Of course people (or a subset of people) go after dangerous people because they're exciting. Otherwise the nerdy guy in class would get all the girls. It also makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. In a hunter gatherer society, a certain level of risk taking is beneficial (too much is, of course, detrimental). It therefore has value in a mate (or more particularly, a male mate). There is still a leave over of this genetically. Furthermore, people (both men and women) just like to have fun now, damn the consequences later. Instant gratification is more instantly gratifying, and this also has evolutionary bases.
I think you're living in denial about this. People (both men and women) engage in all sorts of self-destructive behaviour based upon short term thinking. None of this has anything to do with societal conditioning, or rather, you can't condition irrationality out of existence. Additional irrational behaviour may be conditioned into existence to some extent, but irrational behaviour, including in terms of who people do or don't date or marry, has existed basically since there have been people, and it also exists across cultures. It's because the evolutionary pressures that humans encountered tens of thousands of years ago required a very different set of responses to what we encounter now. However, whilst there may be dire consequences from bad decisions now, they rarely lead to death before reproductive age. Thus, evolution doesn't flush such genes out of the gene pool. So, our genetics are still largely tens of thousands of years behind where we're at, or where you would like to be at, culturally.
All the rest of what you wrote is just your rant. The media, politicians, etc. portray all sorts of people, including men, in a either a positive or negative light depending upon what's in the best interests of the media or politicians concerned. Go and watch a sit-com about a family these days and tell me who is more likely to be the useless buffoon, the principal male character (husband/father) or the principal female character (wife/mother). At best, they'll both be idiots, but it will never be the case that the wife/mother is the idiot and the husband/father shamelessly puts her down for being an idiot at every turn. Look at the rates of graduation, both from high school and university, amongst men now. Look at the rates of incarceration between men and women. Look at the numbers of men vs women who die whilst at work. Look at which side family law typically comes down on. There is an enormous subset of men in society falling through the cracks. Society at large fails both men and women, at times in different ways, and at times in the same ways. Yet this problem will never really be solved (though that doesn't mean we shouldn't try) as humans are essentially irrational and our world/societies are far too complex for us to really get a grip on.
Tell me anyone could even imagine proposing an idea like this for women yet look at how it not only doesn't warrant indignation, but has lots of approval when concerning men (including from the men themselves, who have been conditioned to see their role as overgrown simpleton -- note that "Manland" has lots of free junk food and video games, but not one book or chess set, for instance -- as acceptable):
See, you see the modern world as treating women like shit. In many ways, I'd agree with you. However, I'd also argue that has occurred precisely as a reaction to many so-called "societal advances". Much of the advancement of women has come at the expense of the emasculation of men, be it in the media, the education system, the criminal justice system or the family law system. What is the modern positive role of the male? The traditional roles are out now because they're too sexist. So, what does that really leave a man but to be a deadbeat father, player or man child? Witness the absurd rise of the so-called man cave. Back in my grandfather's day, men had their sheds where they hung out and did "manly stuff" (whatever the hell that was). Yet those sheds were also worthy of respect because they actually served a useful function for the family (i.e. fixing or making stuff). Now, men have been reduced to trying to claim their own zone of autonomy, but it's a caricature of masculinity because it's like a giant playpen for three year olds. This is what masculinity is now: perpetual adolescence.
I actually don't really have a problem with that simply because I don't allow it to define who I am and I don't surround myself with people who do. I understand that the media (indeed, many of our institutions) is made by morons, for morons. You haven't figured this out though and buy into it. Don't like the idiocy you see in a magazine? Don't read the magazine. Don't like what you see on the idiot box? Turn it off. The rest of it outside the media is screwed up, but as I've pointed out, it's pretty screwed up for men too.