Why women love bad boys ... even if they're already dating a vampire

[3113]

"Bad" in the case of the stereotypical attraction, IMO, doesn't really apply to evil-bad. It applies to rebel-bad. The exciting, wild, dangerous, non-conformist one who goes after what s/he wants and doesn't give a rat's ass about popular opinion. And the attraction doesn't follow gender lines. I find both rebel-bad men & women wicked HAWT.

THANK YOU!

Why do discussions on "The bad boy" inevitably turn to women who go after brutally abusive men? Come on guys, we all know, or should be smart enough to know full well that women who go into relationships with men who hit them, and might kill them, are not something to toss off with a "Sigh! Why do women go after the bad boy!" and a shake of the head. There is something seriously wrong going on in that. Something that is not going to be explained away with anything so simple as "attraction to the mysterious." Very often, such women were abused as children. Flat out molested whether they've ever admitted it or not. And it's left them with a real problem with having a healthy relationship.

But what we're talking about here is not that sorta guy. As said, we're talking about the rebel guy. And let's be honest again--why shouldn't women be into the rebel guy when everyone and their brother is in love with the rebel guy as well? Did you really like Luke Skywalker over Han Solo as a kid? Have you ever identified with the law-abiding sheriff rather than Clint Eastwood? Are you really not the least interested in being leader of the pack?

The whole of the Western world, at least, adores the rebel. In the U.S. we wave flags every 4th of July and shoot up fireworks because we were rebels. We cheer for underdogs and wear Che Guevara tee shirts. We'll watch a movie and it's three sequels about professional thieves who swindle a casino, ex-cops who lost their job for insubordination, or FBI agents who didn't follow the rules, soldiers who defy orders, spies who go rogue!

If that's the type of guy YOU MEN cheer for in theaters, then why is it such a shocker when you look over and see a girl going for guys like that rather than Mr. Follow-the-Rules? Do you see, even for one second, how sexist it is to assume that women, who are as much a part of the American public as you are, should somehow not share that popular taste for rebels and "bad boys"? That somehow or other, they should ignore the sort of guy that every man and his brother cheers for in stories and movie theaters? That, instead, they should instinctively know that they're meant to fall for Victor Laslo rather than Rick (aka Humphrey Bogart)?

 

[Boxlicker101]

THANK YOU!

Why do discussions on "The bad boy" inevitably turn to women who go after brutally abusive men? Come on guys, we all know, or should be smart enough to know full well that women who go into relationships with men who hit them, and might kill them, are not something to toss off with a "Sigh! Why do women go after the bad boy!" and a shake of the head. There is something seriously wrong going on in that. Something that is not going to be explained away with anything so simple as "attraction to the mysterious." Very often, such women were abused as children. Flat out molested whether they've ever admitted it or not. And it's left them with a real problem with having a healthy relationship.

But what we're talking about here is not that sorta guy. As said, we're talking about the rebel guy. And let's be honest again--why shouldn't women be into the rebel guy when everyone and their brother is in love with the rebel guy as well? Did you really like Luke Skywalker over Han Solo as a kid? Have you ever identified with the law-abiding sheriff rather than Clint Eastwood? Are you really not the least interested in being leader of the pack?

The whole of the Western world, at least, adores the rebel. In the U.S. we wave flags every 4th of July and shoot up fireworks because we were rebels. We cheer for underdogs and wear Che Guevara tee shirts. We'll watch a movie and it's three sequels about professional thieves who swindle a casino, ex-cops who lost their job for insubordination, or FBI agents who didn't follow the rules, soldiers who defy orders, spies who go rogue!

If that's the type of guy YOU MEN cheer for in theaters, then why is it such a shocker when you look over and see a girl going for guys like that rather than Mr. Follow-the-Rules? Do you see, even for one second, how sexist it is to assume that women, who are as much a part of the American public as you are, should somehow not share that popular taste for rebels and "bad boys"? That somehow or other, they should ignore the sort of guy that every man and his brother cheers for in stories and movie theaters? That, instead, they should instinctively know that they're meant to fall for Victor Laslo rather than Rick (aka Humphrey Bogart)?

There are two kinds of "bad boys" and we are referring to both kind. One is the kind who may stop short of violent abuse, but treat women like shit. Most men gnash their teeth at why women so often show a preference for such a rotter. They don't always stop short of violence either, and we wonder why women even get involved with those they must know are going to abuse them.

As for rebels, yeah, we sometimes cheer for underdogs. In the US, we celebrate Independence Day because it celebrates Us vs. Them. We can celebrate Bastille Day for much the same reason but hardly anybody celebrates The Iranian Revolution or the Russian Revolution or the Cuban Revolution or others where we perceive the winners as being our enemies.

I don't wear a Che Guevara or a Mao tee shirt and never will. I might wear a Lech Walensa tee shirt or one honoring another underdog who wanted to better the lot of his or her countrymen and succeeded.

 

[3113]

There are two kinds of "bad boys" and we are referring to both kind. One is the kind who may stop short of violent abuse, but treat women like shit. Most men gnash their teeth at why women so often show a preference for such a rotter. They don't always stop short of violence either, and we wonder why women even get involved with those they must know are going to abuse them.

Yes, we are talking about both and I'm saying that we shouldn't be lumping them together--unless we want to say that our glorification of rebels in books, movies, and as mythic heroes leads men and women to adore such guys who are not, in real life, in any way, shape or form good people like they are in stories.

But my main point is that there are "bad boys" and there are fucking-dangerous-psycopathic boys. And they're not always the same thing, and most women know this. A teen girl's romantic attraction to the "bad boy" on campus doesn't mean she's going to spend her life writing to men in prison.

Nor do abusive men always come across as "bad boys." Sometimes a guy can come across as nice-as-pie, pull-out-the-chair, knight-in-shining-armor, bring-you-flowers man, and then, when the woman moves in with him, he starts to turn into Mr. Hyde. He starts to hit her, and men ask, "Why do girls go for the bad guy?" But in many cases, this bad guy looked like no such thing. He looked exactly like the classic good guy, down to being a law-abiding-good-job-never-swear-in-public citizen. So why lump attraction to bad guys in with abusive guys when not all abusive guys look like bad guys?

As for treating a woman like dirt--once again, let's go back to the men you cheer on screen. The wise-cracking studs who get to bed the most beautiful ladies after showing them who's boss. How many of them treat women well? But that's who you cheer for. Han Solo was no gentleman to the princess. You want women to avoid misogynists? Don't glorify them.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Sorry, but this straight arrow bear isn't a Clint Eastwood fan. I'm more the Gary Cooper, High Noon-type.

Perhaps it's from having actually been a professional soldier. Whenever I see something that shows 'disobeys orders' as successful, I spit. Despite the idiot Hollywood, no-talent view, senior commanders are neither fools nor self-serving assholes. My favorite movie view of generals is Barry Corbin's General Beringer in War Games.

 

[3113]

My favorite movie view of generals is Barry Corbin's General Beringer in War Games.

I'll forever have a soft spot for Patton. But then I adore George C. Scott. And there we are, back to bad boys

I'd like to point out, by the way, that most girls who go for the bad boys, meaning ending up with them, aren't usually very good girls. I'll never quite understand why men sigh over women going off with the bad boys when, by doing so, they're usually showing what kind of girls they are. Why would a good guy want them anyway?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'll forever have a soft spot for Patton. But then I adore George C. Scott. And there we are, back to bad boys

I'd like to point out, by the way, that most girls who go for the bad boys, meaning ending up with them, aren't usually very good girls. I'll never quite understand why men sigh over women going off with the bad boys when, by doing so, they're usually showing what kind of girls they are. Why would a good guy want them anyway?

I've known two women who went off after bad boys and then, when the light dawned, left and found some good ones. That's not to disagree with you, as a general point, however. More along the lines of 'the exception that proves the rule' or some such. Honestly, I think what we really want is a truly lusty, sexually aggressive good girl. My kinda woman!

 

[slyc_willie]

I've known two women who went off after bad boys and then, when the light dawned, left and found some good ones. That's not to disagree with you, as a general point, however. More along the lines of 'the exception that proves the rule' or some such. Honestly, I think what we really want is a truly lusty, sexually aggressive good girl. My kinda woman!

How does that song go? Oh, yeah . . . .

I'm a bitch
I'm a lover
I'm a child
I'm a mother
I'm a sinner and a saint
I do not feel ashamed

Yeah. Perfect woman.

 

[DeeZire]

After reading 3113's comments, what's left to say? Except - I think we should give more credit to lust. Lust makes the world go around. Lust brings down presidents. Lust fuels this website. That fact that male lust is acceptable but female lust isn't says more about our culture than it says about the difference between men and women.

On True Blood - I really like the show, or at least the first season. It reminds me of the short lived TV series Maximum Bob, which was also filmed in Louisiana. Since I don't have cable, I'll have to wait for the DVD to find out what Sookie is up to this time. She reminds me of a young Jessica Lange, although I think they could have cast a more despicable guy as her vampire boyfriend - a younger Mickey Rourke comes to mind.

 

[Boxlicker101]

After reading 3113's comments, what's left to say? Except - I think we should give more credit to lust. Lust makes the world go around. Lust brings down presidents. Lust fuels this website. That fact that male lust is acceptable but female lust isn't says more about our culture than it says about the difference between men and women.

Male lust isn't always all that acceptable either. You may have recently heard some unkind words about the governors of NY and SC and a senator from NC giving in to their lust.

And, female lust isn't all that unacceptable either. I write about it all the time. If more hetero women had feelings of lust and admitted to them, it would be neither more nor less acceptable than that of men.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Male lust isn't always all that acceptable either. You may have recently heard some unkind words about the governors of NY and SC and a senator from NC giving in to their lust.

And, female lust isn't all that unacceptable either. I write about it all the time. If more hetero women had feelings of lust and admitted to them, it would be neither more nor less acceptable than that of men.

But it would certainly be appreciated by men--and certain bears, of course.

 

[xssve]

Your comments on media influence are interesting and cogent 3113, but in my experience, art imitates life: the media usually starts with a genuine phenomena and turns it into a cliche, i.e., the "antihero" who is basically selfish - but even Bogie follows his better instincts in the end.

The antihero is all about conflict between a characters self serving instincts and his better judgement - but it's his bad side that allows him to "do what needs to be done", i.s., stick his neck out for somebody other than himself, whereas the cliche of the "nice guy" is that he lacks the skills to even save himself, and usually has to be rescued along with the woman (and maybe discovers his own "bad' side in the process).

In any case, art imitates life, but once it does, there is a feedback cycle that gets set up and it becomes more a case of "art imitating life imitating art", and the underlying conflict may be lost in the iteration or at least buried in the cliche.

More fundamentally however, I think it was Shaw who said: "don't trust a man to be good unless he has the strength of character to be bad", and it illustrates a basic concept in human culture: that situations change, and the rules, ostensibly conceived to solve a problem, create a new, and perhaps worse one.

NAZI Germany happened because everybody "followed the rules", the Bay of Pigs is similarly an example of groupthink, where "going along to get along" ends in disaster. In these situations, the truly courageous are those who are willing to go against the crowd, against the grain, often at great personal or professional risk.

In more modern terms, the whole conservative "dog eat dog" philosophy promotes a certain amount of disdain for business ethics - if winning is the only thing, and money is the measure of a winner, then it doesn't matter where it comes from, it's all Green.

I think this is a much subtler and more pernicious influence, and along with it comes the notion that a "real man" can control his woman, the opposite is not the "nice guy" but the deeply disdained "Casper Milqutoast", who lets everybody including his wife, push him around.

The reality is, women have ways of getting their way, but men tend to front and pretend they're in charge - this is too subtle for some, and they cross the line into violence when they're threatened with the loss of all this control they're supposed to have.

Similarly, women, who are supposed to want a "strong man", and in fact, most likely even genetically predisposed to positively consider traits like aggressiveness, physical strength, etc., are attracted to men who display these traits, and in my experience, women who are are not shy about defending their choices, and highly disparaging of all "lesser" beings - Ann Coulter is a classic case, and the right is full of these sort of women who play the "weak" woman, and accept the infantilization in return for male "protection' - guys like amicus, blinded by their own self image sold out of the same kiosk, fall for it and form a political movement around it,

It becomes a status issue, "face", and forms the core of identity politics, and it's no joke - people kill each other over it.

The trouble with this is, that women lose their voices, and just end up parroting the men or be accused of being ball breakers.

The reality is, that women are people ad can be as stubborn and stiff necked, manipulative and self serving as any man, and in fact being historically denied any significant overt political power have developed manipulation into an art form - and playing the "weaker sex" is a form of manipulation.

Somebody was asking me the other day why men will try and make young girls, something about an 11 year old selling her virginity on e-bay, and I think think it has a lot to do with it - we're sold on this notion of women as appendages, but when you have to actually deal with them one discovers this whole minefield of expectations that they've been sold on, which leaves some people craving the ideal of unqualified love - in Christian mythology, all women supposed to be innocent and childlike, easy to control, when as we all know, this is not exactly how nature works.

And tellingly, molestation appears to occur most frequently where both male and female expectations reach unrealistic levels - among the among Baptists and the socially awkward, and I'm guessing rape is similar - it reflects a conflict of unrealistic expectations on both sides.

That's marketing, and media, as well, and it having more direct economic consequences, w/regard to social politics, ends up having a lot more influence than Hollywood, which is after all, often presenting and exaggerated, often tongue in cheek, highly abstracted, symbolic archetype of the whole business.

 

[Verdad]

Not that it's much of an excuse for the lengthy blather ahead, but the more I think about it, bad boy is such a fluid category I can't explain even to myself what it's supposed to entail.

There's proper villain, rebel hero, unrepentant macho, Byronic hero, and probably as many others as there are individual characters that fall vaguely under the umbrella.

To use just one out of any number of examples, a Bruce Willis character is quite a different bad boy than a William Defoe character. So even when we make it clear we're talking about fictional characters and not about bad taste in real-life partners, we're likely still talking of a number of different things—different fantasies to which these characters cater.

They can be, for instance, 'dark' or not. Villains tend to be 'dark'—they're evil, or as evil, at any rate, as a character can get away with and still remain attractive. They're immoral and cruel, yet they often exude sensuality and charisma. It could be a theme of an entire separate discussion why we link sensuality and moral corruption so that one is almost automatically used to signify the other, but surely a part of the villains' appeal is right there: they're sexy because they're purposefully portrayed with a strong erotic streak.

Then there's the Byronic hero who's dark too, but in a different way. He's more of a danger to himself than to others, brooding and self-destructive. The same symbolic system seems to be at work, with sexuality as a dark, threatening force, but the manifestations are different. If the villain is a magician who controls the force for his nefarious ends, the Byronic hero seems to be consumed by it and needs saving. It would appear, then, the former caters to the (reader's) fantasy of being controlled and the latter to the fantasy of the hero's salvation through her whole-hearted sacrifice. Women with a strong preference for one or the other would be indulging quite a different fantasy.

This distinction is, of course, as arbitrary and artificial as any other, but lumping all the bad boys in the same category is even more such. The darkness is, at any rate, just one dimension, which seems to draw a good portion of its appeal from a mythology that equates sex with evil. The undying popularity of vampires (who bore me, personally, to tears) surely has something to do with it, but darkness is by no means the common denominator of all bad boys.

A 'feminine' symbol itself, darkness has no place in characters that epitomize undiluted 'masculine' will. Rebels and machos rarely have time for it. They have deeds to do and missions to complete. Theirs is the appeal of unshakeable confidence and unstoppable determination. So much sweeter, then, for a woman to imagine concurring that confidence and making herself the focus of the determination.

The fantasies involving these characters would seem to be about taming. And truly, there's nothing wrong with that. They make perfect sense in the world of fiction and the world of psyche, where the level of the difficulty of the 'target' makes for a measuring rod of the tamer's own competence. Landing a willing, innocuous guy, counts for nothing in this calculus, while a difficult, unruly guy brings the maximal score.

Come to think of it, a very similar calculus is at work with female characters, too. Often, she starts off as exceedingly 'pure'. Why? Well, it looks like a bigger accomplishment (and a bigger dramatic change) to turn her lusty than it would be if she were lusty from the start. The tension between "bad guy" and "domestication" is similar, that is, the more satisfying to resolve the 'badder' he begins.

The problem arises only when people take this principle literally to reality and throw themselves at the most impossible targets with the hope of reforming them. It's that which leads, more often than not, to those notoriously bad choices in which the bad boy—surprise, surprise—remains as bad as he's ever been. The illusion indulged in fiction—"How sweet to succeed where no one else succeeded!"—meets the prosaic reality of some mountains being un-climb-able after all, or not worth climbing in the first place. For no matter how tempting the fallacy, the difficulty of the slope is not, in fact, commensurate with the reward that lies on some imaginary 'top'.

There's another dimension that comes to mind, too, and it could likewise serve to elucidate some connections between fiction and reality.

Hot and cold: bad boy characters come in both flavors. Indeed, the only flavor they seldom come in is tepid. There's the hot temper of a say, rebel or that of a Byronic hero; it signifies passion, and thus corresponds to the desire to be able to provoke passion.

Or there's the coldness of a villain, or that of a distant macho—the kind who rides in out of nowhere, turns the heroine's life upside down, then rides off again, with nary a tip of the hat. This signifies self-sufficiency and fuels the taming fantasy, but it also corresponds to the desire not to win. For do we really want to subdue the thing that attracts us or do we secretly hope not to succeed?

In truth, we want both. We want the partner to be at the mercy of his passion for us, but we also want them to be autonomous and have a mind of their own. We want the other things discussed so far, too, in various proportions.

What fictional characters do, however, they focalize one of these facets/desires at the time, and hyperbolize them for dramatic purposes. And the problem, once again, only arises when symbols and meanings get confused.

To signify 'passion', itself surely a desirable thing, fiction often reaches a bit further, toward what in real life accompanies obsession and abusive temper. In a similar translation, 'competence', 'determination', and 'autonomy' become represented through behaviors that more often come with tyrants, the emotionally unavailable, or even psychopaths. 'Sexual charisma' is almost inevitably portrayed as decadence, and so on.

A woman, or for that matter, a man, who keeps mistaking these dramatic signs for the substance they're supposed to represent—controlling jealousy for passionate love, coldness for confidence, etc—have sometimes not yet learned to 'read', and sometimes, they truly are masochistic. Not everyone goes for the wrong targets in a naïve hope of reforming them, after all; some people go for them to get precisely what they do get.

Sometimes, there's another question to consider, too: is an awesome person necessarily an awesome partner?

Never mind the woman who pays the bills for a ne'er-do-well who pretends to be on the brink of artistic success while it's painfully obvious to everyone else he's a loser and a drunk. What if she had a real genius on her hands? Surely, say, Ghandi wasn't a loser, nor was Picasso. We're tempted to commend their women for a good choice, yet the former was a wife-beater and the latter just insufferable. Does their being the 'real deal' make the women who go for their kind smarter, or it's merely the same drama playing out on a 'larger' scale? A host of questions opens quickly, pulling a good bit of the carpet from under the feet of those who are quick to judge others' choices.

I definitely digress now, though.

Back to fiction, for those of us who are neither fifteen nor suckers for punishment, the appeal of bad-boy characters is really the same as with any other fiction. Sampling the lives not lived and the roads not taken, yes, and also, indulging in an isolated expression of one desire or another, in a way fiction allows us and the complexity of life does not.

All that said, though, I probably am just babbling. 'Cause frankly, I don't think I have much of a thing for bad boys in a narrow sense, if there is such a sense, unless by bad boys we simply mean all but the most dreadfully boring of men.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Nicely written explication, Verdad. Intelligent, thought-provoking & well-spun. Cheers.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Beautifully put, Verdad.

Now, onto a succeeding question, where does 'odd' fit into the spectrum?

 

[xssve]

An excellent breakdown Verdad, I made some controversial edits to my own post which echo this in indirect fashion - what I wanted to add, although you might be able to say it better, is that on one level, most of recognize that the facade is just that, a facade - when guys are with their buddies, we make light of women, but when they pout or cry, or go though all the other things they do we usually have to give in, or be called shitheads.

In a sense, the antihero or antiheroine refuse to play this game, or conversely, plays it openly and shamelessly - the femme fatale uses her "weakness" to overcome the man's rigid moral compunctions, the antihero refuses to be played by the woman's emotional manipulation - in a sense, they both "cut through the bullshit" and play their roles knowingly, with insouciant mockery, rather than with that contrived sense of false innocence and treacly sincerity that respect for social form demands.

Again, the religious tradition only allows only one "respectable" role for women, wife - and this is in equal parts composed of awestruck child and motherish dicipline, the latter which tends to be singularly unappealing sexually to most men who, after a certain stage, are not really all that attracted to their mothers.

They play the game, but break all rules through knowing exaggeration, paying lip service to the letter of the law with mocking insincerity- the appeal is that they're strong enough to fly in the face of what is often perceived as the hypocritical conventions of sexual politics.

The flip side is the primal love affair, i.e., me Tarzan, you Jane, which simply sweeps away convention through sheer, primal, physical passion, while playing to the usual cliches, but generally only works with a limited cast.

 

[3113]

Wow, Verdad! This is AWESOME! Have you thought of writing a dissertation? Or at the very least, will you turn this into an essay and post it in the "Reviews and Essays" section? I think, given how many times this question of girls-going-after-bad-boys comes up, it's long past time there was a good essay on the topic. Not just for us to refer people to, but to save us repeating these observations.

but surely a part of the villains' appeal is right there: they're sexy because they're purposefully portrayed with a strong erotic streak.

I have to wonder how much of this is a western sensibility, going back to the influence of main-stream Christianity and it's focus on celibacy being indicative of holiness, and that goes for holy men as well as holy women. If the best of men, the Knight who gets the grail or the Priest who's dedicated to god must be mild and tepid and non-sexual, then that leaves the "fallen" men, the sinners, as the passionate erotic ones.

(Of course, there's a whole other fiction we indulge in here about tempting the celibate holy man into sex. But that's for a whole other thread on "good boys" )

Thing is, you're quite right. There is a vicious circle element. If such bad boys are usually portrayed as erotic, with the good guys as not (because good guys can't or shouldn't be), then that becomes the romantic perception, whether or not it's entirely true in reality. A "bad boy" will ignore social convention and satisfy your sexual desires; the good boy will wait till after you're married, and, ironically enough, in evolutionary terms, that kinda indicates that he's not stud and therefore not a good mate. Evolution favors studs.

A 'feminine' symbol itself, darkness has no place in characters that epitomize undiluted 'masculine' will. Rebels and machos rarely have time for it. They have deeds to do and missions to complete. Theirs is the appeal of unshakeable confidence and unstoppable determination. So much sweeter, then, for a woman to imagine concurring that confidence and making herself the focus of the determination.... Landing a willing, innocuous guy, counts for nothing in this calculus, while a difficult, unruly guy brings the maximal score.

Spot on! There is always the spirit of competition. And the fantasy that most of us have is to be the winner, whether that is to win a Nobel Prize, bag the biggest fish in the lake, or land the elusive, sexy guy/girl that no one else can land (or, as you pointed out in the opposite direction, the chaste girl who won't give up her virginity to anyone else).

In fact, the original question brought to my mind not real women going after real bad boys--which has a lot of answers to it from simple hormones to not simple self-perception--but the fantasy women have of bagging the bad boy. The reason why so many female readers and viewers of fiction will discuss how "hot" a bad character is. I think all you say about their fantasy is correct, most especially that competitive fantasy of taming, transforming, etc.

The problem arises only when people take this principle literally to reality and throw themselves at the most impossible targets with the hope of reforming them. It's that which leads, more often than not, to those notoriously bad choices in which the bad boy—surprise, surprise—remains as bad as he's ever been. The illusion indulged in fiction—"How sweet to succeed where no one else succeeded!"—meets the prosaic reality of some mountains being un-climb-able after all, or not worth climbing in the first place. For no matter how tempting the fallacy, the difficulty of the slope is not, in fact, commensurate with the reward that lies on some imaginary 'top'.

http://bestsmileys.com/clapping/2.gif Bravo!

Seriously! Please turn this into an essay and post it!

 

[rgraham666]

Beautifully put, Verdad.

Now, onto a succeeding question, where does 'odd' fit into the spectrum?

I can answer that one.

A guy with a venereal disease is more attractive.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Sigh!
I was afraid that was the answer.

 

[CharleyH]

As for True Blood, there are plot devices that I really like. Sookie's thought-hearing is cool. The fact that the paranormal is not limited to vampires is cool. I like the way shifters are portrayed as having a "default" form but the ability to assume others with effort.

I like how there's a black market for vampire blood as a drug. I like how there's a generic alternative to human blood so that vampires don't *have* to feast on humans... that it's as "nutritious" but not as yummy as the real thing. Kind of like Ensure versus a four course steak dinner.

I've only watched the first season, but I've followed the website for this year -- and it seems as if the story lines are falling in to a tired serial soap opera mold, which is disappointing.

As for the acting, the only characters that have impressed me are Tara & Lafayette. They seem to have more depth than the others.

Haven't read the books. Don't plan to unless I stumble upon a compelling reason.


ETA: This design I made for the Coming Together Cafe Press store is selling very well:

http://images3.cafepress.com/product/401581413v2_350x350_Front_Color-Black.jpg

Ya, know ... I loved Lafayette in the first season (stereotypical gay humour break that he was), but this season I don't much care for him. Tara, I never really thought was fleshed out as a character and she is becoming more 2-D by the day. 'True Blood' is one of those shows that has some substance, interesting story and most importantly isn't reality TV. Compare it to 24? HELLO! You are correct in saying that both Tara and Lafayette had potential for characters in the first season, but now? I simply want to see them dead.

 

[CharleyH]

But the example above *IS* fiction, and I think Charley was asking if the allure of the good girl/bad boy romance in that fiction has to do with a common erotic fantasy of feeling "naughty" inside and wanting someone to recognize that and engage that "naughty" part. This may well translate to reality, but it's being acted out in the fiction.
"

Thank you, 3113, this is exactly the sort of discussion I was after.

 

[impressive]

You are correct in saying that both Tara and Lafayette had potential for characters in the first season, but now? I simply want to see them dead.

From what I've read, I completely understand.

Still, both characters trip alllllll my visual triggers, and the actor who portrays Tara has some serious skills (even if they're not fully exploited on this show).

 

[Verdad]

Nicely written explication, Verdad. Intelligent, thought-provoking & well-spun. Cheers.

You make me blush. I'm actually not pleased at all with what I wrote—something I was groping for evaded me in the end—but I'm happy if it was at least of some interest. I've probably missed Charley's topic by miles, too, but I'm just so out of it with vampire studs!

Beautifully put, Verdad.

Now, onto a succeeding question, where does 'odd' fit into the spectrum?

Oh, don't even get me started on 'odd'! Bad, I'm fairly immune to; odd I have to watch out.

An excellent breakdown Verdad, I made some controversial edits to my own post which echo this in indirect fashion - what I wanted to add, although you might be able to say it better, is that on one level, most of recognize that the facade is just that, a facade - when guys are with their buddies, we make light of women, but when they pout or cry, or go though all the other things they do we usually have to give in, or be called shitheads.

Now you too go on embarrassing me. I've read your post, of course, and you and 3113 both address something I, too, was thinking about: the relationship between art and life, and in another sense, nature and nurture. The loops in which they're closed make the subject so unexpectedly difficult to tackle.

It's undeniable, for instance, American culture glorifies the rebel, or in Rand's terms, the individual(ist). Often, it does so to exclusion of any other virtue, and often it goes so far in the portrayal of this mythical creature that it ends up portraying a sociopath. Never mind say, Tarantinoesque characters that are unabashedly such and we know it—the heroes, the movie 'good guys', the ones we admire and root for, often fall on the wrong side of the line too. If women go for the type that's prized by their entire society, it's hardly a surprise, and if they sometimes fail to discern what is 'too much', that too is understandable. Certainly Rand had a bit of problem herself deciding where the 'manly man' stops and where psychopathology begins. Her crush on Hickman testifies to that, if her novels don't suffice.

And yet, as important as it is to keep in mind, this cultural explanation only goes so far. There's something to be said about self-assuredness and assertiveness, among others, beyond just their being culturally worshipped. They're quite useful traits on their own—otherwise they couldn't have reached their cultural status—and in the context of male/female relationships in particular, they have a timeless appeal, too. Women don't respond to them merely because they're socially approved—indeed, in the whole bad boy scenario, they respond despite their being disapproved. They ultimately respond because of how a man possessing those traits makes them feel. Where the evolution stops, though, where the culture begins, how much is due to the amplification of the media machine—not to mention, where the individual likes come in—that makes a definite explanation impossible.

 

[Verdad]

Wow, Verdad! This is AWESOME! Have you thought of writing a dissertation? Or at the very least, will you turn this into an essay and post it in the "Reviews and Essays" section? I think, given how many times this question of girls-going-after-bad-boys comes up, it's long past time there was a good essay on the topic. Not just for us to refer people to, but to save us repeating these observations.

If I weren't terminally lazy, your praise, if anything would make me research it a bit and punch it in shape. (As it stands, though, I'll probably just ramble on a bit further!)

I have to wonder how much of this is a western sensibility, going back to the influence of main-stream Christianity and it's focus on celibacy being indicative of holiness, and that goes for holy men as well as holy women. If the best of men, the Knight who gets the grail or the Priest who's dedicated to god must be mild and tepid and non-sexual, then that leaves the "fallen" men, the sinners, as the passionate erotic ones.

I wonder about that too, and I think it's kind of like what I said to Xssve about rebels. There's doubtless a cultural, Christian-moralist element that makes a writer/reader almost automatically put the two together, but there's an inherent connection between the concepts, too. Not in a direct manner, as in sex=evil, but through a couple of other associations.

Sexuality is quite a powerful force, perhaps the most powerful there is, so there's one connection: in portraying a powerful character, which villains often are, it makes sense to associate a powerful concept with them. Sexuality is, on the other hand, also a weakness, or it can be if it's something that has the character at his mercy, much as a cocaine addiction would be. That makes it an ambiguous power, unsuited for a perfect hero.

Further, unfettered sexuality has a very real potential for threatening the stability of a society. Some means of controlling it can be certainly called more hysterical than others, but every society does put some restrictions on it. A person who plays outside those rules is threatening. And lastly, sex is 'threatening' on a psychological level, too, as it involves a loss of control and autonomy to another.

All this in no way amounts to 'evil', but a series of concepts like "power", "threat", etc, make for a tempting associative net. Probably the only way to determine how much Christianity amplifies the connection would be to look at the older and the non-Xian stories.

Thing is, you're quite right. There is a vicious circle element. If such bad boys are usually portrayed as erotic, with the good guys as not (because good guys can't or shouldn't be), then that becomes the romantic perception, whether or not it's entirely true in reality. A "bad boy" will ignore social convention and satisfy your sexual desires; the good boy will wait till after you're married, and, ironically enough, in evolutionary terms, that kinda indicates that he's not stud and therefore not a good mate. Evolution favors studs.

I found it honestly baffling to define a bad boy the moment I tried. It suddenly seemed they're a kind of a family, where some share some traits and some others, but there wasn't a single trait that ran through all. Later, though, it occurred to me there is one sine qua non of a bad boy, and that the rest of you already mentioned it. Defiance to the rules it is. Whether good or evil, passionate or unavailable, if he doesn't defy the rules, he ain't a bad boy.

Of course, that doesn't mean defiance alone is where it's at, just as in the case of villains it's not really evil that appeals but the erotic charisma with which it's packaged. Villains who are not packaged that way don't get to be eroticized just because they're villains.

Still, it's pretty fascinating to think about defiance because it's clearly one of the keys. Xssve tried to tackle it a bit in broader terms, as in, when everyone gets stuck in unanimity, it's the defiant ones that make a breakthrough or save the day, and that much is true.

It's of course also true that a huge majority of situations demands following the rules, which is why stretching the line of defiance a bit too far leads to "dysfunctional", rather than to a "hero". Leaving all that aside, though, in terms just of sexual attractiveness, what is the appeal? I think you begin well with "he'll ignore the conventions and satisfy your desires" but I have trouble elaborating much better than that. Would be fun if someone tried.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

VERDAD

An an old girlfriend of mine used to say to me, YOU THINK THE RULES DONT APPLY TO YOU. And it is true. But it has to be for a noble reason. The bad boy you want is one who breaks the right rules.

The Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Charles Bronson characters always broke the right rules.

 

[xssve]

It's of course also true that a huge majority of situations demands following the rules, which is why stretching the line of defiance a bit too far leads to "dysfunctional", rather than to a "hero". Leaving all that aside, though, in terms just of sexual attractiveness, what is the appeal? I think you begin well with "he'll ignore the conventions and satisfy your desires" but I have trouble elaborating much better than that. Would be fun if someone tried.

I'll take the bait and give it a shot.

First off, I have a problem with the whole concept of sexual power and exactly how it constitutes a threat to society - sound like the dreaded "freethinking" and it is, but bear with me.

It requires some effort to rid the mind of preconceptions, and here we have several: what and who is society, and how is sex a threat?

Having raised the question at all, put these things in their proper place as abstractions, we don't even need to answer it immediately; However, I prefer to place it in context, and I'll try to keep it brief.

We know instinctively that "society" is something of an artificial construct - our forebears we generally not so removed from nature as we, they didn't have to go to the zoo to see animals, they had chickens in the front yard, goats in the back, sheep in the field, cows in the pasture, they were surrounded on all sides by wild Fauna, and they were in constant daily contact with all of these "cultures" - one cannot dismiss the power of the concept of similitude, the drawing of inferences from examples provided by the natural world. The mind has been described as a machine for making associations, and we make them constantly - descriptive language is essentially a set of associative triggers that call up archetypes not just of things or actions, but their context and associations, and sometimes the context and associations take on a life of their own, overshadowing the thing itself as a discrete symbol.

We've discussed at great length the word "slut" for example, whose contexts and associations vary according to who you're talking too, ranging from the broadest abstraction, a shamelessly sexual woman, to whether that's a compliment or an insult, whether it refers to an abstract behavior or has a more immediate meaning in terms of disparaging the competition - in one sense, it means nothing more than "Brand X" for instance.

Competition is part of the "natural order", and going back to Fauna in general, mammals in general display particular patterns of behavior in which courtship figures, as does Alpha status, and various ways and means around that including subterfuge - early historical human behavior patterns indicate patterns very similar to basic mammalian patterns, i.e., Alpha males keeping harems (polygyny), and the rest sorting themselves out in various ways, from casual encounters to monogamous, and/or socially monogamous social units - the Biblical Rabbi's, from what I can glean, were essentially monogamous, occasionally polygynous, but appear to have had concubines, mistresses, slaves they slept with , etc., all of which is somewhat predictable both in terms of imitation of animal behavior, but also practical if you figure in a high male attrition rate, a distortion in the sex distribution ratio favoring women.

In essence, this is the definition of "society" at that point in history - skip ahead a couple of millenia, and we have Mormons trying revive this particular social pattern, only this time, they're deviants, getting kicked out of every settled state and eventually being forced to emigrate to the desert boonies in order to create their social order.

I mention them, because while I usually pin erotophobic social "standards" on Xians, significant deviations from these standards are often also religiously inspired.

It is true, I believe that erotophobic superstitions and the whole aura of "moral horror" surrounding sex is largely a Calvinist convention - Calvinism was born in and from a somewhat desperate political conflict with Libertines, who at that time simply rejected all standards as "unnatural", and advocated sex with anything or anybody at whim.

I believe that this conflict still informs the evangelical approach to debate on sexuality, i.e., they still associate homosexuality with pedophilia, in spite of the fact that in the more general liberal tradition, these things have long been relegated into separate categories. Similarly, the Libertines were a largely aristocratic group (De Sade), and in general their behavior was lees than admirable - they were really bad boys, sexual sadists, sociopaths who recognized no checks on their whims, which they likely inherited from the Romans, which was for all practical purposes, a Libertine civilization where sadism was the norm.

It's difficult to assign a shelf life to an oral tradition, particularly when abetted by the printed word - it can be re-read and revived after decades, even centuries of quiescence, and the whole thing treated like it happened yesterday - that Xians themselves are typically hostile to any form of literature that smacks of Libertinism argues that they are well aware of this particular phenomena.

Augustine was born into Roman civilization, and his reticence made him the deviant, in that he appears to have suffered from possessing a natural conscience, and was repelled and disgusted at his own bloodlust, aroused upon attending the Circus, leading him to formulate the doctrine of total depravity, which later inspired Calvinism and Puritanism as mass movements.

But, going back the original question, even a complete lack of sexual compunction or any regard for human rights did not appear to greatly inconvenience the growth and prosperity of the Roman empire, and the whole argument that it is bad for society appears spurious - depending on how you define society - civilization it was, civilized, not so much.

The danger then, must lie elsewhere - I have my suspicions, but I promised to keep it short, in in that spirit, the "bad boy" archetype itself, I think, has not evolved so far from what was probably it's original conception of what is essentially the natural man, or "man in nature", in anthropological terms, in an artificial environment - society, insofar as it represents "civilization" is itself something of an unnatural construct to begin with, it represents a set of rules and restrictions, promulgating behaviors that facilitate large groups of people living together. Probably extrapolated from older tribal norms, but abstracted into categorical caste systems - the Chief becomes king, the council of elders his advisers, his petitioners the court, shamans priests, war chiefs generals, and all the rest, servants slaves, merchants and vendors, etc., etc., according to their particular talents and inclinations, origin, birth order, etc.

In all of this, a certain order arises where one's identity as an independent entity, archetypal "man" or "woman" becomes sublimated into ones role - one becomes a function, a part in a vast machine, locked into a role over which one may not have much if any input into the conceptualization of that role.

This is closer to a definition of "society" it is that which categorizes and assigns roles in a tribe, a culture, a civilization - in some sense, one must consider that it is probably and extension of the Alpha hierarchy, although it almost necessarily includes women, who after all, have a long history of political involvement in defining the standard by which we identify what is within society and what is without.

The natural man is anarchic, he is essentially, raw sex appeal - his presences erases social boundaries, unnatural order evaporates - and we must also admit, that this social "system" is often self serving, particularly to those who take it upon themselves to define it, as somehow or another, they always seem to manage to define "it" in a way that entitles them to skim all the cream off top, and this is in some sense, what the bad boy threatens: your daughter may be "ruined", and won't get married to that wealth merchant you've had your eye on, etc., as one example.

How you get from here to Calvinist erotophobia in general, and moral horror in particular, is whole 'nother analysis, into which dualism figures highly, but I've already broken my promise to keep it short.

There are whole lot of rabbit trails from here, republicans for example, try very hard to synthesize that "bad boy" archetype with elitist social restrictions - they are deeply in love with the "natural man" archetype, but represent largely elitist and fastidious aristocratic and mercantile values as a practical matter - not having sex as an outlet, they have to confine themselves to bombing small countries into the stone age and torturing convenient targets to assert their manliness, and spinning it into an act of rebellion against what they see as unnatural "elitist" social restrictions on their (sublimated) testosterone driven compulsions.