Don't forget to make a big deal about and criticize her for every little thing (be sure to blow up a lot over the tiniest, most inconsequential things), make her constantly feel worthless and not good enough, then when she's finally about to break turn around and tell her how special she is and how much she means to you and how much you love her. Be sure to get one who's young and naive for best results, because by the time she's in her late 20's or 30's she'll probably start to figure out what the game is. Now that's being a dick.
According to you I'm stupid, I'm useless I can't do anything right According to you I'm difficult, hard to please Forever changing my mind
I'm a mess in a dress, can't show up on time Even if it would save my life According to you, according to you
According to you I'm boring, I'm moody And you can't take me any place According to you I suck at telling jokes 'Cause I always give it away
I'm the girl with the worst attention span You're the boy who puts up with that According to you, according to you
But according to him I'm beautiful, incredible He can't get me out of his head According to him I'm funny, irresistible Everything he ever wanted
Everything is opposite, I don't feel like stopping it So baby tell me what I got to lose He's into me for everything I'm not According to you
I need to feel appreciated Like I'm not hated, oh no Why can't you see me through his eyes? It's too bad, you're making me dizzy But according to me you're stupid, you're useless
You can't do anything right
Yeah, when it comes to guys, it's kind of a no-brainer which ones are worth sticking with. Who would you pick?
There is no such thing a no-brainer. If a statement is made, (e.g. "U SUXX0rz!!11111") it must be justified. If the intent of the statement is to manipulate, this fact will come to light during routine interrogation.
Normally, though, I don't pick directly. I just alter my behaviour to encourage others to pick the way I want them to. When I want them to choose to stay away from me, it usually works. The reverse is a bit harder to master, so I settle for being my normal eccentric self and watching their reactions.
As for ignoring females, it's not something I personally do. I'll do a lot more observing than I used to, though. I'll talk a lot and ask a lot of questions, as well. Normally, the nature and depth of my questions create unfathomable fear in the hearts of girls. I've learned to play the ambiguity game to extract information. "I feel like X; where X could mean "a" or "b". Target does not pick up ambiguity and X passes through their bias, which returns the automatic interpretation that I means "a". I can justify both "a" and "b" and so I always win the ambiguity game, unless someone picks up on the ambiguity."
To the OP: what is it that you mess up? What happens when you go into conversation? To use pua lingo; do you kino escalate properly?
Oh, and don't listen to advice from girls regarding this. (shhhh ). I think someone said "what a woman says and how she responds are two entirely different things".
And to some criticisms; It's not about changing ones personality. You only present yourself in a way that makes you able to get to know her better as a potential relationship partner avoiding to get blown off before you even get the chance to show each other who you are. It's kinda like people wearing a suit before they go to a job interview, or wear extra nice clothes when going to a party. hmm.. not completely sure about the analogy, but it's not too far off.
You only present yourself in a way that makes you able to get to know her better as a potential relationship partner avoiding to get blown off before you even get the chance to show each other who you are. It's kinda like people wearing a suit before they go to a job interview, or wear extra nice clothes when going to a party. hmm.. not completely sure about the analogy, but it's not too far off.
Yeah, I don't think your analogy is as accurate as you had hoped. Because in those situations, they're still hiring a personality/person and the clothes are merely about signalling your intent to conform to rules / meet appropriate standards of behavior. With the dating thing, what is being scrutinized IS the personality, and you're changing what is seen.
You could probably compare the way one presents themselves in an interview (not the clothes, but oneself) with how one presents oneself on a date... but to the degree that is being discussed, it sounds like the self-presentation might even be more fragmented here.
Many people only present certain facets of themselves on a date(s) but then cannot maintain that later in the relationship, whereupon the other person might feel they were somewhat misled. It's true that the facet shown might be a relevant and honest aspect of the guy's personality, but at this point we're talking about balance and frequency -- if he's selling her on him being one way, but typically he's more of another, then eventually that discrepancy is going to expose itself, and it might not be what she thought she was buying into. It doesn't have to be an outright lie to still be disruptive and misleading.
Leaving the long string of personal anecdotes out of this, if this was true (that people employing the previously mentioned tactics were unsuccessful with women) then things like abusive boyfriends and so called "battered wife syndrome" would be quite uncommon as women would not be involved with those people. Is this accurate? (I'm sure you can guess what my answer to that would be)
This is somewhat off-topic, but it does relate in that successful strategies for interacting with the opposite sex do not always reflect favorably on people, which I can only assume is what has so many people upset that someone would consider taking such a fickle attitude (i.e. "ignoring them") to be a viable strategy for attracting a girl's interest.
Sometimes, when dealing with such subjective things as attraction, logic is rarely the conscious motivational force anyway. Sometimes curiosity is what makes us want to know more about someone/something. Sometimes curiosity, caused by confusing and ambiguous circumstances actually ATTRACTS us, because we naturally want to learn more.
Ignoring someone will have this effect if this someone would have otherwise expected to receive attention from the person who ignored them. This will break a pattern and curiosity will push this person to want to know why. At this point, the individual hasn't lied or manipulated; they've only sparked someone's curiosity.
Because there is an imbalance in attention received across the genders, this technique can be used to tip the balance the other way long enough for someone to show who he is before he gets rejected.
The women may continue to deny this, but sometimes they don't realise how little of a chance they give to guys.
See, when I ignore someone, it's because I don't enjoy their company.
Why do men have to make things so complicated?
Sigh. I'm an idealist and somewhat of a romantic, I'll admit it right now. Sure, there's always an element of "testing the waters"...you don't want to throw yourself out there if you're completely unsure about what their response will be, but what the hell is accomplished by putting on this mysterious, cold-shouldered facade? Initial attraction. Sweet. That might get you laid. If that's all you're going for, congratulations to you. Personally, I've always hunted for something deeper; a relationship built on sincerity and honesty from the very beginning. I don't mean baring your soul to someone you've only talked to once.
Yes, you have to get to know the other person first, et cetera...but if that's the aim of sparking initial attraction via the silent treatment...how well are you getting to know the person when you won't even talk to them?
"I really like this girl because she's attracted to me and stares at my back while I ignore her."
Why do you guys think that ignoring only works on girls? It works on men too. Girls do it to you as well. And they are usually pretty good at these games. girls have a better eye for it than guys. It works on your insecurities. Active ignoring simply is "pretending to display higher value than the other".
If a girl doesn't look at you, you think hmmm can i get her? why is she not looking at all? am i so uninteresting? does she have better (e.g. higher value) things to do?? (e.g. it plays on your insecurities).
thus.. even if she would be visually unattractive, you would be happy once she would talk to you after this insecure state that you were in, because she is socially attractive. you would give here a chance, because you perceive her as higher value, you want to leach of her value basically by talking to her to get to her level
If the same girl would have stared at you and gave you too much attention, then you might not be so interested to talk to her, you already have her anyway, no challange... and you feel soooo secure.
but yeah.. although ignoring works on both genders. the effect is probably stronger in the female mind than the male mind.
its because high social value is the most attractive feature of men (for women), while the most attractive feature of women (for men) is mainly looks.
females also dont like it if you analyze this too much, for them this is natural (e.g. not to be analyzed or you are an unattractive nerd).
Leaving the long string of personal anecdotes out of this, if this was true (that people employing the previously mentioned tactics were unsuccessful with women) then things like abusive boyfriends and so called "battered wife syndrome" would be quite uncommon as women would not be involved with those people. Is this accurate? (I'm sure you can guess what my answer to that would be)
You're kind of undermining your whole point, if you're suggesting that abused women who stick with their abusers are comparable to the women who are suckered in by variations on PUA strategies.
Go ahead, make that connection even stronger if you'd like.
This is somewhat off-topic, but it does relate in that successful strategies for interacting with the opposite sex do not always reflect favorably on people, which I can only assume is what has so many people upset that someone would consider taking such a fickle attitude (i.e. "ignoring them") to be a viable strategy for attracting a girl's interest.
I agree with you in that some unhealthy strategies win for some time before losing -- e.g., behaviors such as lying, cheating, robbing, and other unhealthy behaviors often can bring short-term gain. And similarly, relationships can often function in extremely unhealthy patterns for long periods of time, as long as the unhealthiness is stable and predictable.
Women stay with abusers for many reasons, but one is because at least the situation is predictable (freedom is frightening in its uncertainty), and another is because the abuser is reaffirming lies about the woman that she had already been led to believe about herself from birth.
Chimera said:
Yes, you have to get to know the other person first, et cetera...but if that's the aim of sparking initial attraction via the silent treatment...how well are you getting to know the person when you won't even talk to them?
That's what's wrong with the abuser/abused relationship I noted above. The harm is obvious to the woman... but no one thinks about how the abuser is also short-changing himself out of a meaningful relationship with an equal based on mutual love and commitment. Both parties are short-changed.
So I get them to this stage then I start talking to them a bit and I either get them to the stage that when I'm paying no attention they may end up in a gazish daze staring at me
It's not that you are ignoring them. It's that you are interested in some thing else besides them. That interest can arouse their interest in you and at the same time make it safe for them.
You're kind of undermining your whole point, if you're suggesting that abused women who stick with their abusers are comparable to the women who are suckered in by variations on PUA strategies.
Go ahead, make that connection even stronger if you'd like.
Not really. It's not like I'm supporting any of this stuff on an ethical level, I'm just saying that it works. The world would be a much happier place for me if the biggest sleazebags I've ever met weren't so good at picking up girls I might have liked in another universe. From what I've seen being an abusive control freak is a viable strategy to succeed in a relationship (depending on how you define "success"). Maybe that's a little extreme to be successful on the actual pick-up, but diluted variations of it aren't. Not that I really see much difference: it's just using the understanding that people are fundamentally predictable to manipulate them and get what you want.
As far as I know, the only points I've made in this thread are: a) Dating and sex are a waste of time when you can be programming and learning math. b) Strategies ranging from horribly cruel to slightly douchebag-ish are surprisingly reliable. c) Everyone seems to get upset when somebody bothers to point out the elephant in the room (referring to point B).
While I'd genuinely love to go into a discussion of abusive relationships, why they happen and how fucked up they are, I'll just drop that part for now (referring to my response to the rest of your post), as I feel I've off-topiced this enough, and that could easily be a whole other multi-page thread in itself.
I agree with you in that some unhealthy strategies win for some time before losing -- e.g., behaviors such as lying, cheating, robbing, and other unhealthy behaviors often can bring short-term gain. And similarly, relationships can often function in extremely unhealthy patterns for long periods of time, as long as the unhealthiness is stable and predictable.
A false dichotomy. Or at least I interpret it as such. "If one isn't completely upfront about everything from the start, they are liars and dooming any potential for a relationship with their unhealthy strategies."
Ok, so that's not exactly what you said, but if not, then why won't you concede that, as someone mentioned and as I mentioned, that we aren't operating on an absolute and extreme definition of "ignore" and its morphological variants.
By ignore, what is essentially meant is "not revealing all of one's feelings from the start and not being overbearing". I would argue that when there isn't a relationship, such behaviour isn't appropriate. The problem is that many of us aren't particularly socially adept and we can do things that constantly get us misinterpreted. By not overwhelming a woman with affection, we are avoiding this situation. The woman isn't being ignored completely. It's just that he's observing social rules for interaction. It's essentially the same reason we don't glomp new acquaintances in an attempt to befriend them. That scares people.
Furthermore, as someone pointed out, this doesn't just apply to women. It's really just a curiosity and insecurity-based mechanism that applies beyond the gender barrier. I've observed it happening to me. It's nothing out of the ordinary and some people do it more naturally than others. Even as a child, when I wanted a toy, but couldn't have it, I wanted it more. If I got it immediately, the novelty wore off soon. I think that the ignoring concept can be applied positively in that regard, if you take into account everything that I mentioned in this post, because it makes the parties involved work towards a goal, so that when they achieve it, they can appreciate it even more. If girls constantly receive attention from guys, this attention becomes difficult to appreciate; its high availability makes it almost valueless to her. If she must earn it, then she will appreciate it more. The same for a guy, except a guy rarely find himself in a situation where he doesn't appreciate female attention, because he must usually work very hard to receive it at all.
And that last sentence takes us back to the start of our loop for two reasons:
1. By constantly having to put in a lot of effort, it can be easy to get carried away (and overdo things) or just give up, or become desperate or even manipulative.
2. But putting too much effort is unattractive as a first impression, because it causes the girl to think "oh, another one; *blacklisted*".
And as a demonstration of this entire concept, the only reason why I am replying to this thread is because I long for you to tear my posts apart. It sends shivers down my spine. But you keep ignoring me. *weep*
A false dichotomy. Or at least I interpret it as such. "If one isn't completely upfront about everything from the start, they are liars and dooming any potential for a relationship with their unhealthy strategies."
Ok, so that's not exactly what you said, but if not, then why won't you concede that, as someone mentioned and as I mentioned, that we aren't operating on an absolute and extreme definition of "ignore" and its morphological variants.
By ignore, what is essentially meant is "not revealing all of one's feelings from the start and not being overbearing". I would argue that when there isn't a relationship, such behaviour isn't appropriate. The problem is that many of us aren't particularly socially adept and we can do things that constantly get us misinterpreted. By not overwhelming a woman with affection, we are avoiding this situation. The woman isn't being ignored completely. It's just that he's observing social rules for interaction. It's essentially the same reason we don't glomp new acquaintances in an attempt to befriend them. That scares people.
So far, I agree with you.
That's why you are confusing me.
Because what I'm talking about isn't what you suddenly seem to be talking about.
Furthermore, as someone pointed out, this doesn't just apply to women. It's really just a curiosity and insecurity-based mechanism that applies beyond the gender barrier. I've observed it happening to me. It's nothing out of the ordinary and some people do it more naturally than others. Even as a child, when I wanted a toy, but couldn't have it, I wanted it more. If I got it immediately, the novelty wore off soon.
Bold? Hmm, I think you're trying to emphasize something!
I think that the ignoring concept can be applied positively in that regard, if you take into account everything that I mentioned in this post, because it makes the parties involved work towards a goal, so that when they achieve it, they can appreciate it even more. If girls constantly receive attention from guys, this attention becomes difficult to appreciate; its high availability makes it almost valueless to her. If she must earn it, then she will appreciate it more. The same for a guy, except a guy rarely find himself in a situation where he doesn't appreciate female attention, because he must usually work very hard to receive it at all.
I'm fine with that. I simply don't like how "calculated" the whole thing is, in how it is being stated. Or did you miss that part?
It's fine to analyze what you're already doing as part of an organic interaction, but once someone tries to hone it and consciously think of it ahead of time, it becomes a manipulative tool. It doesn't seem manipulative if one is doing it to communicate a point and be understood, but it does seem manipulative if one is intentionally trying to woo someone and following a pattern of behavior that will not persist throughout the entire relationship.
And as a demonstration of this entire concept, the only reason why I am replying to this thread is because I long for you to tear my posts apart. It sends shivers down my spine. But you keep ignoring me. *weep*
Edit: I've encountered the same "girl is really into me initially and then runs screaming when I show them attention" scenario so many times that I've just given up. It's honestly not worth it to me anymore - it's just a lot of stress. I've been courteous, shown interest, asked questions while maintaining my end of the conversation, etc. At this point, I'm pretty sure that I must just come off as too serious (fair enough) and clingy (not true at all). It would be far too much effort and not myself to change it, so meh. My alone time is precious enough to make up for the desire to hold someone and care for them :P.
Edit 2: No, I don't have anything constructive to add. Sorry, lol.
Edit: I've encountered the same "girl is really into me initially and then runs screaming when I show them attention" scenario so many times that I've just given up. It's honestly not worth it to me anymore - it's just a lot of stress. I've been courteous, shown interest, asked questions while maintaining my end of the conversation, etc. At this point, I'm pretty sure that I must just come off as too serious (fair enough) and clingy (not true at all). It would be far too much effort and not myself to change it, so meh. My alone time is precious enough to make up for the desire to hold someone and care for them :P.
Honestly, there might be other things involved. It might not be about "you" per se, at all.
And the biggest buggaboo of course is, sometimes, even if the guy and the girl are both cool people, and they're doing all the right things, and they're have a normal conversation, and enjoying the time together... there's still no spark, and it's just not going to happen. Not everyone is attracted to everyone else. Maybe she was attracted to you at first, then once you spent time together and her idea of you became replaced with the reality of you, she just wasn't.
I had a guy do that to me just a few weeks ago -- he chased me incessantly, and wooed me, and I played the dance with him, and finally agree to go out with him. We had a great time talking for a few hours, but I found my interest kind of diminished because there were some things about him I could not connect with, and while he seemed into me, he never called again... after chasing me every day for a good ten days. It just happens. I can be cynical, or I can accept it as just the way it is.
I've had to learn I just need to let a lot of stuff go, as I have gotten older, rather than taking it personally when someone's not interested. Sometimes it's just not meant to be, and my job is to be honest about who I am and not pretend to be someone else, so that I can turn off the guys who aren't into me and attract the few guys that really would be into me.
Instead of trying to learn these tricks, why not spend effort into learning how to socialize? I know its dark unknown territory but, this will better serve you than stuff like "properly ignoring a female."
Learning how to socialize gives you the ability to understand what's happening and an understanding of how the other person functions.
We are here on an MBTI board, which by definition means we admit that there are all kinds of different people. Tricks like this are broad and sweeping, no two people are going to react the same.
By learning to socialize, you become more sensitive to the other person's internal thought processes and emotional states (as well as your own).
I mean, shit, doing stuff like this you may as well broadcast that you don't know what you're doing. Intelligent people are gonna see you coming a mile away and label you as: FAKE, INSECURE, NOT WORTH MY TIME, ANNOYANCE.
Yea you could use this to get one-nighters but, even then its not gonna be as effective as the other option.
Do yourself a favor and learn to socialize. Fe is intimidating at first but, when you get a handle on it you will question why you didn't do it sooner.
Yes, yes - I like your outlook. I appreciate your assessment. To be fair, I've had my share of budding romances that I've given a chance and cut off fairly early in the process, so I don't suppose it's accurate to pinpoint one thing or another.
At any rate with regards to the OP, I think the ignoring factor is largely overrated. In my experience pulling from my own encounters and largely from those around me, I've noticed that people will very often chase after someone when being ignored, but it doesn't necessarily generate results. If you get a girl to show you attention by ignoring them, then you still have to produce results from that point on with your personality and interactions.
Honestly, if you couldn't draw their attention from the get-go, then ignoring them isn't likely to garner much more in terms of results. The cases I've seen where girls go nuts over a guy because they are being ignored usually result from them being attracted to the guy in the first place and not getting what they want out of it.
I think you'd be much better off focusing your energy on charm, wit, humor, and conversation - these are traits that will generally get you points regardless. Being able to harness your natural personality to produce these things is really the basis of what I would perceive as "charisma".
Edit: Sonofa...warryer snuck in and said pretty much what I was trying to :P.
There is one thing I find puzzling about this. Imagine you have a girly friend you are not attracted to. If she was nice to you, would you suddenly become interested?
Because that's what a lot of you expect from women. "I am nice, thus she should like me".
As far as I know, the only points I've made in this thread are: a) Dating and sex are a waste of time when you can be programming and learning math. b) Strategies ranging from horribly cruel to slightly douchebag-ish are surprisingly reliable. c) Everyone seems to get upset when somebody bothers to point out the elephant in the room (referring to point B).
Actually, now you are talking about something different. As known, psychopaths are quite charming. So in the beginning the manipulative behavior won't be noticed. In the relationship, the self esteem of the woman is gradually taken from her and in the end she is mentally incapable of escaping. It's not like she saw a guy beating on his wife thinking "woah, that's hot". So in regard to what we are talking about here, that's irrelevant.
Douchebag-ish is subjective terms and there's a good chance the lady herself isn't all nice and giddy. I think it's rather the self confidence and sense of independence that is attractive. Being able to challenge people without "fear".
This is all too black and white.
If we could decide who we wanted to be attracted to, a lot of problems would be solved, no?
There is one thing I find puzzling about this. Imagine you have a girly friend you are not attracted to. If she was nice to you, would you suddenly become interested?
Because that's what a lot of you expect from women. "I am nice, thus she should like me".
Actually, this is exactly what happens to a lot of guys - they get attention from a girl that is just trying to be nice to them, and then they cling on to the girl for dear life because they think it's a sign.
I think a big part of the misconception in this regard is due to lazy usage of the terms "nice" and such. I think it more often comes down to "reserved" vs "outgoing". The outgoing guys tend to draw more attention, naturally. This also often generates more results with women as a natural progression. I think a lot of reserved guys, probably rightfully so, feel as though they are being looked over. On the one hand, it's true that they probably aren't being looked at for what they have to offer. On the other hand, how is a girl supposed to know what a guy has to offer if it's not being displayed?
The bottom line is that, if you are a reserved person, you are generally going to have to go outside your natural state to get more than the occasional result. Ignoring someone will only hurt your cause in this case. Outgoing people can ignore someone and see results because that person was probably already drawn to them like a magnet.
I think anyone can say almost anything about the opposite sex and it will convince someone who is desperate to get laid. Desperation says "give me an answer now!" and the world is always quick to oblige. Already tried being nice, yourself, etc? Well now try being a dick. Ignoring her didn't work? Well then pretend she's not a woman. No? Did you neg her? You didn't? Well goddamn there's your problem, you need to neg that bitch before anything else can possibly work, dummy! Did you wear the shoes we talked about? Whatever you do, just do something overly thought-out and methodical, and always remember to try way too hard.
I think anyone can say almost anything about the opposite sex and it will convince someone who is desperate to get laid. Desperation says "give me an answer now!" and the world is always quick to oblige. Already tried being nice, yourself, etc? Well now try being a dick. Ignoring her didn't work? Well then pretend she's not a woman. No? Did you neg her? You didn't? Well goddamn there's your problem, you need to neg that bitch before anything else can possibly work, dummy! Did you wear the shoes we talked about? Whatever you do, just do something overly thought-out and methodical, and always remember to try way too hard.
If you want to get laid, a little bit of money will persuade the street corner girl.
If you want a relationship, actually put some real effort into it and be you, not another person. I am sure a lady would rather to see the real you. And like wise, the lady that likes the real you, will actually be the lady you want to be with. If she doesn't like the real you, it exists on a shallow basis, no need for that.
I must be the only person who doesn't know what PUA means...
I agree with Jennywocky, the PHP code made my day. Or night since I am about to go to sleep.
There is one thing I find puzzling about this. Imagine you have a girly friend you are not attracted to. If she was nice to you, would you suddenly become interested?
Because that's what a lot of you expect from women. "I am nice, thus she should like me".
I think it's more that, as someone already sort of said, people see it as a lot of the 'nice guy' traits are held against them as flaws. I mean when girls tell you stuff like "just be yourself," "don't try so hard," <insert other standard stuff that gets suggested>, and you do all that but see guys who openly act manipulative or 'play the game' being much more successful (often with the same girls who had told you this stuff), what are you supposed to think?
Stuff like that does come down to perception a lot: a girl might like a guy because she sees him as confident and self-assured, while another guy sees him as an arrogant bully. In my experience either one could be correct: certainly sometimes the guy is just jealous that someone else does get more girls because he is more confident, and sometimes girls do go home with guys because they picked a fight with a complete stranger half their size and won.
To be fair to females, IMO the whole 'nice guy' thing does also get used as an excuse for manipulative behavior too (see xkcd number 513).
Actually, now you are talking about something different. As known, psychopaths are quite charming. So in the beginning the manipulative behavior won't be noticed. In the relationship, the self esteem of the woman is gradually taken from her and in the end she is mentally incapable of escaping. It's not like she saw a guy beating on his wife thinking "woah, that's hot". So in regard to what we are talking about here, that's irrelevant.
Douchebag-ish is subjective terms and there's a good chance the lady herself isn't all nice and giddy. I think it's rather the self confidence and sense of independence that is attractive. Being able to challenge people without "fear".
The whole abusive thing mainly came up because the way I see it (and I'm probably not alone here) the same "confidence" women are attracted to is often the mark of an abusive control freak. My original remark was mainly meant to humorously say, "Hey, if you're going to play that whole card, why not take it as far as you can?" I'm sure women usually don't see it that way, but those of us who see them constantly attracted to the same guys who habitually treat others like shit, because of their "confidence," do.
Now, if we can at least agree that girls are generally attracted to that (meaning confidence, not assholes), is it really wrong to try and act that way to get them to like you? (i.e. implement a strategy) "Ignoring them" is just a bad way to phrase it - what I'd argue at least is that acting sort of mildly disinterested gives that same sort of 'confident' vibe that'll give a good impression. Stereotypically, girls also like attention, so literally ignoring them isn't a very good strategy long term, but I think what the OP meant was that he has better luck with them by doing the disinterested thing up to the point where it's actually ready to progress and then it falls apart because the transition to the next step isn't obvious.
It's kind of silly to pretend like you shouldn't adjust your behavior to attract a member of the opposite sex you like, and should always just be yourself. If your natural reaction is to get embarrassed, look at the ground and not know what to say, you clearly need to analyze things and think about what you're doing wrong. Successful strategies may not reflect well on people, but that's mostly just because we're all flawed humans and we suck.
There is one thing I find puzzling about this. Imagine you have a girly friend you are not attracted to. If she was nice to you, would you suddenly become interested?
Because that's what a lot of you expect from women. "I am nice, thus she should like me [romantically]".
We might like nice people, but we easily might not LIKE like them.
melllvar said:
I think it's more that, as someone already sort of said, people see it as a lot of the 'nice guy' traits are held against them as flaws. I mean when girls tell you stuff like "just be yourself," "don't try so hard," <insert other standard stuff that gets suggested>, and you do all that but see guys who openly act manipulative or 'play the game' being much more successful (often with the same girls who had told you this stuff), what are you supposed to think?
Depending on what time frame we are discussing, both women and men are trying to figure all this stuff out and might not yet not have enough long-term experience to balance short-term interest with long-term stability/endurance in a relationship. Teenage guys might all crush on the most physically attractive girls and later decide physical "hawtness" is not the best quality to prioritize; teenage girls might all crush on the strongest/most confident seeming guy, and later realize the same sort of thing.
There's a lot of inconsistency in people's expectation vs reality and knowing what truly matters long-term.
Stuff like that does come down to perception a lot: a girl might like a guy because she sees him as confident and self-assured, while another guy sees him as an arrogant bully. In my experience either one could be correct: certainly sometimes the guy is just jealous that someone else does get more girls because he is more confident, and sometimes girls do go home with guys because they picked a fight with a complete stranger half their size and won.
I guess it can be true, although at my decrepit age the latter example is so long ago and long-forgotten from my social awareness it almost sounds alien to me.
Let me just say that if you pursue women on the premise that you are most desirable to them when you 'appear' to want them least, then you will either have a very short of a very disatisfactory relatrionship riddled with inequality.
Not that I have much experience on this subject, but I do pay attention to some things.
I guess it can be true, although at my decrepit age the latter example is so long ago and long-forgotten from my social awareness it almost sounds alien to me.
Perhaps I used a bad example that skews towards specific age groups, but the main point was that people may interpret the same behavior very differently and either one's interpretation might be right or wrong. I don't really see the behavior as much different from bossing around the store clerk just to appear confident and assertive in front of your lady friend, just less extreme. A girl might see it as the confidence to "challenge someone without fear," while another guy just thinks, "He'll be talking that same way to her in a few months."
Honestly things might be a lot simpler if relationship advice was targeted at the correct age group then. I know when I was younger my parents would tell me stuff that might work for people in their forties or fifties, but it was pretty much a death sentence for someone my age. Maybe some of the disagreement here is due to the accuracy of different types of advice at different times and places (and with different people).
Honestly things might be a lot simpler if relationship advice was targeted at the correct age group then. I know when I was younger my parents would tell me stuff that might work for people in their forties or fifties, but it was pretty much a death sentence for someone my age. Maybe some of the disagreement here is due to the accuracy of different types of advice at different times and places (and with different people).
Well, not even necessarily a generational thing, I just think more an "age" thing in terms of life experience.
When you're 15-20 and just really getting into the relationship thing and still immature and inexperienced (starting the beginning of that long road) and you're trying to make something happen with another immature and inexperienced person, how that plays it is far different than when you're dealing with 30-40 year olds who might already have a lot of relationship experience under their belts. It's common for a girl to have a crush on some handsome, strong, confident guy without seeing what he's like underneath; and vice versa, for guys to crush on girls who attract them physically but not realizing yet how her character might bolster him or hamstring him.
I'm not saying the older people are better, because we all start in a position in inexperience and dealing with other people's inexperience. We all typically go through this and have our youthful optimism crushed by what seems to be an unfair response from the gender of our affection. It doesn't help that at the same time, we still mostly have been untested in life and might not even be sure who we are, what we want, or what we need to be happy and effective in a relationship and in life.
At my age, I just know what guys I need to avoid based on how I know certain things will play out over time, and which guys I have a much better chance of making things work with, and I've learned to accept that. And there's a lot of "steady as she goes" stuff that a woman learns in regards to building a relationship with a man, and lots of things a guy learns to ride out with a woman. There's not really a good way to learn it except by doing it and struggling/failing sometimes.
Distinguishing between civility and sex-want really is hard, and it's entirely the fault of women that, to my mind, nearly all of their behaviors are suggestive of lust.
Distinguishing between civility and sex-want really is hard, and it's entirely the fault of women that to my mind nearly all of their behaviors are suggestive of lust.
^What a dick. (What a cunt. What a dick-in-cunt. What a fuck. What a labia. What a testicle. What a vaginal contraction. What a prostate. What an ejaculation! What a mess. What a collapse. What a deflation. What a relaxation. What a silence.)
Um...It's good to not be clingy but if you're trying to be ~mysterious~ then that's no good either. Well I guess it depends on what kind of girls you're going for...the quiet ones don't like to play those silly 'now you see me now you don't' games. It's just better to be nice and I don't know, treat her like a normal person. But if you're going for the type who wear ugg boots with their Victoria's Secret jogging pants tucked into them then yeah maybe the peekaboo thing would work with her since toddlers are quite fond of that game.
But if you're going for the type who wear ugg boots with their Victoria's Secret jogging pants tucked into them then yeah maybe the peekaboo thing would work with her since toddlers are quite fond of that game.
One thing I've considered is whether or not some, or perhaps even most, strategies people use to attract others can be seen as empathetic ('nice') in some way. Even if the goal is simply to get something (usually sex), the end result may be that the other has benefited from the interaction. For example, a guy 'acting' confident because "girls like confidence" may be quite enjoyable to be around for a girl, presuming she indeed likes confidence. He's giving her what she wants based on an inference, at least he's trying to please her.
Granted, that's a bit devil's advocate-y, and attracting someone because you seem to be something you're not seems only fitting for something short-term at best, but it's an interesting thought. Perhaps the guys who get the girls are the ones who care enough to create false personae.
Here's a strategy I like: Don't act, just be. Yep, sounds like a lame slogan, but I like lame things. It means rather than spending time/energy on how to act around people, spend it actually becoming those things. So if you're not confident, find out how to become more confident (even if that involves, ironically, acting it for a while) and work on that. Taken to its logical extreme, if you don't like your appearance, you'll need lots and lots of plastic surgery and/or lots of stolen spare body parts. I need to work on outlining my strategies better.
Actually, I don't think I care. Life is really just a playground and as long as no irreparable damage is done, who cares who does what under which pretenses? What matters, imo, is learning from whatever happens. Even 'bad' strategies have experimental value and perhaps people need to be fake for a while before they can know what real is.
I wish to add something to this thread based on my own experience. It is specifically related to the saying "Just be yourself." and also to what the previous poster mentioned "Don't act; just be."
The first statement is true, but it is ineffective when said, because:
1. It sounds like a generalisation and everyone seems to toss it around.
2. Often, the thought of "being yourself" is ambiguous in one's own mind and very often, people don't even like themselves. It's hard to "be yourself" if you don't like yourself.
It seems that there are two paths people take when they are not being themselves:
1. The confidence path: pushing people away. This is a persona that hides the self, but it happens to create initial attraction in many cases. It usually doesn't end too well, because the persona starts to take over and it will seek dominance within the relationship.
2. The path of unconfidence: isolation, embarrassment. Riddled with discomfort and sometimes a deep-seated shame, this mask is more self aware and more self-critical. When wearing it, one isn't necessarily trying to hide who they are, but they are barred from doing so, because the situation is overwhelming and this mask seems to offer protection. These traits might actually be common in the first mask, but the confrontation and criticism are projected inwardly, so it manifests completely differently.
My only point so far is that neither of these behaviours is "being yourself". Think of the introvert and how he or she is around the ones with whom he or she is already close? They will act completely differently.
My own experience: I used to fall into that second category. That second category usually creates "nice guys", so to speak. It also creates frustration and desperation, and these can transform the mask into something much more manipulative, or it can create a more self-destructive state. There might be others who don't feel the frustration and desperation so much. I only felt it slightly and only once in a while.
Initially, I dealt with rejection by convincing myself that the feelings were ridiculous and irrational. I think I was 14 when I started doing this. I eventually reached a state where that weaker side of me was completely protected by my Ti, which was able to filter any emotions and "destroy" the ones that were a threat to "mental security". XD
I eventually reached a point where I felt more protected and this increased my confidence, somewhat, in my everyday social interactions. I joined a drama club and learned that I actually enjoyed embarrassing myself in front of hundreds of people. But I wasn't ridiculed either; people seemed to appreciate it and I got good feedback, which reinforced that position. A few years later, I left for Europe for a year and a half.
The experiences I had in Europe, whilst I cannot summarise them here, led me to developing some of my weaker functions, without having to expose them. I had become comfortable with the idea of meeting a girl and letting my curiosity guide me to the parts of me that I would show. This was a gradual process and so I learned a bit about myself everytime. It eventually culminated to my present girlfriend, with whom I saw no need to hide who I was. It being that she is an INFJ, perhaps she has a natural ability to draw someone like me out of their reclusiveness. It is worth mentioning, after all, that she has often acted as an "initiator" in many things. She doesn't see it as a necessity. She actually prefers it that way and we compete a bit at times, although, to be quite frank, I don't care so much about initiating.
The points of thiz wonderfulz storiz are the following:
1. The INTP's inner world is extremely rich.
2. The Ti can be scary for others, even if they are genuinely interested in you. It's important to reveal it gradually, but not to hide it.
3. The Ne is hilarious, witty and extremely charming to some people. Many people hate it and don't get it. Deal with it and use it anyway.
4. It is important not to care so much about how people will react to that inner world when it is revealed to them.
5. Some people will reject on that basis, but that's fine. We wouldn't have gotten along.
6. Some, although they might be rare, are drawn in.
7. But then again, you aren't a Mormon, are you? How many partners do you need at the same time?
@ OP
If you like to play games, for gods sake play an interesting one or she might get bored out of her wits.
It is quite known in psychology b.t.w. that incongruent behaviour is unsettling, makes suspicious. It does not attract.
I for one like people to be genuine, genuinely interesting & seriously funny. I fall for brains not for looks or silly games. But I am probably slightly older than topic starter
same thing, if you get nervous then you touch the hair, scratch the wrist or whatever.
you touch the hair when i enter > i make you nervous > i make you think about what i think of you (e.g. i make you insecure) > YOU LIKE ME
thats quite solid in most cases.
----
less nervous / more bold girls show other signals, like standing in close proximity of me "by coincidence". usually with their back towards me to pretend as if not interested. also quite a solid signal usually
This is not a trick, it is not manipulation. It is simply communicating your desires on an unconscious level using body language and being aware of the signs of attraction woman display, knowing how to read these signs, and making the right move in the game of attraction.
When I was fifteen, I had a secret crush on this guy. Because I was hopelessly insecure and painfully shy I never did anything to reveal it. This went on for a good few months.
Suddenly one day he looked at me in the schoolyard. It was such a studied look, it almost made me feel a bit uneasy. I decided to forget about it.
The following week (this is all very silly when I think about it now), my girlfriend said to me that he had asked her if I wanted to go out with him.
Being young and incredibly naive, I was quite flattered and extremely surprised that someone like him liked someone pathetic like myself. I was terrified, but I said yes. I did have a crush on him after all.
He took me out a few times, we went to see a couple of movies, went to cafes, etc. He was odd, but quite courteous. I was fascinated. We sometimes went around to his house (after me making sure his parent's were always around) to hang out and listen to music. He was into metal, and I regarded this as an enormous plus. Sigh.......
He never touched me, and this reassured me quite a lot. Instead we talked about things, often psychology, as we seemed to have this same fascination. I was getting sucked right in.
One day, he asked me around to his place again. After my parents had made sure that my brother would pick me up at eight, I went there.
He had a friend there, who was actually a class mate of mine. I thought this was a little odd, but then decided it was okay, as this guy was someone I actually respected and liked.
We were sitting in his room, and my "boyfriend" was lying on his bed. He kept saying to me to come and lie down next to him. I refused.
The next thing that happened was that he took his rifle down from the wall and pointed it at me (he was a hunter, a lot of people go hunting where I come from). He said that he thought I should think about what he said more carefully.
I just got up and left. I ran out on the street and to the nearest phone booth where I called home to get my brother to come. When he arrived, I sat in the car and said nothing when he asked me why I was early. I didn't tell anyone, not even my parents because I felt so incredibly stupid. I rang him and said I never wanted to see him again.
Since then, I have detested games.
This guy married a girl eventually. They now have two children. My friend knows them as a couple. She told me that he's a psychopath. He abuses his wife and kids, but because they are "Christians", they cannot let the facade slip.
Most women want attention, but not too much attention. Just like you want attention, but not too much of it. It varies with the person.
Ignoring a woman won't get you anywhere with her. Although, some of the ladies will beat your door down no matter what... for those types it's difficult to get them to go away (ignoring won't work).
You'll have to tell them your real feelings and stop being nice if/when this happens.
Polaris: That is insane. I'm curious, with what kind of expression did he say that with rifle in hand? I mean, even as a joke, something it didn't seem to be, it's terrible. Psychopath indeed. Not sure how I would react, but I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't tell my parents either.
It utterly perplexes me how such people gets to be married. Perhaps the girl he married hadn't the courage to walk out when he pulled the rifle shit on her.
Interesting question: How do you properly ignore a female that likes you and is clearly interested in you (not directly hitting on you or asking you out or anything, but is noticeably interested), but you don't like her back?
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
). I think someone said "what a woman says and how she responds are two entirely different things".
You'll have to tell them your real feelings and stop being nice if/when this happens.