Oh, no, I've got no doubt about that. I'm 100% sure you'd pass a polygraph test as to whether you premeditated a sh!t test for the BF. It's a common mistake to think that women rationally plan to test their Men. In fact have AFCs regularly challenge me about my observations with the thinking that women have some grand, forethought, conspiracy to test their Men, but that's never been my assertion. Women test autonomously, and most often without ever knowing they're doing so. The ones who do so are the "game players" that guys like to run up the flagpole, but the confusion comes in discerning whether a test is a deliberate provocation or simply a subconscious mechanism that women naturally employ because of their overwhelming desire for security. I'd argue that you fall into the latter case.
OK, no argument here. I suppose I was testing him then.
Women will test when they don't know they are. This is the result of an evolutionary psychology that puts security in primary importance for women. Given women's natural proficiency in covert communications it's not surprising that it comes autonomously for them. There's such an emotional need for security, a woman's subconscious must periodically test the guy she's with to reassure herself that he's a good, solid choice for any potential parental investment on his part. And this testing will even manifest after pairing.
Again, I agree with you.
In light of this, I don't think LISHY telling you that you're playing a "dangerous game" is entirely accurate. You may not have recognized your own testing of the BF when you did, and even now you maintain that this wasn't your intent. Consciously, now, this is true, but subconsciously you did test while you had the conversation. [...] You wanted it to bother him, that's the test.
You're right, I did want it to bother him and it didn't which in turn bothered ME.
As I said, it fails the test. You would've accepted it, but which response keeps him in the confident position and makes you qualify to him? Which one do you respect more? Which response makes you think that he has other options available to him or makes him a guy women will compete for?
I would respect a man who is confident enough not to let it bother him MORE than one who agrees with me and b1tches about what an a$$ my friend is. I suppose this compels me to view my bf as strong and confident and not one that is prone to insecurities (therefore making him more attractive). So we agree, again.
Yes, and this is how you want it. This is how you respect him. You're acting as every woman I've ever known would do so in a situation like this. You WANT him to be a guy that other women want. You want to be the girl he chooses to be with at the expense of others. Why? You answer it yourself: [...] And this is also why the Ex is out and the BF is in.
I can sincerely say that this is not about other women wanting him. My issues and reactions are independent of the factors you mention. Obviously I want the best I can get, but I don't approach him with a sense of, "I got what they want."
Because you wanted a guy who has other women or could get other women. Your BF's options make him valuable. He is the PRIZE and you LOVE the association. You appreciate his measured attention far and away more so than the Ex's could ever be appreciated.
This is interesting, but not wholly accurate. Some of my friends would argue that my ex was more of a catch than my bf (in some ways). I've certainly had gfs express, "oh he's hot" more with my ex than my bf. My bf has more experience with women and has generally had more women approach him. But technically, my ex is a "prize" relative to my bf. So if I wanted to be with a man that was coveted by other women, I should've stayed with my ex. I didn't. How do you explain that?
The answer to this is to ask yourself, why do I want him to be territorial?
Because I want to know that he sees me as belonging to him. This may sound like an archaic, old school notion, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Him not giving me that sort of validation (in this instance) is what got to me.
Thanks for taking the time to respond Rollo!
