  Saw an interesting (albeit oddly written) article on the Post website today about urlLink a bunch of "players" at Yorktown High School. Worth the read, if you've got nothing better to do. It fails to shed any new sociological light on the whole "bad boy" phenomenon (at least none that I haven't heard before) but there was one interesting tidbit: "He continues: 'When women are looking to settle down, they want someone who will be good to them and give them a long-term investment. '" - social psychologist at the University of Michigan Granted, that's not interesting at first glance, but I found it interesting because the first thing I thought was "how boring is that? " Why should "nice guys" have to settle for a woman who loves them only because they're a good "long-term investment"? I may lose women to the bad boys, but I sure don't want one that sees me as an investment opportunity.
The article implies that non-players must sit by the sidelines and wait until the women in their lives have grown up enough to "realize" that the nice guys are better for them. I say the hell with that, if you don't want me now then good riddance to you. I'm no player but I certainly have more self-esteem than THAT. I was going to say that it was a sad statement that so many girls fall for the whole "player" style, but then I realized the article is based mostly on high school, and everybody in high school is an idiot anyhow.
If you're over 21 and you still haven't figured it out, however, you're setting feminism and equality back decades. NOTE: I think my blog is broken. If you can read this, you're either a) in my head in a Malkovitchian way or b) it started working again. Let's hope for (b), my head's crowded enough as it is. 
