Is it even worth it for a guy like me to try with making moves in-person?

[GoodMan32]

Much worse things have been said by other feminists. One claimed that all marriage is rape.

I've heard similar garbage from feminists (I recall a feminist online telling me most marriages prior to 1960 were nothing but legalized rape)

 

[SW15]

The fact I've had some degree of success with the ladies using the strategy I've been using (refusing to disclose I'm on the spectrum) suggests my strategy (of refusing to disclose), however, is at least better than the alternative (disclosing)

There is no benefit to you in disclosing. Over time, your spectrum behaviors will emerge and likely cause issues. However, if you can contain spectrum behaviors, you can get laid. You have gotten laid through conventional dating, so you are able to contain these behaviors to a degree.

 

[MatureDJ]

The pendulum is going in the opposite direction now as more and more guys are disengaging (MTGOW/going with AI gfs/dolls, escortcelling (like you are), and there are only so many chad/chadlites to go around. Women are complaining that only 10% of guys are showing up to some of their venues. With 68% single guys, who don't want to engage at all in women, if they keep that sh1t up, then it will hit a critical mass, result in Japan level or worst depopulation and they can chant "all sex is rape" in their dystopian wasteland when the whole country is reduced to total economic and structual chaos as the population crashes and less guys are willing to do the hard work to keep things functional. It will be a part of the shameful past in the chronology of the downfall of Western Civilization.

I'd like to know where the venues are where only 10% of the guys show up. With those odds, my chances of ascending are much higher.

 

[eli77]

I've had 9 free sex partners. That being said, the "make a move on a woman in person; get laid" strategy has never gotten me laid.

Of my 9 free partners,

• 7 came from hookup websites.
• 2 just sort of happened (with neither of us making the move).

I've also been on dates with 8 different gals. There's very little overlap between my dates and my intercourse (7 of the 8 gals I've had dates with were sexless).

The "make a move in person; get a date" strategy has only worked on one girl (Back when I was in college. And she was extremely strange. I had to break it off shortly into our relationship. Also, it's worth mentioning: She's one of my many sexless dates).

The rest of my dates came from the following strategies:

• Dating/hookup websites.
• The woman making the move on me.
• The date sort of just happened (with neither of us making the move).

So here's my question: Since making a move in person has given me a 0% success rate at getting laid (and only a minimal success rate at getting a date, with a girl I ended up regretting anyway), is it even worth it for me to try with in-person approaches? Or should I stick with methods that have given me more success (Dating/hookup websites. Waiting for the woman to approach me. Allowing it to just sort of happen, with neither of us making the move)?

One more thing I should mention on my OP: I know many of you are aware of my escort habit. I'm going to request everyone refrain from turning this into an escort thread. This thread isn't about escorts; it's about my successes/failures at getting a free woman (and how to maximize the odds of getting a free woman)

what escort site and do you suffer from depression?

 

[corrector]

I'd like to know where the venues are where only 10% of the guys show up. With those odds, my chances of ascending are much higher.

Honestly, you can just put up a youtube search that "no guys show up to singles" (events) and you'll see a list of videos pile up like crazy. Here are a couple of them.

I initially found this from Better Bachelor and Phil Scott Show, but can't find the specific videos from their channels with that stats. It might be there under a different title. However, it is an extreme trend. Chances are, if the internet rumours are true, if you go to any single's mixer or event, you'll likely have a great sex ratio working in your favour.

It still begs the question. Guys are still not showing up to those events because they know they are wasting their time. Women have unrealistic expectations that only 5-10% of the male population can reach, and those guys have so many options already from dating apps or elsewhere that why would they bother going to such an event when they can get women throwing themselves at them online and coming straight to their home? For guys that are struggling, the women already gut punched them with their bad behaviour, ghosting, flaking, throwing themselves on Chad but making them jump through endless hoops, etc.... Why would they bother showing up for more of the same?

Guys are not avoiding women. They don't feel these women want them in the first place so there is no point trying.

 

[MatureDJ]

Honestly, you can just put up a youtube search that "no guys show up to singles" (events) and you'll see a list of videos pile up like crazy. Here are a couple of them.

I initially found this from Better Bachelor and Phil Scott Show, but can't find the specific videos from their channels with that stats. It might be there under a different title. However, it is an extreme trend. Chances are, if the internet rumours are true, if you go to any single's mixer or event, you'll likely have a great sex ratio working in your favour.

It still begs the question. Guys are still not showing up to those events because they know they are wasting their time. Women have unrealistic expectations that only 5-10% of the male population can reach, and those guys have so many options already from dating apps or elsewhere that why would they bother going to such an event when they can get women throwing themselves at them online and coming straight to their home? For guys that are struggling, the women already gut punched them with their bad behaviour, ghosting, flaking, throwing themselves on Chad but making them jump through endless hoops, etc.... Why would they bother showing up for more of the same?

Guys are not avoiding women. They don't feel these women want them in the first place so there is no point trying.

OK, if the chicks are as fat as in these videos, then I can see why no men are attending. However, the pickleball event seemed to have some nice chicks, but maybe that was just taken from an ad, LOL.

 

[SW15]

"no guys show up to singles" (events)

It still begs the question. Guys are still not showing up to those events because they know they are wasting their time. Women have unrealistic expectations that only 5-10% of the male population can reach, and those guys have so many options already from dating apps or elsewhere that why would they bother going to such an event when they can get women throwing themselves at them online and coming straight to their home? For guys that are struggling, the women already gut punched them with their bad behaviour, ghosting, flaking, throwing themselves on Chad but making them jump through endless hoops, etc.... Why would they bother showing up for more of the same?

Guys are not avoiding women. They don't feel these women want them in the first place so there is no point trying.

A lot of men who go to "singles events" have poor experiences there and stop going. The thread below is a good resource about any type of structured singles event.

Are Structured Singles Events a Waste of Time?

Mostly every unattached person has dealt with this. The potential invitation to a "singles event" or "singles mixer". It is a chance for unattached people to meet. It's not a general night out at a bar, which has unattached people interspersed with attached people. Everyone here is unattached by...

www.sosuave.net

I think you're correct that the top tier guys aren't going because they are doing fine with some combination of swipe apps, Instagram DMs, and nightlife venue approaching.

The bottom tier guys get rejected everywhere and often exit the mating marketplace due to the rejections. The bottom tier isn't likely to go to a singles events, but occasionally a bottom tier guy will show up at an event and get rejected.

That leaves us to discuss the middle tier of men (the widest part of the bell curve). Most middle tier in Western markets are having an unpleasant time in the mating market. The middle tier men that go to singles events interact with women and often end up getting rejected by middle tier women. After a certain number of rejections, middle tier men will stop showing up to those events because they don't feel like getting rejected at those events by middle tier women.

Women start to notice "no men showing up at singles events" when the mid-tier men that they would typically reject stop showing up at events. Middle tier men are realizing staying at home and doing nothing is better than a singles event or speed dating event. Also, a lot of times, the middle tier men realize that even doing nightlife venue approaches in an unstructured environment (not an organized event in a venue) or some form of non-bar approaching is better than the structured event.

What's typically happening now in Western mating markets (including structured singles events) that mid-tier women like the woman below (I think she's around the 6 - 6.9 range) think they are entitled to commitment from a man who is 8.5+. Let's say the woman below is a 6.5 in looks. Let's say she's mainly seeking men 8.5+. A man who is a 9 will have easy sex with a 6.5. She's good looking enough to give him an erection and give him good enough sex. A 9 (or any 8.5+ man) is not going to commit to a 6 range woman. If an 8.5+ man gets a desire to commit to one woman (not all do -- some enjoy a lot of casual sex with many partners), he will commit to an 8.5+ range woman. Meanwhile, women in the 5-6.9 range are rejecting men in the 5-6.9 range who would commit to them. These women seek the 8.5+ men and eventually find out that they can't get that commitment if they desire that commitment.

I'd like to know where the venues are where only 10% of the guys show up. With those odds, my chances of ascending are much higher.

One venue where women vastly outnumber men is in fitness classes (either as part of a gym or as a standalone class-based facility). In the thread below, some YouTubers into seduction considered fitness classes a waste of time. In terms of seduction, I would agree with these YouTubers. Even with the great ratios, I have not done well in getting first dates from fitness class approaches. I have gotten good exercise from the classes over time, so it's not a total waste of time.

I pulled my comments (slightly modifying them only to fit this discussion) from that thread about fitness classes into this thread.

Rankings of Every Way You Can Meet a Woman According to a YouTube Channel

Here is the complete list, ranked in order of best to worst: S-Tier: - Throwing an event or party - Instagram Cold DM- Creating Content on Instagram and Boosting it - Paying a club promoter to introduce you to women - Being famous, even just small-time locally famous - Being a musician A-Tier...

www.sosuave.net

I have gone to fitness classes at a variety of locations since the early 2010s and tried to do approaches in multiple facilities. I've gone to these fitness classes with as a mid-tier looking man with a normal range BMI, Norwood balding scale 1 (minimal if any balding), and 5'10" in height.

The YouTubers who ranked places to meet women covered Gym/Fitness Classes, as a part of cooking/yoga classes, rating it at an F level. They didn't cover gym game directly in general, though gym game is a part of daygame, which they rated D level in general. I'd call gym/fitness classes as D level at best, even for above average looking men. One of the great advantages of fitness classes (either as part of a gym or as a standalone class-based facility) is that it eliminates the earbud problem that generally plagues general gym floor game. The second advantage is that most fitness class formats are at least 65-75% women, which is a ratio not found in most daygame or nightgame venues or on swipe apps. The biggest issue with most fitness classes is that women are not particularly sociable after fitness classes and it's also difficult to arrange a date and collect a number in the 5-10 minutes before class. In theory, after class is better for socialization but when women aren't sociable, that's not all that meaningful. So that's why a fair rating for gym/fitness classes would be in the D tier/F tier.

While ratios are great at fitness classes, most women won't be sociable there. Some of the women have boyfriends and they won't engage in conversation. They won't typically mention a boyfriend, but they will tend to shut down conversation before they would even have to use the IHAB excuse. There are also single and available women who won't socially engage either and that's due to some combination of poor social skills + ridiculous standards from hypergamy and the abundance of options in their social media DMs and inside of their smartphone dating app. It is impossible to know the women with boyfriends as compared to the single/available ones at fitness classes based on their behavior alone in most cases.

 

[corrector]

A lot of men who go to "singles events" have poor experiences there and stop going. The thread below is a good resource about any type of structured singles event.

Are Structured Singles Events a Waste of Time?

Mostly every unattached person has dealt with this. The potential invitation to a "singles event" or "singles mixer". It is a chance for unattached people to meet. It's not a general night out at a bar, which has unattached people interspersed with attached people. Everyone here is unattached by...

www.sosuave.net

I think you're correct that the top tier guys aren't going because they are doing fine with some combination of swipe apps, Instagram DMs, and nightlife venue approaching.

The bottom tier guys get rejected everywhere and often exit the mating marketplace due to the rejections. The bottom tier isn't likely to go to a singles events, but occasionally a bottom tier guy will show up at an event and get rejected.

That leaves us to discuss the middle tier of men (the widest part of the bell curve). Most middle tier in Western markets are having an unpleasant time in the mating market. The middle tier men that go to singles events interact with women and often end up getting rejected by middle tier women. After a certain number of rejections, middle tier men will stop showing up to those events because they don't feel like getting rejected at those events by middle tier women.

Women start to notice "no men showing up at singles events" when the mid-tier men that they would typically reject stop showing up at events. Middle tier men are realizing staying at home and doing nothing is better than a singles event or speed dating event. Also, a lot of times, the middle tier men realize that even doing nightlife venue approaches in an unstructured environment (not an organized event in a venue) or some form of non-bar approaching is better than the structured event.

What's typically happening now in Western mating markets (including structured singles events) that mid-tier women like the woman below (I think she's around the 6 - 6.9 range) think they are entitled to commitment from a man who is 8.5+. Let's say the woman below is a 6.5 in looks. Let's say she's mainly seeking men 8.5+. A man who is a 9 will have easy sex with a 6.5. She's good looking enough to give him an erection and give him good enough sex. A 9 (or any 8.5+ man) is not going to commit to a 6 range woman. If an 8.5+ man gets a desire to commit to one woman (not all do -- some enjoy a lot of casual sex with many partners), he will commit to an 8.5+ range woman. Meanwhile, women in the 5-6.9 range are rejecting men in the 5-6.9 range who would commit to them. These women seek the 8.5+ men and eventually find out that they can't get that commitment if they desire that commitment.

Well said. In addition to that, there is also the ego-aspect that if a mid-tier woman feels she is settling for a mid-tier guy (ie lets assume she gets an epiphany, reality-check, sees her biological clocks is running out, etc...), then the mid-tier guy is getting a girl that feels that she is settling for him and then treats him badly within the relationship once she gets commitment from him and eventually leads to either a bad break-up or divorce. She would probably have a high-body count, and has the indignity of knowing she behaved like a hor for chad/chadlites, but due to hoeflation, thinks less of the mid-tier guy for being with her.

When guys hear of women treating other guys badly in relationships, being physically abusive, making false domestic complains after she cuts herself up, goes after half his asssets and child/spousal support in a legal divorce process where he's a good guy that deserved better but for lack of options ended up with the wrong girl, then they want to disengage completely.

Front-end rejection (ie someone rejecting you because of your looks or not giving you the time of day) is less hurtful, IMO, than a back-end rejection (ie the woman knows you and, even got initimate and really close and ends up rejecting you anyway, and there could be fall-out socially, economically and heartbreak). So even if a mid-tier guy is not being front-end rejected by a mid-tier woman, the quality of any relationship would be so toxic that even that wouldn't be worth the effort in the end. Mid-tier woman have just become too narcissistic for the mid-tier guy to deal with, whether there is a front-end rejection or not.

Guess both high-tier and low-tier guys are the winnners in the end. High-tier guys have it easy to get women. Low-tier guys are spared for wasting their time and false hope from entitled low/mid interest women, friendzoning, etc... and probably have enough copes. It's the mid-tier guys that feel ripped off, because they have invested in self-improvement, looksmaxxing, gymmaxxing, and then get disappointed with a caliber of women they end up meeting and stories they have heard from other guys that went over the full 9 yards with those types of women.

 

[MatureDJ]

Guess both high-tier and low-tier guys are the winnners in the end. High-tier guys have it easy to get women. Low-tier guys are spared for wasting their time and false hope from entitled low/mid interest women, friendzoning, etc... and probably have enough copes. It's the mid-tier guys that feel ripped off, because they have invested in self-improvement, looksmaxxing, gymmaxxing, and then get disappointed with a caliber of women they end up meeting and stories they have heard from other guys that went over the full 9 yards with those types of women.

So you are saying that incels should consider themselves blessed for not having women interested in them?

 

[corrector]

So you are saying that incels should consider themselves blessed for not having women interested in them?

I think I'm talking more about the feeling of being ripped-off and frustrated. The expectations tend to be more managed when you are used to not getting traction. Any interest is taken with a grain of salt (ie what does she want fro me).

 

[GoodMan32]

There is no benefit to you in disclosing. Over time, your spectrum behaviors will emerge and likely cause issues. However, if you can contain spectrum behaviors, you can get laid. You have gotten laid through conventional dating, so you are able to contain these behaviors to a degree.

For some reason, my therapist (who I'm no longer seeing) really wanted me to "come out of the closet" (so to speak) regarding the fact I'm on the spectrum.

I disagree with him. That's terrible advice (especially from a therapist)

 

[SW15]

For some reason, my therapist (who I'm no longer seeing) really wanted me to "come out of the closet" (so to speak) regarding the fact I'm on the spectrum.

I disagree with him. That's terrible advice (especially from a therapist)

Psychotherapists are usually beta males, heterosexual females, or lesbian females. Pickup artists understand what it's like out in the mating field far more than private practice psychotherapists.

In Psychology, a lot of academic research boards are comprised of career oriented females.

Myron and Rollo recently had a live stream about this....

 

[GoodMan32]

Psychotherapists are usually beta males, heterosexual females, or lesbian females. Pickup artists understand what it's like out in the mating field far more than private practice psychotherapists.

In Psychology, a lot of academic research boards are comprised of career oriented females.

Myron and Rollo recently had a live stream about this....

Good point.

My therapist's "logic" of why he thought I should come out of the closet with my ASD: He insists society is a lot more accepting of ASD now than we were a decade ago.

 

[SW15]

My therapist's "logic" of why he thought I should come out of the closet with my ASD: He insists society is a lot more accepting of ASD now than we were a decade ago.

That might be true in a non-sexual context. In the mating marketplace, it isn't true.

One basic principle of Psychology is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Sexual intercourse is a basic human need. Not revealing ASD will help you get sex and satisfy a base physiological need, helping your overall psychological health.

I'm not sure why a PhD Psychologist can't make that connection.

 

[Dr_jitsu]

For some reason, my therapist (who I'm no longer seeing) really wanted me to "come out of the closet" (so to speak) regarding the fact I'm on the spectrum.

I disagree with him. That's terrible advice (especially from a therapist)

I have posted many times about the inability to get good relationship advice from traditional academics, whether therapists and or relationship counselors with PhD's (I have one myself....so trust me when I say academics are useless).

The same about 12 step programs. Therapy can be great for interpersonal growth...AA is fantastic if you want to stop drinking...it worked for me.

But these pursuits are HORRIBLE when it comes to increasing interest levels in women. Stick to the advice you get from forums like this one. There are some good posters here. Also, read the classic posts and the Hall of Fame material.

 

[Dr_jitsu]

That might be true in a non-sexual context. In the mating marketplace, it isn't true.

One basic principle of Psychology is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Sexual intercourse is a basic human need. Not revealing ASD will help you get sex and satisfy a base physiological need, helping your overall psychological health.

I'm not sure why a PhD Psychologist can't make that connection.

It bears repeating: Psychologists think that communication is the key to relationships. They are wrong, wrong, wrong. It is whether or not the woman loves the man, operationalized as interest level. They also think that male and female brains are similar in design. This is a politically driven decision, not a scientific one.

Even after years of marriage, telling my wife that my mommy used to beat me and that my dad drank himself to death (actually mom did too) does not raise her interest in the slightest. I shared this stuff 6 years into my marriage and my wife became distant. I have shared this stuff in AA meetings, and with therapists. That is where it belongs. You need to unload it in the proper place. I don't talk about my mommy issues with my wife anymore and she is back in total love with me.

Women say they want to know your deepest darkest secrets. But it is the fact that they don't know that drives their invest level up. Once you tell them they lose interest.

BTW....big fan of Maslow.

 

[SW15]

Psychologists think that communication is the key to relationships. They are wrong, wrong, wrong.

I think communication has some value in romantic relationships. There are times where it can benefit the interaction. It isn't the key to relationships.

It is whether or not the woman loves the man, operationalized as interest level.

This is true.

In the seduction community, the concept of interest level is long standing. Doc Love used to mention interest level in his main book and his internet articles 2-3 decades ago.

A man's behavior affects a woman's interest level.

They also think that male and female brains are similar in design. This is a politically driven decision, not a scientific one.

This is true. Hard science disciplines like neurology have demonstrated the difference in brains.

Women say they want to know your deepest darkest secrets. But it is the fact that they don't know that drives their invest level up. Once you tell them they lose interest.

Another long discussed concept in seduction communities is the difference between what women say they want vs. what they actually respond to. In college, when I was first trying to re-construct myself after I realized my nice guy beta male upbringing was failing me, hearing this concept for the first time was extremely enlightening. High school and early college interactions were making more sense to me. A man needs to pay attention only to what women respond to in terms of their attraction.

BTW....big fan of Maslow.

When I first learned Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it made sense to me. I liked where sexual intercourse was ranked on it as a base human needs. As a teenaged male with a strong sex drive, this was relatable.

 

[Dr_jitsu]

I think communication has some value in romantic relationships. There are times where it can benefit the interaction. It isn't the key to relationships.



This is true.

In the seduction community, the concept of interest level is long standing. Doc Love used to mention interest level in his main book and his internet articles 2-3 decades ago.

A man's behavior affects a woman's interest level.



This is true. Hard science disciplines like neurology have demonstrated the difference in brains.



Another long discussed concept in seduction communities is the difference between what women say they want vs. what they actually respond to. In college, when I was first trying to re-construct myself after I realized my nice guy beta male upbringing was failing me, hearing this concept for the first time was extremely enlightening. High school and early college interactions were making more sense to me. A man needs to pay attention only to what women respond to in terms of their attraction.



When I first learned Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it made sense to me. I liked where sexual intercourse was ranked on it as a base human needs. As a teenaged male with a strong sex drive, this was relatable.

Doc Love was right about 80% of the time. However no way I was going to pay $200 (20 years ago) for his book, LOL. I did listen to his radio show. He died more than 10 years back BTW. There were other early guys in the seduction community that used the term interest level as well. I still use it. I think Woodhaven (Vin DiCarlo) did as well...his stuff had a pretty big influence me).

BTW, SW15 I am curious about you...don't mean to pry too much but I find you a very sharp guy. Your level of knowledge is impressive. In fact it is possible that you are too deeply immersed in theory. Do you think your way into good action, or act your way into good thinking? Would like to get you out with me and my partner (an excellent PUA) for some night game.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

It bears repeating: Psychologists think that communication is the key to relationships. They are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Actually, communication is important in relationships. Communication is an umbrella term. You can communicate non-verbally (in fact, a major part of your communication is non-verbal) and with inflection/intonation. It's not about the words, it's about the feelings you give the other person. If you ever tried to calm down an animal or infant, you realise that communicating with them is not about the words, but the calm you radiate and the soothing tone in your voice. You can communicate quite clearly without using a lot of words. And you should communicate, just not in the same way as a woman communicates.

Even after years of marriage, telling my wife that my mommy used to beat me and that my dad drank himself to death (actually mom did too) does not raise her interest in the slightest. I shared this stuff 6 years into my marriage and my wife became distant. I have shared this stuff in AA meetings, and with therapists. That is where it belongs. You need to unload it in the proper place. I don't talk about my mommy issues with my wife anymore and she is back in total love with me.

The mistake is when you start using your partner as a therapist, sharing things you need to work through by yourself (or, if you can't, with professional help). The reason women often want to 'know everything about you' is both to stroke your ego and to get more information to affect the relationship dynamic. Women get nervous if all they have to offer in the relationship is sex. Among themselves, women will share their vulnerabilities for group cohesion ('we, the oppressed') and they 'share' with men only those vulnerabilities that will garner them more care ("I was abused as a child") but not their fallibilities like being jealous or possessive or indiscreet or chaotic or craving attention.

Just like women enjoy gossiping, but don't want to be known as gossipers, and they look down on men who gossip, because gossipers are indiscreet and untrustworthy. Still 80% of their woman to woman conversations are rumours and gossip ("Did you see how she looks at him? I bet they are having an affair"), which they view as 'social conversations'.

This is also part why women enjoy (romantic) fiction more than men (when men read fiction, it's mostly non-romantic adventure / speculative / science fiction). If you want to know the female mind, follow their interests, especially the books they read. I found there's a relation between the amount of romantic fiction a woman reads and her dramatic displays - the more romance novels she consumes, the higher her drama.

If you know how the female mind works, you will know what to share and what not. Communication isn't the same as sharing, especially your feelings and emotions (although many women claim they like it when men share their feelings), showing your vulnerabilities as a man leads mostly to lower interest and loss of respect.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

My therapist's "logic" of why he thought I should come out of the closet with my ASD: He insists society is a lot more accepting of ASD now than we were a decade ago.

I can understand the 'coming out of the closet' when keeping it 'in the closet' would cause psychological harm (like closeted homosexuals), but while some people may be more understanding about Autism 'in general', romantically that revelation would put a damper on burgeoning relationships.
Women might consider an autistic man 'cute' but rarely 'sexually attractive. If they develop any feelings for autistic people, they would be more nurturing / caring / maternal, and not sexual.
Autism in relationships is a liability and, unlike addictions, there's no 12-step-program to cure autism.
In short, your therapist is a dunce.

I have posted many times about the inability to get good relationship advice from traditional academics, whether therapists and or relationship counselors with PhD's (I have one myself....so trust me when I say academics are useless).

I don't have a PhD, but I counsel people (mainly women) with C-PTSD. Most of them have seen therapists / psychologists / psychiatrists, but that didn't do them much good. Therapy isn't always the best way to deal with psychological problems, nor does the 'academic approach' work well if it's geared toward therapy.

In the seduction community, the concept of interest level is long standing. Doc Love used to mention interest level in his main book and his internet articles 2-3 decades ago.

A man's behavior affects a woman's interest level.

Everything a man does affects a woman's interest levels. One of the things most men don't understand is that you shouldn't pursue low interest women and you shouldn't treat your lovers like you treat your (male) friends.

In most modern dating situations, I see how most men try to raise interest in a woman by investing more in the emotional connection, but it's the woman who should be investing more if you want to get the right dynamic for an LTR. We have a topic / theory about the ability to walk away, and the person who is the most invested in the relationship is the one sacrificing their ability to walk away. If you want a healthy relationship, you have to make sure the woman is more emotionally invested than you are.