The woman's guide to getting and keeping a man

[scratch]

This is a small snippet of something I've been writing for a while now, support for an idea that a woman can act in a specific way that will either help her get a guy, or at the very least, do nothing to harm her chances with him. It's in something of a how-to format, and has a fairly straightforward application here. Agree, disagree, criticize, whatever:

 

III. What kind of man is a woman after?

 

a. Not all women have identical tastes. Some like taller men, others shorter men. Thin, fat, black, white – different things do it for different women. A sizeable minority of women, I’m sure, even prefer men with less money and education to men with more. However, there are two characteristics that all healthy women want in their men.

 

i. All women want their men to want them. This is fairly obvious, but needs to be said. There are tons of books out there for women (and men) on how to make someone fall in love with you, and they likely sell so well because we all want to believe that they work. Sadly, we also know that they are crap. If there isn’t an initial inkling of a spark, nothing in those retail volumes can create one. The strategy herein allows women to screen out the men who don’t want them.

 

ii. All women want confident men. Confidence is manifested in many ways, most often in the innate way one carries oneself. However, it’s rather hard to imagine that a man confident enough to win a woman’s heart isn’t confident enough to attempt to initiate a meeting or conversation. Again, this strategy encourages women to focus their attentions on men who make the first move.

 

b. To sum up, the women reading this need to ask themselves an honest question – if a man isn’t both a) interested enough and b) confident enough to approach me, especially if I make it relatively easy (see below) for him, is he really a man with whom I want to pursue a relationship? If the answer is yes, and you don’t require a man to have a modicum of interest in you as well as confidence, feel free to stop reading. My strategy may still work for you, but it isn’t something you should follow faithfully. However, if you do consider both of the above qualities vital, please continue.

 

IV. What men need, and what they don’t.

 

a. Some may interpret my message to be similar to the old tactic of “playing hard to get.” That isn’t the case at all. In fact, if you aren’t very receptive to a man’s advances, it will come across as mixed signals and drive off men who, despite the fact that they initially liked you, felt that you were trying to subtly communicate a lack of interest.

 

i. Men DO need clear signals. We don’t need to know you want to have our babies, but we do need to know that if we reach out to you we won’t be turned away. Any man with significant dating experience knows that mixed signals equate to the woman not having enough interest to want us to pursue her. When we reach out to a woman, however great or small the gesture, it’s important that the feedback we receive is positive.

 

1. Example – John asks Sally to go hiking with him. Sally isn’t a huge fan of hiking, but she goes because she wants to show John that when he asks her to spend time with him, she will accept. This should almost be intuitive – if Sally likes John very much, wouldn’t she rather do an activity she dislikes in his presence than do an activity she prefers with someone else?

 

2. Example – Mike asks Lisa to go to a baseball game Friday. Lisa dislikes baseball, so she declines. Mike is very interested in Lisa, so he comes back and asks her if she’d care to go to dinner and a movie Saturday instead, and Lisa accepts. At first blush, it appears that Lisa wins. Not only did she get a date with Mike, she got it on her terms. However, she has also planted the seed in Mike’s mind that the main reason she wants to spend time with him is not because she enjoys his company, but because he takes her to activities she enjoys. Again, men have experienced enough interactions with women to develop antennae for these qualified acceptances of dates. Mike will continue to date Lisa until he finds someone who doesn’t make him question her motives.

 

ii. Men DON’T need women to do their jobs for them. It’s important for both of you that he does the approaching and the asking out. The reasons it’s important for you are outlined above – if he isn’t interested and confident enough to risk it, he isn’t interested and confident enough to be the right man for you.

 

1. The reasons that it’s important for him are fairly primal. Since the beginning of human behavior, it has fallen upon the man to “get” the woman. Things have changed significantly since the days of clubbing a woman over the head and dragging her back to his cave, but they haven’t been completely turned on their head. If a beautiful woman walks up to a man, buys him a drink and asks him out, he’ll be thrilled. However, he’ll also feel a little empty, like he didn’t do something he was supposed to.

 

2. As much as we hate to admit it, men do want a bit of a challenge. While mixed signals are highly off-putting, there is no substitute for the thrill of the chase. When there is a genuine interest in a woman, the dating ritual of calling, planning and executing a thoughtful and entertaining evening isn’t a chore, but a labor of love. Don’t feel that if you let a guy make all the plans, you’re being lazy and unappreciative. Chances are he enjoys making them as much as you enjoy letting him.

 

V. The strategy – Say Yes

 

a. What is the purpose of all this background information? Simply to lay the foundation for a principle that would otherwise appear too simple to work. Ladies, all you have to do is say “yes.” Broken down into steps, it operates as follows:

 

i. Do not approach a man. If he doesn’t approach you, it’s because he’s either not interested or not confident. Accept that any man who doesn’t approach you is just not the one for you.

 

ii. When he does approach, provide positive feedback. This should really go without saying; when someone in whom you’re interested opens a conversation with you, you are going to respond positively. Smile, laugh, and touch his arm – the usual drill. Just don’t be purposely rude or defensive, or otherwise provide mixed signals. If you are in a bad mood due to something completely unrelated to him, be sure not to let that negative attitude make him feel unwanted.

 

iii. As long as he continues to make (non-sexual) advances, say “yes.”

1. Can I buy you a drink? YES

2. May I have your number? YES

3. How about dinner Tuesday? YES

4. You like Italian food? YES

5. Shall we go for a walk? YES

6. Would you like to get together again? YES

 

iv. By not initiating much, but happily accepting his advances, you create a situation where he is able to go through the pursuit and conquest ritual. You are seen as a challenge, but one with a good attitude. If a man plans a romantic evening or graces you with a thoughtful gesture, a sincere “thank you” is all the reciprocation he requires, or desires.

 

v. The strategy sounds easy, and it is, in theory. But in practice, it’s hard, very hard. It takes more discipline than most people are able to bring to bear, because when we like someone we want to call them, talk to them and see them all the time. Moreover, it’s counterintuitive – when we like someone, we think it helps to tell them and show them as demonstratively as possible. After all, how will he know you’re really interested if you don’t tell him?

 

1. There is no getting around the fact that it can be frustrating to leave the ball in the man’s court. Sometimes you have to force yourself away from the phone, or from passing by someplace he hangs out. But never forget that there is no set of circumstances where you’re more likely to end up dating if you pursue him than if you just say yes. This bears repetition – there is never a time where actively courting a man will get you where you want to be with him unless just saying yes would have yielded the same result. However, it is often the case that a man is more likely to develop a relationship with a woman who lets him set the pace, even if he was unsure of how things would develop at first. This is the very definition of Pareto Efficiency – two choices, one of which is superior 100% of the time. Hopefully it will be easier to muster the discipline to wait for him to act if you know it is absolutely the best way to win him over. Although it won’t work every time, it will never fail when another strategy would have worked.

 

2. To the question at the end of paragraph v. above- it doesn’t matter if he knows you’re interested, at least at first. The critical point is that he is interested. Recall that we want to screen men out on the basis of them not having an initial interest. If your body language indicates that you are enjoying his company, and whatever advances he does make are met with acceptance, those are plenty of signals to let him know. If that’s not enough, it’s not because you didn’t do your part. It’s because he wasn’t interested, or had so little confidence that he wouldn’t have been able to hold your interest anyway.

[lbj123]

Thanks! That definitely makes sense, though you're saying you should always always be available any time the guy asks you for plans?

[Tony T]

Are you believing this post is ALREADY on Google? No wonder Google's stock is going to the moon!

[scratch]

Thanks! That definitely makes sense, though you're saying you should always always be available any time the guy asks you for plans?

 

No - that's my fault for only including a part of what I wrote. Here's what I say about that:

 

VI. When you need to break the pattern

 

a. Of course, one cannot always say yes. If a man asks you to have dinner on the night of your parent’s 25th anniversary, it’s completely reasonable that you decline his invitation. Frankly, if you have any commitment that is important to you, it’s okay to turn him down for the time he suggests. However, this does require you to be more proactive than otherwise advised.

 

i. Make it a point to let him know you would have liked to have joined him, but for your prior commitment.

 

ii. Suggest he accompany you to the engagement, if appropriate. If not, ask if he’d like to get together before or after, if possible. If not, suggest an alternative day for the dinner, and be flexible.

 

iii. The main point is that you need to make him comfortable that you aren’t sending mixed signals. When you accept his invitations, you send clear signals. When you don’t accept, and don’t supply accompanying evidence that you wanted to accept, that’s a mixed signal. An experienced, desirable man will look elsewhere when confronted by mixed signals.

 

b. The strategy applies only when a guy asks you to do things with him, not for him. Over the first few months of the relationship, you shouldn’t be doing his laundry or errands with any sort of regularity, just as he shouldn’t be doing yours. Nor should either of you be helping the other financially. If a man asks for money or services early on (I shouldn’t have to note this, but sex is not a service), be very careful about pursuing a relationship with him. Note that this isn’t a sexist proposition, in that it would be okay for a woman to ask for these things; this guide is written for women, and is therefore concerned with how they should interpret the behavior of men, not vice versa.

[lbj123]

Scratch, do you have any thoughts on the post I submitted this morning "He ended it but still seems interested"??

[scratch]

Scratch, do you have any thoughts on the post I submitted this morning "He ended it but still seems interested"??

 

I'll make you a deal - rewrite it with distinct paragraphs and I promise to reply.

[stepheine]

I understand what you are saying and I was dating a guy who wanted to set the pace and then I became a little over bearing and now he has asked me for space. He said he needs space because of his job, he got laid off, but I have not heard from him in 5 days. I do not know if I will ever hear from him again. I was just wondering if you have any insight about this. If this is his way of letting me down easy or if it is about his job.

[scratch]

I understand what you are saying and I was dating a guy who wanted to set the pace and then I became a little over bearing and now he has asked me for space. He said he needs space because of his job, he got laid off, but I have not heard from him in 5 days. I do not know if I will ever hear from him again. I was just wondering if you have any insight about this. If this is his way of letting me down easy or if it is about his job.

 

I haven't the slightest clue. All I can tell you is that by not contacting him, and waiting for him to contact you, it's impossible to hurt whatever chances you still have with him.

[lbj123]

I replied to my own post and put the message into paragraphs in the post below it. THANK YOU!!

[lindya]

I'm glad you posted this, because it's an interesting piece. There's a lot that I agree with in it. Having set approaches to the business of dating/romance makes things easier. Thinking in terms of "this guy will call me if he's interested. If he doesn't call, I don't need to spend time worrying about what to do, or whether I did something wrong. It's just that he wasn't that interested" reduces confusion and creates certainty. Certainty helps people move on more quickly.

 

I think that last part is the one that makes it difficult, because the ego will marshall pretty much all its defences to battle against the "he's not interested" bit. "He's a player/bastard" etc is a more tempting reason to grab onto...but it also encourages "I'm a victim" thinking.

 

It's healthier - liberating in the long term - to simply accept that a particular guy wasn't particularly interested (or as another poster here is fond of quoting "just wasn't that into you") than it is to get trapped into a spiral of "men just don't treat me right" thinking. That's where I definitely agree with your theory.

 

A lot of the female behaviour and responses you've advocated are passive to a degree that might keep a dating situation between a strongly dominant male and a very passive woman ticking along nicely, but I'm not sure many people fall quite so firmly into one of those two categories. It's important for people to be true to themselves - and that goes for women every bit as much as it goes for men. Arguably, it's dishonest and unethical for a woman to present herself as being that passive if she's only doing it for the sake of being deemed dateworthy and attractive by a guy she likes.

 

Example – Mike asks Lisa to go to a baseball game Friday. Lisa dislikes baseball, so she declines. Mike is very interested in Lisa, so he comes back and asks her if she’d care to go to dinner and a movie Saturday instead, and Lisa accepts. At first blush, it appears that Lisa wins. Not only did she get a date with Mike, she got it on her terms. However, she has also planted the seed in Mike’s mind that the main reason she wants to spend time with him is not because she enjoys his company, but because he takes her to activities she enjoys. Again, men have experienced enough interactions with women to develop antennae for these qualified acceptances of dates. Mike will continue to date Lisa until he finds someone who doesn’t make him question her motives.

 

Mike asks Lisa to go to a baseball game Friday. Lisa can't stand baseball, but she likes Mike and doesn't want to offend him...so she says "that would be great. I'd really enjoy that." Mike's delighted that he's met a woman who not only likes him, but also seems to share his interests. They attend several more baseball games together. Several months later they argue. She throws in his face the fact that they always seem to do the stuff he likes doing. "I'm tired of freezing my ass off at baseball games just to keep you happy. Especially as you don't even seem to appreciate it." He's bewildered. "I thought you liked baseball..." He feels lied to and let down.

 

What kind of compromise would allow both people to hang on to their integrity here? Lisa could say "I've got to admit that I'm not a major fan of baseball, but I would like to see you again. Who knows. Maybe by the end of the game I'll be converted."

 

There's a level of unenthusiasm/qualification in that response that Mike may be put off by...and knowing that Lisa probably isn't enjoying the game very much might spoil his own enjoyment of it on the date. Possibly his better bet would be to look for a woman who has more in common, activities-wise, with him...but that has to be balanced against how much he likes Lisa.

 

You could perceive Lisa's rejection of the baseball date as a sign that she's more interested in the activity than in Mike himself. Or you could question whether that's just a bit of negative thinking on Mike's part coming to the fore. "She doesn't like me for me. She only wants what she can get out of me by way of activities she finds fun."

[Kamille]

I think you raise a lot of valid points Scratch.

 

But I agree with Lindya about the baseball example. Mostly because if a guy invited me to a monster truck rallye as a first date, my interest in him might actually drop. In part because I would assume we have little in common, but mostly because I would find it gauche of him to not show he thought of me -and what I might or might not find interesting- in picking out an activity for the date.

 

What's more important then finding a man, is finding a man who is ready to share his life with someone.

 

Of course, IRL, most men actually 'check' activity interests levels before asking a woman out to a baseball game or a wrestling match.

[CD111]

Lindya and Kamille, great points. I totally agree.

[scratch]

A lot of the female behavior and responses you've advocated are passive to a degree that might keep a dating situation between a strongly dominant male and a very passive woman ticking along nicely, but I'm not sure many people fall quite so firmly into one of those two categories.

 

Where you use the terms dominant and passive, given the objectives of the thread it's more helpful to think of it as letting men be men, and women be women. That phrasing has similarities of a passive/dominant dynamic, but only superficial ones unrelated to one party taking advantage of the other.

 

It's important for people to be true to themselves - and that goes for women every bit as much as it goes for men. Arguably, it's dishonest and unethical for a woman to present herself as being that passive if she's only doing it for the sake of being deemed dateworthy and attractive by a guy she likes.

 

Your point about being true to oneself is thoroughly valid. All else equal, a person who does this is going to be happier, healthier and have better relationships than one who does not. If it feels unethical or dishonest to let a man court you while merely showing genuine appreciation, then you probably shouldn't do it.

 

However, what are the chances that a woman will want to be more proactive in order to be true to herself? Very small, compared to the chances that she'll want to be more proactive in hopes of winning the guy. All my thesis is focused on is creating the most favorable odds possible.

 

What kind of compromise would allow both people to hang on to their integrity here? Lisa could say "I've got to admit that I'm not a major fan of baseball, but I would like to see you again. Who knows. Maybe by the end of the game I'll be converted."

 

This is a great example of her declining an invite, but in a proactive way. It dovetails nicely with my wedding anniversary example.

 

There's a level of unenthusiasm/qualification in that response that Mike may be put off by...and knowing that Lisa probably isn't enjoying the game very much might spoil his own enjoyment of it on the date. Possibly his better bet would be to look for a woman who has more in common, activities-wise, with him...but that has to be balanced against how much he likes Lisa.

 

Perhaps if Mike and Lisa have too many divergent interests, he won't like her. That has no bearing on whether her being agreeable when she can, and being proactive when she cannot be both agreeable and honest, remains the best strategy.

 

You could perceive Lisa's rejection of the baseball date as a sign that she's more interested in the activity than in Mike himself. Or you could question whether that's just a bit of negative thinking on Mike's part coming to the fore. "She doesn't like me for me. She only wants what she can get out of me by way of activities she finds fun."

 

The degree to which Mike will think negatively has a good deal to do with how Lisa explains her reason for declining. I think your sample explanation above was excellent.

 

If a guy invited me to a monster truck rallye as a first date, my interest in him might actually drop. In part because I would assume we have little in common, but mostly because I would find it gauche of him to not show he thought of me -and what I might or might not find interesting- in picking out an activity for the date.

 

I agree. However, a woman's interest in a man is really not the subject here, primarily because I'm not remotely qualified to speak on it.

[KarmaSutra]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . . And then this:

V. The strategy – Say Yes

 

a. What is the purpose of all this background information? Simply to lay the foundation for a principle that would otherwise appear too simple to work. Ladies, all you have to do is say “yes.” Broken down into steps, it operates as follows:

 

i. Do not approach a man. If he doesn’t approach you, it’s because he’s either not interested or not confident. Accept that any man who doesn’t approach you is just not the one for you.

 

This is the only part of this drivel which has a shread of truth.

 

ii. When he does approach, provide positive feedback. This should really go without saying; when someone in whom you’re interested opens a conversation with you, you are going to respond positively. Smile, laugh, and touch his arm – the usual drill. Just don’t be purposely rude or defensive, or otherwise provide mixed signals. If you are in a bad mood due to something completely unrelated to him, be sure not to let that negative attitude make him feel unwanted.

 

It's already been termed: Manners and civility. Nothing new here, let's move on.

 

iii. As long as he continues to make (non-sexual) advances, say “yes.”

1. Can I buy you a drink? YES (I'll sell you my attention because that's all it's worth)

2. May I have your number? YES ( Only if you pay for it though.)

3. How about dinner Tuesday? YES (Food for my attention and approval, how novel.)

4. You like Italian food? YES (Anything to put my status above yours will do.)

5. Shall we go for a walk? YES (As long as my ego is stroked and gratified.)

6. Would you like to get together again? YES (I'll let you think that we will unless you buy me more stuff or promise me more lavished attention.)

 

iv. By not initiating much, but happily accepting his advances, you create a situation where he is able to go through the pursuit and conquest ritual. You are seen as a challenge, but one with a good attitude. If a man plans a romantic evening or graces you with a thoughtful gesture, a sincere “thank you” is all the reciprocation he requires, or desires.

 

This is pure crap and you know it. These nice guy advances are for manipulating your sense of self worth. This is the feminine schema for ego placation. In the meantime there is zero attraction to this idiot at all. He's as important to her as the napkin on the floor.

 

v. The strategy sounds easy, and it is, in theory. But in practice, it’s hard, very hard. It takes more discipline than most people are able to bring to bear, because when we like someone we want to call them, talk to them and see them all the time. Moreover, it’s counterintuitive – when we like someone, we think it helps to tell them and show them as demonstratively as possible. After all, how will he know you’re really interested if you don’t tell him?

 

Overtly telling someone you like them is giving away your power so wheedle and prevaricate them in order to manipulate the situation, that's the best answer you can come up with? Lie? It's childish and critically counterintuitive to believe such nonsense much less practice it.

 

1. There is no getting around the fact that it can be frustrating to leave the ball in the man’s court. Sometimes you have to force yourself away from the phone, or from passing by someplace he hangs out. But never forget that there is no set of circumstances where you’re more likely to end up dating if you pursue him than if you just say yes. This bears repetition – there is never a time where actively courting a man will get you where you want to be with him unless just saying yes would have yielded the same result. However, it is often the case that a man is more likely to develop a relationship with a woman who lets him set the pace, even if he was unsure of how things would develop at first. This is the very definition of Pareto Efficiency – two choices, one of which is superior 100% of the time. Hopefully it will be easier to muster the discipline to wait for him to act if you know it is absolutely the best way to win him over. Although it won’t work every time, it will never fail when another strategy would have worked.

 

In a nutshell this means it is perfectly fine to string a man along and play bull***** games in order to GET WHAT YOU WANT FROM HIM.

 

Women truly know that attraction is not based on what a man can bring home from work, rather it's the emotional and psychological effect his personality and, most importantly, the absolute confidence in his own masculinity and the respect of his boundaries are what make him alluring and irresistable.

 

Though a housewife is content with her husband/provider it is not necessary that she be attracted to him in order to keep the facade believable. She will drop everything if she finds the above qualities in the mailman or the pool guy and do everything in her power to qualify herself for his attention.

 

This is irrefutable.

[NYCHottie]

LMAO! You need to find another hobby. Like take up painting, or perhaps macrame. Because you suck at writing and at giving dating advice. maybe when you get out of the 1950s youll get that. Trash!

 

As Karma said - its pure drivel.

[scratch]

LMAO! You need to find another hobby. Like take up painting, or perhaps macrame. Because you suck at writing and at giving dating advice. maybe when you get out of the 1950s youll get that. Trash!

 

As Karma said - its pure drivel.

 

Perhaps you can be more specific. Do you agree with the above posters that it goes too far in demanding female passivity? Is it really that anachronistic to think courtship isn't dead? How would you improve upon my advice to bolster a woman's chances of getting and keeping a man?

[scratch]

This is pure crap and you know it. These nice guy advances are for manipulating your sense of self worth. This is the feminine schema for ego placation. In the meantime there is zero attraction to this idiot at all. He's as important to her as the napkin on the floor.

 

Overtly telling someone you like them is giving away your power so wheedle and prevaricate them in order to manipulate the situation, that's the best answer you can come up with? Lie? It's childish and critically counterintuitive to believe such nonsense much less practice it.

 

In a nutshell this means it is perfectly fine to string a man along and play bull***** games in order to GET WHAT YOU WANT FROM HIM.

 

Women truly know that attraction is not based on what a man can bring home from work, rather it's the emotional and psychological effect his personality and, most importantly, the absolute confidence in his own masculinity and the respect of his boundaries are what make him alluring and irresistable.

 

Though a housewife is content with her husband/provider it is not necessary that she be attracted to him in order to keep the facade believable. She will drop everything if she finds the above qualities in the mailman or the pool guy and do everything in her power to qualify herself for his attention.

 

This is irrefutable.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the points you raise above, except for the alacrity with which you raise some of them, but they seem geared to advise men in avoiding having women take advantage of them. My thesis here is designed to assist a completely different segment of the dating population.

 

Did I misunderstand your interpretation of what I wrote, or do you feel that "the emotional and psychological effect his personality and, most importantly, the absolute confidence in his own masculinity and the respect of his boundaries" is the key to a woman winning over a man?

 

Methinks perhaps the lady doth protest too much.

[Trialbyfire]

scratch, I see what you're trying to say. While I, as a woman, do like alpha males with sufficient confidence to initiate, wouldn't it be better to just recommend that people stop playing games. If you like the girl, ask her out. If she likes you, she'll accept. Act like yourself and more importantly, appreciate each other for who you are, not be negative about who you're not.

[scratch]

scratch, I see what you're trying to say. While I, as a woman, do like alpha males with sufficient confidence to initiate, wouldn't it be better to just recommend that people stop playing games. If you like the girl, ask her out. If she likes you, she'll accept. Act like yourself and more importantly, appreciate each other for who you are, not be negative about who you're not.

 

People often remark that they "don't play games" or "hate games." I think this is a meaningless platitude, along with concepts of "total honesty" and "pure selflessness."

 

Although I believe that gamesmanship is part of human socialization, I agree with many of your other points. Being appreciative can't steer you wrong. However, if you are a guy and being yourself entails crippling shyness and an inability to approach women, it'll make life less pleasant. Similarly, if you're a female and being yourself means that you lack the patience to allow a man to court you, it will hurt.

 

Please note my reply to Lindya. Do women act aggressively (or more aggressively than I suggest) because they are being true to themselves, or because they think that's what will get them to the point they want to be with the guy?

[sb129]

Act like yourself and more importantly, appreciate each other for who you are, not be negative about who you're not.

This is working for me.

 

Got a ring on my finger to prove it.

[lindya]

Your point about being true to oneself is thoroughly valid. All else equal, a person who does this is going to be happier, healthier and have better relationships than one who does not. If it feels unethical or dishonest to let a man court you while merely showing genuine appreciation, then you probably shouldn't do it.

 

Showing genuine appreciation is never unethical or dishonest. Dishonesty, for me, would involve expressing fake appreciation for things that weren't to your taste, simply to keep the guy interested....but you got that with the baseball example.

 

Overtly telling someone you like them is giving away your power so wheedle and prevaricate them in order to manipulate the situation, that's the best answer you can come up with? Lie? It's childish and critically counterintuitive to believe such nonsense much less practice it.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree that not overtly telling a guy you like him is manipulative and childish. These messages can be given in a subtle form. Ambiguity can often result from subtle "I like you" messages...but is that really such a bad thing? Is it dishonest to be subtle rather than direct? Maybe it is, but I'd argue that it's more down to personal taste - and, often, cultural backgrounds.

 

Rather than being a horrible dishonest thing, you could argue that the subtle approach means both people have time to figure out how they're feeling about the other person without feeling under pressure to reciprocate direct expressions of affection. It prevents one party being misled by the other's expression of feelings that may seem very strong and genuine today, but could pass quickly and unexpectedly.

 

For many people the art of flirtation involves ambiguous messages being passed back and forth, and an element of uncertainty about feelings and intentions. Some people enjoy that, others regard it as game-playing and need very direct and upfront messages from the beginning. As an extreme example, it could be downright cruel to flirt ambiguously with someone who had Asperger's Syndrome and required very direct, literal messages. That doesn't mean that indirect, subtle messages are always a bad thing. You have to consider who you're dealing with, really, and how tuned in they are to/appreciative of that approach.

 

I suspect most people swither between the two...enjoying and participating in the flirtation for as long as they believe it's leading to something good for them, then becoming irate, indignant and attached to the notion of "not playing games" when a flirtation that at one point they had great fun with doesn't pan out as they hoped it would.

[Trialbyfire]

People often remark that they "don't play games" or "hate games." I think this is a meaningless platitude, along with concepts of "total honesty" and "pure selflessness."

Conceptually, at least to me, playing games means that you're not yourself, pretending to be someone else, just to "get" someone. That's useless to me as a woman. If you haven't got what it takes to intrigue me upfront because of who you are, we would be the wrong fit in the long run. It doesn't mean you can't enjoy the art of flirtation. I just don't like little boy/little girl games. Either you're interested or you can go back to playing with your legos in the corner. Keep in mind I'm using all generalized "yous".

Although I believe that gamesmanship is part of human socialization, I agree with many of your other points. Being appreciative can't steer you wrong. However, if you are a guy and being yourself entails crippling shyness and an inability to approach women, it'll make life less pleasant. Similarly, if you're a female and being yourself means that you lack the patience to allow a man to court you, it will hurt.

If a guy is that shy, he needs to work on himself, not for whomever he's attempting to "attain" but who he needs to be, to be successful in his life in general. Self-confidence is a belief in oneself, that you feel good about yourself. Myself personally, I need to be courted. A guy might as well become Rip Van Winkle, if he was waiting for me to court him.

Please note my reply to Lindya. Do women act aggressively (or more aggressively than I suggest) because they are being true to themselves, or because they think that's what will get them to the point they want to be with the guy?

I'm guessing it's a combination of the two. A more assertive female who knows what she wants and isn't afraid to go get it.

[scratch]

Conceptually, at least to me, playing games means that you're not yourself, pretending to be someone else, just to "get" someone. That's useless to me as a woman. If you haven't got what it takes to intrigue me upfront because of who you are, we would be the wrong fit in the long run. It doesn't mean you can't enjoy the art of flirtation. I just don't like little boy/little girl games. Either you're interested or you can go back to playing with your legos in the corner. Keep in mind I'm using all generalized "yous".

 

I'm certainly not advocating, in this thread, that men lie about who they are or be less than forthright. In this thread, I'm not advocating anything at all with regard to the behavior of men.

 

Again, for women I'm not advocating passivity nearly as much as patience.

 

I'm guessing it's a combination of the two. A more assertive female who knows what she wants and isn't afraid to go get it.

 

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree here. Where you see a woman who isn't afraid to go get it, I see one who isn't patient enough to wait for it. The leap of faith comes in here; I'm asking the reader to trust my claim that patience will get you everything that aggression will.

[sb129]

"the Reader"??

[Sunblast]

I don't understand. OP said that women want men who show interest in them. But isn't that easy, and therefore not interesting? Isn't a challenge sexier? This looks like a discrepancy, which suggests that one of the premises here is wrong.