Author TheFonz Posted March 30, 2008 Author Posted March 30, 2008 (edited) What you fail to see is that it's not playing hard to get. I am hard to get. If a guy has no patience, that's his choice. There's never a shortage of men in my life. But what about that what happened with you and that goodlooking guy on vacation at the beach or the other at the bar? J/k sort of. The Fonz knows. OK so you are really are hard to get, but my point is do you really want a guy that is willing to hang around and keep trying no matter how you treat him? I'm going to say no. So the smart guy is going to try a little for some time with you, while he's getting it from other girls and when you finally give in, nothing has changed. He might just as likely resented all the effort and run anyway. There's nothing wrong with being hard to get, but being hard to get to ,more exactly playing hard to get (to me they are the same thing) isn't the best way to determine if a guy is quality or wants you for more than a short time fling. Is it really that hard for a girl to determine quality and genuine interest without games? Here's a hint to what I'm getting at: the guy that dutifully plays along with a girl's hard to getness rarely gets her. Edited March 30, 2008 by TheFonz
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 But what about that what happened with you and that goodlooking guy on vacation at the beach or the other at the bar? J/k sort of. The Fonz knows. OK so you are really are hard to get, but my point is do you really want a guy that is willing to hang around and keep trying no matter how you treat him? I'm going to say no. So the smart guy is going to try a little for some time with you, while he's getting it from other girls and when you finally give in, nothing has changed. He might just as likely resented all the effort and run anyway. There's nothing wrong with being hard to get, but being hard to get to ,more exactly playing hard to get (to me they are the same thing) isn't the best way to determine if a guy is quality or wants you for more than a short time fling. Is it really that hard for a girl to determine quality and genuine interest without games? Here's a hint to what I'm getting at: the guy that dutifully plays along with a girl's hard to getness rarely gets her. Firstly, I treat my men well, regardless. Lastly, guess what, wrong again. I have great respect for a man who is capable of self-control, who wants to allow both of us, to get to know each other better, for reasons of compatibility. The ones who waited longest, until compatibility was certain, were the ones who finally made the kill...
Author TheFonz Posted March 30, 2008 Author Posted March 30, 2008 Body language and the way she looks at you. I can always tell if a guy is interested in me. True, but let's leave aside the fact that women can read body language better than most men can, except for me of course, and plus that men are typically more obvious with their body language, again except or me. Let's also leave aside that bodylanguage interpretation is an art and both the sender and recieve can be miscommunicating for whatever reasons. My point is a woman's body can be saying yes, but her playbook is telling her no. Or maybe, as a form of "intentional" communication her body language is saying yes but her playbook is saying "yes" but her playbook is really only saying yes to attention but no hook up. The only way to know for sure is by actions. But you bring up a good point outside of actions body language is more reliable than a person words. And if a woman's actions don't in a timely manner match her body language then I know she's playing games.
Author TheFonz Posted March 30, 2008 Author Posted March 30, 2008 . The ones who waited longest, until compatibility was certain, were the ones who finally made the kill... So there's no poor guys still waiting in vain for you? I feel sorry for them in a way because they don't know better.
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 So there's no poor guys still waiting in vain for you? I feel sorry for them in a way because they don't know better. They know the score.
Author TheFonz Posted March 30, 2008 Author Posted March 30, 2008 Exactly! If a girl likes you, don’t play games. She’s yours. There are a lot less mind-games with secure girls. Insecure girls can get flaky, they crave attention, then when they get it they back off and it's all one big hassle. So even though it's easier to "game" insecure girls, the more secure ones are much less of a headache to deal with. Secure girls know what they want and know what they are worth. They don't give a crap about some guy ignoring them, so the ideal way to deal with them is to drop the games altogether. Make your interest known, then ask her out. The most important thing is that you need to be secure in yourself and have something genuine to offer her so that she can respect you. Good point. Girls who play games are insecure girls. Either that or they like attention and don't care who gets hurts in the process. Either way it's a warning sign to beware of.
Author TheFonz Posted March 30, 2008 Author Posted March 30, 2008 They know the score. No, they truely don't know the score or they would've never allowed themselves to be gamed into the postion that they are in. And even if they do know the score, they didn't protect their heart and listen to guys like The Fonz and walk away before it was too late to do so painlessly. Moral of the story: If a girl doesn't "put out" in a reasonable amount of time, she neevr will. Continuing to be her "friend" just further cements this outcome.
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 No, they truely don't know the score or they would've never allowed themselves to be gamed into the postion that they are in. And even if they do know the score, they didn't protect their heart and listen to guys like The Fonz and walk away before it was too late to do so painlessly. Moral of the story: If a girl doesn't "put out" in a reasonable amount of time, she neevr will. Continuing to be her "friend" just further cements this outcome. Wrong again but okay... You can call it a game, I call it having sufficient respect for myself, that I don't need to put out, to keep any man. If he chooses to walk away, that's his choice and that's okay too, which is what I was communicating to you in an earlier post. If I'm going to put out, it will be on my own cognizance, not from pressure, guilt or anything else, beyond my own fueled desire.
Author TheFonz Posted March 30, 2008 Author Posted March 30, 2008 Wrong again but okay... If I'm going to put out, it will be on my own cognizance, not from pressure, guilt or anything else, beyond my own fueled desire. And not that I would suggest it wouldn't be that way. Women rarely "put out" based on sympathy or guilt. I'm just saying don't hold back your fueled desires based on some pre-planned rule. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I bet guys who do, let's put this nicely, end up in romantic relationships with you, do so fairly quick. And the guys that "wait" never do. I bet you couldn't make me wait long j/p .
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 And not that I would suggest it wouldn't be that way. Women rarely **** based on sympathy or guilt. I'm just saying don't hold back your fueled desires based on some pre-planned rule. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I bet guys who do, let's put this nicely, end up in romantic relationships with you, do so fairly quick. And the guys that "wait" never do. I bet you couldn't make me wait long j/p . The ones who waited the longest, of which one pursued me for two years, were the ones who scored...
Author TheFonz Posted March 30, 2008 Author Posted March 30, 2008 The ones who waited the longest, of which one pursued me for two years, were the ones who scored... OK but I would never wait up 2 years to "score". Two years is a long time to wait without the chance of not scoring. There's no real intimacy during that time on the man's side without any physical intimacy. You overlooked this point a made earlier.I would not wait 2 years and not even 2 weeks. The reason is because guys that you liked the most and respected scored much sooner than 2 years. The other reason is because I know the girl most likely isn't waiting around for 2 years. Heck, maybe the guy's didn't really wait that long either, and no relationship resulted anyway, so what was the point in all this waiting? I get what I want as fast as any girl does. Fair is fair.
Nevermind Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 You're both seeing things differently, and that's okay. Fonz wants to have some fun while hoping to meet a women he can connect with. If there is no connection, then at least there was some fun to be had. TBF wants to see a connection first, because otherwise she wouldn't have that much fun to begin with. Two completely acceptable opinions, but not easy to combine. I, as one woman, tend to be like Trial. I have nothing against ONS, but am not interested in it. And if a man tries to get to know me it takes some time for me to be comfortable with him and to start to desire him. I don't feel sexual tension for a complete stranger. It's the personality that brings the sexy. 2 years sound long to me as well, but if it clicks it clicks. Where the two of you dating exclusively, Trial?
Lilach Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 I'll use a fun 'playground' metaphor: 1. She flirts, smiles, touches you, texts you from time to time, etc. Body language says... "take me". She is the kid on the playground who comes up to you and says 'tag, you're it!' and runs away. If you don't chase, she will run up to you and tag you again - as many times as it takes to get you to chase her. She'll run away just fast enough for you to catch her. 2. She acknowledges you, and perhaps spends more than a few seconds listening to what you say. She is receptive, but not reciprocal in your attentions. Body language says "I'm interested" even if her words don't. She is the one on the playground who looks like she might want to play tag, but stands aloofly on the sidelines watching to see if anyone invites her. She will probably say.. 'tag? I don't play tag', but you can tell she wants to, and will give in eventually. 3. She will not make eye contact, looks at her watch, cuts your conversations off, sighs impatiently, crosses her arms across her chest - if she smiles it is the frosty polite variety that does not reach her eyes. Her body language says "I'd rather be anywhere but here." She is the one on the playground doing her own thing, not paying attention to 'tag'. If you approach, she will turn and say "Do I LOOK like I want to play tag? Get lost." I know this is not the topic of this thread but, is this also true for men?
Curmudgeon Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 But why couldn't you have sex first and then see if the other person is open and honest over an extended period of time? That's fine if you're a proponent of casual, uncommitted, gratuitous sex just for its own sake. I'm not. I think it cheapens and depersonalizes those who so indulge and that's not the type of woman I'd want to be with. If she doesn't value herself more highly then she would be of no value to me whatsoever. As always, just one man's opinion!
Ariadne Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Oh, What is wrong with this guy? ---- ~ From reading on here and from my massive experience.. ~ Even with all my experience and success with women, I still.. ~ The problem is I'm a fast worker, sometimes too fast. ~ I gues it's natures way of weeding out the less cool guys and leaving more for me. ~ Most girls give into me pretty fast. ~ women can read body language better than most men can, except for me.. ---- Sounds like such a schmuck. I'd never be insterested in a guy like this, I'd just run the opposite direction saying "ahhhhhh" Omg. I imagine that's his problem with the "hard to get girls" that seem interested at first. The moment this guy opens his mouth he turns-off everybody around.
Ariadne Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Oh yeah, And about this question: What are the signs and differences for each of, playing hard to get, actually being hard to get, and not interested, so that I'll always know which one I'm dealing with? 1) Women don't play hard to get. They are just not interested and thinking, ok, maybe I'll give this guy a shot but I really don't care for him much. Kind of "blah". 2) Being hard to get, means if she is not interested you are never going to get. 3) Not interested: both 1 and 2.
carhill Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 (edited) What is wrong with this guy?Um, his world is a condom and he's very well hung? I'm more like the guys TBF describes. I have to have my emotions engaged first. Not an easy path in todays "I want it now" culture Edited March 30, 2008 by carhill
Ariadne Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Um, his world is a condom and he's very well hung? I'm more like the guys TBF describes. I have to have my emotions engaged first. Not an easy path in todays "I want it now" culture Maybe. Btw, I don't care to have my emotions engaged, I'd still give them sex if they persist enough. But I never fall for them. Now I don't even care for one or the other, I'm retired.
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 If we don't play hard to get you guys lose interest, fast. I'm not just talking about sex. I can't tell you how many times a guy has been flirting with me, shown interest, whatever, and as soon as I decide that maybe I like him back, he withdraws. Countless numbers of times. It's almost like you have to be somewhat of a bitch, which does not come naturally to me since I am a pretty laid-back easy going person.
Kamille Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Funny, bf and I had this very conversation yesterday. He felt I was playing hard to get when we met and I corrected: honey, I was hard to get. I had way too much stuff going on in my life to make any guy the center of my attention unless they really deserved it. Plus, it takes me awhile before I am comfortable enough with somebody to let lose and enjoy sex. If I don't already feel some kind of intimacy, sex feels awkward to me. Plus, I learned this back when I was more promiscuous: a lot of men don't give a **** about pleasuring you unless they want more then sex from you. So why would I give it up easily when my vibrator is much better at getting the job done then some awkward stranger.
Kamille Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 If we don't play hard to get you guys lose interest, fast. I'm not just talking about sex. I can't tell you how many times a guy has been flirting with me, shown interest, whatever, and as soon as I decide that maybe I like him back, he withdraws. Countless numbers of times. It's almost like you have to be somewhat of a bitch, which does not come naturally to me since I am a pretty laid-back easy going person. Turn sarcasm up, way up: That's because men don't know what they want. They say they want one thing, but then act another way. This is why we should never take advice from men. The only thing you can be sure donjuan men want for sure is sex. (Just to make it clear, the statement here is me jesting on SS's basic philosophy that no man should ever listen to women's advice because women don't know what they want.)
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 OK but I would never wait up 2 years to "score". Two years is a long time to wait without the chance of not scoring. There's no real intimacy during that time on the man's side without any physical intimacy. You overlooked this point a made earlier.I would not wait 2 years and not even 2 weeks. The reason is because guys that you liked the most and respected scored much sooner than 2 years. The other reason is because I know the girl most likely isn't waiting around for 2 years. Heck, maybe the guy's didn't really wait that long either, and no relationship resulted anyway, so what was the point in all this waiting? I get what I want as fast as any girl does. Fair is fair. It's pretty easy to see that you're not interested in anything beyond superficiality and getting your rocks off. With this in mind, of course, getting to know the woman first, would be a complete waste of time... You're both seeing things differently, and that's okay. Fonz wants to have some fun while hoping to meet a women he can connect with. If there is no connection, then at least there was some fun to be had. TBF wants to see a connection first, because otherwise she wouldn't have that much fun to begin with. Two completely acceptable opinions, but not easy to combine. I, as one woman, tend to be like Trial. I have nothing against ONS, but am not interested in it. And if a man tries to get to know me it takes some time for me to be comfortable with him and to start to desire him. I don't feel sexual tension for a complete stranger. It's the personality that brings the sexy. 2 years sound long to me as well, but if it clicks it clicks. Where the two of you dating exclusively, Trial? Exactly, Nevermind. I don't have sex, I want to make love. Nothing turns me off faster than someone who doesn't care. As for 2 years, no, we weren't dating exclusively for most of it. For much of it, we weren't dating at all, since I thought he was overly-aggressive with his pursuit. I got to know him better, after awhile and let my guard down. Big mistake. I've only had two lovers in my life, although I dated quite a bit as a juvie and then after the breakup with my first love. Beyond that, it's been primarily STRs, although I never slept with any STRs. My first love waited over a year and yes, we were dating exclusively. That's fine if you're a proponent of casual, uncommitted, gratuitous sex just for its own sake. I'm not. I think it cheapens and depersonalizes those who so indulge and that's not the type of woman I'd want to be with. If she doesn't value herself more highly then she would be of no value to me whatsoever. As always, just one man's opinion! Um, his world is a condom and he's very well hung? I'm more like the guys TBF describes. I have to have my emotions engaged first. Not an easy path in todays "I want it now" culture
carhill Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 (edited) Yes, TBF, some find such traits admirable, but I do see the downside, as a lifelong purveyor of "getting to know her". In a man's world, everything is competition, and this includes the attentions of ladies. The most difficult aspect for me has been correctly assessing the character of the lady I choose to give my attentions to. Pick wrong and the PUA's and jerks swoop in and snatch her away for a STR and I end up smacking my forehead (ouch!) and she ends up disillusioned and wonders why she bothers with men anyway. I have managed to salvage a few friendships out of those situations, which I appreciate. The other risk is the "friend zone". Unless one is on exactly the right page and reads emotional signals well, this is an enormous risk. Been there, done that more times than I care to count (mostly due to my inexperience in the above). The aggregate effect is, even as a confident man, taking one's time with a woman in today's society is inordinately risky and time consuming. I still enjoy it, and, if my marriage does not survive, will approach a future relationship the exact same way, but will have more experience in picking a potential as well as reading her level of interest. Life's about learning You know, apexsummit, my wife did have issues with my mother early on, while dating, and I dismissed them as normal DIL-MIL type issues. Perhaps that was short-sighted, given what I now know to have happened in our marriage. There was a litmus test and I had my fingers in my ears going "mmmmm"... Edited March 30, 2008 by carhill
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 carhill, Question 1: If someone can be stolen/taken/distracted, is this the type of person you want, whether it be an LTR or STR? I know that if this is the case, they're better off with their distraction and I'm better off being free and available to someone who's got a similar mindset. Question 2: Considering that you need an emotional connection before entering into a relationship/relations, what's worse? Acquiring a friend, for someone who's not of the calibre you need for a romantic relationship or having sex with someone who doesn't care?
carhill Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 carhill, Question 1: If someone can be stolen/taken/distracted, is this the type of person you want, whether it be an LTR or STR? I know that if this is the case, they're better off with their distraction and I'm better off being free and available to someone who's got a similar mindset. Question 2: Considering that you need an emotional connection before entering into a relationship/relations, what's worse? Acquiring a friend, for someone who's not of the calibre you need for a romantic relationship or having sex with someone who doesn't care? TBH, if I live to 100, I'll be able to honestly answer those questions and feel good about it. At nearly 50, it's been a long, often lonely road. Until discovering LS and understanding the "friend zone" more concretely, such experiences were enormously frustrating for me. Therapy has clarified a lot of things about my psychology and what I bring to and want from relationships. Hence, my answer to #1 is no, I do not want, nor should have residual desires for, someone whose attentions are so easily diverted. This is where curbing my natural sensitivity is important, something I discovered in therapy. Invest that natural proclivity more slowly and be more aware of reciprocation. Answer to #2 is easy. I've had many female friends and few sexual partners (under half dozen) because of my natural ways, so I don't see that changing. I like women and feel closer to them emotionally. Sounds strange for someone with an engineering background who runs machine tools all day, but there ya go I gave up most of my female friends when I got married (my mistake and not due to any pressure by my wife) and I'm rectifying that mistake now. I understand that men like myself are in the minority, and have for most of my life, but it is my path and I've always loved the gifts I've been given and hope to make my mark on the world, perhaps unconventionally. I think the key is, and I've seen this in other threads on LS, to make those gifts attractive to the right woman, not to controvert who I am. As the line in the Matrix goes: Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. Neo: What truth? Spoon boy: There is no spoon. Neo: There is no spoon? Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.
Recommended Posts