Closing in Game

[ravlondon]

@Etherial Cat I would change it to another term if I could.

I also would like to add that there are plenty of women that have been attracted to me in the past and were visibly upset that I didn't lead for the close. Men are generally the ones that are meant to take initiative, not always, but a lot of the time.

Edited January 24, 2020 by ravlondon

[whoareyou]

29 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

As I defined above it is manipulation because it is an effort to persuade a reluctant woman into sex, with non-transparent tactics. If the woman was not reluctant, things like "compliance" and "closure" would not be necessary. To me that is a key ingredient. And what was written early in the thread absolutely talked about tactics to get a reluctant woman to sex.

I would say this has an unhealthy aspect to it. The other unhealthy aspect is lack of concern for impact. The orientation early in the thread is to persuade a reluctant woman to have sex with no regard for its impact on her. The impact could be positive, negative or neutral - yet it does not matter to the male with this orientation. He is hyper focused on achieving his own self-centered needs.

The term "unhealthy" is relative to each person. To a male with this orientation, he may consider it "healthy". However, when both the male and female dynamics are considered, I would say it is an unhealthy orientation. You may disagree and that is fine if you want to hold the view that it is ok if you want to believe it is healthy for a guy to behave in this manner. 

My view has been shaped by my direct experience, yet also speaking with many men, women, psychologists etc. It is not something simply projected by a past experience. Imo, to dismiss it as such is another avoidance technique to not look at one's behavior and impact. Again, you may disagree with me and that is your prerogative.

. This is a recontextualization. This was not the original context. The question of "How can I close in a way that is genuine/authentic and has connection with the woman" is a very different contextualization. You have added in qualifiers that recontextualize. 

 

Again, that is your own projection. In the advice the OP was given, it clearly said that "it cannot be forced". The guys from the very beginning learn, that if a woman is laughing, enjoying herself, they can continue to escalate, and if she says no - it's a no. At least that's how it was for RSD, I can't speak for other companies.

Some women may be "reluctant" due to logistics, or external factors - and in some cases a man may remove them.

Also, in majority of cases when a man acts awkward around women, and doesn't know the basic social cues - all women would be repelled and reluctant to do anything with him. If a man becomes confident and changes - and the women then would desire him - is that a manipulation? No obviously.

So how is figuring out the logistics a manipulation, or knowing how to deal with "friends" who are making it difficult?

Consider a scenario where a guy who doesn't know how to close - will miss out many women that actually WANT him. And there is many guys around like that - which is why the importance of closing is taught.

At the end of the day - it is not possible without rape to force somebody to have sex with you. It is also not possible to "convince" them to go home with you, unless if they actually want to, or at the very least interested in you.

This makes the notion of "healthy" vs "unhealthy" very relative and it heavily depends on the person.

Edited January 24, 2020 by whoareyou

[Forestluv]

Just now, Derek White said:

Obviously the tactics are non transparent. Men can’t just walk up to women and say “hey will you have sex with me?”

it is not either / or like that. Transparency does not mean overtly saying "will you have sex with me?". There are other ways to reveal intention.

What I am talking about is refraining from dishonesty and hidden agendas. Imagine I go on a date with a woman and she starts talking about how much we have in common, that she would like to find a guy with both a physical and emotional bond and something long-term. If my intention is a one-night stand, it would be misleading for me to respond "Oh yes, I am emotionally available and I'm open to something long-term". That is misleading and manipulative. . .  Or if I try to isolate a woman into a situation in which it would be harder for her to resist, that is manipulative and unhealthy. 

[whoareyou]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

it is not either / or like that. Transparency does not mean overtly saying "will you have sex with me?". There are other ways to reveal intention.

What I am talking about is refraining from dishonesty and hidden agendas. Imagine I go on a date with a woman and she starts talking about how much we have in common, that she would like to find a guy with both a physical and emotional bond and something long-term. If my intention is a one-night stand, it would be misleading for me to respond "Oh yes, I am emotionally available and I'm open to something long-term". That is misleading and manipulative. . .  Or if I try to isolate a woman into a situation in which it would be harder for her to resist, that is manipulative and unhealthy. 

You isolate a woman not  because "it would be harder for her to resist". You isolate her so that you both would have time on your own, and if there is a spark, mutual interest, you would have time to take if further.

Like I said, that is your own projection and interpretation of these terms - your paradigm is dictating this and you are not seeing it.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

Some women may be "reluctant" due to logistics, or external factors - and in some cases a man may remove them.

This is another recontextualization. If we re-define "reluctance" due to logistics or external factors - that is another context. If I am out in forest with a woman and she wants to have sex and says "I really want to have sex with you, yet I am uncomfortable doing it outside in nature". If I respond "Ok, how about we get a hotel room?" and she says "Let's do it". That is a different contextualization. 

9 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

Consider a scenario where a guy who doesn't know how to close - will miss out many women that actually WANT him. And there is many guys around like that - which is why the importance of closing is taught.

You keep creating situations that remove the critical components like genuine consent and adding in concerns for her welfare. 

There are paths toward sex that are healthy and paths that are unhealthy and can cause harm to the woman. I am referring to women that are reluctant and just don't feel right about it. I am talking about misleading tactics that do not take into consideration the impact on her. 

If you add in qualifiers that recontextualize reluctance, tactics that are honest and consider her well-being - that is a different orientation, imo.

[PenguinPablo]

guys I just want to know how to sexceed

[whoareyou]

@Serotoninluv  No where in the advice that Leo gave, did I see the "unhealthy",  and "misleading" tactics. 

That was your own projection and interpretation - and you ended up blowing this thread over nothing.

It can be done in healthy and unhealthy way - it really depends on the person who is doing it, this is what I said all along.

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

You isolate a woman not  because "it would be harder for her to resist". You isolate her so that you both would have time on your own, and if there is a spark, mutual interest, you would have time to take if further.

Like I said, that is your own projection and interpretation of these terms - your paradigm is dictating this and you are not seeing it.

There are different orientations and intentions. You keep adding in qualifiers that assume mutual consent and mutual desire. I am not referring to that. If a couple is at a party hitting it off and they say, "let's find a place alone together to better get to know each other". That is a different situation because there is mutual consent and desire. I have no problem with that. 

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, whoareyou said:

@Serotoninluv

It can be done in healthy and unhealthy way - it really depends on the person who is doing it, 

We agree here.

My main point is the orientation that doesn't care if it is healthy or unhealthy. If some asks "How can I close in a healthy way?" or "How can I close in a way in which there is mutual genuine consent?", or "How can I close in a way in which I am mindful of whether sex would have a negative impact on her?". These are very different orientations than simply asking "How can I close?" with no regard for why she might be resisting and no regard for her welfare. That is my concern. 

[whoareyou]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

There are different orientations and intentions. You keep adding in qualifiers that assume mutual consent and mutual desire. I am not referring to that. If a couple is at a party hitting it off and they say, "let's find a place alone together to better get to know each other". That is a different situation because there is mutual consent and desire. I have no problem with that. 

Why did you assume otherwise when you read LEO's advice? Like I said, you are too locked to your paradigm and creating things that simply don't exist in this thread. 

All of my posts, were coming from a place of mutual consent and desire. This is why it was so confusing me to understand what your issue is.

Imo, this is what LEO meant here as well - I haven't read anything that made me think otherwise.

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

All of my posts, were coming from a place of mutual consent and desire.

I am a full supporter for mutual consent and desire. 

To me, sentences such as this do not sound like a place of mutual consent and desire:  "Even once you get her panties off, it's still not a lock. You can lose her at any point. You can even lose her while you're inside her!"

You might interpret that as having full mutual consent and desire from the woman. I don't. 

 

[whoareyou]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

We agree here.

My main point is the orientation that doesn't care if it is healthy or unhealthy. If some asks "How can I close in a healthy way?" or "How can I close in a way in which there is mutual genuine consent?", or "How can I close in a way in which I am mindful of whether sex would have a negative impact on her?". These are very different orientations than simply asking "How can I close?" with no regard for why she might be resisting and no regard for her welfare. That is my concern. 

Just because OP didn't ask this - doesn't mean that he has no regard. That is again your own projection - and you are failing to see this.

OP asked a pretty straight forward question, and he received some very good advice for his question. It is up to him on how he will go about it.

You should be more concerned about depressed incels, who end up killing others and themselves due to their troubles with women.

There are plenty of public examples of this. And there are MANY who you haven't even heard of. This should be as concerning to you, as you are concerned about the women.

[whoareyou]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

I am a full supporter for mutual consent and desire. 

To me, sentences such as this do not sound like a place of mutual consent and desire:  "Even once you get her panties off, it's still not a lock. You can lose her at any point. You can even lose her while you're inside her!"

You might interpret that as having full mutual consent and desire. I don't. 

 

Yes that is your own subjective interpretation. To me, this is LEO figuratively speaking on how messy it can get for the struggling guys. Yes it is a non 0% chance that even with the clothes off, a woman may still decide not to proceed. 

You are blowing this over nothing imo. 

 

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

Just because OP didn't ask this - doesn't mean that he has no regard.

I have not been referring to the OP. I have been referring to responses to the OP. 

9 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

You should be more concerned about depressed incels, who end up killing others and themselves due to their troubles with women.

No I shouldn't. I am concerned about both depressed incels as well as women that are sexually objectified and used for sex with disregard for their wellbeing. 

If depressed incels end up committing suicide, it does not justify objectifying and using women for sex with no regard for their welfare.

I would try to help the man in pursuing women in a way that involves mutual consent and mutual desire. If an incel is not in this place, he needs to work through his issues. It is not right to use women as sexual objects to treat one's own depression. 

You are seeing this from the male's perspective, not the female's perspective. 

4 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

You are blowing this over nothing imo. 

Yes, you have said this several times. I understand. 

I actually think we have quite a bit of common ground, yet our communication is not on the same frequency. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[whoareyou]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

I have not been referring to the OP. I have been referring to responses to the OP. 

No I shouldn't. I am concerned about both depressed incels as well as women that are objectified, used for sex and discarded.

If depressed incels end up committing suicide, it does not justify objectifying and using women for sex with no regard for their welfare.

I would try to help the man in pursuing women in a way that involves mutual consent and mutual desire. If an incel is not in this place, he needs to work through his issues. It is not right to use women as sexual objects to treat one's own depression. 

You are again spinning what I said completely - what are you doing?

 Nowhere did I say that incels should be using women to fix their depression, or that is okay in any way.

My point, is the reason that closing is taught - is because it helps a lot of men who are struggling. The example about incels showed you the importance, and severity of this issue.

Nowhere did I say or LEO said, that there shouldn't be mutual desire or consent. This is your own interpretation to which you are attached to, and at this point, I am just beating a dead horse here.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, whoareyou said:

 Nowhere did I say that incels should be using women to fix their depression, or that is okay in any way.

I did not mean to imply that you said that, I am merely stating my concern. 

1 hour ago, whoareyou said:

My point, is the reason that closing is taught - is because it helps a lot of men who are struggling. The example about incels showed you the importance, and severity of this issue.

I've been a struggling incel myself, I know what it's like,. I also no what its like to be mislead and used for sex.

If a struggling male is taught to approach a woman with respect (rather than a sexual object) and proceed toward a place of genuine mutual consent and desire in a way that considers her wellbeing -  I have no problem with that. My impression was that was not the orientation of some of the advice given. This was the same impression as several other users, including multiple women. 

You are free to have any interpretation you want. I can see how you interpret it the way you do. I could hold your perspective and make an argument for it. Just because I am not holding that position and arguing for it does not mean that I do not understand the perspective and could not argue for it,. All perspectives are relative and one can hold perspectives loosely. 

Your interpretation is not the only. You do not own the one objectively true interpretation. As others have shown, there are other interpretations - in which both men and women are trying to communicate. To me, your interpretation is very male-centric. I am not saying it is wrong. If I was organizing a forum on this topic, I may ask you to be a representative of a male-centric view. I am not saying it is wrong. However, it is not objectively true and it is not holistic. To me, what you have been writing is very heavy on a male perspective and would resonate strongly with males that are sexually struggling, depressed or just want to get laid. And it is very light on a female perspective - which females have been trying to communicate.

My impression is that the forum is very heavy on male-centric views. Especially the dating subforum. Many women have complained and many women that were great contributors have left, or rarely participate now. One reason is the hyper male-centric views. I think it is important to keep a balance. When 90% of the views are male-centric, there can be an intense energy that can be antagonistic to women (which women have expressed). When the vast majority of views are from contracted male-centric, I often ask to consider things from a female's perspective. Very often, I get a very strong backlash from that. Notice how the women have been supportive of my posts on this topic. And I regularly get positive feedback from women for trying to express how a female may see or experience things - on a forum that is hyper male-dominated.  If the forum was 90% contracted female-centric views, I would be asking to consider things from a male perspective a lot more. Yet those are not the demographics and dynamics on the forum. Overall, I would like to see more female-oriented perspectives, female participation and female moderators on the forum. I think it would make the forum more balanced and healthier. Yet it's not easy to do. One reason is because the forum is hyper male-dominated.

To me, this was a good opportunity to ask the men to consider their impact on women from her perspective. Did I over-react? Well from the perspective of some men, including you - yes. From the perspective of some men and women, no. Did I handle it gracefully? From your perspective and another user, no. Did I disregard the positive aspects of closing and how it can be helpful to struggling incels? Yes, I can see that. The thrust of my posts where more toward male players of game that sexually objectify women and don't consider the welfare of the woman in their sexual pursuits. Are all men like that? Of course not. Yet many are, including on this forum. The forum is very heavy on male-centrism. This imbalance is probably the most difficult for me to deal with. I'd like it to be more balanced, yet not everyone wants that and I often get a backlash from men on the forum. 

[Derek White]

1 hour ago, Etherial Cat said:

implying that women leaning emotionally on men are an equivalent to problematic sexual objectification √

It is...   Why would you say otherwise?

Women want validation and support; men want sex (mostly, these are generalizations).

1 hour ago, Etherial Cat said:

Caring about sex as a main focus <- Seing women as a mean to sex as a main focus because you want their body = Objectification...  BINGO!

Maybe not the main focus... but defined one of the primary reasons.

Otherwise why would men approach women? They would just stay with their guy friends who they better understand.

Conversely women would stay with their girlfriends...

So if you like their body it’s objectification, but if you like their personality it is... love? lol. That is so women centric. If you want somebody for their body or their personality it’s the same thing, just be honest with the person. I don’t see the problem their? Genuinely. I’m curious.

And maybe if you learn how to present yourself well they will accept your offer. Just like in interviews.

[Derek White]

@Serotoninluv I think you and@whoareyou are on the same page, it’s just a communication problem.

[Forestluv]

Just now, Derek White said:

@Serotoninluv I think you and@whoareyou are on the same page, it’s just a communication problem.

Good observation. Thank you for pointing that out. I am starting to see that. 

[Ananta]

Welp, I'm tired of arguing with men on this sub-forum, trying to get them to see the women's perspective, to stop objectifying women, etc, etc.

I've decided to rarely (if at all) participate on this "relationship subforum" anymore. It's just not worth the headache. 

To the men that treat women like ladies with respect and dignity, not objectification and manipulation, thank you.?❤

Peace