Playing Hard to Get

Hardonraging

segaBOY wrote: »

Wimmins have the task of bearing a child for 9 months and in many cases looking after said child for 18+ years. It is their instinct to look for a partner who is most suitable to provide for said offspring, even in this day and age when contraception is widely used-it is hard to override instinct. For example, women like men with muscles because back in prehistoric times they were better hunters back could protect the woman and baby. Arguably women like guys with career prospects these days for the same reason (awaits "I'm an independent woman who doesn't need a man with money" comments). There is a whole science behind sexual attraction and much of it comes down to childbearing and what is best for potential offspring, even finding the smell of your partner attractive usually means that your genes are more compatible for a healthier offspring.

Men do not have the same level of concerns and thus are happy to get the poke while it's going.

So playing hard to get is probably a mechanism to figure out if the man is worthy or not.

Get over it sunshine, not everything in life is easy!

I'd just add to this with the fact that it's in build in men to spread their seed, hense why men are happy enough to throw it in anywhere.. within reason ..

Back OT, i'd usually ignore a girl is she's playing hard to get, seems to drive them crazy, much more fun than chasing after them.

I'd echo what a few of the ladies said earlier tho, it's much more fun to get to know the person before you jump in to bed with them.

daisybelle2008

segaBOY wrote: »

Wimmins have the task of bearing a child for 9 months and in many cases looking after said child for 18+ years. It is their instinct to look for a partner who is most suitable to provide for said offspring, even in this day and age when contraception is widely used-it is hard to override instinct. For example, women like men with muscles because back in prehistoric times they were better hunters back could protect the woman and baby. Arguably women like guys with career prospects these days for the same reason (awaits "I'm an independent woman who doesn't need a man with money" comments). There is a whole science behind sexual attraction and much of it comes down to childbearing and what is best for potential offspring, even finding the smell of your partner attractive usually means that your genes are more compatible for a healthier offspring.

Men do not have the same level of concerns and thus are happy to get the poke while it's going.

So playing hard to get is probably a mechanism to figure out if the man is worthy or not.

Get over it sunshine, not everything in life is easy!

The 'science' is purely speculation with absolutely no evidence to back it up, the fact it is used to argue every concievable position makes it even weaker. There are no first hand accounts from caveman days so it is very weak speculation to say women play hard to get because of a caveman psychology we merely guess. Scientists believe that prehistoric man may have killed and ate children from actual physical evidence, but still are not sure. Scientists haven't even figured out why we sleep. You are giving far too much credit to a guess about what people 'might' have been thinking 800,000 years ago sunshine. Calling it a science doesn't mean it means anything now.

This is how contradictory the 'science' is: Some say women make more noise at sex to encourage multiple partners as the strongest sperm gets there fastest. As the child was raised in a commune prehistorically parentage was not necessary for survival. So taking that view, women should be more sexually active then men and should be jumping on any man during ovulation.

All it actually is: 'social conditioning' and a lot of it to do with religion. When westerners arrived on beaches in South pacific and noticed islanders freely having sex in the open, they were horrified at their 'immodesty'.
If the biological urge to have sex is there, ignoring it is down to societal conditioning repressing that natural urge.

Also if this strong prehistoric urge is their for women to only mate with muscly men who drive beemers, why have so many non muscly ordinary guys survived this process. Surely we would have breed any non alpha male out of existence long ago?

Wacker The Attacker

segaBOY wrote: »

Wimmins have the task of bearing a child for 9 months and in many cases looking after said child for 18+ years. It is their instinct to look for a partner who is most suitable to provide for said offspring, even in this day and age when contraception is widely used-it is hard to override instinct. For example, women like men with muscles because back in prehistoric times they were better hunters back could protect the woman and baby. Arguably women like guys with career prospects these days for the same reason (awaits "I'm an independent woman who doesn't need a man with money" comments). There is a whole science behind sexual attraction and much of it comes down to childbearing and what is best for potential offspring, even finding the smell of your partner attractive usually means that your genes are more compatible for a healthier offspring.

Men do not have the same level of concerns and thus are happy to get the poke while it's going.

So playing hard to get is probably a mechanism to figure out if the man is worthy or not.

Get over it sunshine, not everything in life is easy!

When chicks are drunk and high on e in a nightclub do they really ponder the genetics of the bloke who is trying to get their knickers off?

King Of Wishful Thinking

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Because some women treat their fannies and arses like national treasures.

Thought you got locked up for fighting with hookers

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1764234/

Siuin

segaBOY wrote: »

Wimmins have the task of bearing a child for 9 months and in many cases looking after said child for 18+ years. It is their instinct to look for a partner who is most suitable to provide for said offspring, even in this day and age when contraception is widely used-it is hard to override instinct. For example, women like men with muscles because back in prehistoric times they were better hunters back could protect the woman and baby. Arguably women like guys with career prospects these days for the same reason (awaits "I'm an independent woman who doesn't need a man with money" comments). There is a whole science behind sexual attraction and much of it comes down to childbearing and what is best for potential offspring, even finding the smell of your partner attractive usually means that your genes are more compatible for a healthier offspring.

Men do not have the same level of concerns and thus are happy to get the poke while it's going.

So playing hard to get is probably a mechanism to figure out if the man is worthy or not.

Get over it sunshine, not everything in life is easy!

By the looks of things, many men haven't quite been evolving in the right direction, then. Times have changed since the Stone Age, sunshine.

otto_26

Siuin wrote: »

Here we go with the 'slut' assumption... I would consider myself very far from bring a slut- I'm in my mid 20s and only ever slept with 4 guys. However, I fail to see the logic of waiting until we're a few weeks into a relationship when I feel that connection with him. If a guy has failed to see what is special, then you're obviously on two very different levels.

Confused.... are you saying I called you a slut? you don't need to explain your sexual experiences to me. I was just describing a scene as to what a guy might be asking himself if he slept with a girl straight away.

There is nothing wrong with sleeping with a guy straight away, but some guys might think your just easy and get turned off. Like I said most guys like to think their girlfriend isn't easy.

validusername1

I find this funny because that's totally what I do.. Even if I want to go further with a guy, I won't if we don't know each other that well 'cause I don't want him to assume that I'm easy & a slút. People shouldn't think like that but in fairness most guys seem to, at least in my experience anyway.

If I ever did more than shift with a guy I just met, they were never interested in texting and getting to know each other or anything like that (obviously because they just assumed I was a slut and not worth respect). If I didn't go further, they'd generally text me and we'd talk loads & everything. It's shít that it's like that but I've been through it enough now to know that if I want to be respected by a guy, I can't go further with him unless we know each other well enough. Just how it is.

Like a guy that I met on a night out a few weeks ago, we shifted and he tried doing more and I stopped him, he asked why and I said 'cause I barely know you', and he was like 'I like girls like that, shows you have respect for yourself'. Whether he was just saying that for something to say, I don't know. But we've been talking loads since and we're close enough now - guarantee you if I didn't stop him that night he wouldn't have spoken to me again. I find it funny he said that respect thing though, like as if if I didn't stop him & went with it, it would've meant I've no respect for myself? Doesn't make sense to me but most guys do seem to think like that, fair or not..

Baftycrastard

PM sent, I'm next in line

Baftycrastard

validusername1 wrote: »

I find this funny because that's totally what I do.. Even if I want to go further with a guy, I won't if we don't know each other that well 'cause I don't want him to assume that I'm easy & a slút. People shouldn't think like that but in fairness most guys seem to, at least in my experience anyway.

If I ever did more than shift with a guy I just met, they were never interested in texting and getting to know each other or anything like that (obviously because they just assumed I was a slut and not worth respect). If I didn't go further, they'd generally text me and we'd talk loads & everything. It's shít that it's like that but I've been through it enough now to know that if I want to be respected by a guy, I can't go further with him unless we know each other well enough. Just how it is.

Like a guy that I met on a night out a few weeks ago, we shifted and he tried doing more and I stopped him, he asked why and I said 'cause I barely know you', and he was like 'I like girls like that, shows you have respect for yourself'. Whether he was just saying that for something to say, I don't know. But we've been talking loads since and we're close enough now - guarantee you if I didn't stop him that night he wouldn't have spoken to me again. I find it funny he said that respect thing though, like as if if I didn't stop him & went with it, it would've meant I've no respect for myself? Doesn't make sense to me but most guys do seem to think like that, fair or not..

This story fits the description, are you from cork originally but now in tcd?

Princess Peach

I usually wait a while before I sleep with a guy, and it's not about playing games, it's just a personal choice for me. I want to feel comfortable being intimate with him, and I want to know that it's a serious relationship. You can get a connection from the start but that feeling of safety and commitment comes later for me and that's what I like.

Games aside, don't think anyone should say someone is waiting too long or not waiting long enough, as long as it is comfortable for them.

Aidric

It's a delicate balance. Personally speaking if a girl put out on the first night of meeting her I would have no interest in dating her. I'd be aiming for 1 or 2 dates before sleeping with someone I really liked. There is a lot to be said for building up to that first time of sleeping together.

But here comes the balance part I opened my post with. If a girl puts it off for too long and gives off that worthy vibe then she runs the risk of blowing the whole thing.

Fromthetrees

It's just the way things are. From a biological point of view a woman needs to know a guy will stick around to 'protect' her while she is pregnant. Felas not respecting women for being 'easy' to have sex with is also biological, if you get the girl pregnant you need to know that child is yours.

It's all to do with children.
Women need to know the babies father will stick around.
Men need to know the baby is theirs.
Simples.

validusername1

Baftycrastard wrote: »

This story fits the description, are you from cork originally but now in tcd?

This story fits what description? & Nah I'm neither of those things!

Emeraldy Pebbles

segaBOY wrote: »

(awaits "I'm an independent woman who doesn't need a man with money" comments).

Well, there hasn't been a barrage of comments, but this really is true of a lot of women! I wouldn't word it in such a Beyoncé way though. :pac: Of course there are women who nakedly want a rich man, but it isn't a majority.

Papa_Bear

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

.

Surely we would have breed any non alpha male out of existence long ago?

This is already happining on a large scale!

I myself am up for extinction next decade!:(

oh and so are my friends:D

batistuta9

how is going out with someone/meeting them regular enough & not having sex with them playing hard to get?

does playing hard to get not mean that the woman flirts with the guy but won't kiss him or that, says no when a man asks her out, pretends to ignore him, etc. when she's actually interested in him

Scanlas The 2nd

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

The 'science' is purely speculation with absolutely no evidence to back it up, the fact it is used to argue every concievable position makes it even weaker. There are no first hand accounts from caveman days so it is very weak speculation to say women play hard to get because of a caveman psychology we merely guess. Scientists believe that prehistoric man may have killed and ate children from actual physical evidence, but still are not sure. Scientists haven't even figured out why we sleep. You are giving far too much credit to a guess about what people 'might' have been thinking 800,000 years ago sunshine. Calling it a science doesn't mean it means anything now.

This is how contradictory the 'science' is: Some say women make more noise at sex to encourage multiple partners as the strongest sperm gets there fastest. As the child was raised in a commune prehistorically parentage was not necessary for survival. So taking that view, women should be more sexually active then men and should be jumping on any man during ovulation.

All it actually is: 'social conditioning' and a lot of it to do with religion. When westerners arrived on beaches in South pacific and noticed islanders freely having sex in the open, they were horrified at their 'immodesty'.
If the biological urge to have sex is there, ignoring it is down to societal conditioning repressing that natural urge.

Also if this strong prehistoric urge is their for women to only mate with muscly men who drive beemers, why have so many non muscly ordinary guys survived this process. Surely we would have breed any non alpha male out of existence long ago?

I agree with most of above, women have been conditioned largely by society not to fukc around so a man can have one to himself and ensure paternity. Of course this goes against women's urges to mate with multiple men during Estes where the primary sexual completion takes place in the form of sperm competition.

That said I believe every man has the ability to be alpha males, it's deep in our DNA. However the right circumstances need to be in place to bring out your alpha make personality as it could be lethal in the wrong circumstances.

Emeraldy Pebbles

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That said I believe every man has the ability to be alpha males, it's deep in our DNA.

No they don't, and that fook for that. I always find "beta" males much more engaging and attractive. :cool:

Scanlas The 2nd

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

No they don't, and that fook for that. I always find "beta" males much more engaging and attractive. :cool:

An alpha male in essence is someone who takes charge and leads, he is free to to be himself without being inhibited. When the right cues our in place this personality comes out, it is not an arrogant personality. What an alpha male is biologically and what it is thought to be in western culture are not the same.

You can actually bring out a man's alpha personality without the cues being in place. It's kind of like a loop hole of our modern society. All you do is have the man attempt to chat up women over and over again and push him into a state of deep anxiety again and again but if he chats up countless women when he's afraid eventually his Protective mechanisms realise our society is not a threat like it once was so it gives him access to his alpha chilled out personality. It's a also much healthier state to be in, a lot less stressful as social anxiety disappears.

Zulu

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

No they don't, and that fook for that. I always find "beta" males much more engaging and attractive. :cool:

ehh yes they do. A father with his child is the perfect example of an everyday man being an alpha male.

Contrary to media bias and negative stereotypes, alpha males are very good things.

It's as sad that (some aspects of) society considers alpha males bad, as it considers some women "sluts".

Gummy Panda

You could all learn from Grace Jones and her views on playing hard to get

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOfhlYIRCXM

Zulu

Interesting: kidnap & rape? :eek:

Emeraldy Pebbles

Zulu wrote: »

ehh yes they do.

Nope, they don't. If every man could be one, then what's the point of the expression? In the animal kingdom, every male of whatever species most certain does NOT have the ability to be an alpha male, it gets decided through a number of factors. We are no different.

What an alpha male is, IS biological mostly, with a bit of environmental too, despite what PUA disciple Scanlas up there says.

Scanlas The 2nd

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Nope, they don't. If every man could be one, then what's the point of the expression? In the animal kingdom, every male of whatever species most certain does NOT have the ability to be an alpha male, it gets decided through a number of factors. We are no different.

What an alpha male is, IS biological mostly, with a bit of environmental too, despite what PUA disciple Scanlas up there says.

What is your definition of an alpha male?

All men have various personalities depending on where they stand in the hierarchy, the higher in the hierarchy the sexier they are generally to women. The personality and how relaxed you are signals to women where you are on that hierarchy, put a man in his situation with less dominant males and his alpha personality becomes available to him. A clear indication that your alpha personality isn't available to you is when " you can't think of anything to say.

When you have acces to your alpha personality you can waffle on for hours on end free of social anxiety.

Zulu

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Nope, they don't.

Sure they dol, an alpha male is the leading male. Take away all competition and the final male is the alpha male.

If every man could be one, then what's the point of the expression?

It describes the dominant/leading male.

The In the animal kingdom, every male of whatever species most certain does NOT have the ability to be an alpha male,

Yes they do, and it happens as soon as competition permits.

What an alpha male is, IS biological mostly, with a bit of environmental too, despite what PUA disciple Scanlas up there says.

I don't know what PUA is, but I acknowledge Scanlas' point. I also acknowledge that the term has been somewhat hijacked to represent a callous, driven, motivated, ruthless charature of capitalism.

A real alpha male is a father with his child - an everyday example.

daisybelle2008

Fromthetrees wrote: »

It's just the way things are. From a biological point of view a woman needs to know a guy will stick around to 'protect' her while she is pregnant. Felas not respecting women for being 'easy' to have sex with is also biological, if you get the girl pregnant you need to know that child is yours.

It's all to do with children.
Women need to know the babies father will stick around.
Men need to know the baby is theirs.
Simples.

I am not sure that people are really quiet grasping that this is not a scientific fact simply a 'guess' that is almost identical to the 'science' that says being gay is not natural or the world is flat.

Sure it is a great little bit of 'sciece' for religious people to grasp and subjecate & control sexuality with. This is the same 'science' that says it is 'adam and eve' not 'adam and steve' & stones adulterous women. Subjecating women and gays is not biologically justified no matter what you would like to believe.

Sex is no more a biological urge to have children, than eating is a biological urge to sh*t. Sex is a biological urge to have sex.

Can people really not think for themselves or just grasping psuedo science to match the social and religious conditioning the have? So nature gives me a biological urge to want sex and calling me a 'easy slut' for indulging that desire is also biological???

Less than .5% of of sexual acts end in in child birth. People are determined to believe that it is to do with children, if you want to keep believe that nonsense, evaluate how many times you have had sex for enjoyment vs how many times to actually try to produce a baby and get some 'statistics' from that. When given a choice (contraception and abortion) people have less children and still keep having sex.

If it is all biological fact people would only want to have sex without contraception, with one person to produce many children, during ovulation, Oh yeah that’s what the Catholic church says we should do, so it MUST be SCIENCE so. :rolleyes:

daisybelle2008

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I agree with most of above, women have been conditioned largely by society not to fukc around so a man can have one to himself and ensure paternity. Of course this goes against women's urges to mate with multiple men during Estes where the primary sexual completion takes place in the form of sperm competition.

That said I believe every man has the ability to be alpha males, it's deep in our DNA. However the right circumstances need to be in place to bring out your alpha make personality as it could be lethal in the wrong circumstances.

Scanlas, in general you seem to be quiet open minded. When is comes to PUA/Alpha male 'science' you seem very attached and closed minded. You really want to believe your 'Alpha' male theories as do a lot of the guys here to whom PUA is a religion. There really is no Alpha/Beta caveman biology that exists in womens subconcious. If there was women would only mate with body builders and only to breed & be protected. Scanlas I can turn every caveman argument on its head and use it to 'defend' the opposite position, that is how weak and transperant they are. I could say women prefer to have children with Beta males because they are more likely to stay around and look after them than the pesky Alphas who are off 'riding' everything. The amount of women that get wet to skinny camp Russell Brand types vs Ultimate fighters should tell you something.

There is no 'one' type that women are pre-disposed to. In general confident out-going people with few hang-ups and who like themselves (both genders & 'alpha or beta') tend to have have more quantity and quality of successful couplings. The rest is mind made social conditioning and made up labels 'alpha', 'beta', 'slut' used to judge people in narrow conventional ways. 'Alpha' and 'Beta' are not quantifiable absolute truths. No two people can even agree on what it means (is it physical or mental) and it changes over time. These labels (societal judgements) are as unhelpful to men as terms like 'slut' and 'whore' are to women.

PUA works because it encourages being out-going and confident, where it is less sustainable is it doesn't permanantly remove the 'hang-ups' and 'biologicial' labels that separate and judge and sees the genders as unequal.

People who buy into this 'science' are the kind of people that are gullible to being controlled by religion, politics and scams, people who cannot think for themselves.

Da Shins Kelly

Why don't you just let people do whatever they want rather than telling them what's right or wrong in these matters? You can go on about social conditioning and religion all you want, but at the end of the day, people should just do what makes them feel comfortable. If that means having sex straight away, fine, if it means waiting and putting a date on it, so be it.

Scanlas The 2nd

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Scanlas, in general you seem to be quiet open minded. When is comes to PUA/Alpha male 'science' you seem very attached and closed minded. You really want to believe your 'Alpha' male theories as do a lot of the guys here to whom PUA is a religion. There really is no Alpha/Beta caveman biology that exists in womens subconcious. If there was women would only mate with body builders and only to breed & be protected. Scanlas I can turn every caveman argument on its head and use it to 'defend' the opposite position, that is how weak and transperant they are. I could say women prefer to have children with Beta males because they are more likely to stay around and look after them than the pesky Alphas who are off 'riding' everything. The amount of women that get wet to skinny camp Russell Brand types vs Ultimate fighters should tell you something.

There is no 'one' type that women are pre-disposed to. In general confident out-going people with few hang-ups and who like themselves (both genders & 'alpha or beta') tend to have have more quantity and quality of successful couplings. The rest is mind made social conditioning and made up labels 'alpha', 'beta', 'slut' used to judge people in narrow conventional ways. 'Alpha' and 'Beta' are not quantifiable absolute truths. No two people can even agree on what it means (is it physical or mental) and it changes over time. These labels (societal judgements) are as unhelpful to men as terms like 'slut' and 'whore' are to women.

PUA works because it encourages being out-going and confident, where it is less sustainable is it doesn't permanantly remove the 'hang-ups' and 'biologicial' labels that separate and judge and sees the genders as unequal.

People who buy into this 'science' are the kind of people that are gullible to being controlled by religion, politics and scams, people who cannot think for themselves.

I read a wide array of material on the subject an come to my own conclusions. I most certainly wouldn't describe a bodybuilder type as an alpha male.

Also you have to keep in mind that we are not in our natural environment. People mate with who they can get in our unnatural environment due to the agricultural revolution. I believe women mated with numerous alpha males during Estrus allowing sperm competition to take place. That is what's natural for us IMO.

You seem to think I think muscle men are alpha males. I never said that.

I believe women generally are sexually attracted to cues for a male which indicate he has plenty of options with attractive women. I would describe these men as the the ones who have women chasing them. They are alpha males IMO. They are generally free of social anxiety.

WindSock

I always sleep with fellas on a first date if I am attracted to them. But I instantly lose all respect for them after for putting out so soon, with no sense of hypocrisy at all.