How do ERE men attract women?

[ducknald_don]

Or as I've also heard it charmingly expressed, "At least you are less of a complete disaster than most women out there."

I wonder if it's a bit like the job market. Good people get offers quickly leaving a pool of less qualified candidates that apply for every job. Most recruiters will tell you the quality of candidates is poor but that is because they are mostly seeing people from this pool of losers.

[ertyu]

It's on both sides. If you hear who's complaining that "no one wants to work anymore," it's crap food service jobs with ragey boomer self-employed bosses who don't want to pay comparable to what a candidate can secure elsewhere. These employers do see the worst employees because anyone who can get a better job does, and until they do, they often disengage in the face of the boss' shitty personality and management. And then they call any competent colleagues they had and tell them, "hey, we pay 3 bucks more an hour, come join" (actual story).

I'm going to go out and assume that 7w5's dude isn't god knows how much of a catch either: at the very least, he thinks this sort of negging will get him a partner and is alright to say to someone. He probably does get the "disaster women," which in his definition probably means women who are looking for a guy to support them materially in one way or another. These women in turn are probably thinking, "I can put up with him if it means a roof over the head for my 3 kids and a secure back-up ride."

[prudentelo]

I lived in sort of lot of places. Quality of women that I dated, depended mostly on the location. The best time I had where there were lot of attractive women, and more women than men. Think place like NYC in the US. So, this is sort of market mechanism.

Actually when meeting people, I find there is instant connection or not a connection. Has little to do with "metrics" like salary and so on. Instant connection does depend on looks to a big extent, but bigger is some hard to describe "nature" in how the two people talk, think, body language, and so on. So for example, something like ERE may be seen as weird and undesirable, or interesting and cool, mostly on how the woman sees me, rather than sees ERE.

Biggest problem for ERE person could be the exclusion from social spaces where they are introduced to or naturally meet new people, such as a job. But also, ERE lifestyle could amplify such opportunities, if the person is creative about non-work social life.

[Jin+Guice]

It’s easy to be in the top 20% of men. If you are an ERE man who is not in the top 20%, are you really doing it?

You don’t need to be in the top 20% to get women.

Dating is not inequitable, both sides face different realities and both are frustrated by their own reality.

Introducing some 1% dudes into your pool will not ruin it for a bunch of reasons. The easiest way to deal with a top 1% dude is to leave the room.

None of this matters if you suffer from bad demographics, i.e. lack of women in general or lack of the type of women who like your particular brand of bullshit.

There are a ton of thins you can personally due to increase your attractiveness. Basically any improvement will raise your chances slightly.

Imo, it pays to focus on: flirting/ seduction (as a subset of) general social/ emotional/ communication skills (social = getting laid/ meeting people; emotional/ communication = medium/ long-term partnerships), fitness, fashion (can be super basic, just need clothes that fit, bonus points for understanding how women perceive styles) and hygiene (again bonus points for understanding how style effects which women you attract).

Finally, you need to be talking to/ interacting with/ hitting on women. Otherwise none of this matters.

[chenda]

It’s easy to be in the top 20% of men. If you are an ERE man who is not in the top 20%, are you really doing it?

I don't know, I think there is a minimum level of genetic determined attractiveness which is required to be in that top 20%, no matter how well groomed, physically fit or skilled at banter you are. Most sexual relationships occur between people of similar levels of attractiveness. 5-6s copulate with other 5-6s, 7-8s copulate with other 7-8s etc. No one likes to hear this as we're all taught that love conquers all, but reality says otherwise. It's true men can punch a bit above their weight in the looks department, especially if they can compensate with other higher status behaviour (the ugly rock star phenomena) But there's a limit to this. Basically you are better off seeking partners who are at a similar level of attractiveness than you. Women tend to know exactly where they are in the pecking order, but men I've noticed often overestimate themselves or have unrealistically high standards.

There was a famous geneticist who suggested genetic engineering could turn all women into perfect 10s which he thought would be great. But I don't think you could turn ever man into Alpha male. By definition every alpha needs a bunch of betas below them. And I wonder if engineering perfect 10s would result in looks 'inflation', with minor differences between women becoming deal breakers.

[7Wannabe5]

I wonder if it's a bit like the job market. Good people get offers quickly leaving a pool of less qualified candidates that apply for every job. Most recruiters will tell you the quality of candidates is poor but that is because they are mostly seeing people from this pool of losers.

Yes, there is some truth to this. For instance, when I was practicing strict serial monogamy, I would usually only keep a dating profile open for a few weeks before finding my next new boyfriend or lover. The median length of my relationships was greater than 6 months, and I almost always took a break after relationship ended before opening my profile again, so I had an open dating profile only maybe 2 weeks/year max. I actually have had an open dating profile even less frequently now that I practice polyamory, maybe 4 weeks total over the last 7 years, because polyamory is actually a more stable practice for me. I've known the 3 men I'm still engaged with on some level for 7,8, and 12 years. However, I did recently friendzone all of them, so I probably would be dating again if I was in better shape.

ragey boomer self-employed bosses

You just described the majority of my dating pool It might be interesting to note that this also describes a large contingent of the ERE adjacent group sometimes referred to as "millionaire next door" which I am more likely to attract due to signaling frugality. I may go down in flames for making this observation, but I tend to cut the self-employed guy some slack for overt display of assholery, because anybody maintaining a boundary around a large reserve of capital is de facto exhibiting assholery at some level of civilized remove. Simple example being DIY eviction of a tenant vs. utilizing property management firm vs. owning shares in a REIT. Also, I am sometimes even more annoyed by the manner in which my one partner who is a more hyper-civilized limousine-liberal type exhibits his masculine "play."

it pays to focus on: flirting/ seduction

Absolutely. From the female perspective, it can be difficult to discern whether a man is not interested in me vs. has no skills in the realm of flirtation/seduction. If you can't, for instance, slide yourself over to the same side of a table as a woman and do something like nip her on the shoulder, you need to practice.

[Slevin]

There was a famous geneticist who suggested genetic engineering could turn all women into perfect 10s which he thought would be great. But I don't think you could turn ever man into Alpha male. By definition every alpha needs a bunch of betas below them. And I wonder if engineering perfect 10s would result in looks 'inflation', with minor differences between women becoming deal breakers.

Alpha males is a stupid term, based off a messed up study where wolves were put in unhealthy circumstances that made wolves behave differently than they do in the wild. Wolves end up the way they do just because packs are generally families, so one breeding male ends up the “father” of the pack because he is literally the father. Taking that alpha male concept and extending to humans is stupid because it was a bad concept from the get go.

Also, I sorta agree with you… except you are again using massively reductionist thinking that everyone is using the same categorical system. I.e. someone’s “10” is not universally defined. You want to exploit the segment where you think someone is more attractive than the exact societal norms because of some trait you desire, while they see you as batting up because of some trait you have. These traits don’t need to be physical things. They can be status symbols, etc. Humans are really really good at putting on “stranger colored glasses” where they fill in the unknown bits of you with all of their expectations. You just have to leave that space empty for them to fill in.

Also, Tbh being even moderately attractive, and being in incredibly good shape is likely to let you bat up a huge margin in the hook-up Olympics, where someone is putting up only the bar of “oh yeah that’s interesting enough” instead of the excessive expectations of “finding the perfect partner, etc”. The same can be said with having moderately good game, being moderately good at singing, etc, in the right circumstances. Find your competitive advantage and exploit the hell out of it. Dating is a marketing game.

P.S. to whoever needs it; bodybuilding competitions are the male equivalent of beauty pageants, and you should never forget that.

[chenda]

@Slevin - I was using the terms alpha and beta as a shorthand for the 80/20 split in men which women are disproportionately attracted to, perhaps there are better terms.

I don't disagree that there are personal and cultural preferences which will come into play, but in terms of physical attractiveness there are certain universal human traits. Ask a random bunch of Chinese men and Western men to rank a bunch of Polynesian women in order of attractiveness then the results are going to be similar. There are hard wired into our genes as signs of positive reproductive traits. Physical attractiveness is of course far from the only thing to consider in a relationship, but in terms of men attracting above average looking women, the men themselves likely need to be somewhat above average looking.

[okumurahata]

I reckon it’s worth noting that when we’re talking about the top 20% of men, it’s not a matter of passing moral judgment. It’s more about spotting the common traits in this chosen 20% (feel free to call them ‘alpha’ if you like). Even in a world where everyone’s a superhuman, good-looking, brainy, loaded with cash, and resourceful, there’d still likely be a top 20%, for reasons I can’t quite pin down at the moment.

Imagine all men and women are identical clones, perfectly fit in body and mind. I’d bet that women would still be drawn to a certain 20% of men, even though they’re clones. The difference could be as simple as a different snap in their dating profile. If we look at why women have picked that 20% with that particular photo, I’d suggest to other chaps to snap a similar one to be in the top 20%. But if all men had the same photo, the distinction might come down to the profile text. Once more, I’d advise other men to fall in line with the 20%, and make tweaks accordingly.

Does this mean that men at the bottom are somehow lesser or can’t find a date? Not at all. They’ll likely find a partner too, but they might not be the first choice.

[chenda]

Does this mean that men at the bottom are somehow lesser or can’t find a date? Not at all. They’ll likely find a partner too, but they might not be the first choice.

Absolutely. The bottom 80% of male humans are not like the elephant seals and aren't doomed to permanent inceldom. They just have to work harder at it and set realistic goals.

To make an economic analogy, a young man living in the slums of Sao Paolo might dream of joining the rich Brazilian elite. Doubtless a few occasionally do but it's more achievable and realistic that he learns some useful skills and with a lot of discipline and effort earns a reasonable income and can move to a better neighbourhood with hot running water and a lot less crime. He won't ever be rich but he might be a lot better off then his current situation. (There's no welfare state in the world of dating)

Similarly sexual frustrated average looking young man needs to stop dreaming of banging victoria secret models are instead try and meet similarly average looking women. He's trying to play in the premier league when he should realistically aim for the 5 a side match down the road.

[okumurahata]

Absolutely. The bottom 80% of male humans are not like the elephant seals and aren't doomed to permanent inceldom. They just have to work harder at it and set realistic goals.

To make an economic analogy, a young man living in the slums of Sao Paolo might dream of joining the rich Brazilian elite. Doubtless a few occasionally do but it's more achievable and realistic that he learns some useful skills and with a lot of discipline and effort earns a reasonable income and can move to a better neighbourhood with hot running water and a lot less crime. He won't ever be rich but he might be a lot better off then his current situation. (There's no welfare state in the world of dating)

Similarly sexual frustrated average looking young man needs to stop dreaming of banging victoria secret models are instead try and meet similarly average looking women. He's trying to play in the premier league when he should realistically aim for the 5 a side match down the road.

Indeed, if you’re not keen on joining the top ranks, you tend to lower your expectations. It’s akin to adopting a strategy of cutting expenses rather than striving for higher earnings.

[Jin+Guice]

@chenda and @okumurahata: I pretty much totally disagree.

It's easy to be in the top 20% of men because almost no one is trying. Men aren't taught what women like or want. 77% of adult men in America* are obese or overweight.

*Caveat: I'm talking about America. Not sure how it works other places, but my guess is it's likely similar?

I firmly believe anyone can be attractive. It's also not necessary to be REALLY attractive to successfully date, marry or heaux it up. So while it is easy to be in the top 20% (especially for ERE people), it is not necessary. Genetics may prevent many from becoming movie stars, but not from attracting suitable mates.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something? Is the assumption that the men are trying to sleep with the most attractive women they have ever met? I'm assuming their goal is to sleep with/ date/ marry someone they desire, which should make the pool of potential people very big. I agree that it is somewhat more difficult to sleep with the most attractive women.

Dating is not like a market because it is not dominated by efficiency. If you want to compete in the stock market, you have a lot of really smart people trying to do the same thing. Your average performance matters a lot. In dating your competition is much much lower because everyone has terrible information and not everyone is trying to do the same thing. In dating average performance is much less important than outlier performance. The day you meet someone you will marry is an outlier day. The day you have sex with a new person is an outlier day.

Aside from the fact that it is easy to get into the top 20% of attractiveness if you are a man, there is a ton of leverage to be had. Most men have terrible social/ emotional skills. It should again be easy to get into the top 20% (actually I think it is easy to get into the top 10%). Sex/ dating/ romance is highly emotional and people are famously bad at predicting what they want or will be attracted to. I can't tell you the number of people (myself included) who have described to me what they are looking for only to end up with almost the polar opposite of that. Doing something that is highly emotional, where most people are lying to themselves/ not self-aware and only outlier performance matters means there is a HUGE amount of leverage/ deviation from the average.

I'm arguing that the dating scene for men (and likely women) is like living on $10k a year. It's not hard except that everyone around you is giving you bad information about how it's impossible and there aren't a lot of examples to follow.

[chenda]

@Jim&Guice - You make some valid points, market inefficiency such as through obesity did not occur to me but is kinda obvious when you point it out.

As I was reading your post there was a man and women in the street outside, the man was trying to flirt with her in the most cringe making way possible and she quickly made her excuses and scurried off. I wanted to lean out of my bedroom window and 'You're doing it all wrong hun, stop sounding so desperate and needy!'

Autistic spectrum disorders are probably the biggest obstacle for many men.

[ertyu]

Amen. This is the truth and the post that can end all discussion.

I think many cishet guys aim for the top looking women without being a top looker themselves (many don't realize they do so, their idea of "women" is very much limited to the young, thin, and pretty, and heavily skewed by what they can see in porn. This in addition to the point chenda made, having an inflated self-image [inflated self-image also applies to social and emotional skills, see "but I'm a nice guy"]). They then don't approach interactions with potential partners with a, "oh cool, a new person, I wonder if they're fun, and if we hit it off, even better" attitude, they approach with a "what theater do I need to perform in order to persuade this person to sleep with me" attitude on a firm foundation of inferiority complex. They come across as neurotic and psychologically maladjusted - which they are - so any person approaching dating with a "I wonder if they're fun" mindset will steer way clear. The people who will -not- steer clear are those who smell the blood in the water and realize this is someone whose insecurities and lack of skill makes them easy to use - either for ego kicks, or materially.

Such insecure guys then develop hateful attitudes to women - they're hateful hoes, only in it to use you/for the ego validation - yes, boo, the ones you dealt with almost certainly were. These attitudes then bleed through in the neuroticism they display when they hit on new partners and even further alienate psychologically well-adjusted partners. The guy then feels even more like an insecure loser and often layers on some sort of biologically deterministic idea of how they're not "alpha" or their jaw isn't square enough or whatever.

This entire psychological bullshit must go. In its entirety. Read again what J+G said above. He listed the exact skills you need. Idk, maybe it's easy for me to say as a conventionally unattractive dude w low libido who doesn't give a f about conventional attractiveness in partners - or that they necessarily identify as any particular gender for that matter - but yeah.

[ebast]

...and he said that I would be some kind of Subaru...

Mild-mannered on the streets but a boxer under the bonnet--and secretly never far from blowing a gasket or two.

[mountainFrugal]

This seems very relevant from @Jin+Guices Male Fashion Thread: viewtopic.php?t=10092

I know all male forum members have such monstrous intellects coupled with such bold personalities that no one could possibly care or even notice what they're wearing, but, in the interest of science, just try trying once.

This is a forum of personal/individual responsibility. Buck up.

[okumurahata]

It's easy to be in the top 20% of men because almost no one is trying. Men aren't taught what women like or want. 77% of adult men in America* are obese or overweight.

You seem to be assuming that you fall within the top 20%. When you’re at the top, it might seem easy to stay there, but someone in the bottom may exert significant effort and finds it challenging to rise.

Take being slim as an example; you find it easy, but 77% of obese adults don’t share that view, or else they wouldn’t be struggling with their weight.

Intrinsic difficulties arise in attaining top 20% status, as it’s defined as the top 20% by nature. Consider that someone in the top 1% could apply the same perspective to you. With effort, they might say you could reach the top 1% (or that almost no one is trying).

Of course, finding a partner is possible if you’re not in the top 20%, but being at the bottom does decrease your odds, as 80% of women tend to choose from the top 20% men.

If women have the ability to choose, they will swipe right for their perceived top 20%. If they aren’t fortunate, they may widen the range of their filter (or decide to stay single). On the other hand, men tend to have a broader filter by default and are more inclined to swipe right more easily.

[jacob]

It's easy to be in the top 20% of men because almost no one is trying.

I believe that being in the top 20% of almost anything is possible, but I also think it requires so much effort that people don't find it worthwhile compared to spending their effort on other things despite how much they're complaining. For example, getting ripped or jacked---something that will certainly work in one's favor when it comes attraction---requires on the order of one hour per day focused on hard and for most people unpleasant exercise (I include setting up, cooling down,... in the time) every day. I think the reason most people don't do this is that they simply do not find it worthwhile compared to spending an hour on something else. For women it may include spending much time every morning in front of the mirror in order to climb the percentiles over those who don't. Perhaps, sleeping an extra 30 minutes is preferred.

This even goes for something simple as paying attention to what one eats. People want to be thin but many want to eat whatever tastes "sooo gooood" even more. This is the trope about "you're so thin that you don't need to watch what you're eating", says the fat person. "It is precisely because I watch what I eat that I'm thin", says the thin person.

I'm basically repeating the "nerds are unpopular, because they'd rather be smart"-thesis. "Doing both" is impossible for obvious reasons. For example, one can not both sleep late and get up early to work on being attractive.

Overall, this displays attribution bias. People who put in the effort takes credit for their success. People who haven't blames society for their failure.

I suspect that "becoming attractive" is also a somewhat complex skill to learn and that the required effort is underestimated---especially by those who are unconsciously competent at it. There's a makeover show called "Queer Eye" which does an attractiveness-type makeover on some candidate each episode. Each of the five experts handles a different aspect: clothes, cooking, therapy/attitude, interior decorating, and hair/beauty-stuff. While not rocket science, the complete package is also not something that most people can come up with on their own, nor at the level where everybody has a friend who knows how all of this works. There's a lot of experiential knowledge in terms of what works well, hence the professionals. I'm curious as to whether the candidates regress after the show. Does one need scaffolding to maintain attractiveness before internalizing it?

[chenda]

I suspect that "becoming attractive" is also a somewhat complex skill to learn and that the required effort is underestimated---especially by those who are unconsciously competent at it.

I would agree but we have to be cautious with just-world fallacies, that effort always = results. A man with asperger's syndrome for example, or suffering from facial disfigurement, it's unlikely to ever be able to reach the top 20% (though he still might be able to improve a lot relative to his current position) Human agency is limited and variable. Same way IQ bell curve distribution invariably impacts human agency. Though I suspect there is little correlation between IQ and sexual attractiveness for either gender.

[ertyu]

Wait how did we take it as a hard fact that only the top 20% of men can mate
Might be hard being top 20, as your local Gobglogabgalab I understand it, but being in the top 20% overall is not required?