Is a men following the ERE Lifestyle More Attractive?

[7Wannabe5]

Here are a few quotes from "Boomeritis" by Ken Wilber that may or may not advance the discussion:

"Look, it's like this," Kim said, "I can tell a man's age by how often he looks down at my chest. Adolescent males can't take their eyes off them. By middle age, it's every few minutes. Old age, you can actually talk to a man eye-to-eye for an hour...

..."Well, no, look, Kim, it's just that, you know, why did you think Morin was only after your body?"
"Because he came after me like a freight train." ...

"Extensive research has demonstrated that the average twenty-something year old male has an X-rated sexual fantasy once every ten minutes..."How about the average twenty-something girl? How many X-rated fantasies?" ..."About one every hour or two, but they are not X-rated-they are not visually pornographic, they are romantic images, like a candle-lit dinner"..."I believe Woody Allen already explained it. God gave men a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to operate one at a time."...

Kim turned in her seat and looked at me directly. "At Morin's age, and I honestly don't mean this in a derogatory way, he needs a delicate combination of things in a partner. It's sort of a photographic negative of when a beautiful woman needs a man to be interested in her mind. Morin needs a beautiful young woman who understands his mind, because only then can he triumph, only then can he really conquer."...
"Many men want to conquer, so what? Many women want to be conquered, at least in the bedroom, if not the boardroom, and again, so what? I understand Morin's ideass, or at least a lot of them, and so when he conquers me, he really conquers."
...(you don't get it, because...) "You keep trying to think like a fucker instead of a fuckee."

I'm not sure if the above is at all comprehensible out of context, but in the book, between thoughts about the development of AI and lectures on the topic of Integral Development, Wilber also has his characters addressing sexual dichotomy theory. The reason why sexual dichotomy theory emerges at the Yellow level of development is that it is just one of many aspects of reality that were somewhat "disappeared" at Level Green. IOW, at Level Green, and also to some extent Level Orange, the notion that there are any inherent differences between men and women was squashed pretty hard. Obviously, a lot of good came from this, in terms of freeing individuals of either sex to play rough sports, excel at math, care for young children, create felt animals as a hobby, negotiate conflict etc. However, as with many other things from the perspective of Level Yellow/Systems, there was also an extent to which this resulted in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

During the mid-20th century period of feminism, it was regarded as somewhat shocking (should be banned!)by those at Level Blue/Traditional when books were published for mainstream audience which revealed that women do sometimes* have fairly graphic sexual fantasies. What is often "squashed" by 21st century Level Green feminism is the extent to which female sexual fantasies often contain elements of masculine dominance. And this is one of the elements that is brought back into play with Level Yellow sexual dichotomy theory.

Okay, so hard swing around to topic of OP. Because we live in a money-centric society, men can and do make use of money to signal or exert dominance, but it is not necessary to make use of money to signal dominance. You can also make use of muscles, brains, or "skillz" (applied mix of muscles and brains.) However, just signaling/demonstrating "dominance" is not enough. You also have to signal that you are caring. The very good metaphor (can't remember who I nabbed it from) is that a woman wants to be with the guy whom she would like to accompany her down a dark alley full of unknowns. Dominant behavior signals that you are up to the task, and caring behavior signals that you won't throw her in a dumpster halfway down the alley. This is true no matter what the extent of the sexual "contract."

In fact, one of the mid-level Wheaton level mistakes I sometimes witness in males is that they attempt to signal "extent of contract" with "level of care expressed/demonstrated." For simple example, somebody who is afraid that saying "I love you" will signal lifelong monogamous commitment. However, the existence of this moderate degree of functional rigid-naivete does not excuse the sort of bad player who preys on the truly Level 0 naive with false front of caring-and-committed behavior.



*I have only ever known one woman who was maybe as sexually driven as the average young human male. At the peak of my sexuality(and only during a phase in which I wasn't actually having sex on a regular basis), and I consider myself to be fairly high drive for a female, I probably experienced around 5 moderately graphic sexual fantasies per week at a maximum. And they almost always included the "candlelit dinner" details as well as the sex. I hesitate to generalize, but it is my experience/opinion that even highly sexual women are usually more responsive than driven in their sexuality. I know this doesn't make direct scientific sense, but it's kind of akin to how testosterone motivates sexual behavior in both men and women, but women are more responsive to just a tiny bit of testosterone. So, it's like we have to "borrow" some from the masculine behavior of men in order to experience arousal. If men just passively wait around for women to make a move, it just ain't gonna happen very often.

[7Wannabe5]

what I am trying to do, which is basically learn how to pick people up in bars or, more specifically, get better at starting conversations with people I want to talk to AND make situations more sexually charged

Maybe what you are looking for is something like the DiCarlo Escalation Ladder? I happened upon it while researching Ken Wilber. There is a strange degree of overlap between Spiral Dynamics/Integral Theory and PUA culture.

https://pdfcoffee.com/kino-escalation-l ... -free.html

Although I found the article rather awkward, somewhat like the author had just learned English as a second language (for example, his use of "abdomen" rather than "waist"), a good proportion of the advice offered, such as not touching hair or face early on, struck me as valid, while a bit of it struck me as bizarre. For example, his suggestion that when you first touch the bare skin of her abdomen, you should simultaneously expose your own abdomen, thereby signalling a situation which would have previously only occured in sexual intercourse context. Maybe it's a generational/cultural thing, but I associate kissing a man/boy with both of our abdomens bared more with "summertime at the beach in the late 70s" than "something I've only experienced during sexual intercourse." In fact, reading that bit made me imagine a pale as a worm male abdomen that is only ever exposed in isolated indoor setting, or how odd it would be if one of my mature male partners chose rubbing his bare middle-aged midriff against mine, like two Teletubbies or Care Bears, as one of his early moves. (Although, now that I think about it, one of my exes has roped me back in a couple times by inviting me to dinner and then answering the door in his robe, but this would only work if you have the sort of male body that looks good in a robe (solid legs), and you have the sort of dodo-bird ex who always thinks that her exes want to "still be friends" with her.)

Anyways, I also wanted to post this escalation ladder as a means by which inexperienced women in a dating situation may learn to "defend" themselves. Clearly, the very basic/simple rule of thumb, "Do not allow him to convey you to an isolated setting, unless you want/plan to have sex." will still serve vs. this escalation ladder technique. I want to be crystal clear that I offer this rule, not because agreeing to accompany him to isolated setting in any way constitutes consent to whatever may occur next, but rather because it will boundary your own temptation. IOW, this rule is analogous to "Don't go in the donut store, if you don't want/plan on eating a donut." Also, some of us are better served by pulling the boundary back to "Don't even drive down the street where the donut store is situated, if you don't want/plan on eating a donut."

Most women don't thoroughly enjoy one-night-stands some of the time (it's a dice roll), so given the much higher level of heterosexual male desire on the market, not putting out on first date or after brief encounter in bar is usually most in alignment with self-aware, self-care. There are definitely some exceptions to this recommended practice, but you have to know how to recognize when you are in that situation/mind-set which I might describe as Woman-in-her-Power (as opposed to Gurl on a bit of a Binge.) Ian Kerner in "Be Honest, You're Not That Into Him Either" suggests the phone number/contact rule, which is that you should only agree to a one-night stand if you absolutely won't be tempted to share/receive contact information. This suggestion is backed up my research that reveals that even in most short-term context, women are usually engaging/resulting in some level of "Try then buy." I would add the no alcohol or other inebriating substances rule, which I first learned from the very cool mother of a friend in my teen years, "You can have beer at your campfire or boys at your campfire, but you can't have both." There are definitely also fucntional exceptions to this rule, but since it also serves the purpose of avoiding the learned helplessness trap of not being able to release inhibition absent intoxicating substance, it is warranted for inclusion at some juncture in most young human's sexual WOG. I know middle-aged humans who literally can't relax enough to enjoy sex without use of substances, and it's not that difficult to avoid this outcome.

[Jin+Guice]

Oh ya, that's exactly what I needed actually. Thank you!

Now if there were only a similar book for how to start, continue, direct and exit conversations with strangers...


If we're straight PUAing it, I'm also bad at consciously "subtly signaling value" and "making small requests/ subtly leading, including changing locations," but I'm either doing this subconsciously or I have viable alternatives, so I haven't worked on these areas. Oh, and I also have a very quiet voice.


Pivoting away from me refining my techniques for getting laid...

I think one thing that is severely lacking from this thread is inhabiting healthy masculine power. For me, the point of improving weaknesses is to be able to inhabit the strengths of masculinity. Being able to do this is a huge move, because there are plenty of people exploiting power differences in gender dynamics, but not a lot of people inhabiting masculine power in a positive way.

I think in order to do this one needs to feel that they have options and exist in a world of abundance rather than scarcity.

In my mind there is a cultural myth that women are the keepers of sexual chastity and men are the keepers of relationship chastity, or men seduce for sex and women seduce for relationships. I think for men, the relationship/ emotional side of things remains underdeveloped because of this myth. Or another way to look at this is learning to first develop your more dominant and forward masculine traits and then develop your more shadowy feminine traits, so that you can comfortably inhabit all roles.

I think the danger of talking about all these tactics and understanding the feminine gaze is that it makes it seem like this is something that's really hard to do. The hardest part is always recognizing deficiency and initiating change in yourself, the rest is relatively easy. Both parties are, after all, selling something the other party wants.




****I accidentally put this post in the sexuality WL table thread... I intended to put it here.***

[AxelHeyst]

I think one thing that is severely lacking from this thread is inhabiting healthy masculine power.

I think you'd like Karen Brody's book Open Her.

[7Wannabe5]

In my mind there is a cultural myth that women are the keepers of sexual chastity and men are the keepers of relationship chastity, or men seduce for sex and women seduce for relationships. I think for men, the relationship/ emotional side of things remains underdeveloped because of this myth. Or another way to look at this is learning to first develop your more dominant and forward masculine traits and then develop your more shadowy feminine traits, so that you can comfortably inhabit all roles.

Yes, and there are a few different things going on here. The first has to do with "essentialism." We are way past "essentialism" at Level Yellow, so re-integrating sexual dichotomy is not about going back to believing that a human female essentially has a feminine nature and a human male essentially has a masculine nature. A fully developed human holds aspects of both feminine and masculine spiritual nature within them. Sexual dichotomy theory at Level Yellow is about choosing which polarity you wish to fully/strongly inhabit within sexual relationship or any given moment in your relationship to the Universe. Masculine spirituality is associated with the agency that allows you to ascend above/beyond your Ego and all petty worldly concerns. Feminine spirituality is about the sense of communion that allows you to descend/open in fluid embracing holistic Love of all the multi-faceted particularities of other humans and other life. In the peak experience of ecstatic sexual union and other similar transcendent experiences, the differences/duality between the masculine and feminine spiritual natures are obliterated.

A couple other books you might want to read are "Way of the Superior Man" by Deida and "Integral Relationships: A Manual for Men" by Martin Ucik. I am currently reading this Ucik book in tandem with "Co-operative Housekeeping: Romance in Domestic Economy" (circa 1870)by Mrs. C.F. Peirce the wife* of Charles Peirce, the great 19th century American philosopher of pragmatism. These two books are in strong contrast as book ends of an era, because in the first a trans-liberal male author addresses the problems that 21st century men are having with the fact that in the 21st century many women have shot past them in terms of Level Orange achievement markers, whereas the second book is written by a Traditionalist (pre-liberal**) woman who is concerned (because she feels women are becoming less valuable) about how women may possibly enter into Level Orange (Organization!) productivity in order to benefit from efficiency, while maintaining their essential femininity and feminine functions. ((Sorry, went on a bit here with my likely-exciting-only-to-me librarian kink.))

*eventually divorced him.

**Very pre-liberal. At one point she implies that in the "good old days" of slavery/serfdom, the Lady of the House had less difficulty being efficient in her housekeeping management role, because nowadays the late 19th century Lady of the House has to make due with irresponsible wage paid domestic servants such as the Chinese and the Irish immigrants who feel free to quit employment whenever they like.

ETA:

Couple of the core values from the Integral Relationship Dating site associated with the Ucik book.

Core Value 11
We share material resources and pursue an environmentally and socially responsible and sustainable lifestyle.
Core Value 12
We engage in sacred/tantric sexuality and practice monogamy out of choice instead of fear.

[Jin+Guice]

@AH: I've read that book based on your previous recommendation... I was thinking of it when I made that post.

[lillo9546]

Five pages have been spent discussing this topic. Is there a consensus?

The fundamental question is “what do women want in a man?”

I would say that what they want is a “winner” or the “potential to be a winner”. This holds whether it applies to the short term or long term. For the long term, practical considerations may trump what they actually want and thus change the form of “winner”. What they want to avoid is the “loser” and especially those who are proud members of “Losers Anonymous”.

The conventional definition of the winner (or success in life) is the man with the big job, big salary, big car, big house, big muscles, and everything big. But..., is this what women truly want? The conventional definition of success is a product of culture and today’s culture is a product of corporate propaganda over the last century plus. Considering, that marriage success rates are extremely poor (most divorces are initiated by the woman) than it may be reasonable to conclude that the conventional definition of winner is not sufficient for women to be happy – they want more.

I would say that what women truly want is a man who is free: a man who is charting his own course, living his life as he chooses, beholden to no one. The free man is the real winner. Think about the surfer, beach bum, ski bum, ski instructor, and all those others who do not appear to be conventionally successful, but they are living their life as they choose. Women do find them attractive nonetheless, sometimes very. These women may not marry these free men, but due to corporate cultural propaganda choose to marry the corporate slave – but they will not be happy, will eventually divorce, and will yearn for the free men of their youth.

The ERE man has the potential to be free, so I would say he has the potential to score high on the SMV scale. It depends on the hand he has been dealt and especially how he plays his cards. Does he whine about how he hates his job – screams slave. Does he take action – screams winner! Does Gordon Freeman whine or doe he take action?

This is really the ERE thoughts you want to hear.
Thanks for writing this! You wrote something very truthful.


I do also think we can find exceptions in the corporate job!

You can find people who own businesses who are not slaves, but they know about the ERE philosophy and can find balance in what they do! They have hobbies. They are free as you've said, but they want to work at that kind of job, which is still making them a bit of a slave.

I saw a man getting engaged with a woman only because she was owning this business, and he has "become" the CEO (in reality she put him in this position).
Then this couple got kids but they never married for some reasons.
Eventually, after 15 years together, they've separated, and now this man has learned from the experience. He gave his life to this job, which was a 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week. But eventually, now he has learned about how life works and became an ERE man.

This was my uncle's story, by the way.


@theoldman please write more about the topic! You're words are like swords

[Henry]

This was my uncle's story, by the way.

It is inspiring. I feel like fucking up the next 15 years of my life just to come out of it.

[radamfi]

Can you make the argument that it is better for an "ERE man" not to need a partner? Just like an ERE man is self-sufficient in other ERE walks of life meaning he doesn't need a big house and doesn't need to work until he is 65.

[lillo9546]

Some men, usually young, think getting laid is the be all end all of romance and figure out how to get laid a lot. Often they end up unhappy and bad at long-term relationships. All three of these things being true does not make the myths listed above true.

I did not understood this passage

[lillo9546]

* be clean, groomed, and moderately fit
be competent in something, preferably many things
be interested in others for the sake of curiosity
do interesting things for the sake of the activity being interesting
learn how to read people through intonation, body language, etc
always improve upon your verbal and social skills

These are good, but look like you'll be a "nice guy" instead of a "men"?

[Biscuits and Gravy]

@theoldman please write more about the topic! You're words are like swords

Yes, please, The Old Man, tell us what women want. *Your* words cleave, and my ample bosom is heaving in anticipation of more pearls of wisdom to be tossed before me, swine that I am.

[Frita]

These are good, but look like you'll be a "nice guy" instead of a "men"?

IMHO No!! There’s a difference between a “nice guy” and an evolved, kind man. Both may be doing the same things but with different motivation and future behaviors. The “nice guy” wants to manipulate to get what he wants by controlling and will drop the act once: 1) the (potential) parter figures it out, 2) there is some level of commitment, and/or 3) other manipulation techniques are in place (i.e., “I’d be nice to you again if you’d do/be X” while nice guying everyone else, who obliviously say, “You’re so lucky to have such a great partner” and inadvertently gaslighting you.). These “nice guy” shenanigans are actually ABUSE.

[Jin+Guice]

I used to be a "nice guy," which ime was just a losing strategy.

I think that "nice guys" are a product of being at a lower stage of ego development and receiving bad information about the female gaze and what's appealing to it.

I recently watched Bridesmaids. The male villian/ fuckboi character is actually the only person in the entire movie who is honest about what he wants and is available for. The guy the lead character ends up with is a classic nice guy. He is whiny and dishonest about what he needs, but is portrayed as the hero of the movie and ultimately ends up with the girl, which resolves the conflict of the story.

I was socialized to believe that you were either nice or a fuckboi. Both of these options are at a low stage of ego development, but "nice guy" is especially frustrating because the results are not as promised. Since one is at a low-level of ego development the tendency is either to introspect in a weepy "woe-is-me" fashion or blame everyone else for one's problems or both. Neither of these resolve the problem and in extreme cases this is the death spiral to being an incel.

If a "nice guy" does end up in a relationship, they are still at a low-level of ego development and will rely on their "nice guy" tactics to carry them through. This is likely to result in abusive behavior as @Frita says.

There is a way to inhabit being nice and a guy without being a "nice guy," but it requires a level of emotional honesty, self-care and care for others that nice guys are incapable of.


@radamfi: The only person who can make that argument is the person making it. Is that person a-sexual and a-romantic outside of ERE? Can they better express themselves and share their unique gifts with the world without a partner? I think the default answer for most is "no, it is not better for an ERE man (masculine person) to not have a partner." I think working against one's own nature to not need a partner is as losing a strategy as working a job one hates to not need that job. Freedom-from is useful as a catalyst but further than that it becomes a poison.

[radamfi]

@radamfi: The only person who can make that argument is the person making it. Is that person a-sexual and a-romantic outside of ERE? Can they better express themselves and share their unique gifts with the world without a partner? I think the default answer for most is "no, it is not better for an ERE man (masculine person) to not have a partner." I think working against one's own nature to not need a partner is as losing a strategy as working a job one hates to not need that job. Freedom-from is useful as a catalyst but further than that it becomes a poison.

Let's face it, the main reason why men (and this thread is about men exclusively) have partners is because of their biological urges. To some men, their biological urges are a curse, especially if they are unsuccessful with women. To add insult to injury, men who are unsuccessful with women are despised by society which sometimes leads them to join online incel communities which can only be a bad thing.

[blink2ce]

The only reason anyone does anything is because of biological urges. I have a biological urge to self-actualize and thus I work on my ERE journey.

[radamfi]

The only reason anyone does anything is because of biological urges. I have a biological urge to self-actualize and thus I work on my ERE journey.

I would define that as personality, which is distinct from biology.

[urgud]

one's own nature

I'd be wary of this line of reasoning. Hard to tell what anyone's "nature" is, desires and dreams being mediated through culture etc.

I'd say I'm only 10% into being in a relationship with someone, so I try to either be in a relationship-like situation 10% of the time or be in a situation which is approximately 10% of a relationship.

[Jin+Guice]

@urgud: I'm confused.

"I think working against one's own desires and dreams being mediated through culture (and lived experience) to not need a partner is as losing a strategy as working a job one hates to not need that job."

A bit wonkier of a sentence, but the message is unchanged to me?



@radamfi: I'm not following.

Can you make the argument that it is better for an "ERE man" not to need a partner?

Yes you can.

Just like an ERE man is self-sufficient in other ERE walks of life meaning he doesn't need a big house and doesn't need to work until he is 65.

No one is self-sufficient. FIRE depends on the global economy which is a vast interdependent web of commerce. ERE extends that network to include personal skill and social connections, neither of which exist without other people.

Not needing a big house and not working until you are 65 don't make you self-sufficient. I think what you are trying to get at, though this is just my guess, is that just as an ERE man seeks freedom-from the societal expectation of having a big house and working until he is 65, he may seek freedom-from the societal expectations of romantic relationships.

My counter to this (which may be me only countering my own projection, since I am unclear on your statement) is that while that may be true, freedom-from won't get you very far, you need freedom-to. If your achieve freedom-from by repressing your own needs, it will only be temporary and those needs will come back subconsciously with greater force.

Let's face it, the main reason why men (and this thread is about men exclusively) have partners is because of their biological urges. To some men, their biological urges are a curse, especially if they are unsuccessful with women. To add insult to injury, men who are unsuccessful with women are despised by society which sometimes leads them to join online incel communities which can only be a bad thing.

I'm unclear what you are saying? Are biological urges escapable? By biological urges do you mean sexual urges or do you mean more than that? Are biological urges not another name for needs which should be integrated into your WoGs?

I would define that as personality, which is distinct from biology.

I define personality as the expression of a collection of biological urges filtered through and partially feeding back through experience in the present environment.

I'm still not sure what you are saying?

Really my concern is that you are saying ERE men would be better off suppressing their own sexual, romantic and emotional needs and desires in pursuit of self-sufficiency. If that is what you are saying I vehemently disagree.

[radamfi]

No one is self-sufficient. FIRE depends on the global economy which is a vast interdependent web of commerce. ERE extends that network to include personal skill and social connections, neither of which exist without other people.

Not needing a big house and not working until you are 65 don't make you self-sufficient. I think what you are trying to get at, though this is just my guess, is that just as an ERE man seeks freedom-from the societal expectation of having a big house and working until he is 65, he may seek freedom-from the societal expectations of romantic relationships.

My counter to this (which may be me only countering my own projection, since I am unclear on your statement) is that while that may be true, freedom-from won't get you very far, you need freedom-to. If your achieve freedom-from by repressing your own needs, it will only be temporary and those needs will come back subconsciously with greater force.

I agree that you are hoping that the global economy continues to exist, enabling you to live off your savings, but following ERE principles can mean you are more resilient in the event of economic catastrophe. Social connections are also beneficial and can easily be achieved by generally being a nice person that people will want to be friends with. Romantic relationships, however, are much more unpredictable and the success of them relies on luck. If you are considered unattractive (whether that is through your looks or your personality) then you are at a severe disadvantage. Severe emotional trauma can result from rejection from the opposite sex. The pain even causes some people to commit suicide.

Many people spend much of their life without a romantic relationship for various reasons. They often have good friends instead, however. Other people stay married to the same person for life but they stop having sex after a number of years. They stay together for the companionship and friendship, as well as for economic and practical reasons. Staying together in this manner can be seen to be a safe option compared to the uncertainty of dating.

I'm unclear what you are saying? Are biological urges escapable? By biological urges do you mean sexual urges or do you mean more than that? Are biological urges not another name for needs which should be integrated into your WoGs?

The basic biological urge can be satisfied through orgasm, which does not necessarily need a romantic partner. Some people, for example sex offenders, but also some incels, might need their sexual urges fully suppressed through chemical castration. Then they can live their lives happily without the biological urge causing them great unhappiness.