Saturday, December 31, 2011

Let the woman chase you

I do not consider myself experienced enough in life to give anyone advice. It would result in a hilarious case of the blind leading the blind.
So I won't.

But Morgan Freeman will.
Whilst being interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN recently, Morgan Freeman was asked in jest what the secret to his success with women was. He almost did not answer this question, preferring to tell Piers Morgan the answer after the show.
But I am glad he eventually answered the question on air.

He said, and I somewhat paraphrase:
"Don't chase women, let them chase you".

Now, I have heard this before. In several guises.
If I must box it up and label it, I would call it 'Game'.

Women have their feminine charm, men have 'Game'.

A man without Game is like the proverbial fat girl at your former school.

Thankfully both afflictions are reversible.

In all seriousness, even though the intricasies of Game are hard to swallow (so to speak) for a woman, where it is used with decorum, I do believe it is necessary for a man.
Not just 'nice to have'.
Necessary.

Grandma (not specifically mine, but you get the idea) says fondly of Grandpa:
"He chased me until I caught him".

Everyone laughs when she says this, even for the millionth time at yet another Christmas dinner.

And then years later, someone asks out of the blue, 'what did she mean, exactly?'

To illustrate what Gradma meant, let me opine that women who divorce their husbands don't say what Grandma said. At least not with fondness. Ever.

Here's why.

Back to Grandma's young days, and good old Grandpa, hormones raging, spots a girl (who eventually became Grandma) that he liked. He went after her like his life depended on it.
Everything was great. He and Grandma were like, floating on clouds and everything. But Grandma, being a 'good girl' was notably more reserved than Grandpa.

Then he did that really annoying thing that almost all men do. He withdrew a little.
Grandma was devastated. She began to show more affection to Grandpa in the hope of winning him back.
She showed she was vulnerable too, much the same as he had right at the beginning of their relationship when he was infatuated.
It takes a while, but Grandpa decides this is the girl for him afterall. He may have chased other girls in the meantime, but in the end, he chooses Grandma.

Grandpa may be a natural 'alpha'. He may be a 'beta'. No one really knows. But it doesn't matter. Because in his pursuit of Grandma he is in turn alpha (when he first encounters Grandma) then beta (when he falls hopelessly in love with her), then alpha again (when he disappears for a few weeks/months/years), and so on. In the era of Grandpa that second alpha stage nicely coincides with the war.

In scenario two, imagine that when Grandpa withdrew, Grandma showed no particular signs of distress. She couldn't be bothered if he was alive or dead.

Note: what I am describing here is to be distinguished from self-preservation/hurt/anger/self-respect on Grandma's part.
I am specifically talking here about a complete lack of interest in the whereabouts of Grandpa during the time he is AWOL.
We would hope that Grandpa would see the light and walk away for good.

Some men don't.
They pursue a reluctant woman and she becomes a reluctant bride.

This is the woman who seven years down the line will declare she is 'not happy'.
Some men in the manosphere know this phrase very well.
This phrase precedes real pain. The destruction of a family. Loss of financial control. Pain. More pain. Yet more pain.

It is not her fault.
A woman should feel unequivocally excited about marrying a man. If not, her disdain for him will come back and haunt him.
This disdain stems from another example of cognitive dissonance. I gave one example in a previous post here.

A woman does not do well with cognitive dissonance. It tears her apart. First. Then everyone else around her.

Women are more complicated than men. We have to be. We have a lot more to lose if we are easy to read.
The nature of womanhood (being receptive in nature) is such that it is in our best interests to be selective. That's a good thing in my humble opinion.

I firmly believe that biology does dictate that in the end, it is the woman who chooses.
I believe there is a good bio-social reason for this.
Women are the 'relationship experts' as one wise old man I know puts it.
A man is preoccupied with his work all his life. That is the source of his self-significance.
A woman will take some time out to obsess about her relationships, and I don't just mean the romantic ones. Women are 'connectors' and 'communicators' by nature. That is the true source of our self-significance.
In terms of relationships, a woman's vested interest is to keep a man she has already attracted. It is important she chooses right, because she has to care enough to work harder on the relationship than he would. Because in fact he won't. It is not his natural domain.
This is why a relationship is never really over until the woman decides it is over.
The female-driven sky high modern day divorce rate proves this point.

Grandpa thought he chose Grandma, but Grandma in fact chose him by physically atracting him. Grandpa didn't know what hit him. Years later, his level of insight into the whole episode would remain, 'well, there was something about that girl.'

A woman will have many men after her during the course of her reproductive life. She will be truly attracted to only a few.
A man will be after many women in his lifetime. The smart man will settle down with the one who, on a primordial level, demonstrates to him enough indicators of interest, like displays of loyalty, and a certain deference which he will interpret as 'respect'.

So if a man's withdrawal leaves a woman breathing a sigh of relief as opposed to crying into her cornflakes, she is in fact fulfilling an important and natural function: eliminating him from her 'list of interest'. A woman spends most of her life performing this function. It is a necessary part of womanhood, though it needn't be executed in a harsh manner. Much like hypergamy and emotionality, it's female nature.
And no, she won't change her mind.
Unless she has a secret agenda compelling her to overrule her ambivalence towards him and grit her teeth on the long walk to the altar.
Like her fertility is waning and she desperately wants a child, but not the man.
Like during his absence she got pregnant by the man she really wanted but who rejected her.
Like she got tired of being the only single one at her married friends' parties.
Like he is rich and famous and she is thinking, well this can't hurt. (Monaco anyone?)

At some point, despite her complicated nature, even the hardest woman to read becomes like an open book. To the man she truly loves.
She will do a little chasing. OK, a lot of chasing.
I really have to point out here that I am not referring to sexual chasing. That's masculine, actually. The chasing I am referring to may include sexual chasing of course, but it is a lot more than that.

Game allows this 'female chasing' to happen. A man needs it to distinguish which woman to rule in, or out, as the case may be.
A man's worst mistake in life is to marry a reluctant bride.
Don't be that guy.

The smart woman will only do this chasing, though, if she has absolutely no doubt in her mind that the man concerned has feelings for her beyond the physical.
Men are simple in comparison to women. In addition, women are naturally blessed with 'female intuition'. So a woman's success in figuring this out in her man is easier than the other way round.

Male nature being what it is, every man, on some level is a reluctant groom. But his reluctance does not bear nearly as much significance on the longterm success of the relationship as bridal reluctance does. Not even close.

I make the point again: relationships are a woman's domain. She initiates it and she can terminate it if she so desires. But it is in her best interests not to.

So, to conclude, Morgan Freeman is right. To be successful with a woman longterm, gentlemen, and by that I mean if you want a woman who will love you till your dying day, let her chase you a bit. It is good for you, and her.



31 comments:

dannyfrom504 said...

i like this. i only have one issue:

"I make the point again: relationships are a woman's domain. She initiates it and she can terminate it if she so desires. But it is in her best interests not to."

not necessarily. i have ended relationships before. so the power to terminate a relationship is not just female power. it is in fact EQUAL.

spacetraveller said...

Danny,
Thanks for your comment!
First one ever for me.

I know, I know...it sure looks like that on the surface, doesn't it? :-)
I always thought that too. But this is kind of the point I make throughout this blog...in the SMP, there is no such thing as equality. Men of course have power over women, but it is totally different, and in a different realm (AKA domination).

After seeing a few examples of this, I realised that when women decide to really unleash their feminine wiles on a man, he stands absolutely no chance - even if he thinks he is rid of her.
If she is nonchalant, fine, everyone's happy...

dannyfrom504 said...

ST-
sorry, but agree to disagree Dear.

all the GF's have been very feminine and when it wasn't right, i bowed out. both parties can choose to bail if it's not working.

Jennifer said...

I guess she means (or at least I think), that the matter itself isn't over unless she walks too; the relationship may be, but she may not be out of his life yet. Poor bastard..

Great article, I agree with your meaning exactly! I hate the term "game" though; your grandpa was being both a romancer and a man of common sense. Might as well screw the alpha/beta labels.

ZorroPrimo said...

Yes, women choose. So do men.

But women choose first. Then there's a lot of negotiation.

Charming Disarray said...

The more I read, I the more I like your blog. Instinctively, I always knew there was something wrong with the "just walk away" advice women are given when a guy bails. And from observation I have seen many relationships where the woman had to do a bit of chasing but got her reluctant groom in the end. This, of course, was after something had already been established between them. Women aren't meant to just walk away from something or someone they care about, and this is a good thing--not an impulse to be fought or something "pathetic."

TGP said...

You are hitting some home runs here. Keep it up.

TGP

spacetraveller said...

Thank you TGP,

Welcome to The Sanctuary!

MeGoingTheOtherWay said...

your blogs (woman chase you... MGTOW...) and others written by women are great learning place for younger men that still have the slightest doubts about going MGTOW. It's the only way to keep some sanity and peace of mind...

Spacetraveller said...

@ MeGoingTheOtherWay,

Welcome to The Sanctuary!

And thank you for your kind words.

stagedreality said...

"Women are more complicated than men. We have to be. We have a lot more to lose if we are easy to read."

Not more complicated. More subtle. We each have just as many reasons, simply that males generally benefit from being more upfront and demanding about those reasons, while women benefit from subtlety. To say that women are more 'complicated' or 'in touch with relationships' is to lead women astray and tell them that they have more power than they really do. If the man believes that, they they'll have that extra power (though generally experience dissatisfaction with a submissive man) where if the man doesn't, it will lead to power struggles for dominance in the relationship.

Being selective with sex does not mean more complicated. Women are more complicated with who they select for sex. Men more complicated for who the select to commit to.

"Women are the 'relationship experts' as one wise old man I know puts it."

Again, no. For the same reasons I stated.

"This is why a relationship is never really over until the woman decides it is over."

The relationship is over the instant either party decides that forwarding their happiness requires someone outside of the relationship. This can be determined by sex, respect, money, emotions, time.... really any resource that would encourage another to pursue it.

"Male nature being what it is, every man, on some level is a reluctant groom. But his reluctance does not bear nearly as much significance on the longterm success of the relationship as bridal reluctance does. Not even close."

Men are reluctant grooms, women should be reluctant sexual partners. In a perfect world the reluctance of both people, along with their excitement, is on the same level. In today's SMP, if a woman is having sex early, its showing that she puts very little commitment attached to the ONE THING she is the gatekeeper of.

Look, if you met and started dating a man to learn that he married a woman 3 months after he started dating her, you'd have reluctance to move forward sexually with him, right? He's shown that he is a poor judge of character and unable to screen who he commits his resources to. You get a very clear and very natural vibe of "He's a clingy, over attached, desperate man who will stalk me and ask things of me that I'm not ready for."

In the same way, men are (or should be) reluctant to move forward with women that have given away sex for free. It signals to us that she's unable to screen for men who will form any attachment, attachment isn't what she's looking for, she wants no emotions, she wants no commitment, she wants nothing other than a good time.

stagedreality said...

" To be successful with a woman longterm, gentlemen, and by that I mean if you want a woman who will love you till your dying day, let her chase you a bit. It is good for you, and her."

Want to add that this is right on, but not for the reasons you think it is.

Not every woman will chase every man. Not every woman will even chase ANY man.

The reason you need to let a woman chase you is to make sure that she is able to go without instant satisfaction. That she's digging what you have to serve. That she can deal with the fact that you have needs that need to be met. That if you pull away she doesn't expect you to eventually fill the void in her life.

If she's looking for someone just to be interesting, fill a void in her life, chase her, satisfy her.... Men should run. Quickly. If anyone reading this is one of those women that need that, you should do some introspection on what you want out of life, what you need, and why you think you deserve any man that would do those things more than someone that actually is a complete person that won't leech away vital energy from a man.

Once you're able to fulfill feminine needs, then start looking for someone to fulfill masculine needs. The two work wonders together and are beautiful. But two feminine sides, or two masculine sides, are like a sandwich made only out of mayonnaise.

One or two poor souls may claim to enjoy it, but the rest of us want something more fulfilling.

Spacetraveller said...

Welcome to The Sanctuary, Staged Reality!

Thank you for refining my thoughts on this post.

I agree with much of what you say, but even those bits I don't necessarily agree with, make sense to me.

This stuff is so basic, isn't it? And yet it takes so long to fully understand it.
How bizarre...
:-)

About women being 'relationship experts', consider that women need marriage much more than men. It is like oxygen to us.
That is why it is us who should steer men towards marriage. Sure, there is a good way and a bad way to do it, and I think most women are doing it the bad way, which is why the marriage rate is declining...
Someone at HUS made the comment that it is 'women's work' to sort out the current SMP. I laughed at his use of language, but I recognise that he indeed has a very valid point.
It is indeed 'women's work'.
Hence 'relationship experts'.
This is not to say that we are indeed better at relationships than men. What I mean is, we HAVE to be the guardians of this aspect of life. Men have other things that interest them more...

Samuel said...

Give her the gift of missing you...

Spacetraveller said...

Welcome to The Sanctuary, Samuel,

I know to some, it sounds awfully manipulative...
But it works, in my (aherm!) limited exyperience, and besides, it does give a man the chance to see if a woman is thinking 'longterm' about him or not.
Vital if he is to avoid a 'surprise' separation in the forseeable future, in my humble opinion.

stagedreality said...

"About women being 'relationship experts', consider that women need marriage much more than men. It is like oxygen to us."

That I can and do agree with. I wouldn't go from that to calling them experts though, simply because the language sets women up to think they, well, are an expert of the relationship and will know more about it and how it should work than the man she's involved with. I like steward better. She takes care of it, cleans it, polishes it, guards it from minor threats - in general, makes it appealing to men.

"Someone at HUS made the comment that it is 'women's work' to sort out the current SMP."

This I disagree with. It is women's job to make men WANT to fix the current SMP. Men screwed it up by saying yes to laws, cultural shifts, work place changes - everything that feminism wanted, we gave up at the drop of a hat as soon as enough women wanted it.

As we currently still have men that are the ones in those positions of power (another proof that women just don't want it after so many years), it means you have to convince those men to change things. Which means convincing the voters to change their opinions - both men and women.

I don't think this will happen as a unified "Mens Right Movement" but rather, one husband at a time learning how to be a benevolent, dominant leader demanding submission and femininity from his wife. We get enough men learning game and leading women in relationships with it, and it will be men fixing the issue.

The only thing women have to do is stop messing up the SMP, punishing betas, rewarding alphas, and sleeping around.

In other words, 'women's work' just means they have to be WORTH THAT MARRIAGE for that quality leader of a man.
- Leap of a Beta

Spacetraveller said...

Staged Reality,

I do love the word 'steward' in this context. It is very apt. Thanks for that.

"As we currently still have men that are the ones in those positions of power (another proof that women just don't want it after so many years),"

Blow me down with a british feather, but I find this to be true too!

"The only thing women have to do is stop messing up the SMP, punishing betas, rewarding alphas, and sleeping around.

I like your frame here: The ONLY thing women have to do...
Hahahaha!

Are you sure your handle is accurate?
Should it not be Leap of an Alpha? :P

"In other words, 'women's work' just means they have to be WORTH THAT MARRIAGE for that quality leader of a man."

Amen to that. Just Amen!

stagedreality said...

"I like your frame here: The ONLY thing women have to do...
Hahahaha!"

Haha, yeah. It's still difficult. But I disagree with anyone that posits that the situation is completely women's fault. Not only is it completely untrue, but it's also so overwhelming an idea for women to handle that it would never get accomplished. Women are responsible for what they've done after men gave them the keys to society's car. We very much let them drive us down Hypergamy Lane. We've seen that they're poor drivers of society (to say nothing of poor drivers of real cars. *ahem*).

Anyways, the average man simply needs a reason to take that drivers seat back, take the keys back, and tell his wife to sit back, enjoy the ride, and put a sammich in his mouth when he's hungry on this roadtrip of life.

"Are you sure your handle is accurate?
Should it not be Leap of an Alpha? :P"

Haha. It's been... A fun and rewarding journey. Heck, I just posted a photojournal of the last several years on my own blog. Some visual representation of some very, very beta choices I've made until last October when I found my red pill.

Regardless, I still have a lot of beta in me that likes to come out at inopportune moments. Besides, I also think of it as a "beta version" of myself, referring to software/games, where I'm looking to fix the bugs, errors, and find the best version of a man I can be. I have no idea if that will ever happen (and hope it doesn't, I enjoy growing and adventures).

But thanks for the compliment ;)

Troy Howard said...

Men are not simple. It amazes me that often even the most literate woman will think this. If you think men like Thoreau, Tesla, Picasso, or Stephen Hawking are simple, then you need to hand it up. And the sad requirement for Game in human relations is to me an indicator that our species is due for an evolutionary upgrade. If we vanish, good, if we evolve, good. So be it. I have interests beyond catering to women's idiocy. It takes time to make any kind of art, write software, support causes, care for friends, etc. Ninety-nine women out of a hundred women are a waste of skin. You may not be one of them, madame, but you still need to be disabused of this "men are simple, women are complex" meme. Women have more a priori biological behavioral programming, i.e. hard wired instinct. That doesn't make them more "complicated." Men are more often then not, blank slates. That is why we must be taught to kill. By way of an engineering example, within the CPU in the computer you using, the micro-architecture of the processor is much more sophisticated than the I/O chips on the "motherboard," and yet one can't exist without the other. Another hint: thes things wouldn't exist without MEN, nor would your home applicances. We humans instinctively model ourselves and often don;t recognize it. What pathetic scum we are, male and female.

I end relationships when I get tired of a woman's endless demands, and they are without exception, truely, tirelessly, endless, trivial ad infitum, ad nauseum. cut us some slack so we can have space in our heads to do what 99.9999% of women are too lazy and lame to do, visualize solutions to problems, and then go apply the mental models... instead og the endless emotional titwank so many women perpetrate.

So when women call men simple, they are merely oversimplifying.

Spacetraveller said...

Hello Troy Howard,
Welcome to The Sanctuary!

You sound annoyed by my use of the term 'Men are simple'.

This alarms me somewhat, because I thought I had cleared up the reasoning behind my choice of words, but evidently, I did not do a good enough job on this :-)

So I try again.

I say 'men are simple' not to mean 'men are simple-minded' or 'men are "thick"' which is the impression I get of your conclusion from your assessment of my comments on this issue.
I should clarify that this post is purely about relationships, so 'men are simple' should be read as 'men are simple in relationships with women'. Of course I don't think that Picasso or Stephen Hawking are 'simple'. At least not when it comes to their work. Far from it.

By 'simple', I really do mean 'uncomplicated' in the best sense. If you like, it is really a compliment to men rather than an insult. And you know what? It is MEN who like to use this term (at least the ones I know).
I remember my father always saying 'I am a simple man' whenever there was emotinal drama around (usually aherm! started by my mother). It only became clear to me as an adult that he was probably saying to her, 'I am a simple guy, as opposed to you who makes everything so darn hard lol. I suppose it was a kind of neg. When once I had a bit of a drama-fest with someone I was dating, guess what his comeback was? Yes, you guessed right - 'I am a simple man'.
Confirmed for me right there and there - women really do date their Dads lol.
Sadly for you men it also means that women do really turn into their Mums, lol. (Just kidding).
So don't be put out by my use of this term. It is used in admiration rather than contempt. If you have read a lot of my posts you will know that contempt is the last sentiment I feel towards men.

I wish I could be more simple when it comes to relationships, in the way that men are. But I also know that that would be like asking a cat to ignore that mouse...

But I can develop myself to keep my female tendency to overdramatise to a minimum, for the greater good of all around me. It is possible, with the right mindset afterall. I may not always win, but it doesn't prevent me from trying.
Men have other adjustments to make.
In this sense, I disagree with you that the need for Game is a negative. I believe it IS a positive, and perhaps is a natural dynamic that if perfected well, women respond very well to. It can be aesthetic, in one sense, no?
If we are all straightlaced, with no evolutionary/biological triggers and are incapable of dishing out or responding to Game, it would make for a rather dull world...
Well, that's what I think. But my view may be skewed, granted.
I do get 'high' on the concept of Game so I vehemently support it :P

MackDamage said...

Nice post and blog . I have been enjoying some of your post's waned to ask you if I can add you to my blog roll at realmacktalk.blogspot.com ?

Spacetraveller said...

Welcome to The Sanctuary, MackDamage!

Thank you for your compliment.
Of course you may add me.
I shall add you too :-)

(I went over to say hi already).

Marellus said...

ST, my darling, you do realize that I'm sorely tempted to ask you how I can use this little gem of advice in my life ? ...

... now now ST ... I promise I'll treat the little dear like Margaret Thatcher ... that's because I know I must act like a conservative with her ST ... so that I may be a free-loving liberal with her one day ST ... so that she may go into Labour one day ST ...

... yes yes ST ... I know that this advice is not gonna be free ... so I promise I'll never wash yer expensive undies in the dishwasher ... but then your advice had better be good ... very good ... what ! ... oh ? ... but the dishwasher works ... it really works !!! ... it's that Made in China ZingZong tumbledrier what done what it did last time ... and my friends all say the same thing ... especially after we've had a few drinks ...

... so ST, what advice have you got for me, so that the women can come and chase me ?

... and kindly start with how I must write love letters ... thank you ...

blackbird.young said...

This is excellent.

Are you attractive?

I am being serious.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Blackbird.young,

"Are you attractive?"

LOL.

I find it interesting that you have to declare yourself as 'serious' when you ask this question.

I am not sure why you ask, but anyway, this is an incredibly difficult question to answer!

Like most women, I would never declare myself as 'unattractive'. That's genetic suicide, given that men are visual. And that the only (acceptable, at least to me) way for me to continue my genetic lineage is to get a male member of the species 'interested' in me :-)

On the other hand, unless I am challenged, I would not declare myself as a Cleopatra ala Samantha (I am so beautiful) Brick :-)

So I cannot give you an appropriate answer.

But...perhaps I could volunteer the information that I haven't yet been thrown off a bus for being a sight for sore eyes...

But you never know - there's always a first time for everything.


Daxamite said...

Women are the gatekeepers....blahblahblah...boring basic biology 101. True since year dot, but like most biologists you miss the critical factor, men hold the master switch. And that switch has been set to "off". There is nothing you can do.
When a woman won't have sex, it is just another day.
When men won't have sex, it is all over.

You know that is true, or this blog wouldn't be here. You also know that men have turned the switch to off, because you can see it in the eyes of the women around you.

The zero sum game that no-one dares talk about - because it is the end game.

Welcome to the end for all your hopes, ladies. Brought to you by the men that know you deserved it.

Anonymous said...

Oh brother, this is such bad advice. Not because it is intrinsically wrong but because the people who are least equipped to handle relationships - men - may take all this too far. I would clarify that you mean give and take in the dating/ relationship chase game or you could be encouraging naive men to mistreat perfectly good, respectful, loving women, who just don't happen to believe in following him when he bails.

Anonymous said...

Blackbird means that when a woman is attractive there is no need to chase.

Spacetraveller said...

Daxamite,

Oh dear, sorry about this - I just realised that I haven't replied to your comment since ...March!

Apologies.

And a big welcome to The Sanctuary!

When I said 'women are the gatekeepers', I meant it.

Yes, when a particular woman won't have sex, it is just another day for the man involved, because there is a big chance that he will find another woman who will.

True.

I think it is also true that when a particular man won't have sex, the woman involved will find it harder to replace him (because intrinsically, women have a narrower 'sexual partner' range (clumsily expressed but I hope you know what I mean) than men).
So technically, it could be 'all over', yes.

A man can terminate the game by not playing at all. True.

But if the game is on, it is women who hold most of the cards.

I hope you see the logic in this.
It is how the system is designed. It is how it is.

Women therefore have a great responsibility when it comes to relationships. Because we have been given many of the privileges.

The million dollar question is, do we want to take on the responsibilities that go with our privileges? Or do we just want to choose the cherry and leave the cake, so to speak...

Anonymous,

:-)

Thanks for explaining what Blackbird was really getting at.

And now reading my long-winded answer to him I feel quite embarrassed!

I am the queen of solipsism, I see :-)

Spacetraveller said...

Anonymous at July 12, 2:18 AM,

"Oh brother, this is such bad advice."

First point to make is that I am not giving advice at all. Much of this blog consists of musings and reflections based on what I see from successful and failed relationships alike as well as opinions, suggestions and the nuanced wisdom of others.

"Not because it is intrinsically wrong but because the people who are least equipped to handle relationships - men - may take all this too far."

I am glad you don't see this as intrinsically wrong :-)

Now, I agree with you that some men may indeed take this too far.
I doubt that, but that's a risk I will have to take.

But this in itself does not make the original message 'wrong' or 'bad.

"I would clarify that you mean give and take in the dating/ relationship chase game..."

YES! This is indeed correct.

But... (and it is a massive but), remember that I am talking here about a relationship which is already established (at least to some degree).

I have not and will never advocate that a woman chase a man at the beginning. (It works for some people, but there are several reasons I wouldn't recommend it).

What I am talking about here is the situation where a man has done the required 'chasing' for some time, but has now 'tripped up', in her estimation.

How does a woman respond?

Well, if she has 'chosen well' in the first place and this man means a lot to her, she should not be too quick to kick him to the curb. I see that this is what is happening a lot these days as women seek the 'perfect' man with absolutely no faults. And it is a recipe for disaster. It is 'training for divorce'.

I used to think that women of my Grandma's generation all followed 'The Rules'. I was wrong. 'The Rules' although contains some sensible advice, drums into women the notion that the supply of men must be inexhaustible and that they should screen men out ad infinitum. This is crazy, and worse, it feeds the excessive hypergamy of modern women. It is a recipe for recurrent divorce.

Our grandmothers had more patience. If a man was 'worth it', they 'chased a little'. This is the 'give and take' you were looking for.

Any man who is looking for a long term companion must have the assurance that she won't kick him out the minute he trips up.

Before an established rhythm is established between the two, a woman must be rather hard-nosed, even combative with a man. It is her right. A woman does not owe a strange man anything. Not sex, not companionship, nothing. If she offers these, it is probably in the hope that he would view it favourably. It is a choice she makes, depending on how she feels about him.
I wouldn't really recommend the sex part, but friendship, companionship, affection I would recommend :-)

But once a deal is struck between the two, (so to speak), the woman must switch from 'combative mode' to 'cooperative mode' otherwise she is useless as a helper to the man.
And what's a woman for? Yes, you guessed it - as a help-mate for a man. This is the ONLY reason God made Eve :-)
One good way to show the man her capabilities in this area, is to show 'flashes' of this cooperation even before a permanent deal is struck. It is good practice for her, and it is reassuring to him. Killing two birds with one stone :-)

She can 'chase him a bit' during the latter stages of courtship.

Spacetraveller said...

Helen Andelin in her book about femininity mentions this a bit. I think I agree with her on this.

And I think this is what successful wives have done through the ages.

'The Rules' is a bad caricature of this model which masks a deceptive feminist bent that a well-intentioned 'good girl' may miss.

Why?

It gives a woman the impression that the dating game is all about 'take' and no 'give' on her part.

So YOU know that 'give and take' are two sides of the same coin. Good for you.

There are many modern women who have been systematically educated to 'take' and not 'give'...to their own detriment.

Or, they 'give' the wrong thing.

I could be wrong in my logic here. It is a work in progress, this blog. If one day I find that I was wrong all along, I hope I shall have the decency to come back and correct the error.

For now though, I stick by what I say.

"...you could be encouraging naive men to mistreat perfectly good, respectful, loving women, who just don't happen to believe in following him when he bails."

I am pretty sure the men who read this blog are anything but 'naive'.
Seriously, I don't think they could be called naive of all things! Far from it.

I don't ever condone men mistreating perfectly good, loving, respectful women. If this is the conclusion you come to after reading this blog, then soemthing has gone terribly wrong: either I am exceedingly unclear, or your understanding of what I write is sub-par.

In any case, I re-iterate the message that 'chasing a man' only applies to the situation where the man has previously manifested himself as 'worth it' in the woman's eyes afer a period of 'assessment' on her part AND she is sure about him, i.e. she thinks she has chosen well.

Obviously her motives for chasing should not include desperation, intoxication of any sort or some weird kind of manipulation.

If she doesn't deem him worthy of this 'chase' (which is a healthy part of the 'mating dance'), then HE has his answer.
He won't end up with a woman who doesn't care enough about him to reciprocate some degree of longing.

I say this is a good result for HIM.
And SHE is free to give her attentions to a man she feels is worth her time and affection.