Men & Women, Love & Sex

[JMeganSnow]

I'm not a huge fan of evolutionary explanations

Neither am I, because if biology is enough to explain matters then either a.) one or two exceptions disprove your entire theory OR b.) those exceptions are biological abnormalities.

I'm not going to make a judgement one way or the other, but I had some thoughts I wanted to throw out:

Concerning the fact that a man can look at a woman and make an instant judgement about whether he finds her attractive or not, I can do this too. (I'm het, just so there's no confusion.) Show me a woman and I can tell you instantly whether she fits in my definiton of "attractiveness" for a woman. Why do I have a definition? It's something I use to decide how I want to present myself. Well, and for evaluating the competition.

Generally I have a harder time doing this for men (I can still do it, it just takes longer). I can identify the features I like (height and a trim, spare build, mostly: I'm 5'11" and short guys needle my aesthetic sense). The reason I mention this is regarding the process of automatization: it takes a certain minimum number of examples before you can automatize a response to something.

Having been absolutely SATURATED with female images and downright rock-solid definitions of what is "attractive" for women, I can pick them out instantly, I don't even have to think about it. I have less general exposure to male images, and the definition of what's attractive in a man is far shakier.

This is me, though, I can certainly point out some females that can instantly judge "hot" or "not" in any man they come across.

I don't think there's necessarily such a sharp dividing line between what attracts men and women to potential partners.

[iouswuoibev]

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.

Tabula rasa also means we are born without automatized emotions, since emotions are derived from conceptual knowledge, according to Ayn Rand.

This is one reason I've yet to fully agree with Objectivism; through my own introspection I've come to believe that some emotions (and they are emotions, not reflexes) involving sexual arousal, and the resulting behaviour prompted by it, are pre-conceptual.

If the different ways men and women are aroused is purely physiological, why are there reoccuring patterns in male and female behaviour that are too intricate to described as mere physical reflexes? And if there is emotion involved, again, why the reoccuring behaviour, if we derive all our emotional responses on our own as individuals?

EDIT: Edited for spelling.

[DPW]

This is me, though, I can certainly point out some females that can instantly judge "hot" or "not" in any man they come across. 

I don't think there's necessarily such a sharp dividing line between what attracts men and women to potential partners.

Of course not. We are, after all, all human beings. But there ARE differences and they ARE fascinating. They are also helpful in identifying how to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex.

One other point. I didn't mean to imply that the visual was unimportant to women: they CAN be attracted to a guy based on his looks. That's obvious enough. Rather, my point was that for girls, looks are a preferance -- they (generally) prefer tall, dark, handsome men -- but attraction isn't about what you prefer. If a guy who doesn't meet those criteria knows how to spark attraction through his behaviors, none of that matters. That's why you'll see plain or even unattractive-looking guys walking around with models (yeah, sometimes they're rich, but not always). On the other hand, you will very rarely see the opposite: a very good looking guy with a plain or unattractive woman. For guys, visual attraction is a primary.

--

iouswuoibev writes:

If the different ways men and women are aroused is purely physiological, why are there reoccuring patterns in male and female behaviour that are too intricate to described as mere physical reflexes? And if there is emotion involved, again, why the reoccuring behaviour, if we derive all our emotional responses on our own as individuals?

Could you specify some of these reoccuring patterns?

Thanks.

[JMeganSnow]

This is one reason I've yet to fully agree with Objectivism; through my own introspection I've come to believe that some emotions (and they are emotions, not reflexes) involving sexual arousal, and the resulting behaviour prompted by it, are pre-conceptual.

If the different ways men and women are aroused is purely physiological, why are there reoccuring patterns in male and female behaviour that are too intricate to described as mere physical reflexes? And if there is emotion involved, again, why the reoccuring behaviour, if we derive all our emotional responses on our own as individuals?

EDIT: Edited for spelling.

Emotions can be pre-conceptual (i.e. they can involve no explicltly identified concepts) but they do embody an evaluation. Similarly behavior can be pre-conceptual, but such behavior is irrational, viz Pavlov's salivating dogs.

What specific reoccuring behavior are you referencing? Personally I think it's caused by shared context; you learn how to get along with other humans the same way you learn to speak a language, by imitation. Later, you can subject this process to rational thought. By that time it may indeed appear to you as though your knowledge arrived whole in your mind and must be the result of biology/insight/what-have-you but in truth you did learn it yourself.

[iouswuoibev]

Could you specify some of these reoccuring patterns?

You did, where you have written about the things that women will respond to.

Emotions can be pre-conceptual (i.e. they can involve no explicltly identified concepts) but they do embody an evaluation.

This seems compatible with what I've learned, though, I think I have some more reading and thinking to do. It touches on something else I'd like to discuss, but not in this thread.

EDIT: Edited to quote the correct person.

[DPW]

You did, where you have written about the things that women will respond to.

Okay, but I can tie all those back either to reflexes or automatized conceptual judgments. I can also explain why MOST girls share the same or similar automatized conceptual judgments, and thus respond similarly to various behaviors.

In fact, one of the things I didn't really talk about was how attraction-creating behaviors depend on things such as the girl's level of self-esteem. In other words, the patterns I noted were conditional and not innate to all women.

[Capitalism Forever]

I've come to believe that some emotions (and they are emotions, not reflexes) involving sexual arousal, and the resulting behaviour prompted by it, are pre-conceptual.

Could it be that the reactions you are talking about are in fact sensations ?

[JMeganSnow]

Of course not.  We are, after all, all human beings.  But there ARE differences and they ARE fascinating.  They are also helpful in identifying how to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex.

One other point.  I didn't mean to imply that the visual was unimportant to women: they CAN be attracted to a guy based on his looks.  That's obvious enough.  Rather, my point was that for girls, looks are a preferance -- they (generally) prefer tall, dark, handsome men -- but attraction isn't about what you prefer.  If a guy who doesn't meet those criteria knows how to spark attraction through his behaviors, none of that matters.  That's why you'll see plain or even unattractive-looking guys walking around with models (yeah, sometimes they're rich, but not always).  On the other hand, you will very rarely see the opposite: a very good looking guy with a plain or unattractive woman.  For guys, visual attraction is a primary. 

I think you're wandering into deterministic territory, here. I'm being cautious about accepting certain assumptions because in order to develop a valid view of masculinity vs. femininity you need to discard the man-made, none of which is necessary, and focus on the metaphysically given.

Most of the things said here (and elsewhere on this forum) about the nature of males vs. the nature of females pertain to things that may or may not necessarily apply. Do they apply? Often. I could even say, usually. Do they ALWAYS apply or NECESSARILY apply? No.

The only metaphysical difference I've been able to pick out that always and necessarily applies to healthy males and females comes down, once again, to that so-over-used testosterone level.

Testosterone may lead to many things that are typically associated with males (well, healthy men have more testosterone than women, so it's hardly suprising!) but the one I'm specifically pointing at here is that it has a tremendous effect on your sex drive. To a man, sex drive is much more immediate and omnipresent than it is for a woman.

For women, it's much easier to put the whole thing on a back burner and focus on something else. Occasionally your testosterone level will spike and you'll feel a bit more of an impetus to get things moving, but this fades relatively quickly.

Couple this fact with the extra agressiveness of a high testosterone level and it quickly becomes obvious why men expect and are expected to drive. There may even be other hormones more prevalent in women that encourage her to enjoy being a passenger.

Hormone levels are, if I recall correctly, the result of genetic inheritance. Some women have more testosterone, and some men, less. Thus it is understandable that there is a broad continuum of how MUCH femininty/masculinity certain individuals possess. Not to mention the whole issue of homosexuality, which is most likely the result of different brain functionality.

Feminism, though, (at least the type I find repugnant) attempts to ignore a very real difference between the sexes, a metaphysical difference that is not man-made and thus cannot be ignored without terrible consequences, as in any attempt to contradict reality.

[DPW]

Most of the things said here (and elsewhere on this forum) about the nature of males vs. the nature of females pertain to things that may or may not necessarily apply.  Do they apply?  Often.  I could even say, usually.  Do they ALWAYS apply or NECESSARILY apply?  No.

Okay, but my purpose wasn't academic. Yes, as an intellectual exercise it's worth trying to figure out which differences are metaphysical and which are not. But my aim wasn't academic: I was addressing the question of how to attract girls. Whether the differences I noted are metaphysical or not, they are common, and keeping them in mind when trying to meet women is, to say the least, helpful.

[deedlebee]

I have to admit that I am totally shocked that so many people think that the dating advice given by DPW is good, much less rational. Yes, I cheated too. Honestly, I spent a good deal laughing as well. The first question that arose to my mind was, "What kind of woman does he think he's going to nab by playing these outrageously manipulative, counter-productive games?" Do you really think the woman who is intrigued by the insult that she is FOURTH on your list is someone with a strong sense of self-esteem?

I can't seem to get over the idea that this advice is geared toward an Objectivist male who has apparently given up finding someone who is genuinely intriguing. From my own experience of men who play games like this, it's incredibly easy to spot this kind of immaturity. It's also highly insulting. While working as a waitress one year, another one of the girls told me that one of the guys thought he really liked me. My response was immediate, and more than likely perceived as bitchy to everyone else. "This isn't middle school. If he likes me he can tell me himself, not pass a note."

(On a side note, for some reason the quote tags were not working in my preview, hence all the italic green.)

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. -DPW

Because I'd really hate to be around a man who, in this day, still knows how to be a gentleman. The two examples cited here do not throw up the "let's be friends! He's such a jerk for holding the door". It's quite the opposite. It's romantic. It's the degree to which you act on these ideas that make a difference. An appreciative smile, or a sincere comment on her attire is perfectly fine! If it's not sincere, then don't bother. Gushing prose about her loveliness and rolling out red carpets is not appropriate in the first week(s) of dating, because the woman will think you aren't being sincere. There has been no reason for her to believe you in such a short time.

Approaching. ... 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! -DPW

If a man came up to me and asked such a negative question, for apparently no other reason than to talk to me, I'd really be concerned about his state of mind. What sorts of responses would you get from such a question?? "Well, I really think men lie more because my last boyfriend said he was always at the office late but it turns out he was actually sleeping with my best friend...." Conversely, this idea that a complete stranger suddenly wants to hear about your weird day is equally strange. Contrary to popular belief, not all women (and especially not those who I really think are strong willed, intelligent women) want a man to act like Oprah's guest host.

There is nothing endearing about being the "bitcher" or indulging someone you've just met to spill hate-filled memories. This reminds me of a good line from the movie Six Days, Seven Nights. Trapped on an island and being hunted by pirates, Harrison Ford's character says, "Don't women want men to be all mushy and emotional and teary?", to which Anne Heche's character responds, "No! We want them big, angry and armed!" (*not an exact quote, but very close) Do men really enjoy hearing about the negative in a stranger's life? It certainly would not be enjoyable to me.

And again, with the compliments, so long as it is appropriate to the context (you've just met her) it's certainly welcome.

Conversation. ... What’s your major? ... Blah, BORING! ... Your job is to engage her by being interesting. -DPW

This is such an odd attitude that I'd like to say that it seems totally hypocritical to what I understand to be an Objectivist's sense of life. A girl's major, if she is interested in all of those wonderful qualities you have, is one of the best topics you could start with. I don't know why this doesn't seem obvious. If she values the aspects that ultimately set you, as an Objectivist male, above the rest of the uninteresting dating herd, she's more likely to value herself as well. A major is a course of action one takes because they have a particular passion in life. This seems like an excellent question to start with, if you know how to follow it up.

"So what's your major?"

"Biology"

"Really? That's great. What field are you hoping to go into, or are you thinking about heading to med school?"

It's the perfect opportunity (and one not degrading or insulting to any degree) to see if this is a woman of passion! I love talking about my future career and all the hopes I have that will extend through my major. A man who would find the topic of futures too boring to approach is perhaps the type that might refer to my career as "her little hobby".

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. ... Ask her if she could have one personality trait that she currently lacks, which would it be? -DPW

Again, why start with something so negative, how messed up your life is, or worse, how much of a loser she is? This totally baffles me. I'm certainly not suggesting that these are forbidden topics for all time, but in the first week or so it should be a positive experience. Not a discussion about your lousy friends, or how much of a coward she is. The reason people engage in "resume" talk is because it's a way to find out what activities and ideas you have in common. If you really are using it as silence-filler, then just move onto more interesting questions, like movies, favorite vacation spot, best book.. etc. It doesn't have to be a gripe session.

Teasing. ... 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.” -DPW

Teasing is nice, but it's also dangerous territory. This scarf comment makes me immediately think, "What is this guy's problem?" It would elicit, at most, a polite half-hearted chuckle. I think to works best when you have already established some common ground.

Qualifying. ... 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. -DPW

Why would you purposely play games like this? Doesn't the fact that you have to make up these elaborate schemes tell you something? This is so totally counter-productive, especially if you think she's going to be a challenge. If you have to design an activity that keeps her away, chances are if she's intelligent, she'll see right through this. This sounds like it should be found in a woman's magazine as part of a 10-step process. Most people who loathe the idea of dating feel as such because of silliness like this. Wooing someone may be a dance, but that doesn't mean you set out to step on feet on the way.

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. -DPW

There's an important difference between setting up the illusion of causing someone to "feel the difference" and a situation where a woman understands why this man is a value. Tricking, manipulating or insulting her down to this false sense seems like the best way to practice evasion. "I'm not all that great, but if I make her think she has to climb mountains to get to me, ...."

This is where that seemingly vague "be yourself" information comes in. I can't imagine a truly worthy, intelligent woman not seeing through little plots and schemes to make her think a man is somehow better than he is. Just like you wouldn't pretend to be busy and have a limited schedule (while you're actually just sitting around playing video games), actually being a busy person shows her that you have important values in life that consume part/most of your life. THAT is attractive.

... (By the way, nine out of ten times, she will tell you, “I kissed my girlfriend.”) -DPW

I just have to ask .... are you sure you're in the right bars?

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.” -DPW

Yes, I can certainly see how insulting a woman is really going to turn her on. There's probably enough auxiliary doubt going through anyone's mind at different times in their life that they probably aren't looking for additional reasons to question their self-esteem. I understand this is supposed to be an attempt at humor, and not necessarily to be taken literally, but must you really direct it to this new person? This would probably be safer once you know the girl more, but to a relative stranger? Perhaps humor is best when it's something you both can identify with, and not just a disguised ribbing.

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

For all the work you propose in actually meeting someone, how is this not contradictory? If a girl asks a question you think is better left to a time when you know her better, simply say so and possibly explain your reasons. But claming up and refusing to have a lively conversation with her is practically insulting. This tactic is probably best rephrased as "Use limited answers to spur on more interesting conversation, or to nudge topics in different directions." Besides, if you're willing to follow all the above advice (of the original poster) why would you blab on about your annoying friend, then not answer a question about the situation? I'd view this as insecure, insane, or stalker-ish.

-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! -DPW

Ditto the previous lady who commented on the transparency of this suggestion.

-Be selective. Demonstrate that you have high standards. -DPW

YES. "Be yourself"! Show her you have high standards by the choices you make, the way you act and how you communicate. Don't tell her, make her play a game, or put her in a competition where the highest bidder wins. This is the best piece of advice in the entire post. Please gentlemen, demonstrate your wonderful Objectivist sense of life!

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

Great, wonderful! But I advise caution on that last one. Unless you actually know something about her wardrobe, her sense of style, and her ideas about fashion in public, please do not think it is in any way sexy to say to a new girl "and wear something really strappy, black, and leave out the panties." If you have no clue what women are wearing these days, I suggest a trip to the mall. Not a glance through magazines. Look at the variety of shops and try to match up those styles with the woman you are interested in. Don't go suggesting something that might be found at Hot Topic or 5-7-9 if she's an American Eagle kind of gal.

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. -DPW

... If a woman truly exhibits a desire to be with you AND a sense of hesitation, you need to be cautious. Slinking your way past "defenses" is like a trip through a minefield. If you sense a type of hesitation, it's probably best that you find out a bit more about her (that doesn't mean asking explicitly) before proceeding. This also doesn't mean that you're not being masculine, but this is exactly where consideration and thoughtfulness come into play. The best stage you could set at this point, is one in which she verbally asks for something sexual from you (which you have still initiated!). I.e. you arouse her to a point that allows her to crave what you're offering.

Not that you're standing around tapping a foot or anything. Be sensual, be desirable, but do not force or sneak your way past barriers. One wrong step could set off an extremely traumatic event. What if she put up defenses because she is frightened? Because she's just broken up with someone? Because she's emotionally unstable? Hesitation, recognition of barriers does not mean a man shouldn't reach out for the woman. It doesn't mean that he waits around while she gets everything absolutely perfect in her life. It doesn't mean he shrugs it off as some silly little female "thing" either. Find out possible reasons for these barriers, then move forward.

I can't imagine that many things feel more disgusting in life, than realizing you've been "played" into sex before you're ready. Don't be that man.

If I have somehow greatly misinterpreted any of the above statements then I would ask for clarification. As I mentioned in previous posts, I'm very concerned with trying to understand the masculine and feminine roles as they apply to those interested in Objectivism. I simply think that it's one thing to plan out a date, think of intelligent things to say and to display a strong character. It's quite another to play silly games, trick, insult or put a girl at arm's length because it will "get her". If a man needs to resort to these ideas, I would greatly question the kind of woman he has chosen to pursue, and perhaps the values he himself ultimately has.

[DavidV]

Well, if I ever decide to add a personals section to this website, I’ll know where to look to find authors for the articles…

[JMeganSnow]

*falls over laughing after deedlebee's post*

Oh . . . that was great! Can I just ask, though: is it the specific behaviors you find insulting or a man exhibiting those behaviors artificially? Me, I think it's the artificial part that got your goat (it'd get mine, too). But all those statements and more have their place in cheerful banter. Any specific one may be obnoxious, but I've NEVER EVER in my WHOLE LIFE met a man that didn't manage to be obnoxious at least once. That's not a trait inherent simply in men, either; I can be QUITE obnoxious.

This is PRECISELY why, if you're going to end up with a "how to" masculinity/femininity manual, much less a model FOR one, you need an objective, i.e. reality-based, view of what the differences are and why those differences are. In other words, you need to be INTELLECTUAL about the process, instead of taking a more pragmatic "what works?" approach.

[RationalBiker]

Emotions can be pre-conceptual (i.e. they can involve no explicltly identified concepts) but they do embody an evaluation.  Similarly behavior can be pre-conceptual, but such behavior is irrational, viz Pavlov's salivating dogs.

I'm having some difficulty these statements. Can you provide an analogy, or an example, that demonstrates a human being is capable of pre-conceptual emotions (or behavior)?

[Capitalism Forever]

I have to admit that I am totally shocked that so many people think that the dating advice given by DPW is good, much less rational.

Phew! I was beginning to worry I would actually have to act like that when I found a girl I liked! [/ jest & kidding]

(On a side note, for some reason the quote tags were not working in my preview, hence all the italic green.)

That's because the number of quotes in a post is limited to 10.

[JMeganSnow]

I'm having some difficulty these statements.  Can you provide an analogy, or an example, that demonstrates a human being is capable of pre-conceptual emotions (or behavior)?

Am I misusing the term conceptual? I was specifically thinking of the type of associations that Pavlov studied. Humans do that too, as in when you smell food and it makes you notice you're hungry. We can always choose to ignore them.

Oh, I've heard the argument that being hungry when you smell food is an automatic response, not a learned association, but it is NOT. I know this for a fact from personal experience because one of my cousins has a genetic disorder that she can't metabolize sugars properly. She had to be fed through a stomach catheter when she was a baby and she didn't like food, any food, didn't see any use for it.

Babies will actively engage or not engage in these kinds of "associated" behaviors long before they learn how to talk, and, in fact you have to be careful not to teach them to cry when they want to be picked up or they'll drive you crazy.

I've seen cats do it, too; one of our cats trained MY MOTHER (heh) when she was trying to train it; every time the cat would climb on my mother's desk she'd put it outside, so after a while the cat would climb on the desk whenever it wanted to go out.

I really don't think this is conceptual thinking: there's no aspect of unit-economy, no measurement-omission, it is purely perceptive: I did this, I got this beneficial result, I'll do it again or I did this, I got this non-beneficial result, I won't do this again.

Edited to remove useless side statement.

Edited January 29, 2005 by JMeganSnow

[AisA]

That's because the number of quotes in a post is limited to 10.

That's good to know. Is there a word-count limit on the length of a post?

[FaSheezy]

I agree with deedlebee.

It comes down to sincerity and confidence. Dont do things unless you mean to do them, and know that everything you are doing is for a reason that begins with yourself. (i.e. don't pay for dinner to impress her; pay for dinner because you want to pay for dinner!) Don't second-guess yourself, trust your judgement. Be the person you are when we aren't around. Yes, we read your body language, the one part of yourself that tells us about your subconscious (well, that among other things) so trying to act a certain way isnt going to work anyhow. Just be yourself, you like yourself right? That's all that matters, that and a really great sense of humor.

[RationalBiker]

JMeganSnow,

I think Capitalism Forever nailed it with the term sensations. I prefer to stick with human examples as opposed to cats and dogs because the thread is about men and women.

I am doing some further reading in ARL on concepts and concept formation, emotions and behavior. However, my initial impression from my reading and my own experiences is that if we do engage in pre-conceptual behavior or emotions, they are very short-lived before we actively start the conceptual thinking that attempts to identify and integrate the concept(s) involved (at least that would be the process of a healthy mind).

As in your example, I smell food and I realize that I'm hungry. But immediately after that, I'm trying to identify what kind of food do I smell? Steak? Carrots? Is it food that I like to eat? Do I really need or want to eat?

That said, with a little better understanding on my part, I don't disagree with your statement. I would only qualify it as I have above regarding the duration with which we experience this before conceptual thinking kicks in. In that sense, we can't entirely avoid "pre-conceptual emotions (or behavior)" since we can't always plan on what our sensory input will be. When we sense something unexpected, our emotional reactions are automatic according to our immediate impression of how this input affects our values and then we our brain actively kicks in and says "Slow down, identify, etc."

And I do realize you spoke nothing of the durability of such reactions.

Thoughts?

[roscov6]

If you choose to love someone, that person gains, not you.

Love is the highest reward you can receive for your virtues.

Sex is love’s finest form of expression.

Sex is a mutually beneficial celebration of self esteem.

These ideas were discovered by Ayn Rand. Do they help or hinder the discussion?

[Free Capitalist]

Roscov, merely reciting formulas you learned from somewhere else does not contribute to a discussion (and even the recital was wrong in the first two 'incantations'). So that hinders the discussion, nothing else.

[DPW]

Deedlebee:

You raise a couple points I would like to respond to. What I’m not going to debate is the effectiveness of what I posted because I have the first hand evidence to back it up. If any guys here doubt they are effective, you are free to test them for yourself. If any girls here are in doubt, PM me with your phone number and I’ll prove it to you. Onward…

(Your comments in bold. My previous comments in bold itals.)

The first question that arose to my mind was, "What kind of woman does he think he's going to nab by playing these outrageously manipulative, counter-productive games?"

I have not advocated being manipulative, or fake, or dishonest. If you think I have, go back and read my post because you are mistaken. I have advocated being indirect and non-supplicative. What you seem to object to is a guy becoming conscious of his behaviors with respect to the goal of attracting women. If you had paid attention to my post, in fact, you would have seen that what I was actually doing was explaining to guys how to make their actions with respect to women congruent with their inner beliefs. (By the way, if you want to know what I think, I think it’s trying to get girls by buying them gifts, complimenting them, etc. that’s manipulative.)

I can't seem to get over the idea that this advice is geared toward an Objectivist male who has apparently given up finding someone who is genuinely intriguing. From my own experience of men who play games like this, it's incredibly easy to spot this kind of immaturity. It's also highly insulting.

What do you mean by “games”? Which “games” did I advocate playing? And how is it insulting for guys to learn how to be men and how to treat women a way they enjoy being treated? I’ve approached hundreds of girls in the past several months, and even those I didn’t end up with almost always enjoyed the interaction.

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. –DPW

Because I'd really hate to be around a man who, in this day, still knows how to be a gentleman. The two examples cited here do not throw up the "let's be friends! He's such a jerk for holding the door". It's quite the opposite. It's romantic. It's the degree to which you act on these ideas that make a difference. An appreciative smile, or a sincere comment on her attire is perfectly fine! If it's not sincere, then don't bother. Gushing prose about her loveliness and rolling out red carpets is not appropriate in the first week(s) of dating, because the woman will think you aren't being sincere. There has been no reason for her to believe you in such a short time.

Actually, I agree with all this. You misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying a guy shouldn’t do those things his mother told him: I said those aren’t the things that create attraction. Personally, I open doors for women, walk on the outside of the sidewalk, etc. Chivalry is a fine thing. That wasn’t my point. My point was that these behaviors will not cause a woman to desire you. Being NICE will not cause her to desire you. To create attraction, you have to behave in ways that subcommunicate attractive personality traits.

Maybe you think guys who have those traits should automatically behave in a way congruent with them. Maybe you think guys should be born knowing how to interact with women. But that isn’t the way the world is. That’s why so many amazing guys, in and outside of Objectivism, spend Saturday night alone while a bunch of jerks are sleeping with attractive women. I want that to change.

If you disagree with my advice, that is your right. But then the ball is in your court: you go help that lonely guy find a girl.

Approaching. ... 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! –DPW

If a man came up to me and asked such a negative question, for apparently no other reason than to talk to me, I'd really be concerned about his state of mind. What sorts of responses would you get from such a question?? "Well, I really think men lie more because my last boyfriend said he was always at the office late but it turns out he was actually sleeping with my best friend...." Conversely, this idea that a complete stranger suddenly wants to hear about your weird day is equally strange. Contrary to popular belief, not all women (and especially not those who I really think are strong willed, intelligent women) want a man to act like Oprah's guest host.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say to tell her about your “weird day” in a way that conveys negative things about you. On the contrary, my whole post was about how to convey positive things. That’s why I said to tell her “about something interesting that happened to you that day.” As far as the “who lies more?” opener, first of all, it’s not a negative question. It’s an engaging question. Second of all, it would not be apparent to you that I wanted to talk to you. That’s my entire point: when I start talking to someone, I do it in such a way as NOT to telegraph any interest. Why? Because it allows me to engage a girl in conversation without setting off her “he wants something from me” alarms. If you saw me, you’re subconscious evaluation would be along the lines of, “Here’s a guy who talks to everyone because he enjoys it, not because he’s trying to get somewhere with them.” Of course, you wouldn’t verbalize that thought…you’d be too busy laughing and having a good time talking to me.

And again, with the compliments, so long as it is appropriate to the context (you've just met her) it's certainly welcome.

Oh, sure, it’s welcome, but if the girl you are approaching is attractive, it will lump you in with the twenty other guys who complimented her that night, and it will set off her “he wants something from me” alarms. In other words, she will like it (unless she is a 10 on a 1-10 scale, in which case it will completely turn her off), but it won’t help you attract her. Trust me on this. Or don’t. Either way, I know the truth.

Conversation. ... What’s your major? ... Blah, BORING! ... Your job is to engage her by being interesting. –DPW

This is such an odd attitude that I'd like to say that it seems totally hypocritical to what I understand to be an Objectivist's sense of life. A girl's major, if she is interested in all of those wonderful qualities you have, is one of the best topics you could start with. I don't know why this doesn't seem obvious.

It does seem obvious, and that’s why every guy on earth asks that question within the first two seconds of meeting a girl. My point was that you need to differentiate yourself in those first few moments, and questions like that won’t do it. You’re right though, it is an extremely important question, and maybe not the best example to make my point. I didn’t mean to imply you shouldn’t ask it: rather, it’s a question of when, how, and why to ask it.

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. ... Ask her if she could have one personality trait that she currently lacks, which would it be? -DPW

Again, why start with something so negative, how messed up your life is, or worse, how much of a loser she is? This totally baffles me. I'm certainly not suggesting that these are forbidden topics for all time, but in the first week or so it should be a positive experience. Not a discussion about your lousy friends, or how much of a coward she is. The reason people engage in "resume" talk is because it's a way to find out what activities and ideas you have in common. If you really are using it as silence-filler, then just move onto more interesting questions, like movies, favorite vacation spot, best book.. etc. It doesn't have to be a gripe session.

That was a bad example, and one I shouldn’t have suggested since I haven’t field tested it, but the point wasn’t the examples. I certainly don’t advocate being negative. On the contrary, an interaction should be fun, funny, and interesting.

Teasing. ... 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.” –DPW

Teasing is nice, but it's also dangerous territory. This scarf comment makes me immediately think, "What is this guy's problem?" It would elicit, at most, a polite half-hearted chuckle. I think to works best when you have already established some common ground.

Let me make a suggestion. Don’t tell us how you think you would react to something. I KNOW what response I got from that line, and it wasn’t a polite half-hearted chuckle. Keep in mind that teasing has a lot to do with the context and with vocal tonality, etc., so it’s difficult to communicate over the Internet. Second, do you really think you should tell us what you think works best? Have you approached hundreds of women? I have. I know what works because I’ve TESTED these things over and over and over again. This is not guesswork on my part. Don’t confuse guys by telling them what you think your own personal preferences are.

Qualifying. ... 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. -DPW

Why would you purposely play games like this? Doesn't the fact that you have to make up these elaborate schemes tell you something? This is so totally counter-productive, especially if you think she's going to be a challenge. If you have to design an activity that keeps her away, chances are if she's intelligent, she'll see right through this. This sounds like it should be found in a woman's magazine as part of a 10-step process. Most people who loathe the idea of dating feel as such because of silliness like this. Wooing someone may be a dance, but that doesn't mean you set out to step on feet on the way.

Look, it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about. The fact is this: if you show interest in a girl who has so far done nothing but look good, she will not respond to you (asking her personal questions is a form of showing interest). On the contrary, she will shut you out. By qualifying her in the way I advocate, it allows me to then show interest in her so I can start to learn about who she really is, and find out if I want to take things further. If I start asking questions about her basic values, etc. before that, I’m going to set off her alarms, assuming she is very attractive and has guys hitting on her all time. Qualifying her also subcommunicates some of the positive personality traits we’ve talked about: namely, that I have higher value, that I’m selective, that I’m a challenge, etc. Once again, the thing that apparently bothers you is not that I do this, but that I’m conscious of doing it. Well, okay, fine. But if I have to choose between being non-conscious and celibate versus being conscious and sleeping with the most beautiful (inside and out) girls I could ever imagine meeting, I’ll take the latter option.

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. -DPW

There's an important difference between setting up the illusion of causing someone to "feel the difference" and a situation where a woman understands why this man is a value. Tricking, manipulating or insulting her down to this false sense seems like the best way to practice evasion. "I'm not all that great, but if I make her think she has to climb mountains to get to me, ...."

Don’t lash out at me just because you don’t understand or don’t like what I posted. My entire point was not that you should put on an act in order to make a girl think you have value. My post was aimed at guys who DO have value but are lousy at communicating that fact to girls. Really you should be thanking me. I’ve talked to a lot of girls, and they all tell me how frustrating it is when they meet really nice guys who fall for them, but for whom they can’t experience any attraction. They tell me how much they wish they could meet some real MEN rather than your typical “Nice Guy.” Well, I’m trying to help Objectivist “Nice Guys” learn how to become MEN. Why? Because I was one of them! Seriously, you don’t understand how many great Objectivist guys struggle with this issue. It is presumptuous of you to condemn me for actually giving them a way out of that state, without you offering them a better way.

This is where that seemingly vague "be yourself" information comes in. I can't imagine a truly worthy, intelligent woman not seeing through little plots and schemes to make her think a man is somehow better than he is. Just like you wouldn't pretend to be busy and have a limited schedule (while you're actually just sitting around playing video games), actually being a busy person shows her that you have important values in life that consume part/most of your life. THAT is attractive.

At the risk of repeating myself, my starting premise was that I was talking to Objectivist guys who have everything going for them, but nevertheless can’t succeed with women. If you don’t think they exist, you are simply wrong. I know they exist because I have met a bunch of them. So you can stand on your soapbox if you want and tell us how you think the attraction game should be played, but let me tell you straight out: your soapbox is made of sand.

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.” -DPW

Yes, I can certainly see how insulting a woman is really going to turn her on. There's probably enough auxiliary doubt going through anyone's mind at different times in their life that they probably aren't looking for additional reasons to question their self-esteem. I understand this is supposed to be an attempt at humor, and not necessarily to be taken literally, but must you really direct it to this new person? This would probably be safer once you know the girl more, but to a relative stranger? Perhaps humor is best when it's something you both can identify with, and not just a disguised ribbing.

Once again, stop telling us what you THINK works. I’m telling you what DOES work. Objectivism tells us that we should base our views on evidence, not guesswork. Well, I have the evidence to back up my claims that the things I advocate work. Where’s yours? P.S. That line is not an insult. It's playful.

I can't imagine that many things feel more disgusting in life, than realizing you've been "played" into sex before you're ready. Don't be that man.

Amen to that. I don’t advocate anything opposed to that. What I’ve suggested are ways for guys to convey attractive characteristics I presume they already possess.

If I have somehow greatly misinterpreted any of the above statements then I would ask for clarification. As I mentioned in previous posts, I'm very concerned with trying to understand the masculine and feminine roles as they apply to those interested in Objectivism. I simply think that it's one thing to plan out a date, think of intelligent things to say and to display a strong character. It's quite another to play silly games, trick, insult or put a girl at arm's length because it will "get her". If a man needs to resort to these ideas, I would greatly question the kind of woman he has chosen to pursue, and perhaps the values he himself ultimately has.

Hopefully I’ve clarified things.

[iouswuoibev]

Yes, I can certainly see how insulting a woman is really going to turn her on.  There's probably enough auxiliary doubt going through anyone's mind at different times in their life that they probably aren't looking for additional reasons to question their self-esteem. I understand this is supposed to be an attempt at humor, and not necessarily to be taken literally, but must you really direct it to this new person? This would probably be safer once you know the girl more, but to a relative stranger? Perhaps humor is best when it's something you both can identify with, and not just a disguised ribbing.

Once again, stop telling us what you THINK works.  I’m telling you what DOES work.  Objectivism tells us that we should base our views on evidence, not guesswork.  Well, I have the evidence to back up my claims that the things I advocate work.  Where’s yours?  P.S.  That line is not an insult.  It's playful. 

In retrospect, though, I too would find it insulting if a woman told me that I had the fourth best smile...

[DPW]

In retrospect, though, I too would find it insulting if a woman told me that I had the fourth best smile...

That's great. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Now go out in the field and test it. Evidence, friends.

[iouswuoibev]

That's great.  Thanks for sharing your opinion.  Now go out in the field and test it.  Evidence, friends.

Test what? That wasn't an opinion I was expressing; I WOULD be offended (or at least regard it as an insult).

[DPW]

Test what? That wasn't an opinion I was expressing; I WOULD be offended (or at least regard it as an insult).

Then you need to relax, dude. You also need to keep your emotions and opinions to yourself: they are off topic here. I'm telling guys things I KNOW will help them get girls. Whether they take my advice is their choice. But in neither case does anyone care about how you imagine you would react to any of these lines. No one here is trying to pick YOU up!

Attractive girls GET this stuff so long as you do it in the context of a fun conversation, where you're teasing them, and using a playful tonality. That's a simple FACT. Don't believe me, you are free to try it yourself. Or even better, come to D.C. and watch me work. That offer goes for anyone here.

Anyway, this thread is starting to become boring and unhelpful. Unless someone has some FACTS they would like to share, my participation here isn't guaranteed much longer. (I'd stop now, but I'm snowed in so I have some time to kill.)