| Note: I am totally stealing this from someone named Rollo Tomassi:
Women have used the LJBF rejection for a hundred years because it serves an ego preservation function for her. To a greater or lesser degree, women require attention and the more they have of it the more affirmation they experience, both personally and socially. The LJBF rejection is a social convention that has classically ensured a woman can reject a man yet still maintain his previous attention. It also puts the responsibility for the rejection back on his shoulders since, should he decline the 'offer of friendship', he is then responsible for entertaining this 'friendship'.
This of course has the potential to backfire on women these days since the standard AFC will accept an LJBF rejection in the mistaken hope of 'proving' himself worthy of her intimacy by being the perfect 'surrogate boyfriend' - fulfiling all her attention and loyalty prerequisites with no expectation of reciprocating her own intimacy.
The LJBF rejection also serves as an ego preservation for her in that having offered the false olive branch of 'friendship' to him in her rejection she can also sleep that night knowing that she (and any of her peers) wont think any less of herself. Afterall, she offered to be friends, right? She is excused from any feelings of personal guilt or any responsibilities for his feelings if she still wants to remain amiable with him.
I think the default response should be to take the LJBF as what it is - as a rejection (and her loss) ergo, you remove the reinforcer - attention. Up until the point you made an approach for her intimacy she was enjoying the benefit of your attentions. After an LJBF response her latent intent is to keep that reinforcer of attention. Do not reward her for this disingenuous response, she will only use it on you again or with another guy in a similar situation since it was reinforced the last time this circumstance was experienced. And should the next fellow reinforce it further she will internalize this as her standard response.
Obviously the best way to enact this is to do what you did; use a takeaway and turn down her LJBF. An outright refusal of her psuedo-friendship offer would be ideal, but not always possible given social settings, however a takeaway is always warranted. The problem I see with doubting her intent with the LJBF is that, most women, whether serious or not in their LJBF rejection, will almost always follow up with some kind of communication when you do remove your previous attentions. This was a previous reinforcer to her and like most animals when faced with a behavioral extinction, she will attempt to re-establish that reward. This is why if you do end up cutting all contact with her she will have a tendency to pursue - and depending on the individual sometimes more actively pursue - your attention, even if she has no intent of becoming intimate with a guy. Women do this in an effort to maintain self-affirmation (i.e. she wants to verify everything is 'OK' between you and her in an email or IM) after a rejection.
The problem is when a guy begins to doubt her seriousness in her rejection when this occurs. We always read guys on this forum state that a fellow ought to "stick to his guns" in situations of rejection and this becomes more difficult when she confuses him with an unexpected burst of spontaneous attention. It's the stripper effect only more personal. Guys will spend small fortunes on lapdances at the strip club because it provides him with something he's not ordinarily accustomed to - spontaneous feminine attention. Similarly, when a woman does a follow up to a LJBF rejection after a takeaway the reaction is like that for men. Maybe she does actually like him afterall? Maybe he does have a shot with the stripper in his lap, she's giving him confusing signals in either instance.
NEXTing, a Takeaway, strategic withdrawal, whatever you want to call it is only punishment if that's how YOU think about it. NEXTing isn't AFC, it's simple pragmatism. If anything an inability to NEXT (particularly in light of a LJBF) is an indicator of an AFC or ONEitis.
You're never punishing her, in fact if she perceives it as punishment you went too OVERT and the effort is wasted. You need to COVERTLY remove her reward / reinforcer which is attention. That's why IQQI's panties are in a bind; if you're deliberately, OVERTLY making known that your intent is to punish you look like a spoiled, powerless child. In fact the true extent of power isn't how much control you have over others, but rather how much control you have in your own actions and maneuverability. Simply, and indifferently cut off your attention. Your attention is her currency and your investment. So if that investment isn't appreciating or paying dividends, why would you continue to allow it to depreciate further? Cut your loses and invest in better, diverse (i.e. spin more plates), opportunities.
Most guys get a LJBF rejection because of a process. These are the "friends first" mindset guys; the guys who put far too much emphasis on a solitary woman and wait her out until the perfect moment to attempt to escalate to intimacy, at which point her most comfortable rejection is to LJBF. This is made all the more easy for her because of the process the guy used to get to that point.
Most guys (not all) who get to the point of a LJBF rejection come to it because they fall in line with a Sniper mentality. They wait for their one target, constantly attempting to prove their merit in doing so - meaning they emphasize a comfort level and try to be friends before lovers. In essence they believe that desexualizing themselves will make them more attractive (by virtue of not being like "other guys") because they've bought into the idea that a woman must be comfortable with them first before they initiate intimacy. Once the AFC gets to a point where he's mustered enough courage to initiate, and he feels she 'should' be comfortable enough to appreciate him as BF material, the Sniper takes his shot.
The problem with this process is that it bypasses essential stages of attraction and the necessary discomfort and sexual tension necessary for intimacy and proceeds directly to a warm familiar, comfortable, rapport the exact opposite of arousal. If you think about this in terms of sex, this is the stage right after climax when she wants to cuddle, spoon and be wrapped up in her nice, secure oxytocin induced comfort. This the opposite of the testosterone fueled, sweaty, anxious and uncomfortable stage of arousal and intercourse before that release. So in terms of "friendship" and the Sniper mentality, you've skipped arousal and gone straight to comfort. You're perceived as a stuffed animal she can hug and then put back on the bed. Thus, when that previously platonic stuffed animal uncharacteristically gets a hard-on and says "I think we ought to be intimate" her reaction is to think that everything you've done for her up to that point has been a grand ruse. My God, all you wanted was sex this whole time?
Her most predictable response is then the LJBF rejection. The field has already been tilled by you, it's only one, very easy step for her to stay in that suspended comfort - "lets still be friends". And then the cycle repeats. The AFC believes the LJBF is a genuine offer (not a rejection) and then falls back into the Sniper mentality. He mustn't have been convincing enough to prove his worth to her and therefore returns to further proving himself as the perfect BF until he once again presses his intent of intimacy after another period. All this goes on apace until she becomes intimate with a BF and/or he acquires a new target after realizing his efforts with the LJBF girl aren't bearing fruit.
The problem with the "advice" IQQI offers here is that she would cast doubt on whether a LJBF rejection is in fact a rejection and not a genuine offer of friendship. To which I'll say that the only reason this is such a common issue among men & women for so long is because it's been repeated so regularly and the outcome so predictable as a rejection. A woman's behavior is always the only gauge of her intent, and thus when a rejection like LJBF has been so consistently met with the same outcome and behavior (as evidenced by thousands of identical stories on SS alone) it's only prudent for a Man to behave in kind.
A man's default response should always be to excuse him from the LJBF situation. The reason for this is because it serves his best interest whether she is testing him or is rejecting him. If he is confident enough in himself to walk away from the sexually tense environment, he proves himself as decisive enough to put himself above being 'played' like this. Ergo, he leaves her with the impression that he is the PRIZE, possibly has contacts with better prospective women and is confident enough to take away his attentions from her and thus passes her sh!t test while placing the responsibility of a re-connection on her (where it should be anyway). If she has in fact had a change of heart (her prerogative, remember?) and is using the LJBF as a means to reject him, he still benefits from all of the above and plants the 'seed of doubt' in her about her initial estimation of his acceptability for her intimacy. And even if she is truly not interested in the guy, he walks away on his feet and not his knees, by playing "friend" with her and wasting still more time that could be far better spent with more productive prospects.
It is really one of the few win-win situations for a guy to make a wholesale withdrawal of his attentions when he is confronted with an LJBF. Women know all too well how an LJBF places social pressure on a guy to accept what basically amounts to an ultimatum of negative social proof, and that's a hell of a sh!t test no matter what her real intent is. If the guy turns down her offer of friendship, he's the d!ickhed, not her. But the guy that can do what common sense and gut instinct points out to him will be the one to succeed, with her, other women and himself.
Human being's natural inclination is to avoid confrontation. When a man makes an approach to intimacy with a woman this becomes confrontational. If she is unsure of a man's sexual acceptability for her intimacy she must resort to psycho-social, learned behaviors to diffuse this confrontation. Preferably these techniques should be reinforced beforehand and proven to diffuse just such a confrontation, thus the LJBF response is acted out through generations of women across many different cultures - quite simply it works more often than not. You can also apply this to women who not-so-nonchalantly weave into their conversation that they have a boyfriend in an early effort to diffuse a potential suitor's interests. It's basically a proactive LJBF rejection.
It's the guy who is unwilling to accept these conventions that makes the most lasting impressions of confidence with women. It goes against what our common human heritage dictates for us - avoid conflict, don't make waves, be her friend, etc. By not accepting a LJBF you emphatically make known that you are good at confrontation, you have an understanding of her motives and you're confident enough in yourself to make it known. Not only does this impress her with potential for security provision it also implies future confidence. The problem for most guys is enacting this and making it a default behavior when our biology would have us move away from conflict rather than engage in an unacceptable social dynamic that is subtly damaging to his own interests.
As I said prior, when you do decline a LJBF a certain amount of tact has to be involved. Any overt 'in your face' response will prompt exactly what IQQI's described; an equally overt confrontational response. The trick is to convey your non-acceptance of her offer in as covert a fashion as possible, but still courteous or at least "business-like."
The first obstacle men have to get over is that LJBFs are REJECTIONS. They are not genuine offers of some kind of enduring friendship. This goes back to what I've written about intergender "friendships", and a lot of AFCs get it into their heads that they're going to buck a trend and actually be 'best friends' with their LJBF girl. I've typed on this prior in this thread so I wont go back over that, but the natural inclination for most men when faced with a rejection - that most often comes after a very long period of "sniping" after her - is to opt for the path of least resistance and certainly the one which will make him and her the least uncomfortable. Women know this. This is precisely why a LJBF has been proven so effective for generations. It gives both parties an acceptable OUT, or on his part, an OUT that at least blunts the rejection.
The problem with all this is that the LJBFed guy is caught in the process without ever having understood that he's playing a predictable part in a social convention. So he sees the LJBF as an event rather than what it really is, a socially permissible mechanism for rejection. As a guy gets consistent LJBFs he begins to see the process, but all this comes after having had exclusively invested himself in the LJBF girl up until the point of the rejection. This is where the "frustrated" part of AFC comes from; his investment.
That's the first part; a man has to recognize the LJBF as what it is. This is part of the learning process because a guy has to also do some very important self analysis at this point. Most chumps will self-evaluate and try to find flaws in their sniping. "She might have accepted me if I had done X, Y & Z to prove I'm worthy." Rather, a guy ought to self-realize why he was in a potential LJBF situation in the first place. I'll tell you now, if you got a LJBF rejection, odds are you went about the process wrong. You sniped, you pined, you most certainly placed yourself into a position of qualifying yourself to her and thus handed her the frame from the outset. As I mentioned in my previous posts in this thread, you most probably jumped past the uncomfortable sexual tension of attraction directly into the comfort of rapport and familiarity.
Now, I'm outlining all of this again to emphasize that any response you can give a woman issuing the LJBF rejection should be done so from a position of complete awareness. It's not the actual words you say so much as you understand how you got to the point of a LJBF rejection. In other words you are most likely, at least partially, responsible for allowing it to get to the point of you having to counter-reject her LJBF.
So then how do you go about it? Some have offered the blunt "I have enough friends" line, but you'll deal with the social fallout of such an overt counter-rejection and most likely get the "you're an ass-hole response". Depending on how comfortable you are with that I'd say it's fair game, but don't expect her not to behave as OMEN's girl is. IQQI's not incorrect in thinking that a girl's only recourse at that point would be to think all you were interested in was ƒucking her. I realize how sh!tty that seems, particularly when most guy's getting the LJBF are there after having tried for months to get to the point of pressing the issue of intimacy and applying all the effort and personal investments (not limited to just missing other better opportunities). How could she possibly come to the conclusion that all you wanted was to get in her pants? It's her only social recourse, despite all you did to "prove" yourself up to then.
There's couple of better ways however. One is allowing her to deliver the LJBF and let it roll off. You don't have to be a prick and say "thanks, but no thanks." You could simply let the rejection go and strategically withdraw - so long as you think you can do so. Cut off all contact and move on to spinning plates as you should have been anyway. This is simple pragmatism, if not a bit introverted, but the end result is the same - she gets the message that you're no longer wasting yourself on her as a cause.
The other way is a the assertive counter rejection. This is not an overt "I have enough friends" response, but rather a drawing of attention to the social contrivance she's using and explaining it to her in direct terms.
After her LJBF, you can say "I really wish I could be your friend, but I'd really thought we meant more to each other than that after so long, and honestly, I'm looking for more. Sorry, but I guess I was wrong about you."
I wouldn't use this verbatim as some kind of script to follow, but this approach effectively puts the onus of the rejection back on to her and makes her aware of the LJBF as a rejection. The idea is to defuse any "he just wanted to ƒuck me" ideas AND draw attention to it as a rejection. The problem with a LJBFs as a social convention for women is that it's gotten to a point where it's a default, autonomous response, and not a real rejection of intimacy. It's become such a useful tool that they don't understand the latent function of it. When they're made aware of it, in a responsible way, recognizing the rejection aspect is unavoidable. Insomuch as it's Man's responsibility to approach, initiate, be decisive, etc. with a woman, it should be incumbent on a woman to give him a straight rejection or acceptance of his approach. Unfortunately not all of us are mature enough at any given stage to do so, so we develop social contingencies to cope with uncomfortable circumstance.
All this said, even after delivering an assertive counter, you MUST stick to your choice. You can only walk away with your self-respect and her own respect for as far as you're willing to follow through with it. Cut off attention, focus on other things, take some time for yourself, analyze how you came to be in the LJBF position, etc. She WILL try to get you back as a friend, for her own ego preservation if nothing else. Do NOT allow this. It's not her punishment, it's not spite, it simple utility. The longer you entertain her the longer you will be paralyzed. You will be in limbo because you refuse to see her behaviors are her message, not her words. When extinguishing a behavior, in behavioral psychology, subjects universally attempt novel behaviors in order to reestablish a previous reward / reinforcer that prompted the prior behavior. People will do this too. The AFC with step up his efforts in new ways in order to prove his merit for intimacy, and women will be flirtatious and accommodating in ways they never thought necessary in order to reestablish prior attention levels they enjoyed before a takeaway. Be prepared for this. This is exactly what OMEN is dealing with now.
I think it kind of depends on the individual, but to varying degrees I'd think no. As I stated in this thread previously, the LJBF rejection has been so provably time-tested that it's entered into a standardized feminine consciousness. In other words it doesn't need a formal teaching to understand how it's useful. It's simply demonstrated in so many different ways (media, personal interactions, etc.) that it becomes subconsciously learned. 12 y.o. girls don't sit around slumber parties discussing the best way to deliver a LJBF rejection to boys that like them. They learn the contrivance from TV, their big sisters, their mothers, etc. examples.
This is what makes it all the more jarring for a woman to have what's always been a useful social tool explained to them. And of course the fail-safe for it is the risk of social ostracization on the guy's part for doing so, making it far less likely an occurrence.
Now, that said, you're really asking two questions. The second is, does the LJBF girl know the "friend" wants to bang her? I'd say most definitely. Not that any woman would admit it, because in doing so it puts the burden of her being straightforward with him on her. It's plausible deniability. It's far easier to deny, what by early adolescence girls know (boys want to ƒuck them) than to accept responsibility for leading him on. Bear in mind, attention is the coin of the realm in Girl World, but the guy also bears a good amount of responsibility for his own illusions.
When you think about it, it's really a self-perpetuating cycle. Guys wants to qualify for girl's intimacy, girl knows this, but isn't attracted to the guy for the exact reason he is qualifying himself. Girl should be forthright with the "non-interest" guy, but still enjoys the attention and the affirmation that comes with it. Girl plays 'friend' and only becomes flirtatious when the attention flow breaks to reestablish. Guy gets to make-or-break point, initiates intimacy and girl falls back on LJBF. Guy believes he still need s to qualify more and the cycle repeats.
Is any of that a conscious process? If a girl says 'yes', she's a self-serving, grand manipulator. For fear of ostracization from attention she can't exactly cop to a foreknowledge of the process. But that's OK because there are many other feminine social contrivances she can fall back on to avoid this. The feminine prerogative (she can change her mind) being the most useful.
If the answer is no, and she's not aware of the process, she's naive or at least immature. In this event she's also excused from culpability.
Regardless of whether a woman is aware of her own motives, it's up to men to see her behavior as the only indicator for them. As I've said before, there are no mixed messages, women will tell you exactly what their intent is. You just need the ability to read the behavior. I've told DANGER this before; the medium IS the message. The LJBF IS the message. Women with a high IL don't get to this point with a guy they want to ƒuck.
|
CHAT
