Filibuster

ThirtyzDude from the SoSuave forum has just recently seen the light of pragmatism with regards to Spinning Plates. For me, one of the best things about the newly Unplugged is reading their fresh perspective of women’s behaviors in their, now, Game-aware context. Sometimes their fresh observations come as a jolt to their system. They realize, with some measure of shock, that the behaviors and rationales they’ve been conditioned to take for granted on for so long are actually strategies to insure the best hypergamic result for women.

Other times, their observations are truly revelatory,..

I’ve been noticing an interesting trend with many of these women: the ones that are willing to have sex within 3-6 dates typically don’t talk about it – when it happens it happens. When they talk about sex a lot, and try to convince me that they really like sex, it often doesn’t happen. They begin to make excuses, they say they want me but they don’t want to do anything they regret. My thoughts when this happens: wtf?

I partially covered this dynamic in the now infamous Wait For It? post:

If  she’s perceiving your value as as high as it should be, she wont hesitate longer than a few dates to become sexual – and she certainly wont tell you she’s making you wait. Hypergamy doesn’t afford a woman much waiting time with a Man she sees as superior stock.

One of the more frustrating situations I often encounter comes from guys who’ve been OVERTLY told that they’re being made to wait for sex until some circumstance or criteria is met for the woman. The standard filibuster (or loss-leader as the case may be) usually comes with the reasoning that she “needs to feel comfortable” before she has sex with a guy. Even more distressing is the guy who was getting laid, only to be told the same thing by an existing girlfriend. If you find yourself in either of these situation there are a couple of things to bear in mind.

Filibustering

If you find yourself at 2am with a woman you want to bang or, God forbid, a group of women who want to go out for pizza or tacos (usually to sober up) after dancing at the club, understand, you’re being filibustered. When a woman has minty fresh breath and is one drink in, you’ll be getting laid, however, you will not be having sex with a woman when she’s full of pizza, coming down from a buzz and her breath smells like garlic.

I can remember a time in my twenties when I had a policy of never taking a woman I wanted to bang out for dinner. This was partially due to me being broke most of the time, but also because I found that the girls who suggested such-and-such restaurant as a date venue were never up for sex that night. These were typically the girls who “wanted to know I wanted them for more than just sex.” If you ever hear a woman utter that sentence, know that it’s a prime example of a filibuster. It sounds like prudence – she wants to vet you for boyfriend status – but the truth is she’s putting you off while she waits to see what her other 3rd (or 4th or 5th) party options might develop into.

Women with a high interest level wont confuse you, but if she’s not thoroughly convinced of your status a woman will generally default to some form of filibuster. This goes back to the medium being the message for women, however, for men, one of the more confusing strategies of hypergamy is the female filibuster because it appears to promise a future reward if a guy is patient enough to wait for it.

Girls don’t talk about the sex that they’re going to have – they talk about the sex they’re not going to have.

ThirtyzDude makes an astute filibuster observation in his post; the more a woman talks about sex and tries to convince you of how much she likes sex, the less likely she is to actually want to have sex – with you. There’s a certain self-convincing that goes along with this for women who’ve already assessed for themselves that they will not be fucking you. The necessity to convince themselves, and you, that they are in fact sexual conflicts with the subliminal assessment that they don’t want to bang you.

Like ThirtzyDude I discovered that the women who were going to be sexual (DTF) didn’t feel the need to prove to themselves, and me by proxy, that they liked sex. This isn’t to say the DTF women didn’t talk dirty or act flirty, but their sexual interest was communicated by covert innuendo, never overt declarations. In other words the sale was assumed and we could progress on to verbal foreplay, not brinksmanship.

There’s a trite cliché that guys like to assume about women; a woman knows within five minutes of meeting you if she’ll bang you. I don’t necessarily agree with this notion, but I do think that a woman knows within five minutes of meeting you if she WONT bang you. You’ll often see this played out when women insert casual filibusters into conversation about having a boyfriend (boyfriend disclaimer) with guys who’ve too blatantly telegraphed their over-interest in becoming intimate with her. Attraction is not a choice, but too many guys think that it could be if they were convincing enough.

Generally, women who enjoy sex don’t go about advertising it, they just do it. I’ve stated before, a woman who wants to fuck you will find a way to fuck you. That may seem like a simple matter of logistics, but a woman who wants to bang you will find ways to fuck you that include self-rationalization, denial and lies of omission in order to bang you when her interest level is such that she’s motivated.

When a woman, and in particular one whom you’ve yet to bang, overtly explicates how much she enjoys sex, in essence she’s playing a slut by proxy. The strategy is to convince men she’s just as sexual as the women she doesn’t feel comfortable competing against. She can’t, or wont, match a “slut” by playing her game in real life, but she can allude to her alleged sexuality safely behind a filibuster. The real conflict arises when it comes time to have sex and her bluff is called.