I’ve recently been reading books on seduction and dating from the perspective of both genders. The basic premise I’ve been encountering — regardless of which camp you belong to — is that we are attracted to people who are not too available. When someone is 100% open to you, there’s no challenge, and you get bored. “Cat string theory” (a term I encountered in Neil Strauss’ The Game) states that when you stop dangling string in front of a cat and just let it sit there, the cat gets bored and walks away. You have to keep on dangling to keep its interest.
This of course is Mars in action. Mars wants a challenge, a fight. A guy wants to work hard to win over a girl, and a girl wants a guy who’s not all needy and desperate. According to Darwinism 101 (aka evolutionary psychology), a man is naturally competitive and wants the woman with the greatest hip-to-waist ratio to bear his child. Conversely, a woman wants an alpha-male to ensure that she and her child will be protected. One pickup artist named Mystery (mentioned in The Game) states that despite cultural and technological advances, we’re still slaves to our biological drives that worked for us tens of thousands of years ago, when we lived in small tribes.
Manipulation
A friend of mine mentioned that her office colleague comes in with new ideas to snag a boyfriend. One tip — called “doing a coyote” — involves a woman going to a guy’s house for the first time after dating for a while, having sex, and then leaving in the middle of the night while he’s sleeping. Presumably the intended effect is to make the man feel insecure so that he’ll work harder to keep the woman, as well as make him feel more attracted to her because she’s not 100% available to him. He was probably looking forward to cooking breakfast for her — he’s not just into the sex, you know!
Manipulative tactics such as this are under the domain of Scorpio, which is traditionally ruled by Mars. Are we to assume that — to succeed in the dating world — we must resort to competition and mind-games?
Yet it is true that without distance from a perceived goal or outcome, Mars has nothing to do. We get angry when somebody blocks us from something we desire. We strive towards a goal that we have not yet attained. Some couples fight just so they can have make-up sex — they use Mars to create some space between themselves, presumably because emotional enmeshment is not a turn-on.
There is some wisdom to Mars. Members of couples who have enough separation are healthier than those who are codependent. If both people in a partnership have their own hobbies, friends they go out with, and so on, then they develop their own distinct identities, they are not just one-half of a relationship unit. They continue to feel attracted to each other because there is a gap to bridge.
Mars gives us the drive to go out into the world, initially impelling us to separate from our mothers. Then the Moon impels us to come back for security and nurturing. In developmental psychology, this is called rapprochement.
In the dating world, it is the Moon in people that is apparently a turn-off. Neediness, clinginess, waiting by the phone, “I need you” … it is these behaviors that often drive someone away. It is one thing to flirt and send flowers (Venus), it is another to call someone up and say, “I can’t live without you.”
Lunar Longing
Perhaps it is the child in us that sabotages dating success. Our first template for relationships is the mother-child bond. As adults, we have unfulfilled needs, and we expect that our infantile fantasies — we will be taken care of, all of our emotional needs will be met, we will be enveloped in love and warmth — will be met by a man or woman. However, most adults don’t want to be parents to a partner. Parenting implies being with someone 24/7, having no space or time to develop one’s own interests. That’s what it’s like raising an infant.
There is a healthy medium between Cancerian neediness and Scorpionic manipulation in dating. You can be confident and independent (Aries). You don’t have to play mind-games, trap someone with an unexpected pregnancy or play the helpless waif who needs a strong protector.
First photo by ienasequence, second by Miss Loisy, third by lou & magoo under CC license.
About Jeffrey Kishner
this is all true to me. ive never even understood the famous: urge to merge. i guess thou i can understand merging if it is without sentimentality or any spice of being cloying but now definitions are getting cloudy i dont know.
anyway as always it is interesting me that u mention that this problem of overavailability or this type of needing ness is related to the moon. i have moon in scorpio and so have never had this problem in particular. a moon not like other moons
i suppose more likely for those who dont suffer from this is a write off to being all air sign.
Very thought-provoking post. I’m still thinking about the lunar neediness…
On the other hand, if a guy goes after me bc he considers me a challenge, that also makes me wonder: is he truly interested in me as a person or is he more captivated by the challenge? And once he captivates me, will he get bored? That also seems like a problem, in a way.
Excellent post, Jeffery. I have often considered the interplay of availability and neediness within dating and it is very interesting to consider these astrologically.
“Doing a coyote” is a technique I’ve tried myself, but I think it is sound not because it keeps the person dangling, but because it sets boundaries for yourself and limits the opportunity for expressing emotions inappropriate for the situation. A One-night-stand may develop into a deeper relationship, but only if you treat the initial event with isolated emotions; otherwise the morning-after-awkwardness is more likely to kill an emerging friendship than support it, especially if either party has reservations.
If they come back for more after a “coyote”, you can at least count them as persistent which can only be viewed as a positive trait if you look at their whole person. Persistence counts if they are emotionally intelligent; if instead they are emotionally masochistic, this will reveal itself pretty quickly as you get to know them.
Let me see if I understood this correctly, it’s the Virgo moon in me that turns men off? And boy oh boy did you hit this right on the nose as far as the cat and mouse game my scorpio had, except, it was tenfold!! That really bites, I remember being in secure relationships where none of that was an issue. We were just “there” for each other. Funny, because my scorpio started off coming on really strong, appeared almost desperate and the red flags went flying. Yet my need for security won me over and I went along with it. As soon as I reciprocated and it was no longer a challenge, it was evident he got bored. Funny though, because right in the beginning, he made it very clear he didn’t want to play games and we’d walk into the flames of lust and passion blindly, unshielded…
I should clarify that I am not suggesting a formula, e.g., “look to your Moon sign to see …”
I’m talking about the archetype of the Moon, not necessarily the astrological Moon as it shows up in our natal charts.
I would suggest that one look at Cancer planets, planets in the 4th House, planets aspecting the Moon or IC ruler, as well as the Moon. You really have to look at the whole picture.
I’ve felt needy at times, but I would not attribute that to my Aquarius Moon!
A couple of things. One, your posts are getting better and better. Keep up the good work. Two, my sister and I just spent the last five minutes laughing at how cute that baby in the picture is. Too precious.
Now to your question. Why is unavailability a turn-on? I don’t know, I am not attracted to people that never have any time for me. I’m not into mind games and I’m not going to play them so you will like me, either.
But also, whenever a guy is too needy, it makes me doubt his likeability as a person. I mean surely there must be something wrong with him that he doesn’t have any other friends or interests besides me. What will we talk about if all you have is me?
I think unavailability is a turn on and it’s the fact that when we don’t know any better, this person could fulfill all of our fantasies. As a fellow moon and venus in aquarius I find myself a little disappointed by what is revealed during sex for the first time….(the person doesn’t look the way you think they would or feel the way you wanted, they’re not confident or too confident..) then it follows into a relationship..the fantasy always beats the reality. I think it’s good to have fantasy in the beginning of your relationship if you can get it, but sometimes, you need to realize when something is better left off as fantasy, in your mind, where no one, not even the other person, can take away your awesome vision.
sometimes it’s wise to leave in the middle of the night since we don’t look so good in the morning after all that action
great post by the way
Thanks, Allegra
I think emotional enmeshment is a MAJOR turn-on. If it weren’t for that prospect, I would just have sex with myself and not bother adding another person to the equation. I also think it’s sexy if the guy I actually want says he cannot live without me, as long as I feel the exact same way about him.
This post I think highlights some very American ways. Part of the reason I am nuts about Turkish men is because they are a passionate, emotional, semi-irrational, enmeshable group of boys, all wrapped up into a god-like appearance. Good God!!!
Then again, my mother didn’t give me everything I wanted. She ensured that I wouldn’t drop dead from starvation, but emotionally she was the coldest fish on Earth. And thus, I think the reverse can also be true. We seek out what our mothers DIDN’T give us, in some cases.
I must agree with Sagilarious, as she speaks from a woman’s point of view.
Unavailability is a turn-ON for men. It is a turn-OFF for women. We want to be needed by the men we love (and not in the Mama-boy sense). Rather, the security of knowing this man cannot survive without me, that as his woman I am an integral part of his daily existence, the air he breathes, the one he holds every night, the one who completes him. (Jerry Maguire anyone?)
To settle for something less leaves a girl with a gaping void, an irritating uncertainty, a window of doubt. Which is why women feel marriage is so important as it formally unites you with your man. Unfortunately it is no guarantee of a lasting emotional union. You have to consistently work hard sexually to keep him emotionally in tune.
As always, I love Victoria’s comment. I’m anxious to see what Alya has to say
Sucks though, it feels like we have to play a lifelong stream of mindgames in order to keep your man on his toes so he will stay crazy about you.
Whatever…too funny. Because we all look ugly in the morning, LOL!
I may be playing devil’s advocate here, but might not the “need to be needed” be a symptom of low self-esteem? And marriage just a panacea creating an illusion of security? And how do you tell the difference between “psycho” I-can’t-live-without-you and “passionate” I-can’t-live-without-you?
I am female, and yet I don’t agree with the “woman’s point of view”. I do agree that there is a fine line between psycho and passionate “can’t live without you” and that wanting to hear that does exude self-esteem issues. I might say that I “don’t want to live without you” but to say “can’t”, well, think of the implications of that, and what you’re telling your partner. IF you leave me, then you’ll be responsible for my death. Is there a “passionate” way to say that you can’t live without someone? Maybe we can drag Mercury into this, or maybe we can drag Freud? Pick one. Anyhow, I am female and I do find unavailability much more attractive than neediness. I love the thrill of the chase (Mars in Aries) and once domesticity sets in I do get bored and I seek out new and interesting things to do. As long as the sex is good, then I don’t usually seek out other people, just other hobbies. If the sex is good and the person is good, then I’m happy in a relationship but I do find other outlets for my Mars – like sparring class. The minute a man tells me I can’t go to sparring class, and that I need to stay home with him, he’s out the door.
yah its definitely to each their own. im personally not attracted to overly emotionally available guys and whats more nor am i to men who are looking for someone who is very available (thank god, it would be a total clash of values, personality.) i guess this is for ppl like me who are more into air types, maybe fire tho it may be antagonistic, anyway not dealing with others’ watery needs.
both preferences make sense to me though, to availability and unavailability. we heard the other side but in this case both biologically in animal kingdom a female should be more careful which male she picks for her genetic succes and dont pick just whoever is most needy of her. independence is even a highly valuable survival skill. also more on the human level egotistically it is a blow to think this guy just takes what he can get and sticks with it how boring. the lack of ambition or independence can be a turn off as well.
going all libra but a balance is the best answer. there comes a point even for those into it initially where complete independence or lack of committment feels immature and u could only be like, f it. actually this is apropos bc the boy i know that comes to mind that has this problem w/ playing games and not committing to anyone more than neone else ive met is 100% casa libra.
Oh ya good call on the 4th house. the thought of having a real relationship and i start thinking of real estate.
Hi Jeffrey, most certainly. A cough might be a symptom of a cold… or you might have something stuck in your throat
And a signed mortgage contract might only be an illusion the bank holds a financial interest in your property.
Oh, the dangers of psychological reductionism…
the difference between psycho and passionate is PSYCHO LOCKS YOU IN while PASSIONATE THROWS YOU OUT (of the house)
PSYCHO: “Don’t go, Baby don’t go, I NEED you bad, won’t let you go, you can’t go Baby, I NEED you!”
PASSIONATE: “I NEED you bad Baby, and you better NEED me bad or just get on outta here!”
Let me make it clear
To you my dear
If you’re not in it for love (baby)
If you’re not willin’
To give it all you got
If you’re not in it for life
If you’re not in it for love
Let me make it clear
To you my dear
If you’re not in it for love
I’M OUTTA HERE!
- Shania Twain
Yes, Jeffrey raises a valid point. But, there are different sorts of needing and I am just about fed-up with this uber-independent American culture. We like to think we can and should do every damn thing on our own. But this, to me, is an illness as well. Yes, a person shouldn’t be 100% co-dependent on another person. BUT what in the h**l is family and the like for then? Why does a society exist then?
It’s okay to need people. I think it’s healthy in some cases. And when it comes to romantic love, saying “I cannot live without you” is not really literal coming from a relatively sane person. It just would sound so weird if they said “I could live without you, but it would suck so much, so I really cannot even think of it as an option.” Maybe those of us with Virgo moons
would like something a little more articulate like this after all.
At the same time, don’t we all dream of that love that will come into our life, rock our world and soul, and take our very breath away? That all-consuming, intense love is the only kind of situation I think is worth all the BS that a relationship brings along with it. Relationships are hard. If I am gonna put up with all that coordination, compromisation (made it up), and extra time outa my schedule, then I want the guy to rock my friggin’ world!
Marriage, yes, Jeffrey is right about this too. But the problem with this is that since marriage is so common, saying “I love you so much I shouldn’t have to marry you” is really what matters. But then there is that doubt of, “Then marriage really shouldn’t make a difference, right? So let’s do it.” Now, suddenly, you have to do it to eliminate that subconscious doubt. Unless you and your significant other are serious philosophers and you have an extra long discussion about this and find some other way to both believe that what you’ve got actually knocks marriage outa the water (I can actually be that kinda gal, but I would need the extra-long discussion or I will bitch about it non-stop).
Love love love! What string is strong enough to hold that up? Certainly not doubt and ambiguity.
Is marriage just a panacea creating an illusion of security? Marriage may create an illusion of love but there’s nothing more solid than a binding contract to wave in front of a divorce lawyer to grab a little security. I learned that the hard way. He laughed all the way to the bank. Usually it’s the other way around.
The point being:
Yes, marriage might be a panacea creating an illusion of emotional security.
No, marriage is not a panacea creating an illusion of financial security.
Depending of course, on whom you marry. And depending of course, on the type of security you seek.
Hello, I don’t think its truly a turn on, but it can be if we get used to it.
See you mentioned it’s a Scorpio trait, so those with predominant scorpio planets or planets in houses will use these tactics. And then we get addicted to it, because, well, it works.
No other reason, than that we are all suckers for punishment. I can bet that power and control are what drives alot of relationships, and truth be told, the players enjoy it.
Marriage, to me is not an illusion of security, but an expression of love and devotion.
Of course, when we have a material turn of mind, it can seem so.
I believe ‘security’ is a Capricorn trait.
Cancers crave it too. In spades.
I think its true, that unavailability is a turn-on for man but not for woman.
why? because women have less options how to hunt:)
if a woman is chasing a man, she is dubbed as desperate, needy hysterics
if a man is chasing a woman, then he is in love, how romantic!
so a woman has to be on the receiving end and be passively manipulative, it seems to me….:)
get my point?
Manipulation & GAMES will keep him “interested” – STRUNG ALONG, if you will – in the LONG RUN it will NOT KEEP HIM.
This is interesting. I’ve thought of this a lot.
I never understood why people get turned on when the other person is turned off.
I’m usually turned on when others are turned on but it obviously depends on delivery. I’m not even talking sexual. Just how they approach you. If they approach like if you don’t talk to them they have nothing to live for (needy) makes you think, gees this guy has nothing to live for! If they approach you like they have an abundance to live for and thats why theyre talking to you then woopee join the ride!