Cad lifestyle vindicated..."it's in my genes darl"

[koopkooper]

Rogues in vogue by Graham Readfearn, Courier Mail

WOMEN flock to them, nice guys are secretly envious of them and the media love them.

They're cads – and it appears that they just can't help themselves.

Despite their well-publicised weaknesses for wine, women and song, the likes of cricket star Shane Warne or Brit-rocker Robbie Williams manage to retain their popularity with women.

Prince William has recently joined their ranks.

Even in movie fiction, cads are portrayed as the loveable rogue – just think of Jude Law in Alfie, Daniel Craig as James Bond, Josh Holloway as bad-boy Sawyer from the TV series Lost or Han Solo in Star Wars.

But like or loathe these hedonistic bounders, some academics believe the human race has depended on them to keep the planet populated. According to experts in evolution, the male of the species tends to employ one of two strategies to attract a mate.

One is to be a law-abiding and faithful father-figure, while the other is to be promiscuous.

In short, they become either a "dad" or a "cad".

The strategies touch on a human being's most basic instincts to reproduce, with men having a need to pass on their genes as liberally as possible.

Evolutionary psychologist Professor Bill von Hippel, at the University of Queensland, says: "Males produce millions of sperm so they should have a more promiscuous approach.

"So those who may have higher social status can take a more promiscuous approach because it gives them more opportunities to mate.

"Some males who are not as high in social status might make themselves more valuable to a female by being a better provider.

"But we know that all males have the propensity to be either of these.

"Men have these two competing strategies and if they can get away with (promiscuous) behaviour they often will. In the past, humankind relied on these strategies. We don't need it any more, but it still drives current behaviour."

So if the caddish male is a throw-back to the times of the hunter-gatherer, why is it that women still go for them?

Research carried out in the US in 2003 tested this question by asking women to read from the novels of a 19th-century writer. They were then asked to describe which male characters they would prefer to have a relationship with.

For long-term relationships, women chose morally strong and heroic characters. For flings, they went for the daring and passionate characters.

Von Hippel says most females prefer a more reliable male, but there are times when women will be instinctively drawn to men behaving badly.

 

["Doc" Devereux]

That's an excellent start. Now can I have a genetic explanation for suits, cigars, champagne, fast cars and aeroplanes, please?

 

[reetpleat]

Interesting theory. I am often suspect when people try to ascribe too much behavior to genetics, but surely there is something to genetics obviously.

I heard of a study recently in which men and women were asked if they would prefer their partner have a physical affair, or an emotional affair. The men preferred emotional and the women preferred physical. Not that they were okay with it, but if they had to choose one or theother.

My take is that women need the man to stick around, while men may feel a need to pass on their genes.

As for the cad, these days it is less important for a man to provide as in the past due to women working. So who can blame women for wanting excitement from a man.

I mentioned to my sister the other day that women tend to look men to change their lives nad provide fun and excitement, and even to complete their lives. In general that is. Whereas men do not look to women for that. They look for emotional support and such, but don't expect them to create a life for them. For example, women are drawn to men who are fun and exciting, such as the cad. Men are not so much drawn to that in a woman.

Opinions?

 

[Miss Brill]

I mentioned to my sister the other day that women tend to look men to change their lives nad provide fun and excitement

I agree about the fun and excitement. I think women also like a challenge, and most men aren't that challenging.

 

[herringbonekid]

so the general rule is that the people we marry are faithful but boring while the ones we lust after are irresponsible but exciting ?

sounds like the perfect recipe for eternal discontentment.

 

[Miss Brill]

so the general rule is that the people we marry are faithful but boring while the ones we lust after are irresponsible but exciting ?

The people we marry may be boring, but they aren't faithful, look at how many cheat.

 

[imoldfashioned]

Interesting article, guilty of a bit of generalization, but that’s alright. I'm skeptical of the genetic idea as well, but this sentence was interesting: "So if the caddish male is a throw-back to the times of the hunter-gatherer, why is it that women still go for them?"

To answer that question I first thought “what is a cad”? Can a cad exist in the modern world where sexual trifling doesn’t even raise an eyebrow anymore? What is the difference between a cad and the creep who tries to chat you up, ignoring all your signals that you aren’t interested? Maybe the difference is the creep thinks he’s all that where the cad IS all that?

What makes a cad attractive? Several things, I think.

The very term cad conjures up for me a man with a sort of honesty that sets him apart from your garden variety operator. He’s not trying to pretend he’ll spend his life with you. He knows he’s not in it for the long term and you know it too. Perhaps the difference between a cad and a creep is that with the cad this knowledge is intriguing and with a creep you just don’t want to spend any time with him at all.

For me a cad has to be intelligent and witty; capable of creating a real attraction.

A cad is the kind of man where the knowledge that he’s been with other women and the idea that he’s experienced is intriguing not off putting.

The attention; he could be with anyone else, but right now he’s trying to seduce you.

The scarcity; guys on the make are a dime a dozen but I think true cads have gone the way of the monocle.

This being the Lounge, I know you’ll all understand that when I think of a cad it isn’t Han Solo or Robbie Williams that comes to mind, it’s George Sanders. Maybe the last paragraph of an essay on him says it best;

“In the meantime, in a penthouse somewhere in the sky, a lady is settling back on a luxurious divan in a sunken '40s living room. The hidden orchestra is playing, the moon is turned up to 10 on the heartbreak scale, and suddenly a man glides through the open 52nd-story window, dressed to kill, insinuation written all over his face. Love trouble is his business and it's useless to resist. He's three steps ahead of her, he's got the skyline on a dimmer switch, his voice is a three-martini buzz in the blood and the feeling of silk sheets and summer rain. He's James Bond quoting Byron, Don Juan with the original etchings. He's The Cad With the Broken Heart, he's the face half-glimpsed behind the mask, he's George Sanders, and he wants to be with her, tonight ...”

 

[reetpleat]

Interesting article, guilty of a bit of generalization, but that’s alright. I'm skeptical of the genetic idea as well, but this sentence was interesting: "So if the caddish male is a throw-back to the times of the hunter-gatherer, why is it that women still go for them?"

To answer that question I first thought “what is a cad”? Can a cad exist in the modern world where sexual trifling doesn’t even raise an eyebrow anymore? What is the difference between a cad and the creep who tries to chat you up, ignoring all your signals that you aren’t interested? Maybe the difference is the creep thinks he’s all that where the cad IS all that?

What makes a cad attractive? Several things, I think.

The very term cad conjures up for me a man with a sort of honesty that sets him apart from your garden variety operator. He’s not trying to pretend he’ll spend his life with you. He knows he’s not in it for the long term and you know it too. Perhaps the difference between a cad and a creep is that with the cad this knowledge is intriguing and with a creep you just don’t want to spend any time with him at all.

For me a cad has to be intelligent and witty; capable of creating a real attraction.

A cad is the kind of man where the knowledge that he’s been with other women and the idea that he’s experienced is intriguing not off putting.

The attention; he could be with anyone else, but right now he’s trying to seduce you.

The scarcity; guys on the make are a dime a dozen but I think true cads have gone the way of the monocle.

This being the Lounge, I know you’ll all understand that when I think of a cad it isn’t Han Solo or Robbie Williams that comes to mind, it’s George Sanders. Maybe the last paragraph of an essay on him says it best;

“In the meantime, in a penthouse somewhere in the sky, a lady is settling back on a luxurious divan in a sunken '40s living room. The hidden orchestra is playing, the moon is turned up to 10 on the heartbreak scale, and suddenly a man glides through the open 52nd-story window, dressed to kill, insinuation written all over his face. Love trouble is his business and it's useless to resist. He's three steps ahead of her, he's got the skyline on a dimmer switch, his voice is a three-martini buzz in the blood and the feeling of silk sheets and summer rain. He's James Bond quoting Byron, Don Juan with the original etchings. He's The Cad With the Broken Heart, he's the face half-glimpsed behind the mask, he's George Sanders, and he wants to be with her, tonight ...”

I think the cad has a certain negtive ocnnottion because they are heartbreakers in that they seduce women by making them think they are serious nd offering more than they are.

The difference between them and guys on the make is that the cd is smart, handsome and charming enough that women fall for it. In other words, the difference is weather you ike the guy or not. If not, then you want them to go away. But the true cad can charm you.

Of course some might not define cad that way, but in the movies and such, the cad or womanizer trifles with a woman's affections, then moves on when they have gotten what they wanted.

This is a little different from perhaps the Don Juan, who loves women and women love. They can get away with a little more. There is not such a negative connotation. Maybe they are looked ascance at for not beign the traditional married man. But the cad is pretty negative to me. It is an insult.

 

[Laraquan]

The promiscuity approach is also valid for women, too, though most evolutionary scientists seem to refuse to believe it! It's true that women take a long time to bring kids to term and that being a single parent in the olden times was very hard. However, it's also true that genetic variety increases the odds that some of your offspring are going to survive. Have seven kids to the same man and they'll all have similar genes. Have seven kids to seven men and the genetic variability might mean a few of your kids will have the edge when a plague comes through or if it gets quite cold.

Of course, for both men and women, it's best if the other is monogamous and they, themselves, are promiscuous. A woman needs a faithful provider but is better served if her children have genetic variability. A man can spread his genetics around but is better served if the women he supports only has his children. There are benefits to monogamy for both, too, and drawbacks for promiscuity, obviously, like STDs.

So yeah, that's why cads and loose women can both be exciting.

 

[Dormouse]

I think cads are overrated; I was married to one for a while, and behind all the wit and self-promotion was just a rather insecure, sad little man who deserted me at the moment I needed him most.

Now I am with Walrus*, a true gentleman, who is loyal and romantic and believes in things like honor and fidelity. (He's kind of a throw-back to knights or samurai or something of that ilk.) I much prefer him!


*(Yes, I'm going with the Alice in Wonderland themes with aliases for myself and others.)

 

[Miss Brill]

Now I am with Walrus*, a true gentleman, who is loyal and romantic and believes in things like honor and fidelity. (He's kind of a throw-back to knights or samurai or something of that ilk.) I much prefer him!

But how often do truly nice people come along?

 

[Diamondback]

But how often do truly nice people come along?

Well, there are a lot of folks who strive to meet that standard, but have other issues or failings of their own... (like falling short in the looks department, for a common one)

 

[Dormouse]

But how often do truly nice people come along?

Among people with odd attractions to past decades? Not as infrequently as one might think; there are some weird correlations going on out there.

 

[dhermann1]

There's plenty of nice people out there. But that's the point, they get passed by, not appreciated.

 

[Miss Brill]

I don't know if I attract "cads" or if I'm attracted to them. I had a friend who always called herself a creep magnet, so I think some people give off a vibe. [huh]

Well, there are a lot of folks who strive to meet that standard, but have other issues or failings of their own... (like falling short in the looks department, for a common one)

I admit I must think a man is good-looking, but I don't mean GQ model perfect. I also don't mind blue collar types--I'm all for rugged.

 

[Dr Doran]

Is it nonsense, or is it true that every cad is just waiting for the right woman to make him a dad?

 

[Diamondback]

I admit I must think a man is good-looking, but I don't mean GQ model perfect. I also don't mind blue collar types--I'm all for rugged.

Yeah, I'm loyal to a fault, but my "aftermarket radiator cores" tend to be about the best "chance-denial assets" any would-be rival in the "wooing fair lady" department could ever ask for, for one example...

Doran, that is also a valid possibility. It really is remarkable how a man can change when he falls in love, for better or for worse...

 

[Miss Brill]

Is it nonsense, or is it true that every cad is just waiting for the right woman to make him a dad?

Woman or women?

Doran, that is also a valid possibility. It really is remarkable how a man can change when he falls in love, for better or for worse...

But do people change or do they just show you who they really are?

 

[Diamondback]

But do people change or do they just show you who they really are?

I'm speaking from my own experience there, Miss B... considering that the young lady I once loved had me in the "brain shop" for two years of psychological "reconstructive surgery" while I worked for her.

 

[Dr Doran]

Woman or women?




But do people change or do they just show you who they really are?

According to Ervin Goffman's superb American treatise The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, who people "really" are is variable ... there is no inner core and no lying persona. I have personally changed (somewhat) so I believe that people do change if the stimulus is sufficient, or if they really have decided that they want to change.