Last night I had a discussion about relationships with my sister and her husband. I found that NAWALT does hold true in some rare cases. I steered the conversation to some of the topics I have been thinking about regarding the SMP and to my surprise my sister agreed with nearly everything I brought up. DHVs, hypergamy, teasing, shit-tests; we discussed them all and she gladly confirmed them. She was surprisingly aware of what attracts her. Perhaps being in a stable relationship allows her to feel less insecure about her self and thus more willing to acknowledge her behavior. For me the conversation was enlightening, because I understand things better when I can talk them out.
In the majority of the blogs I have read, the dating scene is always referred to as the Sexual Market Place (SMP). This analogy is an apt one, but I never really considered its deeper significance. It makes sense as there is an exchange of goods between two people but it can be taken much further. During last night's discussion the implications of treating dating as a marketplace gained a great deal of weight.
In the beginning of a relationship a BETA's tendency is to invest himself and his resources on the girl. He will buy flowers, treat her to expensive restaurants, make every date memorable and special, put aside most of his time, comfort her, and generally pour himself into making the relationship work. His goal is to receive some reciprocation from her. The problem with this approach is it screws up the exchange rate. By giving everything he has and not negotiating for a larger return he is subsequently devaluing his currency. If it takes a hundred dollar meal, and trip to the ballet to get a peck on the cheek, how much is it going to cost him in resources to get her into bed? Unless he is ridiculously rich he will not have enough resources to afford the exchange. What makes it worse is the assumption that if the girl is still not interested, or reluctant, then the solution is to continue to spend resources on her until she comes around, which further devalues the man's currency. While this approach is not the most efficient, it can result in a relationship, though not the one man wants. The problem with any relationship based on such a disparate exchange rate is that if a better offer comes along the woman will have very little incentive to stay.
For any guy in this scenario the solution is not to continue spending, but rather to increase the value of his wares, by either increasing his objective value i.e. working out, getting a better job, dressing better, or negotiating for better prices i.e. game. This improves the exchange rate in his favor and gives him an advantage while shopping for what he wants.
These realizations may be obvious for most people but until recently for all I knew relationships ran on fairy dust and magic*. I was so blind I did not see that every relationship, not just sexual ones, runs on these principles. For a friendship to last all parties must invest time and energy into each other, but freely and with the trust that the others will do the same. Every relationship involves transactions. They may be unspoken and implicit, but there is always an assumption of exchange. This is a foreign concept to me (social retard here), and I always thought it was very strange when people were willing, and more recently, wanting to hang out with me. But it makes sense in light of the fact that I am no longer actively devaluing myself to everyone through insecurity and self doubt. I have value and people seem to be happy to exchange friendship with me because of it.
Happily, because of this, I now know that rejection is rarely personal. The girl either does not want what I have to offer, or I have not spent sufficient time displaying what value I have. It takes longer that five minutes during an approach to convince a girl that she wants what I have to offer. Persistence is key. I need to keep the interaction going until I get a clear no. Even then I should not give up, she may be testing me to determine if she can get a higher price. It is a negotiation and a negotiation is not over until both parties are satisfied.
*Literally. I though relationships worked because God intended the two people to be together.