Louise Brooks
“The Technique of the Love Affair makes, I am bitterly afraid, considerable sense. If only it had been placed in my hands years ago, maybe I could have been successful instead of just successive.”
Dorothy Parker
In 1928 Doris Langley Moore wrote The Technique of the Love Affair at the age of 23. Langley Moore was a Byron scholar, a costume designer, a novelist, a friend of George Bernard Shaw’s and a a newlywed when she penned the tongue-in-cheek guide to making men fall in love with you. Modeled after Plato’s Symposium, it was an immediate sensation and scandal in England.
Long out of print, the book was rereleased ten years ago, and received a positive reception from critics. Reviewing it for the New York Times, Liesl Schillinger wrote:
If enough women read it, there may yet be time for the Irresistible Woman to avoid going the way of the dodo.
The book…is a virtual cocktail shaker on paper, written by a young woman who styles herself ”A Gentlewoman,” and it could very possibly undo the years of damage that earnest flocks of pastel volumes have worked on formerly swashbuckling female psyches.
Reading about the SMP of the 1920s, I was immediately struck by the similarities to our own era. From the book’s jacket:
Its readers were the so-called New Women who emerged during World War I. The subject of cartoons in The New Yorker and Punch, the typical modern woman lived in a bachelor flat in the city; she earned her own living and believed in “sexual freedom” (although she might not have known exactly what that meant). She smoked cigarettes, drank cocktails, and swore in public. She even looked different: Slim and uncorseted, she wore her skirts short and her hair bobbed. To all appearances, she was physically, legally, and emotionally emancipated. The generation gap between the woman of the 1920s and her Victorian mother was all but unbridgeable, and a girl could no longer look to her elders for advice.
Langley Moore understood the sexual economy of the time – a male shortage after WWI resulted in a sex ratio that increased female intrasexual competition. Her book was meant to give women an edge over their less prepared flapper sisters. Technique offers specific guidelines for the newfangled practice called “dating.”
In one generation the Byzantine rituals of Victorian courtship had undergone a revolution: single women no longer extended invitations to suitors to “call” or held “at homes.” Now even respectable women went unchaperoned to nightclubs, restaurants, and movies. The modern date was born, and the once neutral telephone became an instrument of both despair and bliss.
…It was a time when men and women had dalliances or affairs, not relationships…This was an age in which it was important not to be earnest; flippancy and cynicism were sane responses to an insane war.
Schilllinger:
Where the Rules girl seeks a clothesline of her own, the Technique woman wants frolic, Champagne, banter and devotion, although she knows that ”it is generally only in the course of a light affair that the serious one springs up.”
Sounds like hookup culture, no?
Still, she is a sensualist who courts experience to perfect her craft, as well as a realist who knows that ”it is useless to tell men we are independent, and then beg them to come and dance with us,” so one might as well admit the need to scheme all along.
This is the refreshingly honest dissimilarity – the acknowledgement of sex differences allows the open sharing of the secrets to tripping a man’s switches, which can not really have changed much in just 80 years. Keep in mind that this guide is about sexual attraction, not finding a husband. It assumes that men are in a position of strategic advantage – no assumption of apex fallacy here.
Here is a summary of Langley Moore’s strategy – all written by her or paraphrased.
Ten General Principles
1. We dare not give reign to our generosity, because men soon tire of what is soon obtained.
2. A woman has not made a conquest until she finds herself pursued. Her conquest and the pursuit are synonymous; there cannot be one without the other.
3. Your surest weapon and most powerful spell lie in his own hunger for possession of you. Until you fulfill your ambition, you must always remain unattainable.
4. A man does not often want what nobody else would have. He covets what others have already found desirable. The more proof he has that you are sought after, the more convinced he will be that you are worth seeking.
5. You must not let his love stagnate the moment he has obtained you, but subtly rouse him to fresh pursuit whenever he shows apathy.
6. The most certain way of losing prestige is to let a man see that he occupies a more important place in your mind than you in his, but a woman who is infatuated will find it difficult to conceal her feelings.
7. The knowledge that there is a soul desperate with devotion before them can only excite pity or amusement, not love. In her abjectness and anxiety she ceases even to be congenial company. Her unhappiness is tedious, and he begins to chafe under his responsibility.
8. Never remonstrate with a man whose desire is flagging. Cease to see him, cease to communicate with him, let him hear rumours of others’ interest in you. If he has any lingering residue of possessive passion for you, these measures will bring him back to your side, and if not, you are acquitted without indignity.
9. It is not just physical desire that he seeks. He also wants intimacy. When he cherishes and protects you, enjoy it. Draw him into slight intimacies that seem charming, he will want more.
10. Do not give a man an idea which may prove disadvantageous to you. E.g., that he finds a certain other woman more fascinating that yourself, that he will cheat on you, etc. If you show that you expect infidelity, you will get it.
The Fundamental Principle of Femininity
1. Contrast is the keynote. Be different from the man in female ways.
2. Avoid being nasty about other females or blabbing their secrets.
3. If a man is able, he enjoys the burden of providing for you, and enjoys the feeling that you are dependent, his dependent. Be dependent materially and independent spiritually.
4. To sustain admiration for an indefinite period, display good nature, a sense of honor and a capacity for friendship. But never show yourself to be completely unselfish in your devotion to him.
5. Refinement of taste is an important virtue. Avoid indelicate conversation and coarse language.
Men to Avoid
1. Men whose prestige is much greater than your own. You need to feel at ease, even a little superior, to enjoy yourself.
2. Men with whom you would always have to make the first move.
3. Men who must conceal you
4. Men who are dissolute
Tactics
1. Be interesting
- Have poise of manner (free from self-consciousness or arrogance)
- Don’t laugh with abandon, becoming ungainly
- Don’t become vehement in discussion
- Be lively without being obstreperous.
- Be spirited but never carried away.
2. Display accomplishments and allurements without calling attention to them.
- Be cheerful, free from hint of grief or dejection. Misery long sustained begets pity without sexual love.
3. Dress well.
- The less women’s clothing resembles their own, the more men like it.
“Whether is was the first cause or not, from the earliest times one impt. Function of clothing was to promote erotic activity: to attract men and women to one another, thus ensuring the survival of the species. One basic purpose of costume, therefore, is to distinguish men from women.
Alison Lurie, The Language of Clothes, 1981
- Dress like the women around you, only more sumptuously. Originality and distinction makes men uncomfortable.
- If a woman is not groomed to perfection from head to foot, she will lack the necessary self-confidence.
4. Display a talent for flattery.
- Seem attentive to his conversation; conceal signs of boredom, but don’t look too eagerly engrossed.
- Draw a man out to speak about himself, but never attempt to probe him for secrets. This will make him think of you as more of a friend.
- Don’t tell him secrets of yours until you are sure he likes you.
5. Be more generous with words than actions.
- Actions should seem more indifferent than infatuated. If you are always flattering a man, he will see that you want him badly, and stop pursuing.
- If you are always cold and casual, he will think you don’t want him at all, and a passion cannot flourish when rebuffed at every turn.
- Many women [are] rude in their speech but complacent in every act. Better to spare no kindness that the tongue can utter.
- Express gladness to see him, but show no desire for his company in any of your actions, i.e. pursuit.
- When he is with you, let him feel strong, courageous, generous.
- If you signal to him that you expect to be treated poorly, he will comply. Men will give you whatever you seem to ask of them, so ask much.
Methods of Approach
1. Don’t approach a man who is engrossed in another woman.
2. Any appearance of haste is unseemly and may defeat the purpose.
3. Don’t single a man out for special glances or flattery, unless you know you will have no opportunity later. Be encouraging at the second or third meeting, giving a hint of sexual interest.
4. Being good at flirting lets him know that you are used to the attentions of men.
5. Do not respond as much as he would like; make a little show of surrender. Always give a little less of yourself than is wanted, a little less than satisfies.
6. If he is indifferent, give it up immediately. An unattached man who is indifferent to your flattery is indifferent to you.
7. In a group of men, be delightful and personal with each of them. Don’t single any one man out for particular attention unless you can do it without being observed. Be so kind to the women that your attention to the men does not stand out. If there is a woman likely to resent you, be extremely amiable to her, and distinguish her by all the courtesy you can show.
Errors Common to Love Affairs
1. Allowing yourself to be won without adequate preparation, or taken unaware. The occasion of your surrender should be prearranged and have the ideal background. Do not let him think his victory an easy one. What he wins, or thinks he wins, easily, he will not esteem.
2. Attempting to arouse a fatigued or worried man to demonstrations of emotion. By taking the role of supplicant you make him feel that the right order of things has been upset, and give him a mortifying memory of yourself. Before a man has declared himself, make no concessions of any importance, but once he has done so, it is very unwise to demand repetitions and confirmations, for it will indicate over-anxiety.
“It is proverbial that after a woman tells a man she loves him, he assumes she’ll continue to do so until she says otherwise. In contrast, women seem to require periodic updates on a man’s emotional temperature. Fear and anxiety, and the behavior they engender, are lethal to love and well-being.”
3. Calling attention to one’s own defects. Conceal flaws if possible and do not apologize for them. In a love affair, you should display your assurance and conceal your humility.
Langley Moore’s only nod to marriage:
“Even those who would reform or abolish matrimony are prone to forsake their principles when they are seized with a passion for one who cannot be otherwise obtained.”
There is much wisdom here, and little I would disagree with. I have used many of these suggestions to great effect myself. Unfortunately, feminine and masculine roles have largely been lost since DLM wrote her book. Women are not practiced at communicating interest and attraction, and men are not practiced at reading those cues. Much of what DLM recommends will be most effective with men displaying a high degree of self-confidence. Then again, self-confidence is a strong female attractor, and she provides an excellent roadmap for engaging those men. It is interesting to note that Langley Moore speaks of the benefits of preselection, playful teasing, and a bit of push pull as important tools.
Finally, as noted above, Langley Moore has written a how-to for passionate love affairs. I see no reason why one’s approach to relationships should not be the same, as exciting a man’s sexual interest is crucial for both. The key is to follow her 1920′s guidelines for when to have sex, not contemporary ones.
{ 652 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 5 »
Even though I am first, I doubt I will be the last to realize that Miss Moore’s advice to the lassies sounds eerily similar to Roissy’s and Rooosh’s advice to the lads.
See esp. the Ten Principles – all social proofing, DHV, and dread.
Quite a few things on this list are very good.
——————–
Quite a few others could be considered the equivalent of Roissy’s Rule of Three which you expressly view as a dark game tactic.
Though obviously effective the argument is typically that the women obtained using this strategy are of lower quality.
Should we assume the same of men obtained in a similar way?
@Lokland
Strangely, I have the intuition that the men obtain in this manner would actually be of higher value, but don’t ask me why. Women have a strange valuation system for men.
Nevertheless, I’m reminded of the saying – “what it took to hook ‘em is what it’ll take to keep ‘em”.
@mule
I suspect your right.
Your are 100% correct though, I thought I was reading a mixture of Roissy and Susan for a minute.
Some of these points are really good. Others are dark.
holy shit, its like PUA manual… gender reversed
it looks like guys are in the same situation like women were after 2WW
Meanwhile, back in the science labs…
“Scientists may have finally solved the puzzle of what makes a person gay, and how it is passed from parents to their children.
A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother…
…Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn’t be expected to reproduce. But because these epi-marks provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation.”
http://www-origin.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay
I’m curious as to what tactics people find dark? To me I read this advice as, “Be cute, be friendly and pleasant, play a little coy/hard to get.”
How is that like PUA tactics?
The only thing I maybe find a little disagreeable is the “Rules” advice of acting like you’re not interested instead of being straightforward.
I’m really not liking this post…
It’s all Principle of Least Interest – a concept that relies heavily on the idea that we don’t value what we don’t have to work for.
It’s stupid, IMO. Unattainable=/=desirable.
It seems to imply that men are barely aware of whom they want to pursue, rather more of what other men are chasing. Like we’d fight over a boar (literally) if enough other guys were, rather than notice a nice girl.
“4. Being good at flirting lets him know that you are used to the attentions of men.”
You really think a guy needs a girl to demonstrate she’s experienced in flirting to know she’s worth pursuing?
If we’re already flirting, it’s cause I’m interested, and if she starts to try to ‘prove’ how flirty she can be, I’ll think she’s too much into games.
“The more proof he has that you are sought after, the more convinced he will be that you are worth seeking.”
Again, pass. I’m don’t interested in joining a line of suitors. Nor am I going to pursue a girl who holds one either.
“subtly rouse him to fresh pursuit whenever he shows apathy.”
If he becomes indifferent – do the same. (Indifference is about the opposite of interst)
So, IOW, if he becomes “less intereted” rouse him to fresh pursuit by seeming less interested. (See #3)
#6 is straight up the “2/3rds” rule – or PLI.
A girl playing #3 would have me drop her.
“If you are always flattering a man, he will see that you want him badly, and stop pursuing”
Yeah…I don’t like this one either.
Maybe I just don’t know the difference between a hopeless pursuit and one being layed out for me. When I start to have my interest stretched, and see a general waning in interest on her part, I don’t see that as an invitation to pursue.
For example, if I’m meeting a girl halfway, in order for her to implement this “pursuit” is she’d had to withdraw to make me, essentially, “catch” her. Well, if I think we’re supposed to be meeting half way, 1. I wouldn’t feel comfortable extending past half way (for numerous reasons) and 2. I’d feel that she is undervaluing me in thinking she doesn’t have to do her half, or at she is truly uninterested.
I’m dealing with this with Ms. Flakey still. To be honest, you’d sware she’s doing all this stuff – in that she’s making me work for her attention. My initially thoughts are it sucks, it’s stupid, and it’s a waste of time. But having said that, she hasn’t lost my interest (as she very well could have if she’d gone about it differently)
So, is that the part of the success of instilling-pursuit? (Hehe)
Driving men crazy?
Cause it’s a thin line, I feel. It’s kinda like getting a man to be patient, it works on different guy (good and bad) differently.
Many nince guys have been crippled by their patience, in their past. As well as, toyed-with with for freely giving out their validation. (Not to mention orbiting)
So, a girl attempting to generate a pursuit (via PLI tactics) could very well come off as an uninterested, AW.
I wonder if the gender war has gone too far for this?
how much feminine mystique can exist if the other half of women are running around on slut walks and high fiving each other with ‘you go girl’? tattoos up the wazoo (literally sometimes) and facial piercings. and starring in amateur on-line porn of course.
I’m also not sure that men enjoy the chase as much as women enjoy being chased.
I can see this approach tying into the SAHM mommy path that Susan claimed was the new target for women. Is providing for a SAHM the new target for men? maybe, if they want kids as much as the women, I guess. but I’m not sure that I’d work 60+ hour weeks in a stressful job so that my little woman could stay home. by downsizing the (woman’s) lifestyle aspirations to match an acceptable (to the man) worklife…maybe. sounds a little like settling though, rather than living the dream…I guess we’ll see.
interesting seeing a flashback to earlier attitudes though
@ Just1Z
This is the big glaring disagreement I had with her advice.
@ Cooper
Cosign your entire post (#8).
This is very important. Men don’t view heuristics such as preselection and least interest to determine a girl’s value.
@Susan
First of all, shaking my head the at the ten principles because they are guy game. Women trying this stuff will probably fail to snag any guy of substance that they would want to keep (read: man just higher than her on the totem pole) using these tactics. These are pretty much a fail for a girl unless you want to look like a game player, or attract a player who will do the dance right back at you.
The rest is good, with a few caveats:
“1. Men whose prestige is much greater than your own. You need to feel at ease, even a little superior, to enjoy yourself.”
NO. Hypergamy anyone? LOL. The minute a woman starts feeling superior to her man is the minute she starts feeling dissatisfied. The whole “feeling superior” thing is the entire problem. You know more about women than to say this.
“2. Men with whom you would always have to make the first move.”
This needs more nuance. Game is roughly equivalent to walking a line, that line being too interested, and not enough. A girl should not pursue a guy who is continuously disinterested, but a lot of times to get the attention man worth having, she WILL have to make the first move. By first move, I mean she will have to be in his space or somehow make it possible for them to talk. Susan, you are fond of saying something to the effect of “men display, women select”. This doesn’t mean what you think it does. Women select, but that doesn’t mean a man worth having should leave his sphere just for her. These types of men have plenty of female attention that is the side effect of their lifestyle, not the focus of it. So no, you can’t sit back and dangle your hand out to be kissed. You’ll have to select and then go after him in a somewhat indirect, feminine way.
“I can see this approach tying into the SAHM mommy path that Susan claimed was the new target for women. Is providing for a SAHM the new target for men? maybe, if they want kids as much as the women, I guess. but I’m not sure that I’d work 60+ hour weeks in a stressful job so that my little woman could stay home.”
Again, I though that the point was to have a SAHM because that’s best for the children.
Somebody has to work unless you have a trust fund.
I thought #8 was real good.
“8. Never remonstrate with a man whose desire is flagging. Cease to see him, cease to communicate with him, let him hear rumours of others’ interest in you. If he has any lingering residue of possessive passion for you, these measures will bring him back to your side, and if not, you are acquitted without indignity.”
Susan, I think this misses the broad side of the barn by a country mile. This is play hard to get, Principle of Least Interest, and “The Rules”.
If a girl does any of this stuff in this SMP, most men will just walk away because it — and she — is not worth the effort.
@INTJ
For clarification, lets just say there are two girls in a class of yours. One of them, you think is hot, and all your guy friends agree. The second girl, you also think is hot, but all your guy friends think she’s gross. Your guy friends opinions wouldn’t make the unanimously hot girl slightly more appealing to you, or the hot/not hot girl maybe slightly less appealing now?
““8. Never remonstrate with a man whose desire is flagging. Cease to see him, cease to communicate with him, let him hear rumours of others’ interest in you. If he has any lingering residue of possessive passion for you, these measures will bring him back to your side, and if not, you are acquitted without indignity.””
Yes.
In my case, when the women did this, since I didn’t have any lingering residue, I could simply never talk to them again.
Problem solved for everybody.
Pixie 16:
Not really. It might influence my view of the two girls a little, but in no way are my friends’ opinions going to influence a decision on which to pursue, or when.
@ Pixie
I think the average guy would be swayed a little bit by his friends’ opinions, but the difference won’t be much compared to the typical variation in hotness.
I personally would actually find the second girl more appealing. But I wouldn’t generalize from myself to other men.
@INTJ, deti:
From my personal experience, it doesn’t seem like either situation as a stand alone would influence the average guy too much, but if it was an either-or situation, then guys would typically go for the girl their friends agree with, ymmv.
@Cooper
“I thought #8 was real good.”
It’s fine to leave a guy who’s not interested enough, and I highly recommend that, but this part is lame and shows a weak position:
” …let him hear rumours of others’ interest in you.”
Really? Or you could go about your life and be a person of ACTUAL value. This sounds like a jealousy ploy, and anyone who would use it on you isn’t really that high on the pyramid. A good product sells itself without the need for rumor.
Susan, maybe instead of teaching girls to game from the outside in, you could teach them to do so from the inside out. Then there’s no need for checklists. Essentially a lot of these things are elementary pick up tactics, the type that are naturally embodied by desirable people. You can fake it till you make it, or you can change your mind and let the outer stuff follow as a result.
Pixie – I’d actually tend to go for the hot/not girl myself. If less of my friends are “interested” in her, my chances of having to fight off other guys is smaller, so easier overall situation.
I could give a rats ass what my friends think of how “hot” or not my GF/Wife is. I’m the one that sleeps with her, so the only opinion that matters is mine.
@ Pixie:
It’s not just the appeal the girls have; it’s also the work of the pursuit and the relative degree of difficulty involved as well.
The first girl might be more appealing to the eye but the task of pursuing her will be less appealing. If other men think she is hot, she is pursued frequently and she will be more of a challenge.
The second girl is hot to me and less so to others. She’ll probably be easier to pursue and thus less of a challenge. Second girl isn’t the hottest, but she is hot enough, and that is sufficient.
@deti
In your scenario in 23, assuming everything is going well, would you (either you you, or as a generalization) say most guys would be content with that outcome, or to a certain degree would they think they settled?
@ Pixie
I also don’t find most celebrities particularly attractive. Except Zooey Deschanel.
I prefer the cute girl who doesn’t realize how hot she is. It’s even better when other men don’t realize how hot she is. Because once you start dating her and she becomes more confident in herself, all the other guys will realize she exists and be jealous. Win-win.
@Intj
I’m not surprised that you agree with me, you’re clearly a smart guy!
At the end of the day though, women are free to pursue whatever strategy they like, but whether men fall for it may be another thing.
Also this attempt to raise the price of a woman’s interest (lack of haste in being caught, getting him to provide etc) has the usual reality gap issue for women; what the rest of the women are doing.
Women always used to have to worry about the actions of the village bike lowering the cost of sex, now it’s how much the other half of the female population is selling sex for.
Very few men enjoy the chase, this is why women read Mills and Boon / twilight / emo-porn as emo-porn. If true-romance really happened like that, this ‘literature’ would be seen as fact not fiction.
Some of the steps might improve things for some of the women, but we are not going back to prolonged, chaste romance. which used to be the only game in town for men not wanting to marry the town bike. nowadays there’s a market cap price set by porn, x-box and unrestricted women. it isn’t very high.
@INTJ
Are they legitimately not your type physically, or do you think the presumed characteristics of being a celebrity impacts your perception of them?
Cooper – +1 on your comments. I see a lot of female “dark game” in this, and as others have pointed out I’m not sure much of it is even useful.
Seems like any woman that plays “hard to get” is going to only catch guys that “like the challenge”. I don’t know exactly what type of man goes for such a woman, but most guys I know (my age and younger) would see a woman like that as “high maintenance” or something similar. Not exactly the vibe I’d be throwing out there myself.
@Mules
“what it took to hook ‘em is what it’ll take to keep ‘em”.
yeah, but there’s also, “familiarity breeds contempt”. and this one is supported by the divorce stats.
I wonder if ya’ll are reading a different thing from “play hard to get” than I am. I didn’t read it like she’s telling women to be like,
“Hmm.. let’s see Saturday won’t wont because I’m going to the movies with Tom and Sunday I’m getting my nails done and then meeting up with Sam… and next weeks is pretty booked… are you free 2 weeks from Tuesday?”
But to just NOT be like (after a first date), “I had a great time! When can I see you again? I’m free all week!”
Believe it or not, I think there are girls who can swing too far to the latter end of the spectrum and this advice is aimed for them.
Pixie 24:
I’ve been in exactly this situation. I learned the hard way, more than once, that Second Hot Girl Who Friends Think Is Gross isn’t “settling”.
Every time I went for First Hot Girl, I regretted it or it didn’t work out so well.
Every time I went for Second Hot Girl. it worked out OK.
I’ve also been in the situation where you ditch Second Hot Girl to pursue a First Hot Girl. Bad, bad idea. If you’ve got a good thing going with a girl who’s hot enough, you don’t torpedo it in hopes of getting something better.
@LJ
I don’t know who these totally available girls are. Most I meet are on the play hard to get side of things. In fact someone on the other side, telling me they had a great time and want to see me again (assuming I like her) will be a fresh relief and bump up her attractiveness in my mind because I don’t want a girl who plays all kinds of games.
@ Pixie
I’d say there are two categories.
The first is where celebrities slap on a bunch of makeup and stuff to try to look good looking, but speaking in terms of natural looks, they’re either really old, or young but average looking. In this case, most men seem to see through the makeup and have the same perception of looks as me, but women seem to have the misconception that they’re pretty. Jennifer Aniston is an example of this.
The second is one of “not my type”. I think there’s a divide between guys who prefer the “hot” look, and guys who prefer the “cute” look. For example, I can agree that, objectively, Megan Fox was hot (prior to her plastic surgery). But she’s not really my type.
@ HanSolo… Hmm, another example maybe that’s maybe more common is responding to a 10pm booty call/text after a few weeks of dating.
@deti
Do you think these are scenarios/lessons that need to be learned? I’m in college, and everything you described on the “do not do” list seems to very often be exactly what I see friends and peers do. For guys and girls alike.
Reading about the SMP of the 1920s, I was immediately struck by the similarities to our own era.
Susan, there is a reason why I often reference the early (i.e. pre-War) 1900s when I say that this is what we will ultimately return to.
While Modernism had started in many areas before the 1920s, it was the 1920s where is exploded. My guess is that this had as much to do with the aftermath of The Great War as it did with the economic policies (The Federal Reserve had been created not long before the 20s and had started to have a major impact on our economy by the early to mid 20s) and increasing amount of industrial “luxuries” (wealthy people could now more easily afford to live outside of urban areas with the proliferation of the automobile) that were available to the upper class.
And Modernism, in general, meant subverting all that was traditional. Stark architecture with lots of smooth lines, flat roofs, lots of glass…and the same deal with female fashion.
Shorter hair, the “Bob” (it literally has a masculine name), flat breasts and straight hips were now in vogue, and “bawdy” behaviour, speech and humor.
Now, it should be said that this was really only happening in the largest and wealthiest areas. Very little of this was happening in Kansas.
And, once that economic bubble popped in the late 20′s and early 30s, so much of Modernism went away and would not make a real comeback until well after WWII and, more specifically, after the economy started humming again.
@Ramble
So do you think the current economic down turn will help to encourage more traditional life styles again?
@ Ted D
Extreme pedestalizing lesser Deltas.
@Susan
I am HanSolo and I cannot endorse most of the “girl game” in this post (unless a woman is just looking to get laid but then they don’t need much game for that really unless they’re shooting way above their own SMV).
However, I heartily endorse your post on “25 Politically Incorrect But Effective Ways to Make Him Your Boyfriend”:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/08/09/relationshipstrategies/25-politically-incorrect-but-effective-ways-to-make-him-your-boyfriend/
When I saw the current post I was so excited to read it but quickly became disappointed as so many of the points were to implement the principle of least interest. You do say “keep in mind that this guide is about sexual attraction, not finding a husband” and you are pointing out the similarities in the SMP between the 1920′s and today, not necessarily endorsing these tactics. However, this seems to be using the term “girl game” in a different way than previously–with quite different goals in mind.
Many of the points seem like “girl game” to get players who love a challenge. Basically tease and be hard to get so that he wants to fuck you. But then, women have never had a very hard time in finding hotter men than themselves to fuck them. Basically, be as hot as you can, flirt, and be a cock tease and you’ll get many men excited and pursuing for a romp in the hay. But I think most women know that.
I really would love another post on girl game for acquiring and maintaining long term relationships (aka, femininity and being nice and removing entitled, bitch anti-game).
Cheers.
Pixie 36:
I don’t understand your questions.
Do I think WHAT are scenarios/lessons that need to be learned?
What did I describe on the “do not do” list? Not sure what you mean.
@Ramble:
“Susan, there is a reason why I often reference the early (i.e. pre-War) 1900s when I say that this is what we will ultimately return to.
While Modernism had started in many areas before the 1920s, it was the 1920s where is exploded. My guess is that this had as much to do with the aftermath of The Great War as it did with the economic policies (The Federal Reserve had been created not long before the 20s and had started to have a major impact on our economy by the early to mid 20s) and increasing amount of industrial “luxuries” (wealthy people could now more easily afford to live outside of urban areas with the proliferation of the automobile) that were available to the upper class.”
The problem is that we’re not going back there.
We’re going somewhere else.
I don’t know where, but it’s not to the early 1900′s…or 1800′s….etc.
@Intj
“Extreme pedestalizing lesser Deltas.”
and how do things work out for these guys, generally speaking?
I can’t see a self-preceived prize of a woman being happy when that gang came a-sniffing…the horror!
@LJ
I agree that the responding to the 10pm booty call and hoping that will turn into a relationship is not a wise strategy. But that’s trying to get a guy to fall in love with you through sex.
The other example, of saying that you enjoyed being with him and want to see him again speaks to more emotional investment and doing some activities beyond only sex (though maybe they did have sex as well).
Showing interest in seeing a man again who has gone out with her on one or more dates and shown interest (beyond just sex) in her is a good idea for a woman.
@deti
Sorry, I’m typing on a phone so I was trying to keep my questions short. In your answer you said that typically going for Girl 2 worked out fine and didn’t feel like settling, whereas dropping Girl 2 for Girl 1, or only going for Girl 1, typically didn’t pan out so well. Since you had been through the various permutations of the either/or scenario, you say you’d probably go straight for Girl 2 because itd be less of a hassle. My question is, do you think people need to learn that Girl 1 is probably a more stressful situation, before they’d begin choosing Girl 2 in the first place?
“He covets what others have already found desirable.”
So long as it was limited to desire, for the most part
“My question is, do you think people need to learn that Girl 1 is probably a more stressful situation, before they’d begin choosing Girl 2 in the first place?”
Yes, but the result of chasing girl#2 instead, because you believe her to be equally attractive, regardless of your friends’ opinions, is an easier lesson for men to learn than for women. We do not put as high a value on other people’s opinions as women do.
It should not be a hard lesson to learn that you can join the queue of men competing to prove their betadom in a fight to the bottom for girl#1 – OR – get girl#2 without competition (and you find her equally attractive anyway).
That’s not a tough lesson…
“how much feminine mystique can exist if the other half of women are running around on slut walks and high fiving each other with ‘you go girl’? tattoos up the wazoo (literally sometimes) and facial piercings. and starring in amateur on-line porn ”
Wife worthiness has been completely purged form the system. Thus the willing-man shortage
This was what I did/do:
- Work out. Eat well. Have healthy habits. Don’t be overweight or obese.
- Keep hair long. No perfume, jewelry or makeup. Clothing that is girly but modest enough for work.
- Smile. Be sweet, friendly, kind, and feminine. Don’t be loud, obnoxious, attention-seeking or profane.
- Have an interest in typically masculine pursuits like video games, guns, or martial arts, where the gender ratio is very favorable.
- Be generally helpful and easygoing, not overly flirtatious but friendly. Get to know a few guys and talk to them on a regular basis, but not in a dating context.
- Eventually one of those guys would get more interested in me…
And this is how I sidestepped the whole dating scene altogether. Every one of the guys who fell in love with me was my friend first. I have the opposite of the LJBF thing, whatever that would be called. IOLF, I only love friends?
“My question is, do you think people need to learn that Girl 1 is probably a more stressful situation, before they’d begin choosing Girl 2 in the first place?”
Girl 1 is hot, she knows she’s hot, and other men besides me know she’s hot. Men in general already know chasing, getting and keeping Girl 1 is going to be stressful and a challenge. That’s probably good info for women in general to have also. Generally, men will take the path of least resistance when pursuing.
Men should probably also know that being with a 5 or a 6 who is into him is probably going to be better in the long run than an 8 or a 9 who is not into him.
It’s probably a good idea for women to internalize that they will NOT always lose out because they are not as hot as other girls they know. All she has to be is hot enough and available for approaching.
IOW, be physically attractive, be charming, and don’t be a bitch.
To me, this is hugely lacking today, and, as far as I can tell, it has been missing for a while.
Girls, IME, tend to have awful taste in music, movies and TV (and the guys are not doing that much better). (With clothing, I find that most girls do not have horrible taste, but what they tend to where on a daily basis is not particularly good.) And, I think, one major example of how different we are today then how it was from yesteryear is how few girls can play a music instrument.
There is a great scene from Mad Men where the tall, buxom secretary pulls out her accordion to play for guests at a dinner party. I am confident that Matt Wiener was sending a message with that scene that basically went like this, “Could you imagine a girl, today, learning to play the accordion and then playing it, for guests, in such a feminine manner?!”
…No perfume…
Hope, no perfume. Do you use shampoo with a really nice aroma?
There are few things as intoxicating as getting close to a girl who is wearing just the slightest amount of perfume that you can only detect when you get really close to her.
She, almost literally, draws you in.
So do you think the current economic down turn will help to encourage more traditional life styles again?
Actually, no. The Upper Class and much of the Upper Middle Class were not that affected by these things.
…. o__o
@Cooper, et. al.
I can see your point about this resembling guy-game and about the down-side (for men) of this “chase me until I catch you” idea. For 20 somethings, it does seem a bit ridiculous.
But in your 30s? Not so much. It becomes more subtle. When I read this, the mental image I had was very much Merna Loy in “The Thin Man” series of movies, circa mid-’30s to early ’40s. The Nora Charles character demonstrated pretty clearly that it works, rather nicely, in fact.
@Hope
LOL at your use of “IOLF”
“one major example of how different we are today then how it was from yesteryear is how few girls can play a music instrument.”
Because they used to spend less time drinking and falling on multi penises thus leaving more time to learn such things
@Abbot
“Wife worthiness has been completely purged form the system. Thus the willing-man shortage”
Oh, I do believe that there are marriage worthy women out there, but there are issues for both sides:
*marriage is a terrible risk for the man – divorce / FDV / incarceration for inability to pay child support whatever (I wouldn’t do it except in very exceptional circumstances)
*how does a woman price herself appropriately? too high and the men won’t pay. too low and the men won’t see the value of marriage. The pool of men being chased is smaller than the herd hunting it, and they may not even care to be caught at all.
I’d say that the pool of women worth risking marriage for as shrinking (risks vs rewards – I don’t require that women are changing) and the pool of men wanting to marry is shrinking too. I know what Susan’s numbers say about wanting,/i> to marry, BUT the national stats show that the age of first marriage is increasing and that first marriage for women over 35 has stopped (statistically speaking)*. So, if we’re noting what people do, rather than say then it doesn’t look good. whether the upcoming generation will deliver a change to that? I’m not betting on it, but YMMV.
*The place to see the numbers is ‘the other place’ nudge-nudge wink-wink. But they are national stats from the US updated for 2012.
@deti
Your last point in 50 is good advice. I think a lot of women forget that at times.
Pixie, in my experience, this is really rare. While there are many different types of female attractiveness, it is rare for some guy to think that an unattractive girl is attractive.
It’s also telling that you used the word, “gross”. That comes from a female perspective.
BTW, my comments are getting stuck in moderation on multiple threads. I may be posting too much in too short a time period.
Call me a jerk but I haven’t heard about Dorothy Parker before, but now I totally feel assured about that book… I cannot wait to have a lok at it as soon as possible!
@Hope 49
Good advice.
(A minor difference would be I don’t see any problem with a bit of perfume, makeup and jewelry but I realize that is what you did and a girl can customize this to her own personality and style.)
@Mule
Yes, hence the title of the post. I wondered whether Erik von Markovik might have cribbed some of her advice.
Ramble and Abbott make quite the pair.
Even though I am first, I doubt I will be the last to realize that Miss Moore’s advice to the lassies sounds eerily similar to Roissy’s and Rooosh’s advice to the lads.
LOL. I believe I still have a 3 year old comment in mod at CH that is similar to the above.
Game is pretty girly.
@Lokland
What is the rule of three? It’s not obvious to me from the Commandments of Poon. I would note that Roissy’s commandment refer to a relationship, not just seduction. He believes in going Dark from the get go and staying Dark throughout.
Here, Langley Moore is strictly discussing seduction, not commitment.
Which things on DLM’s list do you think are unethical?
Wow!
Can’t remember the cat vs dog thread but
cat-friend vs dog-friend
http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/i-know-these-people.html
“What is the rule of three?”
Rule of three = two third rule? (Maybe)
Suzan
Consider this :
She’s right Suzan. By heaven she’s right.
@Marellus
I hope that she’s dead, she wouldn’t be very happy in the modern feminist world…
Strangely, I have the intuition that the men obtain in this manner would actually be of higher value, but don’t ask me why. Women have a strange valuation system for men
To me , both Game and it’s older girly equivalent include a large measure of manipulation and attract the more or less easily manipulated. I personally tend not to respect men or women who chronically fall for either version.
Hope, no perfume. Do you use shampoo with a really nice aroma?
There are few things as intoxicating as getting close to a girl who is wearing just the slightest amount of perfume that you can only detect when you get really close to her.
She, almost literally, draws you in.
Is better if she draws you in with the smell of her own skin…I cosign the no perfume advice for both genders actually. Genetic compatibility FTW!
@INTJ
They do, though. Men want the highest SMV female they can get, and the way they feel confident in her SMV is the response of other males to her.
I have often heard men say that they were proud to be with the girl “that all the guys want.” I’ve also heard reports from many women who have been told that is a key part of their attractiveness.
WRT PLI, all human beings are susceptible to that.
@Bro Hamlet
Whoops, that’s not me talking, that’s Langley Moore. I guess I’d better go back and make that clear. All of the principles and suggestions are hers.
I agree with you about hypergamy, but I think she’s correct in saying that women should avoid men with higher SMV than their own. Research clearly shows that the most successful couples are ones where the woman is more attractive than the man. Also, a woman with lower SMV than a man cannot keep him – as we see with the unleashed hypergamy evident in casual sex.
Langley Moores advice to avoid men with considerably higher SMV is sound.
That is Langley Moore’s point. Women need to be indirect and maneuver to get the guy to make the first move. He must initiate and pursue or he will not value the “catch,” according to her.
For the readers, much of this is practised by the women of France. Cultures, they be different.
@ Hope
You’re a nice girl ™.
@Just1Z
She died in 1805
“They do, though. Men want the highest SMV female they can get, and the way they feel confident in her SMV is the response of other males to her.
I have often heard men say that they were proud to be with the girl “that all the guys want.” I’ve also heard reports from many women who have been told that is a key part of their attractiveness.”
Isn’t this missing the entire “are we compatible” issue?
This seems to be the road to getting a very high SMV person who’s quite incompatible.
@Just1Z
That cat-friend vs dog-friend video is hilarious!
Finding more doglike people for relationships is a good idea. Or for Jackie, beta cats work too!
Ana and Ramble, my husband likes my shampoo and lotion, which is the consistently cheap stuff I get for under $2 at the grocery store, and has become my “scent” I guess since I don’t really change brands.
By the way, about the clothes on that modest Pinterest, Mikarose makes a few of the designs on there, and they’re a Provo, Utah company (Mormon women want dresses that are below the knee, cover the upper arms and no cleavage). I had a dress from them, too, bought on a whim from the local Costco. They’re usually more expensive than what I get, since I prefer clothing under $35 or so, but they do have nice stuff.
@ Susan
That is simply not true today, though it may have been true in the 20s. This advice is the reason that girls always see guys going for the sluts instead of the good girls. A lot of guys will choose the slut who shows clear interest over the good girl who doesn’t.
Personally, I think the female initiates, male pursues paradigm is a much more effective script, which gets both parties invested in the relationship.
Re: Pixie’s two girls,
IME, the younger the guy is, the more likely he is to be swayed by what his friends think. And this is just as true for girls. Teenagers especially are VERY concerned with what their peers think and seeming “cool”. As people get older, they’re more willing to stand apart from the crowd.
Agreed. Women who think SAHM is a day at the beach have a rude awakening coming. For me the hours were longer, much more physically taxing and less intellectually stimulating than working 80 hour weeks in consulting. Hardest job I’ve ever done by a mile.
Men who think they’re doing women a favor by funding SAHM are also deluded. I’ve shared that my husband is the one who proposed it. He viewed it as something with a high ROI, and he was correct, at least in our case.
The fact that women are willing or eager to stay at home with their children does not mean that they are entitled. It means they have realized they can’t have a family and a career, and they choose family.
@ Susan
Well here’s the thing. I want a girl that I find attractive. It would also be a nice ego-stroke if all the other guys find her attractive and I know I’ve beaten all the competition. That’s the sigma-male fantasy. But it’s a fantasy. Sure, guys who pull that off are going to boast about it. But it doesn’t mean guys are actively seeking girls that others find attractive.
For example, if I found Megan Fox really attractive (which I don’t), and I landed her, I’d be proud about beating out all the other guys who were after her. That doesn’t mean I pursued her because other guys found her attractive. I pursued her because I found her attractive.
Demonstrably false. NAHBALT. Most INTJs are clear-cut counterexamples.
@Bro Hamlet
I think that there are many women of high value who do not know how to inspire sexual interest in males. It’s a skill set we removed from the culture long ago. Langley Moore’s advice is exactly what grandmothers used to tell their granddaughters. Women counseling women on how to be attractive to men. Today women rely on showing cleavage or most of their legs. We no longer know how to intrigue men – we’re too much like them.
The fact is, men respond to female traits, including coyness. They enjoy feminine wiles, which are a key component of femininity. Langley Moore is right – the woman who is nurturing and compliant with no commitment is supplicating, and will not appear high value to a man, or not for long.
@ Just1Z, HanSolo
I’ve always believed it’s quite meaningful that women tend to be cat people while men tend to be dog people. Guy game quite closely resembles acting like a cat. Similarly, girl game should closely resemble acting like a dog.
@Susan
“Men want the highest SMV female they can get, and the way they feel confident in her SMV is the response of other males to her.”
You have cause and effect backwards and your mixing in affirmation, which everyone wants.
A woman is beautiful because she is physically beautiful. Not because other men find her beautiful.
The reason men enjoy getting the high-five for landing the HB is that it feels good to receive praise for a job well done.
We also high five a guy who picks up a woman on a night out because the task is hard to accomplish.
@Just1Z
One of the reasons I found Langley Moore’s book so interesting is that hers is a guide for promiscuous women. This is most certainly not about commitment, it’s about attracting a high value male for a passionate love affair. (Though DLM notes that these may lead to more.)
In her world, the woman is willing to have sex, at a timing of her choosing, in a premeditated way that gives her the best outcome.
DLM’s strategy is economics, which you rightly point out is affected by the “supply.” I suppose the comparison might be between a fat old hooker and a pricey escort. DLM is advocating a luxury pricing strategy. Obviously, you need to have the SMV for it. Or at least the SMV that will entice your target market.
@Susan
This is mistaking cause and effect. The guys want the girl mostly because they each individually find her attractive, whether or not anyone else does. Granted, there is a secondary effect of wanting the ego boost of having the men’s approval. For example, if all of a sudden every other guy wanted a looks=4 girl I would shout hallelujah because they’d be distracted from the hotter girls that I want to pursue. I would never start pursuing that 4 even if Brad Pitt were kneeling at her feet with his tongue out.
For two looks=8 girls, I might find a bit of vain satisfaction in getting the 8 that everyone wants but only if it weren’t too much of an effort. If it were then I would rather have the less-effort-to-get 8.
So, I do believe the guys saying they’re proud to be with such a woman but the other guys wouldn’t want her if she wasn’t “objectively” reasonably or highly attractive to them and if she suddenly became ugly in his eyes but not in the others–reverse Shallow Hal effect–then he would not be feeling very happy and no amount of outside wanting her would make up for that.
@Ted
Men with options do like a challenge, in my experience. It’s one of the reasons cads invest weeks in trying to bed freshmen.
And the highest SMV guys who are committed inevitably go for a very high SMV woman who brings a lot of sex appeal.
How many times have we heard guys admit that they will date “psycho bitches” because they’re hot? Guys will do all kinds of jumping through hoops for hot, sexy girls. Every girl here knows that is true, we’ve all seen it a hundred times.
Susan wrote:
Men want the woman who was easy for them to get but too hard to get for other men. And yes, this implies that the woman chose the man through the fog of the song and dance of the chase and conquest. In the end, the woman has to pick the winner.
Unlike a lot of the male commentators here, I don’t have a problem with most of this advice. There’s a lot of nuance here that people are missing. There may be some weaknesses in this advice thanks to social media and other new-school methods of information gathering.
@LJ
Correct. She is telling women not to be supplicating, which lowers their value.
Interestingly, reviewers specifically mentioned that the book is 1,000 times better than the crappy Rules. Not at all the same thing.
@HanSolo
Which of Langley Moore’s suggestions do you believe are manipulative or dishonest, i.e. playing games?
@Pixie
Full disclosure: Deti is a 40+ dad of two. Different generation entirely.
I’m a 40- dad of two.
I did hang out with some undergrads 12 years ago in law school, though.
My 40th b-day’s going to be sad.
Is better if she draws you in with the smell of her own skin…I cosign the no perfume advice for both genders actually. Genetic compatibility FTW!
This is probably very true.
I love perfume; it’s my one really girly indulgence. I’ll do hair and make-up if I’m in a nice dress, but I’ll wear purfume with jeans. The funny thing is no matter what perfume I wear DH hates it. Based on your post, I’d guess that he wants me to smell more like me and less like lilies of the valley.
@ Susan
Maybe that’s because they like deflowering freshmen? As for going for very high SMV women, it’s not because they’re hard to get, but high value. The hard-to-get part tends to be an unfortunate side-effect of being high value.
First, psycho bitches are not hard to get. Quite the opposite They tend show a lot of interest and be clingy. That’s easy to get. Second, you’re proving the point. The guys go for hot, sexy girls because they’re, well, hot.
The order of preference for guys is like this: easy to get 10 > hard to get 10 > easy to get 4 > hard to get 4. Of course, the easy to get 10s are usually already “gotten”. Nearly all the single 10s are hard to get. Thus, it would seem that hard to get girls are at the top of the hierarchy, but that is a false observation.
@Ramble
I do find the history of courtship fascinating, as it reflects the economy, world politics, local politics (Prohibition), immigration, etc. Once the era of the gentleman caller ended, and girls managed their own lives via telephone, parents lost most of their influence. They tried to be strict, but they couldn’t keep their Italian son from meeting and falling for an Irish girl, and they couldn’t keep that Irish girl at home and virginal.
As you may recall, premarital sex rates have always been high – even the Pilgrims are estimated to have had it at a rate of 50%, based on marriage and birth records.
@ Susan
1. and 6. of the Ten General Principles are clear cut game playing. All of the Ten General Principles are a manifestation of the Principle of Least Interest and are pretty bad advice. The rest of her advice is good.
Ehh, that’s BS. You could just as easily say introverts tend to be cat people, while extroverts prefer dogs.
@Han Solo
I think that Langley Moore aims to instruct women how to be irresistible – essentially have to inspire obsession, a key element of limerence, and precursor to falling in love. History is rife with examples of precisely this dynamic between the sexes.
Langley Moore recommends strong and stark contrast between the sexes.
Which of her ideas do you feel amount to entitlement? It seems to me that she is advising women to be the opposite of bitchy – why do you disagree?
Aside from that question, do you feel that any are effective in sparking male interest?
I think they probably all do, the guys are just loathe to admit it. Cooper basically denounced the whole post, but then admitted that Ms. Flake is using these “ploys” and still has him hooked!
Most of this is taken care of via realistic self-assessment re SMV.
@Susan
I agree with this. Basically a gradual sensual tease, followed by a partial sexual/sensual reward, followed by further tease or withholding, followed by further reward (allowing the longing to build but not just causing pure frustration) seems like a great way for a woman to seduce me and get me worked up about her.
Giving neither pure reward nor pure withdrawal is effective.
One foreign guy wrote into David DeAngelo saying, “Why me feel like hating girl after sex?” That exemplifies the giving up sex too easily.
Blue balls is the other end of the spectrum.
A dance of tease and reward is probably best for seducing men into having longer-term sexual interest.
Then combine that with emotional escalation, a la your 25 steps post, and he will really be loving things (assuming he’s into you).
Deti is a 40+ dad of two. Different generation entirely.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The SMP changes. Human nature does not.
Susan…”they couldn’t keep their Italian son from meeting and falling for an Irish girl, and they couldn’t keep that Irish girl at home and virginal”
…which gives me another opportunity to promote the awesomeness of Tom Russell and Delores Keane
When Irish Girls Grow Up
@INTJ
“Guy game quite closely resembles acting like a cat. Similarly, girl game should closely resemble acting like a dog.”
I agree with that, at the 80/20 level and all the obvious caveats about choosing wisely and making sure they’re making an effort.
@INTJ
And that guys need to have more cat qualities at first and gradually show the dog side so that she can be tantalized into wanting to discover more about him, not feel smothered, and thus feel subconsciously that he is good enough for her and not too needy.
Exactly, and he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?
“he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?”
Sure, on the battlefield, in the office, and in the athletic arena.
In love and sex, not so much.
SayWhaat said something like:
It’s the same as male game, as long as you don’t take it to excess, it works just fine. The danger of male game is that if you push it too hard you come across as an arrogant asshole. The degree of cockiness that women find attractive varies but generally the more confident the woman the more cockiness she appreciates. It’s a delicate act, however, balancing on that knife-edge while you try to discover just what she appreciates, and I recall cases where I pushed too hard and came away with nothing. The same is true of this advice for women here, you just can’t take it literally. It’s also an ephemeral draw, in that it has to be practised daily or the illusion is shattered.
Oh yes, and this cat and dog show thing is ridiculous. Please stop.
“A dance of tease and reward is probably best for seducing men into having longer-term sexual interest.”
Then how does a multi-penis-empowered woman coming off of say a 10 year bender shift down into that TnR groove, assuming the man finds her worthy enough to be given a chance?
It’s not just the appeal the girls have; it’s also the work of the pursuit and the relative degree of difficulty involved as well.
I think one of the biggest myths/misconceptions that exist are that men enjoy the chase, the challenge, the work of the pursuit. It really is just projection. The reality is most men really don’t. The more a man enjoys that part, the more likely you are dealing with someone who is viewing you as a conquest/notch and not a person to have a relationship with. It is the more caddish types that actually thrive on the chase, challenge, and ultimate conquest.
Some good things on these lists above, some is massive projection, and some is at odds with the notion of emotional escalation.
”Exactly, and he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?”
Only when the reward is worth it. Think of it this way. Super Mario spends the entirety of the Super Mario gaming series fighting bad guys to save the Princess.
The Princess. Not the ordinary woman that might be higher than most women in terms of beauty, but is still rather prone to hypergamy, alpha-penis endeavours in her youth and so forth.
Besides, life is already pretty competitive. Why would I want to compete with other men for a woman? She’s either interested in the guy or she’s not. Reminds me of one girl who had her eyes on me when I was in college, first year. She was 6 feet tall. Cute, but very conservative. She’d blush from just mentioning she had had found her father’s condoms while she was looking in her parent’s room for her wallet.
She tried to use those neat little ”game” tricks on me. I shrugged it off and went for the girl with the pierced nose, huge tattoo on her back, and she was also far more feminine and far better-looking than conservative girl.
Do I compete to become a better man? Do I compete to become better in what I do? Do I compete to win at marbles? You betcha. Do I compete for women? Not in this lifetime.
I’ve always believed it’s quite meaningful that women tend to be cat people while men tend to be dog people….Ehh, that’s BS. You could just as easily say introverts tend to be cat people, while extroverts prefer dogs.
Me–female, INTP, dog lover
DH–male, INTJ, cat lover
Susan wrote:
Hmm… no, that’s not quite what I meant. The man wants to see other suitors spurned while she carefully lays him a trail of bread crumbs to follow. She’s impeccably chaste, except for him. Competition can be implied, but it cannot be overt, as that would ruin the fantasy.
Consider the modest Pinterest site, but with just a dash of sex appeal thrown in. It’s like dark chocolate with a dash of chili pepper.
@Susan
“Exactly, and he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?”
When I win I want to do it as a blowout, not a skin of your teeth marginal victory.
@Susan
“I agree with you about hypergamy, but I think she’s correct in saying that women should avoid men with higher SMV than their own. Research clearly shows that the most successful couples are ones where the woman is more attractive than the man. Also, a woman with lower SMV than a man cannot keep him – as we see with the unleashed hypergamy evident in casual sex.”
You mean the best arrangement is where the woman is more physically attractive, and the man is more valuable in other areas. That would suggest that they go for men that are close to their own cumulative SMV, which makes sense. They should consider the whole package though if their goal is to find a match like that. Obviously, part of the problem here is that since many women view themselves as independent, the long term part of the SMV inventory has far less value than the short term up front.
“I think one of the biggest myths/misconceptions that exist are that men enjoy the chase, the challenge, the work of the pursuit.”
Indeed. One can be 40+ or even 50+ and know this.
The SMP changes. Human nature does not.
I’ve always believed it’s quite meaningful that women tend to be cat people while men tend to be dog people….Ehh, that’s BS. You could just as easily say introverts tend to be cat people, while extroverts prefer dogs.
Me–female, INTP, dog lover
DH–male, INTJ, cat lover
http://www.fanciers.com/npa/sdresults.html
Gender distribution of pets
The dog population was found to be 51.4% female and 48.6% male. The cat population, however, changed dramatically over the age of the animals. The gender ratio starts out equally, but by the time the cats are in the five-year-old age group, 60% are female. By the age of ten years, 70% of the owned cats are female.
God forbid anyone post accurate generalizations.
@Saywhaat
Yeah, I have utmost mixed feelings about tactics like “hard to get” or “dark game.”
While there’s a part of me that wants to take stand against acting so self serving in SMP, there’s also a very strong INTJ-side that simply can not refute results.
“Cooper basically denounced the whole post, but then admitted that Ms. Flake is using these “ploys” and still has him hooked!”
I denounce dark game, while admitting it works.
What I don’t like about PLI tactics is it shows the person is still wresling for upper-hand. Which indicates the person is still “shopping” for their best deal, and IOW hasn’t ‘chose’ you yet.
Using PLI, or hard to get tactics while might work to convince some guys that your ‘worth chasing,’ (aka ‘better than him) to me it signals a level of discontent. And ime, (kinda like “beauty being in the eye of the beholder”) someones’ discontent in their SMP/SMV isn’t something that you can change. (Cause it usually stems from a inflated self worth or entitlement – so best stay clear)
@BroHamlet,
So you’re saying that men should modify the purchase of temporary beauty(escorts) to relatively permanent consumption of the higher SMP value of the woman by providing his assets and financial support via marriage?
Didn’t we ban prostitution for a reason?
Obviously, part of the problem here is that since many women view themselves as independent, the long term part of the SMV inventory has far less value than the short term up front.
Excellent point. I believe Bastiat has made this same point previously in different words.
…I would have to take acting classes to get all this right. But it was still very interesting to read.
“Dress like the women around you, only more sumptuously. Originality and distinction makes men uncomfortable.”
It’s good to know guys don’t like the chase as much as I was told they do. Some of it always seemed like trolling to me.
Also, Cooper, you should move on from that flaky girl.
While I think that this is true, I also think it is very different than the kind of status seeking and pre-selection that girls use and employ.
”Obviously, part of the problem here is that since many women view themselves as independent, the long term part of the SMV inventory has far less value than the short term up front.”
I don’t see where the problem is. The woman sees herself as having more value than the man, which will result in her seeking men who are higher than her in how the man’s SMP value is, leaving the average man free from the financial ruin that will come from marrying a woman who is higher in SMP points than him(of course he’s still going to get crushed by marrying an average woman, but you know what I mean).
@Susan & Lokland
“Exactly, and he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?”
“When I win I want to do it as a blowout, not a skin of your teeth marginal victory.”
Lokland gets at the truth, which is that guys who are good with women don’t chase, or respond to jealousy ploys or attempts to get them to “square off” against other guys. Interestingly enough, there’s an easy solution to a woman who tries to “harness” male psychology in this way. It’s called “spinning plates”. Where have we seen that before?
Emily, I think this has a lot more to do with looks (and non-bitchyness) than status. For instance, if some guy is getting with some girl that does not “party”, and does not hang with the popular girls, but all of his friends think that she is f*cking smoking hot, then, he is unlikely to be swayed by the fact that they do not think she is “cool” (doesn’t drink much, doesn’t smoke weed, prefers to read, etc.)
However, if they think some girl is funny and fun but, you know, she is not easy to look at, and they voice this to him (via ribbing) in the locker room and dorm room, then, yeah, he could definitely be swayed by it.
That is simply not true today, though it may have been true in the 20s. This advice is the reason that girls always see guys going for the sluts instead of the good girls. A lot of guys will choose the slut who shows clear interest over the good girl who doesn’t.
Yup. The answer to the question that women ask…”Why is he with that….crazy….bitchy….fill in the blank girl” is because she didn’t make it an arduous task to get with her. She wasn’t a challenge and made things easy.
Susan, this sounds incongruent with what you had been saying about how many girls see the possibility of being a SAHM as the ultimate goal, even if it is not that realistic for many in the middle class (and lower).
Lokland gets at the truth, which is that guys who are good with women don’t chase, or respond to jealousy ploys or attempts to get them to “square off” against other guys.
Right. They NEXT them.
I think that there are many women of high value who do not know how to inspire sexual interest in males.
Really? I’m perplexed by this statement. Inspiring “sexual interest” aka triggering the “I’d like to fuck you instinct” isn’t that hard since sexual interest pretty much overlaps 90-95% with simply being physically attractive.
If inspiring sexual interest is the goal, then going to the gym and doing squats and building an ass that looks great in jeans will inspire 10x the sexual interest than any behavioral gimmicks.
I don’t think many women have a problem inspiring sexual interest, at least not the ones decently attractive. Where they are deficient is in the behaviors to inspire commitment and emotional devotion.
@Susan
The following of the Ten General Principles seem like playing games to me (though perhaps in moderation they are fine, until the man shows more interest too):
1. Not being generous.
3. Until you fulfill your ambition, you must always remain unattainable.
6. The most certain way of losing prestige is to let a man see that he occupies a more important place in your mind than you in his
And from the Methods of Approach
3. Don’t single a man out for special glances
A woman is beautiful because she is physically beautiful. Not because other men find her beautiful.
The reason men enjoy getting the high-five for landing the HB is that it feels good to receive praise for a job well done.
We also high five a guy who picks up a woman on a night out because the task is hard to accomplish.
Lokland, you are absolutely correct.
That’s probably a good thing, since most women don’t want a guy who is *too* good with women.
Correct. She is telling women not to be supplicating, which lowers their value.
And I’ll say this is projection. It is possible to go overboard….sure, and even men are going to respond negatively to someone who presents themselves as a doormat to walk over….BUT…men are generally going to appreciate a woman who does nice things for them/tries to please them.
@ HanSolo
I finished Game of Thrones Season 2.
Thoughts:
I have to disagree with Olive’s boyfriend about Catlin Stark being the best looking woman in GoT. That wildling girl that John Snow was supposed to kill is the best looking.
Rob Stark is such a selfish prick. His mother dealt a severe blow to their tactical position by releasing Jamie Lannister. But she can be forgiven for that given the circumstances of her children being captured. On the other hand, Rob Stark marrying that nurse was unforgivable. He was engaged to be married, and yet he deliberately put himself in a position where he would fall in love with someone else. Apparently he’s never watched When Harry Met Sally and doesn’t know that cross-sex friendships never work. Also, it took me a while to realize that Winterfell was burnt down by their own people. I confirmed my interpretation by Googling “who burnt down Winterfell”, and interestingly enough, Google autocompleted the search at “who burnt down”.
The North really needed a good strategic position considering that they don’t have any supernatural powers on their side (dire wolves don’t count). They’re going to have to be very resourceful to survive the coming wars.
Also, it was obvious from the start that the Khalisee had a very bad temper and was quite megalomaniacal. Unfortunately, it turns out that as the Mother of Dragons, she has the power to back up her megalomania. Hopefully Westeros can play her off against the white walkers. Let the fire and ice clash with each other. I’m worried that the people of Westoros are not going to take her seriously as a threat, with disastrous consequences. She’s basically the Genghiz Khan of GoT.
I’m also pretty worried about that red chick. It’s unclear what all powers she has, and how to fight her magic. That makes her very dangerous.
Finally, I wonder why Tyrion’s grandfather took him out of the loop of governing Westoros. He seemed like an intelligent person who would be able to recognize how competent Tyrion had been. I suppose he realized that Tyrion is too good a person. Tyrion cares about the people of Westoros and King’s Landing, which could put him at odds with the goals of the Lannisters.
@ HanSolo
Also, the whole Wall at the North seems to be very reminiscent of the Israel-Palestine conflict, except they aren’t building any settlements in Wildling lands.
@ Mike C
I’d also say that even with the extreme doormat behavior, it depends on SMV. If a 4 acted like a total doormat, I’d be somewhat put off because she would come off as desperate. If an 8 acted like a total doormat, I’d be rather confused, but counting my blessings that I was able to lock her down before someone else did.
You’re mincing words, putting them back together, and calling them your own.
Supplicating = doormat. And as you said (lol), “men are going to respond negatively to someone who presents themselves as a doormat to walk over”.
@ SayWhaat
And she’ll also be nexted by all the gamma males who aren’t *too* good with women.
@INTJ
“I have to disagree with Olive’s boyfriend about Catlin Stark being the best looking woman in GoT. That wildling girl that John Snow was supposed to kill is the best looking.”
Tyrions whore or Rob Starks nurse.
Flaming fire chick.
Whats wrong with you? :p
@Susan
My response to the 10 general principles and whether it makes her seem irrestible or entitled:
1. Not being generous is a way to make a good man feel unappreciated. Think of Jason’s roommate on the other thread.
Generosity to a good man is like water in the desert. At first, the woman can do a very small act of kindness or show some interest as a way to test the waters. Then if he pursues and shows interest and good character she should up the generosity.
2. Agree that the man needs to be pursuing but she should be reciprocating things that are of value to him along the way. Women can initiate the introduction to overcome the bias towards men approaching and being called creepers, however, and then let him pursue.
3. Depends on how unattainable you’re remaining. Rather, the dance of seduction (tease and reward) that I described in 106 is probably better where you remain unattainable in a small way and for a brief moment or time to entice him and long for you and then give him a taste, and sometimes a healthy taste. Otherwise you just starve him and he’ll eventually move on.
4. This is just wrong. Men feel physically attracted to a woman primarily on how she looks and how sensual and seductive she acts around him. He’s not going to find an ugly women attractive no matter how many other men say she’s hot. As a secondary factor he may like that other men find her attractive.
5. As long as this isn’t full of unreasonable demands or aloofness then keeping the pursuit alive (his part of the ongoing dance of seduction) is good.
6. This can work to get the player to want to conquer you but will not work for a goodhearted man. Seems like good advice for men up front, but not women who want a non-player.
7. If he’s not that into her then yes a desperate woman will be a turn off but for a man who loves her then this intense love and devotion on her part will be awesome. I want someone like that, that I love.
8. Agree
9. Agree and recommend.
10. Agree but don’t think that makes a woman irresistible.
Supplicating = doormat. And as you said (lol), “men are going to respond negatively to someone who presents themselves as a doormat to walk over”.
This is probably semantics, but I don’t consider them equivalent. If a woman asked a guy on a date to hold her purse while she does X and he says “sure thing” that is supplicating behavior, but NOT doormat behavior. If a guys does that with many women, it is a DLV. The proper male response is some cocky/funny response, not doing the nice thing and holding the purse. In contrast, most men don’t penalize or see a woman as lower value just because she does something nice. In many cases, it will be endearing.
The difference between supplicating and doormat is the difference between a light drizzle and Hurricane Sandy.
I doubt gamma males have that sort of capability.
1 2 3 … 5 »