Post-spandex?

Recently, I've started reading a number of blogs on a somewhat regular basis. Perhaps this is not surprising, as I also write for a blog. One blog I occasionally stumble upon is http://www.somethingtodoaftertheporn.com. While technically not a blog (see the explanation there), it still provides for some interesting reading. It's maintained by a guy from my high school class who has been doing fun Web stuff ever since opening a teacher evaluation web site and getting into a lot of trouble for it. (Back then, in 2000 or so, people our teachers' age didn't know that nothing is sacred on the Internet).

One link posted there that caught my attention is http://www.cakelovesyou.com. Apparently it's a clothing company run by three guys also from my high school. And if you liked spandex (or even if you didn't), you'll like some of their pictures.

So you know, small world.

Reality RPGs with women

Introduction

Over the past couple of weeks, I managed to meet a few girls. Although I don't want to suggest that anything beyond polite conversation was the result, I had an opportunity to think about different approaches one could take to woo one (or more) of them and decide which will be the most effective. Unfortunately, my brain tends to shut down when I'm trying to interact with just about anyone I don't know, especially women. But as an after-the-fact thought experiment, I think I did gather a few insights.

First, there are at least two categories of female-attraction strategies: the first one works with almost any woman, while the second may target certain insecurities, fears, likes, dislikes, or other personal traits. Of course, the first category is preferable because it works more reliably. It has to do with having (or pretending to have, which is essentially the same thing) a certain personality, what Ladder Theory parlance calls the "outlaw biker" type of character. Women are "automatically" attracted to such men because they exhume confidence, physical strength, and originality. Using a slightly different vocabulary, that of the current presidential campaign, they are "mavericks."

The second category of female-attraction strategies target women's less-basic and more varied needs. A woman may seek a man to fulfill a real or imagined need, or to have a teacher, a guide through life. It would seem that "fears" may fall under the first category as well as the second. The way to differentiate, here, is that first-category, more basic fears result from nature ("who will protect my offspring?"), while second-category fears appear during nurturing ("if I'm not married by 30, my mother will disown me"). Younger women who are considered adults (16-20, depending on the circumstances) may have various insecurities they tend to lose as they go through college or other such competitive environment. So it seems that second category strategies are especially effective for women under 21.

As a note, I'd like to point out that strategies within the second category tend to be mutually exclusive, in the sense that the man has to pick a role and stick to it, which means only a certain kind of woman will be affected at any one time. The first category, on the other hand, contains strategies which generally reinforce each other and, of course, appeal to a wide range of women. The two categories can also be used together.

It may be of some value to also categorize how women talk about other women. Clearly, there are the hot ones, who no one talks about except out of jealousy. They've been everywhere and done everything, but it is obvious and not worth pointing out. Then there are those who are known to be "loose" but are probably quite conservative. They just have a reputation for fun. They do enough to spark discussion among their friends but rarely, if ever, do anything outrageous. Then there are those who are neither hot nor "class clowns." They are not hot but also not conservative. They actually have a reputation among the men, having slept with all of them. And, last but not least, are the quiet ones. No one talks about them. They are not cool, although they could be the best homemakers or computer programmers.


Hypothesis

The biggest challenges of my experiment are 1) the window of opportunity for picking and acting out a strategy is tiny, basically minutes to hours. 2) how do I know which strategy will work with which woman?

Young Western women tend to like young Western men, in general. After only a few minutes of meeting someone new they may hug them or let themselves be seen in a bikini on the beach. It's a mystery to me when exactly, after meeting, various activities become "appropriate," and what needs to be done for the red line to move. (This also has to do with the Ladder Theory, but the temporal aspect is largely unknown and needs to be researched). My guess is that, because the woman places a man on the ladder almost immediately, first impressions are critical. But what else is critical? If they don't hold hands on a first date, does that mean certain kinds of touch are off limits for a much longer time than if they did hold hands? What is acceptable? What is a yes-or-no issue, and what can the woman be convinced of? Unfortunately, this topic remains a mystery to me.

To answer #2, I would like to propose that better-looking women are more interested in the same thing, ie, better-looking guys, the physical stuff. For intelligent conversation they can always turn to intellectual whores (also cf. Ladder Theory). This is reinforced by the fact that better-looking women tend to be healthier (either because in a man's eyes healthy=beautiful or because beautiful=healthy. Which causes the other doesn't matter). Hotter women wear less clothing, don't get tired as fast, and are more optimistic. Of course, this is all just empirical evidence.

Given the above, let me state the obvious - less-good looking women tend to fall for category 2. They tend to be smarter, so there is a higher chance for common interests. They tend to be less secure (perhaps because they are not that hot) and have various fears a man can exploit. And I don't mean "exploit" in a negative way; it simply means the fulfillment of a need, the making of a new connection.


Experiment

Now for what the men need to do. Those of us who are simply attractive (obviously, a miniscule minority among the readers of this blog) may simply come up and talk to anyone naturally, without blushing, feeling stupid, mincing words, or thinking too hard about what to say and what not to say. You are a natural. You know what to do with any girl you meet. Congratulations, you made it. I don't even know why you are reading this.

For the rest of us, it helps to think through various stereotypes and analyze a woman as closely as possible before and while meeting her (but beware - Facebook profiles can be very deceptive). Placing a woman into some group will help you later with your category 2 approach. During the meeting, some neutral conversation can lead to conclusions that can suggest strategies. The problem is there is no lie detector. For example, many of us loser men can't tell if a girl is saying something because she is insecure or because she is bored with you ("my mom makes me clean my room every weekend, so I have to be home on Saturday.") Figuring out how to get to the real reasons behind one or another remark is another big unknown and is left as an exercise to the reader.

If it is possible to play a role well, play it. Otherwise, simplify, simplify. A few well-positioned actions are better than a vague, overwhelming "theme". Of course, comparing a role's effectiveness between different women and different circumstances is an imperfect science. But a knowledge of female types and a list of strategies should help avoiding most obvious and some not-so-obvious blunders.


Conclusion

Playing a role and a strategy to meet women is a losing proposition if you are not acting naturally. It helps to position yourself strategically as soon as possible, but the most important thing is an ascending order (polite conversation->teasing->touching). Also, in my limited personal experience, talking only takes you so far. It helps the best in a group, where the woman will think about how the others react to the words the man is saying and how they position him in the group. One-on-one, physical contact is more important.

Lastly, I want to add that this is not at all how women look at relationships. This approach will seem strange and alien to them and to men who are good at picking up women - but only because they do it so naturally they don't have to think about it.


References

Ladder Theory - http://www.laddertheory.com