I've been getting into the Big 5 lately. One of the categories is agreeableness. As women are shorter than men on average, women are nicer than men, by about half a standard deviation. There are advantage to being nice, and there are advantages to being not so nice. To a certain extent, nice guys finish last. Less agreeable people earn more than more agreeable people. My theory is that most women prefer a man who is less agreeable than they are. A man can become less nice with some practice, but it takes a lot of effort to stay consistent. Men should do this to improve current relationships. Some men have an unhealthy niceness. Some behaviors like covert contracts, giving to be accepted, and men resenting their wife for decisions made with their wife are unhealthy.
Since agreeableness is a core part of personality and not easily changed, men and women should initially choose their partner more wisely. Since women are shorter than men, even a short man can find a wife who is shorter. In the same way, a nice guy can find a woman who is nicer than he is.
----------------- EDIT ---------------
Because this was so universally condemned, I thought that I would at least support what I said. Actually, I did some googling and found out that there is research on the topic that women find disagreeable men more attractive. I'm not finding the study now, but I remember there was a study where men who disagreed with their dates on the first date were seen more favorably by women than men who didn't. I may add more studies and articles to this as I find them.
India Times article.
I agree.
I usually think of it like this: women are a lot smaller than men on average, life is far more threatening for women, if I were a man going at 3 AM in a notoriously bad neighbourhood worse case scenario I get robbed, for women, it's not that simple, worse case scenario they get raped. So they need to be extra careful with at. Not only that, but the likelyhood a woman gets raped in a notoriously bad neighbourhood is higher than the likelyhood that I get robbed in a notoriously bad neighbourhood. I'm a pretty muscular guy, they could carry a weapon or knife and I might get robbed but they'll have to pick their chances because they know might I'll put up a fight, so putting up a fight is not worth it so they may be looking for a weaker target. If there's only 1 guy he may almost never try to rob me because he doesn't know how the robbery will turn out. With women, women are a lot physically weaker than men, so if that same guy who wants to rob me wants to rape her, he doesn't even need to consider his chances, he knows he will win.
The notoriously bad neighbourhood is a metaphor for life in this case, it doesn't happen all the time, it doesn't happen everywhere, but it's something women keep in mind as far as I can tell, the world is a far more dangerous place for women than it is for men.
Now, not all this big muscular guys are brutes, I'm not going there that "all men bad" etc, but some are, so you have to prepare for that. Some are good people, some are bad people, but you don't want to pick your chances with the bad people. I'm not saying all men are bad, but the fact that good men exist doesn't mean that bad men magically poof out of existance.
I remember one time I was at the mechanic to fix my car, and right behind me was this big muscular guy twice my size maybe about 1.95 waiting for his car. He crew impacient and started to help the mechanic, without asking the mechanic, and I was like "wtf is this guy doing with my car". I only thought it, didn't say it, because I hesitated. If the guy was just like me or weaker I would have no issues saying it and even doing something about it. So while I was contemplating there whether to say something or not the mechanic said "hey, wtf are you doing, wait for your turn", he mechanic was a small and weak guy but he had the authority because he was the mechanic. I imagine my comparsion with this big muscular guy of 1.95 cm is how women feel about men all the time "he could beat my ass".
So women live in this more dangerous world with these brutes called men around them, some are good, some are bad, but one thing is clear, men are stronger, they are weaker, men are bigger, they are smaller, they aren't the top of the food chain, the men are, and they have to be extra careful with men because even 1 bad man is enough for a bad experience.
But what if, you could have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side?
What if you could have 1 man around you on your side? preferably one who is good. But what does good mean? morally good and strong. Morally good but capable of violence to protect you. Because that's what this is all about. She doesn't mean good in the same way men mean good when think about women, like innocent and such. She means morally good but perfectly capable to protect her and kick some ass if it comes down to it. She doesn't want a weak man who would run up from a battle because that won't help her with anything, she's already a woman, what does she needs another woman for? or a weak-willed man who don't do anything to better his lot. Even the man is poor, he better do anything to better his lot, to improve himself, otherwise it's unattractive.
It's okay to be poor, it's not okay to excuse yourself from bettering your lot and simply living a life where you will always want to be poor, that's unattractive, ambition in this case is attractive even if you're poor. Not saying you should date based on ambition alone but it's a factor, a weak-willed man who don't do anything to better his lot is unattractive, being poor is excuseable as long as you do something to better your lot, to improve yourself, as long as you have ambition for the grind. Not a man who has resigned himself with what he has. A man who wants to do stuff.
All of this is a methaphore but you get the underlying theme.
Women's advantage over men is that men are attracted to them. So they use that, to sway one of these brutes on their side. (I'm not literally calling men brutes, making a metaphor here to emphasize the size and strength difference between men and women)
This is why nice guys is a problem for women, but nice girls not a problem for men, in fact men prefer girls to be nice. It's not that they are nice, it's that they are weak. Either weak physically or weak willed. They don't have that stepping power in them.
Ok, it's not only the boyfriend/husband the woman has as 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side. She has a father, she may have brothers and uncles.
So she certainly knows what's it's like to receive protection from a man, at least she got her from her father. She has been protected by men in her past. But she certainly wants that from her future boyfriend/husband as well.
And there is an interesting statistic here, if you are raised by a single mother, you are 3 times more likely to commit violent crimes in your adult life than if you were raised by both parents. But here's the interesting thing. If you are raised by a single father, you are just as likely to commit violent crimes in your adult life as people raised by both parents. I don't know what the correlation is here, the study didn't draw any conclusions itself either, but certainly there's something about the father role that is important.
After all, the stereotype goes that women with "daddy issues" are "easy prey" not women with "mommy issues". I think it's something about not having a father figure in your life that you can look up to and compare to your father whenever you see a dating material boyfriend/husband. If you have nothing for comparison, you'll take any crap because "that's how men are", if you have a father figure for comparsion you will not take any crap because you already have a standard to compare with "my father isn't like this, this man just sucks, this man is terrible, I shouldn't be treated like this". The father figure in your life allows you to have standards for men, for how men are and how they are supposed to be.
I remember watching the documentary about Marilyn Monroe and my girlfriend was like "what a hoe" while I felt quite sorry for her because I knew where she was coming from. She saw a hoe I saw a big tragedy. Which again, another interesting subject, but women are more likely to call other women "hoes" than men are. When women call women "hoes" it's with hate, when men call women "hoes" (unless he was specifically rejected by her, and does that just to cope) is not out of hate but rather a statement, an analysis, like "yeah, she's a hoe". Because men are "I might not date, marry this women, but certainly I will try to score with her because she's an easy target" while for women it's pure hate, maybe because they take their men off the market or provide easy sex or stuff like that. Same with the body count, men don't feel hate towards women with high body count but rather disgust, repulsed, women on the other hand feel hate. For men, and I've heard this comparsion from a man, easy women are like a low budget supermarket, sure you are not proud to be in one, you will not take selfies to show your friends, or post about it on social media, but are damn happy they exist.
So interesting dynamics there.
Ok, so women want to have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side. But the emphasis is on "1", which is not the case for men.
Men can fk around endlessly and leave a trail of 10 single mothers behind them. They don't need to raise a child, they just need to impregnate a woman and the woman will do all the work. They only need to raise a child if they want to, their genes will carry on. So they can easily sleep with 20 women with no consequences (there's alimony now, but that's more of a legal thing than biological, genetic or social thing, it's not something we developed in nature over the years but something we've imposed now).
Women on the other hand, need to carry the baby 9 months in the womb, and when he is small she needs to ensure she raises him to become an adult whether or not the father is around for him. So the women, unlike men, need to invest a lot in their offsprings to ensure their offsprings' survival. They can't just go around and play the numbers' game like men can. For this reason, women are the opposite of men, they are very selective, if they are going to carry the baby 9 months in the womb and raise him to ensure he survives and becomes an adult she doesn't has time for counterfit genes from weaker men, if they are going to invest in him go through all that trouble for 1 child she needs to make sure it comes from a good man with good genes, this is why women are naturally more selective than men. She needs quality genes. Men don't care.
Again, metaphors, I'm not saying men don't care about their babies, it's that men don't care they can play the numbers game, genetically speaking, where as women have to play the quality game, they must, they can't afford to carry the baby 9 months in the womb, and when he is small she needs to ensure she raises him to become an adult whether or not the father is around for him, they can't afford to invest a lot in their offsprings to ensure their offsprings' survival since they can't play the number's game, they can't afford to go through all that trouble only for him to have poor genes, genetically speaking, this is how we are biologically inclined to do.
And there are in fact studies confirming this. There was a study where women & men were asked to rate men/women based on attractiveness on a scale from 1 to 7. For men, it's what you would normally expect, most women were rated 4, then women of 3 and 5, then women of 2 and 6, then women of 1 and 7. Kind of average. But for women, most men were rated 2, then men of 1 and 3, then men of 4, then men of 5, then men of 6, then men of 7. It's not that women don't care about looks, women do care about looks a lot more than men in fact. It's that women are way more selective than men when it comes to looks.
So yeah "looks vs personality", "I prefer personality", throw that in the trash.
Just be hot/good looking and she will want you. Simple as that.
And there is another study confirming this. Testosterone, which is the hormone predominant in men, also has the function to make less attractive people seem more attractive. It has the function to make men less selective than women (since by default we are all women in the womb, the Y cz is the last to activate, everything that differentiates a man from a woman is in that Y cz, man is basically like woman patch 1.1, so it needed something added to make men different from women, rather than something removed to make women different from men). In other words, the more testosterone a man has, the less selective he is going to be. This is probably the source of that stereotype that "big ripped muscular guys are more likely to cheat" and why "skinny with glasses are more likely to stay loyal". Like if you think of a feminine man with glasses and skinny or like a K-Pop artist cheating is not the first thing that comes to mind, but if you think of The Rock for example for plenty of women "cheating" would probably be the first thing that comes to mind. Sure, you can also blame it on "having options". But at the same time having options is not the entire story (although I agree it's a factor, a woman might consider a woman may consider a feminine man with glasses and skinny or a K-Pop artist more "safe", due to lack of options, but then again K-Pop artists do have a lot of options reinforcing the idea that this is all biological) because in another study when compared with multiple body types: slender, typical, chubby, toned, built, brawny. Women ranked the one they found most attractive as the and the one they wanted to be in a relationship with different. They ranked brawny the most attractive, and toned & built the one they want to be in a relationship with.
The reason? the women argued that while brawny was the most attractive body type they also found it the most likely to cheat. No reason, it was just an impression. So there seem to be biological reasons for this.
There seem to be biological reasons for this dynamic between testosterone and less selectiveness in women for men who have that testosterone. And women, even if they can't point it out, are subconsciously aware of this. As pointed out above, it's not about the options, because both the toned & built body types and K-Pop artists have plenty of options, but women just consider them more safe. Women want testosterone in a man, enough to be strong, but not enough that you will be very likely to cheat.
It's kind of funny that women are doing the game of make up and trying to look as good as possible where as it's in fact men who should be doing that.
Because men are far more appreciated for their looks than women are. Since women care more about looks since women are more selective while men are less selective, due to testosterone.
Imagine you're this small woman looking to date men and all men are bigger and stronger than you in comparison. Wouldn't you find that strength attractive? the more the better, the stronger he is the better, just not enough to cheat. Like, you look around, and see all these attractive men around you, and not so attractive, some hitting on you, some not hitting on you, while you are scouting for the best genes who would hit on you (or maybe make a move or 2 to him to make it clear you are interested, hopefuly he would hit on you and you get those good genes), of course good looks matter but wouldn't strength also be a factor? strength can protect you, and good looks are good for carrying on to your child so you enjoy having a great child not to mention feeling good in the moment while actually being with that man because you look at his face and get enjoyment out of it, all men being potential gene givers, but you want the best, you want that one with the good genes. You could sleep with any one of them, but you only want to sleep with the best. Because it's not worth it otherwise, not also because of "hoe" but because there's no point. Why? because you like those genes, and because if it comes down to it, it's going to take 9 months for you to invest in a child and a further lifetime of investment to actually raise that child, while in theory a man could just disappear, so you are looking for a moral one with a strong family commitment while also having those good genes I was talking about.
Like literally as a man imagine you're shorter than a woman and women are stronger than you and you have to carry the child.
So I said above that "so the women, unlike men, need to invest a lot in their offsprings to ensure their offsprings' survival. For this reason, women are the opposite of men, they are very selective. They can't go around with counterfeit genes that they don't want for 9 months, and then raise those counterfeit genes", but that's not the whole story.
Because women actually want 2 things: (1) good genes, (2) a man that will commit.
Yes, I talked above about good genes, but it's not enough that he has good genes and just leaves. That's how single moms become single moms. Women want a man who will commit, a good man, a morally good man, who also happens to have good genes and is good looking. And don't forget strength, as we discussed, women like strength. Because we live in this world where women lack strength and they want that in a partner.
In fact, have you ever heard a woman saying "feeling protected", as a compliment. Like "I'm feeling protected with you". It's cute. But I have never heard it the other way around, a man telling a woman "I'm feeling protected with you" or even in boys talk I never heard a man saying "yeah bro, I'm feeling protected with her". He's feeling a lot of great things with her but protected is not one of them.
Yes, they want strong quality genes that they will be glad and happy to have, but they also want, a father for their child.
Which is why
paternal investment is a big thing for a woman. Such a big thing. Why does a woman like when a man pets a dog? if women want men to be all this strong aggressive brutes who protect them but loves them, like this total brute and evil man except for 1 thing that he loves them (have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side) that wouldn't make sense, because it's already there, what does it matter if he pets a dog or not? heck what does it matter if he's a good person or not as long as he loves you? but there's a sense behind that - paternal investment.
Women don't just want a good partner, they want a good father for their children as well.
As men, this is easy to overlook, because paternal investment is a big deal for women, or potential paternal investment.
"If he was to have a child, would he be invested in it?", women want to hear an "yes", and to see by behavior and actions a behavior that reflects an "yes".
It's is why you can't be just a bad boy. You need to be a bad boy and a nice guy. A bad guy and a good guy. In the specific sense mentioned above. Strong, good looks, willing to take a fight, all that good stuff, masculinity and so on, things women like and find attractive, while also a paternal investment side, a more sensitive and soft side. Literally, a few weeks ago I was in a park with a group of friends, and there was a couple with a 1 years old child next to us, the guy was huge, twice to 3 times the size of the woman, but he was so gentle, playing with the child and such, hugging his wife and such, and generally seeming like being a good human being, and all the women in the group found that so attractive. That man had all the masculinity you could ask for, but he was also such a soft and gentle guy. If there was a fight, there's no doubt that guy could mop the floor with anyone, including myself. But because he was such a soft and gentle guy, I don't think he would mop the floor with me, he would defuse the situation, he seemed like that kind of guy, even though he could.
I know I went around the corner with this one but I hope you can see how my answer intersects with your original post. Yes, you need to be a bad guy as well, in a very specific sense. Also a good guy, in a very specific sense. A weak defenseless guy is not that good guy in a very specific sense, he is weak, like a rabbit, and nobody likes the rabbit. If you had to pick from a list of animals which animal you would become, would you pick the cobra, or the tiger, or the rabbit? almost nobody would pick the rabbit because he's weak, defenseless, and there's no value or honor in that. You might pick a dog, a certain strong big breed of dog, who you know is powerful and big but also has a good soul at the end of the day. Which non-ironically but sarcastically and metaphorically I think it is what women pick when it comes to men. A dog of breed, someone who is strong, and powerful, but also has a good soul and a good heart. That good specific combo between a bad boy and a nice guy I was talking about.
Even in countries, why so many countries have their emblem as the eagle? like there's literally so much with an eagle as the emblem. And not a rabbit or a worm for example? because one is weak and defenseless while the other one has that aggressiveness. Sure, you wouldn't call an eagle a company animal like a dog, but these are countries not women we are talking about, they are not looking for that paternal investment.
They are a predator, a territorial animal that's preying on others, the rabbit is not the norm when it comes to countries picking their emblem, the eagle is.
That's not to say women go around thinking "will this be a good father?", likely it doesn't even cross their mind, it's subconscious.
Just like men don't know why make up makes women more attractive to them, it just does. They don't see the cause, or the reason, just the result, it's a subconscious process.
For women, when they are younger say 13-18, the ideal male while still attractive is more of a "boyish prince charming" type of good looks. Not beta but not alpha either. He also has a sweet sensitive side, not alpha. He has outwards strength that he displays to the rest of the world, which signals that he can protect. But he is on the nurturing side and can take care of them as well.
As the grow older, they start to become more interested in more Chad more masculine type of looks. But still with that sweet sensitive side to them that not everybody sees. To have a bit of generosity and do things for other. Why? because that shows paternal investment, it shows they are less likely to cheat and more likely to stay with the child. They don't want a brute, they want a nice guy who can be a brute. A nice guy who can be a brute when necessary and is also good looking, but most of the time he is nurturing and kind.
Not a weak-willed "beta" simp either, that's not very fitt-y with the nice guy who can be a brute when necessary and is also good looking, but most of the time he is nurturing and kind, it's actually quite weak and submissive, and I talked in the beginning about being a weak or weak-willed man, either weak physically or weak willed, not the way to go. Simps who think they just need to simp harder and then they will get the girl are just ridiculous.
In fact, funny thing, there are simps out there who think that if the "good men would dissapear" then they would have a chance. Like, if there was a 2-to-1 ration of women-to-men they will have a chance. No they won't. Because women will still have the preferences that they have and they just won't be one of them. In fact, if that would be the case and top 50% the most attractive men would dissapear, women would be more likely and more willing to share the "good leftovers", the few good looking and hot men left, than to pair with the simps even if 1 on 1. By a simp I imagine the stereotpyical fat man living in his mom's basement jerking off of anime and simping for Belle Delphine. Who just think that if they just, invest harder, they will see how much he loves her and she will finally want to be with him just for the simple fact that he loves her that much despite him provinding no value. I saw a TikTok once like "omg, I love you so much, this is all my life savings, I hope you will do great with them, I love you so much" and the girl was like "wow, thanks dude, but you know, it's your poverty. Hey babe, someone just gave us 10.000$" and the title was "POV you're a simp".
So if you take something from this, be hot, and paternal investment also help. But literally above all else, be hot, that's all it takes to be instantly attractive to women. Have good genes (when I said that I don't mean literally, because you can't change your genes, but genes translate as good looks, so it's literally 'take care of your face and your body', it doesn't matter if you are an IQ of 9000 or own 7 companies and have 3 Bugatti of a color Andrew Tate likes, if you don't have good looks you don't have good genes according to biology, but good looks is something you can work on. You can be born good looking and be lucky, good looks and allow yourself to fall off by not taking care of yourself, or born bad looking and literally max out your looks by taking care of yourself by making improvements and then you will see results, good looks translates to good genes, but our brain doesn't know that it's actually good genes + talking care of yourself = good looks, because in the ugga bugga time you didn't really had time to take care of yourself, so men and women likewise had to work with what they had, what they saw in front of them).