S/O Do women play "hard to get" anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Men like the chase. There is definitely something fulfilling about having a crush on a woman, being creative in wining and dining, seducing her out of the bedroom, which eventually leads to anticipation and hopefully great sex and a relationship.

Sounds like you're describing a movie character, or maybe 1 actual guy out of 50.

Wow your dating life must be SAD! This describes my then boyfriend now DH in our 20’s when I made him wait and work for me. Romance

No, it's just that many or most men run with opportunities and skip women who don't make time. "Made him wait" suggests he liked you for the time you did share, not because you weren't easy.

If you consider yourself just another “opportunity “ then I guess his makes sense. I wasn’t looking for that.

You're taking offense at _that_? Good God. Opportunity to do _something_, including a serious monogamous relationship with a potential for marriage.

What a maroon. Please don't advise women to be chased; men will take them at their word and date elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Men like the chase. There is definitely something fulfilling about having a crush on a woman, being creative in wining and dining, seducing her out of the bedroom, which eventually leads to anticipation and hopefully great sex and a relationship.

Sounds like you're describing a movie character, or maybe 1 actual guy out of 50.

Wow your dating life must be SAD! This describes my then boyfriend now DH in our 20’s when I made him wait and work for me. Romance

No, it's just that many or most men run with opportunities and skip women who don't make time. "Made him wait" suggests he liked you for the time you did share, not because you weren't easy.

Making him wait doesnt mean he likes you anymore, it may mean he views the "wait" as time already spent so why not spend a little more time to get the deal done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Men like the chase. There is definitely something fulfilling about having a crush on a woman, being creative in wining and dining, seducing her out of the bedroom, which eventually leads to anticipation and hopefully great sex and a relationship.

Sounds like you're describing a movie character, or maybe 1 actual guy out of 50.

Wow your dating life must be SAD! This describes my then boyfriend now DH in our 20’s when I made him wait and work for me. Romance

No, it's just that many or most men run with opportunities and skip women who don't make time. "Made him wait" suggests he liked you for the time you did share, not because you weren't easy.

If you consider yourself just another “opportunity “ then I guess his makes sense. I wasn’t looking for that.

Lets make this simple, any vagina is an opportunity. Waiting doesnt mean anything, it may be viewed time already spent, why throw it away when a little more time will get it done.

[Anonymous]

A hate any sort of "play" in relationships. Won't waste my time on games and gamers.

--a woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a guy. If the woman is not interested I do not interpret it as “playing hard to get”. I interpret it as she is not interested and I move along. There are many women who do not play games, expect you to read their mind or say no when they mean yes.

not play games = goes for sex on first date. yeah, not many women worthy anything will do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a guy. If the woman is not interested I do not interpret it as “playing hard to get”. I interpret it as she is not interested and I move along. There are many women who do not play games, expect you to read their mind or say no when they mean yes.

not play games = goes for sex on first date. yeah, not many women worthy anything will do that.

What does a woman's "worth" have to do with how soon or long they wait before having sex? I mean, outside of the middle ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a guy. If the woman is not interested I do not interpret it as “playing hard to get”. I interpret it as she is not interested and I move along. There are many women who do not play games, expect you to read their mind or say no when they mean yes.

not play games = goes for sex on first date. yeah, not many women worthy anything will do that.

What does a woman's "worth" have to do with how soon or long they wait before having sex? I mean, outside of the middle ages.

Well, if you are willing to f$*k a stranger, you may not possess good judgement. Possessing good judgement is a valuable characteristic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep many of the women who like to play games attract the players. Players attract players. It’s funny watching some woman fall for a guy who is so smooth and charming....because he gets a lot of practice. He has three other women he is doing the same thing to as he plays with you.
It’s not that the guy is bad, most women are basically doing the same thing. Playing some “dork” or less desirable guy for dinner and drinks while looking for mr big. What do they call the these guys ...orbiters? I guess it’s all fun and games till someone plays you?

+1

[Anonymous]

I read The Rules in my 20s when I was dating and looking for a relationship. What always bothered me about them was that you were supposed to PRETEND to be busy/have no time for the guy. The women who are good at The Rules actually ARE busy and ambivalent about a guy initially. They don’t even know they’re abiding by The Rules.

If you have to pretend or do it consciously, it’s kind of lame. I used The Rules on my then-boyfriend, who dumped me. When I met my DH we were both a bit older, straightforward, and direct. There were no games, we just really liked each other and moved quickly and decisively.

[Anonymous]

Why does it have to be one or the other, in your mind? A chase or having sex on the first date. You see it as either/or.

Some of us are simply saying that “playing hard” to get isn’t the form of seduction that 99.9% of people imagine is desirable or necessary.

How about, yes, spending time together. You might convince someone with kindness, good conversation, getting to know them, enjoying a physical activity together (running, playing tennis), eating together, etc etc etc.

Then you make a move. One move. And see if she responds back. And it goes further down the path until someone backs away and calls it an end. This may end at sex, this may end at making out. Or lots of places in between.

Does this satisfy op? Please, op, if you still have questions, I invite you to share them so we can respond.

This is anonymous women willing to spend time answering your questions, and I for one am trying to be completely sincere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, WTH was up with sticking his fingers in her mouth???

Ew

I think its a porn movie thing that women pretend to like. Like buttsex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that op is conflating the loss of that particular seduction-storyline (the loss of ‘playing hard to get’ that girls/women used to do) with the loss of all seduction.

Get some new moves

Btw, you might have remembered them from long ago because you were interacting with women/girls who were also younger and didn’t know how to respond with surety.

Doesn't "seduction" necessarily include an element of overcoming reluctance? (Even if the reluctance is pretend?) There has to be an element of coaxing involved in seduction, right? How can you "seduce" if both parties are forthright about being happy to get to an end result?

The only way I can see seduction, of a sort, without reluctance is in a role playing scenario where you agree to the scene beforehand. Then the reluctance and overcoming it is part of the scene.

If I'm wrong, and you can describe a scenario that involves seduction without reluctance or coaxing, I'd appreciate it.

It depends on how you define seduction. If I'm on a date and not sure whether I want to sleep with the guy, a positive "seduction" would be having a great date where we had fun together, he paid attention to me and showed me his interest in me wasn't just about getting me into his bed. But if we get to the end of the date, you've brought me home and I don't invite you inside, making up excuses for why you need to come in and then, once inside, trying to grab me and kiss me despite me saying it's late and you should go, that's not a good thing you're doing, even if you eventually get me to do something with you (because I might just be doing it not out of desire but out of fear that if I don't give in, you'll do something even worse).

Well, o.k. If hanging out, having a good time, and not trying to get into her pants counts as "seduction," then I suppose I can see it. But that just sounds like a date. But that's not what comes to mind when I hear someone use the term "moves" (as PP referred to them) or "seduction."

And therein lies the problem. These things seem totally okay you because that’s how it’s always been but now women are speaking up to say they really don’t like it when you do it, only to be told by an awful lot of men that women are wrong about not liking it because it’s worked for men in the past. No, we didn’t like it, we just didn’t have the social support we needed to feel safe saying we didn’t like it. Now we have that support and are saying it, and you have a choice. You can choose to listen to us, believe us, and adjust your behavior because you don’t want to make women uncomfortable or hurt them in some way, or you can continue to believe the only thing that matters is getting what you want in the moment, regardless of who you hurt (physically or mentally/emotionally). You can do the latter without getting into legal trouble, but you can’t do it and still be a good guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a guy. If the woman is not interested I do not interpret it as “playing hard to get”. I interpret it as she is not interested and I move along. There are many women who do not play games, expect you to read their mind or say no when they mean yes.

not play games = goes for sex on first date. yeah, not many women worthy anything will do that.

What does a woman's "worth" have to do with how soon or long they wait before having sex? I mean, outside of the middle ages.

oh it has a lot to do with it. women who have choices won't sleep on you on so hoping that will keep you interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read The Rules in my 20s when I was dating and looking for a relationship. What always bothered me about them was that you were supposed to PRETEND to be busy/have no time for the guy. The women who are good at The Rules actually ARE busy and ambivalent about a guy initially. They don’t even know they’re abiding by The Rules.

If you have to pretend or do it consciously, it’s kind of lame. I used The Rules on my then-boyfriend, who dumped me. When I met my DH we were both a bit older, straightforward, and direct. There were no games, we just really liked each other and moved quickly and decisively.

umm you read the rules but apparently didn't get it that you were supposed to "fake it until you make it". of course not faking it is the best... but you have to start somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that op is conflating the loss of that particular seduction-storyline (the loss of ‘playing hard to get’ that girls/women used to do) with the loss of all seduction.

Get some new moves

Btw, you might have remembered them from long ago because you were interacting with women/girls who were also younger and didn’t know how to respond with surety.

Doesn't "seduction" necessarily include an element of overcoming reluctance? (Even if the reluctance is pretend?) There has to be an element of coaxing involved in seduction, right? How can you "seduce" if both parties are forthright about being happy to get to an end result?

The only way I can see seduction, of a sort, without reluctance is in a role playing scenario where you agree to the scene beforehand. Then the reluctance and overcoming it is part of the scene.

If I'm wrong, and you can describe a scenario that involves seduction without reluctance or coaxing, I'd appreciate it.

It depends on how you define seduction. If I'm on a date and not sure whether I want to sleep with the guy, a positive "seduction" would be having a great date where we had fun together, he paid attention to me and showed me his interest in me wasn't just about getting me into his bed. But if we get to the end of the date, you've brought me home and I don't invite you inside, making up excuses for why you need to come in and then, once inside, trying to grab me and kiss me despite me saying it's late and you should go, that's not a good thing you're doing, even if you eventually get me to do something with you (because I might just be doing it not out of desire but out of fear that if I don't give in, you'll do something even worse).

Dp. Having sex is always potentially on the table for you on first dates? I've been out of the game awhile, but I never had it in my mind that I might have sex on a first date. At the time, I believed that if you had sex straight away, there'd be no second date. I guess I was wrong?

Where did I say anything about a first date? This could be the first date, the third date or the seventeenth date. Positive seduction is about making a connection so that we are both eager participants in sex on the same terms (e.g., is this just a night of fun, are we both looking at this as having long-term potential, do we have no clue where it might go, etc.). If I’m not really all that into it, or I’m into it but only because you’ve led me to believe something that isn’t true just to get me into bed, that’s not a good thing. Misunderstandings and changes of heart happen, of course, but everyone should be going into it in good faith.