Competing (in the dating scene) - do you hold it against a girl

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...So what is the difference between pursuing and competing?...

Pursuing - Your efforts are focused on your target (the woman)

Competing - Your efforts are focused on someone other than your target (other guys)

Until you can figure out how to pre-qualify yourself with a woman, you could end up lessening yourself by competing in order to show your value. Understand that doing so does not differentiate yourself from any other "average" guy.

 

[guru1000]

Every woman has options and most will keep their options open while in a non exclusive relationship.

BUT when a woman overtly expresses her current relational drama with other men, she immediately disqualifies herself as LTR material.

For those of who cannot understand how qualitative composure relates to LTR, stay clear of exclusivity.

 

[Nutz]

This reminds me of an argument that I made that women treat romantic and familial love differently. Whereas men do not. It's one of the ideas Str8up also made that men are the real romantic ones and I agree with that. The implications here are clear, it's men who actually hold marriage and families together and it's women predominantely filing for no-fault divorce. Now, the wisdom in the past of not allowing women to file n.o-fault divorce becomes clear

Interesting concept. What's the link to that thread/post? I'd like to see that for myself to get the full scope and context.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

There's a lot going on in this thread so permit me to sort it out a bit.

I must admit. I hate competing. If a girl is dating other people/considering options but showing interest, I cannot help but not take her as a serious interest,..

First off, you will always be measured in anything you aspire to do. You may hate competing, but that doesn't alter the nature of the game. What you're uncomfortable with are Comparisons. Human beings, as many other higher order animals, are natural opportunists. We tend to opt for the best things presented to us in our environment. Not surprisingly we want what is best for us and/or our immediate relations. Given the unhindered choice of the small or large apple, the tendency is to chose the large one as it represents the best opportunity for nourishment and survival.

Both sexes make autonomous, unconscious Comparisons everyday. We all make these Comparisons of people (sizing up) as a threat or a non-threat to ourselves; as an attraction or repulsion with regards to others. Yet we're so continually bombarded by so many instances of having to make these internal estimates of people, the psychological coping method we use is to subconsciously process that information and move on from there. This is the first comparisson we make with another individual - call it 'sizing up' if you like - but we make innate (and often unconscious) comparissons about everything and in the case of initial attraction both men and women alike decide if the the other person is acceptable for their own intimacy in correlation with their our own perceived self-image.

Competition is the meta-game of the whole, but Comparisons are the details used to build evaluations, qualifications, etc. that make up overall acceptability. You will always find yourself in some form of competition, what bothers you is an overt acknowledgment of Comparisons on a woman's part.

,..as I believe that someone who cared for me would not make me prove myself to them and that it would never end. I would constantly have to validate and 'prove myself'.

Which man do you think a woman would be more likely to hold a genuine love, affinity and respect for: A very attractive, very wealthy man who inherited his money from family, or an equally attractive, equally wealthy man who earned his affluence after years of education, work, legitimate determination, and/or natural talent? Which man would she be more inclined to stick with through a loss of that wealth and provisioning?

You will always be 'proving yourself'. What you need is to become the kind of Man where that 'proving' is simply a matter of course and effortless. And while a constant, overt, nagging by a woman is indeed tiresome, this comes as a result of her own (most often neurotically exaggerated) need for security. Even when married, a woman will always sh!t test you to some degree on occasion - even when she doesn't realize she's doing it. The trick is to BE the Man who passes it before it comes.

Consciously, unconsciously, overtly or covertly, you are being compared. She may bring this to your attention she may not, but you will be measured. You are the PRIZE, but the question remains, is she worthy of you? Is she someone for whom an estimation of yourself should have any legitimacy at all? Too many guys, with a Scarcity, take-what-I-can-get mentality will eagerly say yes without ever having the foresight, experience, failures and successes to accurately assess these questions.

 

[thedeparted]

Which man do you think a woman would be more likely to hold a genuine love, affinity and respect for: A very attractive, very wealthy man who inherited his money from family, or an equally attractive, equally wealthy man who earned his affluence after years of education, work, legitimate determination, and/or natural talent? Which man would she be more inclined to stick with through a loss of that wealth and provisioning?

C'mon Rollo. Answer is: Whichever one has the tightest game and keeps her IL the highest.

Rule: Attraction is not a rational choice. It's a subconscious response.

Furthermore, the scion of aristocracy represents an entire family of successful providers and taps into a basic cultural meme of the princess getting the fairy tale prince. That may be far more attractive to a woman than a single hard-working dude who busted his nuts to get there and still has to watch his back.

~

I know this wasn't your main point, but whenever I see theorists start veering into assumptions of "rational actors" I get queasy. Such assumptions have been the undoing of economics (and hedge funds) and the underpinning of psychology (and seduction) for some time. So let's keep it real :yes:

 

[guru1000]

Rule: Attraction is not a rational choice. It's a subconscious response.

And this is the bottomline.

How a woman feels when she is with you trumps any provisioning/looks/success you may provide. Certainly these qualities will immediately make a woman feel good. However when those endorphins wear thin as a matter of habit, there better be something left.

 

[STR8UP]

First off, you will always be measured in anything you aspire to do. You may hate competing, but that doesn't alter the nature of the game. What you're uncomfortable with are Comparisons. Human beings, as many other higher order animals, are natural opportunists. We tend to opt for the best things presented to us in our environment. Not surprisingly we want what is best for us and/or our immediate relations. Given the unhindered choice of the small or large apple, the tendency is to chose the large one as it represents the best opportunity for nourishment and survival.

Say it isn't so!

This would mean that there must be some sort of method to the madness. Careful, some people don't accept such heresy....

 

[Heretolearn]

Pursuing - Your efforts are focused on your target (the woman)

Competing - Your efforts are focused on someone other than your target (other guys)

Until you can figure out how to pre-qualify yourself with a woman, you could end up lessening yourself by competing in order to show your value. Understand that doing so does not differentiate yourself from any other "average" guy.

So wonderfully explained, thank you!

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

C'mon Rollo. Answer is: Whichever one has the tightest game and keeps her IL the highest.

Rule: Attraction is not a rational choice. It's a subconscious response.

Furthermore, the scion of aristocracy represents an entire family of successful providers and taps into a basic cultural meme of the princess getting the fairy tale prince. That may be far more attractive to a woman than a single hard-working dude who busted his nuts to get there and still has to watch his back.

OK, fair enough. The only issue I'd take with this is the presumption that attraction is not a rational choice and is rather a subconscious response. I'll definitely agree it is a subconscious response, however is that response based on completely random determinants or is that autonomous attraction predicated on subconscious cues and criteria that have been evolved to be instinctual for us? For instance, most HB9.5s aren't going to be physically attracted / aroused by an ambitionless, pudgy guy with a habit of eating a whole pizza per night and washing it down with a 6-pack. Why? I realize the answer is obvious, but what mechanics are working that makes her subconsciously NOT attracted to him? I'd suggest that attraction IS a subconscious, yet entirely rational choice.

Do me the courtesy of reading this case study before you respond:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/haseltonmiller.pdf

 

[ketostix]

Attraction per se might not be a choice for a female, but interest is a choice. Attraction can and often does lead to interest, but not always. Interest can lead to attraction also-A woman keep think about the guy's qualities and this influences the subconcious mind to be attracted. A woman could be attracted to various guys but not interested in all of them-"He's cute but he's a player, cheap, or xyz."

I think attraction is a choice for females, or at least interest is. I think DD and people who say attraction isn't a choice are just putting the male attration template over females. It's not exactly the same for females. I think in a woman's view interest and attraction are about the same thing-"This short, old guy is rich and famous..he's so hot!".

 

[STR8UP]

Attraction per se might not be a choice for a female, but interest is a choice. Attraction can and often does lead to interest, but not always. Interest can lead to attraction also-A woman keep think about the guy's qualities and this influences the subconcious mind to be attracted. A woman could be attracted to various guys but not interested in all of them-"He's cute but he's a player, cheap, or xyz."

I think attraction is a choice for females, or at least interest is. I think DD and people who say attraction isn't a choice are just putting the male attration template over females. It's not exactly the same for females. I think in a woman's view interest and attraction are about the same thing-"This short, old guy is rich and famous..he's so hot!".

I'm trying to make sense of what you are saying but it doesn't add up.

I might be missing something, but from what I can tell you are saying attraction and interest are not the same thing. How are they different? The last sentence you say that for women they are essentially the same thing. That kind of contradicts what you said leading up to that, no?

Attraction and interest, even if they are slightly different.....I can't see how either one (if genuine) is influenced by the rational brain.

Sure, a chick might be WITH a guy because he is wealthy and can provide for her, or she might be WITH a guy because he is hot and it will increase her social standing, but that is not true interest and certainly not true attraction.

Is that what you are getting at? That a woman does analyze a man's qualities rationally which can influence her subconscious attraction response?

It almost sounds as if you are assuming that interest is NON sexual, whereas attraction is sexual.

If so I can see where you are coming from and might even be inclined to agree to a point, but I think the effects of this are negligible and are completely negated by true attraction. In other words, a chick might consciously run through a mental checklist with a guy who she isn't sure about and this MIGHT have a small effect on whether or not she is attracted to him (she can nudge herself in the right direction) but women operate so much on emotion I just don't see it playing that big of a role. Hell, even with men, you might be able to talk yourself into BEING with her, but to talk yourself into being interested in her or attracted to her....it's mostly either there or it isn't.

So when it comes down to it, interest AND attraction are primarily driven by subconscious responses.

OK, fair enough. The only issue I'd take with this is the presumption that attraction is not a rational choice and is rather a subconscious response. I'll definitely agree it is a subconscious response, however is that response based on completely random determinants or is that autonomous attraction predicated on subconscious cues and criteria that have been evolved to be instinctual for us? For instance, most HB9.5s aren't going to be physically attracted / aroused by an ambitionless, pudgy guy with a habit of eating a whole pizza per night and washing it down with a 6-pack. Why? I realize the answer is obvious, but what mechanics are working that makes her subconsciously NOT attracted to him? I'd suggest that attraction IS a subconscious, yet entirely rational choice.

I think the distinction needs to be made that it is rational as in there is a reason for it, but it isn't rational as in she "rationalized" it.

It's pretty easy to see the truth when you think about how strong a woman's desire is to have a mate, yet so many of them are lonely. If women could psych themselves up to be ATTRACTED to more men than to just go through the motions of BEING with one, they would be a lot happier. unfortunately for all of us, true desire doesn't work that way.

 

[ketostix]

I'm trying to make sense of what you are saying but it doesn't add up.

I might be missing something, but from what I can tell you are saying attraction and interest are not the same thing. How are they different? The last sentence you say that for women they are essentially the same thing. That kind of contradicts what you said leading up to that, no?

What I was saying is attraction and interest are different, sort of how the subconscious and conscious mind are different. But they're related and one influences the other. With women they can be attracted but they must also be interested. This why women have ASD and all the other peculiar things that men typically don't have.

Attraction and interest, even if they are slightly different.....I can't see how either one (if genuine) is influenced by the rational brain.

The same way the conscious and subconscious mind influence each other.

Sure, a chick might be WITH a guy because he is wealthy and can provide for her, or she might be WITH a guy because he is hot and it will increase her social standing, but that is not true interest and certainly not true attraction.

Is that what you are getting at? That a woman does analyze a man's qualities rationally which can influence her subconscious attraction response?

Yeah in a way, except I wouldn't say she analysis it rationally per se, just that she thinks about it consciously. It's like when a man is attracted he's ready and willing to have sex right now, but with a woman they want to slow it down and "rationalize" it. As far as your first paragraph, I still say that attraction and interest is real for all practical purposes as far as a woman is concerned regardless of what it's based on.

It almost sounds as if you are assuming that interest is NON sexual, whereas attraction is sexual.

If so I can see where you are coming from and might even be inclined to agree to a point, but I think the effects of this are negligible and are completely negated by true attraction. In other words, a chick might consciously run through a mental checklist with a guy who she isn't sure about and this MIGHT have a small effect on whether or not she is attracted to him (she can nudge herself in the right direction) but women operate so much on emotion I just don't see it playing that big of a role. Hell, even with men, you might be able to talk yourself into BEING with her, but to talk yourself into being interested in her or attracted to her....it's mostly either there or it isn't.

I think the discrepancy lies in that you are saying that emotions all come from the subconscious, and a woman's conscious mind is purely rational. And I'm saying emotions are part of the conscious mind and the conscious mind in a woman isn't totally rational but emotional too.

So when it comes down to it, interest AND attraction are primarily driven by subconscious responses.

But then that begs the question of what is it that makes the subconscious respond if not the conscious mind. I agree that men's interest and attraction is primarily (but not totally) driven by the subconscious mind, but even the subconscious mind isn't totally the hind brain or instinct. Also women's attraction and interest response is obviously different from men's.

I think the distinction needs to be made that it is rational as in there is a reason for it, but it isn't rational as in she "rationalized" it.

It's pretty easy to see the truth when you think about how strong a woman's desire is to have a mate, yet so many of them are lonely. If women could psych themselves up to be ATTRACTED to more men than to just go through the motions of BEING with one, they would be a lot happier. unfortunately for all of us, true desire doesn't work that way.

Well as I was saying before emotions can be rationalized but that doesn't mean they are rational.

The hypothetical lonely woman is probably attracted to guys she sees, but she's psyche herself to not be interested in them. Also I never met a truly lonely attractive woman, just less attractive ones, who do in fact psyche themselves up to some degree over any guy they meet.

 

[BeyondCharm]

This thread has gone way off topic into some serious "theories" and analyzing.

My thoughts on the original posters questions are this:

Be the best damn man you can be, living for your goals, your ideals and your livelyhood. Remember that you are the prize she needs to win over. Don't be overly needy. If you want a particular girl, don't be pushy or try to force it. Remain persistant, don't give up too soon, don't go on too long. If you put some effort out there, wait until she shows some response. If she doesn't give you any feedback, move on.

There will always be girls that choose the competition over you. There's a million reasons why, some of them rational, some of them irrational, some of them based on alcohol and drugs, some of them based on rapport, trust, etc. Sometimes an AFC will win a girl in the short term because he was more persistent than anyone else and she was attention-hungry, lonely and desperate as well.

REMEMBER: There are female AFCs too.

Ultimately, do you hold it against a girl to see other options? I personally do. And this is because of my personal ideals. My ideal girl is going to have a high IL, naturally. If I am not feeling a high IL maybe due to her dating multiple people, i'll naturally back off and maybe occasionally drop her a call or a message and see where she's at.

Don't expect to win every time. Don't count yourself out either. Sometimes girls simply don't know what they want and they screw around a lot until they figure it out, if they ever do.

 

[thedeparted]

Rollo,

I'm familiar with that study but it was cool to read the original case. Seems like creative guys better be careful: they are more likely to be sleeping with women at peak fertility.

However, the study just ASKS women which fictional guy they would like for a fling or an LTR. Asking women what they want doesn't tell you anything about what they'll do. That is a major flaw. They could very well say what they think they SHOULD do. Overall, 3/4 women preferred the creative intelligent guy, and that is not surprising in America, where women are supposed to want a guy who is "intelligent and has a sense of humor" and we can all supposedly get rich. Yet I know an awful lot of creative intelligent guys who don't get laid. So we could just as easily conclude that women during peak fertility are more likely to conform to social norms (and pick the creative guy on a quiz) than other women. Then we could theorize why women comply to social norms during fertility -- perhaps because this avoids accidents that result in bastards and social consequences?*

Another problem is that they estimate peak fertility for each woman being 15 days from menstruation. This is a really rough method. It's just not that simple. In a study of just 41 subjects that would be significant.

But overall it's an interesting study.

* The authors reject this idea casually, "It seems unlikely that popular culture, parenting, or peer pressure could lead women unconsciously to favor creativity on high-fertility days but not on low-fertility days of their cycles – and only for short-term mating." Since when does "it seems unlikely" form the scientific basis of anything? It's unlikely the earth exists, after all...

 

[jophil28]

Rollo,




However, the study just ASKS women which fictional guy they would like for a fling or an LTR. Asking women what they want doesn't tell you anything about what they'll do. That is a major flaw.
...

Yeah, I agree,
I stopped reading the study findings when it was revealed that they merely "asked" women how they felt ...

Roll on floor laughing.

More junk from third rate academics.