Need to recapture the frame at all cost?

I'm confused, men...

The girl I picked up at the club last Saturday, I sent her a text Sunday morning. She replied and I sent another text, which ended with a question about something she had written in her reply. Then she just went silent... And no, it had nothing to do with my question, which was just about something not important.

It was a sh!t test and I guess I failed it. I mean, you aren't supposed to send another text after she goes silent. It's like telling her: "it's okay to ignore me, I'll send you another text after all..."

Actually, I decided to 'next' her today. B!tch had been playing dead since Sunday morning and it's Wednesday today. Then I thought of that recent thread about "I've had a crush on you for years" and thought to myself: "Well, since you've already given up on this gal, you might as well chime in on that thread and have some fun!". Here's the thread, so you can see how things went for me.

http://sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1764945#post1764945

Didn't turn out too bad, I guess she's still interested. I started by texting "I have a confession to make..." and she responded within 2 minutes (playing dead for over 3 days, now she responds withing 2 minutes...) Turns out to be a very nice text opener, by the way! How can anyone resist asking what the confession is about? Even if you planned to play hard-to-get, it's very difficult not to ask what the confessions is... Anyway, I particularly like her question whether I'm gonna go out with Christmas... Seems like she's hinting at a get-together (who goes out with Christmas anyway?). As you can read in the other thread, I responded by asking her if she's gonna show me around town where she lives. She didn't respond after that, but she did kinda "warn" me that she didn't have her phone in her hands all night long (there's something fishy about that comment, however). Anyway, combined with the fact that I sent my last message at midnight, I still hope to hear from her tomorrow.

But here's what bothers me: Even if we get together this weekend or perhaps later that week, I can't stop thinking about the fact that I have now sent her two consecutive text messages, basically accepting that she ignored the last message I sent on Sunday morning. I feel like I surrendered the frame by doing that and have to get it back. I'm even worried our get-together will not happen after all until I recapture the frame. I would not at all be surprised if she never responds to my question about showing me around town...

So...if she goes silent again, I'll definitely 'next' her. And if she keeps in touch but stalls the possibility of getting together, I'll definitely have to recapture the frame first... But what if talks continue tomorrow and she wants to get together after all? Is everything okay then and should I stop worrying about the fact that I allowed her to ignore that text I sent Sunday?

Die Hard said:

So...if she goes silent again, I'll definitely 'next' her. But what if talks continue tomorrow and she wants to get together, after all? Is everything okay then and should I stop worrying about the fact that I allowed her to ignore that text I sent Sunday?

Click to expand...

I would stop trying to figure out how to re-inflate this flat tire, UNLESS she comes back with a date offer or suggestion.
Two unanswered texts by you to her reek of LOW interest level.
It's her move now.

Too much texting. Give her a call, and if she doesn't return it, I'd move on. When things goes "silent," sometimes you can re-establish contact by waiting a week or two and texting again; however, if you've only spent a couple of hours (or less!) with her, I'd say her interest is just too low to be bothered. It's nothing personal against you; girls just feel weird about returning calls and texts to a guy they don't really remember.

The good news is: There is no law against going out and meeting new women.

jophil28 said:

I would stop trying to figure out how to re-inflate this flat tire, UNLESS she comes back with a date offer or suggestion.
Two unanswered texts by you to her reek of LOW interest level.
It's her move now.

Click to expand...

Listen to these wise words.

She's not interested. (enough)

Actions are louder than words, period.

I like this point of view a LOT, not because of its underlying insights but due to its SIMPLICITY .

The machinery is astonishingly simple; and you can ACCOMPLISH a lot without really understanding the details. It's up to you to take it in earnest and try to dissect it (Rollo covers that area pretty much comprehensively)
to get to the bottom, but you can just use it and be happy as a man.

There's no mind-reading, no worrying about details, no self-respect problems ...

If she's interested, her actions will tell. If she's not, there's only little we can do.

It smells like you are a little bit overextending yourself to "cling" a little more on this one.

be careful brother, for the "clingy trail" is a slippery one.

Thanks, I needed that. You are all correct…

Like Jophil says, this is a flat tire and I should not think about how to re-inflate it. That’s actually what I figured after she went silent from Sunday on. The “I’ve had a crush on you for years” experiment was just for fun, initially. But when she responded, I got drawn back in and got carried away.

And like Boilermaker says, I did ‘cling’ on this one a little more than is wise. It kinda confirms my suspicions that she’s a cluster B (spare me the remarks about being too hasty to put that label on someone I’ve only met for a few hours. I’m overly qualified when it comes to cluster B’s).

Lastly, like Jeffst says, there’s no law against meeting other women. So no need to let this gal occupy my mind any longer!


Thanks, guys. I was losing perspective but you helped me get it back

The medium IS the message.

I hate the term 'Mixed Signals/Messages'. More often than not there's nothing 'Mixed' being communicated and rather it's a failure (willful or not) to read what a woman is communicating. The average guy tends to 'get' exactly what a woman has implied with her words, but it takes practice to read her behavior and then more practice in self-control to apply it to his own. When a girl goes from hot to cold and back again, THIS IS the message - she's got buyers regret, you're not her first priority, she's deliberating between you and what she perceives is a better prospect, you were better looking when she was drunk, etc. - the message isn't the 'what ifs', the message IS her own hesitation and how her behavior manifests it. 10 dates before sex? This IS the message. Canceling dates? No contact after a number/kiss close? This IS the message.

Women with high IL wont confuse you. When a woman wants to ƒuck she'll find a way to ƒuck. If she's fluctuating between being into you and then not, put her away and spin other plates. If she sorts it out for herself and pursues you, then you are still playing in your frame and you maintain the value of your attention to her. It's when you patiently wile away your time wondering what the magic formula is that'll bring her around that you lean over into her frame. You need her more than she needs you and she will dictate the terms of her attention.

What most guys think are 'mixed messages' or confusing behavior coming from a woman is simply due to their inability (for whatever reason) to make an accurate interpretation of why she's behaving in such a manner. Usually this boils down to an optionless guy getting so wrapped up in a girl that he'd rather make concessions for this behavior than see it for what it really is. In other words, it's far easier to call it 'mixed messages' or fall back on the old chestnut of how fickle and random women are, when it's simply a rationale to keep themselves on the hook because they lack any real, viable, options with other women in their lives. A woman that has a high IL in a guy has no need (and less motivation) to engage in behaviors that would compromise her status with him. Women of all ILs will sh!t test, and men will pass or fail accordingly, but a test is more easily recognizable.

Rollo Tomassi said:

Women of all ILs will sh!t test, and men will pass or fail accordingly, but a test is more easily recognizable.

Click to expand...

So how are we supposed to know the difference between a sh!t test and
just general low or luke warm interest??

Whats the tell? Is it the fact that they may not be falling in your lap like
a puppy dog, BUT they still engage you and are hovering you in some way??
Its fuzzy logic. I don't really get it, sadly..

Dear DieHard,
Whatever anyone says,she is as Joe so quaintly puts it "A flat tyre"To me she sounds like your typical little Club Floozie,bored Tvtless out of her tiny Flippetty Jibbett mind and whiling away the time throwing tid bits to silly bvggers like you.....There are in this fair land dung beetles with more going for them than silly bvitches like her.

st_99 said:

So how are we supposed to know the difference between a sh!t test and
just general low or luke warm interest??

Whats the tell? Is it the fact that they may not be falling in your lap like
a puppy dog, BUT they still engage you and are hovering you in some way??
Its fuzzy logic. I don't really get it, sadly..

Click to expand...

I'm very keen to know the answer to this too! After all a woman could be going hot and cold to gauge your interest level too?

st_99 said:

So how are we supposed to know the difference between a sh!t test and
just general low or luke warm interest??

Click to expand...

Sometimes you can know and sometimes you can't because the sh1t test blindsides you before your brain processes what is going on.
NO matter..what counts is that you are aware that "something is going on" and that your SOP kicks right in . That would be 'indifference and withdrawal '.

Suppose she disses you -SOP dictates that you withdraw. Walk away,go home, go have a drink alone, talk to another woman.

Imagine that she goes hot and cold and starts canceling,flaking or jerking you around - your SOP is activated and you withdraw double. You stop calling until she fixes her behavior ( or she poofs).

Say that she flirts in front of you with another guy- same response. SOP says leave her to it. You walk away, she can get a cab home, while you chat up another woman.
The point I am making is that it does not matter a hoot why her behavior is poor. What matters is that you do not engage her with a verbal reaction . If you do, you lose this play by rewarding her with attention. You have just taught her how to get under your skin, and because she was successful she will probably do it again.
The essence of good management is to maintain calm control over your own emotions and your reactions, and punish her behavior by taking from her what she values - your attention and affection.

Recapture the frame with one woman... or... start a new frame with a whole different woman?

I'd choose the latter rather than the former.

This thread contains some great advice, put into words very well too! And I think it's fukkin awesome to get advice from wise old men (Jophil, Scaramouche) who've been walkin around this earth twice as long as I have!

One thing I can say about texts/IL from my own experience: life does arise, any momentary gap in correspondence should not be immediately concluded as decreased IL as long as a response eventually comes through, or conversation is re-established. Especially if this is just the beginning stages and there is no sexual relationship.

It is common sense that a chick who is clearly into you will be excited to receive your messages and promptly return. Long gaps of silence or a constant "up-hill" situation where you constantly have to text her to get a response (ie, she is not initiating you) is likely low IL/other options on her table.

But you never really know the particular situations of a person's day or their life variables, so for myself at least some flexibility here [in text responses] is important.

A chick who is into you will reach out. That's just the way I see it. If she never reaches out or only does so at your initiation, you're in the background of her thoughts if even that.