How do ERE men attract women?

[steveo73]

I love when people say things like this. Firstly I think they work more often than our love version of marriage plus arranged marriages are alive in well in India. I work with heaps of Indians. They basically all have arranged marriages.

But then they, and in particular the women, aren't really allowed to say anything else. If an arranged marriage "doesn't work" it just becomes institutionalized rape. If you really want an arranged marriage then all you have to do is to pick the first woman you find on the internet who feels the same way and marry her.

This is definitely not my impression. Divorces still occur just at a lower rate than the western standard. Most of the couples I know also appear fairly happy. The parents are the ones who do the choosing. Maybe this is why they work out better. I'm not going to give a specific reason why because it might not be so simple but I think your idea of institutionalized rape probably occurs more regularly in westernized marriages than in Indian style arranged marriages.

[iceet]

My wife is more frugal than I am and she comes from a lot of money. Her dad use to glue her shoes together when they were falling apart whilst managing a billionaire's private hedge fund and sending her to an exclusive private school (it was paid for).

Sounds like my type of dad

[iceet]

We all know that women like dominant men. ERE is a way to exhibit dominance and confidence in your values and beliefs. When you are genuinely adamant about your beliefs and don't bend or budge just to please others temporarily, women (and other men) will respond by respecting you. While it may appear they may respond negatively immediately when they don't get you to immediately change your views just to please them, in the long term they will admire your strength and be drawn towards you because you base your beliefs on principles and not pleasing others.

This is what I think of when I envision your father-in-law steveo. The guy probably had loads of money sitting in his bank accounts but did not feel the need to spend and show off just to please others. That would be my best educated guess about him. I would love to hear more about the guy but I understand if you're hesitant due to privacy concerns.

I am definitely all about minimizing expenses and costs, but we also need to focus on maximizing profits and income. This is not to have more money for ourselves, but because they money will allow us to help others. There are a lot of hungry and hurtin' people out there, even within our own neighborhoods. God has blessed us with intelligence and insight, that is why we have come together to this place. Those of us who are successful can use and share our knowledge to help others, directly and indirectly.

[7Wannabe5]

Jacob said: (*) Probably the biggest source of inefficiency, no division of labor, no specialization, ... e.g. the person who can best relate to your psychology is probably not the person who is the best to have sex with is probably not the person to run the best household is probably not the person to have the most fun with is probably not the person to work with is probably not the person to discuss politics with. By demanding that all these be the same person you're always looking at suboptimal dimensions in some aspects. Marriage or exclusivity then becomes some quest of optimizing a package deal, here with emphasis on love, often for historical reasons.

Very true. Not unlike buying a home you intend to live in. Also, this becomes more clear and therefore more difficult the older you get. One important thing to realize is where you are actually contracting for exclusivity. I mean, for instance, you can attend musical theater productions with somebody other than your SO. You can garden by yourself. OTOH, you could contract for a sexually open relationship with your ideal domestic, political conversation and parenting partner but that is not so often done.

One thing that I have come to realize is very important but hard for me to explain because I don't yet quite get it myself, is that it makes a critical difference in relationship who offers contract. It's like the difference between scanning the Help Wanted ads vs. putting up a Position Wanted ad yourself. Also, I think the reason why "arranged" (they're really more like "interfere-nik") marriage seems so appealing is simply because arranged marriages usually have very clear contracts compared to modern Western marriages among young people. I think in the ceremony for my first marriage the vow ( in front of a very pregnant Unitarian minister ) I took was something like "I will love you and support your personal growth forever." If you accept the premise that the two responsibilities any free adult takes on when entering into contract are fulfillment of their half of obligations and enforcement of fulfillment of other's half of obligations, how was I supposed to do that under such vague terms? By contrast, my current provisional contract with SO is a very clearly laid out combination of Islamic marriage (literally translated as "contract for sex"), landlord/tenant and at-will-employer/employee and even detailed activity partner contract and we are currently in couple's counseling to hammer it out further before signing on the dotted line. Of course, in most of the United States, sex is considered to fall under the category of "love and affection" and you can't legally contract for "love and affection." For instance, "I, Harry, will give Mary 5 cows and I, Mary will love Harry forever." is not a legally enforceable contract in Ohio but neither is "I, Harry will give Mary 5 cows and I, Mary will have sex with Harry 2x a week for the next 3 months." So, clear contract and 3rd party enforceable contract are not the same thing. It's up to Harry to repossess his cows if Mary stops putting out in month 2 or vice-versa. My point here being that you should know and be in overt, open agreement about what exactly you are contracting for, what terms of the contract are 3rd party enforceable vs. you will have to enforce yourself and you should also be aware of which party is offering contract. Simple example of the last being if a man says "Will you marry me?" he is the party offering contract. This is why the truism that "the submissive really holds the ultimate power in relationship" exists. The "submissive" or prospective tenant or prospective employee holds the right of refusal or rejection of offer or contract. The "dominant" or prospective landlord or prospective employer holds the power of proposal. In many modern relationships, including most modern marriages, this can be a very subtle but important distinction. We all take on different roles in different relationships/contracts and this has nothing to do with our status as free adults who can enter into or exit contract which is only 3rd party enforceable by the State (or other authority we accept such as religious authority) and only personally enforceable by force of will.

[7Wannabe5]

iceet said: We all know that women like dominant men. ERE is a way to exhibit dominance and confidence in your values and beliefs. When you are genuinely adamant about your beliefs and don't bend or budge just to please others temporarily, women (and other men) will respond by respecting you. While it may appear they may respond negatively immediately when they don't get you to immediately change your views just to please them, in the long term they will admire your strength and be drawn towards you because you base your beliefs on principles and not pleasing others.

This is very true but it is also true that "standing up to arrogance" is one of the critical skills you must possess to maintain a strong submissive posture because otherwise you will simply become a "doormat." The fine line between "dominance" and "arrogance" lies between where a person is pursuing their purpose or following their truth vs. "counting coup" or "just pimping" or seeking ego-gratification. It's very easy to mistake one for the other superficially. I sometimes suck at this because although I am in possession of self-worth at core, I am often too easy-going, vague and absent-minded-neglectful around the edges.

Also, every person has their own unique purpose and truth. It is not at all necessary to have the same purpose and truth as the person you are currently choosing to follow. Our lives are all more multi-dimensional than that model.

[BeyondtheWrap]

My definition of love is that it is a feeling of strong desire for something or someone. We feel it for people and we feel it for non-living objects, e.g. I would love to drive a Lamborghini. But frugality is the lifestyle that I (or we) have committed to, and frugality requires the suppression of desire or the suppression of love..

Others would define love not as desire but as commitment, so I would say that you love frugality/ERE, methpearice.

[steveo73]

We all know that women like dominant men.

Is this really true ?

This is what I think of when I envision your father-in-law steveo. The guy probably had loads of money sitting in his bank accounts but did not feel the need to spend and show off just to please others. That would be my best educated guess about him. I would love to hear more about the guy but I understand if you're hesitant due to privacy concerns.

Not much to say really. He just made a lot of money early and is a workaholic so he still works. The thing is though he saved his money rather then spent it and over time that money grows. He will spend money when its required but typically its not required is it. For instance he hates driving cars because they cost too much money. He typically rides his electric bike.

I am definitely all about minimizing expenses and costs, but we also need to focus on maximizing profits and income. This is not to have more money for ourselves, but because they money will allow us to help others. There are a lot of hungry and hurtin' people out there, even within our own neighborhoods. God has blessed us with intelligence and insight, that is why we have come together to this place. Those of us who are successful can use and share our knowledge to help others, directly and indirectly.

My FIL has done this but I think it backfires. You end up having to support heaps of people. He does this by running his own business but personally I don't see the point. You can also be a target. A while back a piece of shit killed his parents. Because he comes from the same ethnic background as my FIL they targeted my FIL to pay the pieces of shits legal fees to try and get him off. They sold a story that he was innocent and had been set-up blah blah blah. I told my FIL and my SIL boyfriend at the time off about this and told him he should pay for a hitman to get him killed.

[IlliniDave]

Several interesting things since I last checked into this thread. I know one guy of Pakistani ancestry who's parents had arranged a marriage partner for him via the girl's parents when they were both about 8. I don't know how things wound up the way they did, but obviously here in the USA such arrangements have no legal standing. It seems as though the parents did it as a nod to their cultural traditions/responsibilities without ever expecting it to actually happen. Several years beyond the traditional marriage age, in his mid-late twenties, this guy finally met the girl in question and as you may have guessed by now, they fell for each other and have been happily married ever since (almost 10 years now). For some reason I find that very amusing.

Yes, frugal people are looked down on for the practice appreciably more often than they are respected for it. Like it or not, marriage (or partnership) has traditionally and often still has a business aspect to it. Sitting on tons of money while living a lower middle class lifestyle does not appeal to everyone. It is certainly possible to find someone with similar financial values, but at least in American culture which prizes outward affluence, they are in the minority.

While there is primal wiring that prompts females to select the strongest, most dominant, males for mating (for which there there are obvious biological success-of-the-species reasons), our culture blurs that substantially and creates a lot of confusion. Next to money it seems to be one of the more prominent dysfunctions I see people in relationships go through. It's a tricky balance and very prone to produce a demasculated (and therefore in some respects undesirable) male, or, using the term above, a "doormat" female (also undersirable in some respects). The "strong submissive" posture seems to be somewhere between a rationalization and a compromise, but I think it probably only works for a relatively small slice who do their own thinking rather than simply going along with either nature or nurture.

[Veritas]

It's really not that complicated. Just go out and meet women -- I like big boardgame meetups and social dances (swing, blues, etc). Meet tons and tons of people. Talk to them. Ask them out.

You really don't have to spend a lot of money to attract women. Focus on being sexy instead -- a good quality haircut, being fit, and dressing well don't cost a ton, and are more a matter of knowledge and experimentation than anything else. Don't trade money for sex. Trade sex for sex.

Hell, the woman I'm in a quasi relationship now with thought I was unemployed when we first met. She paid for my drink on the first date!

[Dragline]

It's really not that complicated. Just go out and meet women -- I like big boardgame meetups and social dances (swing, blues, etc). Meet tons and tons of people. Talk to them. Ask them out.

You really don't have to spend a lot of money to attract women. Focus on being sexy instead -- a good quality haircut, being fit, and dressing well don't cost a ton, and are more a matter of knowledge and experimentation than anything else. Don't trade money for sex. Trade sex for sex.

Hell, the woman I'm in a quasi relationship now with thought I was unemployed when we first met. She paid for my drink on the first date!

"He shoots he scores!"

This is good advice. It's a better strategy to attract a quantity of potential mates than to try to divine the perfect one before you meet them. And remember, you don't need to be the most attractive guy. Just concentrate on being more attractive than most of the guys your age. Oddly enough, for most men, this becomes easier as you age because the average guy lets himself go into the toilet appearance and fitness-wise.

[steveo73]

^^^

I'll add my agreement to Veritas post as well. Dragline makes a good point as well. A lot of guys turn into fat slobs. I think the typical ERE person would be fitter than average.

[7Wannabe5]

IlliniDave said: The "strong submissive" posture seems to be somewhere between a rationalization and a compromise, but I think it probably only works for a relatively small slice who do their own thinking rather than simply going along with either nature or nurture.

I prefer to think of it as a post-feminist construct within the scope of behavioral psychology -lol. Once you train yourself in the practice of how to fall out of love/lust/limerence/attachment in order to exit a bad relationship then you can learn how to do the opposite to stay in a good relationship. IOW, you can attempt to transcend the biological reason behind the rational rule that you shouldn't let infatuation or sex be a strong factor in selecting a long term relationship partner because it will just wear off in 6 months to 2 years anyways. IOW, although there are surely factors that determine whether or not you could ever be "in love" with a particular other person (For instance, I can't imagine ever falling in love with Gomer Pyle) , continued proximity need not be the factor that causes that feeling to fade. People who describe themselves as "hopeless romantics" are those who are constantly seeking the buzz of limerence or infatuation without any awareness of what factors aid in its creation or decline. Similar complementary practices apply to the desire to "be loved" as opposed to the desire to "be in love." IMO, the most interesting thing is that human beings are such impressionable monkeys that it is almost never too late to push the "restart" button in any relationship by simply changing your own behavior and thereby adjusting your own chemical levels.

In simplest terms, the method or practice for falling-out-of-love is to either remove the love object from your proximity and/or thought patterns OR if you wish to remain otherwise in relationship to stop engaging in or exhibiting any behaviors with the appearance or intent of pleasing your love object. IOW, strictly stop investing. Therefore, if you are 12 years into a relationship and everything is blah because you are like two boulders rolled down the hill into the valley with zero potential energy remaining and you want to feel like you are "in love" again what you should do is start engaging/investing and exhibiting behaviors with the appearance or intent of pleasing your partner. IMPORTANT NOTE AND DISCLAIMER: This is the practice for renewing your own feelings. It does not necessarily serve to renew the feelings of your partner and may in fact be counter-productive at first. That requires a different bottle of voodoo juice. Also, I do not offer any of this as advice. These are simply old ideas in new wrappers I am sharing because I am a hopeful romantic.

[Stahlmann]

I "last" in terms of ability to hold convo up to 3-4 for meetings, suprisingly many of my dating/friendship attempts end here -.-

I'm person who could stay in front of monitors for years (don't ask how I know it). Going to prison wouldn't be a problem for me (at least saying this from priviliged basement dweller perspective).

Any ideas how to solve this problem?

Also - dating higher IQ, socioeconomically (up to which point for both of these parameters?) better, younger or at my age women - does it make sense? BTW, I don't ask them for IQ score before first meeting

Based on my experience, it would be better if I was somebody she could admire or see as an example to follow. So I'm looking for ekhm... trying not to break any social conventions... less life experienced partners in terms showed in former paragraph.

Your perspectives?

[7Wannabe5]

I'm not sure what you are asking? Are the 3-4 meetings you "last" for in person or virtual? What "moves" are you making beyond conversation? The reason I ask about your other "moves" is that lasting 3-4 meetings makes me think that you are confusing your dates.

[Stahlmann]

@7w5
PMed

(gonna write later; will think if it's worth writing this in public).

[IlliniDave]

I think about all you can do is make yourself a 'good' man and eventually you'll be recognized for that. Be a problem solver, a leader (at least situationally), and a doer; and do those with compassion and empathy. Maybe one of the issues behind multi-episode conversations fizzling is because it's time to just do something together. Rapport seems to develop faster with shared experience. The introvert thing is difficult, to be sure.

Of course I have taken my own advice and here I am still living a bachelor's life, so take it with a grain of salt and at your own peril, haha. It's a little unfashionable to be entrenched in a more traditional male 'model', so there may not be a ton of short-term benefit to the approach, but it might pay off in the longer game.

You should be able to privately make an honest list of all the things you can offer in a potential relationship. Don't base it off some list some blog somewhere asserts as the things women say they want. Make it of the things you'd happily/naturally provide. Then maybe compare it to the surveys of stated wants. If your list is a little weak, see if there are ways to bolster it while still being true to yourself. If not, then accept that you're on a unicorn hunt and be patient until the magic puzzle piece appears.

[Seppia]

I suggest you don’t bring up the prison thing, there’s a chance it may backfire

Jokes aside: the most important thing IMO is to avoid falling into the rabbit hole of those men who speak in terms of redpill/alpha male etc.
It was mentioned back in 2014 in the first posts I see.
These unfortunate men look at women like they are another species and engage in self defeating behavior.

Also: you should look for women that are compatible with you, and these are usually found doing activities that are compatible with your lifestyle.
There is zero point going out clubbing in the expensive disco if you like to hike in the wilderness and go to bed at 8pm.
If you’re looking for a long term partner with old school values you shouldn’t be swiping right on Tinder.

This may sound like very basic advice but you have no idea how many people I know look for partners in the worst possible places, and then come to the conclusion “all women are XYZ I will never find the partner for me”

[Henry]

I suggest you don’t bring up the prison thing, there’s a chance it may backfire

Is there anything more ERE than breaking out of prison? Just think about having a movie night with a woman you want to impress and you say "let's watch Shawshank Redemption." And then at a crucial point in the story you turn to her and say "that's just how I did it." So in her mind she's thinking "Wow, this guy is a real life Andy Dufresne" not even contemplating about why you were in the can in the first place. Then you start bragging on all the skills, resourcefulness, strength, intelligence and personal qualities you possess that allowed you to break out of a maximum security penitentiary. I'd bet the house you're getting action before she comes to the realization that the cops could be breaking down the door at a moment's notice.

[Stahlmann]

Could you paraphrase last sentence of your intriguing post?
I get literary meaning, but from my understanding it is opposite to the whole post's idea.

[Henry]

The thesis of my post is that breaking out of prison would require skill sets that ERE's value. A complex web of goals accomplished through planning, social networks, maximization of limited physical resources etc. in order to escape a mundane, regimented environment with the purpose of moving on to a situation where one lives according to his own vision of personal freedom and fulfillment. My thesis precludes the use of violence which is obviously not an ERE value i.e. no shooting of prison guards. Specific to this thread, I believe that women would find a man who has broken out of prison through non-violent means to possess life skills that most men do not possess i.e. me.

With regard to the last sentence of my post, the issue is that a man who has broken out of prison is by definition a wanted man and that is a factor that a woman attracted to a man who has escaped from prison would have to deal with on an on-going basis. She would have to consider the serious possibility that the relationship would end in a sudden and potentially violent end.

There was an American TV show and later film called The Fugitive which dealt with a man who on his way to being sent to prison escaped when his train crashed. The skill set required to survive afterwards was a version of ERE. And this guy scored with the women wherever he went. Every week a new one. Sometimes they knew he was an escaped prisoner. Sometimes they didn't. But they never cared. Yes he was movie star handsome, but he could rustle cattle, tend bar, repair a car, apply to a wound (he was a doctor by training) and the women were attracted to those skills. Plus he had a serious moral compass and there was an air of mystery to his itinerancy. It was he who left the women because the FBI Agent who he was handcuffed to on the train was always pursuing him.