ajohkeh:
Yes. Bad guys got more babes...

liab:
they feel more secure with bad guys

DarkRebel69:
If that video – triffling as it is – stirred a "controversy" in your office on a working-day, then it's either you and your colleagues were tremendously idle or aren't very serious-minded. Or perhaps your usage of the word "controversy" is only a pointer to your innate proclivity to being unrepentantly exaggerative.

Whichever it is, I've never believed that women are more attracted to bad guys than to the goody-fifteen-shoes. That false god of a notion is but like all other ill-conceived stereotypes, many of which are commonplace in society – stereotypes like: "all Calabar girls are inexorable nymophomaniacs". "All Yoruba girls are dirty". "All Igbo men are wanton money-lovers".

Osama Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, John Wilkes Booth, Issei Sagawa, Clifford Örgy, and Jim Moriarty (fictional character) – all these men were "bad" in the conventional and worldly sense. Would you purport that a greater percentage of the female demographic would feel more attracted to these set of "bad" men than to decent men such as, Will Smith, Mark Zukerberg, Leonardo Di Caprio, and Michael Scofield (fictional character)?

Surely a woman who out of her own volition prefers the men in the first group must indeed be one fraught with a reckless idea of romance, or probably is just as psychologically messed-up as those men themselves. It's worth bringing to notice that Ted Bundy – a deceased American serial killer – received tons of "marriage proposals" from different women while he was being held in custody and awaiting trial. I'd like to believe that these set of women are "outliers" and not the norm, and that they must have had some sort of mania for "serial-killers"; and that they constitute only a soupçon of the female population.

Attraction might be something that we cannot entirely control, but what's controllable is whether or not we eventually cave in to that primal and visceral impulse of attraction.

And, what's your definition of "good" and "bad"? Do you mean "bad" to be "Hannibal Lecter type of bad", or do you interpret it to mean "living on the fast lane type of bad"?

Have you also considered the fact that no man is ever only purely good or only purely bad, but that human beings are more often than not an admixture of both "good and bad"? Human beings are too complex, too nuanced, for a person to be boxed into a single, fixated category. Nah, nah, nah... Life isn't black and white; it's black, white, and a legion of polychromic in-betweens.

Bettyfair09:



This would have made lots of sense if your message was simple for everyone to comprehend. And saying that me and my colleagues are not serious minded on a working day wasn't called for too. I wonder what happened to break hours in the office.

Work towards making your posts simple for your audience...it will be of great help!

DarkRebel69:
If that video – triffling as it is – stirred a "controversy" in your office on a working-day, then it's either you and your colleagues were tremendously idle or aren't very serious-minded. Or perhaps your usage of the word "controversy" is only a pointer to your innate proclivity to being unrepentantly exaggerative.

Whichever it is, I've never believed that women are more attracted to bad guys than to the goody-fifteen-shoes. That false god of a notion is but like all other ill-conceived stereotypes, many of which are commonplace in society – stereotypes like: "all Calabar girls are inexorable nymophomaniacs". "All Yoruba girls are dirty". "All Igbo men are wanton money-lovers".

Osama Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, John Wilkes Booth, Issei Sagawa, Clifford Örgy, and Jim Moriarty (fictional character) – all these men were "bad" in the conventional and worldly sense. Would you purport that a greater percentage of the female demographic would feel more attracted to these set of "bad" men than to decent men such as, Will Smith, Mark Zukerberg, Leonardo Di Caprio, and Michael Scofield (fictional character)?

Surely a woman who out of her own volition prefers the men in the first group must indeed be one fraught with a reckless idea of romance, or probably is just as psychologically messed-up as those men themselves. It's worth bringing to notice that Ted Bundy – a deceased American serial killer – received tons of "marriage proposals" from different women while he was being held in custody and awaiting trial. I'd like to believe that these set of women are "outliers" and not the norm, and that they must have had some sort of mania for "serial-killers"; and that they constitute only a soupçon of the female population.

Attraction might be something that we cannot entirely control, but what's controllable is whether or not we eventually cave in to that primal and visceral impulse of attraction.

And, what's your definition of "good" and "bad"? Do you mean "bad" to be "Hannibal Lecter type of bad", or do you interpret it to mean "living on the fast lane type of bad"?

Have you also considered the fact that no man is ever only purely good or only purely bad, but that human beings are more often than not an admixture of both "good and bad"? Human beings are too complex, too nuanced, for a person to be boxed into a single, fixated category. Nah, nah, nah... Life isn't black and white; it's black, white, and a legion of polychromic in-betweens.

DouglasH92:


I believe his post is simple and elaborate enough for any educated person to read & understand. And I presume you are educated, since you "work" as an employee in a work place, except of course your level of education wasn't a criteria for employment.

Actually, if most people on NL wrote as beautifully and comprehensively as he did, this forum would be more educative.

Bigboyz32:
Who's a bad guy and who's a good guy?

Nma27:
ha

Preshiee:
Should I say most girls are confused? ...because most of them love the ones that beat them up alot

Bettyfair09:


You just left me wondering why you didn't write like him in this your reply...maybe you ain't educated too!

This is the reason why people criticize Hon. Patrick.

Bettyfair09:

This would have made lots of sense if your message was simple for everyone to comprehend. And saying that me and my colleagues are not serious minded on a working day wasn't called for too. I wonder what happened to break hours in the office.

Work towards making your posts simple for your audience...it will be of great help!

DouglasH92:

I believe his post is simple and elaborate enough for any educated person to read & understand. And I presume you are educated, since you "work" as an employee in a work place, except of course your level of education wasn't a criteria for employment.

Actually, if most people on NL wrote as beautifully and comprehensively as he did, this forum would be more educative.

Prettyenit18:
Women are attracted to confidence, most bad guys have confidence which gives women a sense of security. That's the attraction. Please good guys learn to have confidence oh, we prefer you to the bad guys.

DouglasH92:


At least I am educated enough to comprehend and appreciate good writing, rather than whining about how difficult it is to comprehend.

And there is nothing reminiscent of Hon. Patrick in his writing. If you got a transcript of Hon. Patrick's speeches, it would appear as a hodgepodge of extremely rare and unfamiliar vocabulary, cobbled up in a way that bears no similarity to what anyone would describe as beautiful writing.

You created a thread demanding responses to your question and someone presented inarguably the best response you can get on such an over flogged and redundant question, and all you could do was complain about how it was too difficult for you and everyone like you to comprehend.

DarkRebel69:


More leaps of logic.

I.) How did you know that my post wasn't simple enough for everyone to comprehend? Are you some sort of mind-reader? A psychic? A mentalist? Was that claim punted forward after you had accessed the cognitive capability of every single member of this forum? Or did you use your sub-par grasp of the English Language as an index in making a generalized assessment of the literacy prowess of all members of this forum?

II.) I didn't outrightly tag you and your colleagues as "un-serious-minded". It wasn't a statement made with certainty. It was a high-probability guess and you proved I was not entirely wrong when in this post you said, "What happened to break-hours'?
Et Voila! Break-hours is usually a time for idleness, so you see, mademoiselle, I wasn't completely wide off the mark.


See how serious you are right now! This is equally working hours and you are here quoting upandan.

**SMH***

Please always make your write-ups simple enough for the less educated ones to comprehend.

Remember there's no NL award for such display.


Aha! Thank you.

I'm of the opinion that many members of this forum aren't educated enough to tell the difference between 'a body of post put across with forensic eloquence' and a 'post that is unnecesarily wordy and show-offy'.
Whenever they come across a person with a markedly distinct style of writing and who makes painstaking efforts to not write in the manner common with many millenials on social media – e.g. in abbreviations, in incomplete sentences, etc. – their first port of call is the well-worn argument that one is not being "simple in speech".

I fear for the mental outlook of the generations to come.