After 34 years, I finally found an article worth reading by a woman

[Zarky]

The girls that give themselves too easy are not good for LTR in my opinion. Usually those that withhold they are somewhat smarter and have a higher self worth also.

Funny, the women I've dated have been exactly the opposite. The easier ones have been on the whole smarter, funnier, more adventurous, better in bed, and kinder than the ones who wait.

It's interesting that this is a board for getting guys laid quickly, easily and inexpensively, and then there are guys who denigrate the women who give them precisely what we're all here looking for.

If you're here to have a traditional relationship with one woman who will wait for a long time to sleep with you and then will marry you, have 2 kids with you, then will divorce you and take half your money, you don't need a web site to teach you how to do that. Just walk lock-step with western culture and you'll fall right into that role.

This site, and sites like it, are here to teach guys how to get laid as quickly and easily as possible. Degrading the people who then do that is like going to a get-rich web site and saying that wealthy people suck. It's a bizarre waste of time.

Even if the OP prefaced his comments with "this is only for those guys looking for a LTR," it still makes no sense, because it fails to understand that women are attracted to men for ONSs and LTRs in exactly the same manner, it's just a matter of degree. To think that you will somehow secure a LTR by doing something other than you would to secure a ONS/STR is the mark of someone who has very little experience seducing women. Every single woman I've seduced for a short term fling could have been turned into a LTR if I'd wanted (and some I did, and have).

All else is claptrap. The article is bunk. Waiting to have sex almost never works in favor of the man, no matter what type of relationship he's looking for. Note, too, that the article offers no evidence whatsoever in support of its assertions, it's just the musings of some random woman who is clearly interested in advancing her own gender's agenda. I have nothing wrong with that, but I do have a problem with guys who are stupid enough to believe it.

Just because she's a "sl ut" with you doesn't mean she was one with other guys. And just because she was a "good girl" with you certainly doesn't mean she was with other guys.

 

[runner83]

Runner,

Go back to fuvking your co-workers. You have poor reading comprehension skills. Read my posts again. You have severe maturity issues and it is very, very difficult to take your posts seriously. Especially since you are 27 and still act like a 17 year old fool in your profession. You have missed the entire point of this post, just like your father, mentor, and counselor, RT.

NEVER did I say don't have sex with the girl you like, I said withold it in the beginning. The problem with the internet, is that people read but don't listen. Listen to each one of my words as you read it. Read it outloud. Again, and then again. Reading comprehension is an important part of your professional life. If you don't have it, it will make you look like a fool.

I can share my experiences with all of you. But I can't teach you how to read. I consider this thread closed. Good luck everyone.

Hey bro, get a grip! We're here help to you.

I mean, if it works for you to withhold s*x in the beginning, then that's fine. Whatever works for you.

But I prefer to know as soon as possible if she has hang ups about her s*xuality, since if there is I want to bail and move on as soon as possible.

RT's elaboration was very good value.

All the best. But no more coming on here moaning about a girl who "was different" when you'd only known her for a month and hadn't even had s*x with her, ok?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I was reading through the Art of Seduction last night and I came across a passage there that reminded me of this thread. The section was about coquetry. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, playing the coquette is by and large the natural default method of seduction for women; going from hot to cold, interest to feigned disinterest, the promise of fantastic sex and then a complete disconnected indifference. That is coquetry and it hardly needs to be taught to women since it's proven to be so effective in covertly drawing out what they want in men. As I've said in many prior threads, a woman's best agency is always her sexuality. It's their first best key to power over men (which explains why it's so distressing for women as it decays with age).

What this article is attempting to do is convince men that they can play an effective coquette too - essentially adopt a female seduction method. The premise is disingenuous on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin with it, but after re-reading it I can see the mechanics behind it. The idea is to draw men into thinking that they are the ones doing the resisting, when in fact they are only better playing into a woman's coquetry.

The principle is this: the one who is doing the resisting is the one who is controlling the dynamic. It comes back to The Cardinal Rule of Relationships In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. The trick to feminine coquetry is incrementally rewarding her target(s) with marginal intimacy while simultaneously resisting him enough to keep him in limbo.

Now, why would a woman want to do this? The polite answers, the pretty lies, are found in the bullet points in this article. Each of which is intended to convince men to play along with her coquetry (feminine seduction) and better facilitate the real function of her coquetry - sexual selection from amongst her best options (i.e. hypergamy). If a man can be convinced that it's in fact he who is doing the resisting, for all the noble and acceptable reasonings, it only makes her coquetry easier.

Coquetry is a woman's socially approved methodological equal of Plate Theory for men. And just like Plate Spinning, it requires a woman to keep a covert stable of potential suitors in rotation. They can't implicitly know about each other. If they did, she runs the risk of them losing interest in frustration. So, how much the better if a Man is an active participant in her own coquetry? How much the better when he believes it's his own idea to be his own coquette?

The reason I say waited-for sex is never worth the wait is because it reduces sexual tension and urgency. It's essentially negotiated desire - "OK well play by your rules and ƒuck when you're finally convinced that I'm worthy of your vagina." By playing your own coquette, you may think you're drawing her into YOUR web and she'll be a foaming hot mess for you by the time YOU "allow" her to ride your cøck, but you're only fooling yourself. Assuming you even get to actual sex with her, it's still her who's doing the resisting, and now your sex is based on the implied negotiation you agreed to by waiting her out. And what were you waiting for? Her to come to the conclusion that she couldn't do better than ƒuck you in the immediate future.

Every chump in human history has, in different versions, thought he was doing the right thing by playing the friend, waiting patiently, building comfort and trust, being a gentleman, being emotionally supportive and sensitive to a woman's desires in the interim times when she's not riding the Alpha Bad Boy's cøck. Women who are interested in you wont confuse you. If you are her "A" guy she wont make you wait (very long) to get after it with you. If she's delaying and filibustering, rest assured you are her "B" or "C" guy, and she needs negotiated convincing to bump you up to being her starter.

 

[zekko]

If a woman is really into you, she will be ready to give it up.
If she's ready to give it up five minutes after she met you, I would find that a little suspicious.

I don't agree that the article is simply part of a sinister plot to manipulate men. It's the male's place to lead, to set the pace of escalation. The woman may apply breaks as needed.

I don't think it's necessarily in the man's best interest to always press for intercourse on the first date. If you know she's going to be around for awhile, what's the damn hurry? I'm certainly not advocating waiting months though.

Build some tension, it can make it more enjoyable. It's called foreplay. But hey, if you're one of these guys who isn't happy unless they're nutting right away, by all means do it your way.

I am a goodlooking guy and for me it has never worked, playing games are bad for your ego to be honest

I'm not fond of playing games, even though they call it "game". Some of the guys who object to this would have no qualms about some basic push-pull or DHV or whatever. But I don't see this as playing games. It's just slowing down to make it BETTER.

Again, if you can't handle waiting a day, then don't do it. Not sure why this is such a hot button issue.

It's interesting that this is a board for getting guys laid quickly, easily and inexpensively, and then there are guys who denigrate the women who give them precisely what we're all here looking for.

Actually, this is a site for "Meeting, Dating, and Attracting Women". That implies a slightly wider spectrum than just pump and dumps.

The OP is talking about potential LTRs. You don't turn a ho into a housewife, I thought everyone here agreed on that at least. Come on people.

I honestly don't care much for this whole Gen Y attitude of "fvck the girl first, then look and see who you just fvcked" which is so often espoused on this forum. When and how did things get so ass backwards?

Look, I've done my share of one night stands and such (especially when I was younger), but I don't think it's wise to build a philosophy of life around it.

 

[Jeffst1980]

I was reading through the Art of Seduction last night and I came across a passage there that reminded me of this thread. The section was about coquetry. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, playing the coquette is by and large the natural default method of seduction for women; going from hot to cold, interest to feigned disinterest, the promise of fantastic sex and then a complete disconnected indifference. That is coquetry and it hardly needs to be taught to women since it's proven to be so effective in covertly drawing out what they want in men. As I've said in many prior threads, a woman's best agency is always her sexuality. It's their first best key to power over men (which explains why it's so distressing for women as it decays with age).

What this article is attempting to do is convince men that they can play an effective coquette too - essentially adopt a female seduction method. The premise is disingenuous on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin with it, but after re-reading it I can see the mechanics behind it. The idea is to draw men into thinking that they are the ones doing the resisting, when in fact they are only better playing into a woman's coquetry.

The principle is this: the one who is doing the resisting is the one who is controlling the dynamic. It comes back to The Cardinal Rule of Relationships In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. The trick to feminine coquetry is incrementally rewarding her target(s) with marginal intimacy while simultaneously resisting him enough to keep him in limbo.

Now, why would a woman want to do this? The polite answers, the pretty lies, are found in the bullet points in this article. Each of which is intended to convince men to play along with her coquetry (feminine seduction) and better facilitate the real function of her coquetry - sexual selection from amongst her best options (i.e. hypergamy). If a man can be convinced that it's in fact he who is doing the resisting, for all the noble and acceptable reasonings, it only makes her coquetry easier.

Coquetry is a woman's socially approved methodological equal of Plate Theory for men. And just like Plate Spinning, it requires a woman to keep a covert stable of potential suitors in rotation. They can't implicitly know about each other. If they did, she runs the risk of them losing interest in frustration. So, how much the better if a Man is an active participant in her own coquetry? How much the better when he believes it's his own idea to be his own coquette?

The reason I say waited-for sex is never worth the wait is because it reduces sexual tension and urgency. It's essentially negotiated desire - "OK well play by your rules and ƒuck when you're finally convinced that I'm worthy of your vagina." By playing your own coquette, you may think you're drawing her into YOUR web and she'll be a foaming hot mess for you by the time YOU "allow" her to ride your cøck, but you're only fooling yourself. Assuming you even get to actual sex with her, it's still her who's doing the resisting, and now your sex is based on the implied negotiation you agreed to by waiting her out. And what were you waiting for? Her to come to the conclusion that she couldn't do better than ƒuck you in the immediate future.

Every chump in human history has, in different versions, thought he was doing the right thing by playing the friend, waiting patiently, building comfort and trust, being a gentleman, being emotionally supportive and sensitive to a woman's desires in the interim times when she's not riding the Alpha Bad Boy's cøck. Women who are interested in you wont confuse you. If you are her "A" guy she wont make you wait (very long) to get after it with you. If she's delaying and filibustering, rest assured you are her "B" or "C" guy, and she needs negotiated convincing to bump you up to being her starter.

I agree with this. This is also the problem I have with the PUA idea of forcing them to chase YOU. It can work, sure, but it's just a cheap trick and doesn't really reflect the essence of masculinity. We are meant to be pursuers, and all those little games don't change the forces at play.

Also, I find that if you turn down sex when the opportunity presents itself, it doesn't always heighten anticipation; it's equally as likely to give her a chance to evaluate the situation once her buying temperature settles. A woman's default is NOT to have sex--they want to keep their numbers down, and only sleep with the most eligible bachelors. If you're giving them a chance to back out, they very well might take it. The WORST thing you can do is turn down sex, and then start pressuring them to have sex with you the next time.

The only point I'd agree with on that article is that it's good to have a chance to similarly evaluate HER before you sleep with her--because if she's a bit wacky, you are going to have a harder time getting rid of her. Also, I know we don't like to worry about STDs on here, but even taking all precautions, there is still a slight risk involved, and if a girl will sleep with you too easily, there's a good chance she'll sleep with other men just as easily. So, from that point of view, I can agree with the OP.

 

[teacha]

If a woman is really into you, she will be ready to give it up.
If she's ready to give it up five minutes after she met you, I would find that a little suspicious.

The OP is talking about potential LTRs. You don't turn a ho into a housewife, I thought everyone here agreed on that at least. Come on people.

you seem to be under the impression that if a woman makes you wait, she is more often than not relationship-worthy.

 

[synergy1]

I can cite a specific instance where turning down sex killed my chances later on. This little smoke blonde chick from college had just gotten out of a relationship and was looking for a rebound. Tons of guys were trying to move in on that and I wasn't about to be the 954th dude to do the same, so I was just social/friendly whenever we went out to the bars. Turns out she was into me, so the night after the bar she wanted me to go back to her appt. Long story short, I thought I can play the 'hold out game' and get sex later. Nope. I guess it pissed her off enough that I went from #1 to something much less.

Moral of the story, do like Nike and Just do it.

 

[yuppaz]

No,

This has more to do with an abundance mentality then it does playing any games or taking it slow in order to build interest. She needs to know that you want her, but you don't NEED her. By not f*cking the girl right away, but showing sexual interest AND YOU being the one controlling what goes on (not waiting for her to give you the thumbs up, or d*ck can go in signal) you show her that:

A. You aren't desperate for sex = more value and she will chase harder
B. You are interested in more then just sex with her = her relationship oriented mind will be IN LINE with her f*ck me you animal mind, vs. what was happening with me for a while, I could f*ck em easy but just once. Rational mind didn't align with horny animal mind. + this shows that you have options and are different from the masses that just want to blow a load
C. She isn't sure if you really are into her or not, which another issue that I've had in the past is just showing too much interest and it killed all attraction, because there was NO mystery involved. And this was with girls that were very obviously attracted to me at first. I think women work on different attraction timeliness then men, we're quick to be attracted, they have different levels of attracted at different reasons. You want her getting wet just thinking about you it will take a little time to get her there.

I don't think it's disingenuous, I think it's just understanding where she is coming from and letting the process happen.

I'm competing with guys that are better looking, better built and have more social clout and it's working mostly because she knows I'm not easy like they are. Only difference between then and now is that I'm actually indifferent to the outcome. I can still bang girls the first night if I want, but I want more then just that.... it get's kind of old after a while. I want to be able to sleep with them more than just once because it takes a lot of time and energy to consistently go out and find NEW girls. Girls will sleep with you asap if you want but in my experience they will most likely classify ME (maybe not you) as one night stand guy vs. guy she'll cook for and give BJ's while he's watching tv or something.


IMO - Gotta have the emotional brain and the logical brain in sync if that's what you want. This also is in line with PUA thinking (even though I hate that sh*t) that you need to make her invest more to be more successful and up her interest level. For me, where I live I KNOW that women meet like 10 guys a week, she may have LOVED me when we first met, but if I was too easy and showed too much interest and didn't f*ck her (or even if I did) I was out of sight out of mind. People don't appreciate what comes too easily to them (same for us guys with the ONS girls eh?)....

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

RT has about three iron clad rules................nothing more and nothing less.

You'd be wrong about that,..

 

[Falcon25]

Zekko, Yuppaz, please close this thread, these guys just don't get it. THIS IS NOT A GAME.

SEX, if you're not in a porno world, is the PINNACLE of a relationship. IF DONE EARLY, YOU WILL ALWAYS GO BACKWARDS WITH A WOMAN. SO WILL SHE. She will justify the break up with you because it was just sex, and nothing more.

THIS IS NOT A GAME, SEDUCTION, OR ANYTHING MANIPULATIVE. THIS IS HOW STRONG RELATIONSHIPS ARE BUILT. You have to let the woman fall for you emotionally, so that the sex will seal her heart in due time. SEX MEANS NOTHING EARLY.

So just chill, let it take its course, and try not to listen to people who over analyze everything. TIME IS THE KEY TO A WOMAN'S HEART. USE IT.

 

[Falcon25]

I can cite a specific instance where turning down sex killed my chances later on. This little smoke blonde chick from college had just gotten out of a relationship and was looking for a rebound. Tons of guys were trying to move in on that and I wasn't about to be the 954th dude to do the same, so I was just social/friendly whenever we went out to the bars. Turns out she was into me, so the night after the bar she wanted me to go back to her appt. Long story short, I thought I can play the 'hold out game' and get sex later. Nope. I guess it pissed her off enough that I went from #1 to something much less.

Moral of the story, do like Nike and Just do it.

Once again, stories like this have NOTHING to do with this thread. A woman on the rebound is NOT looking for a relationship. She has to be fuvked quickly. That's a one and done deal. This thread is about healthy, productive, and genuine women that you want LONG TERM COMMITMENT FROM. Yes, I have two sides to me, I can teach you to get laid quick. I can also teach you to have a woman fall in love with you. This is if you want an LTR and a girl to fall for you.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

SEX, if you're not in a porno world, is the PINNACLE of a relationship. IF DONE EARLY, YOU WILL ALWAYS GO BACKWARDS WITH A WOMAN. SO WILL SHE.

I'll be sure to discuss this with my wife of 14+ years, since we had sex on date 2.

THREAD CLOSED.