate, sensitive, friendly, considerate, generous etc. In addition, it should also be evident from the foregoing that the ideal sex partner for the typical heterosexual female is a violent psychopath or a dangerous criminal and never was, or ever has been, the supposedly chivalrous gentleman of medieval lore (Bogaert and Fisher, 1995; McDaniel, 2005; Urbaniak and Kilman, 2006; Harris et al, 2007; Jonason et al, 2008 etc).

On the basis of current empirical research, women who say they prefer “nice guys” should be immediately discounted as passive victims of bad social conditioning, having failed to fully assimilate the ideals of state-enforced gender equality. Indeed, many of the women who make such assertions seem to be resisting their more natural, more primitive evolutionary biological urges, because society disapprovingly says that to openly seek a male partner on the basis of testosterone-related features of both phenotypic and behavioural masculinity is both superficial and emotionally immature. Actual female sexual preference of violent, aggressive males, as opposed to the more verbal, outspoken claim of seeking the company of more chivalrous gentlemen, should be seen as reflecting a general attitude-behaviour inconsistency that is a fundamental, empirically deduced characteristic of female socio-sexual behaviour (Weiderman and Dubois 1998).

As men have doubtless complained in the past, and will continue to do so far into the distant future, women are attracted to “bad boys”, and have no interest in men who visibly display altruistic behaviour and other “nice guy” characteristics. However, society presents only one solution to the female preference for more atavistic males; it suggests that the man must come to grips with the established scientific fact that women despise “nice guys”, finding them both socially undesirable and even physically repulsive as well; he must eventually come to accept the fact that women frequently prefer selecting wife batterers, violent criminals, and sexual abusers as both potential boyfriends and future husbands. Society says that it is time for the “nice guy” to toughen up and become an aggressive, physically dominant “bad boy” (and failing at that, maybe consider amassing a small fortune in bank notes instead). However, a man must follow his own patriarchal instincts and insist, like Friedrich Nietzsche before him, that all higher civilizations have imposed restrictions on female social behaviour and that women, being naturally property, must be subjugated to the superior intellect of man.
______________

… wait a minute, didn’t you also compare women to dogs?

a lot of people sped a lot of time screaming at you.
they should shut the fuck up because they sound like idiots.

hahahahaha.

I like the statement about being clean or dirty

” They also don’t give a shit about being too clean because that is really neurotic and ruins the fuck out of the feel of an otherwise livable home”

The reason women have to worry about being neurotic about being clean is because they have a nasty bloody dugout that must be kept sanitary at all times. Their only purpose is to be fucked and no one want’s to fuck a septic yeasty bloody fungi ridden hole. Their entire focus is to keep that cunt hole clean, and fearful of having be told that it reeks or stinks because they are shitty cleaners of their body.

What do you think women did back in past pre roman era females or even farther back than that, the cave women must have just sat in rivers all day for the duration of their periods. “thor said go sit in river bitch you fucking reek, and dont come back till is over.. ugh”

This problem is ampified in modern times, women and their bloody fucking pig holes, bleeding and brain damaged emotions, all the while trying to cover up and pretend they are still capable to function and to be desirable during this period… what a fucking joke. You fuciking stink and you know oh so well, and some are ashamed so bad that they stay indoors for those times, they cant even deal with it.

A female is only good 4 months out of the year total time, 1 week a month she bleeds, times 12 = 12 weeks / 4 weeks = 3 months, for 3 months of the year she is stinky and fucked up in the head, this is a perfect model example mind you, not other females with far greater problems too. God forbid.

So one man needs12 different women during each year, he just has to find them with different cycles at different times, not difficult at all either. This way he can have sex most every day with a different one who is clean of her bloody unsanitary stink hole. He just rotates them.

This is a happy man indeed, those poor saps who are married to just one pig has to wait for her cycle to be over then wait for something else to be over and wait and wait and wait for any and all excuses she can come up with….. fools.

Marriage is the number one cause of divorce… and so is a bloody shitty putrid fuck hole…. wash your ass pigs…

Almost every white american pig is dirty because she’s too fucking lazy to wash her cunt or ass, no wonder they get abused or dumped.

WHAT DO YOU TELL A WOMAN WITH TWO BLACK EYES?

NOTHING… YOU TOLD HER TWICE ALREADY

SHALOM

Uh come on Dick, when are you gonna come out of that big old closet you’re trapped in right now? Because all these ‘real men’ are homosexuals.

Haha that’s actually quite funny,

Because we all know dogs are stupid!

Lol,

What makes Dick right is not his artciles or opinions. It’s the responses of all these women. They actually read this and respond to this just in the way Dick expects them to respond – irrelevant, emotional and stupid. I take my hat off to you, Dick.

I believe the webmaster (Dick) is an epic troll with way too much time on his hands. Lol.

Um, that cat part? Yeah, I think most people WOULD care if a cat turned purple during winter. That IS pretty bizarre

Pets: women case VERSE Cars: men case
pet food Food Gas
excerise Excerise Driving
pet things Accessories New rims, Tinted window,
Stereo, Paint job, etc
small-large Size small-large
vet doctors Health mechanics
intil it dies Death intil it dies,
crushed, replaced, etc

Pets: verse Cars:
pet food food Gas
excerise excerise Driving
pet things accessories New rims, Tinted window,
Stereo, Paint job, etc