How do ERE men attract women?

[Biscuits and Gravy]

I can't tell you which houses are going to get struck by lightning.

All of them. Lightning here being illness, infidelity, children, natural disasters, etc. Every house will inevitably suffer some calamity—that is the fatalism. But I know some houses survive, and that sure is remarkable and impressive. I’m not a fatalist about marriage. Marriage is a wonderful person-building machine, but all of those cliches about a “good foundation” are on the money.

[Seppia]

And one has no control at all over the quality of their marriage?
*cut*
I find it interesting that so many people here are fatalistic when it comes to marriage on a board where generally people value and believe in personal agency in all other realms of life

Agree 100%
"We" laugh at this:
https://fortune.com/recommends/banking/ ... y-expense/
but somehow the marriage failure rate is sort of an iron law, and the results depend on factors that are exogenous to the couple.
I'm very confused

[7Wannabe5]

That's part of why I think the national statistics are irrelevant

Statistics are almost always irrelevant when applied to your personal life. That's kind of the point I was trying to make on the VO2 max challenge thread. They're also quite often not even based on math that can be validated. They're actually to some extent just remnants of 20th century inter-subjectivity. Just to be clear, I should also note that I don't actually believe in agency, but I do believe that is most often best practice to act as if I do believe in agency. Just like there are some situations in which I believe it is best practice to act as if I believe in a higher power to whom I can "leave the things I can not change."
IOW, there are things no human can affect (1.) There are things you can affect as an individual (2.) There are things that humans can affect that you can't affect as an individual (3.) There are thing that humans may be able to affect in the future that humans can't affect yet (4.) And there are feedback loops between all of these "levels."

Any given marriage exists at the juncture of (2) and (3.) The institution of marriage exists closer to the juncture of (3) and (4.)

So he will probably continue to believe what he needs to believe in order to function.

Human beings are fascinating creatures.

Yes, we all strive to maintain meaning and coherence in our narrative, and we all, in less reflective mode, think and behave in ways most likely to protect our own egos. For instance, it may serve your narrative to defend the conventional institution of marriage against those who are communicating that it is becoming less relevant for many humans. Dunno.

There is one fairly radical conservative school of thought that actually holds that because the institution of marriage is inherently patriarchal, any time a heterosexual marriage fails, it must be the man's fault. The reasoning kind of goes that for problems to be solved, somebody has to take the lead, and the only ultimate Win-Win will result if the man takes the lead. IOW, if the woman takes the lead on problem solving, then although the problem(s) may be solved, she will be stuck in "the lead" and neither party will ever be entirely happy with that situation. My point here being that agency is fluid to perspective. When I made the statement that individual agency in a marriage is at best 50/50, I am on some level only stating the obvious about how we as moderns engaging the modern lens view modern marriage. Since my second "marriage" was under Islamic contract, it was not a modern marriage, and my current practice of polyamory does not conform to modern marriage, so I no longer wholly view marriage from within the modern perspective, although I can discuss it from that perspective.. IOW, any discussion of how/why marriages succeed or fail must first tacitly or explicitly answer the question "what type of marriage" or "what do you mean by 'marriage'"

IOW, my current perspective on "modern marriage" is not entirely unlike my current perspective on "modern careers." This is only a rough analogy, but it’s kind of like how Jacob can joke that he “failed” at two or more careers, but it is also true on another level that “careers” failed at him, and us.

[IlliniDave]

My $0.02 on a couple recent points.

I don't think an individual has any meaningful positive control over the success their marriage when it is intended to be an egalitarian partnership (of course they can destroy it). At best they have influence. Sure, us EREers like to control what we can, but I think the successful ones understand there is much they don't control, and engage in risk mitigation accordingly. Resilience is founded on that understanding.

I think it's true that people who go through a divorce have reflections on it that evolve as they come out the other side*. In my case it went something like: what did I do wrong?->well I wasn't the only one who was imperfect->I did the best that I knew to do at pretty much every juncture->happiness comes from within, so it's not my fault she is/was unhappy->okay, time to put it in the past and move forward->yeah I wasn't perfect, how should I remedy that and come out a better man?

It was that evolution experience that really set things in motion for me to take the responsibility (in my solo existence) required to control what I can and be like the proverbial duck's back when I can't. 'Responsibility' is the most important word in that sentence.

There's fatalism baked in all over this forum/community: economic disaster, environmental disaster, ecological disaster, political disaster, societal disaster. To me the foreboding of marital disaster is right in keeping with much of what drives many of our collective behaviors.

All that said, marriage certainly can work and I wouldn't discourage anyone from pursuing it. My being open about my own situation is not a recruiting pitch.

Some advice/observations through the eyes of one who failed:

-Marrying someone probably won't fix them (or you). Might, but beware that odds are against it.
-Happiness comes from within, you can't make a fundamentally unhappy person happy, nor can another person make you happy if you are fundamentally unhappy.
-Be balanced in expectations--don't expect too much to change, nor too little, because of the vows. Many of us have probably heard some form of the quip: the biggest disappointment [gender A] tends to have with their marriage is that things didn't change, and the biggest disappointment [gender B] tends to have is that they did.
-Be certain you are willing to accept the person for who they are, not who you want them to be
-Life can be a rugged grind at times and often not for the faint of heart. Pick someone you would go to war with.
-Very few marital hills are worth dying on.
-Don't always put your own needs/desires first, and don't always put your own needs/desires last.

And going back to the OP (how can ere dude attract women)--Continuously strive to make yourself the best man you can be (however you define 'best you can be' but keep in mind it will influence the type of woman you might attract, so be aware of whether you are 'signalling' for traditional marital roles, egalitarian roles, or female-led relationship roles, etc., and whether that signalling aligns with what you really want.

*I think people in successful marriages tend to have similar evolution in their recollections, maybe taking more credit for what went right. Not unlike investing, really, in that sense.

[ffj]

@7

"IOW, any discussion of how/why marriages succeed or fail must first tacitly or explicitly answer the question "what type of marriage" or "what do you mean by 'marriage' "

I generally stay out of these conversations for this very reason. Not everybody is speaking the same language at times. I think it would be better to just call them relationships because peoples lifestyles can be vastly different. It all comes down to what model you are operating.

With that said, it can't be unnoticed that the people who operate under one system tend to shit on other operating models. If one is non-monogamous for example, then that person tends to argue that monogamy is unnatural, and vice versa. And anecdotal evidence is everywhere for whatever you believe! Ha!

Getting back to OP. This is what worked for me many years ago when I was still in the dating pool as a heterosexual dude:

Become competent at something and become a leader in whatever you are competent. Better if the competency is in a field where women are involved obviously. One can debate why this works but the results were irrefutable for me. Of course, I was also young and healthy and focused, although nobody would have ever accused me of being good-looking. And clearly, women have to have a reason to be around you after the initial attraction but talk about opening doors!

[white belt]

Any ideas how to solve this problem?

I fleshed out my ERE dating strategy in a thread years ago, so I won't rehash the whole thing but I recommend checking it out: viewtopic.php?p=175338

After reading that, you should understand that the issue could be you either don't possess a lot of attractive traits (unlikely given you are on a forum that values broad competence so highly), and/or you don't effectively signal those traits. Most of the common dating advice is essentially figuring out how to signal attractive traits. It is not all that different from how you might highlight specific desirable traits in a job search/interview. Of course, you might be able to BS a lot in a job interview but that's generally not a good strategy on a date if you are trying to find consistent dating success. The point is to HAVE attractive traits AND signal them, so both steps are critical.

For all the boomers (joking) on here talking about dating apps, I will tell you that your perspectives are a bit dated. About 50% of my social group <35 that is currently married or engaged met their significant others on dating apps. Depending on your geographic region, Tinder can be used for everything from hookups to long term dating. Outside of the largest metro centers, there usually isn't a population to support niche apps so Tinder becomes the only game in town. I met DF on Tinder; she had just moved to the area for medical school and I had just moved to the area for an Army assignment. The chances of us meeting without an app would probably have been zero since neither of us had groups of friends at the time. We also both tend to use a lot of our socializing battery at work, which makes apps a huge benefit since I didn't need to spend all my energy socializing in hopes of meeting a possible partner. I think most young people use a combination of apps and IRL activities to find prospective partners, but this gets less likely the busier and/or less extroverted you are.
___________________________________________________________


In terms of the marriage discussion, I don't have too much to add since I am at the precipice of embarking on my own marriage. I tried to be as selective as possible with my choice of partner and also ensure that we have a shared vision. I understand that people change over time and shared visions can drift in different directions, but I'm willing to take that risk. Also, DF has her own career and is not the financially vindictive type (she has an ex-BF who still owes her a few thousand dollars but she didn't bother to pursue it). We don't really have a 50/50 modern marriage view where we split everything perfectly evenly, more like we have the perspective that we are a team working towards complementary goals. Some years I will contribute more financially to the pot, while some years she will contribute more financially to the pot. The point is capital comes in many forms and we both will contribute in the ways we can because we value building our relationship. We are also are both too rational to discount the very real possibility of divorce someday in the future, although we think that is unlikely. Even without children, the governmental, societal, and cultural benefits outweigh just remaining together yet unmarried. At least that's the idea, but check back in with me in 10 years to see if my mind changed.

[white belt]

I believe what I (as always, semi-jokingly) implied was more along the lines of "whatever 15% increase in happiness would be worth to you" as opposed to "every last nickel she can extract." I also suggested a second available option of simply being less grouchy than the average bear. It has been my experience that many/most men who want to date me would rather carry pretty much the entire financial cost of supporting frugal me as co-pilot in their lifestyle vs. attempting to be just a bit less grouchy. Unfortunately, it might be a Catch-22, because maybe the joy of being as authentically grouchy as you feel is also dollar equivalent to 15% increase in happiness*. Dunno.

*Which would both be more than pretty much the entire financial cost of supporting frugal me as lifestyle co-pilot. IOW, it might be the case that it less painful to work a paid employment for the number of hours necessary to cover pretty much the entire financial cost of supporting frugal me for the typical middle-aged, semi-affluent American man vs. engaging in an activity such as "going to a therapist to get in touch with his negative emotions and their sources."

I think men get more grouchy as they get older, but also that your easygoing nature and high sex drive probably means you put up with behavior that the average woman wouldn't. Perhaps I'm projecting, but as an easygoing male with a high sex drive, I can look back at many times I put up with things I never should have because she was pretty and the sex was good. I also think it is the case that grouchiness is a manifestation of FU money for men of any age. I mean, look how common it is for very wealthy/famous men to exhibit behaviors that would get them ostracized from most social groups. They're too rich/powerful to care about things like politeness, social convention, etc. FU money at its apex.

[Jin+Guice]

It's interesting that this turned into a thread about marriage as both the OG OP and the 2023 resurgence OP are questions that seem to be more about dating/ attracting any female attention?

I agree with @7w5 that success in marriage needs to be defined by those in the marriage. There is also a traditionally and culturally accepted viewpoint on what success in a marriage is, and I think that is what is being talked about by most?

I also agree with @7w5 that modern marriage is akin to modern careers in that it narrows the field of possibility substantially, while blinding most to possibilities bc of its cultural ubiquity. I.e. most of us learned it was the only choice so we focus on exploring the details of that choice, missing the world of possibility outside of that choice.

But even within this narrow set of possibilities it's interesting that no one assumed that the original commenters were seeking an abundance of casual sexual relationships, which is what I got from their posts.

[7Wannabe5]

But even within this narrow set of possibilities it's interesting that no one assumed that the original commenters were seeking an abundance of casual sexual relationships, which is what I got from their posts.

I very well may be wrong, but within the context of his other posts, I was working on the assumption that what Stahlmann was looking for was one monogamous fairly committed sexual relationship that was low-risk, reliable, easily obtained and inexpensive. That is why I was vibing a bit "annoyed" in my replies to him. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Also, I would hesitate to offer straight-forward advice on how to find an abundance of casual sexual relationships, because "casual sex" in our culture is generally defined in direct opposition to "the sort of sex that you might have as you progress your way up the conventional relationship ladder ultimately ending like just about every romance novel ever written at marriage and/or epilogue of babies." Just like we understand "casual Friday" apparel to be other than the serious career clothing donned on M-Th.

Due to the invention of online dating, even an only moderately attractive middle-aged heterosexual female nerd such as myself, who doesn't drink, and is usually tucked in bed with a book before 10 pm, can easily obtain all the "hook-ups" she could possibly desire. The core economic reason why this is true is that there is a fairly large proportion of heterosexual males who are total sluts. And, it is also the case that these men who are total sluts are not necessarily unattractive otherwise. Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, Hugh Grant, Bob Fosse...(I could go on and on and on and on. I am only using famous men here as examples, because known entities.) So, what are you going to bring to the table if you are competing with the League of Attractive Slutty Men? Obviously, you are going to have to offer something more, or different, or engage in more intelligent strategy.

Most heterosexual women, most of the time, are not really actively seeking a hook-up, and it is only somewhat more likely that they might be open to the possibility. So, if you are a heterosexual male. you are operating in a buyer's market with a great deal of attractive competition. Some situations that would improve the odds:

1) Presence of alcohol or drugs in environment.
2) Transistion phase of life, such as just after major break-up.
3) Temporary phase of life, such as on vacation.

So, for instance, obtaining a part-time job as a bartender in a resort town might be a good tactic.

If you are willing/wanting to consider options beyond the casual sex/hook-up vs relationship elevator to marriage dichotomy, then the market opens up a bit. Actually, now that I think about it, just taking some time to define/describe what you are looking for (and/or willing/able to provide in relationship) as anything more complex than hook-up/FWB/GF/SO etc. would effectively allow you to create your own niche market.

[white belt]

Due to the invention of online dating, even an only moderately attractive middle-aged heterosexual female nerd such as myself, who doesn't drink, and is usually tucked in bed with a book before 10 pm, can easily obtain all the "hook-ups" she could possibly desire. The core economic reason why this is true is that there is a fairly large proportion of heterosexual males who are total sluts. And, it is also the case that these men who are total sluts are not necessarily unattractive otherwise. Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, Hugh Grant, Bob Fosse...(I could go on and on and on and on. I am only using famous men here as examples, because known entities.) So, what are you going to bring to the table if you are competing with the League of Attractive Slutty Men? Obviously, you are going to have to offer something more, or different, or engage in more intelligent strategy.

Most heterosexual women, most of the time, are not really actively seeking a hook-up, and it is only somewhat more likely that they might be open to the possibility. So, if you are a heterosexual male. you are operating in a buyer's market with a great deal of attractive competition. Some situations that would improve the odds:

1) Presence of alcohol or drugs in environment.
2) Transistion phase of life, such as just after major break-up.
3) Temporary phase of life, such as on vacation.

So, for instance, obtaining a part-time job as a bartender in a resort town might be a good tactic.

Right and the inversion of this is that a man can date much more attractive women if he is looking for a relationship rather than a hookup. Now I'm not saying OP should look for a relationship only for that reason, just that it is a common strategy. For my single years, I opted to be honest and straightforward with my intentions but the world is full of men who rope women along in relationships.

In regards to the latter advice, I largely agree but I think it can be challenging to fit into a web of goals. For many years, I tried to fit such dating considerations into my life that primarily included a male-dominated career field (military), in locations with unfavorable single male/female gender ratios (military towns, more rural areas), and doing introvert activities I enjoy that are solitary and/or largely male-dominated (lifting weights, reading, etc). I tried finding activities with more women, but without a rich social network it can be hard to not just come off as the creepy guy who does X activity to hit on girls. I mean, moving to a different area and obtaining a job in a different career field is a pretty radical change to make to just improve dating success. Most men are going to be unable or unwilling to do that. It would be the equivalent of asking 7WB5 to stop reading so many books and instead work at the local disco to find a man (which is perhaps how things were in her youth before dating apps?). Of course, I eventually met DW through a dating app, but I attribute that at least 50% due to luck, and it only happened after years of dating frustrations.

[Jin+Guice]

Mmmmm yes, for the purpose of what I was talking about I would define casual sexual relationships as relationships which are not for the purpose of following up the traditional relationship ladder towards attempted lifetime partnership (often called "marriage" in my language).

Why I got this impression is from examining the same framework @7w5 laid out. Most dudes I know aren't trying to find a wife, they are trying to get laid. Like when I hear a dude casually bitching in the direction of both OPs, it's usually bc they aren't attracting female attention and aren't getting laid, not bc they aren't getting married.

I agree that male sluts face challenges their female counterparts do not. I agree this is bc they face high competition. This is for the same reason that we all site above, namely that if you distill the "dating market" down to "most common univariate goal by gender," men compete for sex and women compete for relationships.

This also makes both parties vulnerable, since, based on years of my own casual observation, men and women appear to need sex and romantic relationships in roughly equal proportions.

The socially acceptable and conditioned strategy is to lie. Men lie that they are looking for relationships when they just want sex. Women say they just want sex when they really want relationships. But not only are people lying to each other, they lie to themselves. They lie to their families, friends and strangers when they tell them what they want.

So, I agree that men face a buyer's market. I also agree with your assessment of the three most likely times women are looking for casual sex. I don't think it's a bad strategy to try to position yourself near places where those are happening (I feel like demographics are all too often ignored in dating strategies bc they are assumed to be fixed).

But, there is a tremendous amount of leverage. The traditional way for men seeking casual relationships to leverage this framework is to simply not say what they are available for and run and the first sign of commitment.

I also propose that joining the league of attractive male sluts is not that difficult. This is my advice to ERE men, bc it is skills based and leverages having an abundance of time but not an abundance of money. Competition may be steep on an availability basis, but my running theory is that it isn't steep on a quality basis (this is also why you don't need money). Do those Tinder studies that supposedly show how women are only interested in 20% of men control for blurry forehead-only pictures and wedding photos where homeboi obviously just cropped out his wife?

I also agree with @7w5 closing statement. I think dating is much like working. Side-stepping or inverting slightly the traditional framework, which has large departures from reality and a lot of programming involved is how to gain much of the leverage. And just like escaping the employment rat race, the hardest part is reprogramming yourself to see that this is possible and go against the grain and common advice. One also again runs into the freedom-from vs freedom-to problem pursuing this strategy. In a world where most people are lying to almost everyone, a bit of tact and a lot of truth and asking for what you want go a long way. Ofc being an attractive slut never hurts.

[chenda]

1) Presence of alcohol or drugs in environment.
2) Transistion phase of life, such as just after major break-up.
3) Temporary phase of life, such as on vacation.

So, for instance, obtaining a part-time job as a bartender in a resort town might be a good tactic.

I knew a rather geeky guy in 6th form who went out to Zante for a holiday when he was 18 and never came back. Spent the next 10 years working in bars and by all accounts got laid with surprising regularity, despite looking like a young Bill Gates. He was paid to have the bars website address tattooed on his chest, one of those old fashioned websites like 'compuserve.ibizabar374.net.gr' or something absurd. He never married though.

I think it's inevitable we will see ever more permanently single men and women. 'Confirmed batchelors' (which was once a euphemism for a homosexual) and batchelorettes (sounds better than spinster)

[ertyu]

Do those Tinder studies that supposedly show how women are only interested in 20% of men control for blurry forehead-only pictures and wedding photos where homeboi obviously just cropped out his wife?

This. I'm amazed that the conclusion of the online hordes here is usually "women bad" rather than "omg if i put a little effort into making myself fit and attractive i'll blow these losers out of the water." Especially when as a man you know how important being hot is to attractiveness.

[chenda]

This. I'm amazed that the conclusion of the online hordes here is usually "women bad" rather than "omg if i put a little effort into making myself fit and attractive i'll blow these losers out of the water." Especially when as a man you know how important being hot is to attractiveness.

This only works up to a point. Attraction is usually based heavily on immutable factors. Most men are unattractive no matter how much they work out or style their hair.

[OutOfTheBlue]

I think Harry Browne's take on this (from How I've Found Freedom in an Unfree World) to be golden and applicable no matter your goal, but especially if you want to find someone with a decent chance of them being a good match for you (and you a good match for them).

Connect to what you really want, what you seek, where you stand and what you're offering and align the image and signs you give out with that. Be it online or in real. Don't try to project a different image. *The best way of finding what you want is showing who you are*.

If you're into ERE, chances are you've taken some time to work on yourself, which probably puts you ahead in many departments, this one included. If you're a hot mess, start with yourself, don't bother heavily projecting your needs and lackings unto others.

You don't need to attract the masses, just those lucky few with whom you are most likely to better align mutually. Being honest/sincere is the best recipe. You don't need to say everything out loud/explicitly though, just give out the right signs and be yourself attentive, receptive, empathetic, listening.

Oh, and get rid of the search for the Magical Other.

From James Hollis' "The Eden Project: In Search For The Magical Other":

Two great ideas animate the lives of us all. Both are false, and we consciously know them to be so, but we find infinite ways to deny, dissimulate, rationalize.

The first great false idea is the fantasy of immortality. [...]

The other great false idea that drives humankind is the fantasy of the Magical Other, the notion that there is one person out there who is right for us, will make our lives work, a soul-mate who will repair the ravages of our personal history; one who will be there for us, who will read our minds, know what we want and meet those deepest needs; a good parent who will protect us from suffering and, if we are lucky, spare us the perilous journey of individuation [of coming fully home to ourselves].

Respect that the Other is truly Other, a mystery, not a projection/figment of your imagination.

Rainer Maria Rilke: "I hold this to be the highest task of a bond between two people: that each should stand guard over the solitude of the other."

[7Wannabe5]

I opted to be honest and straightforward with my intentions but the world is full of men who rope women along in relationships.

The traditional way for men seeking casual relationships to leverage this framework is to simply not say what they are available for and run and the first sign of commitment.

It has been my experience that most men are quite straight-forward in their dealings IFF you follow the practice of only taking anything they communicate literally.

I would also note that what each gender is mostly looking for in relationship tends to shift somewhat with age. I think that many or most older females if they rationally considered their options, as opposed to seeking the conventionally defined path of highest validation, would be less inclined towards marriage or similar commitment. Also, it has been my experience with internet dating in mid-life that it is actually more likely that somebody will try to corner me into being his GF very quickly, than that somebody will only want to hook up with me. In fact, it is often the guy who will set a slow pace on sexually interacting, because he doesn't want to "burn out" the possibility for more. It took me a while to recalibrate my own validation settings in the light of this sort of behavior, especially right after my divorce when I was still in recovery from my sex-starved marriage.

The reasons why I don't want to marry again at my advanced age would be:

1) I already have a family, and I don't want to have to negotiate any sort of combined family logistics.
2) I don't want to live alone with a man. I might consider group housing inclusive of a partner.
3) I want to do pretty much whatever I want to do without having to even run it by anybody else.

However, I would note for the record that I am clearly also vibing a bit grinchy on polyamory at the moment, since I successfully friend-zoned* both of my last two partners within the last few weeks. Celibacy is the new freedom.

It would be the equivalent of asking 7WB5 to stop reading so many books and instead work at the local disco to find a man (which is perhaps how things were in her youth before dating apps?).

I'm a bit too young for the disco era, but I did have to extrovert myself to the roller rink, beach, parties, etc. I've been testing more towards introverted in recent years (post-menopause/Covid/Crohn's disease), so it may be the case that my limited-window extroversion was more sexual than social. Dunno. However, I would note for the benefit of the lonely young men of the forum, when I was young, my peer group contained many quite attractive young women who were interested in sex, but were too shy to directly approach boys in whom they were interested. Somebody has to man up, and it most likely ain't gonna be her.

Most men are unattractive no matter how much they work out or style their hair.

I don't think this is true, but I guess I would need a random selection of maybe 40 men around my age in order to come to a conclusion.



* I think every one of my exes would be likely to hug me if randomly encountered in grocery store, which is how I prefer to leave things

[ertyu]

Most men are unattractive no matter how much they work out or style their hair.

That's exactly it, though. If you're the one guy that figures it out, disproportional benefits accrue to you.

I think the "he's fit and he takes care of himself but he's still unattractive" phenomenon happens when the guy is a douche. So you get the Johnny Bravo phenomenon. It's always been my theory (quite probably self-serving, given I am both conventionally unattractive and too lazy to do anything about it) that the people of whatever gender that put the most effort into appearance are also the highest on douchiness/narcissism. So you have this phenomenon where the most conventionally attractive people on the outside are actually the worst and shittiest people on the inside. If you are the one attractive person that is not a douche, regardless of your gender, you'll blow the competition out of the water.

For this to work, though, you have to actually not be a douche, not just think that you aren't. self-professed "nice guys/nice gals" get publicly shamed on reddit all the time, go look them up and don't be them.

[7Wannabe5]

the most conventionally attractive people on the outside are actually the worst and shittiest people on the inside.

I don't think this is true. I've never been attractive enough (for reasons both genetic and slothful) to suffer from the
"Midas touch" of being beautiful, but I've been good friends with some extremely conventionally attractive women who have. All women to some degree have to put on some form of layer of armor to protect themselves from unwanted advances from men; women who are beautiful have to be even more careful, so may even have to come off as bitchy. For instance, during my relatively brief years of corporate employment, I had a good friend who was directly hit on by the CEO and another very highly placed man in our organization, both of whom were married. OTOH, I don't think she made a huge effort with her looks, beyond typical oddly structured eating habits to maintain herself as very slender (As far as I could tell, she survived on lemon drops and salad.) Her car and her tiny apartment were just about the messiest I have ever witnessed, so that might have been her trade-off. But, she was generally an easy-going, fun person.

Also, in general terms, making yourself look attractive in accordance with some kind of aesthetic (not necessarily conventional, unless your personal aesthetic truly is the conventional) is not really any different than creating an attractive garden in your front yard. Beauty is a form of power, but this is because it is also a form of pleasure. Most of the most beautiful women I have known have been INFPs (like yourself) with sincerely high personal aesthetic standards. As an eNTP, my behavior is more analogous to the sort of jolly guy who puts on a Hawaiian print shirt, sucks in his gut a bit, smiles at himself in the mirror, and then just goes for it. Which, is actually not a half bad tactic.

[chenda]

I don't think this is true, but I guess I would need a random selection of maybe 40 men around my age in order to come to a conclusion.

Actually on reflection I don't think it's true either. I was in a bit of a negative mood.

I do agree that physically highly attractive people are by no means any worse than anyone else, but the need for a 'bitch shield' increases with female attractiveness. Especially if you're a woman in a position of authority over men. Don't smile too much and keep a certain coldness, its necessary to substitute for the lack of y chromosomes.

[I(E)reland]

It's an interesting question. On the surface ''ere men' have low probability of success based on initial conditions but possibly high success on what they are looking for. Isn't it just a qs that falls into the whole ere 'tail of distribution" scenario?