The 4 Kinds of Girls and Which Ones YOU

Should Go For

by Chase Amante
January 2013

One of the series I introduced on here a while back - only to ever do two real articles in it - was
on girl types... some of the different kinds of girls, that is. We've had some requests to do more
articles like these, and I wanted to put together one here that's a primer of the four basic varieties
of women you'll run into - and which
type is best for you.
What's the use of something like this?
Won't you magically happen into a
relationship with the woman of your
dreams, if you're out there long enough
meeting large enough quantities of
women?
Personally, I'm more a believer in
having a set of logical guidelines, and
then running your emotions on top of
that, rather than just letting emotions
run wild and hoping for the best.
Having rules for selecting the right
girlfriends (see: "Find the Right Girl;" "Choosing the Right Qualities in a Woman") tends to
lead you to superior women as mates. Emotion is what first draws you to them, but logic helps
you screen them (and screen out the other women you're emotionally drawn to who don't match
your criteria).
Put more simply, especially when it comes to weird, ephemeral topics like dating and mate
selection that are taboo to discuss anywhere in polite society, knowing stuff gives you
advantages.
And the "stuff" I want to get you knowing today consists of the four basic varieties of women.

Of course, there are a variety of different girl types we can branch out into as we get more
complex in our definitions and look at more nuanced variations of the different varieties of
women; we've covered two of these types on here already:

Club Queens, and

Shy Excited Girls
For our purposes today though, we're going to be looking at a more elemental kind of woman the kind from which all other kinds spring out of.
These are our four most basic types of women.
I've boiled them down to just two traits, one learned, and one not:

1.
2.

Softness/Strength
Inexperienced/Experienced
On a matrix, that works out like this:

I'll define both axes of that matrix here.

Softness/Strength
Softness/strength is what side of the spectrum a girl naturally fall upon with her base personality
type. Is she soft, quiet, and nice? Or strong, loud, and assertive?
This, of course, is not an "either-or" type of thing. No real absolutes in the real world. But,
roughly, line-drawing-wise, you can more or less cut the kinds of women down the middle and
throw them into two camps:

The soft ones

The strong ones

And that isn't to say that a woman can't be soft in disposition, but strong in constitution. Nor is to
say an assertive woman is incapable of tempering herself and assuming a more ladylike
demeanor.
For our purposes, we're defining softness and strength here as these:

Soft Women: these are the women who tend to be more passive, more yielding, who
are more accepting of being led by others (men or women), more open to being commanded,
more likely to be humble, quiet, and retreating, and less likely to cause drama, cause a stir, or get
offended at most things. If there's a problem in the relationship, soft women are more likely to sit
on it and trust or hope that you notice it and resolve it.

Strong Women: these are the women who tend to be more aggressive, more steadfast,
who are more likely to rebel against the leadership of others (men or women), more likely to
resist commands, more likely to be confident, loud, and assertive, and more likely to cause
drama, cause a stir, and get offended by things. If there's a problem in the relationship, strong
women are more likely to quickly bring it to the forefront and ask you to address it.
Most cultures the world over encourage their women to be soft kinds of girls. In the more
feminist-leaning cultures (e.g., Scandinavia, the English-speaking world, etc.), this tends to be
reversed, and the encouragement is for women to be strong. I tend to believe this is more in-born
than anything else, although socialization and acculturation can lend an edge or take one off.
My personal preference is for strong women. I run slipshod over soft women, and they get hurt
too easily around me. I'm a pretty empathetic guy, but I also get caught up in whatever I'm
devoting my time to, and being considerate at all times is not a strong suit for me.
Among most of the men I talk to, the preference seems to be soft women. Even a lot of the men
I know who are very good with women still prefer soft women. I'll explore why this is a little
later in this article.

Inexperienced/Experienced
Again, like softness/strength, inexperienced/experienced is not black and white. A girl who's very
experienced to one man comes across like a nave amateur to another. A lot of that is based on
the man's experience; the more experienced a man is with women, the more women will
begin to seem relatively inexperienced to him, and the less experienced he is, the more they
will appear.
Here, our two camps are:

The inexperienced ones, and

The experienced ones

For our purposes, we're defining these two traits thusly:

Inexperienced Women: inexperienced women are less seasoned in the ways of

romance, dating, sex, and men. They believe more in love, have fewer walls up against others and
are more easily influenced and led, are more trusting, have less emotional baggage from negative
previous encounters, and are less certain of exactly what they want and don't want.

Experienced Women: experienced women are more seasoned in the ways of

romance, dating, sex, and men. They believe less in love, have more walls up against others and
are more difficult to influence and lead, are more skeptical of others' intentions, have more
emotional baggage from negative previous encounters, and are more certain of exactly what they
want and don't want.
There's a bit of a cultural double-standard when it comes to experience levels in women. Cultures
both normally dislike the "facts" of an experienced women (i.e., she's dated around a lot, slept
around a lot, and known many men), but love the "presentation" of an experienced woman (i.e.,
she's charming, svelte, confident, composed, measured, worldly, cosmopolitan, talented with
people, etc.). You'll frequently see cultures discouraging women from becoming experienced,
but lauding those women who are... so long as it isn't explicitly communicated that those
women are, that is.
As discussed in the article on roughly identifying how many partners a woman has had, there
are some very real reasons why cultures dissuade women from becoming experienced (i.e., with
each new sexual partner, a woman's infidelity risk increases 7%, and infidelity leads to broken
families, lowered productivity levels, and less successful children, which on a large enough scale
slow down and undermine the culture at large).
However, just as you become more experienced with women, you also become
moreattractive to them, the same is true for women. As a woman becomes more experienced
with men, she tends to become better at dating, seducing, captivating, and maintaining
relationships with them as well.

If you're like most men reading this post, you're already sitting there saying, "I want one of
theinexperienced girls!" and there's a pretty good chance what you're saying is, "I want
the softinexperienced girl!"
Well, wait just a second there.
You might think you know what kinds of girls you want... but do you?
The research says "no." Have a look - from a paper entitled "Do advertised preferences predict
the behavior of speed daters?" by Robert Kurzban of the University of Pennsylvania's Department
of Psychology, and Jason Weeden of Arizona State University's Department of Psychology:

Because researchers are making increasing use of data gleaned from Internet dating
sites, it is important to know if the preferences people specify in Internet
advertisements predict the choices that they actually make. HurryDate, a commercial
speed-dating firm, collected data from over 10,000 people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s
who participated in speed-dating events in cities across the United States. The present
analysis compared these speed daters advertised preferences with their decisions to
attend particular events and their choices of potential partners at the events they
attended. Findings indicated that speed daters advertisements reflect frequently
replicated sex differences and assortative patterns and that these advertised mate
preferences predicted their decisions to attend particular events. Advertised
preferences did not, in contrast, substantially predict decisions within
events. These results support the conclusion that advertised preferences predict
behavior in the mating domain in some contexts but not others.
That is to say, if you say you really like charismatic blondes, you'd be more likely to attend
Scandinavian Speed Dating Night than you would Japanese Speed Dating Night or West African
Speed Dating Night, but once you got there you might hit it off with a demure brunette a lot more
than you did any of the charismatic blondes present.
The choices people actually make often have little correlation with the preferences they claim
to have.

Therefore, most of the time when people tell me they know exactly what they want, I call
tomfoolery on their logical brain's part.
That's what your logical brain thinks. But when it comes to love at first sight, mating, pair
bonding, and sexual excitement, your logical brain doesn't have a whole lot of say. That's
youremotional brain's domain there - and let's look at how that picks mates.

What's the Research Have to Say?

Softness/strength and inexperienced/experienced are two separate dimensions on attractiveness,
and this is where things start getting hazy and anecdotal, so let's see how science weighs in.
Here's what science has to say on experience.
From "Effects of Premarital Sexual Standards and Behavior on Dating and Marriage
Desirability:"

This paper concerns the effects of sexual attitudes, lifetime sexual behavior, number of
coital partners, and the social context of this behavior on dating and marriage
desirability. Both male and female respondents were shown to prefer
moderately experienced partners, regardless of respondent's own
experience level. Unlike previous research no interactions between respondent's
behavior and rated person's behavior were found. No evidence for the existence of the
traditional double standard was found among these young, single university students;
men and women, equally, held a standard that allowed maximization of personal
sexual gratification but limited that available to potential partners.
In other words, according to this research conducted on university students in 1985, the
preference is for moderately experienced partners. That is to say, not virgins, and not sex pros,
either... regardless of where an individual's own experience levels lie (e.g., virgins want
moderately experienced partners, and sex experts want moderately experienced partners).
But remember... this is a survey, based on individual's logical preferences, not their
emotional/instinctive ones. And as that research just above showed us, what people saythey
want, and what they actually want, are two very different things.

Another paper, this one from five years earlier in 1980 and named "Effects of Sexual Experience
on Dating Desirability and Marriage Desirability: An Experimental Study," had this to say:

An experimental investigation of the effects of the level of sexual experience of men

and women college students on their evaluations of opposite-sex peers varying in
sexual experience was performed.Inexperienced men, and both inexperienced
and moderately experienced women, rated highly experienced oppositesex peers as less desirable dates and marriage partners than inexperienced
and moderately experienced persons. Moderately and highly experienced
men and highly experienced women tended to rate all opposite-sex peers
similarly along these same dimensions. The findings were discussed in terms of
the acquisition and social meanings of interpersonal sexual information and the
methodological differences between the present study and earlier survey
investigations.

So here we have a study that found that inexperienced men, inexperienced women, and
moderately experienced women found highly experienced partners less desirable than
inexperienced or moderately experienced partners, while moderately experienced men, highly
experienced men, and highly experienced women rated all partners as equally desirable.

Different survey. Different results.

Based on what research I've been able to locate, I think it's relatively safe to say that science
hasn't yet taken much of a look on what people actually are drawn to (as opposed to what
they think they're drawn to), at least in this arena.
So, I'm going to rely instead on my experience in the field: my personal experience, what I've
seen among countless friends, customers, and clients in this niche, and what I've seen among the
countless couples of all kinds I've met over a number of years of very active socializing and
meeting new people.
Here's how I think this actually breaks down, when logical rules are set aside and we look at
people's real preferences.

Kinds of Girls Men Want, By Kinds of Men They Are

When I posted the "how many partners" article, some commenters said, "This applies to men
too!" Which I completely agree with.
And it's exactly the same here - that grid of softness/strength and inexperienced/experienced
applies every bit to men as it does to women.
Just like women, there are soft men and strong men. And just like women, there are
inexperienced men and experienced ones.
And from what I have seen over 7+ years of experience in this domain, I'd tell you it works like
this:

You can move in either direction parallel to your square and be happy
If you date in your square, you'll be unhappy
If you date diagonally opposite your square, you're headed for some big fights
How's this work? First, let's figure out how you rank on each of these.
Do you:

Actively take the lead?

Like to be the center of attention?
Prefer the starring role to the support role?
Let people know it when you're annoyed?
Get accused of being cocky or overly confident sometimes?
Tend to never back down when you find yourself in an argument?

If you mostly said "yes," you fall more on the "strong" side of things. If you mostly said "no,"
you're on the "softer" side (but you don't have to tell anybody else; and heck, you're reading my
article, not me reading yours, so you know I'll never know!).
On experience, do you:

Consider yourself an expert on dating, sex, and relationships?

Not really believe all that much in "love" or "romance?"
Find it easy to resist and brush off pushy people?
Consider yourself skeptical and cynical (as opposed to trusting and accepting)?
Have some suspicion or other issues leftover from earlier relationships?
Know exactly what you want and exactly what you don't?
If you mostly said "yes, that's me," you're closer to "experienced" than the alternative. If you went
down the list going, "not really, no...," then you're closer to inexperienced.
Note: this one's a little tricky, because you will sometimes meet people acting or even thinking
they are something they're not here. e.g., the guy who's a virgin who acts cynical and bitter and
says, "Love is one big lie!" and thinks he knows it all about dating and sex and relationships
because he's well-read on the topic. The instant that guy ends up with a girl for real though, he
turns into a kitten, usually.
On the other hand, you have the really emotional guys who flit from lover to lover, and have tons
of experience with dating and sex but will tell you, "I don't think anyone can ever truly
understand a woman!" with a hint of romance and passion, believe wholeheartedly in true love
(although they never seem to find it, or it never lasts for long when they do), are the very opposite
of skeptical and cynical, and are largely suspicion-free.
If one of those sounds like you, put yourself into the inexperienced or experienced camp based on
your actual physical experience with women anyway, even though you might think you fit the
characteristics of a different quadrant. The kinds of women you'll respond to will still be the
same.
Have a look here at how our personality types interact:

Remember,

You can move in either direction parallel to your square and be happy
If you date in your square, you'll be unhappy
If you date diagonally opposite your square, you're headed for some big fights
The simplest way to think of this is in terms of leadership. Those work out as such:

1.
2.
3.

Soft/inexperienced has the least leadership ability

Strong/experienced has the greatest leadership ability
Strong/inexperienced and soft/experienced are both somewhere in the middle
Hand-in-hand with leadership tendencies go dominance, assertiveness, self-confidence, and more.

Good Pairings
To save myself from writing out needlessly long descriptions and to save you from reading them,
I'll abbreviate these as follows:

FT: Soft
TR: Strong
IN: Inexperienced
EX: Experienced
Here are the good pairings and how they work out.

1.

FT/IN with TR/IN. Both partners in this dynamic are just beginning to acquaint
themselves with the world of dating and sex and relationships. The more tentative FT/IN is happy
to be paired up with the bolder TR/IN, who is doing the trailblazing and exploring for the both of
them, while the TR/IN appreciates having the support and encouragement of the FT/IN there
learning right along with him/her and up for whatever the adventure at hand may be. The
dynamic here is "partner-in-crime + exploratory partner."

2.

FT/IN with FT/EX. In this setup, the FT/IN takes the FT/EX as a sort of guide and
partner. Both partners here make each other feel more secure; the FT/EX is glad to have found an
FT/IN, whom experience tells him/her is likely to stay supportive and loyal so long as he/she is
treated well, and the FT/IN is happy to have found an FT/EX who is gentle with his/her emotions
despite the experience gap, and uses that advantage in experience to anticipate the FT/IN's needs
and make the kinds of romantic, thoughtful gestures the FT/IN loves. The dynamic here is
"loving partner + caring partner."

3.

TR/EX with FT/EX. Here, the stronger partner natural leads the softer partner, but
because both are experienced the gap isn't too great. The FT/EX is experienced enough to not let
his/her emotions run wild when encountering the powerful TR/EX, and astute enough to play coy
and keep the TR/EX interested. The dynamic here is "powerful partner + coy partner."

4.

TR/EX with TR/IN. A different dynamic with two strong personalities, the TR/IN looks
upon the TR/EX as a teacher, mentor, and guide, in addition to a romantic partner. The TR/EX
tends to be what the TR/IN wishes to be, and the TR/EX enjoys having a partner in crime who
looks up to him/her with admiring eyes. The dynamic here is "mentor partner + student partner."
If you want to be happiest in your relationships, make sure you figure out which of these four
quadrants you fall in, and date women who fall into one of the two adjacent quadrants.
Now let's have a look at the other possible pairings.

Bad Pairings
There are also some really bad pairings among these four quadrants, and you want to make sure
you don't get stuck in any of them.
5.

FT/IN with TR/EX. The dominance gap is too wide here, and the TR/EX eats up and
spits out the FT/IN for breakfast without even meaning to. If you're the FT/IN in this dynamic, be
prepared to have your heart crushed and torn to pieces totally by accident. If you're the TR/EX, be
prepared for way more hurt feelings coming out of the FT/IN than you know what to do with, and
clinginess and neediness like you wouldn't believe.

6.

TR/IN with FT/EX. Rather than hurt feelings, "irritation" is the name of the game here.
The FT/EX considers himself/herself more experienced and thus by default the more natural
leader of the two, and very much is irritated by the misguided fits and starts and impulsive
behavior of the TR/IN. Meanwhile, the TR/IN quickly ends up annoyed at the FT/EX's
conservative "parenting" style toward the relationship when the TR/IN really just wants to run
free and thinks the FT/EX should probably be more like him/her. Be prepared for constant power
struggles and lots of frustration coming out of either quadrant.

7.

FT/IN with FT/IN. This pairing of like and like leads to a whole lot of nothing, with
each partner tentative, hesitant, and unsure. It's an unlikely pairing to occur, because both partners
are normally too timid to initiate dating and relationships. However, if proximity happens to put
two FT/INs in close contact and the two do somehow end up dating, be prepared for a
relationship filled with fog, confusion, and inaction.

8.

TR/IN with TR/IN. Two restless souls, a pair of TR/INs may have a brief and passionate
fling, but they'll soon find themselves tugging one another in opposite directions as each rushes
off to follow his or her own path of exploration and adventure. The longer these two try to stay
together, the more strained things tend to become, and they usually don't last together long
because of it.

9.

FT/EX with FT/EX. This is another unusual mix, simply because FT/EXes tend not to be
very attracted to one another. If two do end up together, they can be content, but there's a feeling
of "something missing" in the relationship that neither partner can quite put a finger on. What's
missing is a clear leader, and one partner that's very dominant over the other. For this relationship
to survive, one of the partners must transition to TR characteristics, or the two will eventually
drift apart, with reasons like, "It just didn't work out," or, "That magic something simply wasn't
there."

10.

TR/EX with TR/EX. What's more fearsome than a pair of T-rexes battling it out? A
coupling of TR/EXes is a powder keg waiting to explode, two very dominant individuals used to
controlling their spheres and everyone and everything in them, now suddenly together without a
clear leader. These relationships, when they happen, tend to be brief and passionate flings,

followed by equally ferocious partings. With neither partner willing to subjugate his or her will to
the other, they never last long.
If you end up in one of these relationships (or you've realized you're in one already), you don't
necessarily have to start looking for the exit door immediately, but you might want to plan for
what happens after the relationship has run its course.

How Do You Use This in Real Life?

You can use these quadrants to be more aware of the kinds of girls who appeal to you most, and
more quickly screen out the women you're incompatible with.
If you are:

An FT/IN, the enthusiasm and adventurousness of a TR/IN will enamor you, and the
careful attentiveness and romancing of an FT/EX will allure you, but stay away from the TR/EX,
who will make you wish you never started dating and turn you into a bitter man, and avoid
falling for another FT/IN, as you'll find it more disappointing than anything else.

A TR/IN, having an FT/IN sidekick is going to be a blast, and learning from a TR/EX
mentor who's already been there and done that is going to be tremendously rewarding. But stay
away from dating another TR/IN, who's going to drive you insane with the same kinds of
demands on you you're accustomed to making of others, and an FT/EX, who's neither going to
take the lead with you nor serve as a willing follower, and will drive you batty.

An FT/EX, you'll delight in having an FT/IN to nurture and take care of, and dating a
TR/EX can be exciting and rewarding. But you'll find dating another FT/EX to be rather deflating
an experience, and the rambunctious but rough-edged TR/IN is only going to bother you.

A TR/EX, an FT/EX will intrigue you with her wiles and charms, and a TR/IN will thrill
you with her boundless energy and zest, but prepare for explosive times if you start seeing
another TR/EX, and get ready to be nagged and sweetnessed-to-death by the clingy, innocent,
and needy FT/IN if you end up dating her.

And that's it. All you really have to remember are two simple types: the two you get on best
with.
Then get out there, keep those two kinds of girls in mind, and get yourself looking for them in the
real world, in the flesh.
And, if you've read this far, drop me a brief line in the comments which type of girl you like the
best, and what it is about her you adore.
Yours,
Chase