esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (11/06/84)
From: jdb@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf) [Dr Memory] >> ... take the first "no" for a final answer. This will make "playing >> hard to get" an unsuccesful strategy; eventually, it will not be tried. > > I think I see what Paul means here, but I doubt the solidarity among a >bunch of otherwise-unorganized men will be that strong. Most likely result, >if you implement the strategy as an individual, is that other men get all the >women. This is no noticeable change from the way things are right now. Together with some consciousness-raising, the strategy will be successful to some degree as long as there are a significant number who try it. Yes, it has some costs to the individual man, but one could reflect on the relative worth of a relationship with a less-than-honest woman. Of course, it would be silly to deny that it has any ... Anyway, I'm gonna do my part. "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." --Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (11/07/84)
Agreed, Paul! And from my experience, there are enough women out there who appreciate honesty (though it might take them a while to realize it's being used) that one hardly has to ``miss out''. It might make someone uncomfortable at first to be taken at their word, but since the rules of this new ``game'' are so simple, it often doesn't take long to catch on. (BTW, I've always tried to determine if ``no'' meant ``no, not now'', or ``no, not ever''.) -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall