About the available versus unavailable article

[DarkKnight]

I wanted to get back to this subject for quite some time, but I have been procastrinating unfortunately @Chase .

So here you have those questions we have to ask ourselves whether to hit availability right? I usually fall on the "jerk" area, despite trying to fine tune this as I am very aware of my abrasive nature.

copy paste:

The 3 No 1 Yes Questions of Availability​

Here are the three 'no' questions of availability:

1. Will he wait for me no matter what?
2. Can I waste his time and get away with it?
3. If I treat him well will he run off?

The first and second questions are very obvious.. but I find question three to be a bit ambigious.

I mean... I think it is really personal what "treating someone well" is and one can also view you as, I don't know, someone fit for attention whoring but still treating "well", or friendzoning and "still treating well". Or a chick really has a significant other, but still likes you and is friendly to you, but throws up walls due to their partner, but still are actually treating you "well". Because they are treating you well, just not the way you would like them to in those scenarios. And when I eject or simply do something else they can get angry. I have learned to give the very nuanced parting shot @Chase gave with "how to deal with resistant girls", in my book that article was long overdue, as I always was confused between explicitly mentioning something or not doing this because it can come across as being needy. I have learned these days that women need verbalizing in a lot of cases because they are not that aware... not as in our level (talking about seducers, not average joe men who are even worse I assume).

Anyway, there is a disconnect here which i have trouble pinpointing. Making someone wait, wasting someones time is also not treating someone that well. So I would like to zoom into this question. Can we better define this one.

 

[Chase]

@DarkKnight,

Here's the drill-down on that.

Think of it like you have a girl you like, but you aren't sure whether if you start complimenting her and doing things for her and doting on her that is going to be appreciated by her or if it might cause her to turn her nose up in disgust at you and run off. So, you are circumspect about those things, stay standoffish with her, and maybe don't do them at all, even though perhaps you might like to.

(not to say you should slather women with compliments and gifts and whatnot... I just wanted an easily comprehensible analogue here)

Women have a feeling like that with men they might like, which you allay by rewarding them for well treatment.

She's not worried about, "Will he run off if I treat him like a friend?" because friend zoning you is not her putting herself out there and making herself vulnerable, and that is really what this one is all about: not making yourself vulnerable only to get burned.

She is thinking about romantic or sexual overtures, where she is complying with you, complimenting you, following you, showing obvious interest in you, and other things that signal, "I really like you." If you reject that and run off, she is going to feel rejected, and that will sting. So if she thinks that might happen, she is going to tend not to make herself available to you.

If you want to word that question differently, you might choose to word it as:

"Will he reject me if I put myself out there with him romantically?"

With "rejection" including not just, "Sorry, not interested," but also you not reciprocating her interest, or promising to text her but never doing so.

Chase

 

[DarkKnight]

"Will he reject me if I put myself out there with him romantically?"

Ah alright.. so we now have made the definition actually a bit more narrow. So indeed it is about them being rejected romantically... So to prevent autorejection we dont.

Again, great feedback, thank you