I meant more OJ Simpson types, who are usually very charming, but violent by nature if the time is right for them to use that technique for controlling others, and they are evidently so at the time in different ways from criminal violence.<The allegation that women, in general, go for "bad boys" is very odd to me.>
<hankering at one and the same time for "good girls" and "bad girls" because they're confused.>
I wouldn't call it confusion. More like generalized lust. Men put up the lust and women sort through the dross on offer.
A niece made an interesting comment to me one day when we were discussing getting some extras for part of a movie "The Devil Dared Me To" devildaredmeto.com which was to be filmed at Huntly, which is well away from population centres, so they would have to drive there.
I commented that the way to get a whole bunch of guys there was to tell them that there would be a lot girls there. She said, "Yes, and tell the girls that there's going to be a rock star there" [or words to that effect]. I laughed when I realized the implications and it's true.
And, it makes sense when you think of how people are. For eons, humans, chimps and many other mammals have had mating which gives precedence to dominant males who can corral a herd of females by providing a strong community and being boss of the whole show, helping himself to whatever he wants, or by outright defeat of competing males.
Genghis Khan is perhaps world champion in that regard in recent history, though one can go back about 30,000 years and find an even more successful male [in the long run] who provided the genetic foundation for ALL human males now alive who derived from those who had left Africa at that time. ALL other male lineages conked out in the exigencies of red in tooth and claw survival and reproductive efforts.
You have to go back 100,000 years or so to find the original female who mothered all of those who descended from those who left Africa.
Which is very interesting.
Mqurice |
