Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
Recently I’ve been reading about the importance of Interest Levels in attraction and how useful a skill it is to accurately make assessments of interest in inter-gender communications when in the field. Ross Jefferies and David D’Angelo continually press upon the need for determining IL and quantify it in percentage points as well as qualifying it under varying circumstance. However, IL remains this nebulous X factor that qualifies or disqualifies a man from for a woman’s intimacy. I’ve read long discourses on ways to raise IL (such as establishing rapport) or techniques in maintaining IL over the course of an LTR, but hardly a word on what determines IL from the outset.
In my counseling I never advocate becoming a woman’s friend and then attempting to move to intimacy. Social conditioning has taught most women that the “friendship route” should be the best way to become intimate with a man, yet as we’ve experienced more often than not that this ‘safe route’ is rarely the one that leads to a lasting intimacy. We constantly hear women (and now men unfortunately) parrot the same response of becoming ‘friends first’ and then shifting to more intimate relations. In my own estimation this is yet another psycho-social convention effectively used by women in their sexual selection process; the latent purpose of which is meant to determine sexual acceptability while retaining the man’s attention (something she seeks for affirmation purposes). The problem with this line of reasoning is that this very convention diffuses what I call the Desire Dynamic – a necessary ingredient in any relationship, LTR or otherwise.
Think back to the experiences you’ve had in clubs or other social occasions where you’ve met a woman with whom you simply ‘clicked’. As some will attest, this initial ‘chemical reaction’ to each other is an overpowering physical passion (some would say lust). Some may result in a ONS, others may be the start of an LTR, but the result isn’t what I’m onto here, it’s that the desire is there. IL is simply a quantification of basic desire. Some of the hottest, most spontaneous sexual encounters we have are the result of this primary desire.
It should be noted that some guys may have never experienced this and will readily call attention to the lack of ever having experiences such as this and have in fact turned their female friends into lovers. In these instances there is still a basic desire, but not to the chemical reaction degree as I’ve stated above. Mitigating factors may exist in these instances where a friend becomes the ‘lover of second choice’ or the guy’s game is such that he’s never had the occasion to experience it. All exceptions aside, the desire for one another must exist and the degree to which it does will determine the quality of that experience or that relationship.
In their initial assessment of IL, I’ll have to agree with Jefferies and D’Angelo so far that determining the intensity of a woman’s interest is a determining factor in becoming intimate. However, I think that an even more important skill for a man to develop is accurately assessing IL through the course of a relationship as well, and developing techniques with which to maintain it. Most men generally complain of a lack of desire on the part of their wives after marriage. Things ‘cool off’ and the real desire declines on her part. Through routine, convenience or any number of other factors the passion both had in the beginning is traded for security with her and the convenience of a regular sex partner for him. Both make concessions for each other in order to maintain what has now become comfortable. But the problem with desire is that it is necessarily uncomfortable, it is non-routine and spontaneous. The butterflies in her stomach are there because she isn’t in control of her circumstance – a security she would otherwise strive for. I can’t tell of the countless articles I’ve read by women attempting to explain why men cheat on their spouses/girlfriends, but none of them address this basic desire principle. Rather it’s explained as a man’s biological imperative to seek variety in his breeding selection, and while there is some merit to this, I would argue that what a man seeks in his infidelity is a return to this degree of passion. His need to experience this desire becomes such that he will seek it outside of marriage if the opportunity permits. And I shouldn’t limit this strictly to men; women are equally affected by this principle.
Many times I’ve counseled married men after they or their wives have been caught in extramarital affairs and pop psychology would have us believe that the two need to “build back the trust they once shared” but, this line of thought, I believe is egregiously in error. It takes no account of any mutually shared desire that the couple had (or didn’t have) prior to the offense. To put it bluntly, if a woman is a dead lay for her husband or a man is so overweight as to not be arousing for his wife, no amount of ‘trust building’ will compensate for a basic lack of desire. It’s not trust that is lacking in failing relationships -it’s desire. Pop culture ignorantly tells us we have to keep things fresh to keep a relationship going: roleplay, go get fashion shots, have a date night and any number of other ideas meant to recapture this passion, yet never is it discussed the lack of desire to do things such as this. I would argue that if a couple needs to recapture this sense of spontaneity and passion, the problem exists in the desire dynamic and may well be past due. Rather I would encourage couples (men in particular) to maintain a constant sense of spontaneity and unpredictability in this regard throughout an LTR.
Holding fast to DJ principles in a marriage or LTR is a good start. DJ skills and ideology (what I call positive masculinity) can serve a man well into marriage so long as the man internalizes them and lives them out. Too many times do AFCs use methodologies and formulae to acquire the woman of his choosing only to settle into ‘getting comfortable’ in a relationship and regress back to being an AFC, because he never internalized the value of being a true DJ. Again a desire for who you were is evident in the woman, but a pale desire (if at all) for who you regress into after you’ve become intimates is a recipe for disaster.
In my counseling I never advocate becoming a woman’s friend and then attempting to move to intimacy. Social conditioning has taught most women that the “friendship route” should be the best way to become intimate with a man, yet as we’ve experienced more often than not that this ‘safe route’ is rarely the one that leads to a lasting intimacy. We constantly hear women (and now men unfortunately) parrot the same response of becoming ‘friends first’ and then shifting to more intimate relations. In my own estimation this is yet another psycho-social convention effectively used by women in their sexual selection process; the latent purpose of which is meant to determine sexual acceptability while retaining the man’s attention (something she seeks for affirmation purposes). The problem with this line of reasoning is that this very convention diffuses what I call the Desire Dynamic – a necessary ingredient in any relationship, LTR or otherwise.
Think back to the experiences you’ve had in clubs or other social occasions where you’ve met a woman with whom you simply ‘clicked’. As some will attest, this initial ‘chemical reaction’ to each other is an overpowering physical passion (some would say lust). Some may result in a ONS, others may be the start of an LTR, but the result isn’t what I’m onto here, it’s that the desire is there. IL is simply a quantification of basic desire. Some of the hottest, most spontaneous sexual encounters we have are the result of this primary desire.
It should be noted that some guys may have never experienced this and will readily call attention to the lack of ever having experiences such as this and have in fact turned their female friends into lovers. In these instances there is still a basic desire, but not to the chemical reaction degree as I’ve stated above. Mitigating factors may exist in these instances where a friend becomes the ‘lover of second choice’ or the guy’s game is such that he’s never had the occasion to experience it. All exceptions aside, the desire for one another must exist and the degree to which it does will determine the quality of that experience or that relationship.
In their initial assessment of IL, I’ll have to agree with Jefferies and D’Angelo so far that determining the intensity of a woman’s interest is a determining factor in becoming intimate. However, I think that an even more important skill for a man to develop is accurately assessing IL through the course of a relationship as well, and developing techniques with which to maintain it. Most men generally complain of a lack of desire on the part of their wives after marriage. Things ‘cool off’ and the real desire declines on her part. Through routine, convenience or any number of other factors the passion both had in the beginning is traded for security with her and the convenience of a regular sex partner for him. Both make concessions for each other in order to maintain what has now become comfortable. But the problem with desire is that it is necessarily uncomfortable, it is non-routine and spontaneous. The butterflies in her stomach are there because she isn’t in control of her circumstance – a security she would otherwise strive for. I can’t tell of the countless articles I’ve read by women attempting to explain why men cheat on their spouses/girlfriends, but none of them address this basic desire principle. Rather it’s explained as a man’s biological imperative to seek variety in his breeding selection, and while there is some merit to this, I would argue that what a man seeks in his infidelity is a return to this degree of passion. His need to experience this desire becomes such that he will seek it outside of marriage if the opportunity permits. And I shouldn’t limit this strictly to men; women are equally affected by this principle.
Many times I’ve counseled married men after they or their wives have been caught in extramarital affairs and pop psychology would have us believe that the two need to “build back the trust they once shared” but, this line of thought, I believe is egregiously in error. It takes no account of any mutually shared desire that the couple had (or didn’t have) prior to the offense. To put it bluntly, if a woman is a dead lay for her husband or a man is so overweight as to not be arousing for his wife, no amount of ‘trust building’ will compensate for a basic lack of desire. It’s not trust that is lacking in failing relationships -it’s desire. Pop culture ignorantly tells us we have to keep things fresh to keep a relationship going: roleplay, go get fashion shots, have a date night and any number of other ideas meant to recapture this passion, yet never is it discussed the lack of desire to do things such as this. I would argue that if a couple needs to recapture this sense of spontaneity and passion, the problem exists in the desire dynamic and may well be past due. Rather I would encourage couples (men in particular) to maintain a constant sense of spontaneity and unpredictability in this regard throughout an LTR.
Holding fast to DJ principles in a marriage or LTR is a good start. DJ skills and ideology (what I call positive masculinity) can serve a man well into marriage so long as the man internalizes them and lives them out. Too many times do AFCs use methodologies and formulae to acquire the woman of his choosing only to settle into ‘getting comfortable’ in a relationship and regress back to being an AFC, because he never internalized the value of being a true DJ. Again a desire for who you were is evident in the woman, but a pale desire (if at all) for who you regress into after you’ve become intimates is a recipe for disaster.
