How do ERE men attract women?

[okumurahata]

If fuckability goes to zero, you fuck as much people whether you date 50, 25, 5, or 2.

–Leter Pynch

[Western Red Cedar]

We're discussing it in my Knit and Bitch book group.

I really hope there is a book group with this name out there

[ffj]

@Toska2:

Well, there are a lot of things wrong with that conversation that would apply no matter what activity/goal/value was being discussed. For instance, you could substitute "participate in fitness/sports activities" for "date." What tends towards making it toxic is that you weren't asking for help or advice, the use of "should" in her directive, and the assignation of fault to innate character as opposed to behavior or wider field of influence; you are a loser vs. that game was lost.

What if the dysfunctional conversation had gone more like:

Aunt: I see that you didn't bring a date to our mutual relative's wedding. Good for you!

Toska2: Thanks (I guess.)

Aunt: You should focus your energies in realms where you are more likely to be successful.

Toska2: (?!)

Aunt: Also, the whole human mating dance is so superficial and arbitrary in the grand scheme of things. Sometimes I think about how a male of the species might be motivated to buy me dinner just because I have these two large deposits of fat on my chest, and it just seems kind of surreal and meaningless compared to problems related to global climate change or functional illiteracy.

Toska2: (Why was I assigned to this table?)

Aunt: I just read this very good book on the topic of discrimination against single people in our society. We're discussing it in my Knit and Bitch book group. Let me write down the title for you.

Toska2: Uh, thanks. (Turns to unknown young female who also looks like she wishes she could escape.) Would you like to dance?

Well done on all counts. And I thought only Henry was funny. Thanks for a good laugh.

[Toska2]

Young woman: No.

Asking a woman out was never the issue. Multiply anything by zero is zero. For me, asking women out and getting rejected is dating. For most other people going on dates is dating.

@Henry Yes. Her feelings trump facts. She tried to shame, insult and guilt me and when I refused to play that game she left. She is highly educated person and if this is what I can expect from her, then my chances of a positive romantic relationship are zero. I subtly refuse to date, using "game" in reverse.

[7Wannabe5]

I really hope there is a book group with this name out there

Yeah, it's a known thing. Many needle arts groups refer to themselves as Stitch and Bitch, and sometimes women's book groups are integrated with needle arts groups.

If fuckability goes to zero, you fuck as much people whether you date 50, 25, 5, or 2.

I think this is sort of an elitist-living-in-bubble type statement. The reality is much more complex. All sorts of people have sex for all sorts of reasons. Also, the use of the passive adjective is limiting.

For example, I very briefly met Toska2 in person a number of years ago, and I would describe him as an attractive, highly intelligent, very fit, well-mannered young man.

Young woman: No.

What is your preferred age range? I agree that if you prefer to date women who are relatively older than you (as opposed to just not 19), a different approach to dating might be warranted. Contrary to popular belief, older women are approached by younger men online with high frequency, so it's very easy to just reject them en masse as not likely to be serious.

She is highly educated person

This description leads me to believe that a good part of your difficulty is due to the field in which you are operating. You would do better in a field where "highly educated" was more of a given. Other attractive individuals on this forum, such as theanimal and Analytical Engine have suffered from similar finding themselves in a difficult field problems. Sometimes, as with theanimal, it takes patience. Sometimes, as with AE, actually moving may be your best option. I believe (may be mistaken) that I currently live in semi-rural-rust county adjacent to yours, and I think it would be difficult to date exclusively in this locale even as a female, although I was invited to attend line dance at the local senior center with a couple of my female Boomer age neighbors.

[okumurahata]

From a gaming perspective, let’s assume Don Juan is a 30-year-old character pursuing ERE, with the singular goal of maximizing his appeal to women, referred to as his “fuckability rate” (FR).

As advised in previous posts, he should commence by assessing his FR through interactions with numerous women (potentially expediting the process via social media). He should explore different countries, age groups, and ethnicities and meticulously record the outcomes (this is notably easier when done online). Why the geographical diversification? Because Don Juan possesses inherent limitations, and he’ll encounter significant challenges in finding a partner if he stands at 1.70 meters in Sweden, for example.

If the 80/20 principle applies to mammals, he must strive to be among the 20% of men deemed most appealing. Considering Don Juan’s inquiry on a forum about attracting more mammals, it’s probable that he hasn’t yet ascended to the top 20% echelon. Consequently, he should engage in intensive weightlifting, enhance his intellect, augment his income, refine his social skills, and so forth. Essentially, he must endeavor to be more enticing.

Next, once he’s elevated his FR to a notable value != NULL, he should begin approaching as many women as possible. Tossing the coin so many times that the law of large numbers becomes evident to him, from a pragmatic standpoint.

Finally, having triumphed in the game and having been with the maximum number of women, what is Don Juan’s next move? Well, freedom of movement, at this juncture. In the parlance of ERE, he’s achieved womancial independence.

[okumurahata]

I think this is sort of an elitist-living-in-bubble type statement. The reality is much more complex. All sorts of people have sex for all sorts of reasons. Also, the use of the passive adjective is limiting.

For example, I very briefly met Toska2 in person a number of years ago, and I would describe him as an attractive, highly intelligent, very fit, well-mannered young man.

In your use of the example involving Toska2, attributing it to me, you’re making an assumption that I was discussing him. Please, refrain from interpreting my posts as personal remarks, or worse still, assuming I was referring to another member.

The quote of Peter Lynch was simply a jest, and I’m a bit chagrined that I have to clarify this. In any case, figures are figures, and it’s entirely possible to be theoretically rated as a 10 in terms of attractiveness, yet have a success rate of 0. This paradoxically means you’re not a practically rated 10. No offense, please.

[Jin+Guice]

my plan would be to make myself hit on one woman every day for 100 days in a variety of venues and spend 5 minutes reflecting on what went wrong/could go better towards improvement.

I find it hard to believe that putting real honest effort into this would fail, short some glaring personal defect or horrible demographics.

[AnalyticalEngine]

My personal experience with this, and not just dating but with any relationship, is that social skills are learnable, changing a demographic situation is achievable, but one usually fails to do both due to some internalized limiting belief stemming from some past wound or bad experience that is sabotaging one's present social life. It can be helpful to ask what relationship patterns (avoidance can be one of them) one is repeating and where that came from. Normally, it's a bad formative experience, so then one has to accept the emotions of that bad experience and then grieve the loss to move on. Otherwise, what's happening is that someone is trying to avoid an emotion by avoiding an action in the present.

Also, instead of thinking "what do I want in a partner?" it helps to think instead "what role will this person play in my life and what role will I play in theirs?" This solves the problem of getting trapped by LifeScript when it's not even what you're looking for. It's pretty damned easy to play out old childhood dramas or LifeScript in the pursuit of romance if one isn't conscious about it, and those things may not be what someone is looking for.

[jacob]

Also, instead of thinking "what do I want in a partner?" it helps to think instead "what role will this person play in my life and what role will I play in theirs?"

In other words, whether the respective WOGs sum up in a homeotelic fashion to make a whole that is greater than the parts. For those pursuing long-term relationships it is also worthwhile to consider whether those WOGs will be the same or compatible a few decades from now.

[Jin+Guice]

My personal experience with this, and not just dating but with any relationship, is that social skills are learnable, changing a demographic situation is achievable, but one usually fails to do both due to some internalized limiting belief stemming from some past wound or bad experience that is sabotaging one's present social life.

I think this is most people's problems with most things.

In other words, whether the respective WOGs sum up in a homeotelic fashion to make a whole that is greater than the parts. For those pursuing long-term relationships it is also worthwhile to consider whether those WOGs will be the same or compatible a few decades from now.

These are important questions.

"How can an aspiring creep like me find a nice young woman with whom to build a shared Web of Heauxs with?"

"Are our individual WoHs homeotelic?"

"Will our WoHs be the same or compatible in the coming decades?"

[Slevin]

“Love consists of not looking each other in the eye, but of looking outwardly in the same direction.”

[okumurahata]

From a purely analytical standpoint, it may seem sensible to seek someone with aligned goals to maximize outcomes. However, can you realistically quantify those goals? Furthermore, is it reasonable to measure or track relationship goals by adding vectors of each partner’s contributions over a given period?

I believe that over a significant span of time, a couple’s goals may veer into unexpected and orthogonal paths. For instance, in the context of ERE, let’s assume one partner faces severe illness (an inevitable event, as we all face mortality). Sooner or later, this event will likely shift all of your relative’s goals in an opposite direction. Financial goals will take a backseat in this case for the ill member.

Analytically, it might be deemed optimal to end the relationship. However, I posit that most individuals will persist because human connections hold precedence over numerical calculations.

In conclusion, you can attempt to approach human relationships with an Excel-like methodology, but deep down, we recognize there’s something amiss with this approach. A relationship founded solely on mutual interest will likely be short-lived or, at best, unfulfilling. One or two unforeseen black swans can render the agreement kaputt.

[Jean]

I had a 69% success rate by asking women if they want to see my WOG.

Sorry for everyone at erefest who had to ear me say this joke a few times already.

More seriously, I think many people suffering from celibacy have too high standards.
Having standards is fine, but it's a shame if they lead you to exclude partners that would have been great partners for you.
So a great thing to do is to sort standard outs, and stop having those that won't really matter in how happy in the relationship you are.

[jacob]

From a purely analytical standpoint, it may seem sensible to seek someone with aligned goals to maximize outcomes. However, can you realistically quantify those goals? Furthermore, is it reasonable to measure or track relationship goals by adding vectors of each partner’s contributions over a given period?

Like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem ... tl;dr let N be the number of people that meets the minimum requirements of a relationship in your life if you spent all your life doing that. You should stick with the N/e (e=2.71..) one. Now this depends on what your definition of "minimum requirements of a relationship is". If your N is conditioned on "living together for 2 years to see what happens" your N is much lower than if your N is conditioned on regular "one night stands". In short, after meeting about 1/3 of your expected lifetime candidates, stick with the first one after that who is better than all the ones who came before.

I believe that over a significant span of time, a couple’s goals may veer into unexpected and orthogonal paths. For instance, in the context of ERE, let’s assume one partner faces severe illness (an inevitable event, as we all face mortality). Sooner or later, this event will likely shift all of your relative’s goals in an opposite direction. Financial goals will take a backseat in this case for the ill member.

This is possible. Another example may be a partner veering into a conspiracy theory rabbit hole or wanting to run off and join the circus. There are no guarantees, but with even a modicum of experience with humans and human relationships, it should become possible to have a pretty good idea of both "where someone stands" and "which direction they're walking (if they're walking)". This creates a match of both the zeroth and first order. The more orders one includes and matches, the longer the relationship will likely last.

My recommended metric for long-lasting relationship: Are you both excellent at resolving disagreements using the adult-mode of transactional analysis?

In conclusion, you can attempt to approach human relationships with an Excel-like methodology, but deep down, we recognize there’s something amiss with this approach. A relationship founded solely on mutual interest will likely be short-lived or, at best, unfulfilling. One or two unforeseen black swans can render the agreement kaputt.

It depends on what you (and you partner) are seeking in a relationship. Recommendations in this thread are all over the place because the goals are all over the place. Anything from getting laid twice a day to romantic emotional connections to long term partners in life. There are different strategies for different aims. I think it's possible to achieve enough "adult-wisdom" (either through personal experience or from older/concerned individuals) to ensure that partner aims are at least aligned.

[Henry]

Now this depends on what your definition of "minimum requirements of a relationship is". If your N is conditioned on "living together for 2 years to see what happens" your N is much lower than if your N is conditioned on regular "one night stands". In short, after meeting about 1/3 of your expected lifetime candidates, stick with the first one after that who is better than all the ones who came before.

And who says algebra will never come in handy.

[chenda]

@Jean - I only get the first part of the joke but I otherwise agree with you.

@Toska2 - An alternative strategy might simply be to stop worrying about it and just focus on other things in life. You might meet someone (statistically speaking you probably will) But if not, what's wrong with being a bachelor all you life ? I know this isn't the solution you want to hear, but it is a solution.

Much as I wish I could give you a simple 'do x and y and results will follow' the world of dating is very iniquitous and unjust, especially for men. This isn't to criticise the other advice above which I think is generally very good, but results will inevitably vary. Indeed you might be happier not in a relationship. Be wary of the lovey-dovey rom-com fantasy because it is just a fantasy, real relationships usually have sell-by dates.

I don't doubt @7's description of you is accurate btw, but a lot of attractive intelligent young men struggle in this field.

[7Wannabe5]

In your use of the example involving Toska2, attributing it to me, you’re making an assumption that I was discussing him. Please, refrain from interpreting my posts as personal remarks, or worse still, assuming I was referring to another member.

The quote of Peter Lynch was simply a jest, and I’m a bit chagrined that I have to clarify this. In any case, figures are figures, and it’s entirely possible to be theoretically rated as a 10 in terms of attractiveness, yet have a success rate of 0. This paradoxically means you’re not a practically rated 10. No offense, please.

I do apologize. I wasn't assuming you were referring to Toska2, but I can see how my post lent that impression.

I recognized the joke from an episode of Seinfeld, and it struck me as unfunny, because only true-ish in that context. Maybe because I don't find Jerry Seinfeld super attractive, so I'm thinking "Who are you to judge?" Anyways, I was actually thinking more about the opposite counter-example of conventionally unattractive humans who do have a lot of sex. For instance, that guy in your junior high who was already having sex when he was 14; he is still probably having sex at age 54, even if he is in terrible shape, completely broke-azz, and recently released from the penitentiary, because on some level it is a habit, as well as a drive, and if you are a smoker, you will find your next cigarette. OTOH, if you think it's optional, or if that was your conditioning, then it will be.

If the 80/20 principle applies to mammals, he must strive to be among the 20% of men deemed most appealing.

I'm not denying that something akin to the 80/20 principle applies on some level, but it is in conflict with the other innate drive which causes most couples you might actually encounter seated about you in any random diner to be very matchy-matchy in appearance. In speed dating studies, females who were shopping for long-term partners were less likely to select men more than maybe 1 level more attractive, whereas men were more likely to be willing to take the risk of rejection from somebody much more attractive. IOW, it is possible that women are simultaneously more picky and more realistic in their choices.

Also, women tend to be more semi-consciously shopping for "lifestyle", even when they're shopping for "fun/casual." For instance, I once rejected an otherwise attractive man. because he lived in a condo, had a pair of small matching dogs, and wore preppy shorts. (However, I would note that now that i am polyamorous, I am less put off by details such as these, because they don't make me feel like I might end up trapped in a lifestyle I don't entirely like, because (going along with what AE wrote), maybe his role in my life would just be taking me nice places for brunch. This is why I think polyamory might tend towards equalizing distribution.)

[guitarplayer]

My recommended metric for long-lasting relationship: Are you both excellent at resolving disagreements using the adult-mode of transactional analysis?

I put my Psych MA stamp under this. One party can also induce adult mode in the other party by responding from the adult mode position, I think this is how learning in / improving a relationship happens. It is gratifying and a positive feedback look to see progress insofar one has the attention required and long enough memory to be able to compare and contrast.

[7Wannabe5]

The other problem with getting stuck in "making yourself generally more attractive" is that there is something very 1980s or last gasp modernity about it. Hear me saying this in a very casual, matter-of-fact manner, "Nobody cares what Harrison Ford wants anymore." Or, perhaps, more accurately, "Even the trope of Harrison Ford has been fetishized, so only a minority cares what Harrison Ford wants anymore."

In the novel "The Deluge" (warning bit of plot reveal follows) , which contains its share of tropes (nod to JP on other thread), the author (Markley) also creates a large number of highly assertive, even aggressive, female characters.

Kate moved unlike any woman I'd ever been with. With Candace, it had been implied that I was directing, that it was more or less my show to pull off. But Kate yanked her tank top over her head and directed my hands to her tough nipples. She got my pants down and her mouth was like a storm, slick and powerful and cleansing. Finally, she urged me into her sleeping bag and handed me a condom. Tugging it on, I felt squeamish and young. Then we broke sweats despite the cold. Afterward, we unzipped the inner flap and lay there while I ran my hands over the mosquito bites on her thighs. We watched the lightning through the mesh screen. The thunder was distant, but when my heart finally slowed down, I could hear it.

This character, Matthew, puts aside his WOG, and follows Kate in her passionate pursuit of her WOG for a number of years. In real life, this still happens very rarely, and this is one of the reasons that many women don't want to be married. Compromise inherently sucks, and it's difficult to find somebody truly willing and able to agree to "I'll be on top for the first five years of our life partnership, then you can take the top for the next five years, etc." So, that might encompass a skill-set an ERE man (or woman) might attempt to acquire.