# Hard To Get



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Well. In real life, i control the situation by sending message to a guy how i really feel about. And what i really feel about. I'm very honest and direct. XD so, there.  problem solved. If you don't want sex show it. Or tell him. Lol 

I just friendzoned guys mostly in real life because I'm actually!!! Saving my virginity to my next serious relationship.  

Online is just a past time. XD i don't really put a lot of seriousness here.  Because it's online you can actually say shamelessly what the fuck is in your wild wild mind. XD 

But I'm hard to get. Because i friendzone.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Veggie said:


> Nothing wrong with being a player. And you can be a player with an end game.
> 
> I want fox on fox action


 The best relationships are effortless, no game needed. Agreed?

So you can be a player, have fun and stay safe until the right one comes along. My strategy was to _stay well fed_ so you're not needy, and mistake lust for love. That's what I meant by friend-zoning, it gives me a chance to evaluate her as a person first, with her clothes on, lol

But what you described is jumping from lust to lust. A lust addict, and maybe unrealistic expectations?

I agree, great kissers are *very* rare, I'm stuck on that one.:tongue:


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

yentipeee said:


> The best relationships are effortless, no game needed. Agreed?
> 
> So you can be a player, have fun and stay safe until the right one comes along. My strategy was to _stay well fed_ so you're not needy, and mistake lust for love. That's what I meant by friend-zoning, it gives me a chance to evaluate her as a person first, with her clothes on, lol
> 
> But what you described is jumping from lust to lust. A lust addict, and maybe unrealistic expectations?


I just think if there isn't lust, than the relationship isn't worth doing. I'm not interested in turning a friend-zoned situation into one where lust needs to and should be present (unless it were there and there were just extenuating circumstances keeping us apart, like I said before). I'd feel like it was manufactured and unauthentic. I honestly think there's something tragic about that, but then I'm dramatic, haha. I know plenty of people do it, but it's not me. I think I'd also feel insulted and like I'd gone against and given up on something sacred. Personally. If I do love I want to do it big and I want it to feel romantic. Friendship is important too, but the lust needs to be first.

There's a quote I found somewhere that resonated with me: _"Without a sense of urgency, desire loses it's value"_

I'm also very un-attracted to a dude who acts like he's calling all the shots when it comes to how this all goes down, and is okay with losing me in the process (or worse, assumes that he won't and takes me for granted). If I feel like I have to win a guy in some way I'm not interested. Like. My lady bits wouldn't work. Lol. These guys are kinda catches sometimes, so I don't know... I sorta entertained the idea for a bit, but. I'm left feeling even less attracted to that behavior than I was before.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

So basically you are not hard to get, it's simply hard for you to decide for yourself? 

The distinction matters, especially given the topic title. Being a difficult target by extenuating causes and by intention are different. The former is tolerable, although by no means an ideal. The latter is either downright pathetic or extremely artful. Pathetic when you play the game very obviously or stretch the game long after it's become obvious that you're just playing for whatever reason. Artful when your moves are subtle, and their only consequence is that they inspired lust, with no collateral damage of exasperation, lovesickness, agitation etc. 

The latter game can only be played where there exists some attraction on both sides. Only when you're attracted to your victim will you be cautious about not stretching the game, or making it too obvious. If there's no attraction, you'll just look like an attention whore.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Stawker, I see what a person's intentions are with me...if it's to just sleep with me, I am not going to sleep with him as I only sleep with a person I'm dating. @Veggie is constantly misinterpreting my posts, please just ignore her and her little friends. They purposely instigate me and other people.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Stawker said:


> So basically you are not hard to get, it's simply hard for you to decide for yourself?


Why do you say "basically" from what I wrote? Curious.

It's more like I am to an extent, but I don't know how to communicate that, because I also like the intensity that comes without drawing the process out. But then something happens and poof. It's gone, it's not coming back, and there was no communication indicating that or something.

I wanna learn how to build a stronger foundation without feeling like I'm compromising myself and what I want.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

Can @Veggie make a post directed at me like this? I think this is against forum rules, isn't it? It's a blatant attack on what I think and even mentions my name. This thread should be closed.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Veggie said:


> Why do you say "basically" from what I wrote? Curious.
> 
> It's more like I am to an extent, but I don't know how to communicate that, because I also like the intensity that comes without drawing the process out. But then something happens and poof. It's gone, it's not coming back, and there was no communication indicating that or something.
> 
> I wanna learn how to build a stronger foundation without feeling like I'm compromising myself and what I want.


I say 'basically' because this is the 'crux' of your post? no bad intentions here and nothing to psychoanalyze lol. 

Well, a psychologist would tell you to sort out your 'deeper' issues but I'm not one. So I'd tell you to not think about this stuff and engage in more productive pursuits for a while. Seems to me as if you tend to fall in love with the idea of love, not with the person. Hence the reason why it just disappears without any apparent reason.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Veggie, you didn't answer me Veggie, you misinterpreted what I was saying and are misleading people with my thoughts.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Stawker said:


> Well, a psychologist would tell you to sort out your 'deeper' issues but I'm not one.


Why would tell me that? Monogamy and marriage aren't necessary for mental health.



Stawker said:


> Seems to me as if you tend to fall in love with the idea of love, not with the person. Hence the reason why it just disappears without any apparent reason.


I love a lot of people, but it's very rare for me to fall in love, actually. I'm not describing falling in love. If I were to fall that would make this all a lot easier and I'd want to invest my time and energy. The problem is when that investment feels like a calculated chore to, like... get me there, or something.

Maybe falling in love is just supposed to happen. But then how well would you really know the person?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> @Veggie, you didn't answer me Veggie, you misinterpreted what I was saying and are misleading people with my thoughts.


Hey there flamey.

I mentioned you because you were forcefully shoving advice down mine and other's throats as gospel that made feel sad and devalued as a woman and individual human being. I thought maybe we could start a separate thread so as not to derail, and I wanted to give you a chance to weigh in, so I mentioned you. This was when I still thought you were possibly halfway reasonable and that we were coming at this from two separate sides of the same spectrum, and maybe in a similar conundrum.

You have now weighed in, so I guess you can be on your way.

And if you think this thread should be closed because I mentioned you all I have to say to that is LOFL after your epic cluster mention spam parties, where you were throwing around personal attacks. I do not believe I attacked you in the OP. I said that I was inspired by your threads and that I didn't agree with advice you'd given personally for myself, and why.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

theflame said:


> Can @*Veggie* make a post directed at me like this? I think this is against forum rules, isn't it? It's a blatant attack on what I think and even mentions my name. This thread should be closed.


Friendly advice: Just letting you know, you're not going to have a fun time here. You seem so fragile. Couple that with the fact that this is a place that loves to shatter sheltered worldviews, and you've got a perfect storm. You can help yourself by complaining and insulting less, but it may not do much good. Just adjust your expectations. Lower..... Lower..... Waaaay lower..... And, you're in the ballpark.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@snowbell, could you please close this thread? @Veggie is instigating and incorrectly telling people what I think.

I do not play hard to get to manipulate people. I play hard to get to see what someone's intentions are.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> I do not play hard to get to manipulate people. I play hard to get to see what someone's intentions are.


I didn't say that you manipulated people, did I? I said that you'd given advice that you should hold off on sex for the sake of playing hard to get. You've now admitted to this again.

It's not against forum rules to mention users in your threads, obviously. It is against the rules to spam them.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

Sovereign said:


> Friendly advice: Just letting you know, you're not going to have a fun time here. You seem so fragile. Couple that with the fact that this is a place that loves to shatter sheltered worldviews, and you've got a perfect storm. You can help yourself by complaining and insulting less, but it may not do much good. Just adjust your expectations. Lower..... Lower..... Waaaay lower..... And, you're in the ballpark.


 @Sovereign, I find it amusing you think I'm the one insulting people whereas the OP made a specific thread directed at me, and incorrectly defining me at that. I am not shattered by their thoughts of me. I'm just disgusted and appalled that there aren't many more people coming to my defense and yet you are feeding these trolls. This is why the forum is the way it is, because you encourage the trolling behavior.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Veggie said:


> Why would tell me that? Monogamy and marriage aren't necessary for mental health.


They are necessary, just aren't sufficient. Of course, it has to be a good marriage for it to be a necessary factor.



> I love a lot of people, but it's very rare for me to fall in love, actually. I'm not describing falling in love. If I were to fall that would make this all a lot easier and I'd want to invest my time and energy. The problem is when that investment feels like a calculated chore to, like... get me there, or something.
> 
> Maybe falling in love is just supposed to happen. But then how well would you really know the person?


You're overthinking this, is what I told you in my first reply. Perhaps you get OCD about the entire relationship struggle? I don't know. Try talking it out with -- nope, try not talking about it. Try not even to think about it. Or maybe there's not enough frankness in your relationships with people. Because if you have to go on dates, text a lot, and follow through that arbitrary concordance in order to legitimize your relationship, then there's perhaps not enough open conversation between you and your partner. At least one of you is either stupid, or he doesn't know how to be honest about his/her emotions. Hence the consequence of going through each and everything on the list before the relationship becomes the 'real thing'. 

For the record, not a single one of my relationships involved dates. They all began with frank conversations on various topics, and then a randomly timed confession which was never not reciprocated. See? no hassle, no list of things you should do to officially be a couple.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Sovereign, and also, I'm not fragile. If you actually knew me and the online situations, you know I've taken a lot of people's shit. So nothing fragile about me. If I was fragile, I'd let these people get to me and not come here anymore, and yet I'm not letting those people get to me and I'm still asking my questions when I think of something. Fragile is someone who leaves the forum because these people purposely want to drive someone out by acting like that. Don't get the definition mixed up.

I am just utterly disgusted by these youngsters being incredibly disrespectful to elders who have had way more experiences than them, and you think that's an okay behavior. You're barking up the wrong tree in telling someone how to act.
@deviants (since I see you liked his comment)


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@deviants, I still think it's funny you think I'm the insulting one, shall I make a book of your posts that are insulting not only toward me but others as well?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> @Sovereign, I find it amusing you think I'm the one insulting people whereas the OP made a specific thread directed at me, and incorrectly defining me at that. I am not shattered by their thoughts of me. I'm just disgusted and appalled that there aren't many more people coming to my defense and yet you are feeding these trolls. This is why the forum is the way it is, because you encourage the trolling behavior.


It's not "directed" at you. I said that it was inspired by you. Mentioning users in your OP isn't against the rules. If I were to do so now I could see how it would appear provocative, but at the time, again, I thought we could simply carry a dialogue about hard to get to another thread. It's an interesting and legitimate topic and I'm not trolling.

You've said your piece and you're free to leave.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Lolz gaiz gaiz can we pleez stop feeding the trollz? 

Omg she's so obvious why do you even bother? I mean @Veggie she wants your thread down for mentioning her in the thread. That isn't irony, it's completely intentional! We're just giving her attention.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> @deviants, I still think it's funny you think I'm the insulting one, shall I make a book of your posts that are insulting not only toward me but others as well?


Please do it on your own thread. This thread is about playing or being hard to get.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

Seriously, if I made a book of all of your insults you'd pretty much be banned. You're not even worth the time and effort.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Stawker said:


> They are necessary, just aren't sufficient. Of course, it has to be a good marriage for it to be a necessary factor.


I think it's just kinda healthy relationships, period. Which don't necessarily have to be romantic or monogamous. It's not like your psychiatrist can write you a prescription for Romeo that you pick up at your nearest drugstore. Haha. Building friendships is different than the process of falling in love.



Stawker said:


> Or maybe there's not enough frankness in your relationships with people.


The relationship isn't there yet. I'm attempting to build relationships from scratch.



Stawker said:


> Because if you have to go on dates, text a lot, and follow through that arbitrary concordance in order to legitimize your relationship


To create the relationship, communicate with, and see the person :wink::tongue:



Stawker said:


> then there's perhaps not enough open conversation between you and your partner.


They're not my partner yet. They're a strange person who I'm at once trying to get to know, trying to screen for (in)compatibility-attraction and trying to create or maintain a spark with.



Stawker said:


> Hence the consequence of going through each and everything on the list before the relationship becomes the 'real thing'.


I agree that there doesn't need to be some check list to make it official or something.



Stawker said:


> For the record, not a single one of my relationships involved dates. They all began with frank conversations on various topics, and then a randomly timed confession which was never not reciprocated. See? no hassle, no list of things you should do to officially be a couple.


How old are you? I'm 32. I don't have many avenues to meet dudes. If we don't date, I don't see them.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Veggie, if this is how you are in person, I can see why you are single. Do you make it a habit of instigating people then playing victim in person, too?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> @Veggie, if this is how you are in person, I can see why you are single. Do you make it a habit of instigating people then playing victim in person, too?


I'm not playing the victim. I explained why I mentioned you, why it wasn't attack, and why it wasn't against the rules.

You responded, and now I'm asking you to stop derailing my thread.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Veggie, it's not your approach that's the problem. It's your personality. And I'm not actively looking for a relationship, not because of my personality for me.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

theflame said:


> @Veggie, if this is how you are in person, I can see why you are single. Do you make it a habit of instigating people then playing victim in person, too?


Lolz aren't you still single too? You can't make this stuff up xD


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Blue Ribbon said:


> Lolz aren't you still single too? You can't make this stuff up xD


Only half the time. The other half she has a boyfriend in college who looks like the Rock. Several people have pointed this out, and have even simply inquired further so as to give her a chance to explain herself, but she persistently avoids the questions and continues to either be in a relationship with this guy or single dependent on her current argument and post. Lol.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Veggie said:


> Only half the time. The other half she has a boyfriend in college who looks like the Rock. Several people have pointed this out, and have even simply inquired further so as to give her a chance to explain herself, but she persistently avoids the questions and continues to either be in a relationship with this guy or single dependent on her current argument and post. Lol.


I wonder why she hasn't responded to me yet. I know her relationship advice is BS and that her way doesn't work at all since she's still single in her thirties. I genuinely believe you should pursue the object of your passion with everything you've got and that's the only way to be in a relationship. Sex is a tool for that imo. That's the only relationship advice I can give and it has gotten results too. No one agrees with her method anyway so I guess it doesn't really matter in the end.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Playing hard to get is toying and playing games. Most men who respect themselves and want a serious relationship, especially above the age of early 20s would be very turned off by such behaviors. Unless they are still immature themselves.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Blue Ribbon said:


> I wonder why she hasn't responded to me yet. I know her relationship advice is BS and that her way doesn't work at all since she's still single in her thirties. I genuinely believe you should pursue the object of your passion with everything you've got and that's the only way to be in a relationship. Sex is a tool for that imo. That's the only relationship advice I can give and it has gotten results too. No one agrees with her method anyway so I guess it doesn't really matter in the end.


I'm still single and in my thirties too. I can't get turned on if I have to pursue a guy though. That's just me. I don't even necessarily want a relationship, I think it's fun to date around and maintain my freedom, but my biological clock is ticking and I might want a family, so I'm trying to figure out how to approach it all without it feeling desperate or miserable.

I thought maybe the college Rock guy was just a guy she was seeing. I say I'm single even if I'm seeing someone - if we've never had the official boyfriend-girlfriend talk. Actually, this thread is sorta inspired too by one of those situations. I'd hung out a few times with this guy who travels (he doesn't live here), which kinda keeps it casual. I have no plans of moving anytime soon or having an LDR. The last time we hung out he was kinda like - so, I'm gonna be gone longer this time. I'm not gonna see you for a little while. And I guess my reaction was a little too mmmmm, cus he kind of laughed and was like damn. I don't know what my reaction was supposed to be though. Was I supposed to like throw my arms around his neck and be like I'll wait for you my darling!!! We haven't even had an exclusivity talk. For all I know he has girls in like every city he frequents (which is fine).

Plus, we'd been having trouble syncing sexually. Which might be because we usually go out first and have (too many? lol) drinks. But I just wasn't feeling anything other than mmm, honestly. THOUGH. It would be nice to see him again. I've had a hard time finding and maintaining casual. So it's like trying to figure out how to override a natural reaction that's gonna maybe turn a guy off and make it not want to call me again, without feeling like I'm lying about where my level of interest is at when I try to reassure him. If that makes sense?


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

theflame said:


> @*Sovereign*, I find it amusing you think I'm the one insulting people


I read your other threads...



> whereas the OP made a specific thread directed at me


But they didn't directly insult you. Only tied it to your other threads. 



> I am not shattered by their thoughts of me. I'm just disgusted and appalled that there aren't many more people coming to my defense and yet you are feeding these trolls. This is why the forum is the way it is, because you encourage the trolling behavior.


Tomato, potato. Also, I haven't seen much actual trolling. Trust me, I'm an expert. 



> and also, I'm not fragile. If you actually knew me and the online situations, you know I've taken a lot of people's shit. So nothing fragile about me. If I was fragile, I'd let these people get to me and not come here anymore, and yet I'm not letting those people get to me and I'm still asking my questions when I think of something. Fragile is someone who leaves the forum because these people purposely want to drive someone out by acting like that. Don't get the definition mixed up.




My definition of fragile includes people who can't take criticism without near-constant complaining, publicly requesting threads be closed, etc. 




> I am just utterly disgusted by these youngsters being incredibly disrespectful to elders who have had way more experiences than them, and you think that's an okay behavior. You're barking up the wrong tree in telling someone how to act.


No offense, but nobody cares. Just some free advice. Take it or leave it.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Sovereign, and @deviants, here's some friendly advice for you -- if you want people to take your advice, it's best you not insult people while you preach to people about insulting others. Take your own advice.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Veggie said:


> I'm still single and in my thirties too. I can't get turned on if I have to pursue a guy though. That's just me. I don't even necessarily want a relationship, I think it's fun to date around and maintain my freedom, but my biological clock is ticking and I might want a family, so I'm trying to figure out how to approach it all without it feeling desperate or miserable.
> 
> I thought maybe the college Rock guy was just a guy she was seeing. I say I'm single even if I'm seeing someone - if we've never had the official boyfriend-girlfriend talk. Actually, this thread is sorta inspired too by one of those situations. I'd hung out a few times with this guy who travels (he doesn't live here), which kinda keeps it casual. I have no plans of moving anytime soon or having an LDR. The last time we hung out he was kinda like - so, I'm gonna be gone longer this time. I'm not gonna see you for a little while. And I guess my reaction was a little too mmmmm, cus he kind of laughed and was like damn. I don't know what my reaction was supposed to be though. Was I supposed to like throw my arms around his neck and be like I'll wait for you my darling!!! We haven't even had an exclusivity talk. For all I know he has girls in like every city he frequents (which is fine).
> 
> Plus, we'd been having trouble syncing sexually. Which might be because we usually go out first and have (too many? lol) drinks. But I just wasn't feeling anything other than mmm, honestly. THOUGH. It would be nice to see him again. I've had a hard time finding and maintaining casual. So it's like trying to figure out how to override a natural reaction that's gonna maybe turn a guy off and make it not want to call me again, without feeling like I'm lying about where my level of interest is at when I try to reassure him. If that makes sense?


I see. I used to be kind of inert sexually but lately that switch has been turned on and I'm at my max point of sexuality. I think it was about meeting the right person. 

I've never really had the issue you've had. I've always been flirty and charming. I know how to get people's attention. I was with a guy for a year or so and I met him by waiting in the same bus stop as him lol. 

Yeah LDRs are for people who can plan and afford to move eventually. I'd recommend against it if that's the case. I'm in an LDR now and I actually came on pretty intense to him. But intensity is all I know. Tbh I'm bad at dealing with guys who want casual or easy going. 

Idk maybe you haven't met the right guy? That could be it. In which case, don't give up!


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Sovereign, @deviants, however, I do see it is in your nature to insult people but then you want to complain when it gets done back to you. You are correct that I shouldn't be like you. After all, I despise your logic and people like you and if I were to act just like you, I'd be the very thing I hated. You are correct in saying I shouldn't stoop to your levels. You can feel free to continue thinking people are "insulting" your precious little clique. That's not how other people see things on here but as you said already, this place (at least this section anyway) is meant for trolls so I can see why you would side with the trolls. 
@Veggie @blueRibbon


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

I would urge discerning men to look for red flags as soon as they're on a date. If a woman is testing/toying with you, for any reason, always call her out on it. Right then and there. Don't play the game, break it. If she is being particularly manipulative, assert your dominance by standing up. "Are you playing a game with me? You know, I could always walk out this door right now. That's not a game."

Make it clear: there shall be no bullshit or distance between you and I. I'll tell you how I feel, what my dreams, desires and needs are. I expect the same from you, or lady, we're history. Men who have any self-esteem/dignity _will_ call a woman out on her scattered, vacillating shit, and probably leave. It isn't funny. This is manipulative, emotionally abusive behaviour that we are talking about here.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

Rock Of Ages said:


> I would urge discerning men to look for red flags as soon as they're on a date. If a woman is testing/toying with you, for any reason, always call her out on it. Right then and there. Don't play the game, break it. If she is being particularly manipulative, assert your dominance by standing up. "Are you playing a game with me? You know, I could always walk out this door right now. That's not a game."
> 
> Make it clear: there shall be no bullshit or distance between you and I. I'll tell you how I feel, what my dreams, desires and needs are. I expect the same from you, or lady, we're history. Men who have any self-esteem/dignity _will_ call a woman out on that shit and leave. It isn't funny. This is manipulative, emotionally abusive behaviour that we are talking about here.


 @RockofAges, what about a man who acts like my boyfriend to get what he wants but doesn't want to make it official...is that playing games?


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

theflame said:


> @Sovereign, @deviants, however, I do see it is in your nature to insult people but then you want to complain when it gets done back to you. You are correct that I shouldn't be like you. After all, I despise your logic and people like you and if I were to act just like you, I'd be the very thing I hated. You are correct in saying I shouldn't stoop to your levels. You can feel free to continue thinking people are "insulting" your precious little clique. That's not how other people see things on here but as you said already, this place (at least this section anyway) is meant for trolls so I can see why you would side with the trolls.
> @Veggie @blueRibbon


Never have I ever said you were insulting. I called you a troll because you look like one. I do agree I can be trollish some of the times. If you are a troll, I like you because I think trolling is funny. If you aren't, I don't hate you. 

There's no such thing as 'your' logic. There is only logic. I haven't had a proper debate with you. Not because I think you're a troll - I like trolls. I dislike arguing with the religious. Very rarely do I find religious people who can articulate and expand on their world view. I have seen you and deemed you unworthy of my time or effort. I only debate with people who are on par or can at least come close to me in terms of reasoning skill. 

Nothing you do or say will make me angry. I don't really ever get angry. You can keep trying though


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Sovereign, @Cast, @Veggie, @deviants, and whoever else this applies to -- puh-lease stop being hypocrites in your post toward people. It is very much apparent how you have a deep seeded self-hatred problem and you like to blame it on others. I've never said anything about you as a person personally. I've only stated my beliefs. You're sitting here personally saying things about me that aren't true. You really need to look in the mirror on who is personally attacking people. I'm really serious about this.

You took jabs at me being single thinking there's something wrong with me that's why I'm single -- I'm single because I want to be single and because I'm waiting for a person I really like not to just date anyone. You really need to stop this self-projecting.

I only started saying something about YOU as people when you said it first.

If you were as "kind" as you claim, there wouldn't be any of this chaos now, would there? But you purposely instigate people to get the reaction that you want.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Blue Ribbon said:


> I see. I used to be kind of inert sexually but lately that switch has been turned on and I'm at my max point of sexuality. I think it was about meeting the right person.


Sexual inertia's not the problem. I have toys I use regularly to take care of that too when one of these confusing situations isn't present. Lol.



Blue Ribbon said:


> I've never really had the issue you've had. I've always been flirty and charming. I know how to get people's attention. I was with a guy for a year or so and I met him by waiting in the same bus stop as him lol.


I didn't say I wasn't flirty or charming or that I didn't know how to get people's attention. I said that I don't like to pursue men. I also didn't say I was lacking a pursuit of men.

Your story is one I'd like though. Serendipitous. I actually didn't meet this dude on a dating site though. We were both out getting lunch, and he asked me out. Actually, he refused to leave until I agreed to go out with him later that night. Haha. That's the kind of behavior that turns me on, I guess.



Blue Ribbon said:


> Yeah LDRs are for people who can plan and afford to move eventually.


And for people who are okay committing to someone and limiting their options otherwise without having sex with them. Haha. I guess you could maybe do an open LDR if that were an issue...



Blue Ribbon said:


> I'd recommend against it if that's the case. I'm in an LDR now and I actually came on pretty intense to him. But intensity is all I know. Tbh I'm bad at dealing with guys who want casual or easy going.


Yea, I think you might have just spelled out my problem specifically. Lol. I want an intense guy for a casual relationship with intensity (cus I can't get turned on otherwise). How the hell do you go about working that out... 



Blue Ribbon said:


> Idk maybe you haven't met the right guy? That could be it. In which case, don't give up!


Yea, that might be part of it too. That's why I'm sort of hung up on the whole love at first sight-instant connection thing lately. Because otherwise I'm not sure how you determine that it's "right" and worth investing in.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

I'd like to ask an opinion, everyone is welcome to answe:
is saying that you (genuinely) don't feel ready a way to "play" hard to get?
Would you percieve it that way if your date said it?


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

In case the trolls missed my post:
@Sovereign , @Cast , @Veggie , @deviants , and whoever else this applies to -- puh-lease stop being hypocrites in your post toward people. It is very much apparent how you have a deep seeded self-hatred problem and you like to blame it on others. I've never said anything about you as a person personally. I've only stated my beliefs. You're sitting here personally saying things about me that aren't true. You really need to look in the mirror on who is personally attacking people. I'm really serious about this.

You took jabs at me being single thinking there's something wrong with me that's why I'm single -- I'm single because I want to be single and because I'm waiting for a person I really like not to just date anyone. You really need to stop this self-projecting.

I only started saying something about YOU as people when you said it first.

If you were as "kind" as you claim, there wouldn't be any of this chaos now, would there? But you purposely instigate people to get the reaction that you want.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

theflame said:


> @RockofAges, what about a man who acts like my boyfriend to get what he wants but doesn't want to make it official...is that playing games?


Absolutely!!!


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Cast said:


> I'd like to ask an opinion, everyone is welcome to answe:
> is saying that you (genuinely) don't feel ready a way to "play" hard to get?
> Would you percieve it that way if your date said it?


Nope. Not at all


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Rock Of Ages said:


> "Are you playing a game with me? You know, I could always walk out this door right now. That's not a game."


Yea, I'd just tell him to go. Too early and that breaks all kinds of dating etiquette and it's inappropriate. I want a dude who acknowledges certain social conventions to a degree. This is about maintaining something with someone I might want to see again.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

Rock Of Ages said:


> Absolutely!!!


I hate when they try to act like they want to date me and then they don't after they get what they want and then they wonder why I withheld it because I already knew what they were in it for. I've literally had that happen...I told a guy once I only hook up with someone who is my boyfriend. He asked me out, and I wanted to see if he was for real so I said yes and as soon as we hooked up but not 12 hours later he broke up with me...I guess at least he didn't waste my time in staying longer with him. That was the only good thing in it being so short. @RockofAges


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Cast said:


> I'd like to ask an opinion, everyone is welcome to answe:
> is saying that you (genuinely) don't feel ready a way to "play" hard to get?
> Would you percieve it that way if your date said it?


I only labeled it "hard to get" because of what it was inspired by, lol.

I am interested in that area of a relationship though before you're fully invested, and how to kind of be honest about that without ruining the feels necessary to create and get to the committed part.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Cast said:


> I'd like to ask an opinion, everyone is welcome to answe:
> is saying that you (genuinely) don't feel ready a way to "play" hard to get?
> Would you percieve it that way if your date said it?


I would not necessarily perceive it as "playing hard to get" - that would depend on the context, her tone of voice, facial expressions, shit like that which INFJs are hyperfocused on.

But either way, I wouldn't invest time and energy into a girl who said that to me. I know whether I want to commit to someone within about twenty minutes of talking to them, at the most.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Rock Of Ages said:


> I would not necessarily perceive it as "playing hard to get" - that would depend on the context, her tone of voice, facial expressions, shit like that which INFJs are hyperfocused on.
> 
> But either way, hearing those words tells me that this isn't a girl I should invest time and energy into.


Meaning that if you don't have sex right away it's not worth your time?
Not being polemic here, I'm not sure I understood. 

Edit: sorry, I thought the thread was about having sex! Now I saw the last sentence you added, that's clearer now, thanks


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Cast, you didn't answer my question about you being a hypocrite? You said I'm attacking people and I've looked back on all my posts...I don't see much else where I've attacked people meanwhile you and your little clique have been attempting to insult me and my intelligence then you wanna get mad when I do the same back to you.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Cast said:


> I'd like to ask an opinion, everyone is welcome to answe:
> is saying that you (genuinely) don't feel ready a way to "play" hard to get?
> Would you percieve it that way if your date said it?


No. 

Playing hard to get would be like saying you know that person is the right one but not ready for them. If they are the "right" one, why not be ready for it?

But then again I'm a little confused on what you actually mean by not ready. Do you mean it as ready for a serious relationship? Or ready to commit?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Rock Of Ages said:


> I know whether I want to commit to someone within about twenty minutes of talking to them, at the most.


Sighs. That's probably how it should happen. I never feel like that about anyone. It's a rare occurrence that spans years. 

So I'm balancing like... do you hold out for that? Or do you let love grow? And then how do you let love grow? When you're in control of making sure it happens (outer circumstances aren't placing the two of you together).


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Cast said:


> Meaning that if you don't have sex right away it's not worth your time?
> Not being polemic here, I'm not sure I understood.


I said in @theflame's thread that I believe if you haven't had sex with a girl by the second date, she's probably not that into you. I say that because I have had sex with a girl - a nice, elegant-looking girl - on a date two hours after we met, and I am not amazingly seductive or anything. So it can be done. If a girl is really attracted to me, she'll want to have sex with me. Period.

I am also a very passionate, driven kind of guy so I hate the casual, let's-wait-and-see social circle style of dating. It just doesn't play to my strengths. I am best suited to an intimate setting where I can sit next to a girl, on my own, put my arm around her and have long gazes where we make each other feel special/understood/loved etc (you get the idea). There is no slow driving mode, slow drivers are weak and pathetic. I don't believe in taking things slowly. I'll have plenty of time to be like that when I'm old, or dead.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> I've never said anything about you as a person personally.


This is so hilariously untrue. I could post quote from this thread alone.


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

Hard to get...

I purposefully hold back getting into a relationship or having sex with a person because I want time for my head to assess them. My heart has a habit of latching on to people I "click" with intuitively, and I've learned not to trust it without giving my head some time for logical thought. 

It's a balancing act between these too forces... careful logic and emotional intuition. I'm pretty shit at the logical side of this though, which is why it usually takes me a while to get into a relationship. I usually fulfill the needs of this logical side by observing the man's actions and looking for evidence that they're a good person.


I don't think I'm playing hard to get, because this is not a game to me. I want to protect myself from bad people, and I don't want to waste a bunch of time with someone who isn't in it for the long run. 

But I can see how some people may think this is playing hard to get... if it is to them, fuck them I'm not dating those people lol.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Veggie said:


> Sexual inertia's not the problem. I have toys I use regularly to take care of that too when one of these confusing situations isn't present. Lol.


I see. It wasn't a problem for me either. I just turned down any kind of invitation to be intimate with any guy I met because I wasn't too into it? Lol I am still a virgin though I talk about sex like I've gotten plenty. 



> I didn't say I wasn't flirty or charming or that I didn't know how to get people's attention. I said that I don't like to pursue men. I also didn't say I was lacking a pursuit of men.


Aah I see. I understand better now. You don't want to pursue? Lol for me it's the opposite. I find the stoic mysterious type the most attractive. It's fun to just tear down someone's psychological barriers. I try not to hurt people though. 



> Your story is one I'd like though. Serendipitous. I actually didn't meet this dude on a dating site though. We were both out getting lunch, and he asked me out. Actually, he refused to leave until I agreed to go out with him later that night. Haha. That's the kind of behavior that turns me on, I guess.


Lol I see. I'd be the girl who follows the guy around, tells him right to the face I like him and keeps sending flirty texts and stuff like that. As long as it isn't a stern 'I'm not interested' I never give up. 



> And for people who are okay committing to someone and limiting their options otherwise without having sex with them. Haha. I guess you could maybe do an open LDR if that were an issue...


Well there is always phone sex lol. 



> Yea, I think you might have just spelled out my problem specifically. Lol. I want an intense guy for a casual relationship with intensity (cus I can't get turned on otherwise). How the hell do you go about working that out...


I think you can though. You'd just need to look very hard. Tbh I am still very young and don't have much experience dating. 



> Yea, that might be part of it too. That's why I'm sort of hung up on the whole love at first sight-instant connection thing lately. Because otherwise I'm not sure how you determine that it's "right" and worth investing in.


Ah with my current boyfriend, I liked him at first and gave up and dated two other people - the first time because I convinced myself it wouldn't work out and the second time - I perceived a lack of interest in him. Happily it worked out for me though. He's the right one. I was hooked on since the moment I read some of the posts he made and now we're engaged to be married. But moving to another country is not going to be easy which is why LDRs aren't for everyone.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Veggie until YOU started thinking you could rip me apart as a person when you have no basis for your claims. If you don't want to be insulted, then you should start by not insulting others first. I see your attitude toward people and life and you are totally why I would want to have God in my life. @Cast @Sensational @deviants @blueRibbon

You know you can agree to disagree with people, have you ever heard of that? Or do you just simply insult anyone who doesn't think like you personally?


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

_Ionic said:


> No.
> 
> Playing hard to get would be like saying you know that person is the right one but not ready for them. If they are the "right" one, why not be ready for it?
> 
> But then again I'm a little confused on what you actually mean by not ready. Do you mean it as ready for a serious relationship? Or ready to commit?


Mmmh. I thought the thread was about playing hard to get as in "witholding sex". Maybe I misinterpreted it - there has been a lot of spam in the middle so it was hard to keep a focus.
I meant specifically as in "I want to date you, but not to have sex with you right now - we'll have to wait until I feel ready" - which could take anywhere from a couple of weeks to a few months.
But you could also view it as a question on commitment in general


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Cast, I like how you're ignoring my posts calling you out that you're the one actually personally attacking people. I rest my case.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

@Veggie

I'm 18. I defer to your experience. I was proceeding under the assumption that you might be doing something wrong but it may just be that the entire process of getting to know people becomes stale overtime. To that end, I can only imagine a trip overseas, a one-in-a-million love affair, being the cure. But people of your age with similar experiences are better equipped to advise you.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

@Rock Of Ages omg, I can't imagine having sex on a second date. But then, everyone has his own pace. Thanks for your insight


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

theflame said:


> @Veggie until YOU started thinking you could rip me apart as a person when you have no basis for your claims. If you don't want to be insulted, then you should start by not insulting others first. I see your attitude toward people and life and you are totally why I would want to have God in my life. @Cast @Sensational @deviants @blueRibbon
> 
> You know you can agree to disagree with people, have you ever heard of that? Or do you just simply insult anyone who doesn't think like you personally?


Well yes I can agree to disagree but what does that change? I'm still disagreeing with you. I'm not trying to prove anything though. It's evident because I haven't made an argument. Well I did make one and you would have seen it if you were smart enough. You haven't. Therefore for all you care, I haven't made any points. So I have nothing to prove. What are you trying to prove though?


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Cast said:


> @Rock Of Ages omg, I can't imagine having sex on a second date. But then, everyone has his own pace. Thanks for your insight


This was a double SX/SP + double INFJ thing. Essentially personality incest, which makes it very easy to build up a rapport quickly. You "get" each other to an extent where you can predict the other person's feelings and responses well. I think for her, it was a bit like (I know this will sound slightly dodgy) finding the brother you never knew you had. It must be kind of overwhelming to feel understood at that level by your date, which is probably why she felt she needed to have sex with me.

I am quite a good actor, and can manipulate the emotions of my surrounding environment very easily to induce a particular response. This means I have quite a shifting sense of self, myself, and massive, sudden mood swings unfortunately (aggressive-macho mood/depressive-idealistic mood).

Also you need to understand that for someone with my personality, sex is critical for "merging" - SX 4's chief ambition is to "merge" with someone else who appreciates our uniqueness, as this resolves the sense of longing and insecurities around missing out on fantastic, incredible romantic experiences. SX 2s (I'm sure she was one) have quite complimentary ambitions "if you love me you'll seduce me" which is why we tend to end up in bed with each other. Very much the stereotypical indulgent, histrionically romantic couple, it's a "let's cry and hug while we make a baby with the moon shining on our skin even though we just met" kind of thing.

Totally emotionally driven, but that's where I feel happiest.

Basically rational, steady type women (TJs) and also aloof, scattered type women (FPs) aren't really a good fit for me. I am attracted to TPs but they're usually not attracted to me, because I'm "too pushy" - hence, other FJs tend to be my target market.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Rock Of Ages said:


> This was a double SX/SP + double INFJ thing. Essentially personality incest, which makes it very easy to built up a rapport quickly because you "get" each other to an extent where you can predict the other person's feelings and responses well. I think for her, it was a bit like (I know this will sound slightly dodgy) finding the brother you never knew you had. It must be kind of overwhelming to feel understood at that level by your date, which is probably why she felt she needed to have sex with me.
> 
> I am quite a good actor, and can manipulate the emotions of my surrounding environment very easily to induce a particular response. This means I have quite a shifting sense of self, myself, and massive, sudden mood swings unfortunately (aggressive-macho mood/depressive-idealistic mood).
> 
> ...


I see  I have not clue on what my enneagram intinct variants are so I can't write such an articulate post 
I'm not very sexual - or better, I can be very sexual, but only in selected situations. I crave intimacy and physical touch, but sex... I wouldn't be comfortable in placing myself in such a vulnerable situation, before a serious commitment. That kind of connection is far too precious - but then, to me sex is spiritual, rather then physical, so we probably come from different perspectives.
I'm the romantic girl who hopes to have sex only with one person in her life - or, anyway, only with people who could have been a partner for life.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> I've never said anything about you as a person personally. I've only stated my beliefs.


I'll try to break it down for you.



theflame said:


> So do you think people who wait until marriage are playing hard to get? Or maybe they just respect themselves to not sleep with something right away or sleep with anything that gives them attention?


^I will have sex early, so you are implying that I don't respect myself. But I do respect myself. Also, that I will sleep with anything that gives me attention. But I don't sleep with anything that gives me attention.

The fact that you cannot comprehend this as being insulting, and why, when it's pretty damn basic, is why people have become dismissive of you and have stopped taking you seriously.



theflame said:


> So far, everyone I know, including yourselves, haven't been able to keep someone long term by NOT playing hard to get.


This is a lie, and one you're pulling from nowhere, as I've told you I've been in long term relationships, the longest lasting eight years.



theflame said:


> @Veggie, it's not your approach that's the problem. It's your personality.


This is a blatant personal attack. I wasn't even talking to you. I was trying to ignore you at this point.



theflame said:


> It is very much apparent how you have a deep seeded self-hatred problem and you like to blame it on others.


Another blatant personal attack.



theflame said:


> You took jabs at me being single thinking there's something wrong with me that's why I'm single


I pointed out the irony of the fact that you are single when you were condemning people and dismissing their arguments based on the fact that they're single. Again, pretty basic for most people to grasp as being hypocritical.

I think this is like the third time I've said this now.



theflame said:


> If you were as "kind" as you claim, there wouldn't be any of this chaos now, would there?


Yet again, I have no clue where you're getting this from. I don't claim to be super kind. I told you earlier that my sense of justice is more an eye for an eye.



theflame said:


> @Veggie until YOU started thinking you could rip me apart as a person when you have no basis for your claims.


I didn't rip you apart as a person. I'm pretty sure I haven't insulted you here at all.

Please find something better to do with your time. This is a blatant derail of my thread and the topic at hand, which actually is trolling if you're asked to stop, and is against the rules. I told you that you were free to weigh in on the topic. You are not free to harass members here.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Cast said:


> Mmmh. I thought the thread was about playing hard to get as in "witholding sex". Maybe I misinterpreted it - there has been a lot of spam in the middle so it was hard to keep a focus.
> I meant specifically as in "I want to date you, but not to have sex with you right now - we'll have to wait until I feel ready" - which could take anywhere from a couple of weeks to a few months.
> But you could also view it as a question on commitment in general


Ah I see. If it's on the topic of "witholding sex", no I wouldn't say that is playing hard to get. It just means its really hard to get you in bed that's all lmao.

As in your example, I'd say no also. Some people view sex intimately more than others, so waiting in that sense would be the same as waiting until you two are at a more comfortable level to then have sex. In order for intimacy to work, you must be comfortable with your partner. That's why I don't see it as "playing hard to get". You are just waiting to see whether or not you two are able to get to a more comfortable level before engaging in an act that requires it. 

Playing hard would be like not clarifying that you want to date them, but not specifically state that you don't want to have sex with them until you feel ready, but hint at the possibility of having it only to then fast-forward a couple months later and y'all haven't had any. That's playing hard to get; saying it possible that you might participate and hint at the possibility of doing it but do nothing about it even though you said wanted to date them. 

But if also on the question of commitment then I really don't know. Some people have valid reasons as why they aren't ready to commit yet and that's understandable. But in my opinion I see that as also a tool of gauging a partner's true intentions on the matter even if the person asking it knows what they want. Then it could be "playing hard to get."


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

_Ionic said:


> Ah I see. If it's on the topic of "witholding sex", no I wouldn't say that is playing hard to get. It just means its really hard to get you in bed that's all lmao.
> 
> As in your example, I'd say no also. Some people view sex intimately more than others, so waiting in that sense would be the same as waiting until you two are at a more comfortable level to then have sex. In order for intimacy to work, you must be comfortable with your partner. That's why I don't see it as "playing hard to get". You are just waiting to see whether or not you two are able to get to a more comfortable level before engaging in an act that requires it.
> 
> ...


Thank you, I see what you mean. This "playing hard to get" sounds like manipulative behaviour and I don't think it could be the foundation for a healthy relationship. I'd try to talk to my partner about this, and if he went on I'd just stop dating him. Maybe not call him out bluntly as Rock Of Ages said, but clarify it for sure.
I've seen friends getting in those twisted relationships with manipulative people - not a good thing to do, imho.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Stawker said:


> it may just be that the entire process of getting to know people becomes stale overtime


Sorta, yea. Especially when there's a chance you're not going to see them again.



Stawker said:


> a one-in-a-million love affair, being the cure.


Say a little prayer for me! haha.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Veggie, saying your personality is the problem is not a personal attack, you can think you're flawless but maybe a guy sees something he doesn't like in you that you don't see that you are oblivious about yourself. That is not a personal attack, sorry bub, but stating that I'm single because there's something wrong with me IS a personal attack.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Cast said:


> I see  I have not clue on what my enneagram intinct variants are so I can't write such an articulate post
> I'm not very sexual - or better, I can be very sexual, but only in selected situations. I crave intimacy and physical touch, but sex... I wouldn't be comfortable in placing myself in such a vulnerable situation, before a serious commitment. That kind of connection is far too precious - but then, to me sex is spiritual, rather then physical, so we probably come from different perspectives.
> I'm the romantic girl who hopes to have sex only with one person in her life - or, anyway, only with people who could have been a partner for life.


I'd like to have only had sex with one person in my life, as well, but it's just not practical if your sex drive is this high. I can't wait for a woman to "feel comfortable" if that time period is more than a few weeks. The uncertainty and desire will combine to consume me. So for my own sake, I must move on. This has been a problem in relationships as well, when the girl was too insecure to just put out.

Sex to me is both a fundamental physical need and a way to share, grow and create emotions with another person. They're not mutually exclusive, in other words.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Veggie, and if you're that offended by my posts wanting people to gang up on me in your defense, perhaps you shouldn't throw the first stone. Can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen. It's as simple as that. Talk like a normal human being if you can't handle the consequences of being a troll.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Blue Ribbon said:


> I was hooked on since the moment I read some of the posts he made and now we're engaged to be married. But moving to another country is not going to be easy which is why LDRs aren't for everyone.


Congrats  A lot of members have made it work on this site.


----------



## deviants (Dec 16, 2016)

Was it really necessary to tag me 7 times while I was gone? I specifically remember telling you twice not to tag me anymore.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Veggie, I see you can talk normally to people -- only when you agree with them. You should learn how to agree to disagree.


----------



## HellCat (Jan 17, 2013)

I do not get why you are trolling her on her thread for serious advice, discussing her anxiety, fears and hang ups. 


How cruel can someone get?

For shame. I see you throwing around the word christian all over the place too. 

Stop using her as your scapegoat. The church outlawed that in the dark ages.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> @Veggie, and if you're that offended by my posts wanting people to gang up on me in your defense, perhaps you shouldn't throw the first stone. Can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen. It's as simple as that. Talk like a normal human being if you can't handle the consequences of being a troll.


The consequence of being a troll is an infraction. I have not been infracted. I don't deserve to be relentlessly harassed, as that is trolling.

People are naturally coming to my defense. Lol. Many of these are people I have not communicated with before yesterday. There is no clique, and maybe this is indication of who should be taking a step back to think about and look at their behavior if unrelated people are coming together as they are.

Claiming that you had stated that hard to get should involve withholding sex is not a personal attack. Those are your beliefs, are they not?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

HellCat said:


> discussing her anxiety, fears and hang ups.


She's not. Lol. She only thinks she is. She's likely projecting given some of what she's shared. I'm trying to be sensitive with those posts.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

@Because_why_not xD


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Veggie, I don't ask anyone to fight my battles for me the way it seems that you trio constantly show up in all the threads together. If people come to my defense, appreciated, but not needed. I've always handled my ground. And I'd rather not waste any more time on this so I'm just going to ignore drama posts from now and talk to people who can actually discuss things.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

_Ionic said:


> Ah I see. If it's on the topic of "witholding sex", no I wouldn't say that is playing hard to get. It just means its really hard to get you in bed that's all lmao.


The thread was inspired by this, yea, because that's how flame had defined it (at least that was my understanding). I won't purposefully withhold sex (If I'm attracted to the person), but I am hard to get into a relationship. So I kinda wanted to explore that... coming at it from two different angles. It had been more or less suggested that this can be seen as immoral. But sex doesn't necessarily mean commitment for me and a lot of other people.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Veggie, do you want a cookie for not purposely withholding sex? Has it gotten you someone long term yet? You seem to think you're better than people who do withhold it and yet it's still the same results.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Cast said:


> Thank you, I see what you mean. This "playing hard to get" sounds like manipulative behaviour and I don't think it could be the foundation for a healthy relationship. I'd try to talk to my partner about this, and if he went on I'd just stop dating him. Maybe not call him out bluntly as Rock Of Ages said, but clarify it for sure.
> I've seen friends getting in those twisted relationships with manipulative people - not a good thing to do, imho.


Yeah that's why I look at the concept as playing hard to get a grey area.

It could be used as a tool of weeding out people who just want a one night stand with you or those not emotionally capable of holding a relationship (whether they be deemed too immature or not what you are looking for). In that sense, it's a great tool to protect your feelings from being exploited. 

However in the other sense, it could be used as a manipulative tool. Playing hard to get would just create more barriers that your partner isn't aware of already and be overwhelmed that they didn't see this coming at all. Similar to unresolved emotional baggage. Except here you are creating problems (emotional baggage) that aren't there by playing hard to get. Eventually this will falsely lead your partner into thinking whether or not the relationship is even worth pursuing anymore to which then the person playing hard to to get can play with their feelings to gauge how "loyal" and "committed" they are. But in the end you are just placing unneeded stress on them and seeing how they act accordingly. By that point it wouldn't even be a relationship anymore, more of an experiment.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> Has it gotten you someone long term yet?


I like literally just addressed this.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

"It could be used as a tool of weeding out people who just want a one night stand with you"

Ding ding ding!!! Exactly.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Hmmm...I _am_ hard to get. Usually I am _too hard_ to get, so that no one bothers. I agree that _playing_ hard to get is a form of chasing. It's a dynamic that turns me off too...I don't want to manipulate someone into wanting me or liking me. Neither do I want to chase someone down; I prefer a slightly more traditional male-female dynamic. The need to be won over and wooed is real for me - it's not an act to show I am "high value" and whatever nonsense the dating gurus prescribe as the trick to make someone love you. The sexual stuff is delayed because I really do know myself emotionally and have particular values I am not willing to compromise; those are _my_ genuine needs. I wouldn't put sex in a context of how it affects the development of the relationship so much as _your needs and values_ that are _bigger_ than the relationship and any desires of the moment.

I also have a problem with being hot or cold, but not often _warm_. So people think I don't like them and perhaps don't bother to pursue me because of it, or I may seem to like them too intensely which is overwhelming or something. The too hot bit doesn't usually come til later, and I think it's too often combined with fear.

As a work in progress, I've found expressing honest interest is fine, but it can't come from a place of fear or desire to manipulate something to a particular outcome (a need to control is out of fear). If the goal is to reassure someone you like them because you don't want them to have the wrong impression, then that is kindness and not neediness, IMO. If you're _telling yourself_ that is the reason _but really_ you are feeling insecure and are seeking to get some response from them to quell your fears, then that is manipulation of sorts. People usually feel repelled by that, even if they consciously don't know why. 

It's hard to discern one from the other sometimes. I try to put myself in the other person's shoes and see how I'd feel if someone acted a certain way towards me. I have felt pushed on by needy people, I have felt the waft of cool indifference from others, _and_ I have felt genuine interest and care from some; the latter is never a problem. 

Personally, I error on the side of not communicating interest. I do that because of a fear of humiliation or a sense I could push people away with my affections, etc. I think its just an insecure attachment style issue. I either seem detached or have an underlying anxiety which may turn people off. So I have had to learn (and am learning) the difference between a secure expression of interest and perhaps, in time, attachment, and a detached style born of insecurity or an anxious attachment that puts a heavy weight of expectation on someone else.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> "It could be used as a tool of weeding out people who just want a one night stand with you"
> 
> Ding ding ding!!! Exactly.


I'm also interested in one night stands. And I'm interested in weeding out people who have don't share my mentality when it comes to sex and relationships.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Veggie said:


> I'm also interested in one night stands. And I'm interested in weeding out people who have don't share my mentality when it comes to sex and relationships.


^Though I'll say, dudes call or text me back, so I don't really have one night stands. And that's the truth. Also, fast sex doesn't necessarily mean first date. I don't have a ton of first date sex.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Veggie said:


> The thread was inspired by this, yea, because that's how flame had defined it (at least that was my understanding). I won't purposefully withhold sex (If I'm attracted to the person), but I am hard to get into a relationship. So I kinda wanted to explore that... coming at it from two different angles. It had been more or less suggested that this can be seen as immoral. But sex doesn't necessarily mean commitment for me and a lot of other people.


I don't see participating in an act meant to establish more of a connection to your partner or an act meant to create life immoral. I see using it as a tool other than what it is intended for to accomplish your goals immoral. (Not in the sense of participating in sex to relieve sexual tensions or to have their sexual desires granted, but in the sense of using it to as a tool to exploit people.)

I don't see how honestly someone could put sex and commitment in a relationship in the same category together. Maybe you are committed to getting that ass? Idk


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@_Ionic, the vibe I get is that people are settling for casual sex because they can't get anyone to commit at the time so they just take it since that's all they can get. I'm not settling for anything less. I don't think they truly want casual sex, it's just that's all they can get at the moment.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

OrangeAppled said:


> I agree that _playing_ hard to get is a form of chasing. It's a dynamic that turns me off too...I don't want to manipulate someone into wanting me or liking me. Neither do I want to chase someone down; I prefer a slightly more traditional male-female dynamic. The need to be won over and wooed is real for me - it's not an act to show I am "high value" and whatever nonsense the dating gurus prescribe as the trick to make someone love you.


Me too. That's well stated.



OrangeAppled said:


> I also have a problem with being hot or cold, but not often _warm_. So people think I don't like them and perhaps don't bother to pursue me because of it, or I may seem to like them too intensely which is overwhelming or something. The too hot bit doesn't usually come til later, and I think it's too often combined with fear.


Warm is actually probably my main setting. I've had guys tell me I'm a warm person. I think people think I like them more than I do though sometimes, as my problem. lol. So then if I go cold it's like - what happened? And I think it feels more reject-y. Even if it's not necessarily. Hot is fleeting.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Veggie said:


> I'm also interested in one night stands. And I'm interested in weeding out people who have don't share my mentality when it comes to sex and relationships.


Exactly. You can still play hard to get (in the sense of weeding out people who don't fit your mentality on relationships and sex) and still be interested in one night stands. 

The latter being that you are *only* interested in fulfilling your sexual needs *without* the emotional attachment while the other you are only interested in fulfilling your needs by finding a partner who will fulfill *both* those emotional and sexual needs. 

It is important not to confuse the two.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> @_Ionic, the vibe I get is that people are settling for casual sex because they can't get anyone to commit at the time so they just take it since that's all they can get. I'm not settling for anything less. I don't think they truly want casual sex, it's just that's all they can get at the moment.


My goal isn't commitment unless we've gotten there properly. I don't immediately hope men give me a commitment. I might not want to commit to them. Commitment means that the relationship will end in marriage (which means your dating life is over and your freedom is gone) or a potentially bad break-up. It also drastically changes your life otherwise.

Casual sex is all I can get at the moment. True. And even that's hard to come by because I'm picky. But I haven't met Romeo and I'm not sure what he looks like.

Please go somewhere else if you can't actually discuss this. Didn't you promise us you were going to do that? Stop teasing.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

@Veggie, I don't have one night stands either because I don't give it up like that. You can pretty much tell if a person will do that or not without even having to sleep with them and dudes call me back also. Not sure what you're trying to imply by you saying dudes call you back...they call me back, too.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

theflame said:


> @_Ionic, the vibe I get is that people are settling for casual sex because they can't get anyone to commit at the time so they just take it since that's all they can get. I'm not settling for anything less. I don't think they truly want casual sex, it's just that's all they can get at the moment.


You must realize there are a plethora of reasons as to why people are participating in casual sex. Yes, maybe one of the reasons is that they can't find a reason to commit. But other reasons could be due to the fact that they don't want to commit because they are not ready for it emotionally because they need to fix out some personal problems, or they are not interested in pursuing a serious relationship. Other reasons could stem from the simple fact that they need their sexual needs satisfied without the emotional attachments of a relationship. 

Regardless of the reasons, it's important not to think of one reason as being the *only* reason. 

In my interpretation of your post, it seems as though you are classifying people of which who are already committed to be morally superior than those who are participating in casual sex. People are people whether they are committed in a relationship or participating in casual sex. That doesn't make somebody morally superior than another person just because they got a ring on it.

If that were the case, marriage and relationships would be the most powerful tool in the world over money. I think viewing it at that angle would just give the image that those who are participating in casual sex are less human than those who are not which can be seen as degrading.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> @Veggie, I don't have one night stands either because I don't give it up like that. You can pretty much tell if a person will do that or not without even having to sleep with them and dudes call me back also. Not sure what you're trying to imply by you saying dudes call you back...they call me back, too.


I'm just saying that they do. I thought maybe you were projecting the situation where a guy agreed to be your boyfriend at your insistence before sleeping with you and then immediately broke up with you onto some of this. The story you shared several pages back.

I'm sorry that happened to you.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

_Ionic said:


> You must realize there are a plethora of reasons as to why people are participating in casual sex. Yes, maybe one of the reasons is that they can't find a reason to commit. But other reasons could be due to the fact that they don't want to commit because they are not ready for it emotionally because they need to fix out some personal problems


If this is the case, no-frills sex is just a means for the woman to reassure herself that she's "lovable". It is very selfish. If you don't care about the other person's happiness, you could cause their a lot of harm by having sex with them. This is my main objection to casual sex, in fact. That it's often done without the parties every discussing the terms, or their motivations. It may turn out that one party consented to the act because they hoped (like me) that it would lead to something more. Being denied that future can be pretty devastating after you've share your body with someone.

This is also why some women don't like to jump into bed quickly. I feel confident that I can intuit someone's neuroses and intentions quickly enough to take the risk, and my sex drive also kind of demands it. What I resent is the "playing hard to get" stuff where women play games just to keep you around when they're insecure.



_Ionic said:


> or they are not interested in pursuing a serious relationship. Other reasons could stem from the simple fact that they need their sexual needs satisfied without the emotional attachments of a relationship.


OK. These are more acceptable reasons to pursue casual sex. My only request is that if you're one of these people, please the decency to spell out your preferences. Many of the people you meet for "casual hookups" just have high sex drives but are still relationship-oriented. I would want to know about this ASAP to avoid getting hurt.



_Ionic said:


> In my interpretation of your post, it seems as though you are classifying those people of which who are already committed to be "top grade" or morally superior than those who are participating in casual sex. People are people whether they are committed in a relationship or participating in sex. That doesn't make somebody morally superior than another person just because they got a ring on it. If that were the case, Marriage or relationships would be the most powerful tool in the world over money. I think viewing it at that angle just makes it look like those who are participating in casual sex look less human and can be seen as degrading.


I do believe that people are morally superior if they restrict their sexual activity to exclusive relationships. This is because sex is a highly emotional, almost spiritual act for me and I can't imagine how someone could create the same kind of warmth, love and hope by coasting around from orifice to orifice. It disgusts me in a very visceral way. But if this is truly what makes them happy (as opposed to a result of insecurities), then I will try my best not to be too critical.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

_Ionic said:


> It could be used as a tool of weeding out people who just want a one night stand with you or those not emotionally capable of holding a relationship (whether they be deemed too immature or not what you are looking for).


Opposite tack here, and this won't work as well for some people, but I actually find that sleeping with the guy as soon as I'm comfortable and think it has a high probability of being fun _is_ the best way for me to verify that, and verify other important things besides. If I'm worried he might just want a one night stand, well... I'll find out after sleeping with him, won't I? So if I liked the sex and don't attach easily through it alone (which I don't), no biggie.

But the other thing is, some guys specifically have an addiction to the chase or have crazy madonna/whore complexes and will put more effort into you the longer you hold out, not because they value you as a person necessarily but because you are (thread title y'all) "hard to get"... and there again going through with the act will force him to classify you as "gotten" or "whore" in his own mind and will show you pretty quickly if he has those tendencies.

Unfortunately I can be initially attractive to men that like what they think they and others can't get, because I come across as very shy/prim/ice queenish in the way I present myself in most situations IRL. And if the guy has a certain kind of social chops it's not always easy to tell what his opinions are in that regard until you've invested more time than you'll have wanted to - I don't fancy myself a mind reader - so just doing what feels good at the time can get both men that only value fast lays _and_ men that only value "good girls" out of my hair as quickly as possible because they tend to show their hands after. Two birds with one stone.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

_Ionic said:


> Exactly. You can still play hard to get (in the sense of weeding out people who don't fit your mentality on relationships and sex) and still be interested in one night stands.
> 
> The latter being that you are *only* interested in fulfilling your sexual needs *without* the emotional attachment while the other you are only interested in fulfilling your needs by finding a partner who will fulfill *both* those emotional and sexual needs.
> 
> It is important not to confuse the two.


I read this a couple times and I'm not quite sure what you mean. Lol.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Rock Of Ages said:


> If this is the case, no-frills sex is just a means for the woman to reassure herself that she's "lovable". It is very selfish. If you don't care about the other person's happiness, you could cause their a lot of harm by having sex with them. This is my main objection to casual sex, in fact. That it's often done without the parties every discussing the terms, or their motivations. It may turn out that one party consented to the act because they hoped (like me) that it would lead to something more. Being denied that future can be pretty devastating after you've share your body with someone.
> 
> This is also why some women don't like to jump into bed quickly. I feel confident that I can intuit someone's neuroses and intentions quickly enough to take the risk, and my sex drive also kind of demands it. What I resent is the "playing hard to get" stuff where women play games just to keep you around when they're insecure.
> 
> ...


I think you are missing the whole point of casual sex. Casual sex is to have sex with someone in the absence of commitment, emotional attachment, or familiarity between sexual partners. Hence the name "casual" in casual sex. To go into casual sex expecting some sort of emotional connection on level with that felt in a relationship (like happiness) is setting yourself up for disappointment because you are expecting to receive something that's not supposed to be there. The only thing you receive in casual sex is your sexual needs being satisfied that's it. 

As for the last part I do agree with you. Playing hard to get just to fill in that void of feeling wanted is cruel and hurts both people in the process. The one playing hard to get is inflicting suffering on themselves by denying the problem and reality by continuing to fill in that void. The other is having their feelings played with.

I am confused here. I interpreted "preferences" to sexual preferences but not to relationship preferences. If I think you are referring to what I think you are, then again I think you have the whole definition of causal sex misunderstood. If not, please feel free to clarify that. 

I partially agree with your last statement but want to clarify it. I think people can be judged in a way based on whether they restrict their sexual activity to exclusive relationships, however relationships whose rules are *defined*, *established* and *understood* by both partners. Casual sex (imo) is a relationship, both you and your hookup are committed to engaging in sexual behavior in the absence of commitment, emotional attachment, and lack of familiarity with the end goal being to achieve your sexual needs. Those that go into casual sex expecting otherwise (such as looking for values found in relationships, those found outside the intended relationship parameters set early on) and get hurt in the process have no right to blame others for their misfortunes since they violated the rules of the relationship. 

However I agree with your assertion that someone is morally superior if we are looking at it from the perspective of those in actual serious relationships (dating) or marriage and have sex outside that relationship. Then I would agree with your assertion because that is cheating and to me is immoral.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Veggie said:


> I read this a couple times and I'm not quite sure what you mean. Lol.


I was referring to flame but didn't want to mention her and be seen as spamming. 

I was agreeing with your post and adding my own interpretation intended for flame. Sorry for the confusion lol.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

baitedcrow said:


> Opposite tack here, and this won't work as well for some people, but I actually find that sleeping with the guy as soon as I'm comfortable and think it has a high probability of being fun _is_ the best way for me to verify that, and verify other important things besides. If I'm worried he might just want a one night stand, well... I'll find out after sleeping with him, won't I? So if I liked the sex and don't attach easily through it alone (which I don't), no biggie.
> 
> But the other thing is, some guys specifically have an addiction to the chase or have crazy madonna/whore complexes and will put more effort into you the longer you hold out, not because they value you as a person necessarily but because you are (thread title y'all) "hard to get"... and there again going through with the act will force him to classify you as "gotten" or "whore" in his own mind and will show you pretty quickly if he has those tendencies.
> 
> Unfortunately I can be initially attractive to men that like what they think they and others can't get, because I come across as very shy/prim/ice queenish in the way I present myself in most situations IRL. And if the guy has a certain kind of social chops it's not always easy to tell what his opinions are in that regard until you've invested more time than you'll have wanted to - I don't fancy myself a mind reader - so just doing what feels good at the time can get both men that only value fast lays _and_ men that only value "good girls" out of my hair as quickly as possible because they tend to show their hands after. Two birds with one stone.


I agree here. In that case, I would re-phrase "playing hard to get" in your case as getting to know someone who doesn't let their guard down easily. Or rather getting to know someone who does not give trust so easily. However I am not implying here that you have trust issues, but rather you don't fully open yourself up quickly to others without properly screening them to make sure they are worth putting you walls down for. In other words you do not wear your heart on my sleeve until you know they are worth pursuing. 

However isn't weeding out potential people to see if they are emotional capable with you the same notion as eliminating those men who feel that want as though they want date someone "easy" ? Like someone who is not going to challenge them intellectually and emotionally? (Emotionally as in cooperation) Like nobody is going to like someone who always says yes (there are exceptions lmao).


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

_Ionic said:


> However isn't weeding out potential people to see if they are emotional capable with you the same notion as eliminating those men who feel that want as though they want date someone easy? Like someone is not going to challenge them intellectually and emotionally? (Emotionally as in cooperation and when problems arise?) Like nobody is going to like someone who always says yes (there are exceptions lmao).


Like are you saying that they would assume that you're a yes person if sex happens quickly?

I am ridiculously stubborn, lol. But when I'm in, like... relationship building mode (on whatever level), trying to stay open for fun and excitement's sake, I don't think that comes across. Then later it's like - surprise! Haha. But I know it's important to try to present yourself as you really are at first. So. That's what I meant earlier about trying to figure out how to convey these sorts of things positively without game playing when you're also trying to be easygoing.

As of now it kinda only comes out when I'm over something. I don't like being that person, and I hate relationship power struggles. Life has improved exponentially without them. lol.

...and if I missed your point then oops


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Veggie said:


> Like are you saying that they would assume that you're a yes person if sex happens quickly?
> 
> I am ridiculously stubborn, lol. But when I'm in, like... relationship building mode (on whatever level), trying to stay open for fun and excitement's sake, I don't think that comes across. Then later it's like - surprise! Haha. But I know it's important to try to present yourself as you really are at first. So. That's what I meant earlier about trying to figure out how to convey these sorts of things positively without game playing when you're also trying to be easygoing.
> 
> ...


Well what I'm trying to say is nobody wants to date someone who is not going to challenge you intellectually or is very predictable. In other words, nobody wants to date someone who can be easily read. We want want to date someone who is constantly always going to put on us on our toes Someone who is going to challenge our train of thought as in always keeping us guessing (in a good way). We want someone who is never going to provide a dull moment in our lives. We want to date someone we feel as though being around does not feel routine. That's what I meant by emotional capability, someone you can sync with emotionally and still be able to feel challenged by their personality but in a productive way the benefits both individuals by making them better people in the end. Where both individuals could say they learned from each other.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

_Ionic said:


> Well what I'm trying to say is nobody wants to date someone who is not going to challenge you intellectually or is very predictable. In other words, nobody wants to date someone who can be easily read. We want someone date someone who is constantly always going to put on us on our toes; one who cannot be easily read. Someone who is going to challenge our train of thought as always keeping us guessing (in a good way). We want someone who is never going to provide a dull moment in our lives. That's what I meant by emotional capability, someone you can sync with emotionally and still be able to feel challenged by their character. (If that makes sense)


I agree. (Well. To an extent. I don't feel like dealing with a highly unpredictable dude. Frustration kills feels for me).

I don't understand how that relates to what you post quoted originally by baitedcrow though.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Yeah nobody wants to date someone highly unpredictable. You want sort of an equilibrium of sorts. Someone that you know is predictable enough to know that they are not going to act out unexpectedly, but someone unpredictable enough to keep you on your toes.

I was saying that in response to when she said:

"And if the guy has a certain kind of social chops it's not always easy to tell what his opinions are in that regard until you've invested more time than you'll have wanted to - I don't fancy myself a mind reader - so just doing what feels good at the time can get both men that only value fast lays and men that only value "good girls" out of my hair as quickly as possible because they tend to show their hands after. Two birds with one stone."

I intended to say "playing hard to get" in that case would weed out people who are trying to get laid easily but applying an example of how it could relate to something outside of sex.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

_Ionic said:


> but someone unpredictable enough to keep you on your toes.


Eh. I don't even know if I want this necessarily. When I think of someone on their toes I think of them tip-toeing around or something. Like they're walking on eggshells. But. I guess we all have our own equilibrium. 



_Ionic said:


> I intended to say "playing hard to get" in that case would weed out people who are trying to get laid easily but applying an example of how it could relate to something outside of sex.


So you are saying what I think you're saying? Easy sex = Yes person?

I really don't think there's a correlation necessarily. I gave myself as an example. lol.

I also think that someone can develop a halo effect of seeming to be "hard to get" when they're actually not (i.e. they're playing it because they're in reality trying to acquire the person) - and they're maybe not very intelligent or emotionally stimulating at all, either, though the person may associate them with these things.

Another reason I think it may be better to try to clear the smoke to some degree sooner than later.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Veggie said:


> Eh. I don't even know if I want this necessarily. When I think of someone on their toes I think of them tip-toeing around or something. Like they're walking on eggshells. But. I guess we all have our own equilibrium.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I guess we do, our own interpretations on what the perfect equilibrium is for us varies.

I'm saying that there are two interpretations for when a person is labeled "easy". One applies for sex, implying that person is easy to get into bed. The other applies for outside of sex, to say that person's thought process is easy to read and predictable.

So when playing hard to get, it doesn't necessarily mean weeding out people who want to get laid easily but to things related outside of sex (such as weeding people who's thought processes are predicable and easy to read).


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

_Ionic said:


> Yeah I guess we do, our own interpretations on what the perfect equilibrium is for us varies.
> 
> I'm saying that there are two interpretations for when a person is labeled "easy". One applies for sex, implying that person is easy to get into bed. The other applies for outside of sex, to say that person's thought process is easy to read and predictable.
> 
> So when playing hard to get, it doesn't necessarily mean weeding out people who want to get laid easily but to things related outside of sex (such as weeding people who's thought processes are predicable and easy to read).


Oh okay. I gotcha. Any ideas for trying to discern the other stuff quickly? 

I think that is a problem when there's too much... game, present. Kinda said this before, but you begin to associate them with these emotions and mind games that maybe aren't really indicative of who they are as a person.


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Veggie said:


> Oh okay. I gotcha. Any ideas for trying to discern the other stuff quickly?
> 
> I think that is a problem when there's too much... game, present. Kinda said this before, but you begin to associate them with these emotions and mind games that maybe aren't really indicative of who they are as a person.


Idk honestly how to discern the other stuff. But isn't that the beauty of it though? Dating wouldn't be much without the mind games right?

But I also get your point. I think that fear stems from the fact that people just don't want their emotions toyed with. But that's why we play hard to get, to weed out those people.

I think it's also important to distinguish what are healthy mind games and what are negative ones and when is being played. Negative mind games being in the form of manipulation. That's what I think keeps a relationship alive and fun, healthy mind games.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

_Ionic said:


> Idk honestly how to discern the other stuff. But isn't that the beauty of it though? Dating wouldn't be much without the mind games right?


Really, you can get certain vibes pretty quickly just by texting and what not, I think. This is probably officially getting overthink-y even for me. Haha. Think I'm gonna go see a movie and let my thoughts unwind


----------



## _Ionic (Jul 8, 2016)

Yeah I noticed that as well. Just by how they respond and when they respond can say alot. Like I didn't know there were various interpretations to when someone says hey or heyyy. Lmao totally blew my mind when hearing that. 

Lol I'm sorry If I mentally fried your brain. I just enjoyed our conversation as well as those with the other users on this thread. Nice to have a stimulating convo without the drama.
@Veggie


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

_Ionic said:


> Yeah I noticed that as well. Just by how they respond and when they respond can say alot. Like I didn't know there were various interpretations to when someone says hey or heyyy. Lmao totally blew my mind when hearing that.
> 
> Lol I'm sorry If I mentally fried your brain. I just enjoyed our conversation as well as those with the other users on this thread. Nice to have a stimulating convo without the drama.
> @Veggie


Oh no, I appreciated your contributions! Thanks 

Just need processing time or something. Seeing that movie Life that just came out about aliens.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

_Ionic said:


> Yeah that's why I look at the concept as playing hard to get a grey area.
> 
> It could be used as a tool of weeding out people who just want a one night stand with you or those not emotionally capable of holding a relationship (whether they be deemed too immature or not what you are looking for). In that sense, it's a great tool to protect your feelings from being exploited.
> 
> However in the other sense, it could be used as a manipulative tool. .


Psychological manipulation is a requirement via high-functioning complex; social-scenario(s) and affairs (e.g., relationship) -- and at best, needed to sustain (&) "_get along_" as we call it. It is only _deemed problematic_ when unethical (e.g., drugging / coercion) et al. The majority of individual(s) [if not all], are PUA's.

I have noticed (X)-individual(s) that try to reject psychological-manipulation(s) are deemed not _non_-relationship material. They seem rather misplaced; if not repulsed -- [Do not belong in the dating world/sphere], and must regroup (e.g., find their psychological manipulations / strategies), than resurface. I ran into this conflict, myself.

To (Post #1)
___________

The manipulation(s) I participate within *::*


(A) Physical manipulation (aesthetic appeal / (female-sex characteristic) suggestiveness -- (e.g., grooming / cosmetics / hygiene) manipulation-outlets).


(B) Emotional manipulation(s) (e.g., pyschological (personality)-testing / social-coaxing for information, et al).

(C) Demonstration above the others (e.g., Intellect / humor / "humble-bragging") (e.g., demonstrating I am a better selective choice than surrounding potential female(s)).



_____________


The _tests_ I do *::*

(X) Mental dexterity/psychological test (e.g., critiqued to my unique needs (e.g., DNA tests / mental tests (for crazies - or high-functioning pathologies, how (X)-specimen resolves, and productively the specimen handles complex problems (&) situations; anger, and emotional management. 

These can be done within games, as well, (minimal conflict or problematic /outlandish scenarios for reactions); to appease the other. However, I do not think it make(s) a difference.


(Y) Flexibility tests (e.g., personality-trait screening, health-screening (e.g., impaired mobilities / obesity, et al).


(Z) Disciplinary [and their reactions to it]. Those with low-functioning_ self-discipline_ are speculative of forming high-functioning _disciplined_ [monogamous] bonds.



___

Which entails ("hard to get"), until a decision is made. Such process occur(s) over a 3-6 month-span period of consistent "ambiguous" testing / manipulation(s) until the _egg is within the basket_. Reluctance to such manipulation(s) also indicates possibilities of being "left" barren during high-functioning complex [couple] problems.


One must submit to the chain(s) of manipulation for gains.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

*Thread under review - public discourse looks under control - will leave open while doing so.*


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

@Catwalk I understood maybe ten words of what you've written.
You must be so much fun to date


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

@Catwalk I understood maybe ten words of what you've written.
You must be so much fun to date


----------



## Parade of Sparrows (Mar 16, 2010)

Cast said:


> @Catwalk I understood maybe ten words of what you've written.
> You must be so much fun to date


You get used to it. After awhile it's a cake walk to read catwalk. She has quite valuable information a majority of the time.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Rock Of Ages said:


> "Are you playing a game with me? You know, I could always walk out this door right now. That's not a game."


I'd lmfao "See ya, then!"


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Kyn said:


> I'd lmfao "See ya, then!"


Your loss for playing games. 

But then again, we already know that you don't believe it's important to treat a date's emotions with even some basic respect. Sad!


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Rock Of Ages said:


> Your loss for playing games.
> 
> But then again, we already know that you don't believe it's important to treat a date's emotions with even some basic respect. Sad!


I said the same thing. Talking to a date that way isn't respectful either. Plus, I'd worry that you were very controlling and I run like the plague at that. Lol. (Also, I don't think I've read anything by Kyn that would indicate that she would be disrespectful herself?)

You never did answer my question about how the exclusivity talk goes down for you. Do you initiate? When do you have it?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Rock Of Ages said:


> Your loss for playing games.
> 
> But then again, we already know that you don't believe it's important to treat a date's emotions with even some basic respect. Sad!


Like Veggie said, I'd find that approach disrespectful. Threatening to walk is imo, an absolute last resort to a very serious issue after other approaches to compromise have failed. Using it regularly or straight off the bat like that is basically a form of emotional blackmail.
If a guy tried that before we'd even had sex, it would set off alarm bells. Telling him where the door is would be me setting my boundaries and making it absolutely clear that it's not going to work with me. I'm not saying that he would have necessarily blown it (although it's highly likely) but (regardless of how great he is), I won't bow down to that. 

If he feels manipulated he can discuss it with me and I can try to reassure him. If it's simply not having sex when we're dating which makes him feel manipulated, tough shit. I'll have sex with him only because I want to, not to reassure him that he's not being played.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Kyn said:


> Like Veggie said, I'd find that approach disrespectful. Threatening to walk is imo, an absolute last resort to a very serious issue after other approaches to compromise have failed. Using it regularly or straight off the bat like that is basically a form of emotional blackmail.
> If a guy tried that before we'd even had sex, it would set off alarm bells. Telling him where the door is would be me setting my boundaries and making it absolutely clear that it's not going to work with me. I'm not saying that he would have necessarily blown it (although it's highly likely) but (regardless of how great he is), I won't bow down to that.
> 
> If he feels manipulated he can discuss it with me and I can try to reassure him. If it's simply not having sex when we're dating which makes him feel manipulated, tough shit. I'll have sex with him only because I want to, not to reassure him that he's not being played.


He's admitted to believing in having sex quickly, ironically. That's why I asked about the exclusivity talk. It's just as inappropriate if that hasn't happened but sex is present.

Though true. Either way it feels like emotional blackmail. Even with a relationship in place, that's probably not the precedent to set.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

Thomas60 said:


> *Thread under review - public discourse looks under control - will leave open while doing so.*


Can my name be taken out of the original OP? She makes it seem like that's what I'm thinking when she was only "inspired" by something I said. Thanks, @Thomas60

I don't care if this thread is still on as long as my name gets taken out of it. I have @Veggie on block and couldn't care less how she and her clique perceive me. Unfortunately, the block button doesn't truly work because I still see their posts.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

theflame said:


> Can my name be taken out of the original OP? She makes it seem like that's what I'm thinking when she was only "inspired" by something I said. Thanks, @Thomas60
> 
> I don't care if this thread is still on as long as my name gets taken out of it. I have @Veggie on block and couldn't care less how she and her clique perceive me. Unfortunately, the block button doesn't truly work because I still see their posts.


It's not a bad thing, it's like being PerC famous. 
I wish I could be PerC famous :sad:


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theflame said:


> Can my name be taken out of the original OP? She makes it seem like that's what I'm thinking when she was only "inspired" by something I said. Thanks, @Thomas60
> 
> I don't care if this thread is still on as long as my name gets taken out of it. I have @Veggie on block and couldn't care less how she and her clique perceive me. Unfortunately, the block button doesn't truly work because I still see their posts.


For someone who wants me blocked you do an awful lot of mentioning me when I'm not talking to you. Not quite sure why you're here, either.

Not against the rules to mention members in threads if you're not spamming them. I really hope the mods don't do a personal favor for you given how you've been treating a number of forum members disrespectfully, including them, to be honest. Why this is still going on today I have no fucking clue.

This was one of the many posts I was inspired by, btw:

_"Like I said to those who "disagree" with what I say -- very few women like me left. Women these days just wanna give out free sex without the man needing to work for it, smh."_​
http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/1027722-having-self-respect-dignity-dating-5.html

Sounds like reason enough for inspiration to me!

Maybe be more careful with the things you say on a public forum if you don't want to be held accountable for them.


----------



## Parade of Sparrows (Mar 16, 2010)

Kyn said:


> It's not a bad thing, it's like being PerC famous.
> I wish I could be PerC famous :sad:


You're pretty famous.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Memory of Talon said:


> You're pretty famous.


Aww, thanks. :blushed:

I thought I was too, but then nobody else seemed to think so, which left me confused.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

*And for the record, for any mods up in here - at the time that I created this thread flame had liked a couple things I said elsewhere, I'd returned the favor, things didn't seem hostile, and I was just moving a discussion. She quickly made it known in the first two posts that she wasn't interested in that and I haven't pulled her back into the thread since - though she keeps showing up, even when I attempt to ignore her.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Cast said:


> @Catwalk I understood maybe ten words of what you've written.
> You must be so much fun to date


My post expound(s) on *high-functioning* _complex_; social affairs (e.g., relationships) that entail, if not_ require_, psychological manipulation (&) a _series of tests_ to certain degrees.

It sound(s) _worse_ (and less common) than it actually is; when on paper. [Or in text], however darling. Everything does.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Coming back to PerC like:


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

Veggie said:


> ...when you're actively dating the person.
> 
> Seems kinda contradictory, right?
> 
> ...



Thanks for this insight, into what I think will be my oppesite thinking at times , or dunno. I can have the same fears as well at times.

By what your saying I think of the term "Avoidant attachment style".. But then, what your saying is quite common.. few would want to just settle with anyone, or be totally thoughtless of having to having kids and all.


I am thinking you may actually be playing a game, we are often not so aware of them.. some would say we play them for a negative or positive payoff in a way, emotionally or other... that they are repetitive, and often to avoid intimacy..
Whenever we have difficult with something.
A innocent game can often be observed in one parents or other relationships, those things which they repetitively do. My dad can maybe setup a game in a way, where my mom then is chasing or after him, and they often end up smiling or laughing, tho sometimes it is not funny either, and one can ask why they don't just learn to do differently? For example maybe my dad can't wait with dinner, so he begins to eat something before dinner is ready, and he is like impatient little boy, which my mom then is after.. "poor boy can't wait".
He is expecting almost in a way that she tell him something... if she says or does anything differently, then the small game may not be so fun.


Games supposedly have a deja-vu quality... If you had something happen serveral times in life.

Some also define a game by that there.... errrr... must be a "hook" or bait, and a switch... dejavu is at the switch i believe.
I famous is example is "Why don't you.... yes but.." Where someone sends signals of almost wanting help or advice in a way, and person keeps trying to give options "Why don't you".. but always met with "Yes but..".
And the one giving advice may end up feeling bad for being unable to help, and the other confirmed in something else. etc.


Dunno what else to say... I sort of "base" or relaxing good secure feeling, is something you just got to have in a way.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Mirkwood said:


> By what your saying I think of the term "Avoidant attachment style".. But then, what your saying is quite common.. few would want to just settle with anyone, or be totally thoughtless of having to having kids and all.


What's interesting is that my attachment style used to more so be insecure. And I'd attract avoidant guys. Ironically though, as I've gained in self awareness and learned a bit about that cycle (it's a common pairing), I've realized that there's likely some shadow stuff going on. Like where I'm actually the avoidant one, and they're insecure. They get off on the insecure behavior as it provides them with a sense of security ("yea, she's crazy for this") and I appreciate the avoidant nature, because it doesn't feel like the quick and easy commitment that I'm afraid of. 

Maybe this is why I have the problem I mentioned earlier in the thread. With dudes coming around like - where are you? This is where you're supposed to follow and reassure me (them). But I don't want to play _that_ game anymore. It feels degrading.


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

Veggie said:


> What's interesting is that my attachment style used to more so be insecure. And I'd attract avoidant guys. Ironically though, as I've gained in self awareness and learned a bit about that cycle (it's a common pairing), I've realized that there's likely some shadow stuff going on. Like where I'm actually the avoidant one, and they're insecure. They get off on the insecure behavior as it provides them with a sense of security ("yea, she's crazy for this") and I appreciate the avoidant nature, because it doesn't feel like the quick and easy commitment that I'm afraid of.
> 
> Maybe this is why I have the problem I mentioned earlier in the thread. With dudes coming around like - where are you? This is where you're supposed to follow and reassure me (them). But I don't want to play _that_ game anymore. It feels degrading.


Both the anxious and avoidant are called insecure attachment.

I will tell some I can recall from memory..

*The anixous: *
Has feelings very bubbly to surface. Rarely a takes any half measure with feelings, it's all out.
High on self-disclosure, telling life story to a stranger quickly.
Takes long time to get over relationship.
Plunges into expressing feelings.
Maybe compliment and gift giving rain
Cling for more feedback

*The avoidant:*
Is more about keeping feelings down, not so bubbly.
Lower on self-disclosure, even manages a lot.
Is often even relieved when ending relationship, and surprisingly easily get on.
Slams the emotional brakes when something arise.
Remembers less, because spending time not wanting feelings.
Withdraw from others when uncertain.


Both not dealing that well with feelings, in each their way. Both concerned about intimacy and such.

When two avoidants meet they say, it may be nice for them, but they don't have the "glue" to keep together or how to say.
The "secure" maybe seeks to others when there is some kind of trouble, or needed reassurance, but that the avoidant doesn't like so much maybe.
The anxious may feel bored with the secure, because not being trigger?, to always activate their attachment. And so on.


I didn't totally get the last part you wrote, guys say "where are you?" ... Where you stand with them and relationship?.
And you want to be reassured instead?... or.... you deny reassuring them?.
The anxious often just wants a bit of reassurance, not to talk all the time maybe, but to know there is a connection.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Mirkwood said:


> I didn't totally get the last part you wrote, guys say "where are you?" ... Where you stand with them and relationship?.
> And you want to be reassured instead?... or.... you deny reassuring them?.
> The anxious often just wants a bit of reassurance, not to talk all the time maybe, but to know there is a connection.


Yea, you're right. Anxious is what I meant. 

Um... so, yea. It's kinda like there's this reversal. Where I'm the glue at first, and they're maybe difficult to schedule with, difficult to communicate with, so I get frustrated and withdraw completely. They'd let it sit, but then come back around when it was obvious that I wasn't going to continue to accommodate that behavior and that I was really gone. Which I guess is what I meant by beating down my door in a previous post. Then voila. Relationship. (Though these patterns would sometimes continue once one was established. I've never had a relationship that felt truly committed).

Only now, if I've gone, that behavior doesn't win me back. Like imagine a rom-com where the woman is about to get on the plane, and the dude does some last minute - "I screwed up! Don't do it!" - but instead she just stares at him blankly, and gets on the plane. LOL. 

So, I think I've actually adopted a lot of the avoidant traits, or maybe they were there all along or something - and I'm now owning rather than projecting them? Or maybe some sort of transference happened, I don't know. 

So yea, how to communicate that I will get on that damn plane? Haha. While also trying to provide the glue to get something started. How to balance it is the question I guess.


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Yea, you're right. Anxious is what I meant.
> 
> Um... so, yea. It's kinda like there's this reversal. Where I'm the glue at first, and they're maybe difficult to schedule with, difficult to communicate with, so I get frustrated and withdraw completely. They'd let it sit, but then come back around when it was obvious that I wasn't going to continue to accommodate that behavior and that I was really gone. Which I guess is what I meant by beating down my door in a previous post. Then voila. Relationship. (Though these patterns would sometimes continue once one was established. I've never had a relationship that felt truly committed).
> 
> ...


Sounds like you read a bit of psychology related material , since you also mention transference, a psychoanalytic term.


So at first you feel like your the glue holding things together, the one being active.. but you get fed up with that.. and then... like some rubberband effect?, they come around. And they beat down your door, begging, apologizing?, and then maybe have relationship. 
But the pattern can seem to continue once established.



They say the anxious can play busy, when being upset about other person maybe not being responsive.. You know, waiting just as long time or more than it took them to reply.


To be honest I am a bit lost , I dunno exactly what you mean always. Also I am a bit lazy because i haven't read all posts in thread. 

Being "free", autonomous, while having someone intergrated "glued", is one of the biggest tasks in life. A balance as you mention.

You could maybe for example look at the bond we have with parents, and how we feel and handle that when moving away to make it on our own.
Some feel very secure about that they can always come and go. They don't feel guilty about moving away, or there being problem with it. They don't feel the need to shut them out or other to feel like they can be themselves. 

In relationships people can feel like they get themselves lost, or bad about doing something on their own aswell. When the best would be that you feel very relaxed and secure about the relationship, sure you can get anxious and missing person and such, but your very tight.


Which plane? , a vacation?. You can give a kiss or something, and say when your back maybe, write a little home. And both be excited to get back together.


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

double post


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Hmm, I didn't get this notification for some reason... Anywho 



Mirkwood said:


> So at first you feel like your the glue holding things together, the one being active.. but you get fed up with that.. and then... like some rubberband effect?, they come around. And they beat down your door, begging, apologizing?,


Eh, not really. I'm having a hard time describing it. lol. I've never been the only person active, or even mostly so. I won't do that. I guess it just kinda hits a plateau or something. And no, there's no begging or apologizing, because they haven't really done anything wrong, per se. 



Mirkwood said:


> Which plane? , a vacation?. You can give a kiss or something, and say when your back maybe, write a little home. And both be excited to get back together.


The plane was just kind of a continuation of the rom-com analogy. I.e. it doesn't matter how rocky the relationship starts, so long as there's a big gesture or something at the end, even if the person is moving on (is that what it symbolizes? huh, lol) it's salvageable. That does kind of indicate that there's also an apology though, which I said isn't really the case, so it might not have been the best comparison. 

It's more just like the ship has sailed? Before my ships didn't really sail. Now for whatever reason though, once my feelings towards something are gone, they're gone. It doesn't even have to be that anything bad happened - maybe it was just inactivity. So I wouldn't tell someone to write home at that point because I wouldn't want them to. If anything I'd tell them to lose my number. lol. 

So I guess I don't like wasted potential. So how to avoid things getting to that point when it's there? 

Idk. Maybe past situations were supposed to get to that point and timing has just been off for good reason.


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Hmm, I didn't get this notification for some reason... Anywho
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, i know, something messed up, eventho i posted the thread didn't go to the top of list either.


Omg, we speak much in metaphors, analogys, symbols and what not  I am not sure if it always is a help.
You got a shipyard ?, where you built bad ships that didn't sail? (this isn't suppose to mean anything, just making bit of fun)

You're feelings fade out?. You need to be chased?.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Mirkwood said:


> Omg, we speak much in metaphors, analogys, symbols and what not  I am not sure if it always is a help.
> You got a shipyard ?, where you built bad ships that didn't sail? (this isn't suppose to mean anything, just making bit of fun)


No, I have a shipyard where good ships are built that do sail  But there isn't a couple on board when they do. Haha.



Mirkwood said:


> You're feelings fade out?. You need to be chased?.


Yea, feelings fade and I guess I do kinda need to be chased to some degree. And that's hard to balance before feelings have faded to ultra dim. Maybe that's the opposite of how it should happen, and you're supposed to let feelings grow. But if someone isn't persistent in that, I won't be either, and they likely never will (grow).

I guess I know I need to stop with that pattern, but I don't know what starting a relationship looks like otherwise. I definitely know that it doesn't look like a reversal to that, though (I'm chasing). And some versions of hard to get feel that way to me, ironically.


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

Veggie said:


> No, I have a shipyard where good ships are built that do sail  But there isn't a couple on board when they do. Haha.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So it is a fantasy shipyard ? , or?.

Everyone likes feeling chased a bit i think, or to chase. But it also gets tiresome, and you just want to be together and know the person is there, and all.
To take it literally, then for example when i was a kid, and we play chase, id just get tired sometimes, maybe give up and let em catch me, which they maybe not think is so fun then.
I can't help but to think of how it is spoken about that there is a natural high in the beginning of a relationship, and ofcourse there will be.. like anything or anyone new, then it's new and interesting.. but we also like the familar. I mean, I doudt i like if some woman came in my room shouting and raving, throwing stuff around, calling out animal names.. has frogs for dinner or something.

I think it is more than just letting feelings grow at times.. For example, you can arrange a nice vacation, to watch a movie together or something. I mean, naturally, not so cliche.

Some also talk about having some deeper shared meaning.. tho i also think at times it's just good being together.

Hmm... and there will just be grey areas maybe... but it need not be a bad sign.


----------



## DualGnosis (Apr 6, 2013)

Veggie said:


> Well I don't play it, but it's not a game. lol. If anything, I think guys sometimes think they have me in the bag when they don't. This has happened before, where something kinda ends... and then when the dude realizes I'm not going to contact him - he keeps showing up, but it's killed for me. Like pulse is gone, it's in the ground, there is no chance of resurrection. Despite what rom com's teach you. If the needing it to feel good thing (hence why I don't like "playing" hard to get - it feels forced to me) is a seven thing, maybe that's an INFJ thing? I can't explain when a Ni synapse snaps, but. It's like there's no going back. Apparently I'm stubborn. "Bull headed" I've been told - since I was a kid. But if it's been going on that long maybe I should just accept that it's who I am to a degree and try to work with it? lol.
> 
> Maybe I'm asking if there's a way to play hard to get? But without doing the whole you have to pursue me but really by doing this I'm pursuing you? But play as in like... it's fun too. God, I don't know what I'm asking :laughing: But like... how to communicate that just because things are fun and friendly and I'll sleep with you... you don't have me yet? Before the death march has taken place. One of my strategies now I'm realizing is to do something crazy xD It's a subconscious move, but I kinda love her (my subconscious) for it.
> 
> To start maybe... what do you view as someone playing hard to get? Like what are their moves?


I'm sorry but what you wrote was kind of hard to follow so I'm not exactly sure how to reply other than your last question. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, because I'm the same way, but I'm just informing you.

I view someone as playing hard to get as basically a dick tease (or a clit tease if i was a girl?). Essentially it's someone who is flakey, likes to back out at the last minute, uses very indirect language but borderline flirty language, invites you to her room (or goes with you to your room) at night but doesn't want to put out, but even after all of this still talks to me like it's normal and seems like she's still interested. 

I know what you're thinking, "just because I bring a guy to my room doesn't mean I want to sleep with him." I say to girls like that, "you're a sadist. you know damn well I want to bone your brains out. so why invite me here?"



> I think I've also developed this fantasy where the stars align and the sky parts and Romeo appears and it's love at first sight and we don't have to question it because our mutual relationship begins the moment we lock eyes. I'll let you know if that happens and works out :laughing:


LOL, well I mean if that's what you're looking for. Good Luck. 



> "Going for it" turns me off. So why would I go for what turns me off?
> 
> Seriously, every relationship I've been in the guy started beating down my door at some point. But I don't think that's realistic anymore at my age and with the dating scene set up how it is. At least not that he would be someone I'd be equally attracted to too.
> 
> What in your opinion is a girl "going for it" though, I guess out of curiosity?


LOL, how does a 'going for it' turn you off? I mean what does 'going for it' mean to YOU?

I picture a girl who is "going for it" as someone who is NOT a dick tease and is decisive in her actions (albeit that's pretty hard to find). Women who know what they want and will say yes or no, after a certain point.



Veggie said:


> @*DualGnosis* - and I guess I should specify... specifically in dating?
> 
> Because with dating you have to pass the ball back and forth in a way that kinda interrupts how I'd normally behave, I think.
> 
> I don't know - do you formally date? It's very different than when you're in circumstances that kinda naturally push you together.


I will confess to you that I haven't formally dated a.k.a. been in a serious relationship in a very long time. But if I were, I would simply follow my own advice and be straightforward with my feelings and my intentions. Dating in my opinion has become so ambiguous (at least in western society) that it's become a general term to encompass everything between single and engaged. It's essentially whatever you consider yourself in association with someone you have interest in and that you have seen more than once. Basically dating does not always mean a relationship, but a relationship does mean you're dating. Idk, I'm confusing myself.

Have I answered your questions?



> :crazy:


:wink:


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Mirkwood said:


> So it is a fantasy shipyard ? , or?.


Just a shipyard. Lol.



Mirkwood said:


> Everyone likes feeling chased a bit i think, or to chase. But it also gets tiresome, and you just want to be together and know the person is there, and all.


I don't know if I "just want to be together" - I really, honestly, enjoy being a free spirit. 



Mirkwood said:


> I think it is more than just letting feelings grow at times.. For example, you can arrange a nice vacation, to watch a movie together or something. I mean, naturally, not so cliche.


You can also do those things by yourself or with whomever on a whim  Why specifically this person if strong feelings aren't there yet (or anymore)? I get doing it when the commitment's already in place, because you've made the promise on some level to nurture the relationship and it's already proven worth it in some way - but when you haven't?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Testing? Post is not showing up.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

DualGnosis said:


> I view someone as playing hard to get as basically a dick tease (or a clit tease if i was a girl?). Essentially it's someone who is flakey, likes to back out at the last minute, uses very indirect language but borderline flirty language, invites you to her room (or goes with you to your room) at night but doesn't want to put out, but even after all of this still talks to me like it's normal and seems like she's still interested.
> 
> I know what you're thinking, "just because I bring a guy to my room doesn't mean I want to sleep with him." I say to girls like that, "you're a sadist. you know damn well I want to bone your brains out. so why invite me here?"


Oh, okay. Yea, I specifically said that this isn't about being a dick tease or purposefully withholding sex. Lol.



DualGnosis said:


> LOL, how does a 'going for it' turn you off? I mean what does 'going for it' mean to YOU?


I don't know. Him initiating the exclusivity talk, I guess. I don't want to do that. I wouldn't be able to trust or have faith in the relationship, and I wouldn't feel excited about it.



DualGnosis said:


> I picture a girl who is "going for it" as someone who is NOT a dick tease and is decisive in her actions (albeit that's pretty hard to find). Women who know what they want and will say yes or no, after a certain point.


I'm not a dick tease, but I'm not always, or maybe even usually, decisive in my actions otherwise. Feels and all.


----------

