I recently mentioned how men can get transfixed by a beautiful woman in my post on appreciating female beauty.
Female beauty is very powerful for men.
Whilst a man's handsomeness is equally pleasant to behold, this is ultimately not that important for most women, at least not mature women. Because women are really not as visual as men. Modern living has made some women far more visual than they ought to be. This is not a good thing, because it takes them off the right path in their choice of mate. It adds to their 'immaturity'.
A display of muscles is perhaps more likely to do it for a woman. Or height. Or whatever else is the local social 'norm'.
All the above are excellent proxies of masculinity. Essential for female attraction.
But even these have their limitations.
Women can be 'transfixed' by something else where men are concerned.
It is difficult to explain in words.
It has to be felt.
I was reminded of this phenomenon when I saw an interview with actor Mark Wahlberg recently.
.
Now, this man was previously known very much as a 'bad boy'.
In the 80's he was known as 'Marky Mark', a rapper with a tendency to violence.
He had had a rough childhood and admits to being a coke-head by age 14.
He went to prison for an unprovoked racially-motivated attack when he was 16.
Today, Mark Wahlberg is a respectable husband and father of four.
That last statement is not that important in relation to what I saw in this man during the course of the interview.
It was his 'stillness' during the interview that grabbed my attention.
He seemed somehow 'untouchable'. Almost spiritual.
Watching and hearing him speak, you got the distinct impression that you would believe anything he told you. Because he seemed like he knew what he was talking about. He seemed like he had been through something.
He kept saying he was happy. Blessed even.
I believe it. It shows.
There was something about his eyes. They had an intense quality to them, as if he was trying to penetrate the psyche of his interviewer.
And yet he was strangely detached.
He seemed perfectly at ease with himself. It was like he was in some kind of impenetrable 'zone'.
I don't know if Mr Wahlberg's story that when he was in prison, a priest took him in hand and pulled him back from the brink, is what has done it for him.
I don't know if his assertion that his family give him new meaning in his life is what makes him so outstanding .
But something happened to Mark Wahlberg.
And it shows.
I have come to realise that this is in fact what Danny was referring to when he described Game thus:
"game" is simply confidence and outcome independence.
Confidence. Outcome-independence.
Simple words. But it can take a lifetime to achieve these traits.
I am sure Mark Wahlberg wouldn't care to know that someone was struck by his interview on CNN.
The guy is just living his life.
But this 'thing' he exudes is a powerful force indeed.
It is the male equivalent of female beauty.
This 'thing' which I now come to recognise as 'inner Game'.
The right kind of Game.
The kind of Game a worthy woman would respect. Not just 'outer Game', (including the concepts of 'Peacocking', escalation, etc.) which is of course important because it is what gets a man's foot in the door) but the whole package of both 'outer' and 'inner' Game.
Bellita summed it up well when she commented here:
" I think Game is great inasmuch as it helps men of substance learn to stand out
from the crowd, but Game totally on its own is the sizzle without the steak. "
The 'steak' is inner Game.
It is totally hypnotic to a woman.
It commands instant respect. Acute disorientation, similar to how a man might react to a seductively beautiful woman.
It is a wonderful thing for a woman to encounter.
Because it reeks of raw, unbridled, unwavering masculinity.
Showing posts with label attraction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attraction. Show all posts
Monday, January 30, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)