Slate takes on that stupid-ass story about the pill causing women to choose the wrong guy. Ugh. Our lives are filled with chatter about women who pick the wrong guy, but I never hear much about dudes who date the wrong girl. I used to like to note that every girl I had ever loved had significant Daddy issues as a way of highlighting the crisis of black fatherhood. Then one day Kenyatta, while reading a blog entry where I'd made that argument, offered a different interpretation, "Uhm, maybe your just on some Captain Save-A-Ho shit."
Basically. The truth was that I'd known plenty of women with healthy relationships with their fathers. Funny how I was never attracted to any of them. Funnier how I never see articles about why so many men enjoy the company of crazy women. Anyway, I've got a theory: A lot of these stories about women not knowing what's good for them are actually authored by jerks who've convinced themselves that they're "nice guys" who've been overlooked. This extends across the spectrum. Hip-hop has elevated self-serving whining about gold-diggers into quasi-art. Of course the same artist will turn around and brag about his hit it and quit it pimp mentality. The shallowness of men is yawn-inducing. The shallowness of women is a national crisis.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Biggest lesson of my late teens and early 20s: learning how to spot and avoid the crazy women (literally crazy, suicide-attempt crazy) who were drawn to me like flies to honey. I got over my messiah-complex really quickly.
Yeah, when I see a guy complaining about how all of the girls he hangs with say stuff like "I wish my boyfriend were more like you", I ask him "what's the deal with you hitting on chicks in relationships?"
I don't point out that once they get bitter and start treating women with hostility, the ones with father issues start getting in line. That's a realization that shouldn't be spoiled.
As a mild-mannered person attracted to nice guys (and married to a man I met at 18, so the issue has been academic for all but a few months of my adult life), the bad boy thing is a complete mystery. I don't fathom in any way the attraction to a man who treats you badly, or is a jerk to other people (good sign he'll eventually treat you that way, no?).
But it does seem to be a real thing for more than a tiny segment of women.
The argument is actually more subtle than you give it credit for, and probably has much more truth as well. The preference for 'the wrong guy' can be in large part a conscious decision. In the days before birth control, and before feminism, a woman knew that if she slept with a man she was likely to become with child, and depend on the man for economic support, and therefore at some level they were attracted to those traits that would ensure he would be a good father. In the modern era, women do not necessarily enter relationships looking for the kind of man who will be a good father, oftentimes they look for other, more dubious traits. That is probably a big part of why relationships in our modern society are often so short-lived and also why women often wind up stuck with a baby and no long-term husband or common-law partner.
One could also make a theoretical argument on evolutionary grounds that increasing the wealth of society (i.e. the ease with which a woman can make enough money to support a child on her own) we are selecting against the traits that will result in long-term relationships and altering the balance in favor of the 'hit it and quit it' type of men. Human beings were not made to live in an affluent modern society, and this is just more proof.
Incidentally, I don't advocate that we roll back either birth control or women in the workplace. It's a good thing for couples to be able to exert a good deal of regulation of their childbearing and it's a good thing for women to be able to work outside the home in fulfiling and remunerative jobs. However, like many other good things, these things have had some undesirable secondary consequences so we need to make further alterations to our society to be able to respond to and mitigate them.
TNC: Is today Psychoanalyze Former Nerds Day? You're like Bill Frist with a tan. In a good way.
gracchus: I had the same experience, but never quite got over it. It just evolved. First it was suicidally depressed girls who listened to emo-music. Though, as I recall, we didn't call it that back then; we called it punk, because the Kaiser had stolen all the emo during the war. Then it was unbalanced girls who had just gotten back from trips to Europe and wouldn't discuss anything but Foucault and Lee Krasner. Now it's obsessive workaholics with well-concealed drinking problems: Don Draper in drag.
I'm not sure whether the crazy girls have changed, or I have.
But the shallowness of broad-brush generalizations is awesome!
I think every dude has suffered from "captain save-a-ho" sydrome. Someone should start a comic book line with Captain Save A Ho as the main character.
Or better yet he could be the official white spokesperson.
What can I say? I ended up marrying a generally well-adjusted, intelligent but not particularly intellectual woman with a silly sense of humor. Pretty boring, eh?
the bad boy thing is a complete mystery
Oh, that one's easy-- the confidence of someone who apparently doesn't give a crap about societal approval is a major draw to those who feel particularly constrained by society's expectations. Bad boys represent what nice girls wish they could do, which is basically to tell the rest of the world to piss off. It's no fun once the nice girl gets lumped in with the rest of the world in his defiance, but the appeals' still undeniable.
That said, my own bad-boy history is actually pretty limited, probably in part because I'm too analytical for bad boys' comfort. But ask me someday about the genial, capable-seeming men that turn out to be passive-aggressive, or workaholics, or some other sort of bundles of resentful insecurity. And they're actually pretty hard to identify early on.
Funnier how I never see articles about why so many men enjoy the company of crazy women.
This is because you can only say "crazy in the head equals crazy in the bed" in so many different ways before the article starts to sound repetitive.
(And yes, the genesis of 90%+ of these sorts of articles is a writer trying to justify why he's not getting the girls he wants even though he's just SO nice.)
Yeah I have seen this a LOT and only dealt with it once. I dated a dude with some craaazy exes, and at first I thought it was just the luck of the draw. Started out good- no fights, no drama, we had fun and really no issues. As time went on and we got more involved he started to complain.
It was so odd- he would claim that I wouldn't open up and share with him. I did, but it was never ENOUGH sharing, he always wanted more exhausting emotional introspection. I figured out that what he really wanted was for me to have some deep emotional issue that he could solve for me.
After that I consistently passed on men who are all about the drama. I like people who are fun, funny and sane as a rule. I will pass on the angst.
I have to say, from own personal experience, it would seem that the attraction to the "crazy-chick" is purely physical. Every "crazy-chick" I ever knew simply threw it down in the sack. Maybe it is because the uninhibitedness synapse is so closely located to the physco synapse in the female brain, I don't know. I do know that the only reason I, and most of the guys I know, have put up with crazy chicks is because of their booty ability.
The Captain Save-a-Ho complex in my personal experience seems to be really common amongst D&D players.
Although my gaming group usually referred to it as the Knight in Shining Armor complex.
I have to say, from own personal experience, it would seem that the attraction to the "crazy-chick" is purely physical. Every "crazy-chick" I ever knew simply threw it down in the sack. Maybe it is because the uninhibitedness synapse is so closely located to the physco synapse in the female brain, I don't know. I do know that the only reason I, and most of the guys I know, have put up with crazy chicks is because of their booty ability.
Actually, how we choose a partner is quite complex and usually not a very conscious process. For example, we tend towards unconscious archetypes, partners who may hold qualities that one or the other of our parents had - and/or partners who may represent a denied aspect of our own selves. Usually both. There are other pieces as well, too many to really dig into here. One is Freud's repetition compulsion (when we keep repeating the same type of relationship with the same results, even if the results are horrible). You might want to look into Imago therapy "Getting the Love You Want" by a Dr. Hendricks (sp?). Very good book that lays much of this out much better than I ever could.
T. Harris: that guy sounds like me at 19. I got over it.
I would second (third?) the suggestion that this is 100% because crazy girls are awesome in the sack. It's not racial at all.
Hmm Hector, your theory seems a little dubious to me. While it's certainly true that women don't need men to support them economically these days (thank god), I think it's more the case than ever that having two incomes really helps with raising children. I certainly wouldn't call being a single mother today "easy". Anyways, I have yet to see any convincing data suggesting that women on average are more likely to be attracted to "wrong guys" today than they were say 100 years ago. Although in the particular situation where women are only looking for short term relationships without children (easier today than in the past, although still not the norm), they might value more superficial qualities.
Anyways, returning to the article at hand. From my anecdotal and highly subjective experience, I could just as easily write how many of the men I've known who have otherwise been intelligent, mature individuals, have had pretty lousy taste in women and choosing what's best for them relationship-wise. I'd say the women I know on average make better decisions this way and seem to be more discerning and self aware. But like you say, men are supposed to be reckless, women not so much.
I think Keith nails it (metaphorically speaking), as do others, in positing that it's physical. weird/crazy chicks have an aura, or at least a reputation, for being sexually wild or uninhibited.
Latts has a good point about why nice girls are attracted to bad boys. The trick for nice girls who want to keep their sanity is to realize that they don't really want to DATE the bad boys. They want to BE the bad boys, to some extent. To cut loose, be irresponsible, take risks, and stop worrying about what everybody else thinks. Sometimes.
And you can't be that by sleeping with it. If anything, getting involved with a bad boy lands you with more responsibility and fewer opportunities to cut loose. A baby and a temperamental man might stop a woman from pursuing a music career of her own, for example. The same woman might actually do quite well if she instead used her normal, businesslike approach to pursue a risky career choice rather than a safe one.
Maybe the crazy girl problem is similar. There's an appeal to someone who can defy convention. The trouble is, being around people who can ONLY defy convention gets to be very exhausting. Most people like a bit of excitement, but few want a permanent revolution in their daily life.
M.C.: Trotsky as relationship therapist?
LOL @ Kenyatta's take. She rocks.
And this...
...is so on point. It's such a common theme (particularly in black professional circles): men who think they're so great, while waving their resumes in the air, complaining about women only being attracted to "bad boys." It's really just thinly veiled misogyny.
Maybe if these so-called "nice guys" grew a personality, more women would be interested?
What Keith said.
i thought about this ('crazy' girls being sexually uninhibited) a bit more. a common explanation might be that 'unbalanced' girls are more likely to seek emotional fulfillment from sex. maybe part of the correlation, if it's real, is due to the fact that girls who have an inclination to be more sexually active/curious/whatever, especially earlier on, are ostracized more by family and a society which also teaches them the paramount importance of female social conformity, or even taken advantage of in unhealthy ways at a young age, and this leads to greater likelihood of emotional problems. same thing with a less negative tint for 'weird'/unconventional girls for whom sexuality leads to an embrace of other less-conventional social mores.
just thinking out loud. i'm equating 'uninhibited' with 'good in bed' here, but i'm not too uncomfortable with that. i'm probably also overusing quote marks. let me know (especially females) if i'm missing something here.
Ummm, I just want to note to Hector, and some others, that, in the context of the article, 'the wrong guy' is one that doesn't satisfy sexually. Not wrong for providing a stable relationship (although it would help).
And, incidentally, that is why some women go for "the bad boy" like the men go for the "crazy girl". As pointed out above. I don't think it's rocket science.
I get that this is a rash overgeneralization. But kind of truthy?
Regarding the good in bed thing--it is probably self-selecting. A crazy doesn't have a lot of draw in the long run unless he/she is really good in bed. So they maximize the one thing they can do that will keep people around despite their craziness
The shallowness of men is yawn-inducing. The shallowness of women is a national crisis.
The word you're looking for is "patriarchy." It's weird to read posts like this from you and Megan McArdle, where you're all like "man, have you ever noticed how different men and women get treated for doing the same things? And, it's like, I notice it happening all over the place now! What's the deal with that? Maybe we should, I don't know, do something about it?"
And us feminists are over here, sighing.
I don't think it's that deep. Some people pick projects, some pick looks/physical gratification, some pick companionship. Slate was just targeting a demographic to drive up web traffic.
Ummm, I just want to note to Hector, and some others, that, in the context of the article, 'the wrong guy' is one that doesn't satisfy sexually. Not wrong for providing a stable relationship (although it would help).
And, incidentally, that is why some women go for "the bad boy" like the men go for the "crazy girl". As pointed out above. I don't think it's rocket science.
I get that this is a rash overgeneralization. But kind of truthy?
Anyways, I have yet to see any convincing data suggesting that women on average are more likely to be attracted to "wrong guys" today than they were say 100 years ago.
I think this is true. Anecdotally, John Wilkes Booth had portraits of five women in his pockets when he was captured; one was a politician's daughter (reportedly his secret fiancee) and her dad was taking her to Europe to get his daughter away from this dangerous actor, politics aside. And the generic concern that one's daughter would fall for the wrong man surely has many centuries behind it.
In terms of evolutionary theory, it's called the sexy son hypothesis, wherein if you have a baby by an unreliable but sexy guy, that baby will grow up to be the sort of unreliable but sexy guy who gets action, thus passing on his genes.
Fascinating discussion. Being of the "he's a jerk, dump him immediately" school this stuff has been a mystery.
Regarding the good in bed thing--it is probably self-selecting. A crazy doesn't have a lot of draw in the long run unless he/she is really good in bed. So they maximize the one thing they can do that will keep people around despite their craziness
Actually, I think it is chemical. When people talk about the "crazy in the head = crazy in the bed" phenomenon, they're not talking about any type of "crazy." They're talking about aggressive, unpredictable, impulsive women. Well, those particular women are probably "crazy" because they have testosterone issues -- and lo and behold, testosterone tends to increase one's sex drive.
I have a relative who complains about how women are so shallow and only want guys with money. His real problem is that he normally only goes after hot women out of his league, so the shallowness of women is apparent to him, while his own shallowness doesn't exist in his mind.
My ex wife had father issues and it deeply affected our relationship. It will be my life's work to make sure my daughters don't have the same issues.
The one woman I loved more than all others was not a model of good mental health, but she was special to me in so many ways, including some mentioned above.
John Mellencamp wrote a song about crazy chicks:
Mama why do I always fall for the crazy ones
Mama why do they lay so heavy on my heart
Well I'm drawn to the devil every time we kiss
Mama why do the crazy ones leave me feeling like this
"The shallowness of men is yawn-inducing. The shallowness of women is a national crisis.
The word you're looking for is "patriarchy."
No, the word is "misandry" because it reflects an expectation that men are going to be shallow in relationships, and it plays out in popular cultrue and in the courts when in divorces and in child custody decisions. And many, many feminists are gloating rather than sighing.
Great insight. There's enough blame to go around so I'm tired of the generalizations. I try not to bash men and I'm offended when men tell me about all women as if they know me. And trust me, we don't need the pill to make bad decisions about sex/men.
LOL at Jaybird
Desperation and insecurity are main reasons why women go after "Bad Boys," and stay in or repeat unhealthy relationships.
Also, and this is entirely based on my social relationships, families (even the ones intact) protect their daughters from "bad boys," but allow their sons to be the type of men they're trying to protect their daughters from.
"They want to BE the bad boys, to some extent. To cut loose, be irresponsible, take risks, and stop worrying about what everybody else thinks."
I think MC has a point here. I'd like to add that nice guys have this same attraction for bad boys. There are plenty of men who want to be Tony Soprano, Scarface, Tupac, etc. Let's face it. These guys are exciting, spontaneous, unpredictable. Most people mature to the point where these guys are not as attractive as they used to be. But, then there are some who never really mature and they become married to this sought after identity.
Hmm. I have not, in general, been attracted to bad boys. But there was one time in my life when (a) I was attracted to one, and (b) I had a really good (male) friend who had a lot of trouble finding girlfriends, and who used to cite my attraction to the bad boy in question, rather than him, as evidence that women just prefer bad boys generally.
In truth, the reason was that the bad boy had the one trait that really can undo me despite my better judgment: the ability to say, on a very regular basis, things that just make me stop and say: whoa, I never thought of it like that before. Lots and lots of people are interesting, but (in my experience) not so many are that interesting, in that way, over and over again. And though my very nice friend was very very nice, he wasn't.
Three more bullshit theories to add to the pile:
1. Sex with crazy/bad people seems great because a) we are ourselves much less inhibited when paired with a crazy person——craziness seems appropriate, after all——and b) it's much more fun to be screwing than it is to be putting up with the non-sexual manifestations of their neuroses (depressing conversations, bad poetry, hypochondriasis, horror stories about mom, etc.)
2. In our hearts, we know that in the long run the situation is untenable and impossible with the crazy person, so each roll in the hay seems seems like a) it could be the last one, so let's enjoy it, and b) 'let me see what I can get away with, since I don't really have any interest in a long-term relationship with this person and therefore I'm not worried about the consequences of revealing what a pervert I am.' So, one might make an attempt at buttfuckery or whatever because there's no worry that, years down the line, that person will blame his or her hemorrhoids on some maneuver you pulled way back when, whereas with a prospective mate you may be much more concerned with consequences as well as social mores, and therefore you're much more cautious and boring and normal yourself.
3. After dating and sleeping with a "normal" person and it not working out for whatever reason, it's natural to try something different. So, if a guy gets get dumped by a free-spirited, athletic hippie chick from Berkeley who loved spicy food but whose libido was dulled by cannabis, he might gravitate toward a neurotic, pale hypochondriac from Brooklyn who has irritable bowel syndrome and phony food allergies but a ball's-to-the-wall sexual attitude.
I would add that I think it's good for nice people (male and female) to learn how to take some risks and to behave in spontaneous and expressive ways. They should develop that side of themselves, although not to the point of becoming gangsters. The trouble I see is when people try to project all that stuff onto somebody else, whether a romantic partner or a supposed role model in the sports or entertainment industry. That encourages the other person be a more-or-less pure version of all the risk-taking traits, when actually the risk-taking is only valuable when it's mixed with a bit of stability and discipline.
Don't know if there is a parallel going the other way. Perhaps a violent, sexually promiscuous man who projects purity onto his female relations and goes to great lengths to guard their honor. In such cases, the man in question is often well advised to see to his own behavior.
Somehow I think the nice people are more likely to take my advice on this.
No one seems to be addressing a critical point in dating which is: getting their attention.
Whats the use of a nice guy who is incapable of making his qualities known? The same obviously applies for girls. Bad guys/crazy girls tend to be louder and have more type-A personalities, so would just naturally have more relationships given how much more effective they are at marketing themselves. More relationships means they have more practice, they are able to build up a momentum with dating which is undeniable to anyone who has been in a slump (hence, slump-buster)
Being humble, polite, or level-headed doesn't manifest itself immediately to people, and even when it does the individual is not likely to take that as a selling point.
Most nice guys who complain about doing worse than bad guys (myself included, but to a lesser degree after realizing this) aren't doing poorly because they are nice and bad guys are bad, but because they have no game. By the way, "game" is not restricted to game you would use at a club or house party. Game is game wherever you are, whoever you're with, as long as it is effective.
If you're a nice guy complaining about not getting girls, stop blaming it on everyone elses short-sightedness (as if you're the only victim of it) and figure out what you need to do to get what you want. And this doesn't have to include nefarious actions. This is just about being money- witty, quick, confident, and accomplished in whatever you act like you do.
No one seems to be addressing a critical point in dating which is: getting their attention.
Whats the use of a nice guy who is incapable of making his qualities known? The same obviously applies for girls. Bad guys/crazy girls tend to be louder and have more type-A personalities, so would just naturally have more relationships given how much more effective they are at marketing themselves. More relationships means they have more practice, they are able to build up a momentum with dating which is undeniable to anyone who has been in a slump (hence, slump-buster)
Being humble, polite, or level-headed doesn't manifest itself immediately to people, and even when it does the individual is not likely to take that as a selling point.
Most nice guys who complain about doing worse than bad guys (myself included, but to a lesser degree after realizing this) aren't doing poorly because they are nice and bad guys are bad, but because they have no game. By the way, "game" is not restricted to game you would use at a club or house party. Game is game wherever you are, whoever you're with, as long as it is effective.
If you're a nice guy complaining about not getting girls, stop blaming it on everyone elses short-sightedness (as if you're the only victim of it) and figure out what you need to do to get what you want. And this doesn't have to include nefarious actions. This is just about being money- witty, quick, confident, and accomplished in whatever you act like you do.
I think every dude has suffered from "captain save-a-ho" sydrome.
Not E-40.
There's also the theory that nice guys are "too nice". The riddle is that women don't actually want you to give them everything they want. Sometimes they are just testing you. Do you have the fortitude to say no to her? Do you compromise just because you are too lazy to stand up for what you believe in? Nobody likes a doormat. How are you going to stick up for her if you cant stick up for yourself? Most bad guys are selfish enough to pass this one with flying colors.
I used to date the neurotic chicks because I realized I always ruined things with the good girls. When she's obviously bonkers to begin with, I knew ahead of time that it'd be her insanity to blame for the inevitable breakup. With the loonies, I could count on them to do something relationship breaking before I did.
I think the bad/girl bad boy issue is pretty much the same. Bad boys and girls pursue and throw everything romantic they've got at you, right away, to make it serious and intense as quickly as possible, so that you get sucked in before you get to know them. That's how it works.
With bad boys they turn on the charm, tell the girl how different, special, and wonderful she is, take her places and give her things to make her feel like she is IT, yadda yadda yadda. A normal guy is going to want to really get to know a woman (and figure out if she's worth it) before he shares too much of himself (let's himself be vulnerable).
Psycho women may not necessarily be better (mechanically) in bed, but they are more intense and are usually more sexual, in general. It is all part of sucking you in. Usually, they are ready for sex shortly after meeting you, everything is a whirlwind, and once you realize you are completely in to her, then the crazy comes out. A normal woman is going to be reluctant about sex, at first. She is going to want to know that this relationship is going somewhere, and that the guy is responsible and disease-free.
I think the reason some people keep coming back to the bad boy/bad girl types is because they get addicted to that passionate intensity. It doesn't matter that it isn't really real. They are like adrenaline junkies.
I used to date the neurotic chicks because I realized I always ruined things with the good girls. When she's obviously bonkers to begin with, I knew ahead of time that it'd be her insanity to blame for the inevitable breakup. With the loonies, I could count on them to do something relationship breaking before I did.
No, the word is "misandry" because it reflects an expectation that men are going to be shallow in relationships, and it plays out in popular cultrue and in the courts when in divorces and in child custody decisions.
No, the word is "patriarchy" because, as stated, men's character flaws are accepted where the exact same flaws in women become a crisis we (that is, men) have to manage. "Misandry" is, largely, a myth promulgated by anti-feminists. (As is the idea that men are somehow disadvantaged in divorce court. In fact, the reverse is almost always true.)
I'm sort of stunned by the degree to which people insist on analyzing these decisions as conscious and rational. Is the commentariat full of closeted classical economists or something?
Come on, even if you notice a pattern in yourself and your relationships, did you ever do that on purpose? Did you ever actually say, "I'm gonna save this particular ho?" Do crazy chicks rationally plot to become awesome in the sack to keep their men? In most cases, I sincerely doubt it. Most of the time, we don't know what motivates our attractions, at least not until after the fact. *shrug* Those motivations are diverse most likely because it's good for the gene pool. As for all the EvPsych stuff about women's choices before and after the pill, it's very simple. Before Pill: Few to no choices. After Pill: Many more choices, which is why men write so much more complaining about it.
I think there are some very unhinged girls who are no good in bed because they're too freaked out to allow anyone to touch them, but they don't make it into cultural myth because they're not sexy and they don't make good stories. There are also "bad boys" who don't get any because they're idiots, and nice guys who do just fine. Again, not a good story. I think we underestimate, too, the degree to which cultural "romance" narratives like the bad boy drive our own behavior because we've seen too many romantic comedies--believe me, I've seen this in action.
(As is the idea that men are somehow disadvantaged in divorce court. In fact, the reverse is almost always true.)
Really, well the next time a man can defraud a woman for child support with a kid that isn't even hers just let me know. How many times do men get alimony versus women, or custody of the kids for that matter?
All the so-called "Nice Guys" I ever met wanted the same thing the "Bad Boys" wanted, but they were just more twisted in how they went about getting it. And then when they didn't get what they wanted, they were like: "I was nice to you! Why won't you put out?" I have no patience with "Bad Boys" either, but at least with them I didn't get these assinine mind games.
"Nice Guys" and "Bad Boys" both stink.
@hilzoy - You definitely have a good point with how guys get man-crushes on bad-boys. You only have to peruse Tucker Max's bulletin board to see the evidence.
I think people outside the BB see only the apparent success of being spontaneous and not controlling his inhibitions. They don't see the consequences, of a lonely middle-aged a-hole who can't keep a job and repels girls now that he's five years past his prime.
Nice guys/girls who have fun in bed probably stay with the one they are with (why end a great thing!) so they are less available for erotic comparisons with the bad boys/crazies....just a thought.
PS--Ta-Nehisi, please define "father issues", thanks.
Re: In the days before birth control, and before feminism, a woman knew that if she slept with a man she was likely to become with child, and depend on the man for economic support, and therefore at some level they were attracted to those traits that would ensure he would be a good father
Well, except that prgenancy is not the inevitable outcome of every sex act, and back in the olden times good girls who got prgenant and couldn't (for whatever reason) demand a shotgun marriage also had the out of adoption.
Re: One could also make a theoretical argument on evolutionary grounds that increasing the wealth of society (i.e. the ease with which a woman can make enough money to support a child on her own) we are selecting against the traits that will result in long-term relationships and altering the balance in favor of the 'hit it and quit it' type of men.
Except that I very much doubt anything that specific is genetically pre-programmed. You could make a better case by pointing out that children who grow up seeing men behave badly toward women will likely copy that behavior (if boys) or accept it as normal (if girls).
Re: In terms of evolutionary theory, it's called the sexy son hypothesis, wherein if you have a baby by an unreliable but sexy guy, that baby will grow up to be the sort of unreliable but sexy guy who gets action, thus passing on his genes.
Again, very dubious, and for the additional reason that children inherit half their genes from their mothers. Sexy guy's kids could turn out to be wimpy doormats just like Mom. Especially if Mom is who raises them and imprints her behaviors and attitudes on them while Dad has long since flown the coop.
Re: A crazy doesn't have a lot of draw in the long run unless he/she is really good in bed.
Being good in bed is intensely subjective. What people want in the sack varies enormously among individuals. My "hot to trot" may be your "uncaring, unfeeling jerk" and so forth.
"Why didn’t you tell me you were a demon from Hell?" - Sam Kinison
OK, I really have to laugh at this. The article title is "Women who date the "wrong" men"....
The responses are mostly about men who date crazy women.
Uh................... WHAT?
Let's see.... men who justify dating women with 'issues' because it supposedly guarantees wilder sex???
....DEFINITELY THE "WRONG" KIND OF MEN.... and they KNOW it! NOW if they only had the BALLS to admit it up front, the women wouldn't be dating them at all. :-)