The Company You Keep Away
I've got an intense attraction to this musician I've been dating for four months. He's on the road a lot, plus he's new to the city and recently out of a relationship. He says he's not ready to get serious now and just told me he wants us to be non-monogamous. The more I try to get close the more he pulls away. My girlfriends told me to stop chasing him and be much less available. I tried being less present, which, to my surprise, made him miss me and be more attentive. I'm disgusted at the need for manipulative game playing. How much longer do I need to keep this up?
--Hate Games
There are times it makes sense to chase a man, like if he's wearing Lycra knickers and making a dash for the end zone or he's just run out of your house with your TV.
However, chasing a man is an especially bad strategy when you're looking for love. The reason for this goes back millions of years and comes down to what anthropologists call "parental investment" and how biology sticks women with the lion's share of it. As I've explained here from time to time, before the invention of reliable birth control, a single romp in the bushes could leave a woman with a hungry kid to haul around and feed. So women evolved to be the choosier sex -- to cross their legs until the man vying to be their sex partner showed he'd be likely to stick around to provide for any ensuing Neander-browed children.
Men, in turn, coevolved to expect this choosiness from women. And though we're living in modern times, we've got some pretty antique psychology still driving us, so when a man today encounters a woman who seems easy to have, he tends to get the message that she isn't worth having. This may seem awful and unfair, but it's just how things are. So lamenting the need for "game playing" is like expecting something different from gravity. Drop an apple and it's going to fall; it will not lift off, circle your head a few times, and then try to make it to Cleveland on tail winds before nightfall.
As for this guy, sure, you want him, but letting attraction and enjoyment alone determine whom you have a relationship with is like letting your taste buds do your grocery shopping. (Dunno about yours, but mine would not be lingering in the broccoli section.) Before you get involved with a man, you need to check to see that he's available, and immediately disqualify any man who isn't single and emotionally ready for a relationship.
Once you have a viable candidate, take steps to avoid seeming desperate, like by setting the timer on your phone for 20 minutes or an hour before you return a text. The more you do this sort of thing the more natural it will feel, until you become hard to get instead of just playing it. Should you feel tempted to fall back into old chase behaviors, just remind yourself of your ultimate goal -- inspiring a man to want you instead of inspiring him to fill out paperwork to keep you 100 feet away from him at all times.
I've heard this anthropological theory before, and yet, men have been buying and selling women for thousands of years. Doesn't sound to me as though the women have always been the choosers.
Lee Baker at January 13, 2015 5:06 PM
I don't know the laws in California, but in Florida, an injunction will require those served to remain outside of 500 feet.
Very good advice, Amy. And I especially appreciated the point that "it's the way things are." She might not like the fact that she has to play hard to get. But that's the way it works. It's useless to complain about it.
Patrick at January 13, 2015 5:07 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2015/01/the-company-you.html#comment-5768331">comment from Lee BakerLee, women are CHOOSIER. We're not talking about kidnapping and sale into slavery; this is about who is more selective in mate-choosing. Men are vastly less selective about who they will have sex with than women are.
Amy Alkon at January 13, 2015 5:47 PM
Playing hard to get works in general, but more importantly, the LW has learned that it works with this guy in particular. Insanity has been defined as behaving the same way and expecting different results; if she changes away from what works and expects that the result won't change, that's just as insane.
Rex Little at January 13, 2015 11:30 PM
Good advice but I would take it a step further--instead of playing hard to get, actually be hard to get. Sometimes that means finding new hobbies and making plans so you're not revolving your life around one person. In this case it probably means dating other people--after all, he did say he wanted to be nonmonogamous. You won't be staring at your phone calculating when to text back because you'll be out enjoying yourself, and you can check your messages when you get home. This has the bonus effect of feeling less like playing and more like just living your life.
Shannon at January 14, 2015 1:06 AM
Yeah....see I used to have this problem with guys I used for sex.
When I would go over to their apartment they immediately would like to tell me "I'm not looking for a gf right now". My reply was just "Ok" (I didn't see them as relationship material anyways)
So I act aloof, unavailable, disinterested and busy because--well I don't see them as anything particularly important in my life that i need to actively make time for. What ended up happening is that almost all of them at some point asked me to be their girlfiend. I would decline and they would ask once or twice again before giving up.
Love this line Amy:
....but letting attraction and enjoyment alone determine whom you have a relationship with is like letting your taste buds do your grocery shopping
Ppen at January 14, 2015 1:35 AM
It's very true that actually BEING hard to get is much preferable to PLAYING hard to get. But how to "be" something that you aren't? Well, as Shannon said, getting busy, dating others, getting involved with hobbies, are all good choices. But I would take it even a step further than that. I didn't truly "become" hard to get until I genuinely raised my standards to a point where I simply, truthfully, wasn't remotely interested in a guy unless he met them. My standards aren't superficial (NOT: 'he has to make x money' or 'he has to be x height') but rather they were emotional. He had to be someone I respected, someone who treated me with kindness, someone I felt comfortable and 'like myself' around, someone whose intelligence, zest for life, and sense of humor were off the charts, and, naturally, someone who brought their A game in the bedroom. Well, guess what? If you sincerely don't want a man unless he's the best possible man, you suddenly become "hard to get" without playing any games or exhausting yourself with hobbies. You simply ARE hard to get...because you won't settle for anything less than a great guy. The bonus? When you meet that great guy, he will respect you even more for having standards. (Of course in my case, it took dating lots of 'less than great' guys and realizing that i simply wasn't interested in a 'bad' relationship - i'd rather be single - to get to this mental place.)
JS at January 14, 2015 8:12 AM
How much longer do I need to keep this up?
***
You don't. He's not that into you. Guys who are into you don't need to be chased down. Move on.
NicoleK at January 15, 2015 6:34 AM
I'm not sure I'd classify this as playing hard to get. It sounds more like stop driving him away by being clingy to someone who said they aren't interested in a relationship.
Joe j at January 15, 2015 1:10 PM
"As for this guy, sure, you want him, but letting attraction and enjoyment alone determine whom you have a relationship with is like letting your taste buds do your grocery shopping.(Dunno about yours, but mine would not be lingering in the broccoli section.)"
This analogy is incoherent with regard to the argument you are trying to make.
If women evolved to be choosy... if that is their natural inclination... then that would be analogous to craving sweets. Yet you have made it analogous to making the healthy choice and selecting broccoli.
In your analogy being choosy goes against what women are naturally inclined to do.
Artemis at January 16, 2015 6:34 AM
"In your analogy being choosy goes against what women are naturally inclined to do."
No because in both situations the evolutionary thing evolved in an environment very different than now.
The sweets developed when food was scarce and starvation was a daily possibility. Now when food is a phone call away being obese not starving is the problem. SO the sweet tooth isn't the best discriminator.
With relationships, it was more important to find a good mammoth hunter. Now not the best discriminator for what the LW claimed she wanted: a relationship.
Joe J at January 16, 2015 8:28 AM
And though we're living in modern times, we've got some pretty antique psychology still driving us, so when a man today encounters a woman who seems easy to have, he tends to get the message that she isn't worth having.
The key word there is "tends." It's not as if all men have the same antique psychology. Some have evolved beyond this and don't reflexively see a woman as unworthy simply because she express an interest in them.
JD at January 16, 2015 11:44 AM
Artemis what the fuck is wrong with you?
You didn't understand the analogy at all.
Ppen at January 16, 2015 1:26 PM
Funny: I do let my taste buds do most of my shopping. With vitamins we no longer need broccoli, and if we do eat it there are nicer forms available than we had to put up with as kids.
I'm not being difficult, I'm continuing with Amy's metaphor. We do have good birth control, and that means we shouldn't necessarily let women's old evolutionary strategy trump ours -- at least if we're not out to produce children.
At least some women these days have adapted all too well to the modern facts. They'll give us all the goodies we want as long as they believe it'll lead to getting the ring on their finger. After that, nothing. (I've seen several women do this, stay married a few months, then take off, keeping all the financial rewards as if they'd been married for years.) I call this "passive deception": don't actually lie to the guy, but do encourage him to make rosy assumptions about your future behavior that ain't gonna happen.
Well, passive deception works for guys too. Simply encourage her to believe for as long as possible that someday she'll persuade you to commit. But never do it. By the time she leaves you, she'll be convinced you're a dimwit, but given OUR evolutionary imperative, you're a genius!
jdgalt at January 16, 2015 4:38 PM
He says he's not ready to get serious now and just told me he wants us to be non-monogamous.
So he wants to fuck you and anyone else that he finds interesting? and you let this happen? what would you do if you found out one of his other partners is someone you know?
He claims he's not ready for a relationship. Take him at his word and let him go. That means no nookie with him. If you have the platinum vajayjay, he'll change his tune right quick.
If not, oh well. He's just not available.
Sidebar: now I want to try to milk a telephone pole.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 17, 2015 11:30 AM
Ppen writes:
"You didn't understand the analogy at all."
I did not understand the analogy because the analogy was incoherent and constructed incorrectly.
As opposed to asking what is wrong with me, perhaps you should have taken a second to consider the fact that I might know what I am talking about here.
Let me try and spell it out for you.
First let's go over a VERY simple analogy:
Puppy is to Dog as Kitten is to ???
That's right... the answer is Cat.
Alright, now that we have the basics down, let's deconstruct Amy's analogy here:
"As for this guy, sure, you want him, but letting attraction and enjoyment alone determine whom you have a relationship with is like letting your taste buds do your grocery shopping.(Dunno about yours, but mine would not be lingering in the broccoli section.)"
Aversion to broccoli is to evolved sense of taste as desire to chase after men is to... ???
My point is that there exists no coherent answer to this question in the context of Amy's statements in the other paragraphs.
This analogy is broken unless Amy is arguing that women evolved to pursue men in the same way that we evolved to avoid broccoli.
Artemis at January 21, 2015 1:29 AM
Funny. All of you missed that musicians have women chase them all the time. If the LW wants to be EXCLUDED from the category, "groupie", then she has to act differently.
Radwaste at January 28, 2015 2:20 PM
He's a traveling musician who wants to be non-monogamous and you've consented. In doing so, you've established his preferred dynamic as facts on the ground. Don't hold your breath expecting him, or the situation, to change. You don't have any leverage. Playing hard to get may make you interesting in the short-term, but if you aren't the only one he's trying to get you can't set your price too high or demand too much -- because the competition may well undercut your rates. He's already got what he wants -- you when he's in the mood, and groupies at local gigs and on the road -- why would *he* want that to change? You have to decide whether what you want out of life is a poly dynamic. If so, diversify and find a gent or three for when he's not around. If not, then you need to stand up and walk.
David at January 31, 2015 1:23 PM
Leave a comment