Women Choose

[Rubato]

I've been in an evolutionary psychology reading mode lately and I've been reading a statement over and over again that I've heard several times and never actually "got". And maybe that's why it needs to be repeated over and over again, because it's so important that we must understand it; yet it is also has a subtle appearance, at least for me, to go in under my radar so many times I almost didn't get it:

Women choose. Men attract.

Sexual selection is one of the coolest things I've ever read about. It's such a pity, I went back to my undergraduate biology textbook from 2008 or 2009 and the information contained within it was so vague and hardly undifferentiated from natural selection (it asserted that many scientists still believe sexual selection to be a subset of natural selection) that it's not wonder I never felt enlightened after reading it.

A lot of people complain that "game", "DJing", being a "Don Juan", or w/e you want to call it is ultimately a form of social manipulation, and it is. Sexual selection is the scientific explanation for the manipulation. If you observe nature, when you separate the males and females of a species, the males will be much more ornamented than the females. By ornamented, I mean having very brightly colored designs on them or unnecessary appendages like a peacocks tail. And when you think about this ornamentation (particularly that it generally occurs only within the male population), the evolutionary biologist must explain why they evolved.

Natural selection is a terrible mechanism for this sort of evolution, because what survival benefits do vivid ornamentations procure? Using the popularly referenced peacock as an example, it's tail makes it impossible to fly, limits its mobility, and makes it more visible to predators. It's limited mobility makes it more difficult to flee from a predator. If natural selection was the only means of evolution, the peacock would not have the tail that it does, or it would be getting progressively smaller rather than more ornate.

Now.... what if evolution is not driven entirely by the survival benefits a trait confers upon an organism... but also by the reproductive advantages certain traits confer to the organism? That's what sexual selection suggests. In fact, sexual selection posits that the evolution of sexually selected traits can start a runaway positive feedback loop, greatly amplifying whatever trait may be preferred by the female, even if it drives the species to extinction! This is one of the biggest reasons 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct and why species can diverge from related species so rapidly.

Humans tend to be rather arrogant and assume we have a monopoly on things like ascetic taste, beauty, consciousness, and cognitive ability. We also forget to consider that our range of senses is far different than many other species. We can appreciate the ornamentation of various species of male birds because our eyes resolve a very similar color spectrum, but may fail to notice the beauty in a bird's seemingly screeching song or a monkey's hideous odor because our senses are not similarly calibrated.


What's the point to all of this?

The collective results of sexual selection and female choice are what compiles together to form a specie's mating ritual. And believe it or not, humans have a mating ritual, just like other animals. Watch a male and female bird during mating season: In the presence of a female bird, the male bird will strut around, sing, dance, and do all sorts of crazy things. The female leaves. The male stops. The female returns. The male resumes.

Anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists/biologists have postulated that the mating ritual of Neanderthals went something like this: A male would make eye contact with a female and begin what would hopefully become mutual breathing on each other's necks for the order of several hours. If she didn't leave by then, they would start kissing. Maybe that explains why women today get so turned on when a man smells their hair, breathes on their neck, or blows across their ears....

To a PUA, game and all of this other stuff we try and run on women is just a means of showing them that we are worth choosing (or perhaps, giving men the illusion of choice). Preselected may even be a better term. If a women finds a man who she thinks has already been selected by a number of other women, there are so many different pressures that influence her mind to want to choose that man as well.

As far as humans go, I think most of us understand what women find attractive - confidence, humor, power, dominance, leadership, security, protection, strength. The list goes on. You'll notice that list is made up of qualities that generally transcend our relative level of "handsomeness" or whatever term you want to use. I purposefully didn't say the way we look, because that list will affect a man's body language and posture - it will not change anything about how pretty or ugly his face is. And it really doesn't matter. Even if "looks" did matter, outside of plastic surgery you can't change them, and if you were willing to take that extreme, it's obvious there are much more accessible issues you have to address first.

Going back to the example of birds and how ornamented a male bird can become, lets take a look at 2 random guys by analogy. 1 guy wakes up every day, may or may not shave, dresses rather plainly in his standby pair of sweatpants and trusty t-shirt, and leaves; another guy gets up and is well groomed and leaves his house in a set of clothes that compliment his body as well as they compliment the current standards of style.

If something terrible happened and everyone on the planet died except for these 2 men and another women that they both happened to run in to at the same time and all other things were equal, which man's genes will the future of humanity rest in?

Without a doubt, the 2nd guy.

It's because of sexual selection pressures that neediness and being clingy are such profound turnoffs to women. It's why they generally like athletically fit men (not necessarily meatheads, but guys who are in decent shape). It's why they like style. It's why chasing does not work. Chasing implies you choose, she didn't, and you're still choosing.

It's why getting on the internet and reading a bunch of pickup related material and never changing your behavior never generates anymore success with women.

What would happen if men abandoned the idea that they had to "choose" women and focused instead on attracting women?

I've got an exam to study for. If there's sufficient interest, I can write some more about this later.

 

[MisterTyzer]

100% agree. The more unavailable you appear, the more attractive you become. Be it emotionally, socially, in terms of your relationships status, your clothes, your looks, your attitude - everything. If you seem unobtainable, people want you. No matter where you come at it from.

 

[macagent]

good read.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Women choose. Men attract.

The way I've always thought of it is similar: Men seek, women sort.

Men are always seeking to get laid, and women are always having to sort through all of the guys who want to do them.

 

[Strelok]

Well done Rubato, a scientific explanation for human phenomenon is always appreciated.

Wheter it helps or not to get women it for sure worth the reading, keep going mate

 

[st_99]

"men do the picking women do the choosing" is the way i remember it.

 

[Alex DeLarge]

Good read. I'm studying Biology right now and minoring in Anthropology. I find this stuff fascinating. Thanks for posting!

 

[Rubato]

Let's get more specific:

I feel like what I wrote earlier was a disjointed introduction to something that needs to be specified further. I had a genetics exam this afternoon and wrote it during one of my study breaks, and it felt more like a flight of ideas than a congruent document.

Anyways, let's get a little more specific and start out by clearly defining some key terms:

Evolution: The cumulative changes in a population's (populations evolve, not individuals) genotype over time.

Genotype: The raw genetic code of an organism that determines its traits. Genotype specifically refers to the sequence of bases (adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine) present in an organism's DNA. The sequence of these bases codes for specific proteins (often enzymes - enzymes are proteins) that are responsible for our traits. As genotype changes, so too does the sequence of genetic bases, and so too, does the proteins these bases code for.

Phenotype: The physical expression of genotype. The way a trait looks, for example, is the trait's phenotype (eye color or height are both examples of phenotype). Phenotype is determined by the proteins coded for in an organism's DNA sequence. As genotype changes, so too does phenotypic expression. Note: A trait does not have to be "visible" for it to be phenotypically expressed. Sickle Cell Anemia is an example of a trait that would be "invisible" and still have a phenotypic expression.

Trait: Any characteristic or property of an organism that can be observed. These includes physical features such as hair color and ear shape, to molecular features such as an organism's scent, blood clotting factors, and hormone receptors. Organisms have a LOT of traits.

Natural Selection: A mechanism of evolution whereby the genotype of a population changes in response to survival pressures. This may include changes in environment, predator/prey relationships, or the organism's niche. According to natural selection, the genotype of traits that confer positive survival benefits to an organism will be conserved. The organism will have a higher evolutionary fitness level relative to other organisms and will be in a better biological position to pass more of its genes on to subsequent generations. Conversely, the genotype traits that confer negative survival benefits will not be conserved in a population because those individuals will have a lower evolutionary fitness level and be in a relatively poor biological position to pass their genes on to subsequent generations.

Evolutionary Fitness: The relative ability of an organism given its unique genotype to confer its genes to future generations. Organisms with higher levels of evolutionary fitness will have greater opportunities to pass on their genes than organisms with lower levels of evolutionary fitness.

Sexual Selection: Let me quote Darwin here...

"Sexual selection depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. When the males and females of any animal have the same general habits ... but differ in structure, colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly caused by sexual selection."

In essence, sexual selection is a mechanism of evolution whereby the genotype of a population changes in response to mating pressure. The genotype will subsequently influence traits that are NOT related to survival, and may often make survival more difficult... the influenced traits will be in response to increased reproductive success. These traits may either make the organism more attractive to the opposite sex or more intimidating to members of the same sex (in order to deter sexual competition).



The majority of examples in nature of selection selection pressures influencing genotype and phenotype in a population occur in the male species. There are so few examples of females experiencing this type of change that I have not been able to find one yet. For some examples, consider the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileeacock_courting_peahen.jpg

This shows a peacock attempting to court a peahen (for those who didn't read the caption ). These observations seem fairly obvious to me, but consider the very visible differences between the peacock and peahen, particularly the tail and the breast color differences. They almost look like two different animals. There are several reasons why natural selection is a terrible rational for the peacock's phenotype compared to the peahens, and I think they're obvious, but I'll elaborate some nonetheless.

The blue coloring along the peacock's breast makes it especially visible to predators. It is especially noticeable in this picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Blue_Peafowl_%28Pavo_cristatus%29.jpg

Now the peacock's natural habitat is primarily in the dry-deciduous forests of India and Southeast Asia. Here is a picture of a such forest in India:

http://southasia.oneworld.net/ImageCatalog/forests%20ind.jpg

Here is an image of another dry-deciduous forest in Sandur Hills in Southeast Asia:

http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~easouti/images/4-4%20Sandur%20forest_Dry%20deciduous%20forest.jpg

As you can see, these images contain a lot of green and brown, but no fluorescent blue. You will also notice that despite the first picture appear rather sparse, the forests can be dense. Now look at this picture, highlighting the peacock's tail again:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Paonroue.JPG

Obviously, the peacock's tail will not always be up like that, but imagine what sort of a hazard it could be in the middle of the forest. Look at the colors along the appendages of the tail and how much it screams for everything in sight to "LOOK AT ME"!! Peahens will definitely notice a tail like that, but so will the peacock's predators. The tail and the coloration do not seem to offer any sort of survival advantage to the peacock either like say... an elephant's trunk.

Here is an image of the elephant's trunk (or proboscis if we want to sound scientific):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/African_elephant_warning_raised_trunk.jpg

One of the requisites for a sexually selected trait is that it should differentiate the organism in some fundamental way and I don't remember if I said that earlier or not. The elephant's trunk does just that... but is not an example of sexual selection (at least a pure example if it is also an example of sexual selection).

African elephants live in a variety of habitats from jungles and forests to deserts, and their trunk is adapted to meet its foraging needs in any of these environments. The trunk allows the elephant to reach beyond it's natural height to obtain food from high places like trees and also allows the elephant to find food on the ground. As herbivores, elephants can use their tusks to tear up food, grab food, break food, "pick up" food, and smell food. They also use the tusk for social reasons, such as hand shaking (sexual selection possibilities anyone?)

They belong to the family Proboscidea which follows the class Mammalia. The elephants (general term) are the only extant (as opposed to extinct) members of the Proboscidea left. The Proboscideas are marked by their distinctive proboscis and are the only Mammalian family to have evolved this trait. And while the trait may confer some sort of reproductive benefit (I haven't studied this all that much so I can only make inferences), it does provide definite survival benefits. Here is a picture of the Afrotheria clade which represents the taxonomy of species considered most evolutionary related to the elephant (and the elephant to them as well):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Afrotheria.jpg

Notice, that the only animal that comes close to having any trunk like extension is the aardvark (picture A). These are all very close evolutionary relatives, so consider what survival costs the elephant may have experienced had it not evolved the trunk. Given its size relative to the other animals, it would have been severely challenged... it would have been hard for it to crouch down to get food because of the physics of moving its legs, and it would have been limited to food that it could move its mouth to grab. That would suck pretty bad wouldn't it?

It's time for me to go to sleep now. If you all are still interested, let me know and I will continue writing. This essay didn't have a lot to say about anything obviously of interest to a man looking to seduce a woman, but it's laying the foundations, and the thinkers among us should be able to come up with some good inferences and conclusions. Until next time, keep reading, thinking, growing, and challenging yourselves

 

[Rubato]

I wasn't done last night. It's a pity too because I had some great insight's I've since forgotten about. I always come up with my best thoughts when whiskey is involved :crazy:

Let me give you 2 more definitions:

Negative Feedback: This is generally the mechanism by which our bodies and other living organisms maintain homeostatic conditions. It is analogous to a thermostat; when you cool your living quarters, you set a temperature ceiling you do not wish the ambient temperature to exceed... and when it does, the thermostat begins "correcting" the temperature by blowing out air that is cooler than the levels you wish your living quarters to be at. It does this until it registers that the ambient temperature is below the ceiling you set. A more nerdy definition would be that negative feedback occurs when the output of a system acts to oppose changes to the input of the system, with the result that the changes are attenuated.

Positive Feedback: As negative feedback acts to stabilize, positive feedback does the opposite. Using the thermostat analogy, positive feedback would firstly indicate that you had a broken thermostat, because instead of attempting to maintain a temperature set around a certain point, positive feedback would amplify the temperature. Positive feedback is generally less easily understood than negative feedback, so let me offer a real world example: lactation.

A baby suckling it's mother stimulates a cascade of cellular messages that promote the production of a hormone called prolactin. Prolactin is a hormone that among other things, stimulates... lactation. And as the baby continues to suckle its mother, more prolactin is produced, continuously increasing lactation stimulation.

The geeky definition of positive feedback is: energy taken from the output of a system and reapplied to the input, which is phase-congruent with the input signal.

A system exhibiting positive feedback, in response to perturbation, acts to increase the magnitude of the perturbation, unless the feedback loop is controlled by being clamped, dampened, gated, channel-limited, or otherwise physically limited. Uncontrolled systems exhibiting positive feedback often result in an explosive release of energy, the result of which is to move the system towards a more stable state. This typically results in physical deformation of the system.

Positive feedback occurs when A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A.


Positive feedback is the general mechanism proposed for sexual selection mediated evolutionary divergence. And this is why. In order for Darwinian evolution to take place, 3 criteria must be met. There must be a specific trait that is variable among the population, heritable, and selected (either naturally or sexually). Consider a population of birds that have tails of varying length. The trait in question would be the bird's tails because as was just mentioned, they vary in length and are heritable. They are heritable because nearly anytime you see variation of a physical feature in a population that is not at war with itself or another population, the trait has to be variable. Darwin did not know this in the 1860s because even though that was the decade Gregor Mendel published his first paper on the genetics of pea plants, no one took it seriously for about 3 more decades.

And now I'm going to explain some stuff about molecular biology and biochemistry that is especially nerdy.... feel free to skip this if you are so inclined, but it is important stuff to understand if you really want to understand why things work the way they do.

The central dogma of biology is that DNA codes for RNA which codes for proteins. And proteins are responsible for the whole of what any organism is. They act as enzymes to catalyze chemical reactions... did you know that almost every biological reaction that takes place inside of humans and most other animals is not energetically or entropically favorable? People confuse the mechanism of enzymes quite a bit and they are not magic chemicals that somehow create energy that was not there before in order for a reaction to take place. Enzymes have what is called an active site that binds very specifically with high affinity for one specific molecule (and maybe with less affinity for another highly similar molecule). What happens when the active site of the enzyme binds to the molecule is that it actually physically rearranges the molecules chemical bonding structure in free space, usually in such a way as to change the energy requirements for certain chemical reactions. Thus, enzymes do not change the required amount of energy for a chemical reaction, they lower the reaction's activation energy. Activation energy is an energy level necessary to overcome in order for a reaction to occur. Look at the following diagram to see what I mean:

http://sarahssureshots.wikispaces.com/file/view/figure06-14.jpg/105957707/figure06-14.jpg

The blue Ea represents the activation of the reaction without enzyme catalysis. The red Ea represents the activation energy of the reaction with enzyme catalysis.

In reaction energetics, the total loss or gain of energy is measured according to Gibbs free energy, which is the Delta G value (the little triangle next to the G is called "Delta". You could also note it as DG, but I think that's more confusing.) Delta G is a state function in that it it's total energy calculation only includes its starting energy and ending energy. It's analogous to taking an elevator ride where you start at the ground floor, accidentally go up to the third floor and finish your ride at the 2nd floor. You started the ride at floor 1 and ended at floor 2. Your net change in elevation is 1 floor. The same is true with Delta G. So since the starting reaction energy is higher than the ending reaction energy, the reaction experiences a net loss of Delta G, which would give the Delta G of reaction a negative value. When Delta G of reaction < 0, reactions are spontaneous in the forward direction and exothermic (that is, they release energy).

For more information about any of this stuff (it's chemical thermodynamics) either ask here or look up Activation Energy, Gibbs Free Energy, Chemical Thermodynamics, State Functions, Entropy, and Enthalpy on Google. If people are interested, I can start a new thread to discuss this concept in greater detail.

The nerdy science stuff is over.

 

[Rubato]

The proteins that RNA codes for can do more than function as enzymes. They function as cellular receptors that respond to messages from other proteins (usually hormones) and then send messages based on their responses, they serve a structural purpose, and so many other things. Gene expression (protein creation) is ultimately going to determine every quality about an individual.

So going back to those birds (have we forgotten them in the midst of all of this ), they have variation in tail length and tail length is genetically determined. The last of Darwin's criteria necessary to be met in order for evolution to occur is selection. Let's assume for a moment that longer tail size does not confer a survival advantage or disadvantage. Let's assume instead that for some reason female birds sexually prefer males with longer tails. Let's also assume that male birds have absolutely no participatory action in child rearing. What will happen is that females will choose to mate with individuals who possess traits most sexually satisfying to them. It does not take much time and is not very energetically expensive for a male bird to copulate with a female, so since females for whatever reason have sexually selected tail length as something that really turns them on, males with the longest tails will have the greatest number of sexual partners and the greatest number of offspring.

Not all females necessarily have to be sexually choosy. And not all females necessarily have to be sexually choosy about the same traits... and this is how divergent evolution can occur so rapidly due to runaway sexual selection. To the one group of females who prefers males with long tails, their offspring will be genetically likely to also have long tails (since they are receiving genes from their fathers) and are also genetically likely to sexually prefer long tails (since they are receiving genes from their mothers). When two related traits like this become fused together in an individual, this is called genetic correlation. What ends up happening is that bird tail length will become increasingly longer as females become increasing sexually selective to long tail length. In a population where there may have originally only existed a subtle difference between tail length among birds, over several filial generations under runaway sexual selection, there will start to emerge a marked difference between birds with long tails and birds with short tails. Females will increasingly strongly prefer long tails and tail length will become increasingly longer. What a shame for those poor birds with short tails

This is a hypothetical case with only one trait involved, so it should be obvious that in real situations with many many many traits involved, weird things can start happening. Some females may prefer certain traits while other females may prefer other traits. This is a great explanation for how divergent evolution can take place among members of the same species and create fundamentally new species.

We're still not talking about humans yet, but I'm trying to lay a solid groundwork because despite our tendency to be rather arrogant as a species and pretend like the forces that are at work within animal populations are somehow totally different than those within human populations... well, it just doesn't work that way. But I have more work to do.

Is anyone still interested in where this is going?

 

[wait_out]

Very well researched, have you read Jared Diamond's book on reproduction? You guys are pretty much on the same page. I'd suggest you remember your audience here though. If it's more helpful to be delusional than grounded when you're hitting on women, you'd be insane to be rational

 

[Rubato]

Very well researched, have you read Jared Diamond's book on reproduction? You guys are pretty much on the same page. I'd suggest you remember your audience here though. If it's more helpful to be delusional than grounded when you're hitting on women, you'd be insane to be rational

Thank you

That book is on my reading list somewhere, but I haven't gotten to it yet. I'm a biology and chemistry student though on my way to becoming a surgeon, and have focused most of my studies on topics like these. You'd be amazed at how much DJ application a class like endocrinology has in it! This is all stuff I've just picked up along the way. I happen to be a big Geoffrey Miller fan and have focused more on Fisher's runaway sexual selection hypothesis, but if there is sufficient interest, would also talk about the good gene hypothesis and the handicap hypothesis. I think it's all fascinating stuff and tend to read evolutionary psychology/biology related material... or any other nerdy science... as my bedtime stories.

 

[maverick72]

rubato wrong

"As far as humans go, I think most of us understand what women find attractive - confidence, humor, power, dominance, leadership, security, protection, strength."

That is the biggest pile of dog crap.

You are saying ALL WOMEN are attracted to those qualities?
That is not true. Confidence yes, humor yes, dominance(no), leadership(not all the time), security(sometimes), protection(does this include butch lesbians? They are women too), Strength(sometimes, but not macho strength.)

You cannot place women into a box and logically deduce them to what they like in a man---because so many women are different. Some want a man with money, others want kindness over leadership, some women like being dominant in a marriage, some women are tougher than others and dont like being protected- CLASSIC TOMBOY types, some like a strong guy others dont like men who operate from strength. So many formulas that no one likes all of those qualities.

 

[Rubato]

"As far as humans go, I think most of us understand what women find attractive - confidence, humor, power, dominance, leadership, security, protection, strength."

That is the biggest pile of dog crap.

You are saying ALL WOMEN are attracted to those qualities?
That is not true. Confidence yes, humor yes, dominance(no), leadership(not all the time), security(sometimes), protection(does this include butch lesbians? They are women too), Strength(sometimes, but not macho strength.)

You cannot place women into a box and logically deduce them to what they like in a man---because so many women are different. Some want a man with money, others want kindness over leadership, some women like being dominant in a marriage, some women are tougher than others and dont like being protected- CLASSIC TOMBOY types, some like a strong guy others dont like men who operate from strength. So many formulas that no one likes all of those qualities.

You realize Maverick, that any hypothesis like this is a generalization and not meant to be an absolute statement. If I feel like continuing this, I believe I can make a pretty strong case that most women are highly attracted to the traits I mentioned and as I have defined them in my head (which may be different than you're defining them.

Actually, I think you can place anything you want to in a box outside of a deity, you just have to have the patience and the right tools to develop a big enough box. And most people don't have that kind of patience, and I'm not sure that we have the proper tools to encapsulate human behavior in to a box at this juncture.

However, I am convinced that even the tomboy types you mentioned would respond positively in general to a masculine man who was able to lead her effectively. And the beauty behind what I just said is in the word effectively, which means he needs to calibrate his behavior to the unique situation he finds himself in with a woman. Also keep in mind that of the different types of women you used as examples, most of them were attracted to power: money is power; dominance is obviously power. The other women you mentioned were not attracted to power: The tomboy who doesn't want security (she may say this, but it's pure and simple horse sh$t IMO 99% of the time); the woman who doesn't like a man who operates from strength (what is it that she wants then? doesn't a man operate from strength by definition?). You have given me 2 cases.

I'm not sure what you mean about someone preferring kindness to leadership.... that implies leadership is not kind and I do not believe that at all. Leadership is the ability to bring willing people along with whatever it is that you're doing. It's not about not being kind.

Basically, you're jumping ahead of me here and I don't think you understand where I'm ultimately going. I read your thread about being totally sick of women and their BS and sympathize with your situation a lot. I still struggle with many of the same issues. But it's thought experiments like this that have helped me out a lot. I can guarantee you that if you had gone in to one of your dates and made them shorter and protected definitive confidence, humor, power, dominance, leadership, security, protection, strength, you would have gotten laid. Obviously, like you pointed out, these are not "golden rules" that can never be broken. There are women out there who have schizophrenia. Who can say what will attract that sort of woman (and who can say what sort of man would want to).

These are considerations for the means. And really, I think they can be applied more liberally than that. Try an experiment. Find a woman you think doesn't want a strong powerful man and start being a strong powerful man. You have to be congruent through. If you aren't actually strong and powerful she'll probably think you're an idiot. And let me know how she responds.

 

[moneyisking]

incredible research and finesse! it is great extra knowledge... but let me ask you, how can we apply this to get more results (aka women)?

 

[macagent]

"As far as humans go, I think most of us understand what women find attractive - confidence, humor, power, dominance, leadership, security, protection, strength."

That is the biggest pile of dog crap.

You are saying ALL WOMEN are attracted to those qualities?
That is not true. Confidence yes, humor yes, dominance(no), leadership(not all the time), security(sometimes), protection(does this include butch lesbians? They are women too), Strength(sometimes, but not macho strength.)

You cannot place women into a box and logically deduce them to what they like in a man---because so many women are different. Some want a man with money, others want kindness over leadership, some women like being dominant in a marriage, some women are tougher than others and dont like being protected- CLASSIC TOMBOY types, some like a strong guy others dont like men who operate from strength. So many formulas that no one likes all of those qualities.

I'm going to politely suggest that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Judging by your previous threads and responses, you have no idea what women are looking for, or responding to.