This is what I mean. If you pick up a Cosmo magazine or overhear a female convo, they are telling women to play hard to get or act aloof to make a guy reach out to them. Here on SS you are telling guys the same thing... This idea that girls want X and guys want Y. In my dating experiences, the person who is most interested will initiate/pursue, but with the proper skillset, the pursuer can easily become the pursued. Relationships are about give and take, back and forth. If any person (male or female) is doing all of the pursuing, they will get burnt out and feel unappreciated. This makes someone very easy to steal or fall for another person.
My point is relationships are not just about women doing the chasing and investing. It is not just about you waiting for her to call to set up a date. That mirrors the gameplan of someone who is afraid of investing in a relationship. Much like my normal non-sexual relationships, I have to eventually start to reach out to the other person to hang out and to invest time mutually in our relationship.. friendly or otherwise.
I think that perhaps the confusion lies in your choosing of the word 'polarity':
Having constant 'contradiction' and 'antagonism' in a relationship is no bueno. That is arguing. You clearly didn't mean arguing after explaining yourself further, but the misunderstanding is based off of your word choice, not my inference skills.
If you actually mean balanced give and take, then yes, relationships require balanced give and take.
Your response does not suggest that this is something that only applies to the beginning stages of relationships. Am I correct in thinking then, that sh!t tests are constant if a woman is interested then? When I am 55, retired and married, that is what I have to look forward to?
My point is that women who are on the fence about whether they like you throw sh!t tests. Women who see red flags throw sh!t tests. Sh!t tests are often imo due to spikes in attraction without a build in rapport. Congruency cuts down on sh!t tests. The most interested do NOT sh!t-test because they either know/love who they think you are as a person, OR they already know you are about that life and don't need to test you.
I disagree with the idea that there are male strength qualities or female strength qualities. If you are a needy b!tch and you are dating a needy b!tch, the sh!t my work out.
Do a search. There are 17,000,000 results so I would venture to say it is not my limited definition. Here is an example:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-semantic-difference-between-rational-and-logical
Adam Smith says that we all do things for our own personal gain and these make up larger, unintended trends. For example, lets say conservationist notice a historical plot of land needs to be protected and they cordon off the area to farmers. An individual farmer might realize that if he let his cows grazed in a protected area they can get twice as big and he can make more money, but his 50 cows shouldn't do any major damage to the large plot of land. However, there are 2,000 other farmers who have the exact same thought process which actually results in ~10,000
cows grazing on the protected land. The protected area is destroyed as a result.
This is you 'imposing your limited definition on everyone else', when it comes to polarity but yes, I agree with the overall idea that having a give and take in a relationship is important.
