Skip to main content

Women Do The Right Things With The Wrong Men

To illustrate what I mean by this, let me share an anecdote from my personal life. Many years ago, the woman I was dating had a girlfriend come into town, and the three of us went out to dinner together. And over the course of this meal, it became apparent that this woman didn't yet have a place to stay for the night. The woman I was seeing invited her to stay with her, but this woman's solution was to text a guy she had gone out with a few months ago. The plan was to meet him out for a drink, go back to his place, spend the night with him, and then get on with whatever it was that she came into town to do.

Now the guy doesn't know this yet. This is just the woman's plan for the evening. When we expressed our concern, she tried to reassure us by saying, oh, it's fine. I don't really like this guy, so it's okay if I just use him for the night. And I remember turning to the woman I was with and jokingly asking her if she might try liking me a little less, but like all good jokes, there was some truth to it.

Ladies, if you call me up, invite me out for a drink, come back to my place, have sex with me all night, leave in the morning, and don't communicate with me until you're ready to do that again. I guarantee I won't feel like you don't like me. What's more, I will feel very positively about you.

From the man's perspective, that woman's plan had an extremely high good times to hassle ratio.

The interaction was easy, effortless, fun, inexpensive convenient, and sexually satisfying. If you treat a man like this, I guarantee that he will want to see you again. This is because men do not encounter good times to hassle ratio women very often. Frankly, y'all can be a real handful So if you give a guy a lot of what he wants and not a lot of what he doesn't, he will text you back. He will answer your phone call. And in the vast majority of cases, he will attempt to replicate that encounter sooner as opposed to later, because you gave him an extremely positive experience, even if only once. He will often go to great lengths and expense to make it happen again. And isn't that what you want a guy to go to great lengths and expense for you?

Unfortunately, this woman kind of wasted this experience. Yeah, she got a place to stay for the night, so she saved a few hundred bucks, but she didn't really like the guy, remember? In fact, she even live in the same town, so it would be difficult for her to get much more out of the relationship, even if she did like him. Imagine if she had done this with a guy she actually did like, and who was in a position to offer her a relationship. She could have saved a few hundred thousand bucks while spending her nights with a man she actually felt positively about. That's the power of a Good times to hassle ratio.

But what do women do when they meet a guy they actually like? First and foremost, they often want to take it slow. Women seem to have this belief that having sex too soon somehow disqualifies them from a long term relationship. It does not. On the contrary, as we'll see, it's waiting too long that generally does. However, what taking it slow functionally does is make the courtship process significantly more expensive for the man like expensive in every possible way. It's expensive by way of time, attention, money, effort, opportunity, and often frustration. Men do not feel liked when you make them jump through hoops to get sex. Men do not feel liked when you give them less of what they want and more of what they don't. Men do not feel liked when interactions with you are difficult, effortful, serious, expensive, inconvenient, and sexually frustrating. Are you listening? And in the second case, when a woman meets a guy she actually likes, it tends to arouse her insecurities because she is now in an emotionally risky situation After all, if the guy she didn't really like doesn't like her back, she might not bat an eyelash. However, if the guy she does like doesn't like her back, she might be significantly distressed.

So women attempt to shore up their insecurities in a number of ways, including testing a man's interest, demand commitment, seeking reassurance, provoking arguments, etc., etc. and all of this behavior significantly increases the hassle associated with dealing with these women, especially since the man she doesn't like and who doesn't therefore arouse her insecurities, doesn't have to deal with any of this shit.

Between taking it slow and all of the annoying things that they're subject to doing when they're feeling insecure, women significantly decrease the good times to hassle ratio with the men they actually like. This is experienced as punitive by men who will not consequently make an effort to get you or keep you in their lives. Ladies, if you like a man, then reward him with fun times and good sex and then leave him alone. Leave him alone, leave him alone. I guarantee that men do not forget these women. You will hear from these men again. Maybe not quite as soon as you'd like, but you will trust me. It's like I still remember that corner in the city where I found 1000 bob 10 years ago. I will probably never forget that place for as long as I live, and I definitely walked by that place more than once to see if I might find something else there. In any case, ladies, if you want to nab a big fish, you have to ensure that the hook is firmly in place before you start reeling it in. And this is how you set the hook. Fun times. Good sex. Leave them alone.

So this is what I mean when I say that women do the right things with the wrong men. They have good times that don't really count with the men they don't really want relationships with, and they hold out and act nutty with the men they do want to have relationships with. I'm telling you, if that guy has any optionality whatsoever, and he probably does, if he's a high value man, he's not going to wait around just to pay more for less.

Now, the rebuttal I usually hear from women when I talk like this is something like, that's not true. It's not true. If a man really liked me, he'd be willing to wait. So if he's not willing to wait, that must mean that he doesn't really like me. He probably just wanted to use me for sex. So this strategy helps me weed out the fuckboys. After all, I don't want to just be used for sex. All right, let me respond to this. Leaving aside the fact that women often intentionally allow themselves to be used for sex, remember the woman in my anecdote allowed herself to be used for sex in order to have a place to stay for the night? The problem with this rebuttal is that it's too inclusive, like as a discrimination strategy, it will produce far too many positive outcomes Like, yes, if you make a fuckboy, wait, he won't stick around, correct? This is because waiting makes the same sexual opportunity increasingly more expensive. All other things being equal, and a fuckboy is trying to transact a sexual opportunity as cheaply as possible. However, not every man who won't wait around is a fuckboy. Okay, let me explain. Let's imagine that you have an all time favorite restaurant. The food is phenomenal, the ambiance is exquisite, the service is exceptional. Like everything. Everything about this place is wonderful. You love everything, but let's also imagine that you live two hours away. And that word has gotten out about how great this place is. So it's extremely difficult to get a reservation. And in order to even make a reservation, you first need to join some kind of Diners Club that requires a steep initiation fee and an interview process. How likely would it be that how often you eat there is an accurate reflection of how you feel about the place. You love this restaurant. The problem is that there are all of these obstacles in the way of you going there more frequently. If you were to confess this to the manager and he were to say well, if this really was your all time favorite restaurant, you wouldn't have an issue driving two hours to eat dinner and you would make it a priority to secure a reservation, because that's what people do when they love things. They go above and beyond. They make an effort, they're willing to wait. And the fact that you aren't willing to do those things means you probably couldn't care less about this establishment. Like, if he were to say this to you, I don't think you'd feel very heard and understood. The problem was not your level of interest in the restaurant. The problem was the number of fucking obstacles in the way of eating there. Women, if you like a guy do not put obstacles in the path of eating at your restaurant. Make the guys that you don't really like wait and allow the men you want to keep around to cut to the front of the line. Do this and you will have much more success with men. Okay, what do you think? Does this fit with your own experience? Let me know in the comments below.

© O'Rryan Tarraban

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Contemporary Game

Game is, at its most basic level, a set of behavioral changes to life skills based on psychological and sociological concepts to enhance intersexual relationships between men and women. The supremacy of the Feminine Imperative is threatened by true emancipation from it. Consequently, Men with the vision to see past this are labeled Dark, Sociopathic and Deviant by the imperative. The imperative had to classify Game for itself - Evil vs. Good Game. Of course, the good is defined by whatever benefits the imperative, while the evil is defined by whatever benefits the masculine ‘selfishly.' Ref: The Rational Male

Tale of Two Wolves

This idea that you have so much goodness in you that you can speak your desires into the universe, and god will appear from a jinni lamp and grant you your wishes because you are such a noble person created to be a winner and champion is a Sheol-bred lie. That is because inside man exists two wolves at war with one another. There's a good one and a bad one. The one who wins this battle is the one you feed.  In the light of the abovementioned native American folktale, St. Paul examined his inner experience and saw another law in his cravings and desires, warring against the principle of his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the rule of the flesh that is in his appetites and wants.  In conclusion to this observation, he exclaimed, "wretched and miserable man that I am! Who will [rescue me and] set me free from this body of death [this corrupt, mortal existence]?."  That exclamation encapsulates humanity's occulted struggle to understand what they do, despite expr...

Unified Field Theory Psychiatry

Whether one examines the microcosm of the individual white personality or the macrocosm of the global white collective, the law of white genetic survival stands. That law can be stated in the following equation: white power over non-white powerlessness, or w÷nw. Nonetheless, the implication of the law for whites is a failure of individual and collective white self-respect, based upon the negative image and concept of the self.  In the white collective, there is self-esteem, which is a compensatory inflated sense of the self, but there is not fundamental respect for the genetic white self. The implications for psychiatry are as follows: based on a negative image and concept of self, brain-computer evolves pattern of neurochemistry, logic, thought, speech, action, emotional response, and perception that are self- and group-negating and productive of disharmony in the universe. These are patterns of neurochemistry and behavior consistent with various degrees of mental illness.  B...