Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Men & Women, Love & Sex

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.)

I dont think people on this board "get it".

I think the best way to explain it is if you try to remember when you were a little kid and you would play fight with your older/younger brothers. You KNEW it was a game and you didnt acttually want to KILL each other.You did it because it was FUN.

Or maybe you had a bratty little sister, and you would bust on each other making jokes. You didn't actually HATE each other.

You did it becuase it was FUN.

Try the same consept to when you are trying to meet women. Its Fun, they will ENJOY it. Its not malevolent or mean, but if you are being mean then you "dont get" it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think people on this board "get it".

Actually, I was just about to say something similar. The people who think the "fourth best smile" line is an insult are missing the point, which is a shame because I explained this throughout my original post. They are interpreting it literally. They are thinking about what the words communicate rather than what they *subcommunicate*. Stop looking at what's happening on the surface and look at the underlying meaning of the interaction.

You do not attract a girl by laying out a logical case. You can't say, "You value this, this, and that, and I am this, this, and that. Therefore, feel attracted to me." Just as in fiction, you must show, not tell, so in attraction you have to demonstrate your attractive characteristics, not tell her what they are. And you demonstrate them through subcommunication.

Good post, Al Kufr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to re-ask a question I posed earlier. The responses I received with regard to the femininity/masculinity were wonderful, thank you. I still find myself hesitant with the term "worship". Perhaps it's because of all the negative association with religion, but I don't have much experience with it in any other context. Is it offered in strictly a sexual context or is it an encompassing view of how a woman might view a man? If it's the latter, why doesn't this apply in reverse? His drive and ambition is certainly something to admire and to desire him for. But doesn't the man also admire and desire the woman for actively perusing her goals? This is where the worship term seems uncomfortably lopsided. So, is it strictly confined to the sexual arena, or does it branch out?

The idea that I keep seeing is one that says "sexually, a woman receives what the man gives" but then is followed by explanations such as "this does not mean she is submissive to his every whim, or can't be aggressive during sex" and follows with "this is purely a biological function, and while important, does not impact a female achievements or morality in a way that is lesser to males." but is attached to "this is a male role-model, one of strength, and a woman's role-model is of a strength worshipper." Does this actually mean then ... that in a "proper" relationship, the man is somehow always greater in achievements and abilities than the woman, and that any deviation from this is somehow corrupt?

I apologize if it seems like I'm repeating myself but this issue is just too important to feel confused about. I'm aware that my personal feelings and experiences seem to model the role models put forth, but I'm not totally clear on this concept. I don't know what to think about saying "I'd want to worship him" to myself.

---------

What follows is my reply to DPW and the side thread regarding introductions.

My previous statements = blue

DPW's previous statements = green

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.

And I have the first hand evidence of experiencing lines and tactics you have suggested, being a female and all that. If you want me to explicitly qualify my statements by saying "these are based on my personal experiences", fine. Your statements are the exact same thing. I'm well aware that neither of us is running a controlled lab experiment AND that each situation will be different due to personalities and context.

What you seem to object to is a guy becoming conscious of his behaviors with respect to the goal of attracting women.

I'm not objecting to a man being aware of his actions, much less, working on improving them. What I (repeatedly) suggested in my post was that intelligent women would see through these suggestions you offer. They're trumped up come-on lines. What I have personally* (see disclaimer in above paragraph) experienced with men is that I am most attracted to them in natural situations where conversations act as the introduction. For folks that enjoy the more intellectual pursuits of life, this is a matter of dealing with cold feet in social situations. If you have no male friends, it's time to make some. A friend of a friend at a party met during conversation will spare you from having to create illusions of (no) interest.

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?

1) The games of refusing to hold conversation with her, pretending you're not interested when you obviously are, wasting her time by creating fake hurdles.. Again I'll ask, what kind of woman do you think you're going to wind up with who is actually deceived by this?

2) It's not insulting at all for a man to improve himself, to learn more about the dating dance. I don't believe I ever made such a wild accusation. What I said, is that for an intelligent woman, being approached with obvious tactics is an insult to her character. I'm certainly not suggesting that self-improvement should be shunned or those men who don't know what to say should shut up and go home. What perhaps was not clear in my sentiment was the idea that if a guy finds himself resorting to these tricks, then maybe it's possible he's looking for women in the wrong place. One of the things I notice immediately about Objectivist men is their intellect and communication among his friends. There's a man I want to scope out for a long while at a party :dough:

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.

No, I wouldn't fall to my knees in a shuddering orgasm if my date opens the door for me. But what this behavior does demonstrate (to me* see above) is perhaps deeper than you might have considered. A gentleman always scores points. "He held the door, not walked right through and let it slam on my face. He's aware of me." That's not kowtow to your new queen. It scores points in the back of my* head that will eventually accumulate when it comes to more serious things. "Will he pay attention to my sounds and motions in bed, or just keep pounding away?"

Additionally, a man who knows how to handle himself in social situations (that are not directed towards his date) is a powerful signal. Does he know how to leave an appropriate tip? Does he dress appropriately for various restaurants? Does he curse and scream expletives at the cab driver? Does he know how to get the waiter's attention without throwing a dinner roll? These are important! Uncertainty in dealing with others is a strong turn-off. These are areas where these men should shine. You understand how (and why!) to treat others in certain ways.

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.

I couldn't agree more.

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.

I am not a dating service, nor do I advocate hitting on 40 women a week. I would however, go to great lengths to help my friends do just this. But this is not about finding the right punch line. It's about having the qualities women find attractive and knowing (see? explicit behavior isn't bad!) how to put them in her line of site.

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. ... 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.

I find it negative because it's such an obvious starter to a rant. Personally* that's not the kind of conversation I want to be in with a stranger. Frankly, it's because I could really care less. My subconscious evaluation would be exactly what I said. I'd wonder why you were asking me such a totally random question. Warning bells go off. You can have your data, and/or you can hear a female say "I would find this uncomfortable". So no, I don't think I'd be laughing. However, I will agree with you that communicating the verbal nuances of interaction with text is a tricky thing. Still, I'd rather not have a stranger approach me* with a "rantable" question.

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.

Unlike the women you apparently meet in bars that are having a great time with their girlfriends, I have not approached hundreds of women. The reason I'm offering my opinion of your statements stems from the fact that 1) I am a female 2) I'm also very interested in Objectivism. Your response is, frankly, incredibly condescending, and I certainly don't hope you tell your potential dates that you're not interested in what they think about their own, personal reactions. One final factor. 3) I'm in a long-term relationship with a man. He did none of these things and I'm incredibly happy. I don't believe that posting a reply on a forum equals a dictate on the way all men should act, but I do believe a response is within the bounds of civil conversation. That is of course, unless, you did write your post as a dictate no female should ever reply to. I don't believe this however.

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 ... 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.

Again, I'm offering you (male interested in Objectivism) my responses (female interested in Objectivist males) to the ideas you propositioned. If I said "I don't think I'd like that restaurant", would your reply be, "You don't know what you're talking about"?

If all you do is say "You're lovely" then stare at the girl, yes, you will be dead in the water. But the response would be exactly the same with almost every comment. I advocate engaging in conversation, and demonstrating restraint with topics. I don't advocate acting like a stoic monk with a girl who's obviously aware that you're interested in her. Be aware of your actions. There's no need to drift through motions like a zombie, and conversely, there's no need to act like ... well, an actor who wants you to think he isn't acting.

>>>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.

Yes, I didn't like what you posted. (And this is also in response to the question JMeganSnow asked me.) But I did understand it. Simply, do you want the woman to merely "think" she has won you based on fake games you've created, or do you want her to know that she adores you and admires you for the man you ARE? I want men with value to be wonderful in all aspects of their life, but I don't want to see them insult their sense of self, and the woman's intelligence in the process.

The behaviors can't exactly be separated from the man and it should go without saying that I like men ;> It's not specifically that the behaviors are artificial (or consciously contrived), but that the sincerity behind them is so obviously lacking. So much so that it would make me* doubt the intentions and possibly the values of any one that used them. Bringing me a rose is contrived but it's certainly wonderful too. Putting me down because you think it will cause me to "think" you're some hard to get, disinterested fellow is insulting to my intelligence. Contrary to whatever label you choose to put on this process, most women are probably still aware why you're talking to her. Whether you choose to play out the gentleman or the jerk is up to you and your "experience".

This reminds me of a quote from a person who went by the handle Servo.

"You fail to understand the role of a female to a male. In the simplest of terms, a female IS a sex object. Any time you introduce a female into a group of males, you're going to encounter the same thing. ... I'm not saying that women don't or can't have equal contributions. What makes you uniquely female only has 1 use by a man. But what makes you a unique individual has endless possibilities."
My point here is simply that women are aware that they are being "hit on", whether the conversation is about biology, smiles, scarves or the way your buddy bob turned out not to be such a great friend. Don't insult yourself and her by pretending this isn't the case. In practice, (an example of how to translate values into appeal) this means you can't deny this fact either. It should be put into a very crucial perspective. Why don't women with whom you have no experience shrug off compliments? Right, because you have chosen to focus on the one thing that is widely regarded as a prerequisite to sex. (Beauty/attractiveness)

We love these compliments, but we probably won't believe them until we get to know you and your values. It doesn't mean you pretend not to really like her or pretend that she's really not all that pretty. If you're unsure of this territory, feel free not to cross it for a while. Keep the banter on topics that *both* of you can relate to. This is why I highly suggest meeting women in situations that can reflect your interests most clearly. Parties with friends are prime opportunities to be involved in a non-personal talk with several people. You'll have the chance to ask her something specific about a topic she has already commented on. You'll have the chance to demonstrate, indirectly, some of your ideas, the fact that you are a socially appealing man and spurn on her interest, all without creating a situation by which you're lowering the entire idea of communication to a test.

And I agree with JMeganSnow again when she suggested,

In other words, you need to be INTELLECTUAL about the process, instead of taking a more pragmatic "what works?" approach.
Tips and tricks are hard to put into a users manual specifically because of the variety of situations one can run into. It may be that the best approach will take you more than 20 minutes of your four hour hit-parade. For example, let's say you have a bunch of fantastic Objectivist guys (such as part of a university group), but who are relatively dry in the department of female-friends. Instead of heading out to bars, why not try social gatherings with folks invited from classes or other areas where you've grown to know (just not personally) them? These don't have to be women you personally are particularly enamored with. But you could invite them with a bit of flair, tell them it's just a Friday night gathering, bring friends if they like.. etc.

But you can't stop there. You will actually need to plan how this would work so that you don't end up in a situation where the girls are on one side of the room, the guys on another, and lots of pointing and giggling is going on. As people arrive, take them around for quick introductions (Name, how you know them, something interesting..) Throughout the course of the night, you may need to plan new conversations to keep things from becoming awkward, and you'll definitely need to keep an eye out for anyone who looks bored. Hopefully, you get the idea. Think of this as just a casual setting, the purpose of which is just to meet new people. Everyone knows why guys would want to meet girls (and vice versa), but that doesn't mean you give her a thong shaped invitation ;>

Also, if the first party is a flop, don't give up! Think about what happened over the night. Were you able to keep peoples interest or were you constantly tuning a girl out so you could get into a political argument with Phil? Did you plan enough activities that allowed folks to find things to do besides stand around? Did you take the proper time to make sure strangers had enough to chew on for conversation before you left them to the wolves?

One really fun event that I attended at university was a guys dorm that wanted to go out and see a remaked Star Wars film. The whole dorm was going, and they advertised it. So lots of other people (women too) went along. It was a really fun night! I think a lot of people made casual hellos as well. Just because they weren't bedding down with them by 3am doesn't mean it was a waste of an event. If you approach introductions with the stance of "how can I woo her, or get her to woo me, in such a way that ensures maximum clothing removal tonight," it will be obvious. If you approach it with the idea that this is a person with whom you can talk to several times, you'll have a greater chance to show off more of your "true" personality.

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.

I never once suggested that men (of any philosophical following) don't have trouble with the first moments of a conversation. However, just because you offer A alternative does not automatically make it the best one.

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.

Wonderful little irrelevant insult, but I don't believe that anywhere I suggested that men who have trouble with introductions don't exist. Nor did I suggest that they couldn’t get help from anyone. I also didn't suggest that they couldn’t plan things out. Men of all sorts exist. Successful and romantic flops. I'm not really sure why you suddenly decided to assert I think otherwise.

>>>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.

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.

This has to be my favorite. I know someone else addressed it as well. Somehow you believe that reactions to your actions don't matter because of your empirical data. My evidence is the same as yours. You tested these ideas out, you got results that work for you. I've had these tactics tried on me and I pretty much loathe them. It's certainly not guesswork to be aware of my own reaction. If you choose to invalidate a female's reaction to your advances, you're really no different than any other barfly out there. I have attempted to counter your ideas with my experiences of what has worked on me. If your tactics work for you, great. I still don't know why you have a need to hit on 40 women a week, or why, if a relationship is really your goal (maybe it's not) with so much success you have racked up, why you aren't in a relationship. Perhaps it's just your suggestion to "get out there and be social", which I certainly would agree with. Don't wait for it to fall in your lap. This is what happens in novels to lucky men.

My evidence that I can disagree with you is based on the fact that these tactics have been tried on me and resulted mostly in cold shoulders. Further, because I am actually in a relationship, I can say with some degree of certainty what actually did work with me. From what I understand however, you (DPW) seem to discount this validity because 1) I haven't been in thousands of relationships, and 2) it involves my feelings on the matter.

I don't suggest that any ideas here are necessarily easy. I only put forth the idea that some of what was suggested can be perceived as insulting, childish or foolish. Like all play-by-play advice, your mileage will vary. The point is that you should try different situations (not just lines) to find those that best suit you. For DPW, this is apparently bars. For myself, it is involvement with discussions in non-party settings. Just find the situation that works best and think about your actions. Success is not guaranteed immediately because of the diverse players. If failure happens though, consider the setting as much as your own behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to re-ask a question I posed earlier.  The responses I received with regard to the femininity/masculinity were wonderful, thank you.  I still find myself hesitant with the term "worship". 

I think the reason you're feeling this is one-sided is that most Ayn Rand's advice is directed towards how a woman should relate to a man, and not necessarily the other way. Frankly, men don't NEED to be told to worship us; they already do, it's BUILT IN. Women generally (from what I've seen) need at least a little advice on how to love men as men.

I've noticed a tendency even in myself to treat adult men like overgrown boys; not only is this bad for YOU (it kills attraction) it's bad for THEM. Heck, it's everywhere, even in commercials: are men REALLY incapable of picking out jewelry for their significant other?

The only result I've seen from this behavior is that I now have to look to men 10-15 years older than I am before I find someone that can deal with my personality.

Are we really so afraid of them that we have to encourage them to stay children into their 40's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

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

Thoughts?

This is a difficult one to tackle. I haven't read the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology yet but I have read OPAR and as of now I have a fairly strict definition of what constitutes a concept and thus conceptual behavior. It was Leonard Peikoff's explanation of the choice to focus that led me to my current stand.

I don't think we lose the ability to engage in pre-conceptual (perceptual?) behavior when we begin integrating percepts into concepts, and I think it is dangerous to think that we do. I myself (when I'm distracted thinking about other things) have engaged in such automatic behaviors as ALWAYS getting off on the same highway exit (even when it was the wrong one) or walking all the way across campus to my class without at any point engaging my conscious mind. (That was a little disconcerting, because I ended up in a hallway with no idea how I'd gotten there.)

Maybe this is just me: I have a reputation for being a bit absent-minded. Turning my conceptual faculty to the contemplation of any particular task takes some slight mental effort, the effort to focus.

The durability of these perceptual behaviors is dependant on how often they're reinforced and how strongly. You can always choose to assert control via an effort of will, but you have to pay careful attention to everything that you're doing and it can be SLOW. Getting rid of them permanently requires more than conceptual processing, though; you must actively engage in re-training or you will revert to the default behavior. Asserting your conscious will over every tiny little thing is extremely tiring.

I think we've wandered off the topic, though I would be happy to continue this discussion elswhere: I think there's already a concept-formation thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I was just about to say something similar.  The people who think the "fourth best smile" line is an insult are missing the point,

How does this follow? Where on earth did I say that I didn't understand? I stated that I would find it an insult (though I didn't specify how I would react, if at all) and you draw the conclusion that I didn't understand what your post was saying, and was doubting its accuracy. Why?

I have no doubt these things have worked for you, Don. But the behaviour you suggest us men should adopt exhibit certain character traits that will only appeal to particular kinds of women (perhaps the majority). If I said that to a woman, and she was intelligent and reflective, she'd think I'm an arrogant bastard with an attitude one acquires from having an abundance (or excess) of women in their life (each one just as unimportant as the next). If she's turned on by it, then she's daft, horny and probably sleeps around just as much as I would be doing.

They are interpreting it literally.  They are thinking about what the words communicate rather than what they *subcommunicate*.  Stop looking at what's happening on the surface and look at the underlying meaning of the interaction.
And that too I understood.

Then you need to relax, dude.

That depends on the context. If my loving wife (were I married) told me I had the fourth best smile, I'd be pretty damned mad about it. Wouldn't you?

There are some situations where such a thing wouldn't matter to me, say for instance if I flirted with 40 women in a single night, on a regular basis, and one woman says it.

When you're in contact with that many different people, what one person says or does ceases to matter. And should you sleep with one of them, the act of sex also ceases to matter. This applies both to men and women. If a woman isn't offended when I say she has the fourth best smile, it isn't because she is self-confident, it is because she sleeps around and she draws her self-worth from the collective amount of men in her life. Why would I want to attract such a woman? Do you agree that sex is an effect and not a cause?

You do not attract a girl by laying out a logical case.  You can't say, "You value this, this, and that, and I am this, this, and that.  Therefore, feel attracted to me."  Just as in fiction, you must show, not tell, so in attraction you have to demonstrate your attractive characteristics, not tell her what they are.  And you demonstrate them through subcommunication.

I'd be interested to know what you think prevents a man from subcommunicating his attractive characteristics. I believe that, if a man is a certain way, his character will show in whatever way it can. If a man seems meek and supplicating, then he is, and if a man seems smart and confident, then he is. It is nigh impossible to fake your character, and to do so is dishonest.

If a man fails to subcommunicate his positive characteristics, maybe it is because they can't be subcommunicated. Only superifical surface traits can be subcommunicated, and if a woman deems me fit to sleep with in less than an hour based on some "subcommunication" then she is indiscriminate and doesn't care about what the person might be like underneath. Do you think the women you flirt with truly understand and appreciate you? I care about ALL character traits in a prospective partner, and I care that the woman I'm with cares. Do the women you meet care about these things? (That is an honest question, not a rhetorical one, by the way).

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.
And it is not off-topic to discuss and question that choice.

But in neither case does anyone care about how you imagine you would react to any of these lines.

I never mentioned what my reaction would be. And please, speak only for yourself. Nobody else has said whether they care or not.

No one here is trying to pick YOU up!

I wasn't advertising myself, if that is what you thought. I can't imagine why else you'd say this.

EDIT: I meant 40 a week, not 40 a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quick comments in response to Deedlebee. Your comments in bold.

What I (repeatedly) suggested in my post was that intelligent women would see through these suggestions you offer. They're trumped up come-on lines. What I have personally* (see disclaimer in above paragraph) experienced with men is that I am most attracted to them in natural situations where conversations act as the introduction.

There’s nothing for them to “see through.” Your claim that I’ve suggested “trumped up come-on lines” proves that you obviously haven’t understood a single thing I’ve said. I specifically told guys NOT to “come on” to girls. I told them to make interesting and playful conversation until the girls showed interest in them, after which time they could then demonstrate tentative interest, and thereby make girls chase *them*. The problem is that you assume you’d be able to tell that a guy like me was doing what he does consciously, but I’ll tell you right now you couldn’t. Not because you aren’t intelligent, but because I’ve had a lot of practice. That’s why I tell guys to approach forty girls a week: so they can internalize these behaviors so that they BECOME natural.

1) The games of refusing to hold conversation with her, pretending you're not interested when you obviously are, wasting her time by creating fake hurdles.. Again I'll ask, what kind of woman do you think you're going to wind up with who is actually deceived by this?

This is you making stuff up. I had an entire section devoted specifically to how to engage a girl in conversation. Moreover, the advice I gave was limited to how to attract a girl. I did not address everything that goes on in an interaction. Next time, read what I write before you comment. As for “pretending I’m not interested when you obviously are,” the entire point is that it’s NOT obvious I am. I make sure of that. You might like to think you would know better, but that’s just you being full of yourself. Not only because you wouldn’t know, but because I am NOT interested in the girls I approach. Why? Because until I know what kind of girl she is on the inside, I’m not impressed by the outside. As for “wasting her time by creating fake hurdles” that’s a laugh and a half because by qualifying her, I’m speeding UP the process of attraction. And they aren’t fake, by the way. She really does have to clear those hurdles. To sum up, you’re coming at this from a false premise, as demonstrated by your last line: I’m NOT deceiving girls. There is NO deception involved. Name ONE instance where I advocate deception. You can’t. All you can do is point to things which, taken literally, are not true (“fourth best smile”), but which subcommunicate something which is true. That’s what flirting is: it’s a process of communicating on multiple levels, where the underlying meaning of the interaction is determined, not by the surface interaction, but by what’s being subcommunicated through each party’s words, actions, deeds, etc.

No, I wouldn't fall to my knees in a shuddering orgasm if my date opens the door for me. But what this behavior does demonstrate (to me* see above) is perhaps deeper than you might have considered. A gentleman always scores points. "He held the door, not walked right through and let it slam on my face. He's aware of me." That's not kowtow to your new queen. It scores points in the back of my* head that will eventually accumulate when it comes to more serious things. "Will he pay attention to my sounds and motions in bed, or just keep pounding away?"

Okay, great point. What you’re hinting at is that there is a difference between attracting a girl and getting into a relationship with her. Attracting her is easy. I can usually do it in under a minute. But if you want something more than a one night stand, you have to do a lot more than attract her. Once you’ve attracted a girl, she will begin to “keep score”, just as you suggest. What I was explaining was how to get her to the point where she’ll start keeping score, i.e., how to stay out of the “Just Friends” zone which great guys tend to fall into. You’ve also pointed out something else that’s extremely important: girls are always asking about the things guys do, “What does that mean?” Whereas guys tend to be very linear and literal, girls typically look at the implications of subtle behaviors. This is why subcommunication is so important: trying to communicate good things about yourself in a logical, straightforward way kills attraction because it subcommunicates bad things, and with women, subcommunication is the key to attraction.

I am not a dating service, nor do I advocate hitting on 40 women a week. I would however, go to great lengths to help my friends do just this. But this is not about finding the right punch line. It's about having the qualities women find attractive and knowing (see? explicit behavior isn't bad!) how to put them in her line of site.

Uh, yeah, that’s exactly what I said. So why all the fuss? By the way, I don’t hit on 40 women a week. In fact, I NEVER hit on women. I do approach 40 women a week and talk to them, but unless you think any time a guy talks to a woman he’s hitting on her, what I do doesn’t qualify.

Your response is, frankly, incredibly condescending, and I certainly don't hope you tell your potential dates that you're not interested in what they think about their own, personal reactions.

I am interested in their personal reactions, but you and me, we’re not flirting or dating…we’re discussing intellectual matters on a philosophy board. Honest.

One final factor. 3) I'm in a long-term relationship with a man. He did none of these things and I'm incredibly happy. I don't believe that posting a reply on a forum equals a dictate on the way all men should act, but I do believe a response is within the bounds of civil conversation. That is of course, unless, you did write your post as a dictate no female should ever reply to. I don't believe this however.

Look, I’m happy to hear from girls, but you didn’t share your input. You attacked MY input by basically calling it dishonest and anti-Objectivist, and claiming that any girl who responded to it must be unintelligent. Do you think that’s a very polite thing to do? I don’t. Especially since I have not made any personal remarks about you. You have to remember, I am pretty well known in Objectivist circles, and when you go and misrepresent and mischaracterize what I’ve said, you put me in a very uncomfortable position where I have to respond, not simply as an intellectual exercise, but to protect my reputation. As to your first point, the fact that you’re with a guy who didn’t do the things I advocate only proves that some guys are naturally congruent with their inner beliefs. I don’t deny that. My advice was for those whose behavior isn’t.

If all you do is say "You're lovely" then stare at the girl, yes, you will be dead in the water. But the response would be exactly the same with almost every comment. I advocate engaging in conversation, and demonstrating restraint with topics. I don't advocate acting like a stoic monk with a girl who's obviously aware that you're interested in her. Be aware of your actions. There's no need to drift through motions like a zombie, and conversely, there's no need to act like ... well, an actor who wants you to think he isn't acting.

Once again, I’d like to remind you that this in NO WAY represents what I’ve advocated. A stoic monk? My God are you off base. Haven’t I said, over and over, that you should be fun, funny, interesting, and engaging? And stop with the “obviously aware” already. You doth protest too much.

Simply, do you want the woman to merely "think" she has won you based on fake games you've created, or do you want her to know that she adores you and admires you for the man you ARE? I want men with value to be wonderful in all aspects of their life, but I don't want to see them insult their sense of self, and the woman's intelligence in the process.

Pay attention. When I qualify a woman, she doesn’t win me or think she’s won me. Rather, she simply feels as though she has earned my INITIAL interest so that I can then get to know her without making her feel like she’s being hit on by a guy who just wants to get in her pants because she’s hot. There’s still a long way to go. Qualifying is a way to get to the point where we can learn enough about each other to eventually adore and admire each other for who we are.

The behaviors can't exactly be separated from the man and it should go without saying that I like men ;> It's not specifically that the behaviors are artificial (or consciously contrived), but that the sincerity behind them is so obviously lacking. So much so that it would make me* doubt the intentions and possibly the values of any one that used them. Bringing me a rose is contrived but it's certainly wonderful too. Putting me down because you think it will cause me to "think" you're some hard to get, disinterested fellow is insulting to my intelligence. Contrary to whatever label you choose to put on this process, most women are probably still aware why you're talking to her. Whether you choose to play out the gentleman or the jerk is up to you and your "experience".

Uh, I don’t play the jerk and I don’t put women down. See, you are trying to fit my approach into the wrong category. You’re thinking back to guys who have hit on you using all kinds of clever lines and ploys, and you’re thinking about how much of a turn off it was. That’s why you are asserting (without having met me and without a single shred of evidence): “Contrary to whatever label you choose to put on this process, most women are probably still aware why you're talking to her.”

There are two kinds of approaches girls are used to: interested and disinterested. The interested approach is when I guy is upfront about his interest. Maybe he buys a girl a drink, or says, “You’re beautiful,” or whatever. Then there’s the disinterested approach. Here a guy tries to pretend he’s not interested at all, but he subcommunicates the exact opposite through his behavior. What he’s communicating is incongruent with what he’s subcommunicating leading the girl to identify him as a “player” who’s trying to insult her intelligence in order to get in her pants. You seem to have me confused with this type.

But I’m not. What I do falls into a third category you’ve probably never encountered (although you wouldn’t know it if you did). Because I am aware of what my every action and word subcommunicates, I’m able to avoid the pitfalls of both the above approaches.

We love these compliments, but we probably won't believe them until we get to know you and your values. It doesn't mean you pretend not to really like her or pretend that she's really not all that pretty.

I’m starting to think that maybe your misunderstanding is my fault for not explaining myself more clearly. I guess I underestimated how different what I do is from what other guys do. I don’t pretend not to really like girls or that they aren’t pretty, and I hope that’s not the impression others have gotten. What I do is (1) approach without showing interest and (2) show TENTATIVE INTEREST thereafter (I’m subcommunicating, “You seem cool so far, but I’m not sure about you yet”). All the while, I’m fun, funny, interesting, and playful. I’ve debriefed girls on this, and what’s usually going through their mind early on is, “I think this guy is interested, but I’m not sure. But he’s making me laugh, so I’m going to stick around and find out.”

Tips and tricks are hard to put into a users manual specifically because of the variety of situations one can run into. It may be that the best approach will take you more than 20 minutes of your four hour hit-parade.

That’s often true. I’m flexible, trust me. If an interaction is going particularly well, rather than get a phone number and move on, I’ll continue the interaction.

For example, let's say you have a bunch of fantastic Objectivist guys (such as part of a university group), but who are relatively dry in the department of female-friends. Instead of heading out to bars, why not try social gatherings with folks invited from classes or other areas where you've grown to know (just not personally) them? These don't have to be women you personally are particularly enamored with. But you could invite them with a bit of flair, tell them it's just a Friday night gathering, bring friends if they like.. etc.

I’m all for that. Did you miss the part where I said you should use every avenue possible? Bars and clubs are good just because of the sheer number of attractive women you’ll find there. Me, personally, I approach girls everywhere, not just bars as you suggest. Once again, I’ll ask that you stop making this personal.

This has to be my favorite. I know someone else addressed it as well. Somehow you believe that reactions to your actions don't matter because of your empirical data. My evidence is the same as yours. You tested these ideas out, you got results that work for you. I've had these tactics tried on me and I pretty much loathe them. It's certainly not guesswork to be aware of my own reaction. If you choose to invalidate a female's reaction to your advances, you're really no different than any other barfly out there. I have attempted to counter your ideas with my experiences of what has worked on me. If your tactics work for you, great. I still don't know why you have a need to hit on 40 women a week, or why, if a relationship is really your goal (maybe it's not) with so much success you have racked up, why you aren't in a relationship. Perhaps it's just your suggestion to "get out there and be social", which I certainly would agree with. Don't wait for it to fall in your lap. This is what happens in novels to lucky men.

See, I don’t get that? Why do you have to get personal? I’ve said that I don’t discuss my private life online and I’d like you to respect that. As for the rest of the stuff, I hope I’ve made it clear that you have the wrong idea about what it is I’ve recommended guys do.

My evidence that I can disagree with you is based on the fact that these tactics have been tried on me and resulted mostly in cold shoulders. Further, because I am actually in a relationship, I can say with some degree of certainty what actually did work with me. From what I understand however, you (DPW) seem to discount this validity because 1) I haven't been in thousands of relationships, and 2) it involves my feelings on the matter.

Let me ask you a question. If a doctor tests a medicine out on two thousand patients, and that medicine cures 4 out of 5 patients, should any of us be interested when the family of one patient comes forward to say, “In my loved one’s case, that medicine didn’t work”? No, I don’t think so either. In the case, however, your opinion does not even rise to that level because you mischaracterize what it is I’ve recommended. Your post would be more akin to someone who said, “Yeah, but a different medicine didn’t save my loved one!” It’s ENTIRELY off topic.

Don’t get me wrong. Share your thoughts. You do have some real insights to share, and I’m happy you’ve shared them. What disappoints me is that you’ve decided to use the fact that you are a girl as attack and insult, not just me, but the girls I’ve dated, and guys who find my advice helpful. That is simply rude.

By the way, I want to end on a positive. I think your intentions are good and your advice isn’t bad either. Rather, I think you’re neglecting to make the effort to really understand what it is I’m saying. But you’re sharp, so my guess is we’ll be able to iron this out pretty quickly.

My best…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the behaviour you suggest us men should adopt exhibit certain character traits that will only appeal to particular kinds of women (perhaps the majority). If I said that to a woman, and she was intelligent and reflective, she'd think I'm an arrogant bastard with an attitude one acquires from having an abundance (or excess) of women in their life (each one just as unimportant as the next). If she's turned on by it, then she's daft, horny and probably sleeps around just as much as I would be doing.

There's a lot I could say here, but let me ask you this: by what intellectual process did you reach the conclusion that "If she's turned on by it, then she's daft, horny and probably sleeps around just as much as I would be doing."? Or did you just make that up because it "seems" like it would be true?

That depends on the context. If my loving wife (were I married) told me I had the fourth best smile, I'd be pretty damned mad about it. Wouldn't you?
Uh, so? I made my context pretty darn clear: a guy trying to attract a girl.

There are some situations where such a thing wouldn't matter to me, say for instance if I flirted with 40 women in a single night, on a regular basis, and one woman says it.

When you're in contact with that many different people, what one person says or does ceases to matter

.

You're still characterizing the line as an insult. It's not. It's playful. It's said in a playful way. No girl who lacks a stick up her rear is going to think, "Oh my God, I feel so insulted." She's going to think, "Oh my God, this guy isn't kissing my butt. This guy has balls."

If a woman isn't offended when I say she has the fourth best smile, it isn't because she is self-confident, it is because she sleeps around and she draws her self-worth from the collective amount of men in her life. Why would I want to attract such a woman? Do you agree that sex is an effect and not a cause?
Is it a habit of yours to make things up? Once again, by what intellectual process did you conclude "it isn't because she is self-confident, it is because she sleeps around and she draws her self-worth from the collective amount of men in her life."? Huh? How specifically do you KNOW this to be true?

I'd be interested to know what you think prevents a man from subcommunicating his attractive characteristics. I believe that, if a man is a certain way, his character will show in whatever way it can. If a man seems meek and supplicating, then he is, and if a man seems smart and confident, then he is. It is nigh impossible to fake your character, and to do so is dishonest.

Oh, so it is a habit. We're done. I can't have a discussion with someone who engages in this sort of arbitrary psychologizing. What you are saying is that if a guy doesn't naturally subcommunicate attractive qualities then he doesn't have them. That's so false I'm not going to even bother with it.

If a man fails to subcommunicate his positive characteristics, maybe it is because they can't be subcommunicated. Only superifical surface traits can be subcommunicated, and if a woman deems me fit to sleep with in less than an hour based on some "subcommunication" then she is indiscriminate and doesn't care about what the person might be like underneath.
Dude, you are too cool. Instead of paying psycholgoists who go to school for ten years, maybe people should just send you an email so you can tell them what their true motives are. Oh my God, man, you are too much.

Do you think the women you flirt with truly understand and appreciate you? I care about ALL character traits in a prospective partner, and I care that the woman I'm with cares. Do the women you meet care about these things? (That is an honest question, not a rhetorical one, by the way).

I don't have any idea what it is you're asking here.

Anyway, I hope you reply to this soon because I seriously haven't laughed this hard in a long time. You're awesome. I feel like I have my very own psychic. Actually, here's an idea. Come to D.C., and I'll carry you around on my shoulders in a club, and you can tell me which girls are really cool, and which are shallow and slutty or whatever. Deal? I'll even feed you little pieces of fruit as a reward. Come on, buddy, you'll have a ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the fourth best smile is concerned, it all depends on the tone he uses. Sure, if a guy approached me with that line being dead-serious, I'd likely walk off. But if he's joking or happy, he'd get my attention and bonus points for finding a creative way to do it.

"Resume talk" is a definite bore. Any guy that thinks it's important for me to listen to his entire high school and college transcripts on the first date is almost certainly going to get the "Can't we just be friends?" speech from me. It's important later on in a relationship, but that implies that he already got my attention. Even then, accomplishments don't have to be listed. Stories that go with them are much better to listen to.

Talking philosophy with a guy is great, and is usually fun too. But once you establish that there are fundamental values in common, it gets really boring to talk about the same thing over and over again. So for a relationship, there's got to be more in common than an interest in Oism alone. It would be miserable to be in a relationship where you could agree on philopsophy (and all of its branches), but nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, just so you know, I'm enjoying the hell out of this discussion. This thread isn't populated solely by people who want to pick apart minutia.

For everyone else, this kind of thing is not very new. That Al Kufr suggested a site, and in my memory there's a guy on Askmen.com who has very similar (although, not the same) ideas as Don.

I understand the differences between what they advocate and what Don is saying, but it may be helpful for those who want to destroy Don's ideas to find out at least what the literature's ideas are, and to understand where they differ from Don's.

Anyway, thanks Don.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I hope you reply to this soon because I seriously haven't laughed this hard in a long time.  You're awesome.  I feel like I have my very own psychic.  Actually, here's an idea.  Come to D.C., and I'll carry you around on my shoulders in a club, and you can tell me which girls are really cool, and which are shallow and slutty or whatever.  Deal?  I'll even feed you little pieces of fruit as a reward.  Come on, buddy, you'll have a ball.

I can admit when I'm wrong, if I'm wrong. All you need to do is point it out and explain. This viscous attack was uncalled for. I suggest you apologise.

Also, you should know that sarcasm is against the forum rules, because your entire reply is full of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can admit when I'm wrong, if I'm wrong. All you need to do is point it out and explain. This viscous attack was uncalled for. I suggest you apologise.

Vicious attack? I responded to your arbitrary claims the only way such claims deserve to be responded to. There will be no apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this actually mean then ... that in a "proper" relationship, the man is somehow always greater in achievements and abilities than the woman, and that any deviation from this is somehow corrupt?

Definitely not! In an ideal relationship, both the man and the woman are great. But they are great in different ways--this is what makes the exchange of values between them so beneficial for both; this is why they covet each other so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vicious attack?  I responded to your arbitrary claims the only way such claims deserve to be responded to.  There will be no apologies.

And you say you care about your reputation?

You decided my statements were arbitrary, but I had reasons for stating each one of them. If you were interested in a constructive discussion, you would have simply asked me to explain.

And yes, it was a viscious attack. Humour is destructive, and you certainly were aiming to destroy me in some way with your "humour" which if I were to find funny, would be laughing at myself. What other possible motive could you have?

Even if my claims were entirely arbitrary, I would be entirely ready to retract my statements if and when I discovered they were inappropriate. You leave me no such oppertunity, because to reply to your post now would be sanctioning your behaviour. Hence, your humour has also been destructive to this discussion, and counter to the whole purpose of this forum. I am here precisely because I want to learn and advance my understanding of O'ism and other related subjects. The only thing I've learned today is that you are evil. That is all I have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I've learned today is that you are evil. That is all I have to say.

Okay, this is getting out of hand. Dude, you just called me EVIL because I gave you crap for asserting that girls who react positively to some of the things I say are "daft, horny and probably sleeps around just as much as I would be doing." You might recall that YOU were the one who said that any guy who has trouble communicating his good qualities to women probably doesn't have any. I was doing you a favor by not taking that sort of thing seriously. If I HAD taken it seriously, I would have been mighty offended since they represent insults of the crudest kind. Whatever man. I'm not going to let you bait me into a silly flamewar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iouswuoibev - Dude! Chill out!

Guys, like people in general, may or may not be good at communication. For example, I'm a public speaker and have no problems talking in front of crowds or that special someone. In contrast, most people dispise and fear getting in front of other people and *speaking* about what they think and feel. It has little to do with a person's value, but their communication skills and self-confidence in relation to their audience.

Frankly, I'd rather have a shy guy that is passionate and intelligent as my boyfriend than a guy that has nothing to *say* when he's talking.

And since your binary (uptight or whore) view of the world excludes a whole lot of girls, allow me to clarify some points for you. One can be a moral girl by laughing along with a pickup line. Taking a girl (or accepting the invitation) isn't proposing marriage! It's more like saying "I want to find out more about you."

I've got to say that you are way off in your assumptions. A guy that is joking with a creative pickup line is up to a girl whether it is worth finding more about. It's actually the opposite reaction as the one you described. I'm confident in myself, so what this-guy-I-just-met really thinks isn't important to me - - - because I draw my confidence from me. Does that make me a whore for thinking the pickup line is creative and the guy worth finding more about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely not! In an ideal relationship, both the man and the woman are great. But they are great in different ways--this is what makes the exchange of values between them so beneficial for both; this is why they covet each other so much.

This reminded me of the Woman President thread and article. I'm not specifically interested in bring that up in this thread, but would you (or anyone) happen to know if Miss. Rand (or any prominent Objectivist scholar) wrote anything regarding Queen Victoria's relationship with Prince Albert? I recently saw a piece of fine art and learned a bit about their story. I was very touched :>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DPW - here's a question for you. You said your method works (imitating indifference etc). Whom does this work on? Women in general, or the women in bars that you've been picking up?

That's not my method. The only time you should be indifferent is when approaching a girl who you don't know. At that time, you should properly be indifferent to the outcome. But that indifference is internal; it doesn't describe how you should act with respect to her.

All interactions can be viewed through the lens of rapport. Either you are trying to get rapport (i.e., find commonalities), break rapport, or there is neutral rapport (e.g., an exchange of factual information). I advocate approaching with neutral rapport, eliciting her interest in you, and thereafter showing tentative interest in her until you are able to form a bond based on shared values, mutual admiration, etc. At that point, if you're interested in her, you may properly say so, and a relationship is born.

The basic assumption all of this is built on is that attracting women results from subcommunicating your attractive qualities of character. The behaviors I suggested, in my experience, subcommunicate attractive qualities.

That said, this approach works on all kinds of women, including Objectivists. As I've said, if you don't believe me, try it out, or come to D.C. and I'll demonstrate how effective it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don,

Thanks for the interesting post(s) on techniques for attracting women. I think you made a lot of good points regarding how men inadvertently sabotage their love lives. As someone who was single for many years (and oftentimes the "good friend" to many girls I was attracted to), I can readily appreciate your suggestions :dough:.

I was uncomfortable with one section of your post however, and I just wanted to clarify to see if I understood you correctly. You wrote:

-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.

I'm not sure I fully understand the implications of some of your statements in this paragraph. Are you implying that a "one-night stand" could ever be anything other than a mistake?

For purposes of this discussion, let's define a "one-night stand" as a sexual encounter with a partner who you've just met (as in that night) and whose values you either 1) don't know clearly or 2) know to be contrary to your own. I deliberately leave out the case where you think the person shares your values (based upon your interactions with them), and then they do in fact turn out to share them. Wouldn't it be a betrayal of one's values to sleep with another person under either of those conditions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For purposes of this discussion, let's define a "one-night stand" as a sexual encounter with a partner who you've just met (as in that night) and whose values you either 1) don't know clearly or 2) know to be contrary to your own.  I deliberately leave out the case where you think the person shares your values (based upon your interactions with them), and then they do in fact turn out to share them.  Wouldn't it be a betrayal of one's values to sleep with another person under either of those conditions?

Not necessarily. Let's take the simplest case. You go to Cancun on vacation. The last day, you meet a lovely girl from England. You spend the day together, there's lots of attraction, and you decide to end the night by sleeping together. Now, potentially you could fall in love with this girl, but unfortunately, the circumstances are such that it's unfeasible to find out whether or not this will be the case. I don't see how enjoying a night of sex with her would be a betrayal of one's values.

So, I would say that one night stands aren't necessarily wrong. However, I am not comfortable specifying all the conditions under which I would approve or disapprove of them. I simply haven't given it enough thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
This is a blatant denial of volition and just plain non-sense. Whatever entities this has worked with are not human beings.

Is there a woman here that believes she can be tricked into sleeping with a man against her will?

Edited to clarify wording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DPW, I am reading the above to mean that you believe that a man with the right knowhow can shut off a woman's logical mind for the purpose of sleeping with her... and furthermore you are implicitly advocating that your male readers do so. If so... ick.

Also, I would say that to engage in a doomed relationship of any sort is immoral behavior, and to have a one-night-stand that one knows in advance will be a one-night-stand is the worst sort of this kind of behavior.

Sex is the highest form of value-exchange and should properly be reserved for one's HIGHEST value in a human being. If you don't honestly believe that you will be spending the rest of your life with that person, you should not sleep with them. To sleep with someone while believing this and then later realize you are mistaken is an unfortunate tragedy. To sleep with someone that you KNOW is not worth spending the rest of your life with is immoral, because it is a lie; a self-lie.

(edited for spelling)

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a blatant denial of volition and just plain non-sense.  Whatever entities you have been practicing this on are not human beings.

Is there a woman here that believes she can be tricked into sleeping with a man against her will?

Uh, maybe I was unclear. The point wasn't that you can get a girl to sleep with you against her will. The point is that a girl in sexual state is not thinking logically. To think logically in this context is to think in terms of goals and the means of achieving those goals. Men are goal-directed even in regard to sex, but women are not. That's why women often refer to their sexual state as "letting go." That's why trust is so important to girls when it comes to sex: when they choose to have sex, they are putting themselves in a position where they have to depend on the man's judgment, because theirs is essentially GONE.

In order to avoid the problems involved in trying to make sound decisions in sexual state, girls have a slew of defense mechanisms. Take the simplest. Many guys have had the experience of, say, meeting a girl at a party. She's really into you and you start making out, but very soon her friend comes along and pulls her away. That is no accidental behavior. When girls go out in groups, they are trusting their friends to keep them from doing things they will regret. Notice there isn't any equivalent behavior in males. For us, sexual state is just another instance of any other sort of desire we experience, only more intense. It doesn't require us to disengage our logical mind.

Moreover, girls are generally sexually receptive. By that, I mean that it is men who CAUSE them to go into sexual state. I read about a study which says that lesbian couples have the least sex. The reason that's true, in my view, is that without a guy (who naturally goes into sexual state) to initiate that state in a woman, women will only go into that state much less often. The point here is that because women don't intiate sexual state, and because they aren't thinking logically once in state, it is unfair in my view to judge the choices a girl makes while she's in sexual state the same way we would otherwise.

By the way, I'm not intent on arguing the point. You are free to disagree with it. I just wanted to clarify what I said and why I said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...