When you think about it, someone who has a taste for fighting has a much higher chance of getting into a life-threatening altercation in the first place. After all, it is 2011, not 1011. While I suppose 1,000 years of evolution isn't that many in the grand scheme of things, I'd still have to say the logic is fundamentally flawed there. Your non-fighter will have a much better chance for survival. The balance thing you brought up comes into play here, because effectively, you'd want someone who never invites an altercation unless met with a situation threatening the safety of himself or his family.
Unfortunately, you will never really know who that person is, because they would naturally never display that side of themselves, for fear of getting into an unnecessary confrontation <-- which is perfect, as you wouldn't want him to be harmed, right?
So what you're saying is a little selfish, because it implies that you require a guy to display traits that you find sexually appealing, while logic dictates that those very same traits decrease his overall chances of survival.
Like I said, in this day and age most conflicts are pshychological, so it mostly comes down to social power and qualities which helps you achieve that, i.e. verbal and mental ability, the most verbally dominating man in a group is usually preferred by women, and other qualitiies like aggression, emotional strength, sheer power, and whatever allows you to achieve social dominance. This is how men of smaller size can be more socially powerful and dominant.
Men of social power also tend to be bullies, just because they can be, and even look for situations where they can demonstrate their power (i.e. "Did you spill my pint?"). Which I find kind of moronic. Like, my boyfriend never hits someone first, unless they have done something to really deserve it, but if they hit him first he can break a few bones. But I don't think you as a woman can really put yourself in the position of a man who loses control over his aggression when he's in a situation where he feels he has to fight for his life (this is something women don't really have to experience and we also have a much greater ability to inhibit aggression than men do). Though I guess we are all attracted to what we are good at so you can't really be that judgemental.
All the same, violence is still a part of the male world, much more so than the female. I guess it depends what environments you are part of, but it does happen, and is a constant threat to you as a man. More so if you are more masculine and more easily aroused that way. As for being selfish, yea, I guess I don't mind a guy demonstrating some strength just to make me horny, hahah. But I spend a lot of time making myself look good for the opposite sex so it seems only fair they should suffer some in return.
Anyway, badboys totally get this as it's part of their nature, and being willing to get involved in fights/conflicts doesn't usually decrease their chances of survival. They seem to see it more as practice. I didn't understand them before, but I kind of do now. And I don't think a man should go around all his life hiding from any conflict.
While we're on the topic of sex appeal, how sexy do you find pedantic overthinking?
Hahah. I think we can all safely agree this is not very sexy in either of the sexes...it's just not something that is remotely connected to sex appeal or male/female attraction in any way. But that doesn't mean that thinking or mental development has no value, there is more to life than appealing to the opposite sex, just keep it out of that context, I guess.
Although intellectuals tend to be attracted by each other, too. Though there are different types of "intellectuals". For instance the "geeky" kind, which I'm not, but more of the creative kind. Some like it and some don't.
