Is it important to play "hard to get"?

Post Reply New Topic

In another thread, someone brought up "The Rules", a book that claims that women should follow certain steps that create the illusion of unavailability in order to get into a good, long-lasting relationship. I'm not sure if I agree with any of this, but I'm trying to learn more about conventional dating wisdom since my previous relationships have been so unconventional (in all former ones, we lived together or worked together as friends first).

Anyway, do you think it's always necessary to play hard to get? I've always thought it was a stupid, dishonest game - I'm very honest and up-front about things, and I tend to know what I want and act accordingly. It seems logical that if a guy doesn't like those personality traits, we won't be compatible. But maybe I'm wrong . . .

For instance, I'm really puzzled by the fact that most of my male friends become infatuated with me. This ranges from guys whom I've told right away, "You're not my type, but let's be friends," to vague friends with benefits situations, from casual friendships to closer ones.

A couple of these situations did turn into relationships, but I always questioned my interest level and wondered if I was just going along with something convenient, convincing myself that it was something I wanted. The last time I changed my mind and reciprocated, the guy lost interest.

So, guys especially, do you think girls are more attractive when they are somewhat unavailable? Do you think it's possible to be this way while still being honest and genuine?

I'm just trying to understand the culture I live in, and all of these social rules that evidently have escaped me.

There's only 3 things that make a girl attractive (imo):

1) glasses
2) nerdy interests (doesn't matter if its techie nerd, science nerd, music/drama nerd, anime nerd... w/e is fine as long as its nerdy)
3) single

Well it depends obviously.
I would say in general at least a little bit, just to keep it interesting. I read somewhere the brain chemicals involved in love are many of the same chemicals involved in the desire to accomplish something, to work for something. So if you're not hard to get, you need not be worked for, and the chemistry isn't as strong.
This desire could still be fulfilled in other ways, but I would guess it is the reason for the hard to get strategy.

Agreed, except glasses don't matter either way to me.

Personally - I'm not good at all in reading non-verbal cues, especially in women. So if a woman appears to be "somewhat unavailable," I move on. I can only come to the conclusion that the woman in question isn't interested in me.

That said, I haven't had a date in 27 years. I never learned how to flirt.

My last girlfriend (back in college) asked ME out - that's something I can deal with - unequivocal interest on the woman's part. We were together for about two (glorious) years.

Last edited by zeichner on 22 Sep 2008, 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

From what I've heard, The Rules is the bane of Aspie guys... it promotes all the things that will ensure that guys like us remain single. It's good advice if you only want an NT guy. As for playing "hard to get"... if you act as though you don't like us, how are we supposed to know if you really do? Be honest about it.

I'd say it's not all that important. If you are interested, I say honesty is the best policy. Then again, try not to act really "needy." There is a difference.

This is what I do, but it seems like most men are so accustomed to women only giving subtle signals of interest that when a woman is more direct about it, they find it shocking and frightening. They react as though I'm trying to make them commit to something when all I'm doing is being honest about how I feel, and I try to express these things in a nice, relaxed way too, only after they have expressed interest in me.

I wonder if it's that thing someone someone mentioned above - that the love experience is triggered by having to work for something. Perhaps, for this reason, I tend to like guys who are somewhat unavailable to begin with, even if they don't seem that way at first, and I like them so much that I make it so that they don't have to work for anything.

As for The Rules, I think it's ridiculous to try to apply something like that to all straight men, or all straight women. And at least half of those "rules" contradict my personal experience. But I also wonder if there could be some truth to the general theme of it - that being coy is attractive? That you're supposed to show the guy you like him but also challenge him by being somewhat distant, or something?

All these conventions strike me as strange because I think relationships are basically just close friendships where you also have frequent sex and cuddle and say, "I love you." At the core of it is friendship, so I don't understand why you're supposed to treat each other differently than you'd treat a good friend. I mean, why would I call a guy I'm going out with less frequently than I would call a friend? Why do fewer nice things for him than I would do for a friend? That just doesn't make sense, but maybe the rest of the population thinks differently.

I feel the same way.

I find them plenty attractive when they are available and show some interest in me and we can actually talk without it being forced or anything. If a girl were to try and act a certain way that was false it would only serve to make me reject them totally and just move on and finally if a girl is taken I don't bother unless she shows enough interest and seems like the relationship is almost over.

It's really encouraging to hear that there are plenty of guys who don't go for the "hard to get" game and actually appreciate it when a girl shows interest, or reciprocates their expression of interest in a less than subtle way .

^I wish every woman thought like that. Life would be so much easier.

My thoughts exactly. I've noticed that men tend to read too much into my actions. They often see certain things as symbolic or strategic simply because a lot of women express themselves in subtle, symbolic ways and do a lot of things for strategic purposes. It can be hard to convince a guy that I'm not like this, that I actually say and do what comes to mind at the time without any symbolism or forethought. I always have to say, "Please take me less seriously and more literally." It's weird.

Welcome to WP

Yeah, I guess that belongs in the "You might be an aspie if . . . " thread.

I don't think it's necessary. Maybe it can work for you, but you just have to make sure you're playing the right thing: "hard to get", not "impossible to get". If you seem too aloof, most people will be put off, and that's a common problem for aspies.

My suggestion: be as straightforward as possible, short of being pushy.