Quote: (02-19-2017 10:15 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:
I think it's primarily a conflict-avoidance tactic; I've found women have a lot of ways to say "No" when it sounds a bit like they're saying "Yes."
"Going direct" is not women's strong point, I think they gain a fair amount of their own power through the power of remaining somewhat ambiguous.
I would like to expand a little bit on XPQ22's excellent and very insightful observation mentioned above.
Girls are very cunning creatures and much smarter in their strategies than we would like to admit. That is not to say that these strategies are very well thought-out, akin to militaristic strategy or of a grandmaster positioning all his pieces before attack. I think, to a great extent, it's semi-conscious and a function of years of practice. An attractive 20 years old will have at least 5 years of experience under her belt dealing with men of varying age. Needless to say, through trial and error, a 20 years old will have an impressive skillset of dealing with men (of most types but not all) and position them on the chessboard according to her short and long term strategy.
The key strategy is to avoid confrontation, meaning making as many friends and as few foes as possible. What it means in practice, is imagining a female as a central spot of a circle which, figuratively, acts as a centre of gravity as well. Thus, her (potential) mating partners here'd be arranged around her in concentric circles. Mind you, this is a heuristic model, no science here, just my way of imaging how a female "works" males she comes to interaction with.
In game parlance, the closest circle are males she has a well established sexual relationship augmented by all benefits conferred onto her she deems useful (usually, emotional & economic provisioning). In other words, boyfriend, fiancee, husband.
Next concentric circle, further away, are fuckbuddies, exes, sponsors. Men whom she's having either consistent or semi-consistent sexual relation with.
Next one, men she has (or had) ONS, SDL, D2L, etc. with such that sexual relation is inconsistent or rare (and other benefits, if any, sparse).
Next one, potential men she is interested in because they seem to have a (reproductive and/or provisioning) potential suiting her goals, however either these men are inaccessible to her or she hasn't had time to evaluate them yet.
Next circle are men (aka orbiters - classmates, co-workers, colleagues, etc.) she's not sexually interested in but whom she deems useful for a variety of reasons and men who, at some point in the past were or might have been in some of the inner circles but became part of the outercircle (often permanently).
The outermost circle consists of males whom she interacts with but interactions are in majority of cases transient such that her gravity never pulls them towards any of her inner circles.
Necessarily, each outward circle has bigger circumference than the last and, consequently, represents more men within that particular circle. At all times, it is in the interest of a normal, healthy, socially adjusted female to exert a steady, gravitational pull such that she has all benefits (sex and non-sex related) she deems worth potentially available to her.
This is a dynamical system such that any men (apart from outermost circle) may jump back and forth between any of the circles as a function of time, her emotional standing, ovulation, other men's actions, where she lives and all the other key environmental variables influencing where she stands with particular men at any given time. It is environment in constant fluctuation, where there's imperfect information and predictions based on posterior probabilities (mind you, most of these are unconscious, though internalised through experience) and subsequent actions and, most importantly, these predicted actions work most of the time - but not always (see the caveat below).
All these men in certain relevant respects are useful to her well-being and it is in her interest to befriend them (either sexually and/or non-sexually) and keep them within the orbit of a particular circle but to avoid making any of them her foes. Thus, an ever increasing number of friends and keeping as few or none foes, benefits her by maximising her survival and reproductive chances. And all the attractive females now that their gravitational currency is their phenotypical attractiveness above all. Everything else comes second. And one key way to maximise survival and reproductive fitness is to never make foes, that is - never be confrontational with males, never discourage male interest in her, never admit a male is not worthy to spend time and resources on her. Other tactics abound.
Let's consider a widely-known, yet frustrating phenomenon of a short-term tactic relating to texting suitors, such that there is an unreasonable gap in response time (either temporary or permanent) at certain point in the interaction. In majority of cases, a man texts a female for the purpose of having sex or continuing having sex (inclusive of procreation) with her but, at some point, alongside the arrow of time, a female stops to respond (e.g., she has got to known another, more suitable mating partner). From a female perspective, it's an ideal strategy. She doesn't overtly creates a foe because she doesn't provide information. It allows her to re-establish, if a need arises an interaction (she is not anymore, for whatever reason with the newer suitor anymore), aka 'reverse monkey branching', further down the line (for she learnt from experience very few men will really move on and ignore her) and most men will happily continue the re-established interaction. If a men keeps contacting her after she stopped replying it provides her information regarding a man's genetic and social status (his alphaness) which is inversely proportional to the number of messages and time between the messages he keeps sending to her. The more he does, the more it means he has less females interested in them, therefore, indirectly he reveals that his mating potential is low to other females, hereby she shouldn't continue mating with him because his genes do not attract other females. Thereby, a 'radio silence' tactic seems to be, in most cases, a near perfect, from a female's perspective, tactic.
As mentioned above, all I wrote is a heuristic and many exemptions would abound. Conversely, men who restrain from keep messaging, send out indirectly information that their value is high(er) (or at least higher than men doggedly trying to re-establish contact with a female who stopped replying). To sum it up, in the context of not-responding or ceasing contact temporarily or permanently via messaging, a female deftly avoids actively creating a foe, though with a (low) potential cost of losing a 'friend'. I think it's an optimal strategy (though there's a caveat), for lack of provisioning of information, creating ambiguity allows to extend the time men stay within the centre of female's gravitational pull, with a female's prospective thinking, the men who are 'put on hold' may in the future jump back and forth between the circles as long as these men stay voluntarily (with an exemption of a marriage) within the sphere of her gravitational pull.
But what is the caveat? It's called
game. I believe that game tactics and strategies allow to a significant degree to mitigate female strategy of being the chooser in the mating game. The overarching principle, perhaps, relates to a player having wide enough access to potential mates such that any given female and no particular time is in a position to control situation between her and him, that is she can't 'exert a gravitational pull' because
that female is relatively easily replaceable by another female. Unfortunately, few men are in such a position in practice. Fortunately, exhibiting relevant behaviour is a bit easier and can be done with a strategy of abundance mentality and undertaking actions as if one was in a position of having immediate access to potential mates, even though this is not the case in practice.
Now, how does that relates to OP's post? I think I sidetracked a bit but the common denominator is here the grand strategy - make and keep friends, don't make foes for this is a beneficial survival and reproductive strategy. In other words, no negative, overt information will be provided unless forced to for avoiding conflict is much more advantageous strategy in the long term (and often short-term).
![[Image: blush.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/blush.gif)
