How do ERE men attract women?

[zbigi]

Females, on the other hand, are more likely to devalue physical looks for other traits that signal a partner will provide security and stability for herself and/or their children.

From what I've heard, women tend to value those things most in societies where it's harder for them to make it on their own. OTOH, in places like Scandinavia, having a man is not essential for women leading a happy life (or so they believe , so women are more into hot guys than useful providers. And in places like Albania, where threat of physical violence (and rape) is still somewhat real, women prefer men with more masculine physical traits (muscular, large jaws etc.), as they need their men to be their bodyguards.

[7Wannabe5]

From what I've heard, women tend to value those things most in societies where it's harder for them to make it on their own.

Yup, but in the U.S., the pattern I've seen (which might be dated, 'cause I am old) is that the extremely attractive females I've known tend towards choosing extremely attractive males when they are young, but then eventually trading them in for better providers. Which kind of makes sense in an economic climate which is affluent but highly stratified (unlike Scandanavia, which is affluent, but less stratified.) In the U.S., the top 5% of females in terms of physical attractiveness tend to gain more household income on average through marriage than employment, even though being very physically attractive also gives them a bump in the employment market.*


*This is also true for men, so maybe most financially rational reason to improve appearance.

The podcasts I've recently heard on this topic argue that males still tend to prefer and value aesthetics highly in a female partner. It is at or near the top of the list when selecting potential mates.

Yes, and this is a problem that men have that really doesn't have anything to do with women. In human cultures where men make most of the decisions (sometimes referred to by trigger word "patriarchy"), they also make decisions about rules related to mating and marriage. For instance, in the Qu'ran, there is a chapter entitled "The Women" which outlines the new rules, including imposing a maximum of 4 on number of wives allowed, under what circumstances beating a wife is permissible, etc. For its time, this was actually a very liberal policy, because women were granted some power in terms of right to divorce, inheritance of property, etc.

Muhammad said:

A woman may be married for four things: Her wealth, her lineage, her beauty, or for her religion. Choose the religious, may your hands be rubbed with dust (may you be prosperous.)

Due, perhaps, to the coincidence of 4 wives allowed and 4 things sought, this saying has been misinterpreted to mean that you should seek to maximize each quality in 4 different wives, when it really means that the quality of piety should be most sought in first (likely to be only) wife.

Tariq Nasheed, author of "The Art of Mackin'" and "Play or Be Played: What Every Female Should Know About Men, Dating, and Relationships" (highly recommend for young single female readers of any culture/sub-culture) said:

There's a saying in the hustling community that states, "Square players get played, pimps get paid, macks persuade" So, basically, a true mack has the ability to get the paper, the power, and the p*ssy.

I was actually looking for another quote from Tariq (might even have been similar author, not Tariq) from one of his later books in which he very roughly echoes the quote from Muhammad by stating that what a "true mack" should seek in a wife would be a woman who best supports his "purpose." (which would transcend even "paper" and "power".)


Anyways, my point here being that, in theory, even in a thoroughly gender egalitarian society, the heterosexual male population could call a town-meeting and all agree to practice/enforce strict monogamy, but this doesn't happen, because in modern capitalist society, men amongst themselves do not live in an egalitarian society. So, one of the reasons I really do not envy extremely attractive females is that they are the ones charged with the enforcement of monogamy on the most attractive men. In simplest terms, the more attractive you are as a hetero female, the more likely it is that your primary male partner is extremely attractive, and the more likely it is that he will "cheat" opportunistically. Then, if you try to enforce the rule of monogamy by suing him for divorce, and one of the factors that makes him attractive is his wealth, you will actually be disrespected rather than lauded for taking him to the cleaners in your effort to enforce the rule of monogamy. So, pretty much a Lose/Lose predicament.

Also, why should females give a flying fig about the dating/mating/marriage outcome of males to the extent that they can't transcend rating "appearance" towards "alignment with purpose." I mean, most women who are reasonably attractive have had the experience of being in the company of a man who "fell in love at first sight" with them. It's like watching a train wreck of irrationality about to happen. Some of the manuals offering advice to females seeking husbands advise giving the guy who is all goo-goo eyes for you a chance to chill out, and there is some merit to this approach, but IMO, it's kind of like taking advantage of somebody while they are drunk.

[chenda]

For its time, this was actually a very liberal policy, because women were granted some power in terms of right to divorce, inheritance of property, etc.

Indeed, a point lost on both islamic fundamentalists and islamic haters, both of whom fail to consider the historical context of these passages.

[7Wannabe5]

@chenda:
Yup.


Funny thing I noticed in reference to this thread is that there are people on this forum who didn't know of the existence of Stitch and Bitch groups, and there was one occasion several years ago when I mentioned the existence of YMGTOW* (young men going their own way) at a gathering akin to a Stitch and Bitch group, and nobody could believe that such a group existed, because so alien to the behavior exhibited by the boys of our youth circa 1970s/early 80s. One of the women actually texted me after the meeting to get the name again, because she wanted to pass this oddity on to others in her social circle. So, there definitely is a level on which something new under the sun is going on.

*Which I learned about on this forum.

[IlliniDave]

I'd argue that this happens with most other mammals because there is a strong association between physical dominance, and therefore the survival of offspring, in the top 20% of the mating selection. The calculation is different with humans.*

...

*Someone with a background in biology may be able to elaborate or correct me on this. I'm sure there are many examples in the animal kingdom where aesthetics aren't the only factor in the selection of a male mate.

I'm no biologist, but I think part of the difference with humans is that human offspring are essentially helpless for a significantly longer time than most other mammals (cost of a big brain?), which I think has biased us towards matings that generally require more participation from the male parent, and the number of mating partners is probably fungible and limited by resources/how many offspring a given male could support. Where resources are distributed throughout the social strata that probably results in more 1-on-1 pairings and a higher fraction of men paired (a good situation for the gene pool when resources can support it). When resources are such that a few have much and most are nearly destitute, then nature adapts and skews/restricts mating to where the resources are. In an online swiping world where the volume of choices would have existed only in make believe just a handful or two of decades ago, practical limitations are sort of removed from the equation, and maybe both genders subconsciously revert to nature's instincts optimized during countless millennia of relative resource scarcity (most relevant maybe here is a woman's need to be selective) as a default when confronted with a situation we weren't designed for. But I'll also note that I have seen a lot of men over the years who habitually aim a little high, and pass on many good women in search of Ms Unobtanium, despite what swiping stats might imply. I should note that I've ever entered the swiping world and am largely relying on this thread for my impression of it.

[Sclass]

+1 @ID

I’ve seen this up close in poor communities in Los Angeles in the 1980s. Government subsidies kind of took fathers out of the equation except for being occasional sperm donors and abusers. It just kind of evolved into that given the ecology. I think the money was good enough and the fathers were bad enough for an equilibrium to establish itself over time.

[Aspirant]

I don't even know where to begin, because the conversation meandered through lots of interesting perspectives.

Somehow I got a little discouraged about the current situation and especially about the future generations. As a father of a boy, I don't see how I can advise him on this. Maybe I'll refer him all the @7wb5 replies and perspectives? Luckily I still have few years to think about it.

Since scandinavia has been mentioned few times, I will give an example from here. (Actually I just want to bitch about it, so a grain of salt might be appropriate). I live in so called egalitarian (not sure about the word) marriage. I have been in the provider role with the first kid. So going to work and paying for groceries. DW took care of more than 50 % of household chores. I think it was pretty fair division of labour. Now that I am the stay at home parent with DD, I take care of most household work. I thought that the working spouse would assume more of the financial burden. Turns out I was wrong. For the past 8 years it was somehow impossible to split grocery bills in half. Now suddenly that is totally doable with an app. Except when I calculated the sums for Aug, I didn't get any reimbursement. So apparently now I do most of the chores and still pay most of the costs Luckily I think I can twerk for some extra funds to be able to do that, but it sure doesn't feel fair.

As for the marriage, the "contract" is legally enforceable only for one side. I am held liable for all the financial issues and costs of having kids. Also if I divorse, I will lose half of what I have saved since starting working life (not even since starting marriage). There is no way I can enforce "marital happiness" or intimacy. Not that I want to. I am just little disillusioned since until quite recently I had this fantasy about life-long partnership based on mutual respect and love.

Now it seems I have option of making myself a somehow desireable partner. Sure enough, the provider and soft stay-at-home housemaid is not the intriguing option (as far as current results show). Maybe it is time to start actually using my gym membership? The other option would be call it quits, bite the bullet and follow @IlliniDave in his MGTOW-fishing quest. That actually is a pretty tempting option at the moment. I follow a few fly-fishing groups and I have never seen such a large concentration of happy males than in those pictures. It is quite true that fly-fishing is the best thing you can do with your pants on. My morals make any third party hanky-panky an impossible solution. Also why would any female agree on that anyway.

So I would very much appreciate any feedback and advise you can give.

[ffj]

@Aspirant

Keep it simple. There are two types of people in this world, those that should get married and those that shouldn't. And both sides shouldn't be taking advice from the other because they aren't compatible.

If you want a traditional marriage then you have to find someone who is in agreement. This sounds silly to write but while dating you have to have some very uncomfortable conversations with your potential spouse. Very uncomfortable, because once that marriage is official, you are kind of stuck without some messy solutions. You don't want to find her stance on abortion, for example, once she's pregnant. You might be very unpleasantly surprised.

There is no such thing as an egalitarian marriage. As a man you accept that going into the marriage and likewise so does the woman. At any given time due to births, job opportunities, health issues, societal expectations, or biological realities of your sex one of you is carrying more of a burden. There is no way around this reality so you should accept it and adapt towards a healthy relationship. And accept that no one situation is permanent as your life will constantly change. The baby isn't always going to be a baby, for example.

And you know, the whole traditional marriage concept revolves around two people taking care of one another. If you are counting who pays more of the groceries then maybe some of that concept has gotten lost? Possibly some larger issues unresolved?

[Frita]

@Aspirant
+1 to @FFG’s observations/suggestions
I would add that in addition to those challenging conversations while dating, it is important to observe. How does this person respond to crisis? Do they say one thing and do another? What is their family like? (This is where they received modeling. If there are issues, more conversation is in order regarding what is less skillful and how would they approach it differently.) What are their friends like? All that is just the tip of the iceberg.,,

And once married/partnered, one needs to have ongoing dialogue that is open, honest, and direct. You will both change. Numerous times in both minor and significant ways. Have you addressed your concerns with your wife and, if so, what solutions did you craft?

[Aspirant]

Thank you for your inputs. Much appreciated.

We did talk when we were dating and were in general agreement about the major issues. However, as you said, things change. For example I got burned out and very tired party because of health reasons. So I didn't want more kids, because I was not sure if I could take care of them properly. This caused friction in the relationship and now we still ended up having the second kid. So basically my opinions were not heard. Maybe it will be for the best in the long term since I have to take steps to heal. Also the biological imperative was imminent so it was a 'now or never' -situation. Still it doesn't feel good to be ignored in a decision of that magnitude.

We haven't had real crises, so I can't talk about that. Her family is fine and I should think that she has gotten good background from there. They are all good and kind people. My own bacground is more scetchy. Single mother family and I am suspecting some mental health issues in the family. I have had to envision and create some family models for myself and figure out how things should be in our family. So for example our xmas traditions are pretty much make-believe of how I think they should be

I don't know if egalitarian is the right word (but it translates to the right Finnish word). I believe that egalitarian marriage exists and we entered marriage as egalitarian partners. You are right that things evolve and sometimes the other party takes more responsibilities. For example when kids are small, the other one will take more responsibility for raising them and the other more for getting enough of resources to enable that. Usually it just means providing more to cover the other working less. Also there is division of labour in the family. The skillsets are usually different and the family unit can benefit from that.

As for counting grocery bills. I took that comment as some kind of reprimand or criticism. In this forum it should be normal that people plan and budget. But maybe I am just being a self-centered male for even thinking about this? I was taking more responsibility during previous years, and I thought that when I stay at home and not work, she would pick up that part. She is perfectly capable of providing for our family as I am capable of nurturing DD and change diapers.

[DutchGirl]

I often feel that people who decided, maybe on a whim, to have kids, have to provide for those kids for at least 18 years. It is a big, big decision, and Aspirant, you made that decision. I feel like as a parent, you are no longer the most important person in your life, because your kid or kids are.

So I would advise to go to marriage counseling and/or private counseling - to allow for you two parents to be the best possible parents for your kids. So that your kids will have the best possible future. They did not choose to be born. Or do you believe that they did?

[ffj]

@Aspirant

If she tricked you into having a second child against your wishes then yes that is a concern. That would be a legitimate complaint for certain. If you just kind of went along for the ride then that is on you. I don't know your circumstances so I'll stop there. But the child is here, and you are the father, so you are going to have to shoulder those responsibilities which by all accounts you seem to have done.

It helps if you can adopt a stoic attitude towards your responsibilities as a man. Call it sexist or whatever but it works and it takes a lot of the frustration out of what "could of been". Diverting your attention to providing those children the best life possible gives a lot of meaning to your life and theirs, and I can assure you it will pay off dividends in the future. Which brings me to my second point of embracing the broadening of your horizons. Meaning, the small resentments you may harbor today will disappear with your future self as your selfless actions today bear fruit another day and I daresay you will appreciate the positive differences that much more for having gone through your past experiences.

Regarding the groceries: is she even aware that this bothers you? I am sure it is symbolic for you as it can't be that much money to worry about but in my experience when small issues like this arise, usually there is something larger pushing the resentment.

[mathiverse]

Aspirant, your situation sounds tough. I'm sorry your expectations about your partnership with your wife haven't been met and I hope you can get through this difficult time in a way that works for you.

Talking to your partner about how the finances and chores will be split going forward due to the change in the original circumstances would be where to start if you are unsatisfied with the new status quo. There's nothing wrong with being unhappy with the current situation. It sounds like now might be the time to check in and come to a new agreement given how both of your lives have changed and your unhappiness. You can even request reimbursement for the groceries in the course of the conversation if that ends up being important, but I'd guess resolving the larger issue and having a plan you like for the future might reduce the importance of those particular transactions.

still ended up having the second kid. So basically my opinions were not heard.

That being said, this seems like a strange way to characterize a discussion that happened and resolved in a way you didn't like.

If you have an opposing view to the other side of a conflict and you capitulate to the other side for your own reasons (even if that reason is to end the argument because you don't want to fight anymore), that's not the same as "not being heard" and it's not the same as being "ignored." Were there other signs you "weren't heard" that maybe you didn't share? Or are you conflating "not being heard" with "the outcome was not what I wanted"? If it's the latter, then maybe reframing the result of the argument as a choice you made to put the desires of your partner and the integrity of the relationship above your desires would help you feel less like someone who was put-upon and more like an active participant in the outcome. Like others have said, unless your wife tricked you into having a kid (in which case, I'm sorry that happened; and I'd agree you weren't heard and were forced against your desires), it sounds like you were heard, but instead of holding firm to your desires you *chose* to go along with your wife's desires.

[7Wannabe5]

@Aspirant:

My first note would be that appeal to third party judgment on any/all particulars will get you nowhere. Ordinary married folk very often engage in "ordinary marital sadism*." End story.

However, I agree with the general trend in advice offered above along the lines of "Lower your expectations and raise your standards (for your own behavior.)" The manner in which you raise your standards will reflect your beliefs related to marriage. So, if you believe that the role you play in your marriage is to some extent defined by the fact of your gender, you will "raise your standard" for your behavior in alignment with that belief. If you believe in completely egalitarian marriage absent of any gender-determined roles/behaviors, then you will "raise your standard" for your behavior in alignment with that belief.

As with many beliefs, truths, or takes on reality, it is also generally good practice to take into account the possibility that evidence/experience that could make you change your take could come to bear.




*Schnarch, "Passionate Marriage", highly recommend for all readers.

[Aspirant]

Thank you again!

@ffj and DutchGirl

I know that kids take time and effort. I have been practicing for 8 years. I am not complaining because I took part in making them. With the first one, I was all in and I am not grumbling because of that. That was a willingly made decision. The second one I voted against because I am not sure that I have the required mental and physical energy in me to shoulder the responsibilities for the next 18 years (and beyond). I twerked a lot to work and make ends meet and get good and safe home for them to grow. She didn't trick me into anything, she is not a bad person in that way. I just should have started this procreation business 10 years earlier when I had more life energy.

I am not looking to evade my responsibilities as a parent. They will remain even in case of a divorce. The thing is, that I have more long term approach of what the responsibilities are and that's why I would like DW to take more financial responsibilities. This would be important especially if anything happens to me. I want her to be able to pick that stuff up in case I get hit by a car or something. I am not actually worried about her raising the kids in other ways since she is a teacher and all around good mom.

[Ego]

A few months ago we reconnected with a couple we haven't been in contact with for fifteen years. Back then they were debating whether to have kids or not. The husband was not yet ready but the wife was. She stopped taking birth control without telling him and got pregnant. He was not happy.

Their child was about nine when we last saw them and we remember the husband using his resentment as a way to excuse himself from involvement in the most challenging aspects of parenting. Despite this, the kid seemed to be doing well, at least by conventional metrics. The parents were successful and provided all of the material needs for the kid, including excellent schools and plenty of opportunities.

Fast forward fifteen years, the child absolutely hates both parents and does everything they can to make the parents lives miserable, including an endless stream of self destructive behaviors. The parents are now trying everything they can think of to help the kid get back on track and will likely spend the next decades in therapy to heal from the things the child has done to them.

I have never had kids, so take this with a grain of salt, but I have to imagine the husband's unresolved resentment played some part in how the family turned out.

[Aspirant]

@mathiverse Thank you for your empathy. That really warmed my heart <3

Your assessment about "not being heard" was spot on. Things ended up like this because I thought about it and put my wants on the side. Females have biological clock and I understand that it is a major issue to them. So now I am in fouth place in my life. I have to work on this resentment, but currently I have a feeling that I have a right to have negative feelings about the situation.

I think that the stoicism advice is very good, and I assume that that is the path forward. I have to accept the things as they are and model my behavior accordingly. That doesn't mean I have to suck everything up and not try to improve the situation. Already had talks about splitting expenses and tracking the costs.

Regarding the groceries: is she even aware that this bothers you? I am sure it is symbolic for you as it can't be that much money to worry about but in my experience when small issues like this arise, usually there is something larger pushing the resentment.

Yes, and yes. You guys can express my feelings more concisely than I can The groceries have been a pebble in my shoes for 8 years. It has bothered a bit for a long time, but I have assumed the provider role so I have been somewhat ok with that. Now that I am staying at home, this issue has become more important. It is hard to be sole provider while staying at home changing diapers. I think I can manage it, but it is more difficult to make ends meet when I am not working. I can't really do both roles in a way that I would be satisfied with the results. Today I was changing poop-diapers while working on an investment plan for 8 month old

[Aspirant]

@Ego
You raise a good point about resentment. I have thought about this and maybe even done some of that. I have attributed my withdrawal from parental issues to burnoutand tiredness, but maybe the resentment has a part in it as well. All the more reason to work on these issues and be a better parent to my kids. The baby is fine now, but I think I should spend more time with DK1. He is growing up, and needs a decent father figure. I am around most of the time, but I could be more present and involved with him. I try to devote some time every week to hang out with just him. Last week we went to train parkour together. It's not just meeting the physical needs of the kids.

@7wannabe5 You are absolutely right on involving third party arbitrators. I can't externally enforce any intimacy issues and that would not be received very well (to put it mildly). And enforcing financial issues will escalate to ultimatums and that will not be good foundation to actually make things better. That would be the starting point for divorce procedures.

Can you elaborate on raising standards? It was maybe a bit meta for me. I think I grasp what you mean, but... Also Dr Snarky may be on to something. Marital sadism as a consept is a bit off putting, but I think he has a point. I try to find the book you recommended.

[7Wannabe5]

And enforcing financial issues will escalate to ultimatums and that will not be good foundation to actually make things better. That would be the starting point for divorce procedures.

Can you elaborate on raising standards? It was maybe a bit meta for me.

In "Passionate Marriage" (which is concerned with modern, not traditional marriage), Schnarch does advise the practice of presenting your partner with a straight-forward dilemna that is not an ultimatum, because it is entirely concerned with your behavior/emotions/boundaries, as opposed to attempting to control the behavior of your spouse. For instance, if you are in a sex-starved marriage, you might say something like "I do not intend to continue to live a life of celibacy, I am going to the bar on Saturday night, I sincerely hope you will join me*." Then you have to have the emotional resilience to deal with the flak you may receive in reaction or response from your spouse. Here's the thing. You think you know your spouse pretty well, so you think you can or can't (it's impossible!)resolve this conflict in your own head. IOW, you think you know how your spouse will react/response to such a statement, and you may be right, but you may be wrong. What I mean by raising standards, is that the imaginary voice in your head that is making up what you believe most likely to be your spouse's response/reaction is actually telling you what you need to work on first, because it is likely reflective of one of your own emotional buttons that your spouse knows better than anyone else how to push.

This is super short-hand, but in the long run the positive result of becoming more "differentiated" is that you may even come to welcome having a button pushed, because you recognize that it is a signpost towards personal growth. It's also the path towards greater intimacy in relationship, because it burns away delusions, assumptions, and expectations. Schnarch refers to it as "the crucible." Generally, this practice will either very much improve your relationship OR it will lead to a "good" divorce.

*The reason why I recommended this book to you was your comments along the lines of "It's against my moral code. Who would want me anyways?" which is exactly the sort of non-productive voice in your head talk I am referring to.

[Jin+Guice]

Ya, basically what @7 said. When you get into a rhythm with someone it's easy to believe you can control them and they control you. Neither is true, unless you allow it to be.

Resentment will crush you. Trust me I am the most resentful bitch alive. You gotta learn to let go.

If you're wife isn't fucking you, then you need to mentally move her into the realm of chicks who aren't fucking you. Are you hitting on her? Does she respond like someone who wants to fuck would respond to getting hit on? If not, then:

"I do not intend to continue to live a life of celibacy, I am going to the bar on Saturday night, I sincerely hope you will join me."

Also maybe try to get better at hitting on your wife/ being more sexually desirable. My personal advice is to watch the scene in Magic Mike where he goes to the night club to recruit women to come to the male strip club and basically learn how to emulate everything he does when he starts talking to the women.