Bad Boys vs. Heartbreakers

beautiful-redheads-gallery-26Nice guy is a term in Internet discourse describing an adult or teenage male with a fixation on seducing women by being nice to them, most stereotypically by providing a woman with emotional support when she is having difficulties with another male partner.

There are, broadly, three schools of thought about Nice Guys™:

  1. that they are are victims of women’s irrationality or cruelty, in that women say that they want “nice guys” but in fact preferring to have relationships with “jerks” or “alpha [alpha males]”
  2. that they are using a failed seduction strategy and need to learn or be taught to be alphas or seducers, see Pick Up Artists
  3. that the Nice Guy strategy of “doing things for someone so that she will have sex with me, because women do or should reward niceness with sex” is a sexist construction, of which more below

The terms Nice Guy™ and nice guy syndrome are used to describe men who view themselves as prototypical “nice guys,” but whose “nice deeds” are in reality only motivated by attempts to passively please women into a relationship and/or sex.

How To Be A Heartbreaker

Rule number one, is that you gotta have fun

But baby when you’re done, you gotta be the first to run
Rule number two, just don’t get attached to
Somebody you could lose
So le-le-let me tell you

Sexy_Hipsters_20_largeThis is how to be a heartbreaker
Boys they like a little danger
We’ll get him falling for a stranger
A player, singing I lo-lo-love you
How to be a heartbreaker
Boys they like the look of danger
We’ll get him falling for a stranger
A player, singing I lo-lo-love you
At least I think I do!

Cause I lo-lo-love you

Rule number three, wear your heart on your cheek
But never on your sleeve, unless you wanna taste defeat
Rule number four, gotta be looking pure
Kiss him goodbye at the door, and leave him wanting more, more

originalThis is how to be a heartbreaker
Boys they like a little danger
We’ll get him falling for a stranger
A player, singing I lo-lo-love you
How to be a heartbreaker
Boys they like the look of danger
We’ll get him falling for a stranger
A player, singing I lo-lo-love you
At least I think I do

Cause I lo-lo-love you

Girls, we do, whatever it will take
Cause girls don’t want, we don’t want our hearts to break in two
So it’s better to be fake, can’t risk losing in love again, babe

amazing-beautiful-black-and-white-blonde-hipster-Favim.com-185861This is how to be a heartbreaker
Boys they like a little danger
We’ll get him falling for a stranger
A player, singing I lo-lo-love you
How to be a heartbreaker
Boys they like the look of danger
We’ll get him falling for a stranger
A player, singing I lo-lo-love you

Cause I lo-lo-love you

At least I think I do

sexiest-t-shirts
Remember the last time you kissed your girlfriend and it tasted kind of funny? That was me.

23 thoughts on “Bad Boys vs. Heartbreakers

    1. I’m secure enough in my hipsterdom to enjoy some bubblegum now and again. Clever lyrics I think.

      You know honestly, I’m just a big softie at heart, I love complimenting her and cuddling, drying her tears, rubbing lotion on her sore ass afterwards. Oops I’ve said too much.

      Like

    2. So basically all the guys complaining that girls go after bad boys should ask themselves why they always go for heartbreakers?

      Same thing with the women complaining about “game” – what the hell do they thing women do to men, if not “game” them? Women are masters of game, I mean they basically invented it.

      Like

  1. Game becomes so second-nature once you internalize and practice it long enough. Here is a very simple example of being a ‘bad boy’ – a chick you work with had a sore throat, and is better today. On your way past her desk, you stop and DON’T say “you sound much better today!” What you do is, you say “you don’t sound like crap anymore!” or if that’s too risqué for you, say “you don’t sound horrible anymore.”

    Her eyes will light up, and she will try to extend the convo.

    The painful (to newbs) truth is that ALL girls really do crave the bad boy. The good news is that it’s easy to be one… without even having to be one!

    Like

      1. I forgot to add this, but if you are being nice to a girl to get her to like you and get into a long-term relationship with her, not just to have sex with her, then that’s fine too. It’s fine when the only agenda is trying to get them to like you for who you are. I guess everyone has their own preferences, because I still can’t understand why someone would want to be with a cruel person, unless you mean pretending to be cruel. If I had a cruel partner, I would not hesitate to show her the door.

        Like

    1. Ummm, I don’t think ALL women want a ‘bad boy’. That’s just what’s posted everywhere on the internet. Also, not all ‘nice guys’ want sex after they do something nice. Some guys are just nice and that’s all. The guys that are nice just to have sex are not actually nice. Why would any woman want someone who isn’t kind? It seems like someone who is a bad boy is just trying to be cool and have sex with the woman. Do they even care about what she thinks? Being a nice guy isn’t a ‘failed strategy’. A lot of women may want a bad boy, but the ones that find a nice guy (a real man) will have someone that actually cares about them.

      Like

      1. Hi Winkey-Smiley,

        The “Nice Guy” part of this article is taken from a feminist site. I agree, a guy who is acting “nice” to get sex from a woman is not being particularly “nice” if he has an agenda.

        As for “bad boys” I think the idea is that if a woman is sexually attracted to a man, even if he’s mean and doesn’t care about her opinion, well, she’s still going to be sexually attracted to him.

        I like the idea that a “heartbreaker” is the female equivalent of a “bad boy.” Since Heartbreakers are attractive, guys cater to them even if they are cruel, thoughtless, and even emotionally abusive.

        I’m not a Nice Guy, I’m a Bad Boy, and Heartbreakers are my biggest weakness 🙂

        Like

  2. Feminists are either lesbians who hate the competition from the alphas, or straight women who are daring men to bad-boy it up (or reminding low status men to know their place).

    White Knights are either young conservative men who will learn in due time or they’re old men who never figured out that women reneged on their end of the knight-virgin contract.

    Like

  3. By the way, I watched the AE for 911 Truth. The argument for controlled demolition is incontrovertible. Now, what are your thought on the drones at WTC and cruise missile at the Pentagon?

    Like

    1. I think it was probably a cruise missile, but I also have reason to believe that explosives were put in the ONI office at the Pentagon. Could be wrong, who knows? There are a lot of people that make up crazy stories in order to divert from the facts and discredit people.

      Like

    2. So there was this meeting among various different companies scheduled for early morning on Tuesday on something close to the top floor. They locked the fire exits to the roof, obviously against all fire codes. This proves they were trying to kill specific people. Some people at that meeting didn’t show up, or teleconferenced in. That’s no coincidence. So it was premeditated murder of specific people, not to mention all the hapless bystanders.

      The week before they sent out a memo saying that all the electricity to both towers were going to be shut off for “maintenance” which included the security cameras. Two stories were told, one about the electricity and on that they were “upgrading the internet” which was bullshit.

      Every piece of shit in the military and the government who was involved got promoted right afterwards. They are all still free, living it up at their consulting gigs.

      Like

    3. So probably November of 2001 I’m in DC at this party with some old friends from school. Everybody is in their 20s, most of the guys are military, intel, etc. The girls are just trying to throw a nice party, they had a flag on the front door and everything. All the guys are whispering to each other. So this guy, Air Force I think, who is a friend of a friend of a friend, tells me this story. I have zero idea of whether it’s true or false.

      So he is bringing flowers to his father’s grave in Arlington who had just died. He sees the entire Pentagon hit. He said “two planes” and although he didn’t say it openly, he strongly hinted that it was a missile. He described the plane veering off after shooting the missile.

      So he gets out his camera and takes pictures of everything, said the FBI came up to him, grabbed his camera and film, but he said he kept the roll with the pictures. I urged him to put everything online, remember the internet was still not quite mainstream back then. He basically said “why would I do that?”

      Again, no idea if any of that is true, just what someone told me.

      Like

    1. Since Greg Johnson has never actually considered the physical evidence, the eye witness accounts, nor much of the historical record, his view is worthless. Just read this gem:

      Second, from a rational point of view, most of the conspiracy theories violate basic principles like Occam’s Razor, namely that the simplest explanation of a given fact is to be preferred. Generally people lead with their strongest arguments, but nothing I have seen makes me want to inquire more deeply. It is laughable, for instance, that people who claim that no planes hit the Pentagon or crashed in Pennsylvania don’t feel a need to explain what really did happen to the airplanes. And as for the claims that the twin towers were brought down by explosives, well doesn’t that seem like overkill? Sure, it looks spectacular on TV. But crashing jetliners into the buildings would have been sufficient to achieve any of the posited motives, from starting a war to totaling the buildings for insurance purposes.

      Do you see what he’s doing? He’s creating his own fanciful conspiracy theory, then saying he didn’t inquire too deeply. So he admits his ignorance, and he doesn’t at any time evaluate the evidence.

      This sentence alone: “And as for the claims that the twin towers were brought down by explosives, well doesn’t that seem like overkill” is enough to basically discredit Johnson on this topic.

      A modified form of thermite was discovered in the debris by Dr. Steven Jones of Brigham Young University and Dr. Neils Harrit of the University of Copenhagen. Jones had his tenure revoked and was fired for releasing his findings, he was threaten repeatedly. Consider that Kevin MacDonald is still tenured despite the SPLC’s efforts against him.

      It’s disappointing that Greg Johnson chooses to even address the topic considering he is self-admittedly ignorant of the evidence.

      Like

      1. Yes I’ve been watching the Marshall story closely. As for the Israeli connection, their hands are clearly all over 9/11. Here’s a nice summary of the Israeli connections:

        http://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11:Israel_did_it

        My personal guess is that Mossad did much of the heavy lifting to hide a lot of what was going on from our guys in the various agencies. I’m almost certain that former CIA Director R. James Woolsey was a key player. It’s been known for years that the short sells of the airlines was traced to Buzzy Krongard’s company. George Tenet had to have been involved, presumably that’s why he won the Medal of Freedom. Dr. Richard Fuisz, CIA, according to Susan Lindauer, got paid off with a couple of million dollars and disappeared.

        There was a limited hangout not long ago, a film called “Who is Richard Blee?” that was still suppressed by the CIA, I think the filmmakers were threatened with a lawsuit, but it’s still out there.

        The coverup of 9/11 is ongoing, which sort of amazes me. Then again, I saw a documentary about all these witnesses to the JFK thing that were still getting shot at 10 years later, so who knows.

        I’m not important enough for anyone to care about my little blog, nor do I have any insider information that hasn’t already been public for years, so there’s no reason for them to kill me. Although I do believe I was offered a bribe a few years ago that I didn’t take. You know, because I’m a patriot not a traitor to the USA.

        Like

  4. http://www.bollyn.com/13697/

    Krongard has been suspected of being connected to the suspicious trading since October 2001. In one of my first articles about 9-11, “The Profiteers of 9-11”, I wrote the following:

    Investigations into the unusually high number of “put” options, betting that the price of United Airlines (UAL) and American Airlines shares would fall, have revealed that Alex Brown Inc., an investment banking firm, purchased many of these option contracts. Alex Brown Inc. was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now the executive director of the Central Intelligence Agency, A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard. Krongard, 64, former head of Baltimore-based Alex Brown, America’s oldest investment bank, joined the CIA three years ago as a counselor to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. Krongard switched careers shortly after helping engineer the $2.5 billion merger of Alex Brown and Bankers Trust New York Corp., gaining $71 million in Bankers Trust stock in the process.

    President Bush appointed Krongard executive director of the Central Intelligence Agency on March 26. From February 1998 until March 2001, Krongard served as counselor to the director of central intelligence. Until 1997 Krongard was chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown, having previously worked in various capacities at Alex Brown. Krongard was quoted on the relationship between Wall Street and the CIA in a Washington Post article. If you go back to the CIA’s origins during World War II in the Office of Strategic Services, Krongard told the Post, “the whole OSS was really nothing but Wall Street bankers and lawyers.”

    WHO IS BUZZY KRONGARD?

    The hypothesis of my book Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World is that the terror attacks were a false-flag operation planned and carried out by Israeli military intelligence with the assistance and support of Zionist agents in high positions in the U.S. government. These Zionist agents would include people like Dov Zakheim at the Pentagon and Michael Chertoff, then Assistant Attorney General, who was responsible for the federal investigation and prosecution of the crimes of 9-11. In this position Chertoff managed the federal “non-investigation” of 9-11 in which the crucial evidence was confiscated and destroyed without being properly examined.

    My hypothesis is not that 9-11 was an “inside” job, but that it was an Israeli-planned false-flag operation. The Israeli operation was facilitated by highly-placed Zionist agents within the U.S. government, military, and intelligence spheres. If Buzzy Krongard is a suspect in the crimes of 9-11, the question that needs to be answered is: Was Krongard acting as an agent for Israeli military intelligence at Alex Brown and the C.I.A.? The evidence indicates that he served as an agent for Israel in both positions.

    Alvin Bernard Krongard, born 1936, is the son of Raphael Harris Krongard and Rita Keyser Krongard. Both his mother and father were born in Baltimore to Jewish immigrant families from Poland/Russia. His first wife, Patricia Lion, was also Jewish. While Krongard’s Jewish roots are never mentioned in the various articles about him, his Jewish ethnicity clearly plays the key role in his efforts to support Israeli enterprises in the United States. When a high-level person like Krongard conceals his Jewish roots while actively serving the state of Israel it indicates that he is seeking to hide his true identity and loyalty to a foreign state. For such a person to be the administrative chief of the Central Intelligence Agency says a great deal about the degree of Israeli penetration of the U.S. intelligence community.

    Like

    1. Huh I had no idea that Krongard was Jewish. Supposedly CIA, pre-Bush Jr, had a culture that was quite suspicious of dual loyalty Jews. The scariest thing that happened after 9/11 was how they created the Department of Homeland Security and put everything under that – even the Secret Service, which used to be Treasury. The CIA director does have a direct report to the President still but there was a big fight over that even.

      Bush Sr. was somewhat of an Arabist, part of Bush Jr’s campaign was reaching out to Jewish plutocrats that disliked his father for not supporting Israel enough.

      Anyway, the whole thing with 911 could be clearer could it? 12 years later and it’s still taboo, and you can see the cockroaches on the internet still keeping the taboo going.

      Like

      1. Bush Sr. had alot of Arab and European support during the 1st Gulf War, Iraq even attacked israel with Scud missiles hoping to break this alliance.

        Steve Sailer mentioned that Bush Sr. wasn’t re-elected because he lost jewish support.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s