Wednesday, March 15, 2006

The Only Way to Win is Not to Play at All

Desperate Guy recently wrote about the conflicting advice he gets from readers. Last night, we were talking about it and he said the difference between him and me is that I tend to pay more attention to the advice I get (though not necessarily follow it, mind you).

Some of the observations have been pretty spot on: I should take more time for myself, I should take a much slower pace when it comes to dating, and I should be more expressive about who I am and what I want with someone I am going out with. While some of these points may not have been brought on in the most tactful way, I recognize their validity.

I have to say, I have gotten some advice I don't agree with lately. Manipulating a guy I am dating into falling in love with me? I don't think so. Taking a random nice guy I just met and developing a relationship with him? It doesn't work that way; it takes two people and a natural emotional and physical progression of sorts. Using sneaky tactics to compete with another woman for the attentions of a man? No fucking way.

The thing is, I am no stranger to this type of competition. In college one of my best friends (let's call her Clarissa) and I became interested in the same guy, Broody Artist. He was a good friend and ex-boyfriend of a mutual friend, Stripper Sally. Broody Artist told Stripper Sally he was interested in both of us. Clarissa and I would then get into passive-aggressive arguments about who liked him more. Even years later, she emphasized how she really liked him. Well, so did I, but somehow I think she wanted to believe her feelings were stronger.

At one point, I told Clarissa, "All's fair in love and war." Cheesy line as it is, at the time, I believed it. I was 19 and hardly an expert on dating and relationships (to say nothing of friendships).

There was a holiday break and Clarissa and I went home. Stripper Sally was having a party that weekend, which Broody Artist would be attending. Knowing that Clarissa would be out of town, I made an effort to return a couple of days early to go to the party. Broody Artist and I ended up making out in the kitchen for ages. I was thrilled.

I told Clarissa about it when she returned and her feelings were hurt. Broody Artist and I only dated for a couple of weeks, which ended miserably. Clarissa ended up dating him after me, for several months, which also ended miserably. In the meantime, she said that incident made her trust me less.

I don't regret taking a more aggressive stance and dating Broody Artist. Regardless of Clarissa's claims of how much she liked him, I liked him a lot, too, and I know she would have done the same thing if she had been at Stripper Sally's party that night. What I do feel remorse for is that this guy, who wasn't even worth it, put a dent in our friendship.

This is what made me realize how stupid it is to compete for a guy. Which isn't to say I sit in the corner and don't make myself known to him at all. No way, I present my best, brightest, most flirtatious self. I just let him make the final choice.

Taking the high road instead of playing catty has worked for me almost every time. For example, once I met a hot architect in a bar (our eyes actually met across the room and we smiled; it was so sweet) and spent ages flirting with him. One of my "friend's" came over to say good night, but instead spent a good ten or fifteen minutes trying to flirt with him. I was tempted to give her a surreptitious what-the-hell-are-you-doing kick or nudge, but I held back. I decided that this was a grown man who could make up his own mind and if he decided he liked my friend more, so be it. Finally, she ran out of things to flirt about and went home. I ended up bar hopping with the guy and we made out in a phone booth until the wee hours. In the meantime, my friend revealed an unpleasant side of herself and (for many reasons) I am actually no longer friends with her.

I have gotten criticism that I should have stayed on with Coldplay Guy (and by the way, I refuse to give guys numbers and call them HG's or HS's or anything like that) and Drunk Latina. That I should have blown her out by whatever tactics were necessary to lower her social value. You know what? Any guy who would want a woman who would scheme and use underhanded tactics to get his attention is not a man I'd want to be with. I show my interest and make whatever connection I can make, but I am not going to be sneaky or overtly flirtatious or plot tactical maneuvers as if I'm fighting a war. Dating might be considered a war or some kind of game, but love isn't. Playing dirty is not my style and if I miss out on a man or two by taking the high road, I am quite sure those men aren't worth it. As it is, I've done pretty well for myself.

When I was a little girl, I used to read Archie comics. I was baffled by the love triangle between Archie and Veronica, the rich, conniving bitch, and Betty, the wholesome, loyal sweetheart. Deep down, I understood why Archie would be drawn to Veronica: she was sexier, more exciting. With time, I realized that he could never have anything long-lasting or meaningful with Veronica, because she was too selfish and mean-spirited. Sooner or later, he'd see the value in Betty and realize she was the girl to build a future with. Veronica was the girl you fucked, but Betty was the girl you married.

These days, I'm trying to be less Veronica, more Betty.

41 comments:

Larissa said...

Yeah I'm in the Betty camp too. I've been in the same situation in which a friend and I competed for a guy. Yeah he was a jerk for playing us off each other, but we were stupid in even competing for someone who would do that in the first place.

dsp said...

i agree with you about the manipulation part. sorry, i misinterpreted the situation.

i just want to say that whether you were manipulating that guy or not, you did exactly what was needed to attract him, whether you wanted it or not.

just a simple law of attraction.

pawlr said...

Dolly - Interesting post. Its curious, though that you don't draw a distinction between competing for a guy with a friend (Clarissa), which I totally understand not being ethical/worthwhile, and competing for a guy with an anonymous stranger (HBLatina). Also you're not in love with Coldplay yet so I'm not sure why you're balking on using what you call "underhanded tactics" with him. Without allowing yourself the ethical room to compete with such tactics, there pretty much is no "Game", as I understand it, although I could be missing something here.

Also, not sure I understand why it's not using equally underhanded tactics to, say, "Be more Betty" on purpose under certain circumstances? You're still altering your presentation of "Self" in order to obtain an objective.

From your previous comments, I know you hate "The Rules" and I think I understand why, but it seems that "Being Betty" also implies using some techniques from "The Rules", which, as a male, I have to admit actually does work pretty well on guys to rope them into LTRs. For what its worth.

Anyway, I hope you realize these questions are all meant respectfully and are made in good faith. And based on your reports, you are absolutely doing fine and don't need advice to have a great life, that's for sure.

CoatMan said...

Honour is a very attractive quality: if a person can be deceitful and ruthless to get a man interested, then, a rational man might ask, why should she not be equally deceitful and ruthless with him whenever it might suit her? Any early-filterer worth his salt would realise that and run a mile.

Dolly said...

Larissa,
Ugh, a guy who used your situation to his benefit is definitely not somebody you want.

DSP,
I don't think you misinterpreted the situation, I think you're one of the ones that got it. You're right, I didn't show myself to be needy, because I wasn't. I made my interest known, but made it clear I wasn't going to jump through hoops to get to him. I don't know why the others critisized me when he has been calling and emailing me since then.

Pawlr,
You're right, there's a difference between competing for a man with a friend and with a stranger. My friends and I know better than to do that now and are likely to call dibs. As for "being more Betty", it's not altering myself to present a woman who is fun and sweet and not going to play games. That's actually who I am. Also, I think using Rules tactics would mean being more Veronica: strategizing (not returning his calls, not accepting dates that are less than a few days away, etc.) and manipulating is not Betty.

Coatman,
You classify me as a late filterer and I'm not sure I agree. I think being a middle filterer is best, because this way you give people a chance, but you don't spend too much time on the unsuitable candidates. Something I'm learning is to be flexible about things I used to believe to be dealbreakers. You are willing to write a woman off for smoking and that's your perogative, but that's an area I think people are a bit too harsh in ruling others out. It's almost like your tempting fate to introduce an amazing woman into your life... who happens to smoke.

CoatMan said...

Dolly: I wrote that article a little while ago, and based my classification of you as a "late filterer" on the posts that you were making around that time. Middle filterer: hmm, an interesting concept of which I had not thought. How does one calibrate a middle filterer? When does middle blur into either early or late? Are there late/middles and early/middles? Could one not go on for ever?

As to smoking, I definitely stand by filtering on that ground. Anybody who smokes is not only a drug addict (it is of minimal relevance that, unfortunately, tobacco is not illegal), and therefore not fully in control of her own mind (extremely unattractive), does something regularly that I find overpoweringly unpleasant and detrimental to my health if I am anywhere near her, but demonstrates the capacity for catastrophically bad lifestyle choices and general irresponsibility that, taken together, constitute more red flags than one would find at the convention of the Chinese Communist Party. Also, it would be far too unpleasant to think that someone about whom I cared was causing herself such extreme damage so very often.

Psyneh said...

Something I've found that works is being a mix of both, it kinda makes you unpredictable.. and skitzo :D

CoatMan said...

An addendum (oh, to be able to edit comments): the difference between early filtering and late filtering is not just the difference between being picky and not being picky: it's also (and, actually, more) the difference between making a point of finding out whether certain otherwise latent dealbreakers or significant attractors are present before taking the decision to commence even the earliest stages of a romantic relationship (viz., a first date, or even flirting).

A late-filterer can be just as picky, but do the picking in relation to non-obvious characteristics after the machinations of a relationship have already started, i.e. after a few dates, or even after sex (not to be confused with people, who may be early or late filterers, who embark on relationships that are intended from the start to be merely casual). As I mentioned in my original post, some leave it so late as not to have much effective filtering at all for the non-obvious character traits, which is no doubt why people marry wife (and husband) beaters.

It is quite possible for a late-filterer to be pickier overall than an early-filterer. The important difference is not in what the criteria are, but the stage at which they are imposed to determine whether any given relationship (whether putative or already extant) is worth pursuing.

marrow-from-harrow said...

I would suggest that the overriding factor in all cases is how beautiful they are.

Dolly said...

Coatman,
I prefer non-smokers myself, but have found myself really liking guys who happen to be smokers and not being fazed by it. Of course, I respect that it's a strict no-no for you. As for the early/late filterer thing, I think it comes back to a common theme in this blog, of looking for reasons to say yes. It sounds like you have this negative mentality where you are looking to cross girls off your list instead of giving them a chance. I'm not saying you are close-minded or anything, I was an early filterer, too, and maybe sometimes still am. I just try to be more open to new experiences or people. For example, I never thought I'd be able to date a man who had a child and if I had a relationship with TV Tyler, it would be difficult, but I don't think impossible. I have expanded my dating boundaries by giving more people a chance. Though the drawback is, as you pointed out, it can get time-consuming. I'm just hoping that my instincts will kick in and the next time I fall for someone, he'll be a really great guy.

Marrow,
Sigh. It all comes down to replication value, doesn't it.

jo said...

i love how you compared real life with archie comics. i haven't thought bout that in a while and now that you've mentioned it, you're right. i've always rooted for betty. the nice sweet girl who has to share her man with her best friend.

lately i'm sorta in a situation where i have to 'compete' for a guy with my friend. i've never been in such a situation before. and after the whole initial weirdness thing, i think i'm dealing with it all remarkably well. we're still friends. even though i suspect that things will always be a lil bit different but we'll get over that.

The Asian Playboy said...

I prefer to compete.

Placing a moral impetus on an activity that, at it's very core, is a competitive sport is a labor in delusion and moral grand standing, no offense.

That's why there are wingrules, to maximize people's efforts. One of the most basic is: He who approaches first, gets first pick.

Rubik said...

I'm leaning towards the asian playboy's thinking on this one.

PUH-LEASE. EVERYTHING is a manipulation. Let's list a few:

- female makeup
- female hairstyles
- sexy clothes
- showing cleavage
- flirting

Screw dating, let's back out further.

- TV commercials
- getting your kids to pick up their room
- getting your husband to take out the trash
- getting your wife to have sex with you
- getting your boss to give you a raise
- keeping your friends liking you
- apologizing for something you've done wrong

"Manipulation" perhaps has a negative sound to it. So forget that word.

You are trying to evoke a reaction, sway an opinion, cause an effect.

These posts to each other, are manipulations to sway opinion to our way of thinking.

When you interact with another being, you are manipulating each other.

I had a first date today. I was nice to her. She was nice to me. We were manipulating each other to try to get the other to like us.

For instance, when you greet someone (friend, whoever), not only smile, but raise your eyebrows. It manipulates the other person into thinking you are friendly. Men give a firm handshake. It manipulates the other person into a feeling that you have fortitude.

Regarding early and late filtering, that leans towards the romantic self-torturing of the eternal search for "the one". Even if you meet "the one" there's a 50% chance you'll get a divorce. There's also the distinct chance that you will NEVER meet the one, and you've spent your ENTIRE LIFE depressed, torturing yourself ("WHERE ARE YOU?!!") , and alone with your mental images of idealized greek gods and goddesses.

I say, get any loving and intimacy from anywhere you can get it. We only go around once on this earth, my friends. What are you going to do? Spend years and years going without? Coatman, are you saying that you either want "the ultimate love" or nothing at all?

Good luck with that...

You're torturing yourself with thoughts of "the one". "The One" is Hollywood bullshit that we've all bought into. Goddamn Walt Disney and "Cinderella". I hope he rots in his fucking grave. It's fucked us all up. That and every chick flick on earth.

I suggest the superior mindset is to believe "the one" does NOT exist, and if something great falls into your lap, SPECTACULAR! If not, you did the best you could with what came along.

Or more importantly, you did the best you could with the other humans who were just as fucked up and imperfect as you were.

Heavy filtering is BAD. You can weed out some TRULY great people, fun times, and human bonding (not just sexually, but spiritually and with ideas as well) on some level even if it isn't at "the ultimate" level just because you have some spectacular idealized "dream girl" in your head that no one could ever live up to.

I say always go with the best option you have on hand AT THE TIME. And don't torture yourself with no loving at all because you're waiting for your idealized dream.

Rubik said...

Another analogy to illustrate the mindset I suggest.

When I go to the theater, I go into EVERY movie with low expectations and think it's going to suck.

If it sucks, I walk out neutral. I was prepared. If it was great, FANTASTIC.

This is as opposed to going into a VERY GOOD movie but thinking it's going to be AMAZING. You walk out disappointed. If you went in with low expectations (it's gonna suck), you would have walked out pleased (it was very good!)

I say go through life with low expectations (i.e. "the one" does NOT exist) and be surprised by the nice people that are around you.

Go in with heavy filtering (go into the first date wondering are you "THE ONE"?!!), and you'll be disappointed every time, pissed at the world, and have to masturbate yourself at home.

Years later you are a bitter, miserable, self-tortured wretch no one wants to be around.

coasta said...

Rubik, I agree with your opinion about filtering, but not with:

>I say go through life with low expectations

In life, you tend to get what you ask for....if you don't expect much, you won't get much.

It's better to always expect the best, and then learn to live with or enjoy what does come your way regardless.

It's about having enough emotional maturity to control how you feel about any given situation.

I've found that many people who filter extensively tend to have a cynical or negative outlook on many things in their lives. Either that or they reject people out of fear....a fear of taking risks in this area of their life. These scenarios are certainly not always the case, but it's just something I've noticed.

Rubik said...

Hi Coasta,

I agree you get what you ask for with things like raises and stuff.

And you can ask for fun, sex, conversation, or whatever you want from a particular person.

But you can't ask for "The One". You can't appeal to the eternal void that they magically appear.

So I suppose my low expectation is that I will never meet the One. Then I won't live with daily disappointment.

pookalu said...

years ago, when i experienced this "competition amongst friends," a male friend explained to me the term 'cock block.' i couldn't believe i was getting cock blocked by my friend. is there a feminine equivalent to this term?

i didn't know that it existed amongst friends, maybe i'm just naive.

and i completely agree with you, dolly, it's not worth it to destroy a friendship for a man, hands down. but then again, men seem to think it's a healthy and normal part of dating, or of conquest.

as for my getting cock blocked by my friend -- i am still friends with her, but it's definitely a more strained relationship.

pawlr said...

I think 'cockblocking' works as a phrase for both sexes, for males, its your own cock getting blocked. For females, its the prospective incoming cock getting blocked. Of course, there's always 'cuntblocked' if you prefer, but I don't.

Transformer said...

"I say, get any loving and intimacy from anywhere you can get it. We only go around once on this earth, my friends. What are you going to do? Spend years and years going without?...

...Or more importantly, you did the best you could with the other humans who were just as fucked up and imperfect as you were."

Asian Playboy:

Fine, fine words to live by. If more people thought like this, there'd probably be so much more peace in the world.

That may seem like a stretch to some, but I'm really feeling the love from this quote.

Sam Fisher said...

Love the blog, not really a commenty type person but a few things from APB and rubik got me thinking/depressed. So here goes;

Manipulate:

1 : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
2 : to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose

Consequently being nice to somebody if you are in fact a nice person is NOT manipulation.

One size doesn't fit all, early/late filtering, game/no game. Play the game, good luck to you, but dont try to fool yourself extensive mind manipulation and totally false represenation of self is the same thing as a bit of lipstick.

Dolly said...

Jo and Pookalu,

I have learned the hard way how much damage competing for a guy can do to a friendship and it's something I hope never to get involved with again. There's a kind of awkwardness and betrayal that is terribly unpleasant, regardless of which end you are on (the one who gets the guy or loses him).

Sam,
Thank you. That is the perfect rebuttal. I think there are some seduction techniques that are employed for self-improvement, and I support those, but the ones that are more about gaining power and manipulating the outcome of a situation are the ones that give me pause. It's important to recognize the difference.

Rubik said...

I prefer the word "artful" in that definition ;)

The "end result" you have in mind is the true calibration for whether the manipulation is for the overall good of mankind.

I don't want to hurt these women. I want to love them and get love in return.

The goal of women is apparently to get a man of their choosing to give up all other women for them alone.

To which I say, PLEASE! Manipulate me into falling in love with you and thinking you're "the one"! I want to feel that so badly!

I'm begging you to! The same way you're begging me to do the same to you!

Dolly said...

Rubik,
Maybe it's a matter of semantics. Where you say "manipulate" I say "charm". Manipulation involves an element of deception, which is why I don't like that word.

Ultimately, we're all just trying to do the best with what we've got, right?

Rubik said...

oooo, charm. :)

Good word. And you're right about doing the best with what we have.

Thought of one more for the road.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
The mother says "the father is the head of the household, but the mother is the neck that points the head." Does she charm the father or manipulate him?

Also she says "be an angel in the kitchen and a tiger in the bedroom" or whatever variation on the cliche.
Charm or manipulation?

I do like that word "charm" and it works. Almost identical meaning, to me, anyway. Very feminine.

The "niceness" of the word is a manipulation in and of itself to the real underlying intent - to get them to like us.

;) LOL

pawlr said...

Questions about whether a given act is "charm" or "manipulation" are essentially moral ones. From a natural/biological drive point of view, which is "beyond good and evil" (Neitzche), these moral questions have no meaning. Deception has evolved to be a foundational component of our neural circuitry, and is a crucial part of a child's development of a "theory of mind". To deny ourselves the opportunity to exploit our genetic skills is to put ourselves at an evolutionary disadvantage in the struggle for replication.

Wrestling with these moral questions rarely happens for a person without Game, because they're complacent with their moral position - without power, there is no need to make moral choices. I know where I "draw the line" for the purposes of fitting in with society, but I also know internally that good and evil are simply artificial civilizing constructs built over a foundation that is billions of years in development.

Rubik said...

Nice, pawlr! Bullseye! Awesome, AWESOME post!

If Dolly were born and raised in Saudi Arabia, she could potentially be having moral dilemmas as to whether or not to expose her face!

Transformer said...

"I know where I "draw the line" for the purposes of fitting in with society, but I also know internally that good and evil are simply artificial civilizing constructs..."

Don't forget, so are societies and philosophies.

But, since they do exist in an agreed upon manner, it can be important to participate, i.e. fitting in.

Rubik said...

Fuck that! Like Dolly says, "if kissing boys is wrong, I don't want to be right" or whatever she said. I agree.

A person should forge their own moral compass, not be a sheep, and not allow others dictate how they should live.

Society blows!

Transformer said...

Yeah, Rubik, I'm agreeing with you and Pawlr. I'm just tossing out a reminder that everything we conceptualize is a construct, and we draw our lines to fit in (or not) however we want.

I will add you need to remember to be accountable for your decisions/actions. I think I'm adding that because it's been coming up for me lately in various ways.

pawlr said...

The key distinction here for me is existential - sure, transformer, I agree that it makes a great deal of sense to align your "self" within the context of conventional moralities, for the purpose of advancing to your goal. But the core "Self" is neither good nor evil; these are merely poses and constraints which the truly self-conscious individual is free to transgress or obey when deemed necessary.

Rubik said...

Amen brother!

Regarding Betty and Veronica, I want the hybrid. Betty with my parents, Veronica in the bedroom.

Also Betty wouldn't survive dating.

The following is totally a Veronica tactic that I agree with COMPLETELY.

This was an article on Match.com about confidence by Natalie Krinsky:

Confidence booster #2: Date in multiples
Yes, I said it, and I’ll say it again: Date more than one person at a time. Not only does it give you practice, which translates automatically into dating confidence, it also helps you avoid premature attachment to one particular person. “If you’re only focused on one person, desperation can set in,” explains New York City-based online dating expert Ron Geraci. “You are invested in making that one relationship work.” He sees online dating as a great tool for this and suggests keeping several possible partners going at once (at least initially)—“someone that you’re actually dating, someone you’ve arranged a date with, and someone that you’re talking to.” What’s more, when you’re a little less available to the people you are dating due to having other options, you may find that your dates work harder to get your attention—and that can be an automatic confidence booster, too.

---------

So now that it's a published article, it must be a society standard! Our society has shifted! It's OK to have a harem like it's OK for young women to exhibit lesbianism openly!

Woohoo!!

harem, harem, here I come! ;)

LOL!

Sean said...

good post. i'm in envy of your writing abilities. you've been sucking people in, and it's great to read the discussions you generate.

a+ for the betty/veronica thing. and i think that's a good, attainable goal

Charlie Brown said...

Competition is for guys, they're used to it and they congratulate the victor instead of bitching him.

We've got an overall better attitude towards competition. If you want a good demonstration, watch Elimidate.

Shangrila said...

How do guys like Archie meet a Veronica who is done with her Veronica ways?

What does Archie need to do to get Veronica's attention? What is he overlooking?

CoatMan said...

Charlie Brown: there's a great deal to be said for honour in rivalry.

pawlr said...

My thinking is: all females are both Betty and Veronica. Let her be Betty for awhile, and she will seek Veronica. Let them be Veronica for awhile, and Betty is on deck. And all of this is as it should be.

If you want to keep her, _never_ stop seducing her. Seduction is a lifelong project - don't think once you marry a female the courtship stops. Or, put another way, if you do stop the courtship after you're married, don't be surprised when she finds something better.

I think the #1 reason marriages fail is because couples "take each other for granted" - which means to me that at least one party falsely assumes that seduction is no longer a necessary component the relationship.

I also suspect that the belief in some abstract concept called "love" is basically laziness. A slovenly and disrespectful approach to the Other, because it places faith in an imaginary force that will allow both parties to simply "be" and be happy.

Guess what? There's no such thing.

Personally, I feel the same way about "Love" that I do about many conceptions of "God". Afraid of death? Here, have a beautiful afterlife. Afraid of your own dark impulses? Here, have an imaginary Hell to keep you in line. Feeling unloved? Here, have a phony idol that will love you no matter how many times you fuck up.

Here's a thought, with apologies to Heidegger: Being is death; only Becoming is life. Where there is no struggle between the sexes, there is no dynamic, and the erotic loses its ability to manifest. Desire in action is the only means available by which we get the girl, seduce the man, change our lives, or change the world. This eternal, Natural project is the one for which we were designed - so enjoy it in the little time we all have left.

Rubik said...

This is pretty late in this post, and probably nobody gives a fuck, but let's go down the rabbit hole.

Part of the reason these women are blogging is to find the TRUTH. This post will be full of truth (well, my truth) and may or may not set off a firestorm, but I'm going for it for the sake of interesting reading - which is why we're all here!

Let's face it guys, Dolly is Veronica and Kristin is Betty.

However, I submit the following:

Kristin (Betty) is the one you want to fuck because she is innocent and for some reason you want to defile her. Actually, I don't know that much about Kristin, but that's what I see so far. She's way to reserved.

However, Dolly (Veronica) is the one you want to marry. She plays video games. She's fun.

I have no use for virgins. Dolly has been there, gone through hell, slept with a bunch of guys, but is still fun and still slugging.

She's stronger than Kristin. I think she's developing more empathy for having gone through this. She's developing faster. She's an alpha woman.

I don't know what's up with Tyler or Adam. I think women like this are hard to find.

So no, Veronica is the one you want to marry. She's a survivor. She won't take shit. She's the one you want on your side in a crisis. She'll fuck your brains out. She's in reality.

Did anyone catch Snob's post "I Quit?" That's a woman who's too far the other way. Too hard. Completely jaded. Actually, I haven't read her blog in depth. Too boring. Who cares about food.

Actually maybe Snob is pure Veronica.

I guess Dolly is Veronica with maybe some inner core that is vulnerable. Very attractive. Which is why I'm sure so many guys, including myself, are here.

Any agreement?

LOL

This post is frigging hilarious.

Welcome to fame, Dolly...

I'll openly admit I find what Dolly portrays here attractive. But I have no desire to ever meet her.

I'll even admit my own blog is inspired by Dolly's blog. But Dolly (and the other girls) make a critical mistake. They didn't remain TOTALLY anonymous - which is what I plan to do.

I have no plans to ever meet any of you.

That allows one to go COMPLETELY down the rabbit hole and bare everything. Which is FANTASTIC reading. I think...

Eurosabra said...

I would also add that as a woman, you have a little bit more flexibility, in that a HG you're competing for can have BOTH of you on his mind at different times, for different types of encounters, whereas if two guys were going after Drunk Latina (say) in competition, she's going to go home with one and completely ignore the other. Getting a call from Coldplay guy would be much more palatable to you as well, if only because you're not going to be thinking of it as taking Drunk Latina's ahem, "sloppy seconds."

Horse said...

Hey, thought I should weigh in...

Your blog, your rules. I think the guys would be interested in hearing about your ratings, but, like I said.

Regarding competing: man, there is nothing underhanded about reminding a guy you are interested in him. I have gone home with girls that weren't my first choice because the one I was attracted to seemed to give up on me (still gave me dirty looks when I passed by with alternate girl though, so no complete loss of interest), so you know, that's the benefit of my experience. Maybe you don't want a guy like me though...

We just don't want to see you give up on something you want so easily is all. We have a vested interest in seeing you succeed, so take every opportunity to grow. We certanly don't want to put you on the defensive. I personally apologize for my tone. I'm trying to help and I'm trying to learn. It's a good process.

I don't advocate being sneaky at all. In fact, Juggler is my favorite PUA. Ask one of your friends (try mango) about which approach he advocates (think SOI's and vacuums), and you will know what I'm trying to say. Nothing underhanded, just touch him in a non-threatening manner, honestly tell him you like him and if he still goes home with HBlatina, then you lost. If he calls back, then remind yourself that he rejected you first (and he would again). Nothing underhanded about that, don't you agree?

In the aforementioned example, as I was leaving the bar, I told the girl, "you know, I'd rather be with you, but you made it hard for me to get to know you. maybe we both should have been more honest."

Any guy who would want a woman who would scheme and use underhanded tactics to get his attention is not a man I'd want to be with
I just want a girl who shows interest in me (whom I also value). You were criticized for not forcing the guy to choose between you and the latina and holding him accountable for it, that's all. That's what I meant by "competing for him."

Force him to choose, then hold him accountable for it. If, when I met you, there was a chance that I could love you, I would know immediately. The prospect of a threesome with Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Connelly wouldn't keep me out of your arms.

I didn't want you not to take a risk, when the payoff could be great. But if you gave him the opportunity to choose you and he chose her and now he's calling you, do you think maybe he's trying to have his cake and eat it too, so to speak?

Are you comfortable with that?

Blogger said...

I've just downloaded iStripper, so I can have the hottest virtual strippers on my taskbar.

Blogger said...

Looking for the Ultimate Dating Site? Join and find your perfect date.