Playing Hard to Get

Potatoeman

Siuin wrote: »

I'm not taking about casual sex with just about anyone- I'm saying that if you feel a connection with someone, you shouldn't allow the 'three date rule' or stupid assumptions about how a 'good' girl should behave inhibit you from having sex. If you feel uncomfortable about it, then fine, it's not good for you. However, I'd like to point out that just because you decide to have sex one the first, second, third time you meet them doesn't mean you won't be practicing safe sex.

Would you want to be with someone that judges you in that way?

Sorcha16

Siuin wrote: »

I'm not taking about casual sex with just about anyone- I'm saying that if you feel a connection with someone, you shouldn't allow the 'three date rule'

All sex with someone you barely know is casual. It can be intense and enjoyable but it's the knowing each other that makes it meaningful

primrose_lily

Siuin wrote: »

I'm not taking about casual sex with just about anyone- I'm saying that if you feel a connection with someone, you shouldn't allow the 'three date rule' or stupid assumptions about how a 'good' girl should behave inhibit you from having sex. If you feel uncomfortable about it, then fine, it's not good for you. However, I'd like to point out that just because you decide to have sex one the first, second, third time you meet them doesn't mean you won't be practicing safe sex.

Its not about being a 'good girl' and im not saying you wouldnt practice safe sex, like i said if it feels right for you to sleep with someone on the first date then thats fine for you, if you have that connection.
For me i just dont know could i do that even if i felt a connection with them. For me it would mean more to wait a little. Each to their own, i would never judge anyone about their decisions. Im just giving me 2 cents here. Sometimes a person doesnt know how they are going to act in a certain situation until it happens.

otto_26

Siuin wrote: »

I really don’t understand it. What is it with some guys' need to feel as if they should really have to work hard and suffer in order to sleep with a woman for her to be of any value? I just fail to understand the merits of sending a guy back home after a great date with a severe case of blue balls when we both clearly want to have sex. Hell, at times I think it’s best to cut to the chase early in order to clear the sexual tension so that you can really get to know the person without your judgement being clouded by the overwhelming urge to ride them senseless.

A male friend of mine (well, I use the term loosely as he’s really a ‘facebook friend’, which is an entirely different matter altogether) recently told me that I should have played harder to get in order to retain the attention of a guy I was dating, but to be honest I’m simply far too direct a person and feel that it’s a little immature to have to revert to such childish tactics to keep a guy keen.

If I like someone, why should I need to fúck with his head and build up this persona of a Woman of Mystery in order to keep his attention? After all, when we eventually do have sex, aren't we back to where we started anyway? It’s just sex; it’s a natural urge just like any other, so why put the pússy on a pedestal and build it up to be something it’s not? I wouldn't even call it a Madonna/Whore complex – just a matter of some guys feeling as if they always need to hunt for their food and if they don’t get a chance to stalk and kill it, then it can’t have been all that tasty to begin with.

Just… why?!

Men like to think their girlfriend isn't a slut, she wouldn't just head out on a night and pick up a stranger for sex.

If we are seeing a girl and had sex with her on the first night you met her as a man some of us have to ask ourselves "what makes me so special that she had sex with me tonight?"

The answer is............. Nothing...

So you have to think about how many men she has slept with and how easy she was and then decide if that's the type of women you want as your girlfriend... most men rather like to think their girlfriend isn't easy or a slut.

Nothing wrong with being a slut it is the 21st century just giving my opinion to questions in thread.

Siuin

otto_26 wrote: »

Men like to think their girlfriend isn't a slut, she wouldn't just head out on a night and pick up a stranger for sex.

If we are seeing a girl and had sex with her on the first night you met her as a man some of us have to ask ourselves "what makes me so special that she had sex with me tonight?"

The answer is............. Nothing...

So you have to think about how many men she has slept with and how easy she was and then decide if that's the type of women you want as your girlfriend... most men rather like to think their girlfriend isn't easy or a slut.

Nothing wrong with being a slut it is the 21st century just giving my opinion to questions in thread.

Here we go with the 'slut' assumption... I would consider myself very far from bring a slut- I'm in my mid 20s and only ever slept with 4 guys. However, I fail to see the logic of waiting until we're a few weeks into a relationship when I feel that connection with him. If a guy has failed to see what is special, then you're obviously on two very different levels.

Sorcha16 wrote: »

All sex with someone you barely know is casual. It can be intense and enjoyable but it's the knowing each other that makes it meaningful

I disagree- I don't think knowing someone is a matter of time or dates. I've had meaningful sex early in a relationship simply because we felt comfortable in eachother's company and felt we clicked on a mental level.

suicide_circus

The chase can be fun.....but a good ride is more fun.

Duggy747

I'm apparently quite good at playing hard to get.

Primarily because I never even notice when they're flirting with me, my dopey head would just be floating about in the clouds while they're doing their thing to get my attention. :pac:

It's pretty bad when you find out years later about some girls who wanted to get with you but didn't even pick up on their advances *slaps forehead*

Emeraldy Pebbles

mackg wrote: »

Saying that it's not something I see going away any time soon. As long as women feel that they run the risk of being seen like this some will play it safe rather than risk a guy they like losing interest.

And, right or wrong, a lot of men wouldn't want a potential girlfriend to be someone who slept with lots of other men.

It's sad people still think this way

segaBOY

Wimmins have the task of bearing a child for 9 months and in many cases looking after said child for 18+ years. It is their instinct to look for a partner who is most suitable to provide for said offspring, even in this day and age when contraception is widely used-it is hard to override instinct. For example, women like men with muscles because back in prehistoric times they were better hunters back could protect the woman and baby. Arguably women like guys with career prospects these days for the same reason (awaits "I'm an independent woman who doesn't need a man with money" comments). There is a whole science behind sexual attraction and much of it comes down to childbearing and what is best for potential offspring, even finding the smell of your partner attractive usually means that your genes are more compatible for a healthier offspring.

Men do not have the same level of concerns and thus are happy to get the poke while it's going.

So playing hard to get is probably a mechanism to figure out if the man is worthy or not.

Get over it sunshine, not everything in life is easy!

Hardonraging

segaBOY wrote: »

Wimmins have the task of bearing a child for 9 months and in many cases looking after said child for 18+ years. It is their instinct to look for a partner who is most suitable to provide for said offspring, even in this day and age when contraception is widely used-it is hard to override instinct. For example, women like men with muscles because back in prehistoric times they were better hunters back could protect the woman and baby. Arguably women like guys with career prospects these days for the same reason (awaits "I'm an independent woman who doesn't need a man with money" comments). There is a whole science behind sexual attraction and much of it comes down to childbearing and what is best for potential offspring, even finding the smell of your partner attractive usually means that your genes are more compatible for a healthier offspring.

Men do not have the same level of concerns and thus are happy to get the poke while it's going.

So playing hard to get is probably a mechanism to figure out if the man is worthy or not.

Get over it sunshine, not everything in life is easy!

I'd just add to this with the fact that it's in build in men to spread their seed, hense why men are happy enough to throw it in anywhere.. within reason ..

Back OT, i'd usually ignore a girl is she's playing hard to get, seems to drive them crazy, much more fun than chasing after them.

I'd echo what a few of the ladies said earlier tho, it's much more fun to get to know the person before you jump in to bed with them.

daisybelle2008

segaBOY wrote: »

Wimmins have the task of bearing a child for 9 months and in many cases looking after said child for 18+ years. It is their instinct to look for a partner who is most suitable to provide for said offspring, even in this day and age when contraception is widely used-it is hard to override instinct. For example, women like men with muscles because back in prehistoric times they were better hunters back could protect the woman and baby. Arguably women like guys with career prospects these days for the same reason (awaits "I'm an independent woman who doesn't need a man with money" comments). There is a whole science behind sexual attraction and much of it comes down to childbearing and what is best for potential offspring, even finding the smell of your partner attractive usually means that your genes are more compatible for a healthier offspring.

Men do not have the same level of concerns and thus are happy to get the poke while it's going.

So playing hard to get is probably a mechanism to figure out if the man is worthy or not.

Get over it sunshine, not everything in life is easy!

The 'science' is purely speculation with absolutely no evidence to back it up, the fact it is used to argue every concievable position makes it even weaker. There are no first hand accounts from caveman days so it is very weak speculation to say women play hard to get because of a caveman psychology we merely guess. Scientists believe that prehistoric man may have killed and ate children from actual physical evidence, but still are not sure. Scientists haven't even figured out why we sleep. You are giving far too much credit to a guess about what people 'might' have been thinking 800,000 years ago sunshine. Calling it a science doesn't mean it means anything now.

This is how contradictory the 'science' is: Some say women make more noise at sex to encourage multiple partners as the strongest sperm gets there fastest. As the child was raised in a commune prehistorically parentage was not necessary for survival. So taking that view, women should be more sexually active then men and should be jumping on any man during ovulation.

All it actually is: 'social conditioning' and a lot of it to do with religion. When westerners arrived on beaches in South pacific and noticed islanders freely having sex in the open, they were horrified at their 'immodesty'.
If the biological urge to have sex is there, ignoring it is down to societal conditioning repressing that natural urge.

Also if this strong prehistoric urge is their for women to only mate with muscly men who drive beemers, why have so many non muscly ordinary guys survived this process. Surely we would have breed any non alpha male out of existence long ago?

Wacker The Attacker

segaBOY wrote: »

Wimmins have the task of bearing a child for 9 months and in many cases looking after said child for 18+ years. It is their instinct to look for a partner who is most suitable to provide for said offspring, even in this day and age when contraception is widely used-it is hard to override instinct. For example, women like men with muscles because back in prehistoric times they were better hunters back could protect the woman and baby. Arguably women like guys with career prospects these days for the same reason (awaits "I'm an independent woman who doesn't need a man with money" comments). There is a whole science behind sexual attraction and much of it comes down to childbearing and what is best for potential offspring, even finding the smell of your partner attractive usually means that your genes are more compatible for a healthier offspring.

Men do not have the same level of concerns and thus are happy to get the poke while it's going.

So playing hard to get is probably a mechanism to figure out if the man is worthy or not.

Get over it sunshine, not everything in life is easy!

When chicks are drunk and high on e in a nightclub do they really ponder the genetics of the bloke who is trying to get their knickers off?

King Of Wishful Thinking

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Because some women treat their fannies and arses like national treasures.

Thought you got locked up for fighting with hookers

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1764234/

Siuin

segaBOY wrote: »

Wimmins have the task of bearing a child for 9 months and in many cases looking after said child for 18+ years. It is their instinct to look for a partner who is most suitable to provide for said offspring, even in this day and age when contraception is widely used-it is hard to override instinct. For example, women like men with muscles because back in prehistoric times they were better hunters back could protect the woman and baby. Arguably women like guys with career prospects these days for the same reason (awaits "I'm an independent woman who doesn't need a man with money" comments). There is a whole science behind sexual attraction and much of it comes down to childbearing and what is best for potential offspring, even finding the smell of your partner attractive usually means that your genes are more compatible for a healthier offspring.

Men do not have the same level of concerns and thus are happy to get the poke while it's going.

So playing hard to get is probably a mechanism to figure out if the man is worthy or not.

Get over it sunshine, not everything in life is easy!

By the looks of things, many men haven't quite been evolving in the right direction, then. Times have changed since the Stone Age, sunshine.

otto_26

Siuin wrote: »

Here we go with the 'slut' assumption... I would consider myself very far from bring a slut- I'm in my mid 20s and only ever slept with 4 guys. However, I fail to see the logic of waiting until we're a few weeks into a relationship when I feel that connection with him. If a guy has failed to see what is special, then you're obviously on two very different levels.

Confused.... are you saying I called you a slut? you don't need to explain your sexual experiences to me. I was just describing a scene as to what a guy might be asking himself if he slept with a girl straight away.

There is nothing wrong with sleeping with a guy straight away, but some guys might think your just easy and get turned off. Like I said most guys like to think their girlfriend isn't easy.

validusername1

I find this funny because that's totally what I do.. Even if I want to go further with a guy, I won't if we don't know each other that well 'cause I don't want him to assume that I'm easy & a slút. People shouldn't think like that but in fairness most guys seem to, at least in my experience anyway.

If I ever did more than shift with a guy I just met, they were never interested in texting and getting to know each other or anything like that (obviously because they just assumed I was a slut and not worth respect). If I didn't go further, they'd generally text me and we'd talk loads & everything. It's shít that it's like that but I've been through it enough now to know that if I want to be respected by a guy, I can't go further with him unless we know each other well enough. Just how it is.

Like a guy that I met on a night out a few weeks ago, we shifted and he tried doing more and I stopped him, he asked why and I said 'cause I barely know you', and he was like 'I like girls like that, shows you have respect for yourself'. Whether he was just saying that for something to say, I don't know. But we've been talking loads since and we're close enough now - guarantee you if I didn't stop him that night he wouldn't have spoken to me again. I find it funny he said that respect thing though, like as if if I didn't stop him & went with it, it would've meant I've no respect for myself? Doesn't make sense to me but most guys do seem to think like that, fair or not..

Baftycrastard

PM sent, I'm next in line

Baftycrastard

validusername1 wrote: »

I find this funny because that's totally what I do.. Even if I want to go further with a guy, I won't if we don't know each other that well 'cause I don't want him to assume that I'm easy & a slút. People shouldn't think like that but in fairness most guys seem to, at least in my experience anyway.

If I ever did more than shift with a guy I just met, they were never interested in texting and getting to know each other or anything like that (obviously because they just assumed I was a slut and not worth respect). If I didn't go further, they'd generally text me and we'd talk loads & everything. It's shít that it's like that but I've been through it enough now to know that if I want to be respected by a guy, I can't go further with him unless we know each other well enough. Just how it is.

Like a guy that I met on a night out a few weeks ago, we shifted and he tried doing more and I stopped him, he asked why and I said 'cause I barely know you', and he was like 'I like girls like that, shows you have respect for yourself'. Whether he was just saying that for something to say, I don't know. But we've been talking loads since and we're close enough now - guarantee you if I didn't stop him that night he wouldn't have spoken to me again. I find it funny he said that respect thing though, like as if if I didn't stop him & went with it, it would've meant I've no respect for myself? Doesn't make sense to me but most guys do seem to think like that, fair or not..

This story fits the description, are you from cork originally but now in tcd?

Princess Peach

I usually wait a while before I sleep with a guy, and it's not about playing games, it's just a personal choice for me. I want to feel comfortable being intimate with him, and I want to know that it's a serious relationship. You can get a connection from the start but that feeling of safety and commitment comes later for me and that's what I like.

Games aside, don't think anyone should say someone is waiting too long or not waiting long enough, as long as it is comfortable for them.

Aidric

It's a delicate balance. Personally speaking if a girl put out on the first night of meeting her I would have no interest in dating her. I'd be aiming for 1 or 2 dates before sleeping with someone I really liked. There is a lot to be said for building up to that first time of sleeping together.

But here comes the balance part I opened my post with. If a girl puts it off for too long and gives off that worthy vibe then she runs the risk of blowing the whole thing.

Fromthetrees

It's just the way things are. From a biological point of view a woman needs to know a guy will stick around to 'protect' her while she is pregnant. Felas not respecting women for being 'easy' to have sex with is also biological, if you get the girl pregnant you need to know that child is yours.

It's all to do with children.
Women need to know the babies father will stick around.
Men need to know the baby is theirs.
Simples.

validusername1

Baftycrastard wrote: »

This story fits the description, are you from cork originally but now in tcd?

This story fits what description? & Nah I'm neither of those things!

Emeraldy Pebbles

segaBOY wrote: »

(awaits "I'm an independent woman who doesn't need a man with money" comments).

Well, there hasn't been a barrage of comments, but this really is true of a lot of women! I wouldn't word it in such a Beyoncé way though. :pac: Of course there are women who nakedly want a rich man, but it isn't a majority.

Papa_Bear

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

.

Surely we would have breed any non alpha male out of existence long ago?

This is already happining on a large scale!

I myself am up for extinction next decade!:(

oh and so are my friends:D

batistuta9

how is going out with someone/meeting them regular enough & not having sex with them playing hard to get?

does playing hard to get not mean that the woman flirts with the guy but won't kiss him or that, says no when a man asks her out, pretends to ignore him, etc. when she's actually interested in him

Scanlas The 2nd

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

The 'science' is purely speculation with absolutely no evidence to back it up, the fact it is used to argue every concievable position makes it even weaker. There are no first hand accounts from caveman days so it is very weak speculation to say women play hard to get because of a caveman psychology we merely guess. Scientists believe that prehistoric man may have killed and ate children from actual physical evidence, but still are not sure. Scientists haven't even figured out why we sleep. You are giving far too much credit to a guess about what people 'might' have been thinking 800,000 years ago sunshine. Calling it a science doesn't mean it means anything now.

This is how contradictory the 'science' is: Some say women make more noise at sex to encourage multiple partners as the strongest sperm gets there fastest. As the child was raised in a commune prehistorically parentage was not necessary for survival. So taking that view, women should be more sexually active then men and should be jumping on any man during ovulation.

All it actually is: 'social conditioning' and a lot of it to do with religion. When westerners arrived on beaches in South pacific and noticed islanders freely having sex in the open, they were horrified at their 'immodesty'.
If the biological urge to have sex is there, ignoring it is down to societal conditioning repressing that natural urge.

Also if this strong prehistoric urge is their for women to only mate with muscly men who drive beemers, why have so many non muscly ordinary guys survived this process. Surely we would have breed any non alpha male out of existence long ago?

I agree with most of above, women have been conditioned largely by society not to fukc around so a man can have one to himself and ensure paternity. Of course this goes against women's urges to mate with multiple men during Estes where the primary sexual completion takes place in the form of sperm competition.

That said I believe every man has the ability to be alpha males, it's deep in our DNA. However the right circumstances need to be in place to bring out your alpha make personality as it could be lethal in the wrong circumstances.

Emeraldy Pebbles

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That said I believe every man has the ability to be alpha males, it's deep in our DNA.

No they don't, and that fook for that. I always find "beta" males much more engaging and attractive. :cool:

Scanlas The 2nd

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

No they don't, and that fook for that. I always find "beta" males much more engaging and attractive. :cool:

An alpha male in essence is someone who takes charge and leads, he is free to to be himself without being inhibited. When the right cues our in place this personality comes out, it is not an arrogant personality. What an alpha male is biologically and what it is thought to be in western culture are not the same.

You can actually bring out a man's alpha personality without the cues being in place. It's kind of like a loop hole of our modern society. All you do is have the man attempt to chat up women over and over again and push him into a state of deep anxiety again and again but if he chats up countless women when he's afraid eventually his Protective mechanisms realise our society is not a threat like it once was so it gives him access to his alpha chilled out personality. It's a also much healthier state to be in, a lot less stressful as social anxiety disappears.

Zulu

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

No they don't, and that fook for that. I always find "beta" males much more engaging and attractive. :cool:

ehh yes they do. A father with his child is the perfect example of an everyday man being an alpha male.

Contrary to media bias and negative stereotypes, alpha males are very good things.

It's as sad that (some aspects of) society considers alpha males bad, as it considers some women "sluts".

Gummy Panda

You could all learn from Grace Jones and her views on playing hard to get

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOfhlYIRCXM

Zulu

Interesting: kidnap & rape? :eek:

Emeraldy Pebbles

Zulu wrote: »

ehh yes they do.

Nope, they don't. If every man could be one, then what's the point of the expression? In the animal kingdom, every male of whatever species most certain does NOT have the ability to be an alpha male, it gets decided through a number of factors. We are no different.

What an alpha male is, IS biological mostly, with a bit of environmental too, despite what PUA disciple Scanlas up there says.

Scanlas The 2nd

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Nope, they don't. If every man could be one, then what's the point of the expression? In the animal kingdom, every male of whatever species most certain does NOT have the ability to be an alpha male, it gets decided through a number of factors. We are no different.

What an alpha male is, IS biological mostly, with a bit of environmental too, despite what PUA disciple Scanlas up there says.

What is your definition of an alpha male?

All men have various personalities depending on where they stand in the hierarchy, the higher in the hierarchy the sexier they are generally to women. The personality and how relaxed you are signals to women where you are on that hierarchy, put a man in his situation with less dominant males and his alpha personality becomes available to him. A clear indication that your alpha personality isn't available to you is when " you can't think of anything to say.

When you have acces to your alpha personality you can waffle on for hours on end free of social anxiety.

Zulu

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Nope, they don't.

Sure they dol, an alpha male is the leading male. Take away all competition and the final male is the alpha male.

If every man could be one, then what's the point of the expression?

It describes the dominant/leading male.

The In the animal kingdom, every male of whatever species most certain does NOT have the ability to be an alpha male,

Yes they do, and it happens as soon as competition permits.

What an alpha male is, IS biological mostly, with a bit of environmental too, despite what PUA disciple Scanlas up there says.

I don't know what PUA is, but I acknowledge Scanlas' point. I also acknowledge that the term has been somewhat hijacked to represent a callous, driven, motivated, ruthless charature of capitalism.

A real alpha male is a father with his child - an everyday example.

daisybelle2008

Fromthetrees wrote: »

It's just the way things are. From a biological point of view a woman needs to know a guy will stick around to 'protect' her while she is pregnant. Felas not respecting women for being 'easy' to have sex with is also biological, if you get the girl pregnant you need to know that child is yours.

It's all to do with children.
Women need to know the babies father will stick around.
Men need to know the baby is theirs.
Simples.

I am not sure that people are really quiet grasping that this is not a scientific fact simply a 'guess' that is almost identical to the 'science' that says being gay is not natural or the world is flat.

Sure it is a great little bit of 'sciece' for religious people to grasp and subjecate & control sexuality with. This is the same 'science' that says it is 'adam and eve' not 'adam and steve' & stones adulterous women. Subjecating women and gays is not biologically justified no matter what you would like to believe.

Sex is no more a biological urge to have children, than eating is a biological urge to sh*t. Sex is a biological urge to have sex.

Can people really not think for themselves or just grasping psuedo science to match the social and religious conditioning the have? So nature gives me a biological urge to want sex and calling me a 'easy slut' for indulging that desire is also biological???

Less than .5% of of sexual acts end in in child birth. People are determined to believe that it is to do with children, if you want to keep believe that nonsense, evaluate how many times you have had sex for enjoyment vs how many times to actually try to produce a baby and get some 'statistics' from that. When given a choice (contraception and abortion) people have less children and still keep having sex.

If it is all biological fact people would only want to have sex without contraception, with one person to produce many children, during ovulation, Oh yeah that’s what the Catholic church says we should do, so it MUST be SCIENCE so. :rolleyes:

daisybelle2008

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I agree with most of above, women have been conditioned largely by society not to fukc around so a man can have one to himself and ensure paternity. Of course this goes against women's urges to mate with multiple men during Estes where the primary sexual completion takes place in the form of sperm competition.

That said I believe every man has the ability to be alpha males, it's deep in our DNA. However the right circumstances need to be in place to bring out your alpha make personality as it could be lethal in the wrong circumstances.

Scanlas, in general you seem to be quiet open minded. When is comes to PUA/Alpha male 'science' you seem very attached and closed minded. You really want to believe your 'Alpha' male theories as do a lot of the guys here to whom PUA is a religion. There really is no Alpha/Beta caveman biology that exists in womens subconcious. If there was women would only mate with body builders and only to breed & be protected. Scanlas I can turn every caveman argument on its head and use it to 'defend' the opposite position, that is how weak and transperant they are. I could say women prefer to have children with Beta males because they are more likely to stay around and look after them than the pesky Alphas who are off 'riding' everything. The amount of women that get wet to skinny camp Russell Brand types vs Ultimate fighters should tell you something.

There is no 'one' type that women are pre-disposed to. In general confident out-going people with few hang-ups and who like themselves (both genders & 'alpha or beta') tend to have have more quantity and quality of successful couplings. The rest is mind made social conditioning and made up labels 'alpha', 'beta', 'slut' used to judge people in narrow conventional ways. 'Alpha' and 'Beta' are not quantifiable absolute truths. No two people can even agree on what it means (is it physical or mental) and it changes over time. These labels (societal judgements) are as unhelpful to men as terms like 'slut' and 'whore' are to women.

PUA works because it encourages being out-going and confident, where it is less sustainable is it doesn't permanantly remove the 'hang-ups' and 'biologicial' labels that separate and judge and sees the genders as unequal.

People who buy into this 'science' are the kind of people that are gullible to being controlled by religion, politics and scams, people who cannot think for themselves.

Da Shins Kelly

Why don't you just let people do whatever they want rather than telling them what's right or wrong in these matters? You can go on about social conditioning and religion all you want, but at the end of the day, people should just do what makes them feel comfortable. If that means having sex straight away, fine, if it means waiting and putting a date on it, so be it.

Scanlas The 2nd

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Scanlas, in general you seem to be quiet open minded. When is comes to PUA/Alpha male 'science' you seem very attached and closed minded. You really want to believe your 'Alpha' male theories as do a lot of the guys here to whom PUA is a religion. There really is no Alpha/Beta caveman biology that exists in womens subconcious. If there was women would only mate with body builders and only to breed & be protected. Scanlas I can turn every caveman argument on its head and use it to 'defend' the opposite position, that is how weak and transperant they are. I could say women prefer to have children with Beta males because they are more likely to stay around and look after them than the pesky Alphas who are off 'riding' everything. The amount of women that get wet to skinny camp Russell Brand types vs Ultimate fighters should tell you something.

There is no 'one' type that women are pre-disposed to. In general confident out-going people with few hang-ups and who like themselves (both genders & 'alpha or beta') tend to have have more quantity and quality of successful couplings. The rest is mind made social conditioning and made up labels 'alpha', 'beta', 'slut' used to judge people in narrow conventional ways. 'Alpha' and 'Beta' are not quantifiable absolute truths. No two people can even agree on what it means (is it physical or mental) and it changes over time. These labels (societal judgements) are as unhelpful to men as terms like 'slut' and 'whore' are to women.

PUA works because it encourages being out-going and confident, where it is less sustainable is it doesn't permanantly remove the 'hang-ups' and 'biologicial' labels that separate and judge and sees the genders as unequal.

People who buy into this 'science' are the kind of people that are gullible to being controlled by religion, politics and scams, people who cannot think for themselves.

I read a wide array of material on the subject an come to my own conclusions. I most certainly wouldn't describe a bodybuilder type as an alpha male.

Also you have to keep in mind that we are not in our natural environment. People mate with who they can get in our unnatural environment due to the agricultural revolution. I believe women mated with numerous alpha males during Estrus allowing sperm competition to take place. That is what's natural for us IMO.

You seem to think I think muscle men are alpha males. I never said that.

I believe women generally are sexually attracted to cues for a male which indicate he has plenty of options with attractive women. I would describe these men as the the ones who have women chasing them. They are alpha males IMO. They are generally free of social anxiety.

WindSock

I always sleep with fellas on a first date if I am attracted to them. But I instantly lose all respect for them after for putting out so soon, with no sense of hypocrisy at all.

daisybelle2008

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I read a wide array of material on the subject an come to my own conclusions. I most certainly wouldn't describe a bodybuilder type as an alpha male.

Also you have to keep in mind that we are not in our natural environment. People mate with who they can get in our unnatural environment due to the agricultural revolution. I believe women mated with numerous alpha males during Estrus allowing sperm competition to take place. That is what's natural for us IMO.

You seem to think I think muscle men are alpha males. I never said that.

I believe women generally are sexually attracted to cues for a male which indicate he has plenty of options with attractive women. I would describe these men as the the ones who have women chasing them. They are alpha males IMO. They are generally free of social anxiety.

So basically you are just talking about confident well balanced people? why don't you just call them that then?. Alpha and Beta are just meaningless man made labels, you can't take 3.5 billion people and get everyone to agree who goes into each compartment, those labels limit our thinking, they don't broaden our minds. They encourage us to form judgements and create gender hierarchys or false values in our minds, they encourage us to bully, separate and marginalise. Why do you think the biggest insults we pay to men is that they are 'pussys' and women are 'sluts'. Alpha and Beta are about as helpful and meaningful terms as 'Aryan' and 'non-Aryan'.

We are not in an 'unnatural' environment, the only unnatural environment would be one that could not sustain our lifeform. We adapt and evolve, there is no one way we 'should' live to match perfectly the way we guess at best that cavemen lived. Believing there is one true way we should live, act and behave is the problem.

The prehistoric arguments put forward and settled upon in this thread have been countered time and time over academically. Someone in this thread said that: women like men with muscles because back in prehistoric times they were better hunters back could protect the woman and baby. Well I could suggest an equally plausible 'theory' that women in prehistoric time went for less muscly men as they were less likely to hunt and be killed and stay around to pick berries and help with child rearing. In fact historians argue that prehistoric women provided most of the calories and that men often came back empty handed. Truly we don't truly know the role women played prehistorically, guesses are made from the art we see which is a subjective interpretation. Sleep is a biological urge but scientist don't fully know the why we sleep.

In this thread we seem to have accepted that 'slut shaming' is not only necessary but it is biologically justified. The reason women should fight the biological urge to have sex seems to be because guys won't know if they are the father of a child that has a less that .4% chance of happening (ratio of hetrosexual sexual acts vs live births). This is truly one of the dumbest excuses for repressing women I have heard, in fact it is right up there with anything Sharia law could offer.

Keep reading an array of material Scanlas but don't reach a conclusion, you can't, as fast as you reach your conclusion and new bunch of academics will proffer a new theory on how prehistoric man behaved that will wholly contradict the previous one. I have found that almost every opinion and label I have applied has made me a hypocrite. In fact I know very little, only I have a biological urge to copulate sometimes.

OnTheCouch

Jogathon wrote: »

Well if i really like a guy then I prefer to wait a few weeks because I like it to be meaningful. If I don't care and just want a bit of fun then I'll put out and enjoy.

This entry is quite interesting and has been both the inspiration and the source of frustration of many stories I have heard down the years!

To try and generalise all these anecotes into one I shall do the following:

What usually happened is the man (Y) has been interested in the woman (X). Now, after let's say one to three dates, Y and X have been getting on very well, have kissed, got very close etc, but X continued to withhold sex. Then, out of frustration and/or circumstances, X and Y stop seeing each other.

Next, either through friends/acquaintances/general grapevine, Y finds out that X met up with another man on a night out (Z) and slept with him straight away.

This obviously provokes a gamut of emotions: anger, bewilderment, hurt sadness, confusion, inadequacy (what moves did he use that I didn't).

When Y brings this up with X, she simply states that 'oh, it didn't mean anything with Z and was just for fun - with you I wanted to wait and make it more special.' (Hence even more bewilderment and anguish from Y)

This is a clear example of men and women putting different value on different things and goes against a little bit what the OP states, which may lead me to believe it might be a cultural difference in how different people see different attitudes.

In reality, both Y and Z want the fun. Because X also wants the fun, but also on a more consistent basis, the safety net/emotional security of a long-term relationship, she deprives Y of the instant reward while at the same time giving it to Z.

Ironically enough therefore, even though X has a higher opinion of Y than Z, she succeeds at the same time in alienating and denting the self-confidence of Y whilst boosting that of Z.

This is because men want sex all the time, whether in a relationship or not. If one man can get it without having to put in all the effort then he's likely to be happy, biologically fulfilling his need if you like.

Now if Y had got the sex fairly quickly, perhaps not straight away, but soon after that, there is every chance I believe, again contrary to this thread, that he would have stuck around for the relationship instead of just becoming frustrated and giving up on things.

Going slightly off a tangent, but I believe situations like this can reinforce the thinking of those ever so dodgy 'nice guy/bad boy' stereotypes, where what the man and the woman think are the decent thing to happen do not necessarily match.

It's fair to say I think that women for the most part prefer to be in relationships than have many one night stands, but if they meet someone they think they like I would encourage them not to withhold sex for too long, or they could end up missing out on a good thing!

Gummy Panda

WindSock wrote: »

I always sleep with fellas on a first date if I am attracted to them. But I instantly lose all respect for them after for putting out so soon, with no sense of hypocrisy at all.

Why do you treat them like a piece of meat to be discarded?

I bet you have some analogy about locks and keys to justify it!

Siuin

Jaysus, the amount of PMs I've gotten :S

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

ehh yes they do. A father with his child is the perfect example of an everyday man being an alpha male.

Contrary to media bias and negative stereotypes, alpha males are very good things.

It's as sad that (some aspects of) society considers alpha males bad, as it considers some women "sluts".

Nothing wrong with being a confident, independent alpha male. The problem is the perception of what an alpha male is and the PUA community doesn't help in that regard.

BBDBB

WindSock wrote: »

I always sleep with fellas on a first date if I am attracted to them. But I instantly lose all respect for them after for putting out so soon, with no sense of hypocrisy at all.

I feel so used

otto_26

WindSock wrote: »

I always sleep with fellas on a first date if I am attracted to them. But I instantly lose all respect for them after for putting out so soon, with no sense of hypocrisy at all.

It's not about a guy deciding he has no respect for a girl it's just the way some feel after they sleep with a girl straight away. It's not like you lose respect for a girl to make a point it's just the way some feel.

YFlyer

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

An alpha male in essence is someone who takes charge and leads, he is free to to be himself without being inhibited. When the right cues our in place this personality comes out, it is not an arrogant personality. What an alpha male is biologically and what it is thought to be in western culture are not the same.

You can actually bring out a man's alpha personality without the cues being in place. It's kind of like a loop hole of our modern society. All you do is have the man attempt to chat up women over and over again and push him into a state of deep anxiety again and again but if he chats up countless women when he's afraid eventually his Protective mechanisms realise our society is not a threat like it once was so it gives him access to his alpha chilled out personality. It's a also much healthier state to be in, a lot less stressful as social anxiety disappears.

Mystery Method psychology and human behaviour?

StankyStevie

jeez, glad I'm past all that dating palaver. Sounds too much like hard work nowadays

stoneill

So - what's the story? Are we having a gang bang or what?