Good Man vs Bad Boy in Long Term Relationships

10873 Views 346 Replies 53 Participants Last post by BigDaddyNY, 13 d ago

1994

Discussion Starter · 3 mo ago

Question: How do you feel about your wife describing you as a "Good Man" in a LTR? Does it seem a little condescending to you, or is that the goal?

Background: We've been married nearly 30 years with three children, one of whom will soon be married. We're approaching an empty nest soon when the youngest goes off to college. This happens to coincide with me retiring from the military. I wanted to do what I could to facilitate this major transition for us, hence me discovering this site and others like it.

My wife and I are very close, as most military couples who endure long absences often under dangerous conditions often are. I have loved her since our first date (it took her a bit longer) and she loves me. I have no question about that.

Here's my topic. When describing me to others, my wife will typically play up my stability and reliability. Yes, I fix things around the house that are broken, mow the lawn with an almost OCD fervor, attend Church, spend time with my kids doing things we enjoy, check their homework mercilessly and insist they keep their rooms clean. I buy her flowers on all the major holidays and sometimes just because I felt like it. I have never paid a late fee on a bill. I love my puns, and my social media posts vacillate between pictures of my kids and sharing memes that I (and probably only I) find funny. I actually read (mostly) the annual prospectus on my IRA funds. In short, I'm a suburban Dad.

However, I've been successful in an inherently dangerous career, am a former moderately competent fight sport athlete, can lift way more weight than most men my age-and many younger men-at real gyms (I've never had a Planet Fitness membership, thank you). I've run multiple marathons with respectable times, worked my way through college as a bouncer, drove a motorcycle (not for a long time now, though...life insurance is way too expensive at my age) and have more than one tattoo. When I'm pissed, I've been told I can be quite intimidating. Plus, in all due modesty, I really rock a shaved head. In short, under the right circumstances, I'm kind of a badass

So, here's my first-world-problem question: would you rather the person with whom you regularly have sex think of you as a "Good Man" or "Bad Boy?" When she wants to show appreciation, if you must choose, should it be in the form of making your favorite meal or greeting you at the door in nothing but lingerie? When she imagines you, should it be Monkey Wrench or Monkey Sex?

See less See more

Reactions: 2

321 - 340 of 347 Posts

DownButNotOut

· #321 · 3 mo ago

Griswold said:
DownbutNotOut - we share some similar views. i agree with you that there are distinct "on average" gender differences in how we approach mating. I think there is plenty of data to support that (and DownbytheRiver - to be clear - because these differences appear "in the big," it's wrong to assume that every guy or gal will display a particular trait just because that trait shows up "on average.")

Seems to me though that your asymmetrical approach to virginity assumes that it's a gender difference that lower sexual experience matters to men (on average). i.e. that men prefer virgins. If' I read the studies by Buss et al correctly (and maybe I did not!), that's not something men really care much about. No evidence. Now...infidelity? Whew the evidence is just overwhelming that men care fanatically about if their mate has has sex with another rman. In most countries, in most cultures. That is huge. Virginity? Not so much.

I do think it is not irrational for a guy to be concerned with a woman with a really high body count - based on the the clear linkage to higher risk of infidelity. But as LisaD. pointed out, that's still a generalization. It may not apply to your particular potential gal. But you'd have some basis for that asymmetrical view. If your count were high too, I'd still have a vague feeling of hypocrisy, but less.

With regards to Buss et. al. , I believe the virginity issue falls under the umbrella of men desiring youth, fertility, and certainty of paternity. But this whole thing isn't about virginity per se. It is about sexual history, and how that may impact a future relationship.

I was asked to draw a clear line. I did so at 5 previous sexual partners. Why 5? While virginity would be ideal, it relates to the studies Conan quoted above. Probability of successful marriage dwindles rapidly past 5.

I understand that everyone is different. But in every day life we don't have the luxury of decision making on each and every individual thing. If you've read Blink (Malcom Gladwell) we make our decisions far quicker than we can gather data and analyze it. We use generalities every day as a convenient heuristic to guide our choices in a myriad of situations. Body count can be such a convenient heuristic for male mate selection strategy.

See less See more

Reactions: 4

ccpowerslave

· #322 · 3 mo ago

Guy: Hey baby how many men you been with?
Woman: (some large number) 300
Guy: How about we make it 301?

Reactions: 5

Divinely Favored

· #323 · 3 mo ago

ccpowerslave said:
Guy: Hey baby how many men you been with?
Woman: (some large number) 300
Guy: How about we make it 301?

She's for the streets!

Reactions: 3

Griswold

· #324 · 3 mo ago

Don't get me wrong, DBNO, we all get to make our own decisions using our own criteria. Yours worked for you. I understand. It's just that this particular type of issue is where i get ansty with the red-pill types who hijack the literature out there to make grand ironclad pronouncements (never ever reconcile with a cheater, never ever date a single mom, never ever marry a woman with over x sexual partners, all women want to upgrade and abandon you etc etc). It's one thing to agree that there are psychological mating traits that we as animals/primates pass along on average along gender lines, and quite another to translate those findings to ways to deal with actual individuals. On an individual level, the "on average" gender attributes may be almost meaningless. So picking the love of your life based on rock-ribbed generalizations itself may be risky. On the other hand, on a site like this when we are trying to give advice to people we really don't, and can't know - the "generalizations" can be of some value at least in the beginning of a post, to frame possible advice.

The love of my life would have failed the 5 body test. That would have definitely been a tragedy for both of us.

Gosh...think I'm sounding too much the nice guy. How much does a Harley cost?

See less See more

Reactions: 4

DownButNotOut

· #325 · 3 mo ago

Griswold said:
Don't get me wrong, DBNO, we all get to make our own decisions using our own criteria. Yours worked for you. I understand. It's just that this particular type of issue is where i get ansty with the red-pill types who hijack the literature out there to make grand ironclad pronouncements (never ever reconcile with a cheater, never ever date a single mom, never ever marry a woman with over x sexual partners, all women want to upgrade and abandon you etc etc). It's one thing to agree that there are psychological mating traits that we as animals/primates pass along on average along gender lines, and quite another to translate those findings to ways to deal with actual individuals. On an individual level, the "on average" gender attributes may be almost meaningless. So picking the love of your life based on rock-ribbed generalizations itself may be risky. On the other hand, on a site like this when we are trying to give advice to people we really don't, and can't know - the "generalizations" can be of some value at least in the beginning of a post, to frame possible advice.

The love of my life would have failed the 5 body test. That would have definitely been a tragedy for both of us.

Gosh...think I'm sounding too much the nice guy. How much does a Harley cost?

Another way of thinking about it is that most traits follow a normal distribution. Most people are around the middle of the bell curve. If you start with the average, you will most likely not be more than a standard deviation off. That is why generalizations are a good heuristic. You're probably not too far off if you use them. Are there outliers? sure. How much risk are you willing to take on to see if that individual is a true outlier or just your average bad pick? That's the question you have to ask when you deviate from the mean.

Reactions: 1

Griswold

· #326 · 3 mo ago

DBNO - really interesting point you raise. Not trying to win a debate - really asking. If one takes what is purported to be a heritable trait, you can say "yes," in a population , more of one gender will have that trait than the other. True So, it's pretty clear that men on average inherit something (paternity uncertainty?) that makes them hyper sensitive , on average, to sexual infidelity. Women seem to be (on average) hypersensitive to loss of attachment (emotional security). Men seem to value fertility (youth, beauty) - hypogamy. Women seem to value status - hypergamy. etc etc I'm awful at stats so I'm weak at arguing this. But seems to me that as you add traits, the distributions as to an individual could be wildly off. Guess what I'm asking what are the odds these traits distribute along the bell in anyone person? My gut (not my math - never that. I suck at that) tells me the individual distributions will still wind up as a bit of a kaleidoscope of traits - even though across the total, you will see the trend.

Now applying these generalities to nameless strangers here on TAM makes some sense to me, at least initially. I agree they make a good starting point. But hopefully as we learn about posters we adapt. Look a Wounded Wife posting on another thread. She ultimately decided to dump her hubs after a single one night stand. Not faulting her - she just does not follow what we'd see as a statistical norm. But at the start of her thread, it was more probable to assume a reconciliation outcome - just based on gender. But she bucked that trend.

oh, and 1994 - apologize. I think I've threadjacked. I won't post on this point again. I'll take my lumps from DBNO and leave it. Back to good men/bad boys.

See less See more

Reactions: 2

1994

Discussion Starter · #327 · 3 mo ago

Griswold said:
DBNO - really interesting point you raise. Not trying to win a debate - really asking. If one takes what is purported to be a heritable trait, you can say "yes," in a population , more of one gender will have that trait than the other. True So, it's pretty clear that men on average inherit something (paternity uncertainty?) that makes them hyper sensitive , on average, to sexual infidelity. Women seem to be (on average) hypersensitive to loss of attachment (emotional security). Men seem to value fertility (youth, beauty) - hypogamy. Women seem to value status - hypergamy. etc etc I'm awful at stats so I'm weak at arguing this. But seems to me that as you add traits, the distributions as to an individual could be wildly off. Guess what I'm asking what are the odds these traits distribute along the bell in anyone person? My gut (not my math - never that. I suck at that) tells me the individual distributions will still wind up as a bit of a kaleidoscope of traits - even though across the total, you will see the trend.

Now applying these generalities to nameless strangers here on TAM makes some sense to me, at least initially. I agree they make a good starting point. But hopefully as we learn about posters we adapt. Look a Wounded Wife posting on another thread. She ultimately decided to dump her hubs after a single one night stand. Not faulting her - she just does not follow what we'd see as a statistical norm. But at the start of her thread, it was more probable to assume a reconciliation outcome - just based on gender. But she bucked that trend.

oh, and 1994 - apologize. I think I've threadjacked. I won't post on this point again. I'll take my lumps from DBNO and leave it. Back to good men/bad boys.

Not at all. I think this is an interesting sidebar that actually reinforces the main idea. It helps define good men/bad boys?

Reactions: 1

BigDaddyNY

· #328 · 3 mo ago

Griswold said:
DBNO - really interesting point you raise. Not trying to win a debate - really asking. If one takes what is purported to be a heritable trait, you can say "yes," in a population , more of one gender will have that trait than the other. True So, it's pretty clear that men on average inherit something (paternity uncertainty?) that makes them hyper sensitive , on average, to sexual infidelity. Women seem to be (on average) hypersensitive to loss of attachment (emotional security). Men seem to value fertility (youth, beauty) - hypogamy. Women seem to value status - hypergamy. etc etc I'm awful at stats so I'm weak at arguing this. But seems to me that as you add traits, the distributions as to an individual could be wildly off. Guess what I'm asking what are the odds these traits distribute along the bell in anyone person? My gut (not my math - never that. I suck at that) tells me the individual distributions will still wind up as a bit of a kaleidoscope of traits - even though across the total, you will see the trend.

Now applying these generalities to nameless strangers here on TAM makes some sense to me, at least initially. I agree they make a good starting point. But hopefully as we learn about posters we adapt. Look a Wounded Wife posting on another thread. She ultimately decided to dump her hubs after a single one night stand. Not faulting her - she just does not follow what we'd see as a statistical norm. But at the start of her thread, it was more probable to assume a reconciliation outcome - just based on gender. But she bucked that trend.

oh, and 1994 - apologize. I think I've threadjacked. I won't post on this point again. I'll take my lumps from DBNO and leave it. Back to good men/bad boys.

I think in the case of wounded wife the ONS took her blinders off and it became the last straw. She was ale to see there was too much bad boy and not enough good guy.

Reactions: 2

ConanHub

· #329 · 3 mo ago

BigDaddyNY said:
I think in the case of wounded wife the ONS took her blinders off and it became the last straw. She was ale to see there was too much bad boy and not enough good guy.

This proves @Griswold 's point and I obviously agree.

Reactions: 2

Corgi Mum

· #330 · 2 mo ago

DownByTheRiver said:
You come across people on the regular who you just can't fathom what they see in who they're with.

This. So much this.

1994

Discussion Starter · #331 · 2 mo ago

Another quick prompt. I'm learning about the whole spectrum of men or maleness. Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Omega and, apparently the newest one, Sigma. My daughters say I'm a Sigma. If free online tests are to be believed, I'm either a Gamma or Sigma (depending on my mood at the time I take the test, presumably). I know I'm not a traditional "Alpha" even without the benefit of free online tests. At my current ago, I'm not sure what to do with that information. One thing that really rang true to me about the Gamma description is that they tend to be more romantic and focused on monogamy, which could explain why I spend some of my free time on websites like this.
Any opinions on this among the readers here? How do you see yourself, and does it matter?

Reactions: 1

ccpowerslave

· #332 · 2 mo ago

It doesn’t matter how you see yourself only how others see you.

Reactions: 2

ConanHub

· #333 · 2 mo ago

1994 said:
Another quick prompt. I'm learning about the whole spectrum of men or maleness. Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Omega and, apparently the newest one, Sigma. My daughters say I'm a Sigma. If free online tests are to be believed, I'm either a Gamma or Sigma (depending on my mood at the time I take the test, presumably). I know I'm not a traditional "Alpha" even without the benefit of free online tests. At my current ago, I'm not sure what to do with that information. One thing that really rang true to me about the Gamma description is that they tend to be more romantic and focused on monogamy, which could explain why I spend some of my free time on websites like this.
Any opinions on this among the readers here? How do you see yourself, and does it matter?

I think it can be interesting to read about but I don't put major stock in the terms.

The terms can speed discussions though so they are useful in that fashion.

A lot of people refer to me as an alpha but I have always been more of an anti alpha if that makes sense.

I might actually be sliding more into the term as I age though.

I recently changed up my work and stopped contracting to take a real job which is something I haven't done in nearly ten years.

I went through a week of orientation and training with mostly younger people and they definitely thought I was an alpha (their own words) and I got asked by my supes to handle setting up 5 new sites after only two weeks on the job. They are taking me off the job I signed up for and putting me on a team that sets up logistics for new companies and I got a weird amount of respect from the people at the one site I did perform regular duties for.

Maybe I'll start going with the term.😉

I'm fairly romantic and monogamous though so that might screw it up for me.🤣

See less See more

Reactions: 2

CrapMan

· #334 · 2 mo ago

I used to be a bad boy. Motorcycle rider, bouncer, womanizer. Now, with my adorable wife, I watch and enjoy Hallmark movies.

Reactions: 4

ConanHub

· #335 · 2 mo ago

CrapMan said:
I used to be a bad boy. Motorcycle rider, bouncer, womanizer. Now, with my adorable wife, I watch and enjoy Hallmark movies.

I can relate. Mrs. C and I enjoy Jane Austen and UFC.

We apparently influenced each other.

Reactions: 2

1994

Discussion Starter · #336 · 2 mo ago

ConanHub said:
I think it can be interesting to read about but I don't put major stock in the terms.

The terms can speed discussions though so they are useful in that fashion.

A lot of people refer to me as an alpha but I have always been more of an anti alpha if that makes sense.

I might actually be sliding more into the term as I age though.

I recently changed up my work and stopped contracting to take a real job which is something I haven't done in nearly ten years.

I went through a week of orientation and training with mostly younger people and they definitely thought I was an alpha (their own words) and I got asked by my supes to handle setting up 5 new sites after only two weeks on the job. They are taking me off the job I signed up for and putting me on a team that sets up logistics for new companies and I got a weird amount of respect from the people at the one site I did perform regular duties for.

Maybe I'll start going with the term.😉

I'm fairly romantic and monogamous though so that might screw it up for me.🤣

I think it's also dependent on your specific circumstances. Masculinity clearly resides along a spectrum. I work in the Army, a primarily male, Alpha-heavy profession. Even within the Army, I've been in units that were markedly more Alpha than others. I've worked with partner nation militaries that have their own version of the Alpha dominance that is noticeably different than ours. Also, it's not just a male thing. I've met my share of women with traditionally Alpha qualities. Therefore, by extension, I seldom try to dominate in many of those environments, which is no great loss as I don't especially care to dominate most of the time. I step in to lead when necessary and follow when necessary...hence my Sigma-ness, I suppose. However, in other settings it's not even close. Around my extended family, I'm definitely dominant without trying to be; the same when I'm dealing with other civic and/or educational groups I'm a part of. Alpha, perhaps, is in the eye of the beholder?

See less See more

Reactions: 1

hamadryad

· #337 · 2 mo ago

1994 said:
I think it's also dependent on your specific circumstances. Masculinity clearly resides along a spectrum. I work in the Army, a primarily male, Alpha-heavy profession. Even within the Army, I've been in units that were markedly more Alpha than others. I've worked with partner nation militaries that have their own version of the Alpha dominance that is noticeably different than ours. Also, it's not just a male thing. I've met my share of women with traditionally Alpha qualities. Therefore, by extension, I seldom try to dominate in many of those environments, which is no great loss as I don't especially care to dominate most of the time. I step in to lead when necessary and follow when necessary...hence my Sigma-ness, I suppose. However, in other settings it's not even close. Around my extended family, I'm definitely dominant without trying to be; the same when I'm dealing with other civic and/or educational groups I'm a part of. Alpha, perhaps, is in the eye of the beholder?

Odd. Most of the guys I know who served, I would not consider Alpha males.

To me, an Alpha doesn't necessarily like or adhere to prescribed boundaries, control. Etc. These are the types of traits that service personnel need to adhere to in order to be successful. I suppose higher ranking officers are probably Alpha as you need to be in order to be a successful leader of men. None of the people I know that served ever became higher ranking.

I think people(not saying you) believe that alphas are "tough guys" the brash types that like to throw their weight around. Or as you say "dominate"

IMO nothing about that type of behavior indicates a true Alpha. In fact, often the loudest one in the room is the weakest.

Alphas are recognized more by body language and other subliminal cues, many are often very quiet and reserved.

Thank you and all others who have served.

See less See more

Reactions: 3

1994

Discussion Starter · #338 · 2 mo ago

hamadryad said:
Odd. Most of the guys I know who served, I would not consider Alpha males.

To me, an Alpha doesn't necessarily like or adhere to prescribed boundaries, control. Etc. These are the types of traits that service personnel need to adhere to in order to be successful. I suppose higher ranking officers are probably Alpha as you need to be in order to be a successful leader of men. None of the people I know that served ever became higher ranking.

I think people(not saying you) believe that alphas are "tough guys" the brash types that like to throw their weight around. Or as you say "dominate"

IMO nothing about that type of behavior indicates a true Alpha. In fact, often the loudest one in the room is the weakest.

Alphas are recognized more by body language and other subliminal cues, many are often very quiet and reserved.

Thank you and all others who have served.

Perhaps "dominate" isn't necessarily the right word as it implies intent and force. I was really using it as the verb version of "dominant," which it technically is but has a pejorative connotation. Alphas tend to be natural leaders, and the Army has more than its share of people with those traits. I agree with you on the Tough Guy stereotype. I've worked with some genuine tough guys, and most of them are legitimately fun and easygoing. They don't swing their weight around because they don't need to.

Reactions: 3

Corgi Mum

· #339 · 2 mo ago

Ragnar Ragnasson said:
I lean towards the point that any person male or female has countering issues, later in life the FOMO and wonder what it would be like to have sex with (not my spouse). Not a sure thing, but as equal or more of a concern even. Just my opinion.

That is more often what I have observed in real life, the people with extremely limited premarital sexual experience who want to relive the youth they think everyone else had that they missed out on.

Griswold

· #340 · 2 mo ago

Conan- should we start a "Real men like Austin and Hallmark" thread? I'm in.

Reactions: 1

321 - 340 of 347 Posts