The 4-Date Misrule

A commenter on a blog I occasionally read mentioned an article about women dating beta men, in which the author advised women to pursue a “4-date rule” to screen out players who closely adhere to the well-known 3-date rule.

(For those in the dark, the 3-date rule means pushing for sex by the third date, and if sex is not forthcoming by then, to jettison the girl and cut your losses, because odds are good that a girl who can wait longer than three dates to put out can wait much longer than that. Plus, a girl who will make you wait an inordinate amount of time is likely a girl who isn’t that taken by you. You will find it very difficult to achieve the all-important hand with such a girl.)

A mass movement 4-date rule, i.e., a temporary boycott of sex Lysistrata-style to weed out cads, will never come to pass. The reason why is simple: Women don’t actually want to weed out the cads.

In one of those mating market paradoxes that drives genuine niceguys insane with unrequited hatelust for the opposite sex, women are less attracted to the sort of man who is willing to abide women’s stated preference for delayed sexual gratification. In other words, if you sincerely agree, tacitly or openly, with the woman you are dating to her arbitrary timetable for sex — “Sure, we can wait, I respect you” — you will have decreased the chance she will ever have sex with you. In the primeval mind of a woman, the man who is willing to patiently endure her chasteness, without complaint, is a man who doesn’t have too many other options in women, and thus signals his low mate value. And the longer he is willing to suffer her clamped legs, the less attraction she will feel for him.

Yep, “I like that you respect my wishes” really means, when translated from the womanese, “You’re a boring loser for not disrespecting my wishes.”

Dr. ϕ writes:

[P]erhaps I’ve grown overly cynical from the blogs I read, but my fear is that the message — watch out for players and PUAs — isn’t worth much by the time it gets through female mental filters.

Looks like a cool drink of water but
he’s candy coated misery
He’s the devil in disguise
A snake with blue eyes
And he only comes out at night
He gives you feelings that you dont want to fight . . . .

But PUAs are good at what they do precisely because of their ability to fly under just this type of radar. The guys that get shot down are the same no-game beta providers that have an uphill climb anyway.

So what happens is that when you tell girls, “There are some bad, bad players out there, so be careful,” they impute the “bad, bad player” quality to the guys they already weren’t enthusiastic about. It becomes a justification for being cold and bitchy to people who really didn’t deserve it. Meanwhile, PUAs do their thing unimpeded.

My explanation for why a cultural or motherly message to avoid players gets nibbled down to a nub and pissed on by female rationalization hamsters is a little different than Phi’s: when girls hear that a man is a “bad, bad player”, he becomes more, not less, interesting to them. Girls then flock to this man, and justify their attraction for his cosmic badassness by utilizing an impressive suite of self-serving spin that would be the envy of the most amoral political campaign operative.

Women love interesting men, even the ugly ones. Women loathe dull men, even the handsome ones. The man who flouts societal convention and disregards women’s claimed preferences is an interesting man. The devil in disguise is more desirable to women than the unmasked angel.

In contrast, the man who abides women’s rules soon finds himself ruled out.

Dr. Phi is right about something, though. Those boring beta niceguys who dutifully wait date after date for a meager morsel from that vagina plate are assigned the unflattering judgment by women that women claim the rule-breaking badboys deserve. But you see, deserving’s got nothin’ to do with it. Not when tingles do the talking.

Now as with most sexual market phenomena, a rule does not mean contrary exceptions don’t exist, or that its parameters aren’t a bit flexible. I have waited more than three dates with a few girls in my lifetime. I went a whole five dates with one girl who was particularly beautiful. Of course, it helped my perseverance that I was dating a couple other girls at the time.

If, on the rare occasion, you find yourself dealing with a woman who is bent on making you wait longer than three dates, you need to ask yourself a couple of questions.

1. Does she behave as if she is struggling to contain an irresistible lust for you?

2. Do you see this girl as long-term potential?

If number one is true, you can safely wait longer than three dates without jeopardizing the alpha cred you have with her. A woman who desperately wants to fuck but also wants to wait a bit so you don’t mistake her for a slut is a prized filly. She is worth humoring, because she likes you enough, and respects your masculine desire, to work hard at projecting an image of chastity and future fidelity that you will value. Don’t worry about being able to tell if she is this type of girl; you’ll know by her flushed face as she’s breathlessly uttering the words “not tonight”, and feebly pushing off from you, that she’s really into you, and that the calculated waiting period is one of mutual respect and deep interest, not one borne of flagging attraction.

If number two is true, it would be in *your* interest to allow her the luxury of a perfunctory waiting period. You will perceive a woman who has made you wait as a high value woman more worthy of your long-term investment and resources than a slutty same night lay would be. This perception operates at the subconscious level; you have little control over it.

If neither of those prerequisites are true, get the bang sooner rather than later, or cut your losses after the third date. (Some would say the second date should be your limit; I have no quarrel with that.) The danger in adhering to women’s waiting periods is that you 1. drain power by the date, resulting in lost hand, and 2. diminish the woman’s attraction for you.

The fact of the matter is that the strongest, most intensely romantic relationships often start the most passionately, punctuated by sexual immediacy. The great advantage to *not* waiting for sex on a woman’s prerogative is that you are in the driver’s seat; you can choose to pump and dump or to pursue a relationship after you have sated yourself. You are in no position to think clearly as long as your balls remain filled with brain-blocking sperm. At least if you have banged a girl on the first date, you know for certain she’s into you, and nothing bonds a woman to a man better than sex.

A curious trick you can try on women who seem like the types to follow a “wait to mate” strategy is to preempt their objections by insisting on waiting yourself. As she’s kissing you, say, “Oh, hey, I’m not like most men. I don’t want to have sex until later, maybe much later. I have to get to know you first before I go there.” It”s a bit cheesy, but when it works, it really works. She will wonder why you aren’t all over her like so many other men, and this challenge to her broad but shallow princess ego will spur her to sexual aggressiveness, until she is satisfied she has defeated your principles. Then you may allow yourself a victorious chortle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *