Is a men following the ERE Lifestyle More Attractive?

[Humanofearth]

Let’s say you ride the bike instead of call a motorcycle taxi to pick you up, or better, a car. You’ll have more oil on your face, more odor and sweat built up, higher chances of dirtier clothing, messed up hair from the helmet, possibly more acne. You get a healthier heart but ideally, you’d workout a different time then shower immediately before the date, get dolled up (clean tongue, floss, brush, listerine,wash hair, face, body, face products, dry hair & and style (25usd waxes and clays don’t cause dandruff, have nice smells, and keep a natural look), curl your eye lashes, add on skin serums, sunblocks, possible some concealer or light lipstick (25usd lipstick is much more natural, just to look healthier, compared to 3usd lipstick that condenses). This is just hygiene. Gym, cardio, social skills, all this is much easier with money. Really, it’s not “I have money”. It’s “I am attractive and have fun, come have fun with me, let’s go eat some bingsu, walk the park, go see a view, go to the night market/decent dinner (normally not first date). Actually, nice dinners (25usd+) had horrible success rates. Girls would change modes and focus on many dates, less physical with that. It was about more lifestyle, having fun, going to many fun and light environments.

Money spent on personal health and a nice space, essentially becoming very comfortable in my own lifestyle, was what worked as a foundation. Spending on taxis or desserts, good, spending on dinners or tickets, bad.

I didn’t time for 2 hours, I’d feel it out. But if I was unable to kiss on the first date, it always meant low attraction from them and more work than it’s worth. I aggressively filtered for high attraction, ones that saw me as exotic or special. This happened several times when I started out and did the nice dinner thing.

[urgud]

@Humanofearth: I think there's some critical context lacking from your posts. If I am surmising correctly, you are talking about the situation in South East Asia, and the concrete situation where you probably have a net worth 10-500x that of your prospective date.

[Humanofearth]

I would argue parts of Latin America are much more passionate but they are dangerous. I’ve been out of the west for nearly a decade, I had very low success, a huge amount of work for little results, for most of my time. This only changed after I made health my #1 priority for several years.

I would also add that I believe you are correct, having a net worth of 500x and being willing to spend it on self care and fun adventures, a well designed life, would only benefit your dating endeavors. It is a lot of work to make it easy. It is the most competitive market in the world. If you are in a big city, there are many rich, handsome foreigners. In South East Asia, the Singaporean, Japanese, and Korean men are the most popular races. In Latin America, it is likely the blonde blue eyed gringos.

Let’s say you’re in Rio, you’re competing with guys who have helicopters. Good luck as a typical American, it’s not as easy without solid looks, especially if you’re extremely frugal, and at least spending 2-3 times the average income. It’s much easier and more fun to improve appearance as much as possible, improve charisma and practice leading many dates to develop many possible fun mutual experiences so you can gut feel what to do with each date.

Like I said prior, taking girls on nice dates didn’t work. Trying while I was chubby and hyper focused on frugality, very hard work for low results.

I highly recommend getting a 6 pack and v-taper, ideally 1.62 chest to waist ratio, having several cute girls or gay friends pick out some outfits for you, taking very good care of skin and oral and hair, pluck the stray hairs, shower and wear fresh nice clothes every time you go out, wash the hair every 2 days, use talcum, get any conditions taken care of. Sincerely do your best at this for 2 years and it will be much easier anywhere. But you will do best going where you are perceived as exotic.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, I think you would have the most gravity as Latin America, East Europe, and South/east Asia have tons of westerners. You’d likely be seen as a near celebrity, and this will definitely be another factor in your favor. Try to get every single factor at least positive and it will help.

I’ve seen a guy get a girl home only to get rejected because he has a shared bathroom and it grossed her out.

It’s a lot of work, often with low chances of success, even with everything in your favor. Easy is relative compared to before. It takes a lot of time to find anyone you feel a special connection to. It takes a rhythm to get lots of dates lined up, locations you like, to choose the girls you actually like and trust. I got into this rhythm before and now I’m getting more of my life in order before intending again. Good pictures are hard to get for me but necessary. I am not photogenic and trying without good photos will be a waste of time. Seriously. They are that picky. You must be the #1 option. I do not see old western guys with cute young girls that are not “professionals”, they get the older ex-“professionals”.

[zbigi]

It’s a lot of work, often with low chances of success, even with everything in your favor. Easy is relative compared to before. It takes a lot of time to find anyone you feel a special connection to. It takes a rhythm to get lots of dates lined up, locations you like, to choose the girls you actually like and trust. I got into this rhythm before and now I’m getting more of my life in order before intending again. Good pictures are hard to get for me but necessary. I am not photogenic and trying without good photos will be a waste of time. Seriously. They are that picky.

That's one of the reasons I stay single. Not worth the hassle TBH.

[7Wannabe5]

Here's an article from the Wall Street Playboys on the topic of personal finance and dating. The faux data science included makes me want to back-track on the position I took above based on my recent reading of "Evolution of Desire", although it basically makes many of the same points:

https://wallstreetpbs.com/posts/persona ... nd-dating/

I think there is a bit of truth to this section (below), because one of the upsides of being an extremely frugal female is that the practice gives you the same freedom that a trust fund baby has to choose men more on the basis of looks. I couldn't even begin to make sense of the chart in the article where male income is correlated to female attractiveness rating, because I'm usually dating men I would rate at 8 in looks and I'm only stretching up to 6.5 on a good day.

We will not let the post degrade into a debate regarding “what is more important” (IE: Looks or game, money or looks, status or money etc.)

Why? It depends on who you are talking to.

If the girl is obsessed with music you are going to have a huge edge by being in a good band (status).

If the girl is a trust fund baby, you are going to have a huge edge by being attractive since she doesn’t need the money (looks)

If the girl is upper middle class and lives a boring life, your edge is going to come from entertainment/fun (game)

If the girl is dead broke and is a gold digger, you’re going to have a huge edge by being rich (money)

[The Old Man]

This idea may be worth exploring to gain a better understanding of how the ERE lifestyle affects a person's social market value (SMV).

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?

[Sclass]

@old man somehow this made me want to rewatch The Big Lebowski.

[AxelHeyst]

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?

I really liked your whole post Old Man, and I think this vibe is something that not enough ERE people have decoupled quite enough from The Cave to fully embody so thank you for highlighting it, but also wow I was not expecting the plot-twist of you name-dropping the protagonist of the Half-Life video game series. Takes me back.

[7Wannabe5]

I agree that women find a "free man" attractive, but the forever "free man" is more often the protagonist of male fantasy fiction than female fantasy fiction. For example, John D. McDonald's Travis McGee who lives on a houseboat, and makes his occasional risky living as a "finder" for those not wanting to alert the conventional authorities, and also occasionally bedding a voluptuous "lost kitten" who has found herself in a patch of trouble.

Female fantasy fiction starts with a "free man" (or "rogue"), but then also imagines him becoming some variety of conventionally successful on his own terms, and on the verge of being ready to take on leadership/responsibility/serious-long-term-relationship. when in walks our beautiful, yet spunky, destined-to-be-rogue-reforming heroine...

I think the reason why this topic merits 5 pages and frequently pops up is that there is simply no getting around the core reality that one of the tasks of the functional feminine (of any species!*) energy is to facilitate transfer of resources and/or valuable genes from her mate(s) to her offspring. And this process is just too interwoven into the very invention of money by humans to be handled as a secondary or tertiary matter/thread on web-of-goals. That's why men who approach it like a brute equation/transaction fail, but also why those who are too "nice" fail.

What if you lived in the olden days in which your female partner might be stuck having your kid; Why you? Obviously, we have only very recently entered into an era in which this isn't a huge risk, and we don't really know how to talk with each other about the ghost-babies that we don't produce with our casual sex and/or our childless or minimally childrened long-term relationships. Who's (or what's) the baby if there is no baby?

* "Who" is the female of any species is pretty much determined by larger size of gamete. A sperm cell is on some level the ultimate "free man."

[zbigi]

I agree with @7. I remember from way back, when my (male) friend, who was generally very ambitious and conventionally successful for his age (a job at McKinsey after college), but also had some wider interests that collided with the brutal office grind, mused that he might quit his consulting job and start working at a parking lot, where he could just read 40 hours a week. So, basically a "free man" living on his own terms, as described above. His girlfriend's reaction? A long pause and "... I don't know if I'm okay with that"

[The Old Man]

...

[Jin+Guice]

@HumanofEarth:

Ok, now I think you're going too far in that direction. The routine you outlined seems like what I would do if I absolutely had to bang as many "10s" as possible. I still appreciate that you are pointing out that one still needs to learn what to spend the money on, and just "having a fancy car" or "paying for an expensive dinner" is not necessary.

While I support men trying to become more appealing to the feminine gaze, I disagree that it's hard. I am very lazy and I hate abhor being bored. The thing about making yourself look better, becoming more charismatic, learning to lead in dating (social) situation and improving hygeine and appearance, is that they can all actually be pretty fun. Of course being really outstanding in any attribute women find attractive will make it easier, but one doesn't actually need to be near the top of the list.

I don't discourage men from trying to get some basic ideas about what women want and think about changing themselves in those categories in ways in which they feel would improve them. I do discourage the idea that it is extremely difficult to do this. I have personally found that small improvements lead to large changes in outcome.






Bringing this back to ERE, if "banging 300 very attractive women in my lyfe" is in your WoGs, then spending a bunch of time and money on it is worth it. As @HumanOfEarth points out, spending money selectively is going to make this process easier. And as with everything, money can be substituted with time, effort, attention and creativity. And, as with everything, sometimes, but far less often than we would be lead to believe, money is a more efficient option.

Fundamentally, ERE makes one more efficient at spending money. The entire point is being better able to examine the trade-offs and escape the typical/ consumerist way of looking at things. If you are doing this, and you decide to include sex/ romance/ relationship/ life-partnership/ whatever you want in your WoGs, how can ERE possibly make you worse at it? If it's making you worse, it's a failure of your ERE system.

[7Wannabe5]

Is this "you" speaking or the "you" that has been programmed by a lifetime of corporate propaganda?

Huh. I think I am probably even less programmed by a lifetime of corporate propaganda than the median member of this forum. I am pretty much the rarer item which is a "free woman", and I have noticed that, for example, one of my poly-partners who lives with his wife in a golden brick semi-mansion set back from the road in a very expensive community, preferred to spend his time with me in my dilapidated camper parked on a vacant lot in the city. But, even though men (according to the cross-cultural research "The Evolution of Desire") care about the resources made available by their mates much less than women, I always rated it as fairly unlikely that he would leave his wealth-holding wife for me if push came to shove. When my other poly-partner who was younger, very physically attractive, and more of a "free man/rogue" (into permaculture like me) and I had dinner with my wealthy poly-partner and his wife, she disdainfully told him "I'm not interested in "The Gardener.""

That dinner happened 8 years ago, and my wealthy married poly-partner is still pursuing me, even though I told him that it was my preference that we just tie a bow around it and place it in our drawer of memories. My peer group of middle-aged females and my extremely beautiful 20-something year old niece who is a professional dancer in Vegas told me that I should ask him to buy me a cottage with some land for my next permaculture project, because he will either be romantically appalled to the extent that he will stop circling, or I will own a cottage and some land for my next permaculture project. (The "permaculture project" thus becoming the "baby" supported by resource tranfer in this relationship. Other proto-"babies" for which I might seek support in one of my relationships would be "rare books/young writers" and "poor children who need tutoring in math and gardening skills.") However, and this is a very important note, one of the critical factors involved in being a "free man" or "free woman" psychologically is that you don't see yourself as the "baby."

Why do marriages fail at a 50% rate and why do women initiate the majority of the marriages? The transfer of resources may be the unstated reason as influenced by corporate propaganda as to why the marriages are started, but it doesn't explain why the marriages fail.

Marriages faii, because like every other mammalian species, humans aren't built for life-long commitment. In fact, the average pair-bonding (as opposed to brief sexual) relationship between humans only lasts about the same amount of time it takes to raise a human child to independent functioning in a tribal setting.

Divorces specifically and the disolution of long-term mating relationships more generally are universal across cultures. Roughly 85 percent of Americans have experienced at least one breakup of a committed mating relationship. Among the !Kung of Botswana, 134 marriages our of 331 recorded ended in divorces- about 40 percent. Among the Ache of Paraguay, the average man and woman are married and divorced more than eleven times each by the time they reach the age of 40...

...Twenty-nine percent of men and women questioned by the sex-researchers Samuel Janus and Cynthia Janus stated that sexual problems were the primary reason for their divorce- the reason most mentioned.

When divorced Westerners re-marry, the tendency is towards the divorced men (more frequently) marrying ever younger women, and the divorced women (less frequently) marrying older and more affluent men. However, it has been my experience as a woman who divorced at age 42 that this may be due to the fact that it is much easier to find an older, more affluent man who wants to date you than a younger less affluent man who wants to date you. Although, it is dead-easy to find a younger, less affluent man who will text "Why don't you drive over to my place and pick up a pizza on your way." There was one occasion on which a significantly younger man asked me out on a conventional date and paid for my dinner, but he later revealed that he had very recently lost over 100 lbs. and was practice dating with older women.

[The Old Man]

You know, there is a reason why I decided to delete that post. I thought it was not really necessary to address those points.

I am not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.

As far as the forever free man, that would require having a working crystal ball. It is well known that a man when he finds the right woman and has children will make radical changes in his life to provide for them. The free man will not be a forever free man if he finds the right woman.

It is hard to disentangle the effects of culture on “what women want”. Prior to say 1900, the effect of culture was to promote the needs of society. After say 1900, culture has become strongly influenced by the needs of corporations that have been manipulating people to support consumerism. In both cases the needs, wants, and desires of women have been secondary to either the needs of society or later corporations. In the second case, women have been actively manipulated.

For the man who chooses a conventional path in life then he will offer to women the conventional fruits of such a path. The unconventional man will offer unconventional fruits. To decide which fruit is better we have to disentangle the effect of culture.

[7Wannabe5]

You know, there is a reason why I decided to delete that post. I thought it was not really necessary to address those points.

Sorry, cross-post, I will delete if you prefer.

As far as the forever free man, that would require having a working crystal ball. It is well known that a man when he finds the right woman and has children will make radical changes in his life to provide for them. The free man will not be a forever free man if he finds the right woman.

Yes, and my exact point was that being the "right woman" for the "free man" is the theme of virtually every conventional romance novel with female intended audience ever written, with epilogue describing the birth of the newest heir to the rogue Dukedom 10 months later. IOW, if a woman chooses to have a sexual relationship with an attractive "free man" and does not succeed in "reforming" him, because she is not attractive enough to be the "right" woman, then she loses at play in a risky game. This is why conservative self-help books for single women hoping to become married strongly advise against anything like "rogue reformation" and instead suggest accepting suitors who are less attractive and more steady. Interesting note from one of these books would be that research reveals that even in modern era, not having sex with a suitor is most efficient practice towards offer of marriage. Of course, as Bus also notes, this is Type 2 risky practice, because limits ability to detect sexual incompatibilities that may eventually lead to misery and/or divorce.

It is hard to disentangle the effects of culture on “what women want”. Prior to say 1900, the effect of culture was to promote the needs of society. After say 1900, culture has become strongly influenced by the needs of corporations that have been manipulating people to support consumerism. In both cases the needs, wants, and desires of women have been secondary to either the needs of society or later corporations. In the second case, women have been actively manipulated.

Actually, according to Bus' research, the largest change that consumerism has made in both male and female dating/mating/marriage preferences is to make standards for physical attractiveness ever higher, while maintaining almost exactly the same high degree of sex variance in this preference. IOW, the highest pressure due to consumerism is on females to spend money to make themselves ever more physically attractive to potential partners, because that is exactly what their potential partners are demanding on the market. The "natural woman" is the biggest loser due to consumerism. Although, obviously, the very-expensive faux natural woman frequently found roaming the aisles of Whole Paycheck after her Pilates class is highly popular. How many men who offer "unconventional fruits" in terms of resources are willing/wanting to accept women who offer "unconventional fruits" in terms of physical attractiveness? For example, would a man who is so frugal his domicile requires pooping in a pipe be willing to date a woman who is so frugal, she didn't replace a couple of rotted front teeth?

[The Old Man]

...

[7Wannabe5]

What I am saying is that generally in order for an unconventional strategy to be successful, it needs to be "trans" the conventional strategy rather than "pre" the conventional strategy or "anti" the conventional strategy. A "trans" strategy needs to accept/empathize/comprehend why/how the conventional strategy works. And I am also saying that accomplishing this in the realm of sexual/romantic relationships is made even more complex by the differing sex specific strategies and preferences in terms of short-term, long-term, and in secondary or middling-term relationships.

Although, it is also true that strategies/preferences that are due to personality type, cultural background, and personal experience may trump those associated with sex at birth. For example, self-aware women who wish to engage in casual sex, but find themselves experiencing post-coital tristesse or reactive-regret may certainly learn behavioral techniques to overcome this if otherwise in alignment with her rational self-interest, just like any adult who chooses to partake of alcohol or dune hiking may learn to keep themselves well-hydrated. Similarly, a long-married man who finds himself suffering from Coolidge Syndrome could also learn behavioral techniques to overcome this tendency if otherwise in alignment with his rational self-interest. However, you can't simply demand that your partner should behave/react in a manner contrary to evolved tendencies. You can only control you.

Also, what I am saying specifically in reference to the "free man" hypothesis is that "free man" (as I understand it) is more towards "anti-conventional" rather than towards "trans-conventional." A "trans-conventional" perspective would comprehend that corporate marketing works to a large extent, because it does touch on evolved human tendencies and preferences. A "trans-conventional" practice would also take these same evolved core tendencies and preferences into account in lifestyle design. For example, if "conventional man" offers his potential mate all the amenities available in a McMansion, how could "trans-conventional man" do even better in offering them in a more sustainable format? For example, is it wrong for somebody to want a "sewing and crafts room?" Is not figuring out how to provide your mate with something like a "sewing and crafts room" any different than being too selfish or tone-deaf to offer a female use of your jacket on a chilly evening? Was it incomprehensible or cold-hearted behavior when the Moneyless Man's girlfriend who very much liked to dance left him because he was both unwilling to purchase and unable to DIY from nature a simple radio for her pleasure? (Of course, if I found myself in similar circumstances, I would attempt to DIY my own radio from nature, but that sort of behavior usually leads to Type 3 relationship failure, in which you start to disrespect your man because he is increasingly useless to you, so you focus on solo projects instead. So, it's probably more kind to simply pull the bandaid quickly.)

[AxelHeyst]

It's all about embracing life. When a man is living at his edge, I trust him. Like any woman, I experience the fear of losing my man to that edge where he is so alive and free. But frankly, that possibility makes him that much more desirable to me. To be with a man who isn't free in his mind and heart, who feels he's turned in his freedom, is to be with a man who is only partially alive. I've embraced men who felt they were not free, and it doesn't feel good. It also doesn't feel safe or secure, as I know in my heart of hearts that he's not happy. ...

Sometimes, a man thinks he needs to tame his wild side to have love in his life. He believes his freedom is unacceptable to a woman, so he turns in his wings. But ultimately what he gives his woman in the way of his freedom he takes back in his withdrawal, his distance, his lies. ...

When you live at your edge, a woman feels her edge in love. She must expand the borders of her loving and untie her restraints on your heart. The smaller part of her might wish for you to be near and predictable at all times, but her heart (in truth) wants expansion. Yes, it's scary when a man is free. ...loving a man who is free is, at a deeper level, true love. It's not love bound by fear.

[7Wannabe5]

@AxelHeyst:

Yes, I generally agree with Brody's take. One of the reasons why I practice polyamory is that I like men who are "free" in relationship to me in that sense (although, this is sometimes just the weaker form of freedom all men experience with a lover or a mistress or a friend as opposed to a wife) or to that extent. However, a man's (or any human's) freedom is boundaried by his ability to exert dominance or mastery over his environment. And with dominance or authority comes responsibility, inclusive of honoring the preferences of those with whom you are in relationship, whether over the course of an evening or a lifetime.

If my intended audience here was women or conformist-nice-guys then my message might be more in alignment with Brody's. I am speaking to the audience of those men who err on the side of being too rigid or locked in their boundary formation towards maintaining the realm of their freedom. The example I always think of from "Man of Steel and Velvet" is the guy who is so rigid in his frugality that he refuses to buy the color of linoleum his wife prefers, because it is 10 cents more expensive per square ft. Then he wonders why his wife is in too crabby a mood to have sex after spending most of the day in a visually depressing environment.

The basic "nice guy" vs "rigid guy" problem involves an inability to parse the difference between "honoring preferences" vs. "signaling submission." The process or practice of honoring preferences of others without signaling submission AKA "effective leadership" does require some applied intelligence and life-energy, but it's the best known means by which to pay PoP.*

*Actually, I am also addressing the audience of those men who are dwelling in some naive/privileged egalitarian dream world in which PoP does not exist. I am also addressing the audience of dodo-like HSP young women (like former me) who dwell in semi-cuckoo-bananas-fluffy-cloud-world and need to take down their "Free Tomatos!" sign immediately. The bit you posted by Brody is actually the opposite of helpful for the "Free Tomatos" or "Cowboys are My Weakness" gals who are already always doing stupid shit like sitting on a fence post trying to tempt a wild stallion with an apple, so she can jump on his back.

[AxelHeyst]

I am speaking to the audience of those men who err on the side of being too rigid or locked in their boundary formation towards maintaining the realm of their freedom.

Fair enough. I'm recovering from nice guy syndrome so I'm converging on effective leadership from the other side, but I'm finding your thoughts/experience very valuable/interesting. I'm finally close enough to the sweet spot that it'd be possible for me to overcorrect into rigidity, wheras that wasn't a problem I had to worry about a few years ago. What does PoP mean? I googled it, got nothing.