Game equivalent for women. How to make a guy stay?

[Consept]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

So, a lot of the advice from earlier posters around making herself useful to a guy or giving him sex or looking good or any advice like that is just bad strategy... because it is usually a woman who likes a guy who isn't interested trying to find a way to cause a man to fall in love with her and want to be her partner.

The thing is, that no woman can make a man want to be with her and fall in love with her. If it isn't there from the beginning, it will never ever be there.

Yeah i agree, its interesting because this dynamic exists on the male side as well. So a guy will either not recognise or ignore his instinct that a girl he likes is not really into him, then he'll do things that he believes will get her to like him. What he does depends on what hes learnt through media or wherever, if its rom-coms he'll be the typical 'good guy' and maybe be really nice to her, buy her presents, give her all his time etc. Obviously this is known as the friendzone, the female equivalent is the fuckzone. So it is the same in that a guy needs to be true to himself and only really pursue girls that he feels are genuinely into him.

All in all 'strategies' are essentially ways to convince someone who doesnt like you as much you want them to, to like you. They rarely work because at some point the mask will drop and if you feel that youre not good enough for the person, you will become insecure. 

 

[Twentyfirst]

You still think marriage is about love hahaha 

Love doesn't keep a man. Only marriage can 

Promise you 

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Consept said:

All in all 'strategies' are essentially ways to convince someone who doesnt like you as much you want them to, to like you.

Strategies are there to not piss off those who like you. 

[Lila9]

For women, the best dating strategy is basically to avoid and let go of the men who insist on living in their ✨Divine Feminine✨ energy (aka, seeing themselves as the prize and believing that women should hunt them).

Instead, women should live in their ✨Divine Feminine✨ energy, which means seeing themselves as the prize to attract men who are hunters (aka, living from the ,✨Divine Masculine✨ energy).

 

 

 

Edited April 3 by Lila9

[Dauntment]

8 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

I hesitated by asking this, but I will ask anyway. This question only has to do with the things you mentioned and nothing to do with you as a person. What is your race? You don't have to answer nor do you have to say what sex. I'm just curious as to whether my thinking is right and i will say if and after you answer. It's more of a playful thing, so don't take it out of context.

Biracial, black/white male mid 20s living in the SouthEast US at height 5'11 and dic.......I'll stop there 

[Dauntment]

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

... because she is already the prize. And then to eliminate men from her consideration that don't recognize her as the prize.

"And then to eliminate men from her consideration that don't recognize her as the prize." I have an idea of why this position is held....but for clarity and out of curiosity, can you elaborate your belief system/explanation/narrative of: "she is already the prize" ?

[Bobby_2021]

3 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

You still think marriage is about love hahaha 

Love doesn't keep a man. Only marriage can 

Promise you 

At the end of the day, nothing works better than brute force to keep men interested in a woman, both covert and overt. That has some validity to it.

2 hours ago, Lila9 said:

Instead, women should live in their ✨Divine Feminine✨ energy, which means seeing themselves as the prize to attract men who are hunters (aka, living from the ,✨Divine Masculine✨ energy).

Genuine question. Isn't this disrespectful to women? Making her the prize is too passive and objectifying as if women have no dynamic roles other than existing. Like an object. The intersting action is happening around her on the periphery while she is watching. 

Everything is done by the man. I am not saying this is a bad thing. I would love to be take the hunter role. But I don't get why women would willingly take such a passive role. 

Just look at any sports game, the attention and glory is all on the players and the teams. Not the prize. The prize is just an object sitting there and watching everything. 

Edited April 3 by Bobby_2021

[Consept]

3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Strategies are there to not piss off those who like you. 

I don't think that's strategies though, it's more compromise. Let's say a woman has certain needs and she wants you to fulfill them but nags if you don't, then you have to communicate to each whether you the man can fulfil those needs or if those needs and what she wants you to do are reasonable. You may decide you don't want or can't fulfil those needs and then the relationship won't work (this goes both ways).

If you just say don't nag and be peaceful she might be repressing, genuine needs that are easy to fulfil for the sake of the man's peace. This just doesn't work in practice. 

On the 'prize' talk I honestly think both sexes should believe they are the 'prize', meaning they should have confidence and self-respect for themselves. How that looks for woman is being selective and choosing a guy that they are sure really cares for them. For guys it could be choosing a women that cares for them but that they are also compatible with, a lot of guys will just choose a girl based on looks and then try and make everything else work after the fact, which can lead to unfulfilling relationships. 

[Bobby_2021]

32 minutes ago, Consept said:

she wants you to fulfill them but nags

Then learn to communicate without nagging. No man who loves her would hesitate to listen.

If a man loves her, and she nags him, it will piss him off for no reason. Don't piss off the man who loves you. 

All I am saying is to avoid this crap. Add peace to his life. 

Be less of an insufferable women. Make it easier for him to stay with you longer. This is her strategy.

Men's strategy is being appealing to the women enough to get laid.

Her strategy is being appealing enough for him to stay with her for long.

32 minutes ago, Consept said:

If you just say don't nag and be peaceful she might be repressing, genuine needs that are easy to fulfil for the sake of the man's peace.

I will say to not nag. She should learn to communicate properly like adults. There is not a huge thing to ask. Else don't be surprised when people don't listen.

32 minutes ago, Consept said:

On the 'prize' talk I honestly think both sexes should believe they are the 'prize',

Eww. I wouldn't subject myself to this humiliation. I would rather struggle and fight to get the things I want rather than sit there like an object.

You do realize that objectifying women is a male fantasy that has roots from the old traditions where men would fight publically and the winner would get the woman. This is being the "prize". I would rather be the person fighting all day anyday. 

Why would I give away all this growth and development of character for the sake of being an object? 

Edited April 3 by Bobby_2021

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You are not capable of ascertaining my philosophy on relationships. So do not bother.

Oh brother  You seem to see yourself as too deep and complicated for my little pea brain to understand.

But let me tell you this. Your philosophy isn’t that deep. And when the rubber meets the actual road, it isn’t going to be sexually fulfilling for her over the long haul.

He really did think exactly like you way back when.

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Dauntment said:

"And then to eliminate men from her consideration that don't recognize her as the prize." I have an idea of why this position is held....but for clarity and out of curiosity, can you elaborate your belief system/explanation/narrative of: "she is already the prize" ?

It’s a mindset that a woman can adopt to keep her in the Feminine/beloved frame so that she doesn’t slip into the Masculine mode of chasing/pursuing a man who isn’t very interested in her.

That way, instead of trying to woo and impress a man who isn’t (and will never be) interested in her… she recognizes that she is the prize as she is and doesn’t need to woo or prove her worth to a man.

Instead, it puts her squarely in the power of the selector/rejector role. And she can choose someone she likes who already sees her as the prize and wants her in his life because he recognizes her value and beauty.

[Bobby_2021]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Oh brother  You seem to see yourself as too deep and complicated for my little pea brain to understand.

But let me tell you this. Your philosophy isn’t that deep. And when the rubber meets the actual road, it isn’t going to be sexually fulfilling for her over the long haul.

He really did think exactly like you way back when.

Thanks for equating everything I said to some random guy you met have said. 

And also for assuming that I am wrong since he did wrong things and that all circles back the philosophy which I hardly even explained which I so happen to share with him. 

Are you even aware of making these wild accusations? I just want to know how disconnected women are from basic logic. Thanks in advance. 

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, Consept said:

Yeah i agree, its interesting because this dynamic exists on the male side as well. So a guy will either not recognise or ignore his instinct that a girl he likes is not really into him, then he'll do things that he believes will get her to like him. What he does depends on what hes learnt through media or wherever, if its rom-coms he'll be the typical 'good guy' and maybe be really nice to her, buy her presents, give her all his time etc. Obviously this is known as the friendzone, the female equivalent is the fuckzone. So it is the same in that a guy needs to be true to himself and only really pursue girls that he feels are genuinely into him.

All in all 'strategies' are essentially ways to convince someone who doesnt like you as much you want them to, to like you. They rarely work because at some point the mask will drop and if you feel that youre not good enough for the person, you will become insecure. 

 

That’s true in the initial attraction phase for sure. A woman who isn’t interested in more than friendship can’t be convinced to be interested in more than friendship.

But what the OP was talking about once that initial attraction phase hurdle is cleared and what strategies a woman can use to keep a man once a sexual relationship has been established.

That’s where it’s important for a woman to avoid these man-keeping strategies because at best he still leaves and at worst he sticks around out of comfort and convenience taking up valuable time that she could be using to find a man who really sees her as his beloved.

This is especially true if she wants marriage and kids.

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Thanks for equating everything I said to some random guy you met have said. 

And also for assuming that I am wrong since he did wrong things and that all circles back the philosophy which I hardly even explained which I so happen to share with him. 

Are you even aware of making these wild accusations? I just want to know how disconnected women are from basic logic. Thanks in advance. 

He’s not a random guy. I’ve known him for 14 years. And I was in a relationship with him for many years. And I still know him. He’s a friend of mine now. He is like family.

And back then (10 years ago), his philosophy was identical to yours. He explained it the exact same way as you did in an earlier post.

And like you, he fancied himself as philosophical and deep in the way he viewed his sexual philosophy.

But it was one of the main factors that made the relationship untenable and why I decided to end the relationship.

There’s no accusation there… only a factual statement of noticing a similar pattern of thinking between you and him.

[Consept]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But what the OP was talking about once that initial attraction phase hurdle is cleared and what strategies a woman can use to keep a man once a sexual relationship has been established

I get you, I think in general if either sex wants a solid, fulfilling, loving relationship, strategies will not work long term. 

As men we seem to have this idea that we need strategies for a relationship. Strategies can work for men and women but only temporarily ie for men if they just want short term sexual encounters. 

Out of personal curiosity, do you have any insights on non-monogamy? I just got out of a relationship but I'm kind of enjoying the freedom although I'm wondering how sustainable it is and if I'm just wasting others time, even though I am being honest. I think I have an avoidant attachment style which I'm working getting to secure. Sorry don't mean to selfishly derail the topic lol

[Emerald]

Just now, Consept said:

I get you, I think in general if either sex wants a solid, fulfilling, loving relationship, strategies will not work long term. 

As men we seem to have this idea that we need strategies for a relationship. Strategies can work for men and women but only temporarily ie for men if they just want short term sexual encounters. 

Out of personal curiosity, do you have any insights on non-monogamy? I just got out of a relationship but I'm kind of enjoying the freedom although I'm wondering how sustainable it is and if I'm just wasting others time, even though I am being honest. I think I have an avoidant attachment style which I'm working getting to secure. Sorry don't mean to selfishly derail the topic lol

I don’t have any personal experience with non-monogamy, so my advice might be a little thin.

But if I were considering trying polyamory, I’d probably seek out tons of non-monogamous perspectives and reading material like “The Ethical Slut”.

But most importantly I’d try to get clear on why I’m interested in polyamory.

And given the avoidant attachment style, I’d want to notice if my desire for a non-monogamous relationship is about going TOWARDS what is wanted about that dynamic… or if it’s about going AWAY FROM feelings like being trapped and others things avoidant people are trying to avoid.

[Basman]

My thoughts:

• Don't throw pearls to swine (fuckboys will say anything).
• Be attractive and continue to take care of your appearance.
• Have great sex.
• Be supportive. Help take care of things.
• Communicate your wants in a clear and direct language.

[Consept]

30 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I don’t have any personal experience with non-monogamy, so my advice might be a little thin.

But if I were considering trying polyamory, I’d probably seek out tons of non-monogamous perspectives and reading material like “The Ethical Slut”.

But most importantly I’d try to get clear on why I’m interested in polyamory.

And given the avoidant attachment style, I’d want to notice if my desire for a non-monogamous relationship is about going TOWARDS what is wanted about that dynamic… or if it’s about going AWAY FROM feelings like being trapped and others things avoidant people are trying to avoid.

OK yeah I understand, thanks for your perspective 

[Lila9]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Genuine question. Isn't this disrespectful to women? Making her the prize is too passive and objectifying as if women have no dynamic roles other than existing. Like an object. The intersting action is happening around her on the periphery while she is watching. 

Everything is done by the man. I am not saying this is a bad thing. I would love to be take the hunter role. But I don't get why women would willingly take such a passive role. 

Just look at any sports game, the attention and glory is all on the players and the teams. Not the prize. The prize is just an object sitting there and watching everything. 

 

Why is passivity considered more negative, and action considered more positive?

This bias favors masculine energy, implying that action is somehow superior to inaction.

Passivity becomes negative when forced upon someone, depriving them of the ability to take action.

This is the experience of women under years of patriarchy, they were coerced into passivity.

It's as detrimental as being compelled to always take action without permission to be passive, akin to slavery.

Why not look at passivity as receptivity?

Osho about passivity-

https://www.osho.com/osho-online-library/osho-talks/receptivity-activity-passivity-ba7114d6-212?p=478905982af2b05d6ed018be04d73cfe

However, we all possess both energies, there are times when passivity is preferable and times when immediate action is necessary.

Some individuals lean more towards their masculine energy, while others embody more of their feminine energy.

In the realm of relationships, from personal observation, the happiest and most fulfilling dynamics occur when men pursue women and women respond passively, simply accepting or declining. This places men in an active role and women in a passive one in this context.

Both roles are valued and essential, complementing each other.

In relationships where women pursue men and men are viewed as prizes, both parties often feel unhappy.

Women may feel unseen, unappreciated, and sexually unattractive, while men may feel emasculated, akin to children, leading to resentment towards their partner despite receiving much from them.

Typically, men don't fall in love with women who do things for them or protect them, they fall in love with women who allow them to give, pursue, and protect because it enhances their sense of masculinity.

Conversely, women usually fall in love with men who provide for them and do things for them, as it heightens their sense of femininity.

From personal observation, masculine men generally do not enjoy being pursued or chosen by women, while they may see it as a compliment, they are often less attracted to such women, they might feel that those women are trying to emasculate them which they don't like.

Similarly, a woman who predominantly embodies her feminine energy refrains from chasing men, regardless of desire.

 

[Bobby_2021]

56 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And back then (10 years ago), his philosophy was identical to yours.

He explained spiral dynamics to you 10 years ago? Like I did. Impossible. 

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

And like you, he fancied himself as philosophical and deep in the way he viewed his sexual philosophy.

Ewww enough of equating me to this dude. And his sexual philosophy 🤮

There is literally no dude who could possibly have the depth like I do. He probably said some crap that has nothing to do with what I have said.