Author Kamille Posted February 26, 2011 Author Posted February 26, 2011 " No man should feel so desperate that he's not allowed to have criteria, or so desperate that he has to latch on to any show of interests that's thrown his way." Could you give a concrete example of something a man does that you would call desperate. That would really clarify just what you mean. There is the sentiment which prompts Irc to want to keep pursuing a woman who's shown interest. But what I'm talking about actually isn't only about desperation. It's also about using your head to figure out who's worth your time and who isn't. I think irc shouldn't spend too much time on a woman he hardly knows. That's not to avoid looking desperate, that's because that woman did nothing to warrant that investment. Another example that is about using your head and having standards: when I was dating, I went on a date with this insanely good looking guy. Like seriously, the guy looked like John Hamm (Don Draper on Mad Men). He, however, had little experience with women (he lacked confidence because he had been chubby as a teenager and had missed out on a lot of the early socializing). This meant he was nervous around me throughout our date and also had a hard time opening up emotionally. Two things were flags for me that we were not exactly compatible. One, I suggested a sporty date (because I knew that he's now an active guy), which he rejected because he didn't want to sweat. He suggested renting a movie instead. Without going into too much details, this made me feel like we didn't exactly share the same sense of fun. Then, on the date, he talked about his career, and how he would like a Stay-at-home-spouse. I pointed out I was a career girl, and hinted that pretty much made us incompatible. He didn't say anything. After the date, he called and asked me out again. I told him I thought he was a great catch and I was sure he would make a woman really happy, but seeing as I was pretty career-minded, I didn't feel we were compatible. He was surprised. He apparently hadn't heard me the first time when I said I was career minded, had somehow been oblivious to the implications of my Ph.D. The career thing wasn't the only reason I felt we were incompatible. There was no flow in our date, no electricity. I was surprised he hadn't realized it. So, really, what I'm talking about has little to do with desperation. It's more about paying attention to your date and what you date is telling you. That's what I was doing, but that's not what he was doing.
carhill Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 Update: In IRC's thread, it was determined he was using human generated sound waves to pursue; her response was in the form of electrons which he was not configured to receive. Incompatible communication styles Question: Should he refrain from purchasing an unlimited texting plan so as to appear 'hard to get'?
Author Kamille Posted February 26, 2011 Author Posted February 26, 2011 Kamille I appreciate what you are trying to do but here is what it sounds like to me... "Desperate attention from a man" Really means. "Any attention from a man I'm not interested in." Wrong. You completely misunderstand. I've turned down guys I wasn't interested in and not thought they were desperate. In fact, I'm actually saying the opposite. I don't think not feeling I have enough in common with someone means that they're desperate. I think it juste means we're not compatible. No man should feel desperate. Or no woman for that matter. However, that doesn't mean that every men and women are compatible. "I like a man who has standards." Really means "I like men who aren't really into me because I have a low opinion of myself." or.. "I like a man who I'm attracted to or otherwise interested in". Nope, not at all. I'm trying to figure out where we're miscommunication here. For some reason you think I'm making a point about desperation, when really I'm making a point about the importance of paying attention to compatibility. I read your thread about personality, and in essence, we're saying the same thing. Initial attraction can only go so far. Personality is what makes or break a relationship. All I'm saying is that, guess what, some people notice when you're paying attention to their personality.
singlelife Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 " No man should feel so desperate that he's not allowed to have criteria, or so desperate that he has to latch on to any show of interests that's thrown his way." Could you give a concrete example of something a man does that you would call desperate. That would really clarify just what you mean. Exactly. I think women get confused between being a little hard to get and having a man completely chase after her always and give in to her every whim.
Mrlonelyone Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 For some reason you think I'm making a point about desperation Uhmmm because you used the word desperation...several times... Which proves that women don't say what they really mean allot of the time QED. Just kidding. I wrote that before you clarified what you meant. If you mean that men who are obviously incompatible keep coming at you that's clear. I understand that. The relationship of this to IRC 333's thread is what got my wires crossed. He was just trying to get a date with the woman. As it turned out, as carhill already stated, she was sending him text messages the whole time...which his phone plan does not allow him to get. So she wasn't not showing interest...they just miscommunicated.
somedude81 Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 For some reason you think I'm making a point about desperation, when really I'm making a point about the importance of paying attention to compatibility. Heh, you probably should have chosen a different title for your thread What is it that you want to accomplish with this thread again?
Author Kamille Posted February 26, 2011 Author Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) Exactly. I think women get confused between being a little hard to get and having a man completely chase after her always and give in to her every whim. I'm not sure I understand your point. Man, you guys are resistant. I thought you would all agree! I'm starting to think this is an interesting experiment. If I was a guy posting this, would you react as if I'm "confused" or potentially "lacking self-esteem", or saying something but meaning something else? Nope. Guys. Simple logic upfront: people are attracted to people who have standards. Let's say the opposite. You have three women.1) One who's in love with you, but you have no idea why because you hardly know each other and as far as you can tell, you have little in common, 2) one who is enjoying getting to know you and who places emphasis on making sure you two are a match before investing emotionally and 3) one who likes to play games, acts distant at time but then tries to sway you with grand gestures at others. Which do you find more attractive (given that they're all physically on par). Edited February 26, 2011 by Kamille
Mrlonelyone Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) I a man said desperation when he was talking about compatibility and wrote the exact thing you did... we would react the same way. This really had nothing to do with you being female. #2 would be the best and most natural one IMO. #1 would also be good. Kind of odd but good. I have had that happen. #3 is mostly what I see out here. Women who are on some game playing almost for the sake of game playing. #3 is perhaps 70 to 90 % of the women out here. #3 gives the woman the most cover and the most options. Edited February 26, 2011 by Mrlonelyone
Author Kamille Posted February 26, 2011 Author Posted February 26, 2011 hard to get is games playing. Heh, you probably should have chosen a different title for your thread Yeah, you guys are absolutely right. I acheived my goal... The thread is getting a reaction, but I should have stuck to my first title: Men who get to know you. A lot less catchy, but it would have lead to less confusion. sorry, I mean confoloson. What is it that you want to accomplish with this thread again? Clearly I wanted to spend a whole afternoon explaining the same point over and over again. Not really, I was observing that back when I was dating, the guys I found more attractive over longer periods of time were guys who were just taking the time to get to know me. Guys who's interest level grew over time. Who didn't jump in like they were on a mission. Who gave themselves room to maneuver. This while being respectful and committed to me. Not the players and jerks. #3 is mostly what I see out here. Women who are on some game playing almost for the sake of game playing. #3 is perhaps 70 to 90 % of the women out here. #3 gives the woman the most cover and the most options. 3 is what you see the most? That's concerning. I can think of two reasons. 1. That damn "he's not that into you" philosophy, which has some women thinking a man should be willing to drop his whole life to woo her in the first months. 2. Maybe the more "grounded" #2 type women are more likely to already be in relationships.
Isolde Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 No, my boyfriend didn't make me work for his affection. () Not an ounce. But he made me feel like we were "dating", ie, like we were getting to know each other. Like he was paying attention to me, and who I was, in the process of deciding whether or not we had what it took to be in a committed relationship. It wasn't work at all, it was a dialogue about what we had in common. In this case, it was obviously quite enjoyable! K, this is really interesting.
somedude81 Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 Yeah, you guys are absolutely right. I acheived my goal... The thread is getting a reaction, but I should have stuck to my first title: Men who get to know you. A lot less catchy, but it would have lead to less confusion. sorry, I mean confoloson. Clearly I wanted to spend a whole afternoon explaining the same point over and over again. Not really, I was observing that back when I was dating, the guys I found more attractive over longer periods of time were guys who were just taking the time to get to know me. Guys who's interest level grew over time. Who didn't jump in like they were on a mission. Who gave themselves room to maneuver. This while being respectful and committed to me. Not the players and jerks. Yup, a title of "Men who get to know you," would have caused a lot less confoloson Guys who's interest level grew over time. Who didn't jump in like they were on a mission.BTW there is an extreme to that. It's the dreaded "n" word that should not be said on this forum, for if it is said, the thread would mutate and spiral out of control.
Mrlonelyone Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 3 is what you see the most? That's concerning. I can think of two reasons. 1. That damn "he's not that into you" philosophy, which has some women thinking a man should be willing to drop his whole life to woo her in the first months. 2. Maybe the more "grounded" #2 type women are more likely to already be in relationships. Yes that's what most young women are on these days. The man needs to be willing to drop everything...shower them with attention, gifts, and kiss their @$$ to get any loving. The other option is a woman who's acting like #3 wants a man to not pay her much attention at all.. be that proverbial "jerk" everyone is talking about. The jerk will at least get a date...which is the first step to getting a second date and a relationship. Lets make this concrete. Remember the thread by Singvoice where she wrote of going on a date with a guy she knew was a jerk and it wouldn't work out with? It didn't work out. Suppose that same guy by the same approach gets 10 dates. Even if their are 100 to one odds that one of those dates will turn into something more... his chances of getting a relationship are increased by a factor of 10 over a non jerky guy..perhaps love-shy guy, who gets 1/10th of the dates.
Author Kamille Posted February 26, 2011 Author Posted February 26, 2011 K, this is really interesting. I wish I could describe it better. It really felt awesome (and continues to feel awesome). There was no doubt that he was into getting to know me and that I was into getting to know him. But neither one of us really felt like we had to rush things along. (Well, maybe I felt like rushing things along once in awhile actually!). It meant there wasn't an early pressure to clamp down and make it work. I've rushed into commitment in the past, and often that lead into problems because there's no room for compromise. In this case, neither one of us had to fit into the other's idea of the "ideal partner". There was just space to get to know each other and figure out how we worked together.
Mrlonelyone Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 This is the thread I spoke of. http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t266266/ To a man like say nymets or any other who hasn't had a date in a very long time... that makes it look like that guys being attractive... and jerky... paid off. He got a date. Had he been slightly less borish he may have gotten a second date.
runner Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) ...it's more than standards. It's men who show an appreciation of what it takes for two humans to make a relationship work. ...like we were getting to know each other. Like he was paying attention to me, and who I was, in the process of deciding whether or not we had what it took to be in a committed relationship. It wasn't work at all, it was a dialogue about what we had in common. ...until we actually talk to each other, he has no idea who I am. ...maybe the guy who dates a lot of women is more likely to apply standards, since he doesn't feel thrilled that someone is going out with him. Maybe guys with more experience are less likely to be overly keen on pleasing, thereby forgetting that they also have to decide whether or not the person they're dating is right for them. all excellent points, and quoted for emphasis. and for those final points, it isn't a matter of 'maybe' but 'is' Edited February 26, 2011 by runner even further emphasis
fishtaco Posted February 26, 2011 Posted February 26, 2011 I think there's a disagreement of what "hard to get" means. A lot of these disagreements seem to be due to the different meaning of "hard to get" that each person has. Hard to get to me like some posters mentioned, is a game. It's not "having a standard", or "be not desperate". Those are requirements one should have before that person even attempts to date anyone. Hard to get on the other hand, is a strategy one uses in an attempt to boost attraction, or in some cases, to test the other person. I'm sure LS people know I'm never against playing games, I believe the world is a harsh place, dating IS a game of sales and marketing, and survival of the fittest is the law. But, even as someone with flexible moral standards (as compared to certain LS personalities that seem to have reached saint-hood), I would say there's a time and place for games. Throwing out games, including hard to get, with indiscretion, usually is counter productive. Because when you play, it's a double or nothing gamble. As for the guys getting angry saying why is it like this? Why do women go after guys like these? I say this: My problem is I can never tell what women want. They're all over the place, flip-flopping, hot and cold, the whole works. If you're so sure about what women want, then good for you. Instead of being angry about it, be that guy that they want. Then you win. But the reality is, once you try it, you'll realize it's not that simple.
Recommended Posts