Men & Women, Love & Sex

[DPW]

A huge part of the man's responsibility in this respect is to be aware of and sensitive to the woman's feelings — especially her feelings for him. Far too many men will meet a woman they like, become overwhelmed by their attraction — and, knowing nothing about how a romantic relationship begins, proceed to expend a great deal of energy and ingenuity in their "pursuit" of her, all the while oblivious or indifferent to the fact that she feels no such attraction to him; that he represents no important romantic value, potential or actual, to her.

Consequently, a lot men waste a lot of time, and go through a lot of agony when the object of their desire finally utters those dreaded words about what a great guy he is, and how badly she wants to be his friend.

Right, and the reason this happens so often to so many guys is that they have a false model of how attraction is supposed to work. Guys assume that they're supposed to walk around being nice until they are lucky enough to bump into a girl who sees their moral character and gets weak in the knees for them. Then they meet a girl, fall for her, compliment her, buy her stuff, etc., etc. Their feelings intensify and they decide they must "tell her how I feel", hoping that once they do, she'll realize that she shares those feelings. Of course, usually what happens is exactly what Kevin says: the girl says, "I only like you as a friend" and that is that.

But the thing of it is, while romantic love may be a response to the moral character of one's beloved, *sexual attraction* is NOT. Well, that's only partly true.

For guys, sexual attraction is easy: he sees an good looking girl and *wham*, he feels attraction. Whether or not he falls in love depends on other factors, of course. But for women, things are a little different. Unlike men, women do not usually experience attraction due solely to looks. Rather, attraction for girls is an automatic response to certain qualities a guy subcommunicates through his behavior.

We'll come back to what those qualities are. The part that's of concern here is that what creates attraction is NOT the qualities a guy has: what creates attraction is his behaviors that subcommunicate those qualities. And guess what? You don't have to have those qualities in order to engage in those behaviors, NOR does having those qualities ensure you'll demonstrate those behaviors.

For example, as Objectivists, we are generally intelligent, confident, and passionate individuals. Those qualities, when subcommunicated properly, cause women to feel sexual attraction. Then why do so many Objectivist guys find that they are unable to attract women? Or, at least, the women they want to attract? Because they don't subcommunicate those qualities properly.

What happens is, typically, they do things to put the woman on a pedistool: compliment her, buy her gifts, express their feelings for her too early. If you want to know how to KILL sexual attraction in a women, you can't do any better than that. Objectivist guys also tend to do things that cause women to view them asexually: particularly, they hide their sexual interest early on and don't reveal it until they bust out with, "I love you!"

So how specifically do you create attraction? I have a lot to say on that, but the problem is this: if all you do is read about it, what I have to say won't help you. You have to PRACTICE. In my case, I approach over forty girls a week on average. But most Objectivist guys won't do that. They take the attitude of "I'll wait for my perfect girl to come along." And then she comes along and because he isn't prepared he screws it up and gets the "Let's just be friends talk." It's too bad, because I'll tell you this: there is no form of practice more enjoyable!

[deedlebee]

Interestingly, Deedlebee, you mentioned having "had the courage to pursue [your] current boyfriend," and now you express concern that your actions may have in some way hurt his masculinity. Yet for you, "pursuit" meant merely letting him know you were available. (I cannot possibly be the only guy on this forum who would say that, in my mind, this is approximately akin to referring to an elephant as a transistor radio.)

Mr. Delaney, thank you for your reply. I will start by saying that I have read some of your ideas on your personal website and do not agree with all of them. (But a point by point is best saved for a PM.) However, your post still made me smile with thought. Yesterday I was thinking about my entire relationship with my current boyfriend and I realized I had left out the initial pursuit in my analysis of my actions.

I remember now, very distinctly, the great lengths he went to get my attention and keep a conversation with me after we had initially met. (It's actually a very charming story but perhaps not totally relevant here.) It was after this point that I had thought to put the beginning. I pegged the important perusal moment at the moment deeper feelings were revealed, but that doesn't detract from that very, very important initial "chase".

I don't think there's anything wrong with a candid discussion with another person over whether a relationship should continue at a much more serious, long-term level. That doesn't seem like an issue that should be exclusive to the man or the woman. In essence, there is(was) a very difficult barrier for the two of us to deal with and had to be seriously considered. (Even then, he brought up the topic! I seem to be much too forgetful lately.)

To be the hero in a genuine hero-worshipper's eyes . . . I'm usually pretty good with words, but I suddenly find myself at a loss.

I think this sounds like a compliment ;> If so, it's a nice reassurance. (If not, I'm not sure what to say either.) I genuinely adore everything about this man and highly respect his choice to bring Objectivism into his life. He introduced it to me at a later part of our courtship because he noted that I seem to have an intrinsic sense of life close to this philosophy. I read the books when I'm able and gladly listen to the lectures. But this whole concept, the way it is continually worded causes me to throw up flares and caution signs.

I dislike the doubts I have towards all this, because fundamentally many ideas seem so right. In the past however, I've dealt with other men who used similar or exactly the same terms in wholly different ways. It should be obvious that I disliked these interpretations by the fact I am no longer with them ;> Still, I take sex and love very seriously, and I'm honestly afraid that I may mistake the intentions of my wonderful boyfriend by misunderstanding the language used. This is not to say that I believe Objectivists use terms in similar meaning with a group that would interpret it in an extreme or destructive way. I simply want to pin down, in words and thoughts, what exactly is going on.

I suppose for some, there would be an option to stop bothering with trying to explicitly explain the psychology and ideas behind all this, and just to "trust and enjoy", but for me, I'm simply not settled once a question lodges itself in my mind. I dislike (or am confused) the idea that I am not entirely feminine because I consider my boyfriend to be a value, one of the highest in my life, and that my actions to please or continue interesting him is somehow insulting or degrading to his masculinity. Is this just a case of point by point evaluation per case? What is not clear to me is at what point do my actions cease being feminine (and insult him, lead/push too much) or can be considered "worship" (and praise him, not "do too much", letting him lead).

[JMeganSnow]

Thank you, Kevin Delany and DPW! You nailed this one, big time.

Speaking as a woman, it's REALLY hard to tell a guy, "Well, I like you, really, I like everything about you, but I'm just not attracted to you because you don't convey the right sort of presence."

The general result I get is, "What, you don't think I'm cute?"

Definitely some miscommunication going on there.

[JMeganSnow]

What is not clear to me is at what point do my actions cease being feminine (and insult him, lead/push too much) or can be considered "worship" (and praise him, not "do too much", letting him lead).

Ahh, I think I see the problem here. You're looking at a false alternative, between utter surrender (quelling your own personality) and feminist domineering. The truth is you don't have to do (or want to do!) EITHER of these things.

I don't think you have any problems with femininity or lack of femininity, you seem to be handling things just fine. As Kevin said, it's a dance. You only need to worry if you find yourself constantly quelling your own thoughts to avoid insulting your boyfriend's "masculinity". If he starts to feel oppressed he'll probably start to resent it and that's pretty obvious, too.

The only thing you need to realize is that the (apparently quite pleasant!) situation between the two of you isn't some sort of compromise whereby one is oppressed by the other, it's right and (I think) best for the man to take the lead.

[Free Capitalist]

Don, I really like what you had to say, especially this part:

I approach over forty girls a week on average. But most Objectivist guys won't do that. They take the attitude of "I'll wait for my perfect girl to come along." And then she comes along and because he isn't prepared he screws it up and gets the "Let's just be friends talk."

But I do have a point of disagreement where you say,

while romantic love may be a response to the moral character of one's beloved, *sexual attraction* is NOT. Well, that's only partly true.

For guys, sexual attraction is easy: he sees an good looking girl and *wham*, he feels attraction. Whether or not he falls in love depends on other factors, of course.

I think this addresses only the superficial characteristics of attraction that a guy demonstrates, without addressing the essence. For example, in the thread questioning Roark's 'rape' of Dominique, a user raised serious doubts about whether one could judge a woman's character from impressions, without talking to her (i.e. the Roark/Dominique case). In response, I wrote a post, which you can find here, where I showed that attraction, even in men, is never just physical, and never solely dependent on the woman's body. Her values always shine through, through the imperceptible aspects of her voice, the posture of her body, the movement of her limbs, the angle of her head, the movement of her eyes, the shape of her lips, etc. And here too, just like you said that a man can imitate a virtuous character to attract a girl, she can likewise imitate presence of virtue by training herself to look, stand, walk, smile, etc, a certain way; that's how most beautiful people get by today, by imitation. But that only proves the point I'm making here.

The difference between how men and women feel attraction, as Betsy has explained on this forum, is not that men don't require moral evaluation, only that women require other things in addition to moral evaluation. For a man, seeking a woman is just like seeking any other values - he looks around for the best one, and pursues her. For a woman, to be attracted to a guy is to feel pursued, and it will not be enough that be a moral man, but he also has to establish an environment of safety for her. The analogy Betsy used was driving a car: the man is the driver, so he directs where the car goes, and can take whatever course he likes, at whatever speed he likes; he directs his own enjoyment. A woman, merely in the driver's seat, has to both feel secure (i.e. she doesn't want the driver to go too fast) and excited (i.e. she doesn't want the driver to go too slow). Since she's not in the driver's seat, her metaphysical role is far more vulnerable, and that's why she needs to be comfortable that she's entrusting this vulnerability to the right person.

A man, in order to accept the role of the driver, needs to feel like his passenger is admirable and worth driving (not, as you seem to imply, only that she looks good). The woman, in order to accept the man as a driver, not only needs to know that the he is virtuous, but also, since she's not in control, to have confidence that he will not drive the car in such a way as to make it overturn.

---

PS Though I rely here extensively on Betsy's analogies and posts about this subject, I want to emphasize that don't mean to speak for her, and any errors and misunderstandings contained herein are mine alone.

Edited January 28, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[DPW]

In response, I wrote a post, which you can find here, where I showed that attraction, even in men, is never just physical, and never solely dependent on the woman's body. Her values always shine through, through the imperceptible aspects of her voice, the posture of her body, the movement of her limbs, the angle of her head, the movement of her eyes, the shape of her lips, etc. Regardless of how nature has built her, it is her virtues and values that a moral man will always respond to (showing here in the respectively imperceptible ways). And here too, just like you said that a man can imitate a virtuous character to attract a girl, she can likewise imitate presence of virtue by training herself to look, stand, walk, etc, a certain way; that's how most beautiful people get by today, by imitation. But that only proves the point I'm making here.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it was just a looks thing with men. I was just throwing that out there to set up the contrast before explaining that creating attraction in women isn't about what you do to/for the her, but about how you communicate attractive qualities about YOURSELF.

The difference between how men and women feel attraction, as Betsy has explained on this forum, is not that men don't require moral evaluation, only that women require other things in addition to moral evaluation. For a man, seeking a woman is just like seeking any other values - he looks around for the best one, and pursues her. For a woman, to be attracted to a guy is to feel pursued, and it is not enough that he is a moral man, but he also has to establish an environment of safety for her.

This is good except the one line: "For a woman, to be attracted to a guy is to feel pursued." That is not what it is for a woman to be attracted. On the contrary, one of the keys to creating attraction is getting a woman to pursue YOU. Yeah, you'll actually be pursuing her, but she doesn't need to know that.

That's why I'm dubious about Kevin's dating advice, even though he has a lot of great stuff to say about the abstract side of romance. In his post, he wrote:

Any two people can talk and get acquainted: the "dance" only officially begins when the man takes the romantic lead by asking the woman for her phone number, and later calling her and asking her out on a date.

This is what every guy does when he's interested in a girl, and it's exactly what you shouldn't do if you want HER to be interested in YOU.

First, I don't recommend waiting until you get her number to show interest, and even after you get the number your interest should be ambiguous. As to what you SHOULD be doing from the time you meet her until the time you get her number, let me know if it's of interest and I'll post on it.

But second and more importantly: DO NOT ASK GIRLS ON DATES. Or, to put it more simply, dates suck. Either it's boring, and the guy spends all kinds of money to take a girl out to eat, and they both feel uncomfortable and ask each other "resume" questions, and the girl is thinking, "If I let him pay, will he think I owe him something in return?" and the guy is sitting there thinking about how he's going to get up the nerve to kiss her at the end of the night. OR, the guy comes up with something really elaborate to impress her, subcommunicating that he's not interesting enough for her just to want to hang out with. Dates are attraction killers because they frame the girl as the selector: you're trying to impress her so she'll choose you.

What should you do instead? Be informal. Be fun. Be original. Call her up and say, "Hey, I have to run some errands...come keep me company." [Nothing better than taking a girl clothes shopping with you...it literally turns them on]. Or, "There's this great sushi place I know downtown. Let's grab something to eat." Or, "Hey, I'm really busy. I've got this paper I've got to write. Why don't you grab a book, come over, and hang out. But no talking!" Or, "I'm thinking about spending the day at home relaxing and maybe renting a movie. What's your favorite movie? Okay, go rent it and we'll watch it together." I've done all of these things and they WORK. And they're cheap, which is great if you're a poor college student.

The analogy Betsy used was driving a car: the man is the driver, so he directs where the car goes, and can take whatever course he likes, at whatever speed he likes; he directs his own enjoyment. A woman, merely in the driver's seat, has to both feel secure (i.e. she doesn't want the driver to go too fast) and excited (i.e. she doesn't want the driver to go too slow). In essence, her metaphysical role is far more vulnerable, and that's why she needs to be comfortable that she's entrusting this vulnerability to the right person.

Let's clarify. You're here talking about the view that a successful relationship should be led by a strong male. Okay, great point, but around here that's kind of like saying "Selfishness is good." The problem is that the Objectivist world is filled with a bunch of guys who can't wait to drive, but don't know how to convince anyone to get in the car in the first place!

Of course, maybe I shouldn't tell them and keep all the Objectivist girls for myself...then again, most O'ist girls aren't even close to my type, so what the heck, if anyone's interested, I'll share my thoughts.

[iouswuoibev]

Reflecting back on what JMegan said earlier - that a man inviting pursuit or not pursuing her is a turn-off - I am wondering whether the opposite is true: that a woman pursuing a man (in the same way a man is supposed to pursue a woman) would be a turn off for him.

I'm not sure. One thing that might come to my mind if a woman was pursuing me in that manner would be "Is she like this with every man she finds attractive?", and while this thought wouldn't be cast in a positive light, I can't explain why. Thoughts, anyone?

So how specifically do you create attraction?  I have a lot to say on that, but the problem is this: if all you do is read about it, what I have to say won't help you.  You have to PRACTICE.  In my case, I approach over forty girls a week on average.

Broken any hearts yet, Don?

I think if you can manage to approach 40 women in your entire LIFETIME then you have the whole "approach a woman and get her interested" schtick cracked.

As a habit, I don't pursue women at all. However, if I were to encounter a woman that I perceived as being worth pursuing, I would find it impossible NOT to pursue her. How good I'll be at it, though, is another matter. I am guessing that is where the practice comes in. But, should it be necessary to practice? The thought of approaching woman for mere practice doesn't seem honest (because there is an ulterior motive).

I think we need a definition of pursuit here.  Generally I agree with Betsy's remarks as they gel with my own observations, but I'm having a difficult time finding the right words to describe my observations.

You're right; I was equivocating on the meaning of pursuit. And while I think I grasp the differences between the meaning of "pursuit" in the two contexts (that of a man pursuing a woman, and that of the pursuit of any other value) I can't articulate them either. Hopefully someone else will be up to the task. To begin with, the things Betsy mentioned (which Kevin pointed out) are helpful in distinguishing these two ideas.

Edit: Edited first sentence to convey my meaning better.

[DPW]

I think if you can manage to approach 40 women in your entire LIFETIME then you have the whole "approach a woman and get her interested" schtick cracked.

As a habit, I don't pursue women at all. However, if I were to encounter a woman that I perceived as being worth pursuing, I would find it impossible NOT to pursue her. How good I'll be at it, though, is another matter. I am guessing that is where the practice comes in. But, should it be necessary to practice? The thought of approaching woman for mere practice doesn't seem honest (because there is an ulterior motive).

But there's not an ulterior motive. Your motive, when you approach a girl, should be to have an enjoyable interaction. That's it. Be completely detached from the outcome, whether it be getting her number or getting a drink thrown in your face (which actually never happens). I call it practice because you'll not only have fun, you'll learn something in the process and start to become really good at approaching and attracting women.

And just to clarify, it's not that I say, "Oh, wow, a girl I don't like, let me go approach her so that I'll be ready for the girl I do like." Rather, it's that I approach girls to find out if they are worthy of my further interest. I mean, how else are you supposed to find Miss Perfect?

And yes, I'm serious, do forty approaches a week: go out four nights a week, four hours a night, one approach every twenty minutes or so. Try it for a month and report back your results.

[JMeganSnow]

Of course, maybe I shouldn't tell them and keep all the Objectivist girls for myself...then again, most O'ist girls aren't even close to my type, so what the heck, if anyone's interested, I'll share my thoughts.

What does a woman's philosophy have to do with her attractiveness? Do you mean that Objectivism encourages traits that you find unattractive? If so, why are you an Objectivist? If the result is bad, then the source must also be bad, yes?

[Free Capitalist]

The problem is that the Objectivist world is filled with a bunch of guys who can't wait to drive, but don't know how to convince anyone to get in the car in the first place!

Great quote!

You're here talking about the view that a successful relationship should be led by a strong male. Okay, great point, but around here that's kind of like saying "Selfishness is good."

Not exactly. AR's books very explicitly talk about strong men, and in that sense, yes stating that would be trivial. But what I was talking about was the other side of it, that these strong men are also gentle and sensitive toward the women they chose to pursue. Just like in everything else in life, it's a balance between two contrasting opposites. It is this aspect that I'm trying to reinforce here, which was actually present in AR's books too, but required a much more careful reading to observe. Only through Betsy's help was I able to see both sides of the issue. Just like "Selfishness is good" does not mean, "Let's go out and rob a bank", "Strong man is good" does not mean, "I am the king of the jungle, come live in my harem, wench."

Not that you were saying that, but this clarification is necessary here, for balance.

---

Actually, if you think about it, there are few things in life more ironic than one guy telling another about what women want, and this latter guy telling him what women really want, and in what aspects the first guy is in error. I'd like women themselves to chime in, because, hopefully, they know something about the subject as well!

Btw, where do you find 40 girls to flirt with each week? Not even the most hardcore party guys on this campus go that far! You don't intend to really start a harem of your own, do you?

[iouswuoibev]

First, I don't recommend waiting until you get her number to show interest, and even after you get the number your interest should be ambiguous.  As to what you SHOULD be doing from the time you meet her until the time you get her number, let me know if it's of interest and I'll post on it.

Of course, maybe I shouldn't tell them and keep all the Objectivist girls for myself...then again, most O'ist girls aren't even close to my type, so what the heck, if anyone's interested, I'll share my thoughts.

Post away. Or perhaps even better: make a new blog entry for it?

But there's not an ulterior motive. Your motive, when you approach a girl, should be to have an enjoyable interaction. That's it. Be completely detached from the outcome, whether it be getting her number or getting a drink thrown in your face (which actually never happens). I call it practice because you'll not only have fun, you'll learn something in the process and start to become really good at approaching and attracting women.

And just to clarify, it's not that I say, "Oh, wow, a girl I don't like, let me go approach her so that I'll be ready for the girl I do like." Rather, it's that I approach girls to find out if they are worthy of my further interest. I mean, how else are you supposed to find Miss Perfect?

I see what you mean, though I wouldn't expect to find Miss Perfect while trawling bars. Is it really that enjoyable? Particularly when talking to someone who turns out not to be worthy of further interest.

And yes, I'm serious, do forty approaches a week: go out four nights a week, four hours a night, one approach every twenty minutes or so. Try it for a month and report back your results.

I'll give it some thought.

[Free Capitalist]

actually "iouswuoibev" asks an interesting question. When you say "go out four nights a week" you don't mean regular bars, do you?

[Al Kufr]

So how specifically do you create attraction?  I have a lot to say on that, but the problem is this: if all you do is read about it, what I have to say won't help you.  You have to PRACTICE.  In my case, I approach over forty girls a week on average.  But most Objectivist guys won't do that.  They take the attitude of "I'll wait for my perfect girl to come along."  And then she comes along and because he isn't prepared he screws it up and gets the "Let's just be friends talk."  It's too bad, because I'll tell you this: there is no form of practice more enjoyable!

You sound like David DeAngelo, have you ever been to this website by any chance?

doubleyourdating.com

[DPW]

What does a woman's philosophy have to do with her attractiveness?  Do you mean that Objectivism encourages traits that you find unattractive? 

Of course not. What I meant was that I'm only interested in extremely physically attractive, extremely social women. Those kind of girls are rare even in the population at large. Now, couple that with the fact that there aren't that many Objectivist girls my age, and many of the ones who are tend to be on the less social side, and that's why I say that most O'ist girls aren't even close to my type.

--

iouswuoibev writes:

I see what you mean, though I wouldn't expect to find Miss Perfect while trawling bars. Is it really that enjoyable? Particularly when talking to someone who turns out not to be worthy of further interest.

I don't know where this myth comes from that worthwhile girls don't go to bars and clubs, but I do know it's a myth. That's not to say you have to go to bars and clubs. Bookstores, cafes...malls are great, too. If your goal is to find a girl, don't sit around waiting for her to knock on your door. Unless you ordered her from Russia, it ain't gonna happen!

Is it that enjoyable? I think so, but for me a big part of it is just meeting new people. I used to be really shy in social situations, but eventually I got tired of just waiting for a girl to fall in my lap (literally!) so I got out and got over it. Now I talk to people everwhere, men and women, and I love it. And if they're not worthy of further interest, then so what? I've had a good time, I put a smile on their face, and I've learned something in the process. It's a no-lose situation.

But more importantly, don't focus on the negative. Sure, some aren't worthy, and once in a while you'll get totally shot down (this happens much less often than you think), but who cares about those? Focus on the ones who ARE worthy of your interest and attention. I mean, would you say to Barry Bonds, "Why do you bother swinging the bat when most of the time you're probably not going to hit the ball?"

--

Free Capitalist writes:

Actually, if you think about it, there are few things in life more ironic than one guy telling another about what women want, and this latter guy telling him what women really want, and in what aspects the first guy is in error. I'd like women themselves to chime in, because, hopefully, they know something about the subject as well!

It may be ironic, but I promise you: men who are successful with women can teach you more about how to attract women, than could a woman. The same is true in reverse...if you want to know how to attract men, ask a woman who's good at attracting men!

There's good reason for this. There's a big difference between what we think attracts us and what attracts us, especially in the case of women. Example: ask a woman how she wants to be approached and she'll say something like, "I want him to smile and say hi." Then you'll go do that and wonder why you aren't getting good responses. Why? When you ask a woman how she wants to be approached, she pictures a guy she *already* finds attractive and thinks about how she would want him to make her feel comfortable. That's no help to you unless you're lucky enough to be a girl's physical type. Even then, "Hi" is seldom the best way to approach.

Btw, where do you find 40 girls to flirt with each week? Not even the most hardcore party guys on this campus go that far! You don't intend to really start a harem of your own, do you?

I live near Washington, D.C. so there are a ton of bars and clubs in my area. But unless you live far from city, finding the girls isn't all that difficult. I mean, they're all around you, especially if you're in school. Take advantage of every opportunity. Have you ever eaten lunch by yourself between classes? Well, don't do that. Sit down with a girl...don't ask, just sit and start talking to her. Do your homework in cafe. Listen to Objectivist lectures on headphones while you walk around town. Use your imagination.

--

Al Kufr writes:

You sound like David DeAngelo, have you ever been to this website by any chance?

David's material is great. Every guy should at least read his eBook.

[Al Kufr]

Right, and the reason this happens so often to so many guys is that they have a false model of how attraction is supposed to work.  Guys assume that they're supposed to walk around being nice until they are lucky enough to bump into a girl who sees their moral character and gets weak in the knees for them.  Then they meet a girl, fall for her, compliment her, buy her stuff, etc., etc.  Their feelings intensify and they decide they must "tell her how I feel", hoping that once they do, she'll realize that she shares those feelings.  Of course, usually what happens is exactly what Kevin says: the girl says, "I only like you as a friend" and that is that.

What happens is, typically, they do things to put the woman on a pedistool: compliment her, buy her gifts, express their feelings for her too early. If you want to know how to KILL sexual attraction in a women, you can't do any better than that. Objectivist guys also tend to do things that cause women to view them asexually: particularly, they hide their sexual interest early on and don't reveal it until they bust out with, "I love you!"

Guys equate GOOD with ALTRUISM. And they think that

if they are altruistic and give a girl gifts, drive a hundred miles just to see a girl for 15 minutes, and compliment her all day and tell her how their whole life revolves around her then maybe she will like him. Basiclly guys turns into altruistic wusses and girls DONT LIKE THAT.

Thenguys get confused by the womans reaction to their "niceness" and ask themselves, " Im being GOOD(Good=nice=altruist), why dont girls like me?" and "Why do girl go for "bad boys"?"

And what does our culture say is bad? SELFISHNESS

WOMEN LIKE MANLY SELFISH MEN.

But when it comes to Objectivists males trying to meet girls. It seems like some altruist elements carry over to their social interactiosn with girls. They dont seem to apply Objectivism consistently and just do what the rest of the males in the culture do. And what the rest of the culture in general tells them to do is to be an altruist.

[DPW]

Okay, this is for the guys. No peeking girls!

...

So you're an Objectivist. You're intelligent, rational, moral, creative, ambitious, confident, independent, passionate, and unique. You're probably successful, whether in your career or in school. You're also proud, so it's likely you take good care of yourself: you work out, eat well, dress well, keep clean, etc.

But for some reason, and it really does baffle you, there's one area of your life that isn't going as you would like: there's no girl in your life...or maybe there is, but she's not attracted to you. In fact, that happens a lot. You'll meet a girl you find at least semi-attractive, you'll try to win her heart or just get her in bed, and when she tells you she just wants to be friends, you tell yourself it's okay, you didn't really want her anyway because she's not Dagny or whatever.

Now, in most cases, when there's something you want, you go out and get it. But this is different. You feel as though it's almost out of your control. Like it's a matter of luck. First, you have to stumble upon a girl you find attractive, and then you have to hope that she finds you attractive. It's enough to drive a guy nuts: the most important part of your life besides your career, and the only thing you can think to do is tell yourself to be patient while you sit at home watching Debbie Does Dallas.

Sound familiar? That basically describes me up until six months ago, and I know for a fact that describes a lot of Objectivist guys I've met or interacted with online. So what's going on?

The usual answer is: there aren't enough single Objectivist women. And that's true. There aren't. But there are a lot of great women out there, and perhaps we wouldn't marry a non-Objectivist (although I certainly would), but there's not a single good reason we shouldn't date them.

The truth is this: the qualities of your character are attractive, but your actions, words, and behaviors are subcommunicating different qualities that are UNattractive. That's the bad news. The good news is, all of that is under your control. You can learn to make your "outer game" congruent with your "inner game" and in so doing you will end up attracting lots of beautiful women, and eventually, one spectacular one who you will then marry. (And it goes without saying that you will invite me to the wedding so I can meet all the bridesmaids.)

By the way, you might be wondering why you should listen to me. Well, I don’t talk about my personal life online, and I don’t expect you to take me on faith, but I think ( a ) what I’m going to tell you will make sense when you look back at your past experiences, and ( b ) once you go out and start testing the things I’m throwing your way, you’ll see that they work. But I digress…

How do you attract girls? Well, let’s start with an easier question: what sorts of mistakes do you make that kill attraction?

Here, in no particular order, and with varying levels of generality, are some common mistakes: put the girl on a pedestal, tell her how much you like her, compliment her a lot, making yourself too available, holding her to a lower standard of behavior than you would a friend or a girl you weren’t attracted to, buying her gifts, trying to not disagree with her, making her feel as though she is of higher value than you, hiding your sexual side, failing to take things to a physical level at the appropriate moment, letting her choose the movie/restaurant/etc., seeking her approval, supplicating, etc., etc.

Now, some of those things are okay (at least once in a while) when you’re in a relationship. For instance, you should definitely tell your girlfriend you love her and buy her gifts when you want to. But until then, all of these things will brand you as Just A Friend. Eliminate them and watch as you never get the “Let’s just be friends” speech EVER AGAIN.

Why are these things so destructive to attraction? Because they all subcommunicate qualities that are unattractive. They subcommunicate that you’re needy, that you’re of low value, that you lack confidence.

To create attraction, you need to display behaviors that subcommunicate attractive characteristics. What’s interesting is that most of the things women naturally find attractive are all qualities of character that Objectivism upholds and makes possible: Self-esteem/Self-Confidence, Conviction, Passion, Purpose, Selfishness, Pride, Ability, Ambition, Intelligence, Success, Benevolent Sense of Life. Really, the only quality that is extremely attractive, but which isn’t part of Objectivism, is humor.

You would think that having those qualities would be enough, but for some reason, when it comes to attracting women, many Objectivists fall into the Nice Guy trap and act in ways that are incongruent with their inner convictions.

Why? I don’t know. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that no one tells us how to attract women.

On the contrary, most of the messages we receive tell us that we don’t have to do anything. Just “be ourselves.” But that’s empty advice. We all have different sides to our personality. We act in different ways depending on the context. We don’t interact with our parents the same way we do our friends, even though we are still “being ourselves” in both cases. Just as “be yourself” is not helpful advice for someone who is about to go on a job interview, it is not helpful advice when seeking to create attraction.

Of course, when people do give us specific advice, it’s usually bad. I’m sure you remember your mom’s words: be nice, open doors, compliment her, etc., etc. It just goes to show that what attracts women, and what women think attracts women are not always the same.

Okay, now for the practical advice. I could literally write a book on this, so I’m just going to throw some things out there as they occur to me.

Approaching. Okay, pop quiz. You’re walking down the street and you see a girl you want to talk to: what do you say? If an answer didn’t automatically pop into your head then you have some homework to do. Think of the situations you’re commonly in where you see women you want to talk to, but aren’t sure what to say, and come up with a line that works for each. I do NOT mean a pick up line. What you want is a conversation starter. “Hey, I need a female opinion. Who do you think lies more, men or women?” Or just start telling her about something interesting that happened to you that day. Whatever. The point is that you want to engage her interest without hitting on her. No compliments!

Conversation. Learn how to tell stories. This is key. One of the worst mistakes guys make when they first meet a girl is that they engage in “resume talk.” “So, where do you go to school? What’s your major? Where are you from? Paper or plastic?” Blah, BORING! Your job is not write her biography or help her write yours. Your job is to engage her by being interesting. If she asks you one of those questions, answer with a story. Think of things in your life that demonstrate the traits women find attractive, and then turn them into stories. Remember, you can’t say, “I have pride,” but you can tell her about a close friend who didn’t treat you the way he should have, and how, even though it killed you, you ended the relationship. As for asking her questions, don’t ask to many right away, and be unique with the ones you do ask. If you’re in college, don’t ask what her major is. Ask her if she could have one personality trait that she currently lacks, which would it be?

Teasing. It’s natural that you would want to say nice things to someone you like, but if attraction is the goal, then that is exactly what you shouldn’t do. Instead, playfully tease her about anything and everything. Don’t be mean. If she’s not laughing, you’re not teasing her; you’re abusing her (or she has low self-esteem, in which case…GOODBYE!). The other day, I was sitting next to this girl in my history class, and she had this scarf around her neck that had all these crazy colors. “Hey, put that think away. You’re hurting my eyes. No, no, I’m serious. Like, instead of giving our Army guys armor, we should just send them that scarf so they could blind all the Iraqis.”

Qualifying. I said before that you shouldn’t show her too much interest early on. In fact, you really shouldn’t show any explicit interest at all until you qualify her. Your goal here is to set up some hurdles she has to clear in order to gain your interest. This is essential: you have to be a challenge so that, when you do show your interest in her, she’ll feel as though she earned it. Things of high value don’t come free, and if you start showing interest before qualifying her, you’re subcommunicating that you are not of high value. “Are you adventurous? Okay, good, because I only hang out with adventurous people. Wait, what’s the most adventurous thing you’ve done in the last year?” (By the way, nine out of ten times, she will tell you, “I kissed my girlfriend.”)

Some more random things.

-If you’re outside a bar or club, you should start touching her as soon as possible (not sexual…just touch her arm for a moment, or grab her hands, or whatever). If you’re in a bar, don’t, because you’ll get lumped in with all the guys who get beer brave and start grabbing on them. But if you do it out of that setting, you’ll ramp up the attraction levels quickly.

-If you want to really get her worked up, pull her in then push her away. For example: “Oh my God, you have the greatest smile. Wait…actually…no, I’ve seem some pretty good smiles. You have like the fourth best smile. I’m going to call you number four.”

-Be mysterious and hard to get. Remember, you don’t have to answer all her questions. In fact, often it’s better not to.

-Don’t be afraid to talk about sex, but do it in a way that communicates, “I am sexual,” not, “I’m desperate for sex.” This is only for those of you who aren’t Puritans, though, because girls are very touchy about being judged about things they’ve done in bed, and they’re even more touchy about having their fantasies judged. My advice: keep your judgments to yourself, and if it’s too much for you, just say goodbye.

-Misinterpret her words and actions as her trying to hit on you. And then tell her it’s not going to work…you’re not that easy!

-Be selective. Demonstrate that you have high standards.

-Be decisive. YOU pick the movie. YOU pick the restaurant. YOU tell her what to wear.

-Guess what? Most girls have had one night stands, and not because they have low standards or because they’re “sluts”. It’s because, when women get sexual, they disengage their logical mind. That’s what Betsy talked about when she referred to the transition a girl has to make from value pursuer to value pursued: she literally shuts off her logical (read: goal directed) mind. Girls will naturally do things to keep that from happening if they’ve just met you, but those defenses aren’t bullet proof. I point this out because some people have made the argument that, while a moral guy could sleep with someone he didn’t know or value, a moral girl couldn’t, and therefore a moral man WOULDN’T. In fact, that’s not true. If you know how to push the right buttons, you can put girls into a sexual state without setting off their defenses, and no matter what rules they’ve set down for themselves, they will sleep with you.

Okay, I could go on, but this should be enough to wet your whistle. If you follow the above, I can’t promise you you’ll end up with models, but I can assure you you will never again land up in “Just Friends” zone.

Happy Hunting…

[Al Kufr]

In summery, just go here www.doubleyourdating.com

[DPW]

In summery, just go here    www.doubleyourdating.com

Dude, what are you, like David D.'s Objectivist advertising agent? That's the second time you posted the URL. Is he paying you? Does he like bring you to parties in LA and show you off to his friends. "This is my buddy Al Kufr. Isn't he cute? He posts my URL all over Objectivist boards. Mmm...gimmie a kiss Kufie!"

[Al Kufr]

Dude, what are you, like David D.'s Objectivist advertising agent?  That's the second time you posted the URL.  Is he paying you? 

No, No, No, hes not paying me. But he should be.

This is my buddy Al Kufr.  Isn't he cute?  He posts my URL all over Objectivist boards.  Mmm...gimmie a kiss Kufie!"

Hey, if i can attract David D to the point where he wants to kiss me, then that must mean im doing something right .

[Aurelia]

I can't tell you how funny it is listening to guys talk about how to score women. Not just because of the irony Free Cap mentioned, but also in some general way, it's like I'm being appreciated.

I know this forum has gone from the roles of masculininty/femininity to a practical dating guide for men, but allow me to add my two cents, despite DPW's claim that women can't communicate what they want.

Women, or rational women, want an appreciation of the value they already posses. They take care to become as successful and wonderful as they can, for their own selfish reasons, but they want a man who sees and understands the value they've created for themself, and who values that in turn. Basically, women know how awesome they are, they want a man who knows it/appreciates it too. Not just any man can do that though, women need someone they admire to value them. A weak, alturistic "nice-guy" who values you is almost an insult.

That said, I agree with most of DPW's dating advice, the goal is to show her how worthy you are of eachother. You can't do that by self-depricating.

-Misinterpret her words and actions as her trying to hit on you. And then tell her it’s not going to work…you’re not that easy!

This, however, is so obvious it's almost desperate. I think most girls would laugh or be confused rather than turned on.

But I can't stress enough how uninteresting indecisive, obsequious, men are. I've had experience with these men and if you act like that all you're likely to get is pity.

Anyway, if it helps, as a woman, I think DPW has it pretty well nailed down. You rock!

~Amanda

[iouswuoibev]

Okay, I could go on, but this should be enough to wet your whistle.

I hope that is just a figure of speech.

Thanks for the post Don. I have a few further questions, but I'll PM them to you because I think we've drifted off topic...

[iouswuoibev]

I'd be interested to know how people reconcile the notion that "men are like this, and women are like this" with the fact that we are born tabula risa.

[DPW]

That said, I agree with most of DPW's dating advice, the goal is to show her how worthy you are of eachother.

Ah! Amanda! You cheated. That was a No Girls article! Oh no, I'm blushing. Oh God. I'm so embarrassed. lol

[JMeganSnow]

I'd be interested to know how people reconcile the notion that "men are like this, and women are like this" with the fact that we are born tabula risa.

(tabula rasa, btw.)

Hormones!

No, in reality it's mostly because sexuality is pretty universal. It's not completely universal, though. I know a man that doesn't experience that instant "see a girl, be attracted" thing, which is sad because he's interpreted it to mean that he has a disorder and rejected any idea of having a romantic relationship of any kind.

The specific traits that an individual finds attractive vary, but there's enough similarity across a culture that you can usually pick them out without too much trouble.

[DPW]

I'd be interested to know how people reconcile the notion that "men are like this, and women are like this" with the fact that we are born tabula risa.

We are also born as males and females, and those physiological and biological differences have social and psychological consequences. Let's consider just a few of those:

Men are typically larger, stronger, have more testosterone. Men are sexually aggressive, women sexually receptive (i.e., from a metaphysical perspective, a man necessarily initiates sex). Women have the potential to get pregnant and give birth. Male and female brains are wired differently (as I recall, men process language with only one side of our brain while women use both). That's just to name a few.

Here is one more difference, which I find very fascinating. When it comes to sexual arousal, men are like light switches and women are like volume knobs. For guys, arousal is almost binary: on or off. And all it takes to flip the switch is a visual stimulus. For girls, arousal typically takes time and depends more on senses other than sight. In fact, as I've discussed before, their attraction mechanism is tied to character traits (as communicated through behavior), rather than looks.

Now, what would explain that difference? I'm not a huge fan of evolutionary explanations, but in this case, I think it explains why we would have developed these two different mechanisms. For males, it is in their "evolutionary interests" to sleep with as many girls as possible: the only criterion is "can she make babies?" And how could Mr. Caveman figure that out? Visually: was she youthful and healthy? But for Cavechick, giving birth was a huge investment that could even cost her her life. She therefore would respond to Alpha characteristics: strength, intelligence, etc.

(Oh, and I'm not saying that therefore guys have a need to sleep with lots of women, so don't the Puritans here freak out or anything.)

The point is this. Tabula rasa means that we are born without knowledge (since knowledge begins with sense experience). No one disputes that. However, natural, biological differences between men and women can and do still have huge effects on their respective psychologies. There is no contradiction there.