"Treat them mean, keep them keen". Does playing hard to get work?

[AppleBosom]

Do you think that there is any truth in that?
Does ignoring a guy or acting uninterested makes the guy work harder to 'win' you over?
I have found that guys who have to fight or work hard to get a date with a woman, pursuing her for ages seem to value her more.

A guy pursued me so hard at uni, I was oblivious and uninterested anyway.. then I started thinking maybe I should give him a chance after a few of my friends commented that he seems really into me. As soon as I started showing signs of interest he cooled right off. wtf?!

My mum always said that men are dogs and the more you ignore them the more they want you, she also used to say that a woman needs to have pride and ego and not look desperate.
my dad used to say men want what they can't have.

However, my friend who grew up in a different family to mine says that a guy who pursues you hard when you are uninterested is a red flag and a sign of a stalker that if you do get with will end up controlling.
Where is the balance? how do you know if he truly loves you or just wants what he can't get if he spends months or years pursuing you and you don't give in is he genuine then?
I would like to know your opinions and experiences of this.

Yay, a Lodge fan :) I haven't seen many lately. Yes the real MZ is a filthy sleaze who would merrily shag his best mates wife without a whisker turned.

Apple, obviously the guy has to know that you're into him. Ie, you've been on a date and acted keen. I'm not suggesting wafting around batting your eyes when the guy doesn't know you exist.

But once you've been on a date, acted keen and happy to see him again, shagged, or whatever, he knows. And then it's up to him.

Sorry sisters.

Playing games is very immature and you cannot expect something to work out if you're not being honest.

Having said that, with my husband I genuinely wasn't interested to start with. I thought was a good-looking French player. He took time to woo me and prove to me that my assumptions were wrong. By his assiduousness I could see that he was serious about me and wasn't mucking about. He took me to meet his friends and family before we were even in a relationship and my impression of him changed.

Sometimes one person is more into it than another and that's ok.

But pretending to be more or less into something than you are is a waste of everyone's time.

feeling very sad for any dogs you had as a child that were ignored by your mum

This will sound awful but I used to have a rule that I would cancel on a first date (with reasonable notice - at least a day) and if they didn't ask to rearrange I wouldn't bother with them. I was very young 20 and stupid. What a waste of everyone's time. Wouldn't do that now.

I don't think what you're describing there is "treating 'em mean" is it Morris?

Trills No, I didn't get that impression either.

No, I've never treated anybody mean and I'd hate it if my son did this.

But I do think that women have more chance of establishing a relationship with someone they treat with respect but also with a degree of distance in the beginning. Ive seen it played out a million times in my own life and that of my friends.

It's crap, it's sexist, it's shit. But it is that way. I hate The Rules but I nodded and gasped with recognition at He's Just Not That Into You.

If you've already dated him, he knows. Now it's up to him.

Treat them cool, don't be a fool might be more like it.

I think not caring either way doesnt scare off men who arent that sure about you. Not sure that's a great long term plan.

ime it definitely works but only with the type of guy you probably wouldn't want it to work long term with.

when you meet the right one, or one of several right ones (still cynical ) it's easy and you don't need to play games or adopt a strategy.

but in terms of keeping someone interested who would ordinarily lose interest sooner yeah sure it works to hold out on sex. just don't expect to get a good marriage out of it.

MorrisZapp i do know what you mean. Two years of internet dates that never lead to anything have stopped me from ever hoping. As i have no hope i dont care. Because i dont care several men are still contacting me. But i dont care about them so what is the point!? If i cared about a man and risked revealing that, that'd be that!
I feel like i can't do any choosing. The way internet dating works is women have to pick the least awful man who wont get the message :-p

Playing 'hard to get' doesn't work ime and imho.....if a woman was doing this I'd assume she was being delicate in 'giving a message' that she isn't interested, and I'd stop there.

I'd also wonder if the game playing is going to continue into any relationship, which is a right turn off. I've been there and it's just a massive waste of time.

Shortly after that I met DP who did most of the pursuing. He knew I liked him, I snogged his face off enthusiastically so I wasn't exactly coy.
I just left it to him to make contact, suggest dates etc.
I'm sad that this is how dating works, it's a travesty and a throwback. But it is how dating works.

MorrisZapp

I think this is confusing cause and effect.

If someone likes you in a "meant to be" sense *, playing it cool or not will make no difference. There are plenty of examples on here of long term marriages born out of a first date/first shag situation.

BUT playing it cool over all is a good strategy because it should weed out those in it just for a quick shag (they will lose interest), it avoids putting off people who think you are a no-life stalker potential weirdo, and really you should be doing this because you have a full busy life so shouldn't go all Super-Keen over some new man in your life.

None of these things "cause" someone to like you more or less if they are right for you long term. They may incline someone who is OK for a short term relationship to be more likely to pursue you or engage in a short term relationship. But they do not transform Mr Right into Mr Wrong or the other way round.

• I'm not a big believer in The One but what I mean by this is a long term relationship where you are both sexually and emotionally compatible, meet at the right time in your respective lives and has the likelihood of going the distance.

If a man has internalized sexism enough to subscribe to sexist dating rules and not want to "be chased" then he's not the right man for me, so I see no problem with not playing games.

It's all an old spinsters wives tale - all the women I know who played 'hard to get' for such a long time, regret it after blokes move on to someone who isn't so difficult to talk to or get to know. It's not good to be the other end of the spectrum and be too... easy, but to use a South London term, being 'stush' or stuck up is too wearing, and doesn't bode well for the future, in most guys' minds.

Just my 2p worth

It pains me to say this as it is twattish but there is an element of truth in this.

A large proportion of men enjoy having to do the work in the early part of a relationship and will be put off by a woman who proactively expresses interest. It may make them nobs or unsuitable for a mature relationship as others have said upthread but there is a lot of it about and pretending it isn't true won't just will it away.

Having said that, the kind of man who only ever wants to be in pursuit is probably immature and will eventually either grow up or become a sad middle-aged serial monogamist or cheater.

I think men (and women) are attracted to people who are clearly independent and have a strong sense of who they are and are not too worried about getting into a relationship. This isn't playing hard to get, its having inner strength and self-belief and not really giving too much of a shit. And its the best way to be, not only because it makes you more attractive but for the far more important reason that its the best way to be happy in yourself.

Moreover, playing hard to get as a deliberate tactic to bait a man who you want to be in a relationship with is self-defeating -- game-playing is pretty obvious to spot and even more unattractive than someone who is pursuing you very clearly.

The only way to square the circle is to stop devoting time to worrying about how men want you to behave and just get to know yourself, who you are and what you want. The more self-belief you have, the more attractive you are. Dubious "get-the-guy" tactics like The Rules may work in the very short-term in terms of getting a date or whatever but you can't use these to over-ride the fundamentals of what you need in a happy relationship: attraction, friendship, love and trust.

theabyss youre right and very wise. you've given me a lot to think about thank you.

A large proportion of men enjoy having to do the work in the early part of a relationship and will be put off by a woman who proactively expresses interest.

Really? My sister met her husband on a ONS they've been together 17 years.

Reckon "getting the guy" (or girl) as an end goal misses the point.

The idea is to build a successful relationship, not Wanting Commitment as some sort of "prize"

With online dating etc, if you're not a frog, its easy to frequently meet and get someone to "commit"and do the whole "kind of relationship" thing .

What we should be looking for is "does this person bring value to my life?" (by value I don't mean cash or presents, but actually emotionally and socially enhancing it)

I think I find a better quality of guys/relationship when I contribute and show my interest in the interaction early on.

also by interest, I DON'T mean "come over to mine this weekend for Netflix and chill I'll organise the whole thing, make you dinner and drive you home " level of interest.

That's too much and gets lazy types attracted. I mean being socially available, turning up, making the guy a (reasonable) priority in my schedule

(not a big "chatter" or texter generally apart from practI sl stuff - I think electronic commnication is often a"false positive" and it takes little commitment to send a "hi babe" message? Also, it's tempting to overshare too early)

And if we're "on the same wavelength" we "gel" socially and it feels reciprocated .

I think even thinking in terms of "pursuing" or "winning" or"chasing" is beside the point.

Also, if you and the other person are both "fuck YEAH" about each other (as people) you should be excited to make going out time meet for a cheap drink and coffee and a chat. And if you're genuinely socially compatible, this isn't hard to achieve?

(I wouldn't call it "playing hard to get" but I do dislike the "come over to yours" kind of rhythm some guys seem to want early on? They actually equate having a girlfriend with wanting a mother figure to keep house for them )

Conversely, whenever I've been "pursued and convinced" by some guy I've been lukewarm about, I never quite warm up and the interaction ends up sour? (And then they're like "but I did all this for you, where is my access to your vagina?!")

I actually find these guys are often those other women don't want, and it's generally for a good reason?

In terms of men "wanting women who let them do the pursuing", I wonder if it's just that the women who pursue them are doing so despite not reading the signals that they aren't attracted to them? (or seeing fake signals where there aren't any)

It's a complex beast, knowing whether someone is attracted to you or not, but I've often seen men and women mistake friendliness or a "flirty moment" for something more, then get hurt when the other party doesn't reciprocate?

Some People find it easier to talk to and be relaxed with those they don't fancy (who then are like "but we really GET each other so there must be something sexual ") and will "look" at but not talk to the ones they do.

NinonDeLenclos of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. But its undeniable that its a fairly common trope that some blokes don't like to be "chased" by women. These men may all be nobs and unworthy but you'd have had to have been living on Mars not to have noticed that this is a thing for some of them.

NarleneBieyrich it can be quite hard to read the difference between genuine keenness and someone who is an inveterate flirt or just very extrovert, and the combination of a flirtatious personality on one side with wishful thinking is a particularly toxic and problematic combination. I still stand by what I say though and I've talked to loads of blokes about it not all, but a fairly large chunk of the male population gets thoroughly weirded out when a woman comes on really strong. Whether its hard-wiring or social I don't know but its definitely there.

I could not be bothered with all of this game playing. If a bloke became uninterested because I was too eager then he wouldn't be someone worth being with, in my opinion. It really should be as simple as:

2 people like each other, one asks the other out, the person agrees and they go out. They may even have sex on the first date because they fancy each other. No respect is lost by either party, so they continue to date until they decide they are so compatible that they become serious partners, or they agree to go their separate ways as they don't have the necessary sparks.

Simple

I'm wondering if you might be looking at it in the wrong way. Sitting waiting at home for texts or phone calls so you can either respond to half heartedly or studiously ignore is one thing, and very offputting for anyone interested in you, and is very manipulative on your part, but having a full life where you are engaged in lots of thing so don't always respond straight away is different.

I know I didn't always respond quickly to my DPs texts or invitations in the early days, but he knew I had a job, and kids, and hobbies, and he wasn't bothered. When I did respond (I'm talking hours not days) I was enthusiastic, and although I didn't often initiate dates I worked hard to make sure I could go to them, and we always had a great time if you know what I mean So no, treating them mean to keep them keen may or may not work, but having a life, and being respectful to them, is, I think, a good thing.

Playing games isn't good but I do think appearing too keen or needy puts you at a disadvantage in the natural power stakes.

So be honest but don't appear desperate.

Hmmm, I think we're kind of saying the same thing ?

I don't think either party at the start of a good interaction should be "coming on too strong"?

I mean you'll get predators/users of either gender who do fall for the "easy sex" or "free meal" thing.

But most reasonably ethical and socially normal people know there's a "catch" involved and they'll probably end up with a deranged stalker on their hands.

If a guy needs to do the whole "overcomplimenting/bombarding with texts/promising dinner at the best restaurant in town " it's REALLY off putting to normal women and attracts users.

Similarly from a woman "you have beautiful eyes, you're the hottest man ever - come over to mine this weekend and I'll make your dreams come true" will frighten off any decent guys and attract cocklodger types.

I do actually agree there's a difference in that attraction for men seems generally more looks/visual orientated.

So if someone isn't "yes" on a first look, they find it harder to compensate with "personality comparability" later on so can't be "persuaded" or "talked into" into attraction.

Whereas I think women often don't find handsome men sexually attractive, but can be persuaded by the "energy" a guy projects (still, without him having to do the whole "chat up" routine)

Narlene so do you think a guy may persist because sometimes women change their mind about dating him whereas for guys its either a would date or not from the get go or moment he sees her and thats it?