Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a male in his mid 30s, and have been very often told that to attract girls one should have a kind of 'play hard to get' behavior, which includes:
- not coming across as needy, by showing that one is too emotionally involved, or by conveying the message that she is the only girl interested in us
- not replying to texts right away, so as to show that one has a full social life, and other things to do
- not texting twice if she does not reply, or at least wait a suitable amount of time
- not showing that one has been affected when she cancels a date other things along these lines.
I have been often wondering about the true effectiveness of this behavior in triggering attraction. Some claim that this is just not the way it works: if someone is interested, she is interested no matter whether we use these behaviors or not. Others claim that this may make a big difference. Obviously, this behavior will make no difference in cases where the girl is not interested at all, or very very interested.
So I would like to stimulate a discussion on this forum, where **female** users honestly write whether this kind of behavior (or a specific item in the list) has triggered their attraction towards a male, and made a substantial difference between things working out or not.
The answer may be age-dependent, so please be specific about your age range to make the discussion more interesting!
I am a male in his mid 30s, and have been very often told that to attract girls one should have a kind of 'play hard to get' behavior, which includes:
- not coming across as needy, by showing that one is too emotionally involved, or by conveying the message that she is the only girl interested in us
- not replying to texts right away, so as to show that one has a full social life, and other things to do
- not texting twice if she does not reply, or at least wait a suitable amount of time
- not showing that one has been affected when she cancels a date other things along these lines.
I have been often wondering about the true effectiveness of this behavior in triggering attraction. Some claim that this is just not the way it works: if someone is interested, she is interested no matter whether we use these behaviors or not. Others claim that this may make a big difference. Obviously, this behavior will make no difference in cases where the girl is not interested at all, or very very interested.
So I would like to stimulate a discussion on this forum, where **female** users honestly write whether this kind of behavior (or a specific item in the list) has triggered their attraction towards a male, and made a substantial difference between things working out or not.
The answer may be age-dependent, so please be specific about your age range to make the discussion more interesting!
It works if the other person already likes you but isn't necessarily passionate or super fired up about you.
I remember there was a study about this that showed that people who acted really engaged and interested on the date were seen as more positive and likable, while people who were detached and not as engaged sparked more interest and desire.
So they concluded that the strategy that made the person more likable was not the same as the strategy that got them picked for a date or relationship.
The theory behind the game is supposed to increase their perception of your value as a partner and motivate them to chase you more. But deciding when or whether to play this game really depends on your having a very good assessment of the other person's level of interest.
It works if the other person already likes you but isn't necessarily passionate or super fired up about you.
I remember there was a study about this that showed that people who acted really engaged and interested on the date were seen as more positive and likable, while people who were detached and not as engaged sparked more interest and desire.
So they concluded that the strategy that made the person more likable was not the same as the strategy that got them picked for a date or relationship.
The theory behind the game is supposed to increase their perception of your value as a partner and motivate them to chase you more. But deciding when or whether to play this game really depends on your having a very good assessment of the other person's level of interest.
Thank you. Obviously, it works in cases that lie somewhere in between. I would really like to have some actual witnessing of this working or not from some women... Do you happen to remember where I could find this study?
I would really like to have some actual witnessing of this working or not from some women...
I guess this kind of reporting would be anecdotal or assumptions, unless 1) a woman actually engaged in a dedicated strategy, and 2) a guy who "fell for it" admitted to her that that was why he became more interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathias_north
Do you happen to remember where I could find this study?
I had to do some digging, but it is this one. This link has a PDF you can download, but no preview:
Unfortunately I don't know that this could be so simple or assessed easily with any accuracy.
I can imagine an interesting person engaging me with text messages that have some substance, and they just use 2 short messages to convey a little extra tacked on to a thought, and it's no big deal. I can also imagine a guy being irritating and seeming to demand attention.
"Hey"
"Are you there?"
"What's up?"
BAD look. Needy and annoying.
But if you just read a book that they suggested, and send:
"OMG I just got to the part where <whatever interesting happens.>"
"Did not expect that!"
"Thanks so much for the suggestion, I'm really loving this book!"
...nothing wrong with this at all. Your recipient might be busy, they'll see your messages and respond later. You did not act grasping or desperate for attention, you had something of substance to communicate.
Big difference. I think that most of us know people who break up a single long thought into multiple short messages, rather than sending a big paragraph. That's not weird. But your messages should not come off like a child going, "Mom Mom Mom Mom Mom..." WHAT?? "Look at me!"
I have found that if a man either doesn't think of himself as being very interesting, or doesn't feel comfortable opening up about whatever might make him interesting early on, then he can ask leading questions, be a little mysterious, and set things up so that the woman becomes curious and intrigued. But you still have to be wary of crossing a line where you appear to be boring or too aloof. And at some point if I feel like I've had to carry a conversation, all by myself, whether in person or via messages, I will start to feel like he isn't really into making anything happen between us, he's just hoping I will entertain him. And for heaven's sake if it ever turns to naughty talk, give as good as you get.
But do bear in mind that many women's life experience has led us to think that a man who is into us will make the first "move" in some way. A lot of the time, if a woman has thrown lots of signals your way that the light is green, the coast is clear, it's time for you to step in and participate...if you "play hard to get" at that stage, many of us will just let our connection with you die; we'll give up on it. It very nearly happened with my fiance and I. We'd been interacting pretty closely for a couple of months, I was thinking I wanted to have sex with him, I went so far as to tell him that I'd had a sexual dream about him. If a woman tells you she had a sex dream about you, good odds she's on board with the reality happening. I was waiting for, and expecting, some focus and some kind of a "move" in that direction from him...and it did not happen. One night he just told me that he thought he doesn't pick up on hints from women, and looking back thinks he missed some opportunities because of that. I was like, "Oh. Well OK then fine, so dude...do you want to have sex?"
But most women I know will not be so straightforward.
And not much earlier than that, I'd been telling a female friend that I didn't know what his deal was, and if he did not act soon, his window of opportunity was gonna close.
So don't play TOO hard to get, if you wanna get got!
I guess this kind of reporting would be anecdotal or assumptions, unless 1) a woman actually engaged in a dedicated strategy, and 2) a guy who "fell for it" admitted to her that that was why he became more interested.
I guess you are inverting man/woman here and ... not really. Some female friends of mine did tell me that as soon as a guy switched from a 'very available' to 'hard to get' behavior, this boosted their attraction. It does not matter whether it is voluntary or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirdieBelle
I had to do some digging, but it is this one. This link has a PDF you can download, but no preview:
Well, if you're in your mid 30s maybe you should try dating women instead of girls.
I date women as well, and the same argument applies to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
